E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA series of new studies suggest taking a daily dose of aspirin may help prevent, and possibly fight, cancer. Dr. Nancy Snyderman reports.
By Rachael Rettner
MyHealthNewsDaily
Taking aspirin once a day may help prevent cancer, and perhaps even in some cases treat it, a growing body of research suggests.
A new study finds that people who took a low-dose aspirin daily for at least three years were 25 percent less likely to develop cancer than people who didn't take it.
Aspirin also reduced the risk of death from cancer by nearly 40 percent after five years, the researchers said.
The reduced risk of death may be due in part to a decrease in cancer's ability to spread to other organs. In a second study, researchers found a daily dose of aspirin led to a 36 percent reduction in the risk of being diagnosed with cancer that spread to other organs.
This suggests aspirin is likely "to be an effective additional treatment after the diagnosis of cancer," Dr. Peter Rothwell, one of the study's researchers and a neurologist at the University of Oxford in England, told MyHealthNewsDaily.
Taking a daily aspirin has been found to have a variety of health benefits, said Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in N.Y., including a reduced risk of heart attack and stroke.
However, more research is needed before aspirin can be recommended to reduce the risk of cancer. That's because the new study analyzed data from previous studies that were not designed to test the effect of aspirin on cancer prevention. "A study has to be specifically designed to prove a point," said Bernik, who was not involved in either new study.
People should speak with their doctors before deciding to take a daily aspirin, Bernik said.
Cancer prevention
Previous studies have found aspirin reduces the risk of death from cancer over the long term. However, the effect of aspirin on cancer in the short term, as well as its effect on developing cancer in the first place, was less clear.
Rothwell and colleagues analyzed data from 51 studies involving more than 77,000 people, in which about half of participants were randomly assigned to take a daily dose of aspirin.
There were fewer deaths among the people assigned to take a daily aspirin, compared with people who did not take aspirin (562 deaths versus 664 deaths).
In an analysis of six of the studies in which people took low doses of aspirin, there were three fewer cases of cancer yearly per 1,000 people in the aspirin group, compared with the group that did not take aspirin, but this effect did not show up until participants had taken aspirin for three years.
Side effects
Aspirin has side effects, including an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the researchers found that after about three years, the increased risk of major bleeding went away, as did aspirin's heart benefits. What was left was the reduced risk of cancer.
"For most individuals, the risk-benefit calculus of aspirin seems to favor aspirin’s long-term anti-cancer benefit," Drs. Andrew Chan and Nancy Cook, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
Because the findings are new, it will take time for researchers to decide whether guidelines should be changed to include a recommendation of aspirin for cancer prevention, said Eric Jacobs, strategic director of pharmacoepidemiology at the American Cancer Society. Such guidelines would have to take into account who is most likely to benefit from the recommendation, Jacobs said.
The study and editorial will be published tomorrow (March 21) in the journal the Lancet. The study had no funding and no input from drug companies, but the lead researcher has has been paid by several pharmaceutical companies for his work with them.
Related:
10 Do's and Don'ts to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer
Leave a Comment:
There should be an * asterisk on this article that reads: Like most stories involving drugs, this article was paid for by xxxxx pharmecutical company.
There is no patent in effect for asperin, any company can make it.
It amazes me that after years and years of cancer research this is what they come up with....... simple aspirin. Who would have guessed. I'm expecting to see the price of aspirin to skyrocket from it's already rediculous price.......... but then, as the article was quick to point out, the pharmaceutical industry did not finance the study.
An aspirin and a doobie a day, and yer on yer way!
Ken, you could use a daily pill for paranoia.
I hope this research specifies whether the benefit(s) are from a specific action of aspirin or do other anti-inflammatory drugs convey these benefits too. Lots of people take OTC and prescription non-steroidal anti-inflammatories for arthritis, pain, injuries, etc. Does long term regular ingestion of NSAIDs reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease too?
I cant speak to the risk of cancer, but NSAIDS show no benefit and possibly some harm to the heart. In fact, this is the reason Vioxx was pulled from the market. Im not sure anyone knows the mechanism for sure
aspirin is different than most NSAIDS in that it irreversibly inhibits platlets, which is where the cardiac benefits come from.
