Appeals Court hears case on medical value of marijuana

« Meet the Plaintiffs of ASA v DEA

Appeals Court hears case on medical value

October 16th, 2012
Posted by Jonathan Bair
This morning, the federal Appeals Court for the DC Circuit heard an appeal in the case called Americans for Safe Access v Drug Enforcement Administration. The case is an appeal of the DEA’s rejection of a petition filed in 2002 seeking to change the placement of marijuana as a Schedule I drug per the Controlled Substances Act. Based on the scientific evidence, ASA and our fellow plaintiffs feel that it is simply untrue that cannabis is a drug with a “high potential for abuse” and “without accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The hearing today offered a glimpse at the Court’s approach to this topic.
In front of a packed courtroom in Washington, the three-judge panel questioned ASA’s Chief Counsel Joe Elford and a federal lawyer about the merits of the scientific case, and the crucial legal issue of “standing.” Standing is a legal concept that restricts the right to sue to injured parties – people who are directly hurt by what they are fighting, and can get relief from a legal judgement. The issue of standing has been the reason why two prior appeals of the DEA’s classification of marijuana were rejected. In the past, patients have not been part of lawsuits against the Controlled Substances Act. The three judges were Merrick Garland, Karen Henderson, and Harry Edwards.
ASA’s Chief Counsel Joe Elford opened his appeal by arguing that the federal “Department of Health and Human Services plays a game of gotcha” by tightly controlling research access to cannabis and then claiming that there is not enough compelling research to justify reconsidering it as Schedule I. The Drug Enforcement Administration erred by determing that cannabis has a high potential for abuse when its findings determine its abuse and harm potential is less than other substances in less-controlled schedules, such as cocaine.
Elford opened his arguments with the issue of standing. He pointed to the affidavit of plaintiff Michael Krawitz, a veteran denied access to Veterans Administration services because of his medically necessary use of marijuana. The Veterans Administrastion’s harmful policy is based on marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance. He also spoke of the many members of Americans for Safe Access, who are fearful of the consequences of cultivating their own cannabis for their medical needs, and that a medical necessity defense in court could be allowed if marijuana were not in Schedule I.
Elford then turned to the issue of the merits of the DEA’s position on marijuana’s medical value, to prove their position was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore impermissible. The contention that there is not a complete consensus was argued to be an unreasonable interpretation of the regulatory standard, and that many of HHS’s standards are inapplicable to an organic substance. Significantly, the lack of access to marijuana for medical research is a consequence of the scheduling, yet the lack of suitable research is cited by the DEA as a reason for maintaining the schedule. Despite this lack of research access, ASA cited a growing body of high-quality scientific and medical research into the benefits of marijuana.
Judge Garland asked Elford if he was arguing that marijuana in fact meets HHS’s standard for studies. ASA’s counsel cited over 200 studies and argued that a circular standard is impossible to meet. He also said that, given that the schedule is relative, the DEA is ignoring even its own studies showing that marijuana has merely a “mild” potential for abuse.
Joe Elford concluded by arguing that Schedule I was an inappropriate classification of marijuana and it caused harm to patients and prevented meaningful medical research. Rescheduling marijuana would allow for a reasonable policy solution for suffering patients and uphold the intent of the Controlled Substances Act.
Judge Edwards asked about the standing of Mr. Krawitz, and his access to medical marijuana. The judges asked about access in medical states and noted that marijuana would not be legal just because it were rescheduled.
Federal counsel Lena Watkins then presented her position against appealing the DEA’s decision to continue cannabis in Schedule I. She noted that state legislatures or popular votes do not determine accepted medical use. She said that research is inadequate and has not progressed, and argued that the government does provide access for research.  Turning to the abuse potential, Watkins said, “marijuana is the most widely abused drug in America,” and dependency is a factor in making that assessment.
The judges questioned the level of access provided for research, and Watkins said that fifteen studies of a specific federal “quality” metric have been allowed. Pressed to explain why these studies haven’t persuaded the DEA that marijuana has medical benefits, she said, “we don’t have the final results yet.” To many in the audience, the circular nature of the government’s position on the science of marijuana was clear. The judges then invited Elford to give a rebuttal.
Focusing on rebutting the government’s claims about research, Elford argued that there has been adequate study and even more since this case was filed in 2002, and noted that he would like to admit additional evidence to the case. Summarizing by turning the government’s “no substantial evidence” argument on its head, Elford said that both sides agree more research needs to be done and that research can only happen if marijuana is released from Schedule I. Requiring the DEA to make scientific determinations on a new schedule would lead to better policy and more relief for suffering patients.
The patients spoke out at a well-attended press conference after the hearing, and Americans for Safe Access is proud to have given patients a day in court. Many observers felt the judges were willing to consider the argument of Michael Krawitz’s direct harm from the Controlled Substances Act, and this issue of “standing” has been the Achilles heel of past lawsuits against Schedule I. However, Judge Garland asked at one point, “Don’t we have to defer to the agency? We’re not scientists. They are.”
We’ll find out whether the judges felt the DEA’s science is adequate, or if patients can sue for a medical necessity defense against harsh marijuana laws, when the judges rule. We don’t expect it for a few months. This opportunity is thanks to the brave plaintiffs who took on the federal government on behalf of many others.
Jonathan Bair is ASA’s Social Media Director. Recordings of any kind were not allowed in the courtroom.

