Social Question

Aster's avatar

What caused Terence McKenna, Bob Marley and Buddy Rich's deaths from brain cancer?

Asked by Aster (19974points) October 20th, 2010

All died from the same thing and all were heavy cannibis users. What do you think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

Dog's avatar

George Gershwin, Gene Siskel, Ted Kennedy, Sandy Duncan, Scott Hamilton, Glen Nicoll, Sheila Lukins and many many more celebs suffered from brain cancer. They were not users of cannibis so I think your loose correlation is flawed.

Aster's avatar

What I am referring to is that they were all heavy cannabis/LSD users. I like my loose correlation. I only wish my slacks were as loose.

crisw's avatar

Well. let’s see.

They were all celebrities, so maybe being a celebrity causes brain cancer.

They were also all male, so maybe that’s it!

Correlation does not imply causation.

And guess what? Marijuana may fight some forms of brain cancer.

Aster's avatar

^^^^^^ McKenna’s doctor told him that the cannabis was advantageous for cancer.
Goodbye, crisw, and have a good life.

YoBob's avatar

For what it’s worth, in the case of Bob Marley his cancer started under his toenail and metastasized. The resulting tumor in his brain from the spread is what ultimately caused his death.

Dog's avatar

Alternately to my above list on non- cannabis users who suffered from brain cancer, if use caused the cancer why have so few using celebs come down with it?

The numbers would be far higher if indeed it was the cause considering the number of users in the entertainment industry.

Aster's avatar

McKenna believed his cancer was caused by heavy drug use including mushrooms which he eventually discontinued. I’m enjoying one of his books where he’s talking about UFO’s.

nikipedia's avatar

I don’t understand this question. Their deaths from brain cancer were due to… cancerous cells in their brains.

If you are asking if cannabis causes brain cancer, as someone mentioned above, scientific research suggests the opposite:

Cannabinoids, the active components of Cannabis sativa (marijuana), and their derivatives produce a wide spectrum of central and peripheral effects, some of which may have clinical application. The discovery of specific cannabinoid receptors and a family of endogenous ligands of those receptors has attracted much attention to cannabinoids in recent years. One of the most exciting and promising areas of current cannabinoid research is the ability of these compounds to control the cell survival/death decision. Thus cannabinoids may induce proliferation, growth arrest, or apoptosis in a number of cells, including neurons, lymphocytes, and various transformed neural and nonneural cells. The variation in drug effects may depend on experimental factors such as drug concentration, timing of drug delivery, and type of cell examined. Regarding the central nervous system, most of the experimental evidence indicates that cannabinoids may protect neurons from toxic insults such as glutamaergic overstimulation, ischemia and oxidative damage. In contrast, cannabinoids induce apoptosis of glioma cells in culture and regression of malignant gliomas in vivo. Breast and prostate cancer cells are also sensitive to cannabinoid-induced antiproliferation. Regarding the immune system, low doses of cannabinoids may enhance cell proliferation, whereas high doses of cannabinoids usually induce growth arrest or apoptosis. The neuroprotective effect of cannabinoids may have potential clinical relevance for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and ischemia/stroke, whereas their growth-inhibiting action on transformed cells might be useful for the management of malignant brain tumors. Ongoing investigation is in search for cannabinoid-based therapeutic strategies devoid of nondesired psychotropic effects. Journal of Molecular Medicine (2000).

crisw's avatar

Unfortunately, Aster doesn’t believe in scientific research. As she said, “I am not a believer in “research” anymore. It’s all slanted, biased, paid for.”

Aster's avatar

^^^^^^^ how flattering. You’ve memorized my response.
I meant to say, “its all biased, paid for and ever changing.” (if you don’t like the research , stick around; it’ll be challenged).
Happy New Year and ta ta!

nikipedia's avatar

@crisw: I find that is often the position of people who find scientific research too hard to understand. Yet, when they get seriously ill, they want a doctor who is up on all that “slanted, biased, paid for” research they’re so eager to malign.

lloydbird's avatar

@Aster It’s OK, you can dislike/fear “cannibis” without needing a proven reason if you want. It’s not for you. Nobody will force you to take/use it. It’s OK.
But consider this, do you imagine that the anti- cannabis brigade would hesitate for one instant, if they could actually produce one shred of evidence to support their argument?

Aster's avatar

I “fear” cannabis. Terrified. OK.

Brian1946's avatar


“For what it’s worth, in the case of Bob Marley his cancer started under his toenail and metastasized.”

I read that too.

I also read that it was melanoma but if it started under his toenail, then I’m wondering if it was really melanoma or if it really started under his toenail.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther