When I first read that genetically modified humans have already been born, I could hardly believe it. However, further research into this story featured in the UK’s Daily Mail1proved it to be true. They’ve really done it… they’ve created humans that nature could never allow for, and it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen next.
Even more shocking was the discovery that this is actually old news!
While I typically comment on recent findings and health related news, in this case I will make an exception, because I think many of you may be as surprised by this information as I was. I do not propose to have any answers here as this is out of my scope of expertise.
At best, I hope I can stir you to ponder the implications of this type of genetic engineering, and I invite you to share your perspective in the vital votes’ comment section below. As reported in the featured article:
“The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics… Fifteen of the children were born… as a result of one experimental program at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.
The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilized in an attempt to enable them to conceive.
Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults—two women and one man.”
Human Germline Now Altered… What Happens Next?
Today, these children are in their early teens, and while the original study claims that this was “the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children,” later reports put such claims of absolute success in dispute. Still, back in 2001, the authors seemed to think they had it all under control, stating:
“These are the first reported cases of germline mtDNA genetic modification which have led to the inheritance of two mtDNA populations in the children resulting from ooplasmic transplantation. These mtDNA fingerprints demonstrate that the transferred mitochondria can be replicated and maintained in the offspring, therefore being a genetic modification without potentially altering mitochondrial function.”
It’s relevant to understand that these children have inherited extra genes—that of TWO women and one man—and will be able to pass this extra set of genetic traits to their own offspring. One of the most shocking considerations here is that this was done—repeatedly—even though no one knows what the ramifications of having the genetic traits of three parents might be for the individual, or for their subsequent offspring.
Based on what I’ve learned about the genetic engineering of plants, I’m inclined to say the ramifications could potentially be vast, dire, and completely unexpected.
As a general, broad-strokes rule, it seems few scientists fond of gene-tinkering have a well-rounded or holistic view of living organisms, opting instead to view the human body as a machine. And as demonstrated with the multi-varied problems that have arisen from genetically engineered foods—from the development of superweeds and superpests, to the creation of a never-before-seen organism now linked to miscarriage and infertility—such a view is bound to lead you to the wrong conclusions…
Suspicions have been confirmed for those wary of vaccinating their children. A recent large study corroborates other independent study surveys comparing unvaccinated children to vaccinated children.
They all show that vaccinated children have two to five times more childhood diseases, illnesses, and allergies than unvaccinated children.
Originally, the recent still ongoing study compared unvaccinated children against a German national health survey conducted by KiGGS involving over 17,000 children up to age 19. This currently ongoing survey study was initiated by classical homoeopathist Andreas Bachmair.
However, the American connection for Bachmair’s study can be found at VaccineInjury.info website that has added a link for parents of vaccinated children to participate in the study. So far this ongoing survey has well over 11,000 respondents, mostly from the U.S.A. Other studies have surveyed smaller groups of families.
Nevertheless, the results were similar. Of course, none of these studies were picked up by the MSM (mainstream media). None were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or any national or international health agency or medical profession group (http://healthimpactnews.com).
They don’t dare compare the health of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children objectively and risk disrupting their vaxmania (vaccination mania). The focus for all the studies was mostly on childhood illnesses occurring as the children matured.
Dramatic, debilitating, or lethal vaccine injuries were not the focus since so few, five percent or less, actually get reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Injury Reporting System) in the U.S.A. for various reasons including:
* It’s a complicated system that takes time from a doctor’s practice.
* Most parents don’t know about it.
* Only adverse reactions that occur immediately after vaccinations are considered.
* Since VAERS is voluntary, most doctors don’t want to incriminate themselves with vaccination injuries and maintain their denial of vaccine dangers.
Consequently, even the most terrible adverse reactions are minimally acknowledged, while long term negative health issues resulting from vaccines are not even considered relevant.