Marijuana Fights Cancer and Helps Manage Side Effects, Researchers Find

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/marijuana-fights-cancer-and-helps-manage-side-effects-researchers-find.html

Cristina Sanchez, a young biologist at Complutense University in Madrid, was studying cell metabolism when she noticed something peculiar. She had been screening brain cancer cells because they grow faster than normal cell lines and thus are useful for research purposes. But the cancer cells died each time they were exposed to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive ingredient of marijuana.

Instead of gaining insight into how cells function, Sanchez had stumbled upon the anti-cancer properties of THC. In 1998, she reported in a European biochemistry journal that THC “induces apoptosis [cell death] in C6 glioma cells,” an aggressive form of brain cancer.

Subsequent peer-reviewed studies in several countries would show that THC and other marijuana-derived compounds, known as “cannabinoids,” are effective not only for cancer-symptom management (nausea, pain, loss of appetite, fatigue), they also confer a direct antitumoral effect.

A team of Spanish scientists led by Manuel Guzman conducted the first clinical trial assessing the antitumoral action of THC on human beings. Guzman administered pure THC via a catheter into the tumors of nine hospitalized patients with glioblastoma, who had failed to respond to standard brain-cancer therapies. The results were published in 2006 in the British Journal of Pharmacology: THC treatment was associated with significantly reduced tumor cell proliferation in every test subject.

Around the same time, Harvard University scientists reported that THC slows tumor growth in common lung cancer and “significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread.” What’s more, like a heat-seeking missile, THC selectively targets and destroys tumor cells while leaving healthy cells unscathed. Conventional chemotherapy drugs, by contrast, are highly toxic; they indiscriminately damage the brain and body.

Aric Crabb, Bay Area News Group / AP Photos

There is mounting evidence, according to a report in Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry, that cannabinoids “represent a new class of anticancer drugs that retard cancer growth, inhibit angiogenesis [the formation of new blood cells that feed a tumor] and the metastatic spreading of cancer cells.”

Dr. Sean McAllister, a scientist at the Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, has been studying cannabinoid compounds for 10 years in a quest to develop new therapeutic interventions for various cancers. Backed by grants from the National Institute of Health (and with a license from the DEA), McAllister discovered that cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive component of the marijuana plant, is a potent inhibitor of breast cancer cell proliferation, metastasis, and tumor growth.

In 2007, McAllister published a detailed account of how cannabidiol kills breast cancer cells and destroys malignant tumors by switching off expression of the ID-1 gene, a protein that appears to play a major role as a cancer cell conductor. 

The ID-1 gene is active during human embryonic development, after which it turns off and stays off. But in breast cancer and several other types of metastatic cancer, the ID-1 gene becomes active again, causing malignant cells to invade and metastasize. “Dozens of aggressive cancers express this gene,” explains McAllister. He postulates that CBD, by virtue of its ability to silence ID-1 expression, could be a breakthrough anti-cancer medication. 

“Cannabidiol offers hope of a non-toxic therapy that could treat aggressive forms of cancer without any of the painful side effects of chemotherapy,” says McAllister, who is seeking support to conduct clinical trials with the marijuana compound on breast cancer patients.