@Ken W
what really bums me out is the mention in the article that, taking low dose aspirin (I assume that means 81mg) for blood thinning purposes to avoid heart problems, becomes less important after 3 years. I did not know that. I wonder why this is so. even after 3 years, it would seem that aspirin would still thin the blood, wouldn't it?
If you're concerned about the price of aspirin, I assume you are speaking of branded, like Bayer. Use store brand instead. Aspirin is aspirin. I'd sure like to hear more about this low dose aspirin being less effective after 3 years thing.
The article specifically stated that the study was not supported by a drug company. Think about. Aspirin is a generic medication. What drug company would have a financial incentive to fund a study that involved a drug made by dozens of competitors?
Maddog, Aspirin is like $10 for a year supply, and learn how to spell ridiculous
Big Pharma definitely didn't pay for this study. Aspirin is generic and has been for a while. They can patent unique delivery methods like how they buffer it or with coatings or whatever, but not acetylsalicylic acid itself.
This article is consistent with some of the newer thinking that inflammation weakens the immune system and puts more toxins into the bloodstream to be excreted, so it's possible that cancer has an easier time taking hold than it would against a strong immune response.
Most people tolerate aspirin pretty well, besides the risks to children and people with stomach issues. Big Pharma has successfully, though, convinced most people that NSAIDs work so much better than aspirin and are so much safer (which is now being found to not be the case), so that most people use NSAIDs as the first option instead of using aspirin as the first option and NSAIDs if that doesn't provide relief.
What does an aspirin a day do to your stomach though? I was told to take aspirin when I was a child for my arthritis and then later put on Ibuporofen and Naproxen. I am only 32 now and I have had ulcers and H. Pylori (bacteria that causes ulcers). I also have a hiatal hernia and gastric atropohy (badly damaged stomach lining). I have not taken NSAIDs for a few years now but still deal with many of the stomach issues they cause. Now I have to take Prilosec or something similar every day and who knows what side effects I will be dealing with from that in the years to come. Plus now that my stomach has suffered this kind of damage I am at an increased risk for stomach cancer.
You're a bit paranoid. You shouldn't always assume the worse. I have most of what you named there myself and I have rarely ever taken aspirin (though I have taken Ibuprofen before). I'm also on Prilosec daily. I don't think it was aspirin related. Are you overweight and/or have general/social anxiety? I have both which has lead to my conditions.
Assuming the worst? This poor man has experienced the worst that aspirin can do over a period of time!
anxiety is not a major risk factor for gastric ulcers--that theory was debunked with the nobel prize winning discovery of H pylori induced GI disease
The idea of stress-ulcers is so persuasive though, that the main proponent of the H pylori theory drank a test tube full of h pylori and developed severe ulcers soon after--won him a nobel prize
Not saying that stress can't aggrevate the condition, but certainly not the major cause
This poor gentleman needs his h pylori infection treated and prilosec or similiar medicine to protect his stomach lining at least in the short-medium term
aspirin may or may not have played a role, but I rarely encounter problems with patients who take an enteric coated baby aspirin daily
I may be wrong but I think if you take aspirin with food, and not on an empty stomach, the risk of bleeding is severely reduced. I think the potential damage is due to aspirin being broken down in the system without anything coating it.
Naproxen has been shown to eat away at the bottom of the esouphagus (sp?) causing heartburn. I was on it for a while to relieve swelling in my back (10 years ago) and now EVERYTHING gives me heartburn. Products like Aleive have Naproxen in them and you should stay very far away from them.
Most experts agree that the POSIBLE side effects are far outweighed by the benifits of asperin therepy. You should talk to your doctor if you have concerns, but considering the staggerihng number of people taking low dose asperin, there does nhot seem to be an unreasonable risk.
The assumption here, not supported by evidence that he's supplied, is that aspirin is the cause of all of his problems.
What about possible liver damage?
no real risk of liver damage from aspirin...bleeding is the major risk. Tylenol carries the major risk of liver damage...
@ Barry I am a she and I asked what aspirin does to your stomach over time. I did not say that is what caused my problems. The proof that I went through all this is in the lab work and GI scope I have had done over the past month that something caused all these problems. I do know for a fact that Naproxen caused an ulcer because I had a test done and was immediately taken off the medication and put on Nexium.
I think more information is needed here. It might just be that those people health conscious enough to take an aspirin a day for X number of years also do OTHER things that would account for the reduction in cancer. As most things that have an effect on a complex system (our bodies) there is a lot going on besides the obvious.