Different surveys summarized
The childhood diseases usually posed to respondents by the independent surveys involved asthma, reoccurring tonsillitis, chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, allergies, eczema, ear infections, diabetes, sleep disorders, bedwetting, dyslexia, migraines, hyperactivity, ADD, epilepsy, depression, and slower development of speech or motor skills.
In 1992, a New Zealand group called the Immunization Awareness Society (IAS) surveyed 245 families with a total of 495 children. The children were divided with 226 vaccinated and 269 unvaccinated. Eighty-one families had both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
The differences were dramatic, with unvaccinated children showing far less incidence of common childhood ailments than vaccinated children (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf).
From a different survey in the South Island New Zealand city of Christchurch, among children born during or after 1977, none of the unvaccinated children had asthma events where nearly 25% of the vaccinated children were treated for asthma by age 10 (http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf).
Many of the comments from non-vaccinating parents to VaccineInjury.info for the ongoing Bachmair survey mentioned vaccination danger and developing true immunity naturally were concerns (http://www.vaccineinjury.info).
A PhD immunologist who wrote the book Vaccine Illusion, Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, has gone against the dogma of her medical training and background. She asserts that true immunity to any disease is not conferred by vaccines. Exposure to the disease, whether contracted or not, does (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org).
Perhaps the most informal grass-roots survey going on now is by Tim O’Shea, DC, author of Vaccination is Not Immunization. He simply has non-vaccinating parents email him with comparisons of their children’s health to friends and families they know with vaccinated children. That and more is available on his site (http://www.thedoctorwithin.com).
Sources for this article include:
Link to participate in Bachmair survey here: http://www.vaccineinjury.info
May be of interest for the undecided: http://churnyourown.com/2011/11/28/vaccine-controversy/
The government of Switzerland has a long history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. Further, when one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.
In late 2011, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a governmentand was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.
The Swiss government’s inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country’s health insurance program.
It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.
Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government’s health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland’s national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government’s constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).
The Swiss Government’s “Health Technology Assessment”
The Swiss government’s “Health Technology Assessment” on homeopathic medicine is much more comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to date. This report carefully and comprehensively review the body of evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials testing homeopathic medicines, plus they also evaluated the “real world effectiveness” as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).
And still further, this report evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called “internal validity”) and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called “external validity”). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients).
When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not “work,” the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy… or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).
After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhoft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)
The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of upper respiratory tract infections and respiratory allergies. The report cited 29 studies in “Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions,” of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.
The authors of the Swiss government’s report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 “high quality” homeopathic studies but only nine “high quality” conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Ludtke, Rutten, 2008).
The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in “evidence based medicine,” has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were “unscientific” or “unproven” because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.
For a treatment to be determined to be “effective” or “scientifically proven,” a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn’t is required. Ultimately, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.
The next article will discuss further evidence provided in this report from the Swiss government on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic care.
Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011.http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1(This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this book.)
Bornhoft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementarmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077
Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. SwissInfo.ch, May 19, 2009.http://www.swissinfo.ch
Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6.http://download.thelancet.com
Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract
Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementarmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevolkerungstimmt uber Verfassungsartikel ?Zukunft mit Komplementarmedizin? ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073.
(Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Article “The future with complementary medicine”
*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.
About the author:
America’s leading advocate for homeopathic medicine and author ofThe Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy(Foreword by Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Learn more about homeopathy and Dana’s work athttp://www.Homeopathic.comor watch Dana’s videos athttp://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?memberid=6958
Dana has authored 9 other books, includingHomeopathy A-Z,Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants,Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling)Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD).
Molecular engineers working in laboratories for Monsanto, the giant American biotech company, aregene-splicing vegetable seedlings with poisonous pesticides and herbicidesso the plants are inherently protected from the insects and worms that might damage them.The majority of products Americans eat daily contain some form of GMO soy, corn, canola (rapeseed) oil or cotton seed oil. Research shows that consuming the popular herbicide/pesticideRoundupleads to themutation of cellsin the human body, in turn fueling the development of malignant tumors and other various forms of cancer.