McAllister’s lab also is analyzing how CBD works in combination with first-line chemotherapy agents. His research shows that cannabidiol, a potent antitumoral compound in its own right, acts synergistically with various anti-cancer pharmaceuticals, enhancing their impact while cutting the toxic dosage necessary for maximum effect. 

Breast cancer cells killed by CBD on right compared to untreated breast cancer cells on left. (Courtesy Pacific Medical Center)

“Cannabidiol offers hope of a non-toxic therapy that could treat aggressive forms of cancer without any of the painful side effects of chemotherapy.

Investigators at St. George’s University in London observed a similar pattern with THC, which magnified the effectiveness of conventional antileukemia therapies in preclinical studies. THC and cannabidiol both induce apoptosis in leukemic cell lines. 

At the annual summer conference of the International Cannabinoid Research Society, held this year in Freiburg, Germany, 300 scientists from around the world discussed their latest findings, which are pointing the way toward novel treatment strategies for cancer and other degenerative diseases. Italian investigators described CBD as “the most efficacious inducer of apoptosis” in prostate cancer. Ditto for cannabidiol and colon cancer, according to British researchers at Lancaster University. 

Within the medical science community, the discovery that cannabinoids have anti-tumoral properties is increasingly recognized as a seminal advancement in cancer therapeutics.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Martin A. Lee is the author of Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana – Medical, Recreational and Scientific (Scribner, August 2012). He is the cofounder of the media watch group FAIR, director of Project CBD, and the author of Acid Dreams and The Beast Reawakens. For more information and regular updates, follow Smoke Signals—the book on Facebook.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

http://americannewsreport.com/researcher-says-marijuana-is-safer-alternative-to-painkillers-8815280.html

Researcher Says Marijuana is Safer Alternative to Painkillers

by Mary Krasn on August 5, 2012

Marijuana is an effective treatment for chronic pain and is a safer alternative than opioid analgesics, according to a Canadian researcher at the Centre for Addictions Research  at the University of Victoria.
Phillippe Lucas,MA, reviewed numerous studies conducted from 1975 to the present in which patients suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain were treated with a combination of cannabis and opiates.
“Research suggests that when used in conjunction with opiates, cannabinoids can lead to a greater cumulative relief of pain, which may in turn result in a reduction in the use of opiates (and associated side effects) by patients in a clinical setting,” wrote Lucas.  “This may not only have a positive impact on patient pain levels and overall quality of life, but also on the overall morbidity and mortality associated with pharmaceutical opiates, and on the high levels of opiate addiction in both patients and the general population.”
About 100 million Americans suffer from chronic pain, according to the Institute of Medicine. Over the past decade, the prescribing of opioid analgesics to relieve that pain has soared. In 2008, over 14,000 Americans died from overdoses of prescription drug, the vast majority of them painkillers.
“There remains a significant group of patients for whom traditional pharmacological pain control is incomplete or ineffective,” Lucas wrote in a review published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. He said marijuana was also effective at treating substance abuse and addiction, not only to opioids, but to stimulants and alcohol.
“Community-based medical cannabis dispensaries have proven successful at supplying patients with a safe source of cannabis within an environment conducive to healing, and may be reducing the problematic use of pharmaceutical opiates and other potentially harmful substances in their communities,” he said.
Lucas said that social and clinical research has “debunked” the theory that marijuana is a “gateway” drug for the abuse of other substances.
“If we are to ever benefit from drug policies based on science, reason and compassion, national governments will need to abandon the misinformation that underscores drug prohibition, and to start promoting research into cannabis and cannabinoids as both a relatively safe and effective medicine in the treatment of chronic pain and other serious medical conditions, and as a potential “exit drug” for problematic substance use,” Lucas wrote.

Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells

http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/3/897.full

Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells: A Novel Role of Cannabidiol in the Regulation of p22^phox and Nox4 Expression

1. Robert J. McKallip,
2. Wentao Jia,
3. Jerome Schlomer,
4. James W. Warren,
5. Prakash S. Nagarkatti and
6. Mitzi Nagarkatti

+ Author Affiliations

1. Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina (R.J.M., J.W.W., P.S.N., M.N.); and Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia (W.J., J.S.)

