The largest-ever scientific study on cannabis and cancer has shown strong evidence that medical cannabis can do more than treat symptoms — it could actually fight the disease itself. The research, published in Frontiers in Oncology, provides a robust and data-heavy analysis that brings much-needed clarity to a very contentious issue.

Led by Ryan Castle, Research Director of the Whole Health Oncology Institute, this revolutionary analysis converges more than 10,000 studies — the largest such inquiry into medical cannabis and cancer to date.

Cannabis has been in the middle of medical controversies and legislative wars for a long time. Traditionally, the Schedule I status of cannabis under federal law has limited high-quality human clinical studies, preventing the medical community from reaching a consensus. Castle and his colleagues aimed to change that.

Our aim was to establish the scientific consensus on the issue of medical cannabis, an area that has been long dominated by a war of cherrypicked studies," Castle said.

In order to transcend prejudice, Castle's team took the large-scale, inclusive approach fuelled by AI and sentiment analysis — a process widely employed by natural language processing to determine whether written material portrays a positive, neutral, or negative sentiment. Here, AI analyzed thousands of abstracts and conclusions drawn in scientific literature to determine whether each one stated agreement, neutrality, or doubt in cannabis's applicability to the treatment of cancer and symptom alleviation.

The result? An overwhelming majority of studies presented a positive view, indicating medical cannabis holds therapeutic value not just for symptom relief — such as reducing inflammation and nausea or boosting appetite — but potentially for accelerating apoptosis, the death of cancer cells.

Castle's group examined over 10 times the amount of research examined in any other meta-analysis. Their report stated that roughly 55% of studies indicated a positive relationship between medical cannabis and favorable cancer outcomes with only a few percent reporting adverse effects or none at all.

That percentage — 55% — may seem humble, but with the sheer scale of the data and the scientific conservative tradition in this area, it's telling. "This level of statistical consensus is precisely what we required to start thinking of cannabis as more than an edgy cure-all," Castle wrote.

In addition, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) revealed that 20% to 40% of patients with cancer currently use marijuana products to deal with side effects such as constant pain, chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and sleeplessness. Still, investigations had fallen behind trend usage rates based on government policy and availability of funds in the past.

It is valuable to place the results of this mega-study in the context of the overall body of cannabis research. Much of what is published is derived from in vitro (test tube) experiments or animal models and not human trials. However, several of these studies have promising results: compounds found in cannabis — particularly cannabinoids such as delta-9 THC, CBD, and CBG — have been shown to inhibit cancer growth, prevent metastasis, and cause cancer cell death in laboratory experiments.

A 2023 Discover Oncology study supported this perspective, reaching the conclusion that multiple cannabinoids reveal "promising potential as anticancer agents by multiple mechanisms." These include curbing tumor expansion, inhibiting cancer cell invasion, and cutting inflammation — which is a documented driver of cancer growth.

In addition, more recent studies have discovered unforeseen advantages in cancer patients who use cannabis. A University of Colorado study reported that patients who consumed marijuana products from licensed dispensaries for a two-week period reported better thinking and cognition, contrary to previous concerns that cannabis would impair mental sharpness in chronic users.

Even with all the encouraging results, Castle and other specialists advise not to consider cannabis a panacea. The available evidence does not indicate that medical cannabis by itself can heal cancer. Rather, its actual strength is in integrative oncology — as an adjunct therapy in addition to standard therapies such as chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy.

This is in agreement with results of a 2019 literature review, which noted that cannabis potentially slows cancer growth and aids improved treatment outcomes, although its effectiveness is highly variable based on cancer type, formulation of cannabinoids, and dose.

One of the significant challenges that persist in holding back development in this arena is the federal classification of cannabis as a Schedule I drug. According to existing U.S. policy, cannabis is listed alongside drugs such as heroin — a designation that presents many legal and bureaucratic hurdles to researchers and healthcare professionals.

In addition, in the Trump era, the National Cancer Institute highlighted marijuana as one of almost two dozen "controversial or high-profile issues" that needed extra clearance prior to publication or research sharing. This culture of fear and repression has only held back the much-needed research into medical cannabis's complete potential.

