“Cannabidiol offers hope of a non-toxic therapy that could treat aggressive forms of cancer without any of the painful side effects of chemotherapy.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Marijuana Fights Cancer and Helps Manage Side Effects, Researchers Find
Monday, August 6, 2012
Researcher Says Marijuana is Safer Alternative to Painkillers
Researcher Says Marijuana is Safer Alternative to Painkillers
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.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells
Cannabidiol-Induced Apoptosis in Human Leukemia Cells: A Novel Role of Cannabidiol in the Regulation of p22phox and Nox4 Expression
- Robert J. McKallip,
- Wentao Jia,
- Jerome Schlomer,
- James W. Warren,
- Prakash S. Nagarkatti and
- Mitzi Nagarkatti
- 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.)
- 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
Abstract
Monday, July 2, 2012
My Life. My Medicine. - Luke's Story
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.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Radiation treatments create cancer cells 30 times more potent than regular cancer
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.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
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__/
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