1. Address correspondence to:
   Dr. Robert J. McKallip. Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology. University of South Carolina School of Medicine, 6439 Garner's Ferry Road, Columbia, SC 29209. E-mail: rmckallip@gw.med.sc.edu

 

Next Section

Abstract

In the current study, we examined the effects of the nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, cannabidiol, on the induction of apoptosis in leukemia cells. Exposure of leukemia cells to cannabidiol led to cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB2)-mediated reduction in cell viability and induction in apoptosis. Furthermore, cannabidiol treatment led to a significant decrease in tumor burden and an increase in apoptotic tumors in vivo. From a mechanistic standpoint, cannabidiol exposure resulted in activation of caspase-8, caspase-9, and caspase-3, cleavage of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, and a decrease in full-length Bid, suggesting possible cross-talk between the intrinsic and extrinsic apoptotic pathways. The role of the mitochondria was further suggested as exposure to cannabidiol led to loss of mitochondrial membrane potential and release of cytochrome c. It is noteworthy that cannabidiol exposure led to an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) production as well as an increase in the expression of the NAD(P)H oxidases Nox4 and p22^phox. Furthermore, cannabidiol-induced apoptosis and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels could be blocked by treatment with the ROS scavengers or the NAD(P)H oxidase inhibitors. Finally, cannabidiol exposure led to a decrease in the levels of p-p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase, which could be blocked by treatment with a CB2-selective antagonist or ROS scavenger. Together, the results from this study reveal that cannabidiol, acting through CB2 and regulation of Nox4 and p22^phox expression, may be a novel and highly selective treatment for leukemia.

Previous SectionNext Section

Marijuana has been suggested as a potent therapeutic agent alleviating such complications as intraocular pressure in glaucoma and cachexia, nausea, and pain in AIDS and cancer patients. A number of recent studies now suggest the possible use of these compounds for the treatment of cannabinoid receptor-expressing tumors. For example, anandamide was shown to inhibit the proliferation of the human breast cancer cell lines MCF-7 and EFM-19 in vitro (De Petrocellis et al., 1998). In addition, THC was shown to induce apoptosis in human prostate PC-3 cells and in C6 glioma cells in culture (Sanchez et al., 1998; Ruiz et al., 1999; Galve-Roperh et al., 2000). THC-induced apoptosis involved cannabinoid receptor-dependent (Sanchez et al., 1998; Galve-Roperh et al., 2000) or -independent pathways (Ruiz et al., 1999). Such studies have triggered interest in targeting cannabinoid receptors in vivo to induce apoptosis in transformed cells. To this end, cannabinoids were shown to inhibit the growth of C6 glioma cells in vivo (Sanchez et al., 2001). Furthermore, recent studies from our laboratory demonstrated that targeting cannabinoid receptors may be a novel approach to treating lymphoblastic disease (McKallip et al., 2002).

A significant limitation to the use of a number of these compounds is their unwanted psychotropic activity. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive derivative of marijuana that is currently being examined for its use in the treatment of cancer. For example, Massi et al. (2004) demonstrated that cannabidiol was capable of suppressing the proliferation of human glioma cell lines. In addition, the HL-60 myeloblastic cell line was shown to be sensitive to CBD-induced apoptosis, whereas monocytes from healthy subjects were relatively resistant to CBD-induced apoptosis, suggesting that CBD may be effective at treating acute myelogenous leukemia (Gallily et al., 2003).

Although a number of reports demonstrate the ability of CBD to induce apoptosis in tumor cells, little work has been done demonstrating CBD mechanism of action. Massi et al. (2004) found that apoptosis in human glioma cell lines after exposure to CBD was mediated through CB2 receptor and the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). The generation of ROS can play an important role in the induction of apoptosis in T cells undergoing either activation-induced cell death or activated T cell autonomous cell death (Hildeman et al., 2003). Furthermore, the regulation of ROS generation can be significantly affected by NAD(P)H oxidases (Suzuki et al., 1998; Lee et al., 2000). Numerous studies have been carried out examining the ability of compounds to induce apoptosis in tumor cells by increasing ROS production (Kang et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2004; Chang et al., 2005; Hu and Brindle, 2005; Lebedeva et al., 2005). However, little is known about the ability of cannabinoids or signaling through cannabinoid receptors to regulate the expression or activity of NAD(P)H oxidases and/or to control of ROS generation in leukemia. However in a recent study, the NAD(P)H oxidase Nox5, which plays a significant role in mediating Ca²⁺-dependent ROS generation, was shown to be expressed in lymph nodes and the spleen, suggesting a possible role of NAD(P)H oxidases in the regulation of ROS production in cells of the immune system (Banfi et al., 2001). 

read more at link

http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/3/897.full 

My Life. My Medicine. - Luke's Story

Luke is an eighteen-year-old medical marijuana patient in California. He has been suffering from a rare genetic skin disorder his whole life that causes his skin can to blister and tear with just slight contact. He is required to have hand and throat surgery every few years in order to live more comfortably.