The biggest-ever analysis of medical cannabis and cancer isn't asserting to have discovered a cure but what they have discovered is a mounting scientific concurrence that medical cannabis should be included in mainstream discussions of cancer treatment. From reducing side effects to having the potential to interfere with cancer cell life cycles, cannabis might have more than just palliation to provide — it might have clinical benefit.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand is urging people to not consume two peanut butter products by Coles. These two varieties are Coles Smooth peanut butter and Coles Crunchy peanut butter, which have been found to contain mycotoxin and aflatoxin. Coles has also recalled these two products. The question is raised for products with the batch marked best before February 5, 2027.

Coles' recalling means that people can return these products for a full refund.

The toxins found in these products are said to increase the risk of liver cancer. An alert has been issued, which reads: “Coles Online customers can receive a refund or credit by contacting Coles Online Customer Care on 1800 455 400. Any consumers concerned about their health should seek medical advice.”

What Are These Toxins, How Does It Impact Our Health?

Mycotoxins

As per the World Health Organization (WHO), mycotoxins are toxic substances produced naturally by certain types of mould (fungi). These moulds can grow on a wide variety of foods—such as grains, dried fruits, nuts, and spices—especially in warm, damp, and humid environments. The contamination can occur either before harvest or after, during storage or even on the food itself. Alarmingly, most mycotoxins are highly stable and can survive food processing methods.

There are hundreds of known mycotoxins, but a few pose significant health risks to both humans and animals. These include aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, patulin, fumonisins, zearalenone, and nivalenol/deoxynivalenol. Mycotoxins enter the food chain when crops are infected with mould. People can be exposed either by consuming contaminated food directly or indirectly—most commonly through animal products like milk, when livestock are fed mould-contaminated feed.

Where Are They Found?

Mycotoxins can contaminate food before harvest (in the field) or afterward during storage and processing. Since most mycotoxins are chemically stable, they can survive food manufacturing and cooking processes, making them hard to eliminate completely.

Mycotoxins can pose serious health risks to both humans and animals. Their effects can range from sudden poisoning to long-term health issues such as:

• Suppressed immune response
• Liver damage
• Increased cancer risk

Livestock can also be exposed through contaminated feed, and humans may indirectly consume these toxins through animal products like milk.

Common Mycotoxins to Watch For

Though hundreds of mycotoxins have been identified, a few are especially harmful and frequently found in food:

• Aflatoxins (among the most toxic, produced by Aspergillus moulds found in soil and stored grains)
• Ochratoxin A
• Patulin
• Fumonisins
• Zearalenone
• Nivalenol/Deoxynivalenol (DON)

What Are Aflatoxins?

As per the National Cancer Institute, US, aflatoxins are a group of toxic compounds produced by specific types of fungi, primarily Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus. These fungi thrive in warm, humid climates and commonly infect crops like maize (corn), peanuts, cottonseed, and various tree nuts. Contamination can occur at multiple stages—while the crops are growing in the field, during harvest, or later in storage.

The National Cancer Institute also notes that exposure to aflatoxins is associated with an increased risk of liver cancer.

Another 2013 study published in World Journal of Gastroenterology notes that while Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths worldwide, it is caused by aflatoxin. The study notes that aflatoxin is a food contaminant produced by the fungi Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, is a known human carcinogen that has been shown to be a causative agent in the pathogenesis of HCC. In fact, Aflatoxin B1 has been classified by the WHO as a “group A” carcinogen because of it’s proven contribution to the pathogenesis of HCC.

In 2001, Uzbekistan was far from a model of public health. The country was grappling with high hepatitis B infection rates and a fragmented healthcare system, few would have predicted that it would one day be celebrated for near elimination of the disease in children.

Yet today, reports Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, the country stands among just nine in the World Health Organization (WHO) European region to meet hepatitis B control targets. A recent nationwide survey revealed that only 0.2% of Uzbek children carry the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)—well below WHO’s 0.5% threshold.

What is Hepatitis B and Why It’s Dangerous

Hepatitis B is a viral infection that affects the liver. While some infections are brief and symptom-free, others can become chronic, quietly progressing over years to cause liver failure or cancer. The risk of chronic infection is especially high in infants whose immune systems are still developing.

Fortunately, the hepatitis B vaccine is highly effective, offering 98–100% protection after a full three-dose series. WHO recommends that all infants receive the first dose within 24 hours of birth, followed by two or more doses at spaced intervals.