In other words, as the plants grow up from the ground, they already contain genes from toxic concoctions, therefore helping corporations and their “cooperating” farmers maximize profits. Some countries are terrified and outraged, knowing there arenot sufficient studies on the long term effectsfrom this bio-engineering “guessing game,” and are boycotting American exports of major vegetables, dairy, and meat products for this specific reason, including Germany.
Consider this: What if over half of all the food being sold in grocery stores contained pesticides that you couldn’t taste or smell, withno warnings on the labels, and then you got cancer from eating them after ten years? Or, what if a pregnant mother could get her baby vaccinated in the womb with an insecticide, so that no insects would ever bite the child after it was born? Would anyone be crazy enough to do it, especially if it was FDA approved?
More than 85% of all corn, soy and canola oil are GMO
The bad news is in, and it may not be changing for quite awhile. GMO vegetables and all of their by-products are not labeled as GMO in the United States.Currently, 93% of soy, canola and cottonseed oil, 86% of corn, 95% of sugar beets, 13% of squash, and rice is on the cutting board now. As much as 77% of the world’s soy is GMO also. Think for a moment about all of the popular products that have some kind of processed soy or corn in them; it would take an entire book to list them all. GM potatoes and tomatoes have been taken off the market.
To appreciate the size of thishealth and environmental disaster, one should understand the 96% rule. For the first time ever, science has created models that combine the clinical and genetic similarities of rodents, great apes and humans for determining the odds of acquiring cancer.
A comparison of genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96% of our DNA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3…). Before now, scientists had hypothesized that it was only about 35%. The FDA and CDC quite often denounce research regarding popular cancer causing foods, additives, and artificial sweeteners because tests are only run on rats and mice, but not humans. Now we know we are affected by toxins, just like the other animals.
To pour salt in the wound, GMO pesticides not onlykill most of the nutrients in foods,but most GMO plants die after one year and new seeds must be purchased from Monsanto. It’s all part of the money making scheme (http://paraschopra.com/publications…).
What’s the cure? Eat only organic food from local farmers markets and health-food grocery stores. And if you say it’s more expensive, you’re wrong. Surgery and chemotherapy for stomach, kidney and colon cancer far exceed the price of non-GMO foods, drinks, candy and gum (and that’s with health insurance). Also, let your voice be heard about GMO labeling. (MillionsagainstMonsanto.com)
Sources for this article include:
by Carmen Louv
Chiropractic therapy is very good for relieving a variety of heath problems as well as personal injuries as a result of a car accident. This form of alternative medicine can also improve posture, alleviate muscle pain and issues concerning the central nervous system. Consultation and further advice will be available from an Austin chiropractor.
This form of therapy involves subtly adjusting the spine’s vertebrae. The spine is a vertebral column with 24 articulating vertebrae running down the back from the base of the head to the tail bone. In the center of the spine is the spinal cord that carries nerves from the brain to the rest of the body.
The nerve functions can become compromised if any of the vertebrae becomes out of place. This can cause health problems and pain in the rest of the body. The practitioner readjusts the vertebrae with gentle pressure from the hands. This repositions the vertebrae allowing for the proper functionality of nerves.
The patient could be laying down, sitting or standing up during the chiropractic intervention. Sometimes, a chiropractor will use a specially designed table to aid with the readjustments. Sometimes the doctor will put special cushions under the patient’s body in order to allow the weight of the torso to realign the spine.
Chiropractic is considered to be a form of complimentary medicine, it will not replace traditional medicine, but it can prevent health problems and help people recover from personal injuries. Regular intervention will help prevent health issues, and promote better posture and is a good part of a healthy lifestyle. Children may also benefit from regular therapy, as they are growing and will improve posture and may prevent health conditions later.