At age sixteen, Luke first tried medical marijuana to help aid his symptoms. These symptoms include pain, night terrors, loss of appetite, insomnia, and isolation. Since then, Luke has seen improvements in all areas.

Because of their higher potency, Luke has found that medical marijuana concentrates help him sleep better. He discovered the G-Pen personal vaporizer for it's ease of use compared to traditional methods of ingestion.

Luke has now taken his crusade for the legalization of medical marijuana to new heights as he visits with the WeedMaps team to get the message out. Please take a moment and listen to Luke tell you his story of bravery and achievement over all odds. His story will inspire you.

Radiation treatments create cancer cells 30 times more potent than regular cancer

Tony Isaacs
Infowars.com
March 20, 2012

In a groundbreaking new study just published in the peer reviewed journal Stem Cells, researchers at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Department of Oncology found that, despite killing half of all tumor cells per treatment, radiation treatments on breast cancer transforms other cancer cells into cancer stem cells which are vastly more treatment-resistant than normal cancer cells. The new study is yet another blow to the failed and favored mainstream treatment paradigm of trying to cut out, poison out or burn out cancer symptoms (tumors) instead of actually curing cancer.

Senior study author Dr. Frank Pajonk, associate professor of radiation oncology at the Jonsson Center, reported that induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSC) “were generated by radiation-induced activation of the same cellular pathways used to reprogram normal cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) in regenerative medicine.” Pjonk, who is also a scientist with the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine at UCLA, added “It was remarkable that these breast cancers used the same reprogramming pathways to fight back against the radiation treatment.”

In the new study, Pajonk and his team irradiated normal non-stem cell cancer cells and placed them into mice. Through a unique imaging system, the researchers observed the cells differentiate into iBCSC in response to radiation treatments. Pjonk reported that the newly generated cells were remarkably similar to non-irradiated breast cancer stem cells. The team of researchers also found that the radiation-induced stem cells had a more than 30-fold increased ability to form tumors compared with non-irradiated breast cancer cells.

Despite mounting evidence, mainstream medicine clings to surgery, chemo and radiation and ignores natural solutions

Despite all the billions of dollars spent on cancer, the 40 year “war on cancer” has been a losing one by any honest evaluation. One hundred years ago, anywhere from 1 in 50 to perhaps 1 in 100 people could be expected to develop cancer. Now it is estimated that 1 in every 2 men and 1 in every 3 women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. Despite more people around the world developing cancer and dying from cancer every year, mainstream medicine continues to cling to failed treatments which more often than not fail to eliminate the cancer and help cancer spread and return more aggressively than ever. Notably, two of the three major mainstream cancer treatments – radiation and chemo – are themselves highly carcinogenic.

One might think that the new study provided ample reasons to rethink using radiation. However, the study authors looked at the results as an opportunity to continue and enhance the use of radiation by finding ways to control the cell differentiation. What the scientists failed to note is that natural alternatives have already been found which prevent the development of cancer stem cells.

As just one example, Natural News reported in May 2010 that a University of Michigan study had found a compound in broccoli and broccoli sprouts which had the ability to target cancer stem cells. See:

• 

http://www.naturalnews.com/028822_broccoli_breast_cancer.html

The researchers failed to note how cancer cells fought against unnatural treatments. They also failed to take into account the mounting evidence that the best way to beat cancer as well as avoid it is to build and enhance our natural first line of defense – our immune system.

The safest and most effective way to enhance the natural immune system and fight cancer in general is by working with nature. It is also by far the least expensive way, and therein likely lies the rub. You can’t patent and profit from nature like you can with mainstream drugs and treatments.