I agree, WangoT. This is only one study.
multiple studies have shown the benefit of aspirin, especially on colon cancer. Its real
Wango is right, which is why the researchers pointed out the need for additional studies because this study evaluated other studies that weren't designed for the purpose of evaluating aspirin and cancer prevention.
barry,
he's actually wrong. First, the people that design these studies aren't complete morons...they realize the effect of confounders, and randomize appropriately to reduce that...so if you take over 70,000 patients, and randomize them to one of two groups, chances are very small there will be a significant difference between the two groups. That can actually be calculated using statistics
Secondly, they will measure as many possible cofounders as they can such as age, diabetes, heart disease, etc...alll things that could possibly obscure the outcome and compare those factors across the two groups to make sure there are no statistically significant differences--again, this can be precisely calculated
Further, there are more than a few studies demonstrating aspirin's beneficial effect on colon cancer. If you want, I can post them for you.
This is not only one study...its just the only one you've heard of...
Most of the network TV news items about this report (NBC included) are doing a hideously misguided and potentially dangerous disservice to viewers by featuring images of full-dose, 325 mg aspirin tablets. The clear implication is that THESE are the tablets that the report is referring to, when in fact the actual recommended daily intake is the low-dose 81 mg "regimen" size tablet -- one-fourth the dosage of the tablets featured.
What's going to happen is that a bunch of people are going to start popping a daily dose of 325 mg aspirin -- because, hey, that's what they showed on the news -- and then end up with stomach problems.
Note to network news media: Somebody needs to do their homework, and make the video images consistent with the message of the report -- or at least mention on-air the discrepancy between the tablets in the video and the actual recommended dosage.
great point! good catch..
So is the 81 mg dose the one the study recommends? The article doesn't seem clear on defining what is "low-dose."
81mg is what's considered low dose aspirin.
I was put on an asprin a day by my doctor in 2000 and have no side effects from it even tho I had ulcers several years back. It also helps my blood pressure.
Here I was thinking I was just getting rid of a hang-over!
Nope, it apparently wards off cancer, reduces heart risk, and according to the GOP prevents pregnancy.
Directions, EngEsq, ingest for reasons #1 and #2, hold tightly between knees for reason #3. Remember, used as directed, this drug is safe and effective.
This entire article is baloney.
First of all, the entire article was written in subjective terms... "MIGHT reduce risk"..."researchers BELIEVE"...."is LIKELY to be".....blah, blah, blah......
Where is the real data? Can MSNBC provide links to the actual "research"? Is the data conclusive, or is this just another opinionated statement by the almighty "doctors"? What is the actual prevalence of cancer in these studied populations, and how does that figure compare to the percentage decrease in said prevalence? Which cancers seem to have been reduced? Have the researchers ruled out other variables? What is the benefit/risk analysis look like? On and on and on.....
Granted, aspirin is not largely harmful when consumed in small dosages for short term use. But I have a hard time believing that now everyone is supposed to consider taking a daily "baby aspirin" in order to "prevent" cancer. And the article states only a supposed reduction of 3 deaths per 1000 people, so what is the actual comparison rates of those taking the aspirin versus control? If the change is miniscule (the article said a 25% reduction in getting cancer, a 40% reduction in cancer deaths), but the figures are very small to begin with, then why should I risk harming my health from constantly consuming a daily dose of a pharmaceutical that has known health risks associated with it??
Again, another BS article from the MSM that seeks to impose "medicines are good for you" mentality.
Here's a question.......if medicines were meant to make/keep people healthy, then why are the people who take the most drugs are the sickest, and not the healthiest amongst us?? Think about it...
Your response highlights the importance of reading comprehension. Had you paid closer attention to the article you would have noticed the paragraph calling for further testing. Concrete language was not used to explain the results due to the fact that the analyzed data came from other experiments which were not designed to test this hypothesis. In order to provide any sort of concrete conclusions on this hypothesis further experiments specifically designed around this hypothesis will need to be performed. I also fail to see where the "medicines are good for you" mentality comes through in this article. Everything about the article, from the title to the study excerpts, stresses the POSSIBILITY of benefit and cautions against jumping to early conclusions. If MSNBC was actually promoting a "medicines are good for you" mentality, the title and tone of the article would have been worded to indicate more concrete results. I hope you can see the humor in your bashing an article for not being concrete enough, when it would be incorrect to be concrete, while also claiming the article is promoting medicine consumption, which would require the concrete language you note to be lacking.