We’ve heard time and again how bad white sugar is for us. White, processed sugar is like the crack cocaine of the culinary world. Once you’re hooked, you can’t get enough of it. It’s extremely addictive, provides no nutrition whatsoever, and is actually nutrient-negative in that it draws nutrients from your body in leech-like fashion.
Nearly everyone at least marginally knows those facts. So.. why does sugar do these things and, more importantly, what can those of us with a sweet tooth do to avoid it without resorting to other questionable sugar replacements like aspartame (see Issue #375) or high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)?
How Sugar Operates
White sugar comes from either sugar cane or from beets – most sugar in the United States comes from sugar beets, in fact. Essentially, while the sugars coming from the plants themselves are somewhat different, once they’ve been through the heavy processing that white (and even brown) sugar undergoes, they’re essentially the same.
So once white sugar taken from the bag is ingested, it’s nothing like what it was when it was first harvested. Sugar in most processed forms, in fact, is confusing to our bodies. Most types of sugars cause our metabolism to temporarily go into overdrive (remember those sugar highs as a kid?) and this causes us to use more energy. The sugar itself gives us most of that new energy, but the other nutrients required to keep our bodies functioning while we’re in this agitated state have to come from somewhere.
Those nutrients are usually leeched from our body itself, mostly from our bones, blood, and muscle tissue. On a temporary basis, this is not a long-term problem since we can replace that loss. For this reason, sugars aren’t something that should be entirely avoided per se, but they should be moderated. Processed (non-whole or raw) sugars should be replaced with natural options whenever possible, since these options (see below) are often just as sweet and don’t have nearly the detrimental effects.
When white sugar is used continually in a diet high in its use, it leads to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. It likely leads to other chronic ailments like cancer as well, but there’s no direct proof of that. These problems come because of the heightened (and prolonged) metabolism created with the long-term use of sugar and in its nutrient-leaching. Our bodies struggle to make up for the losses, leading to obesity.
Natural Alternative to White Sugar
Probably the best alternative to processed sugar is honey, preferably organic, raw honey with no processing whatsoever. This is not an option for diabetics, however, since honey is still a natural sugar, so it has the same blood glucose effects.
Molasses is another favorite and is easy to come by. This is actually sugar, but blackstrap molasses is not over-processed and is actually the first stage in the sugar making process. It is still a sugar, however, so diabetics should moderate.
Another option is maple syrup (actual, natural syrup, not flavored liquid sugar). It’s sweet, high in minerals, and tasty. Again, however, this is a sugar, albeit natural, so it has blood glucose affects.
A great option, if you can find some, is barley malt syrup. This is complex carbohydrates made into a syrup, but not nearly as heavily processed as HFCS. It’s gentle on the metabolism and doesn’t alter blood glucose in a measurable way.
Raw brown sugar, sold in stores under various brands with similar names, is sugar cane-based brown sugar that has skipped the final bleaching process which removes much of the raw sugar’s minerals and nutrients pulled from it. It’s still sugar, of course.
Date sugar is good stuff and is basically the sugar naturally in dates themselves, which is very potent stuff. Use in extreme moderation and you’ll need a lot less of it to equal white sugar in recipes. Again, diabetics use caution.
Stevia is a relatively new thing on the market and has been promoted heavily as a sugar substitute. Do some research and decide for yourself whether it’s a substitute for you.
Another option is to eat fruit when your sweet tooth craves. This is the preferred option for non-recipe sugar use. Fruit of any kind is naturally great for you in many ways, but like anything really good for you, use moderation.
by Sebastian Sheppis and Justin Silver
from Issue #376 of the Health Freedom Network Newsletter
The cannabis plant is both a subject of wonder and of derision. The plant is so ingrained into western culture as “evil” that its ban was included in the charter for the League of Nations and later the United Nations.
The cannabis plant family includes several plants, some of which produce tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) in quantities large enough to be absorbed by humans. Most cannabis plants are actually benign – these are commonly known as “hemp” and have been grown for most of known human civilization. THC-producing plants are commonly called “marijuana” in the U.S. and have varying levels of THC in them according to their strain (hybrid type).