Note: Neither NaturalNews nor this author condone the inhumane use of animals in medical studies.

Other sources included:

www.cancer.ucla.edu/Index.aspx?page=644
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120213185115.htm
www.naturalnews.com/cancer_cells.html
www.naturalnews.com/stem_cells.html

This article was originally published on Natural News.

I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Komen's Race Is For Money, Not Cure

http://www.alternet.org/story/154010/i_will_not_be_pinkwashed:_komen%27s_race_is_for_money,_not_cure__/

Outrageous salaries, drug company ties, and less than a dime of every dollar looks for a cure.

February 4, 2012 |

It’s October. And that means, it’s prime pink season. It’s national Breast Cancer Awareness Month, that magical time of year when shades of pale pink are plastered onto every product, every container, every conceivable gadget or gizmo the Susan G. Komen Foundation can get its hands on. That iconic symbol of overlapped ribbon is supposed to adorn every man, woman and child who ever had a mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, niece or aunt who faced the horrifying struggle of breast cancer.

But I am not buying it.

Susan G. Komen: For Cure of Con?

Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a multimillion-dollar company with assets totaling over $390 million. Only 20.9% of these funds were reportedly used in the 2009-2010 fiscal year for research “for the cure.” Where does the rest of the money go? Let’s have a look. Health screening is 13.0%. Treatment is 5.6%. Fundraising is 10.0%. The largest chunk of the pie is going toward “public health education,” 39.1%. More on that later, but for now I’d like to take a look at the millions, or 11.3%, spent on “administrative costs.”

Click on this link from Susan G. Komen’s Form 990 from 2008 showing the salaries of some of its highest-paid employees. All non-profits have to file these with the IRS. "Part VII, Section AAa" show what the numbers in the columns represent, but cut out the board members listed as having no salary -- er, “reportable” salary.

What do we see? Note the dates of employment for some of the lesser-paid employees. Gary Dicovitsky, VP Development, for example, was paid $95,291 (plus $2,746) only from 10/08 to 3/09. Gary must have gotten a promotion since then, though. Because while it still lists his position as VP Development from 10/08 – 3/09, his salary from 2009 was $417,109. Oh, plus $18,091 in change.

I don’t know about you, but I would never expect directors of a charitable “non-profit” organization to make more than most doctors, lawyers, or even politicians. Their CEO and president, Hala G. Moddelmog, made $531,924, plus $26,683 in change. That's more than President Obama makes.

Here's another screenshot from 2009 Form 990, straight from Komen.org. Yup, more of the same. Curiously, these were the only employees listed in this type of form, similar to the 2008 one. Other employees were not listed with their position title.

In all, about 11% of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s annual revenue goes toward employee salaries. And that adds up to a lot of money. But what about the rest?

"Public Health Education"

We have all seen the rallies with pink hats, pink T-shirts, pink staging, pink everything. Is this really making a difference?

The area in which Komen spends the highest percentage of funds is in “public health education,” in other words, bringing awareness to the population of the disease itself and the importance of screening for early detection of breast cancer. While that may be considered a worthwhile goal to some, it’s important to realize that Komen stands to profit from spreading that message.

It admits to about 10% of funds used for “fundraising,” but let’s be honest, the pink-ribbon-plastered “awareness” and”education” campaigns are often little more than a highly effective form of advertising — which in turn, brings in Komen’s millions. In other words, a way to raise funds for itself, while getting a pat on the back for its efforts to “save lives.”

One thing that doesn’t quite compute with me is how Komen’s mission of finding a “cure” — after all, that is its name — is congruent with putting over half its money toward promoting awareness and screening, for early detection of breast cancer. It’s not curing breast cancer to be aware that you could get it, nor is finding out that you have cancer and treating it in the early stages in hopes of entering into remission. That’s not a cure. Yet that is Komen’s largest promoted focus.

read more at link

Hemp Oil Hope forums up!

HempOilHope.org forums are now up and running! Come tell your story and join in the discussion community with like-minded people! Questions, answers and anything related can all go here if you want your voice heard.

