WATCH: Time Lapse of Cannabis Eating Cancer Cells

Natural Blaze

A video [below] uploaded by Lincoln Horsley shows what is supposed to be the THC component of cannabis weakening cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact.


Since 1974 studies have shown that cannabis has anti-tumor effects. The results of the 1974 study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that cannabis’s component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.” In 1975 an article in the Journal of the National cancer institute titled “Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids,” they reported that “Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBD). Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBD had reduced primary tumor size.”

In 1998, a research team at Madrid’s Complutense University Led by Dr. Manuel Guzman discovered that THC can selectively induce programmed cell death in brain tumor cells without negatively impacting surrounding healthy cells. They reported in the March 2002 issue of “Nature Medicine” they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumors in rats by injecting them with THC. And in 2007 even Harvard Researchers found that compounds in cannabis cut the growth of lung cancer. There is also an organization called The SETH Group that showed compounds in cannabis can stop the growth of human glioblastoma multiforma (GBM) brain cancer cells. The SETH Group says “No chemotherapy can match this nontoxic anti-cancer action.” Even last year in 2012 a pair of scientists at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco found THC stops metastasis in many kinds of aggressive cancer.

– See more at:…

  • William Burke

    The clip states that it is a "non-toxic dose"; in fact there is no such thing as a toxic dose of THC!!!

  • Amercan111

    EVERYTHING has a toxic dose, even water. Study some basic pharmacology, dummy.

  • Mike Ozalas

    Not everything has a toxic dose. You would literally puke up the water before getting anywhere close a toxic dose. This is just what pharma tells people to make their toxic garbage not look so bad.

  • TT


    People die of over water hydration yearly, usually athletes over indulging their bodies from intense physical exertion in hot climates with a gallon or more of water at one time, throwing off their electrolyte balances, thus resulting in death.
    Id imagine there is in fact a lethal dose of just about any mineral and / or chemical element, THC included.

  • Paul Robinson

    There is a condition from excessive water consumption. It is rare because you have to drink alot of it. It has something to do with water on the brain. I read about it many years ago and that is all I remember about it. Look it up.

  • Lisa Muehlbauer

    If only my dear Uncle Joe were here to watch this video, then maybe, he would still be here with us.

  • Mike TheVet

    Wrong, ignoramus. THC is non-toxic to anything with an endocannabinoid system.

    Read it and weep.

  • brad

    I think you proved yourself to be the dummy, dummy.

  • brad

    Yes there is but you would have to smoke thousands of pounds. 2300 if my memory serves me correct. Once your body hits the THC dose that is elevated, You fall asleep before you could anywhere close to a toxic dose.

  • Amercan111

    Brad never studied science everyone…excuse his ignorance.

  • Zack

    And you think even the tiniest dose of Chemo is not toxic? We kill people's hearts, liver, kidney everyday while "Curing" them of some cancer in another part of their body. After working with so many people with heart failure due to Chemo I will try something else if I am faced with cancer. Science is not pure – it is money driven and your the guinea pig – I prefer to decide what kind of guinea pig. And I chose the one with the lower side effect profile where I could enjoy my time with family instead of spending my last days throwing up & feeling like death warmed over.

  • Jared Baker

    your not educated…and then you finish off with calling someone a name? you don't know how obvious your being or the stereotype your perpetuating

  • Amercan111

    In proper English you mean to say, "you're" (contraction) not your (the possessive). So actually YOU are obviously uneducated. Actually I am very educated in medicine and science (2 degrees including a Master's Degree, thank you!) Go back to your family basement now.

  • Adam_Rodriguez

    Die? Or high?

  • diggle

    Their was a radio station in California that held a contest called "hold your wee for a wii" where the contestants had to drink a lot of water and not go to the bathroom to win a wii system. One of the contestants died. But You where saying…….

  • Mike TheVet

    Your silence speaks volumes. Thanks for playing.

  • Konspir

    The end of this video is completely stupid. Studies that show that meat is a cause of cancer do not take into consideration what kind of food the patient was eating besides meat. All studies based on statistics are not worth to trust in. That means, there could be other reasons in the diet that are the cause of cancer. If a person eats at McDonalds every day and gets cancer, what cause it? Was it the meat, the fat, the bread, the french fries or the Coca Cola?

    If meat is bad to eat depends how you cook it. For example. High temperature will trigger substances in the meat that makes it toxic. Barbecue is not a good way to cook meat. Instead. Steak meat on low temperature and use butter. Not oil. Oil transforms into toxic by high temperatur. Never buy processed meat. Buy meat from animals that have lived in a natural environment and are grown up on natural food such as grass.

    Finally, cancer cells love suger. Fat is the best energy source the human body can have. The human body is build for endurance and fat is energy for endurance.

  • Ivan

    People can be allergic to it bro. At which point, it is toxic. But how many people are, probrably too far and in between.

  • Rob

    Incorrect, studies with correctly applied meaningful and correctly interpreted statistics are the ONLY studies that are relevant (outside of a closed system, that is certain defined mathematical case but nothing in medicine or biology fits that). It is the misapplication of statistics or misinterpretation of the results that is the error, not the statistics. Most of these subjects require an enormous meta analysis to cover the variables and such data sets do not exist, thus you get weak correlative studies….that then are over/mis interpretated in the press (scientific and general) for sensationalism.

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to a friend