The Politics of Pot
For centuries, cannabis has had known medicinal uses, but the scientific exploration of those uses has been stilted by political opposition and societal pressures against marijuana as a street drug. Although little evidence exists to show cannabis as a negative recreational substance – especially as compared to the effects of alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and other drugs both legal and not – the push to keep it as an illicit substance remains.
Despite this, while illegal in all parts of the world, cannabis has been decriminalized in many areas and legalized as medication in others. Currently, cannabis as a medicine (or for personal use) is legal in Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and 15 states plus the District of Columbia in the United States.
Cannabis In Science
The discovery of cannabinoids, receptors in most animals, including humans, that react specifically with the compounds present in cananbis, changed the way medical science looked at marijuana as medicine. This discovery in the 1990s lead to a wide scale research push into the beneficial uses (and possible synthesis) of cannabis and its active compounds. In 2010, more than 2,500 reputable scientific studies about cannabis were published world wide.
Cannabis has been found to be beneficial for the amelioration of nausea and vomiting, stimulation of hunger, lowering of intraocular eye pressure, for relief of muscle over-stimulation (spasms), and more. In fact, the studies showing the efficacy of cannabis and cannabinoids continue to grow daily.
The compounds in cannabis or the plant or resins it produces are used to treat side effects and symptoms in AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and others.
Using Cannabis for Medication
Public perception commonly treats marijuana use as a “hippie” or “pot head” thing with visions of young people coughing thick smoke in rooms covered in psychedelic posters and drawings. The reality is that most medicinal cannabis users do smoke, but often they use vaporizers, water filtration systems (bongs or hookas), etc.
While the press seems enamored with the more creative (but generally less effective) cannabis intake methods such as “pot brownies” or THC-imbued candy and soda pop, many serious medical users are finding more potent and less debilitating ways to ingest their medication.
A growing number of medicinal users, however, are getting right to the compounds that do the most good by distilling or otherwise processing cannabis buds and resins to create pastes, cremes, tinctures, and other ways of using the medicine without smoking or even getting the associated high (psychoactive effects).
Pharmaceutical companies, by the same token, are working on both synthetic and naturally-derived options for isolating and distributing cannabinoids as pills. While the practice is controversial, it is lending some legitimacy to the idea of medical cannabis in the wider medical community.
The Future of Medical Marijuana
Although the current market and science behind cannabis as a medicinal plant is still young, the fundamentals behind how it works and why it works have been ironed out enough that refuting it as a medication is to ignore science. Yet those who continue to refute its medicinal properties are either in the scientific establishment themselves (often as medical practitioners) or attempt to cite scientific backing for their claims.
Although some side effects and psychological possibilities may exist for cannabinoids, these are far fewer and less severe than the same side effects for most pharmaceuticals that are legally on the market. Many of the so-called studies that claim marijuana has extreme adverse effects, such as schizophrenia in teenagers, are fraught with bad methodology or questionable conclusions and are what the medical industry calls “proof of preconception” – they are created merely to “prove” a preconceived notion.
Sadly, that latter event is something that happens all too often in today’s politically-charged science, especially in medicine.
Sebastian Scheppis and Justin Silver are the owners of CannaCentral.com, a medical marijuana directory and community website. The site features location-based search tools for strains and dispensaries, useful medical and clinic information and more.
Heart disease is the number one preventable killer in North America. It’s been the leading cause of death in the United States for decades. Yet 95% of heart disease-related deaths are caused by an entirely preventable problem called cellular inflammation.
Cellular inflammation is a natural response by our bodies to specific environmental conditions. This can be from oxidative stress, sympathetic stress responses, and improper cell signaling. Many common things in our current lifestyles are to blame for these types of responses and treating those root causes is key to reducing (or eliminating) heart disease.