BREAKING NEWS: Cannabis Science, Inc: Cannabis Oil Shrinks “One Of The Worst” Cancers

http://cannabiscureuk.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/breaking-news-cannabis-science-inc-cannabis-oil-shrinks-one-of-the-worst-cancers/

January 11, 2012

tags: cancer, cannabis, cannabis science, cannabis science inc., colorado, cure, death, heal, kill, mearijuana, medical, medicine

COLORADO’S pioneering biotech company Cannabis Science, Inc have released graphic photos of a patient, suffering with what their physician described as “the worst case of squamous cell carcinoma cancer” he had ever seen, being healed by cannabis oil administered at home.

From Skin Cancer.org “Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are the second most common form of skin cancer and are very small usually when they are first noticed. It is an uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells arising in the squamous cells, which compose most of the skin’s upper layers (the epidermis). SCCs often look like scaly red patches, open sores, or warts; they may crust or bleed. SCC is mainly caused by cumulative UV exposure over the course of a lifetime. It can become disfiguring and sometimes deadly if allowed to grow. An estimated 700,000 cases of SCC are diagnosed each year in the US, resulting in approximately 2,500 deaths.”

Cannabis After Radiot-Therapy Session

The first pictures released by Cannabis Science, Inc. show a tumour protruding the skull with two sinus-like holes in the top. Cannabis extract was then applied in and around the holes and to all of the surrounding tissue on the scalp whilst the patient was undergoing radiotherapy treatment which can be seen in the second photos. This kind of extract which contains cannabinoids such as THC and CBD is more commonly referred to as “hash oil” or “concentrate” in the fledging regulated cannabis industry in Colorado, most particularly, Denver. Colorado made it legal for patients with qualifying conditions, after citizens used ballot initiatives and petitions, to use Cannabis to treat their symptoms. MS, chronic pain and nausea are all qualifying conditions, not just life threatening ones.

Claims of cannabis’ ability to shrink tumours have been made for many years, but within the last decade the anecdotal evidence has stacked up to the point that pharmaceutical companies have started taking these claims more seriously. GW Pharmaceuticals, who are set to go global in 2012 with their cannabis tincture spray Sativex, are currently Phase III trialling their oromucosal mouth spray for cancer pain in both the UK and the US. It is already prescribed to a select number of MS suffers in parts of the UK and in continental Europe in countries such as Italy, Germany, Sweden and even Czech Republic this year.

What is visible in the next set of photos is what has been described as the cannabis oil being drawn out of the wound and, in the words of Cannabis Science, Inc., “killing the cancer cells from these lesions”. If this is “killing” the cancer cells then surely this must be an indication that the anecdotal claims and evidence that we have seen more of in the press so recently and many times in 2011, shows that cannabis does cure cancer.

Cannabis oil killing cancer

Back in 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond inadvertently found the THC slowed the growth of cancer cells in mice with cancer of the lung, breast and a virus-induced leukemia. Their funding ended since the original goal was to determine its harmful effects to the immune system. In 2000 Guzman and his research team in Madrid, Spain demonstrated that injected THC could shrink or destroy brain cell tumors (Glioma) in rats. The 1974 studies were never published and in recent years there has been little coverage in the U.S. about Guzman’s work.

In 2006 a Canadian man by the name of Rick Simpson dropped the film Run From The Cure on the cannabis world with claims and a full video guide of how to make a cure for cancer from whole plant cannabis extract. Since then he has become a modern icon for the movement and his video has been used to help reach hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who need help to treat not only cancer but diseases affecting every part of the human system. He is now on the run as a fugitive from the DEA of America.

In 2011 the Daily Mail published the story of the two year old boy whose father secretly fed him cannabis oil through his feeding tube whist undergoing several treatments that were quickly killing him before the intervention of easily applicable cannabis oil. Also in a Medical Marijuana state. Why are the UK so behind this?

In the United Kingdom Her Majesty’s Government insist on the truth of their statement “cannabis has no medicinal benefits”, and occasionally add “in herbal form” to account for the fact that they allow GW Pharmaceuticals to grow 300 tonnes of the plant a year for… medical purposes. But that’s OK, they are licensed to extract oil from it to make Sativex, which is due to embark on a new cancer pain market worth £millions this year. Because the product Sativex contains CBD, or cannabidiol, which can moderate the effects of THC’s euphoric or ‘high’ effect, but also prolong it as it slows down its break down in the body, meaning it can be used more effectively over a longer period of time. This is what we call an FAAH inhibitor. (Just a little bit of cannabis science for you!)