Israeli Science: Heart Attack Medicine - More Of My Usual

[MSimon]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537701

CONCLUSION: A single ultra low dose of THC before ischemia is a safe and effective treatment that reduces myocardial ischemic damage.

==== Translation:

Tel Aviv, Israel: Low doses of THC are cardioprotective in mice, according to preclinical data to be published online in the journal Biochemical Pharmacology.

Israeli scientists assessed in impact of a single ‘ultra-low’ injection of THC in mice prior to ischemia (the restriction of blood supply to tissues). Investigators reported that THC “is a safe and effective treatment that reduces myocardial ischemic (heart attack) damage.”

They concluded: “[O]ur study provides novel evidence for the beneficial use of extremely low doses of THC, doses that do not elicit any psychoactive side effects, in order to protect the heart from ischemic insults. THC can be used as a pre-conditioning drug in cases in which ischemic insult to the heart is anticipated, such as during cardiac surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention. If post-conditioning with THC will be found effective, it could also be used following myocardial infarction.”

http://norml.org/news/2013/04/04/study- ... protection

[mvanwink5]

cardioprotective in mice

Genetically men are as different from mice as baseball is to cricket. True, they both have balls, bats, plates, umpires, pitching, hitting, and catching, but the rules are completely different. Of course that doesn't stop researchers from running experiments on one and thinking it must apply to the other. Especially when the FDA (government agency) requires it, and also thinks they are the same. It is out of date science, and research papers (recent) have been pointing out the complete folly of aaallll the billions in medical research using mice. Normal catastrophic institutional stoopidity, but careers and an entire industry has been built on murine models. It might be easier (and quicker) to genetically make men like mice than change the research methods.

[chrismb]

It is out of date science, and research papers (recent) have been pointing out the complete folly of aaallll the billions in medical research using mice.

http://www.bakeridi.edu.au/research/exp ... ardiology/

The importance of mice to cardiovascular disease research is highlighted by a few important findings from Du's studies. In 1997, Du's team discovered that the mouse is the only laboratory species that like humans, develops ventricular wall rupture following acute myocardial infarction (MI). Wall rupture event almost always leads to sudden death and accounts for 5-25 per cent of total deaths during the acute phase. While many other areas of heart disease have seen great improvements, post-infarct ventricular rupture has been out of reach of researchers because none of the other species used in heart research develop ruptures after myocardial infarction is induced. Since then a series of studies have been carried out by Du and his lab with findings convincingly showing that cardiac inflammation post-infarction plays a pivotal role in the onset of this complication. Recent findings highlight the significance of certain class of inflammatory cells, such as mononuclear cells and platelets, in this event and the feasibility of preventing rupture by drug or non-drug interventions.

also try; http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issue ... manchi.pdf

[mvanwink5]

Chris,
Think of each cell as a computer. The mouse cell would use a Linux operating system and the human cell would use a Windows operating system. Then try to use an antiviral software product developed for Linux for the Windows computer. It is bollix. The human immune system has to work for intracellular pathogens, where the immune molecules look the same but are different enough that ligands for a mouse cell won't perform in a human and visa versa. In fact, nuclear receptors central to expression of the toll like receptors and antimicrobial peptides are different for humans and mice. So, even though chronic diseases might look alike, they are different on a cellular and molecular level with whole organism system level difference (like L & W). Here is a recent paper on the immune issue, published in February 2013.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/07/1222878110

A cornerstone of modern biomedical research is the use of mouse models to explore basic pathophysiological mechanisms, evaluate new therapeutic approaches, and make go or no-go decisions to carry new drug candidates forward into clinical trials. Systematic studies evaluating how well murine models mimic human inflammatory diseases are nonexistent. Here, we show that, although acute inflammatory stresses from different etiologies result in highly similar genomic responses in humans, the responses in corresponding mouse models correlate poorly with the human conditions and also, one another. Among genes changed significantly in humans, the murine orthologs are close to random in matching their human counterparts (e.g., R2 between 0.0 and 0.1). In addition to improvements in the current animal model systems, our study supports higher priority for translational medical research to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory diseases.

This also means the microorganisms that evade the immune system in humans won't in mice, so the diseases may look alike, but are completely different, on the level of antiviral software differences. As an example, capnine in gliding bacteria biofilms is a human VDR antagonist and in humans the VDR expresses TLR2 and TLR4 and cathelicidin, but the VDR in mice does not perform that same immune function. I think you get the point.

Further to the point and even more serious is that researchers are starting to see all chronic disease as derived from physiologic immune response to pathogens, pathogens that until recently were not detected (NIH genomic project to enable detection of microbes by detection of their bacterial genes rather than by culture or electron microscope). Clearly murine models will put chronic disease cures down blind alleys.
Best regards

[hanelyp]

Allowing that the mouse model applies to humans in this case, it sounds like a medically controlled dose in a specific case, not the uncontrolled dose a doper would take at random. In addition, smoking the herb, a common means of administration for THC, presents CO and other compounds which likely counter the effect.

A drug with beneficial effects in controlled dose applied for a specific condition may be very harmful at larger doses or taken by a healthy person.

[chrismb]

This also means the microorganisms that evade the immune system in humans won't in mice, so the diseases may look alike, but are completely different, on the level of antiviral software differences.

That may well be true, in pathogenic research.

Heart damage is a 'mechanical' process that is affected by known biochemical processes. The quote given on the dis-relationship to mouse models for pathology is therefore not germane for cardiac research.

[chrismb]

This also means the microorganisms that evade the immune system in humans won't in mice, so the diseases may look alike, but are completely different, on the level of antiviral software differences.

That may well be true, in pathogenic research.

Heart damage is a 'mechanical' process that is affected by known biochemical processes. The quote given on the dis-relationship to mouse models for pathology is therefore not germane for cardiac research.

[mvanwink5]

It goes deeper than that and involves stem cells needed for repair and maintenance, which are. intertwined with the immune system. It doesn't matter anyway, research is a funded business and protocols are tied to the FDA and what is required for approval, and those guys are, well, those guys.

[MSimon]

The study confirms what heart surgeon Dr. David Allen says in this video: http://youtu.be/Kvwz9WyI3OM

And yes the whole plant with its variations of cannabinoids may not be the best way to go. Or it may be. That can be offset with analysis: http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/cbd- ... -analysis/

The problem we have is that the Federal Government will only fund research that sets out to prove that cannabis is bad. Which is why for now we have to rely mostly on anecdote and mice and other countries.

Look at what a researcher notorious for his anti-cannabis attitude has to say:

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01729.html

There was a study on cannabis and cancer in '74 (mice again) that the government did its best to cover up. Subsequently outlaw pharmacists have been touting cannabis as a cancer cure in humans and getting results in uncontrolled studies. Why no controlled studies? Well it would definitely have an adverse effect on prohibition funding.

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpr ... ince-1974/

But there other studies: http://www.nih.gov/ - search - endocannabinoid - along with your specific area of interest - endocannabinoid heart - in this case. For the - endocannabinoid heart - search there are about 27,500 results.

The people promoting prohibition will have a LOT to answer for as this information gets more widely known. "A crime against humanity" is a very mild way of putting it.