Assuming that no other serious illnesses are present, such as diabetes, nearly every person can prevent heart disease with simple knowledge tools and without pharmaceuticals. To do this, the underlying cause of the three stresses listed above should be understood. Often, all three are present as cause-effect cycles take place.
This is most commonly caused by excessive free radical formation and/or a deficiency in anti-oxidants in nutritional intake. When this is present, the body will do things to naturally attempt to counteract the issue at hand. In the short term, the body’s reactions are proper and work well. For the long term, however, these reactions will lead to cellular signal misalignment and other chronic issues that lead to heart disease.
The easiest way to counteract oxidative stress is to eat a natural, healthy diet full of anti-oxidant foods.
This usually comes as a response to oxidative stress or to other environmental stresses. A stressful career, home life, financial situation, etc. is likely to cause sympathetic stress responses. If they go on long enough, these can bring catecholamine overload, which ends in what we commonly term “burnout.” Again, these are natural responses that can often deal with the issue for the short term. Longer term, however, they are a serious problem.
The obvious fix for this situation is to eliminate the stress’ cause. This may require a change of job or career, a different lifestyle, or similar. Most of our modern lives are over-stressed because of our lifestyle choices: careers we’re unsuited for, debt-based financial decisions, and families whose every member exists in an environment of extreme stress.
Improper Cell Signaling
This problem is usually a result of either one or both of the two stresses above. Various cells in our bodies will misfire or fail to receive signals from other cells. This can happen for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. Most often, when measuring for heart disease risk, it will be shown in the blood’s balance of lipoprotein (a) and plasminogen.
If plasminogens are too prevalent, they will bind with the receptors that should have lipoprotein (a) instead, leading to blood clotting. Lipoprotein (a) dissolves blood clots internally while plasminogens create them – the two should always be in balance so that internally, blood clots do not form for long and externally, wounds can clot and heal. Internal blood clots are the leading cause of heart attack.
Another test would be for the presence of C Reactive Proteins (CRPs). This protein is always present in the blood, but usually at low levels. Under stress, the body produces more of it and levels will elevate in response to inflammation. For acute infections and other sicknesses, this is a good thing as CRP binds with dead or dying cells to allow for easy disposal by the body. CRPs have a short lifespan in the body (less than 48 hours), so they must be continually produced to keep levels high. Over the long term, high CRP levels can have many adverse effects on the body, possibly including cancer.
Reducing CRP levels can be accomplished first by removing the stress that caused the inflammation to begin with and secondly by maintaining proper cell signaling through a diet rich in B vitamins and omega-3s. Healthy fats and proteins are also important to proper cell alignment.
Overall Heart Health
Of course, the overall health of the heart is the deciding factor in heart attack risk. Good diet and nutrition, proper exercise, and a lifestyle free of long-term stress are key to your overall health and well being, including that of your heart.
The United States Department of Agriculture has changed the rules for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) with a new program called the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pilot Project. This new program is for companies working with genetically modified organisms (GMO), genetically engineered (GE), or genetic modification (GM) who must complete an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement on their GMO/GE/GM food when requesting deregulated status.
The trouble is, this new program is set up so that all of the documentation and analysis is done by the organization attempting to get their GMO deregulated. In other words, if a GM giant like Monsanto wants a new strain of GE what to be approved as a deregulated seed so that they can sell it to farmers, all they have to do is prepare their own assessment and analysis of the product’s likely impact, give it to the USDA, and receive approval through APHIS.
Obviously, these companies will be completely honest and forthcoming about the negative effects of their seeds and plants. Right? Ya, sure.
This entire process removes all semblance of objectivity from the support documents and scientific inquiry required for approval. It basically tells the Monsantos of the world: “If you can spin it well enough so it looks legitimate, you’ll get approval.”
Want to try to stop this? The Alliance for Natural Health is asking people to join an email flood to APHIS to force a change to this policy via public opinion. You can send your own email through their system at this link.