Nice snarky reply, but there is no concern with my reading comprehension. In fact, it is because I can read an article and understand the understated implications within the article that I find fault with it. Now, if you have a difference of opinion, then you are free to disagree with my assessment. But you are not free to assume I have no reading comprehension ability because I took the author to task for writing an article based upon inconclusive data and opinionated statements by "experts".
Second, these type of subjective articles are rampant in our society, and since most people do NOT have the reading comprehension that is required to fully grasp the context of said article, most people would simply take the article's premise at face value. When you have an article quoting doctors in high-standing positions, and all the statements are relatively uniform, it has the tendency to make people assume the premise is objective, and not as subjective as it really substantiates. It would have been better for the media to not say anything at all in this instance.
Furthermore, it is preposterous in healthcare to make statements that can be misleading (despite the author's own intention at times even!) before conclusive, properly designed studies can be performed. Considering that most people do not have a healthcare-related background, the onus is upon the medical professions (and the media) to make sure that ONLY the conclusive information is presented to the public.
Lastly, the media in our country does indeed push a pro-pharmaceutical approach to everything. It's currently the American way. Again, this is my opinion, and you are free to disagree with that statement. But a careful assessment of pharma-related articles shows a preponderance towards exalting the benefits (known or assumed) of drugs, while minimizing and largely ignoring the negatives. It's all perspective, and you may read into these things differently, but I hold the medical establishment and the media that supports it to a higher standard than this.
Oh, and next time, instead of chastising me for my opinion, it would be better if you simply debated the contextual aspects of the article that I contradicted. I'm not your monkey, Jon.
Indy Patriot, you might have disliked my reply, but what I said is still a valid criticism of your initial post. I wholeheartedly agree that mainstream media actively promotes health through big pharma, however this article was careful to avoid openly pushing that agenda. Your general argument about pharma articles is valid, however you projected that argument onto an article that was much more neutral than you seem willing to admit. The reading comprehension snipe was unnecessary, and I apologize for the attack, but, as I stated above, the general criticism of the post is still valid.
In regards to your second point, I again agree with you that the general trend in medical articles of these type lean toward the subjective nature while also promoting certain medicines. However, I see a very large difference between most of the articles we typically see, and the article above. Namely, this article stuck to the subjective language, as it should, rather than claiming concrete medical benefits with a little footnote indicating further studies are needed.
I absolutely agree with you on the third point in regards to medical articles in general, however I give this author credit for trying to stick to subjective language indicating a lack of conclusive findings. I do agree that meta-analyses from cross-sectional studies can be dangerous when presented to an uneducated public, but I believe the information can be presented in a manner that still conveys the results while remaining neutral. While this article is certainly not perfect, the author stuck much more to conveying the true meaning of the results than most layman articles written today.
On your fourth point, I again agree with your view on the problems with mainstream medical articles, although I believe your complaint might be with the wrong party. While the medical community is source of mainstream articles' information, the wording and spin placed in these articles is the fault of the mainstream media. Because cross-sectional studies always provide interesting possibilities the mainstream media picks these studies to write their articles. Unfortunately, as you well know, these exciting possibilities are typically great stories but poor science. However, the public at large doesn't seem to be interested in true scientific articles, which can most likely be attributed to an inability to understand the more complex analyses and results.
you will very rarely find definitive language in ANY medical study because thats just the way medicine is...its nearly impossible to prove something to an absolute certainty in this field
Your first paragraph asks good questions, and I could provide the abstract, but not the full study unless you have institutional access through a hospital or university (I do)
But you could easily find the prevelance of cancer in the general population--that should suffice as this was a huge meta-analysis involving 77,000 patients--more than enough to ensure a random, well represented cohort reflective of the general pop as a whole
Have they ruled out other variables? Usually answered in table 1 of any study--that compares the control population with the experiemental one in dozens of important factors such as age, comorbidities, weight, smoking status etc to ensure that they are equal and the only difference is the variable being tested
as far as only a 3/1000 death risk reduction, that sounds small until you multiply it by all the people who die of cancer (at least 10s of millions of people)--then it becomes a large effect
your last sentence is the epitome of the proverbial "chicken or the egg" think about that...