Also Read: National Doctors' Day, July 1, 2025: Theme – "Who Heals the Healer?" Know more about Its History and Significance.

What Are Gavi Countries?

Gavi supports lower-income and transitioning middle-income countries to strengthen immunisation systems and increase vaccine access. Countries that receive support are commonly referred to as “Gavi countries.”

Uzbekistan introduced universal hepatitis B vaccination in October 2001, supported by US$4.5 million in funding from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

From 2001 to 2008, Uzbekistan provided the hepatitis B birth dose followed by two additional doses.

In 2009, the country upgraded to the pentavalent vaccine—offering protection against hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and Haemophilus influenzae type B—while still delivering a standalone birth dose. Gavi extended further funding of US$32 million for the next decade.

Also Read: Healers, But Human Too: The Quiet Burdens Our Doctors Carry

Vaccination coverage has remained impressively high—above 95% since 2002. However, until recently, the real-world impact of the programme on hepatitis B infection rates had not been comprehensively measured.

Proof of Progress In Uzbekistan’s Healthcare

In 2022, a team led by Dr Nino Khetsuriani from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), along with local researchers, conducted a nationwide survey.

They tested blood samples from 3,753 children in grades one to three and reviewed their immunisation records. Their findings, published in Vaccine, showed that just 0.2% of the children tested positive for HBsAg—proof of the vaccine’s long-term effectiveness.

With consistently high coverage, experts expect the burden of hepatitis B in Uzbekistan to decline further as vaccinated children grow into adulthood, replacing older, unvaccinated cohorts.

Uzbekistan graduated from Gavi’s financial support in 2022. Today, its national immunization programme is fully self-funded and regarded as one of the most efficient in the region.

“Uzbekistan stands as a model of excellence in immunization,” said Jan-Christopher Castilhos França, Gavi’s Senior Country Manager for Middle-Income Countries.

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), an anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration.

The group alleged that its First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated when Meta Platforms—parent company of Facebook and Instagram—restricted its content related to vaccine misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without providing comment, the Supreme Court left in place a series of lower court rulings that dismissed CHD’s claims. These rulings found that Meta acted independently and could not be treated as a government actor bound by constitutional free speech protections.

Lawsuit Stemmed From Facebook’s 2022 Removal of CHD’s Page

The legal dispute centered around Facebook’s removal of CHD’s page in 2022, amid efforts to combat vaccine misinformation during the pandemic. CHD claimed Meta’s actions were a result of coordination with the federal government as part of the CDC’s “Vaccinate with Confidence” campaign—an initiative encouraging platforms to promote accurate health information.

The group’s lawsuit was filed under the First and Fifth Amendments and other laws, arguing that Meta effectively carried out government censorship by restricting CHD’s content. However, courts repeatedly found no substantial evidence of collusion between Meta and the federal government.

Lower Courts: Meta Is Not a State Actor

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among others, ruled that Meta, as a private company, is not a "state actor" and is therefore free to determine what content appears on its platforms. The court also observed that Meta and the federal government were not always aligned in their objectives or actions.

While the CDC encouraged accurate vaccine messaging, the 9th Circuit noted there was no direct government control or coercion over Meta’s decisions. This distinction was critical in rejecting CHD’s claim that Meta was acting as an agent of the state.

Dissent Raises Concern Over Platform Power

Despite the unanimous rulings, one appeals judge issued a dissent, suggesting that Meta may still warrant First Amendment scrutiny due to the sweeping influence it holds over public discourse. The judge argued that when a platform controls speech at such a vast scale, its role begins to resemble that of a government actor—especially when supported by government policy, even if not outright directed by it.

Part of a Broader Pattern

The rejection follows a similar 2024 Supreme Court ruling, in which justices said Louisiana, Missouri, and other Republican-led states lacked legal standing to sue the Biden administration over alleged censorship of conservative content on social media. These decisions reflect a cautious judicial stance on intervening in disputes over online content moderation, especially in the absence of clear evidence of government overreach.

A Continuing Free Speech Debate in the Digital Age

While Meta has prevailed legally, the case leaves unresolved broader questions about the relationship between government agencies and tech companies—and how far platforms can or should go in moderating content related to public health or politics.

As misinformation continues to be a major concern and social media remains central to public discourse, the debate over where free speech ends and platform responsibility begins is far from over.