Jon- A fair assessment. And I appreciate your polite discourse. Have a good day!
Oh look! A person who's never taken a science course outside of grade school commenting on news articles as if s/he knows everything there is to know about health and biology! Indy-Patriot, either take a college course in cancer or use those exceptional reading comprehension skills of yours and read more booookkkkssss (not news articles). I recommend "Emperor of all Maladies" and "End of Illness." They're available on Amazon or your local Barnes and Noble.
However, the researchers found that after about three years, the increased risk of major bleeding went away, as did aspirin's heart benefits.
WHOA! Did anyone pay attention to this satetement.
that popped out at me too tom, and I completely disagree with it. There is no way aspirin's heart benefits disappear after 3 years...must be a typo or misinterpretation of the conclusions of the study by the author of the msnbc article
I'll review the study and get back to you
Another study that has no relevance, a few months an article read that an aspirin a day is not worth the risk for preventing heart attacks due to more people going to the hospital over internal bleeding. Just wait next month another group will say the opposite. No one ever seems to prove anything. They simply post studies to show where the money is going that it.
Back that up with some facts, bigmouth. Real facts, not something you find at the "Daughters of Teabaggers" website.
I'll pass. I like my stomach ulcer free. Most cancers probably come about as a result of tobacco and alcohol use. Just stop these and you may never develop the disease.
I agree with you in that I'm not sure the potential harm that a daily aspirin can do is worth the potential benefit of daily consumption.
As a side note, cancer is largely misunderstood in our society. EVERYONE has "cancer" (neoplasia) in their bodies at any given moment. With the trillions of cells that make up your body, undoubtedly there are always a few that go into "hyperdrive" and spontaneously replicate without stopping. The good news is, our immune systems are equipped to handle this problem by detecting the anomalies, finding and destroying them. So long as our immune system works fine, our bodies can kill the cancer before it ever gets out of control. This, of course, is not the entire story, and there are many other variables to consider.
Alcohol and smoking (amongst many other substances) certainly increase one's chances of getting cancer, but the true etiology is unknown. In other words, we know these things can hurt you, we just don't fully understand the effects on the body as it pertains to creating a cancerous condition. Besides, it's best to avoid the things we know are harmful, regardless of the specific reasons.
Actually, many cancers have inflammation as a root cause, same as heart disease and other conditions. Reducing inflammation by taking anti-inflammatories (that's why Tylenol isn't included) seems to have a protective effect in the long term. Yes, excessive consumption of alcohol, as well as use of tobacco products, also contributes to inflammation, as does being overweight. It's glib to say, though, that avoidance of tobacco and alcohol is the key to avoiding cancer when babies and children get cancer(s) without any known behavioral influence.
All of these reputable studies are needed to learn more about how this process works, in whom, and what dose of medicine is appropriate over what period of time.
actually, I agree with indy patriot here more...inflammation has a role in causing cancer inasmuch as it affects DNA
cancer results from a error in the DNA coding that regulates the cell cycle...most cells replicate for a time and then enter into a quiescent state or undergo programmed cell death. Cancer cells do not do this; they continue to replicate
So any insult to a cell that damages the DNA could potentially induce a cancer state--alcohol and tobacco are potent DNA damagers...inflammation yes, but possibly less so.
Why do babies and children get cancer--well, those are rare compared to adult cancer, and probably result from a genetic cause; ie the DNA was copied with an error either as a fetus or soon in life.
All drugs (except complete placebos) have a range of actions. None, including aspirin are complete wonder drugs. Nicotine, the much maligned active ingredient in tobacco, is a nerve stimulant, which in nicotine patches has been shown to have a positive action in Alzheimer's patients. Alcohol, in moderation, has been shown to have benefits which may out way its negative effects. The question is how low a dose of aspirin will still result in beneficial effects. Still, a 40% rate of cancer reduction, if true, is significant. (Personally I tend to discount any study which shows only a small reduction, 20% or less.)
A person's immune system has a large role in whether a person gets cancer. Organ recipients on immune suppressant drugs have a much higher rate of certain types of cancer.
Haven't you heard? An aspirin a day keeps the cancer and birth control away!
As a chemist, I love it...researchers will quote ridiculous and under-supervised studies on vitamins and say there is no health benefits to natural supplements; yet then turn around with a study not intended to test cancer prevention and say that a synthetic supplement can/should be taken everyday for cancer prevention. Complete B.S.! Your body is a giant organic chemical reactor; you should only put in natural organic compounds and materials for best results.
And this is my favorite part:
... at a meth lab, right? Or did you get a Junior Chemistry Set for your birthday?
They didn't make any hard and fast claims, they pointed to evidence of it's POTENTIAL, to be followed up by targeted studies, yet you dismiss the whole thing out of hand.
You're no scientist. You're as much a chemist as I am an astronaut.
An old email from my gmail account with the same handle...but I'm not a chemist right ;)
That's more than acknowledging it's "potential", that's saying "hey we see something here from a study, and now we are going to spend more money to try to prove our point...instead of just advocating that vitamins are the only pills humans should be taking daily."
So what? I can make up an email about my Apollo 13 mission. I can also make up an email from Neil Armstrong declaring his mission never happened.
You have too many prejudices and no aptitude for science or the scientific method.
Wow, I would never post emails on the internet for all to observe. That is very unprofessional and a sign of insecurity. Big difference between a chemist and a pharmacist/medical professional.
BTW, I do stay at Holiday Inn Express.
Omg, this is such OLD news. Come on.... Also, I'm not really sure what Zack Baines and Patty Birkhimer are getting at....
Listen to The Fool Funnel's The Cure for Cancer Revealed
Bayer paid for this study and the entire article.
Wow Aspirin's heart benefit went away after three years. I wish they would have explained why and what benefits since so many people with heart issues take it every day for the rest of their lives.
I won't swallow the cancer benefits, but I do take an aspirin whenever my chest feels tight from stress or when my blood pressure goes up.
This is news? Pretty universal knowledge for past 25 years or more.
Next month a new "study" will say taking too many aspirins will lead to liver failure and suicidal actions. These studies are bogus. Always have been and always will
This is news re: advances for a cancer cure (but keep taking aspirin). Search this msnbc article:
"New melanoma treatment -- a turning point against cancer?"
It can reduce heart attacks, colon cancer and stroke also according to other articles I've seen. It's cheap and easy to obtain. Sounds like a no brainer if your stomach can tolerate it.
My doctor says to take Ascripton which is a buffered aspirin and supposed to be gentler on your stomach. But if you take any aspirin with a meal, it shouldn't bother your stomach at all. I give Ascripton to my dogs whenever they have hip pains. It works. With a meal of course.
Actually, I read that it does decrease the chance of heart attack, but, increases the risk of stroke!
definetely reduces the risk of stroke...the sparkle trial maybe? I don't remember the name but it is well established
people must quit listening to these bogus studies - I listened to them years ago and now my stomach is so torn up over taking aspirin for so many years that I can't even take one now for a mild headache. the human body is NOT made for man-made chemicals and you WILL pay for it someday if you consume them. ANY drug is bad for you. and don't say that you can take it with food to make it better because it won't - it may work for awhile, but in the end you will end up running to a doctor for more expensive stomach remedies. these studies are ALL propaganda - use your common sense on any study and never ever believe the stuff you read on the internet.
Would it hurt you folks to actually post a link to where the study is located? Otherwise we have have no other choice but to believe this is a bunch of tripe.
MSNBC did not post a link to the full study because they likely do not have permission to provide full access. Unless you receive the journal, in this case The Lancet, the only other way to have access to the original complete work is through a medical or university library/database system.
Is there anything that has been recommended to us via our government that has not again been determined to cause disaster later? I bet PINK SLIME ...was recommened decades ago...now the FDA will let schools choose if they want to "CONTINUE feedinig it to children. No wonder we have latent development, defects, premies, mentally retardation, etc: other than those who abuse their bodies with drugs, alcohol, prescription durgs and do not know how to eat...and are fat butt lazy etc. homosapien parasites...living off of others fruits of our labors--ALL BEGINNING WITH OUR GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS stealing from us to aid and abett foreigners, illegals, perpetuate corp and public assistance as Welfare...Wise up the nation you save--may just be your own..
I've always believed they had found a cure for cancer but it is such a money making disease they kept their mouths shut. I'm not being cruel, my mother died of breast cancer and I worked for years in the pharmaceutical field.
http://norml.org/library/cannabinoids-as-cancer-hope