Hidden Health Science

Archive for the ‘Alternative Medical’ Category

by Aaron Turpen, BreastCancer.co

A new study from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, published in theJournal of the American College of Surgeons this month, shows that most women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are not well-informed of their treatment options. Many, in fact, are not even meaningfully involved in treatment discussions or asked their preferences regarding the treatment’s approach.

The study is a retrospective conducted amongst women who were treated at one of four academic medical centers in Boston, San Francisco and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The women were surveyed with questions regarding their knowledge of breast cancer treatment options and then asked about their dealings with physicians and surgeons before treatment began.

The women averaged only 52.7% in their test scores on treatment knowledge and understanding and only 48.6% of them said they’d held conferences with surgeons or physicians about their treatment options in light of the options given on the test itself.

The knowledge gaps are considered a big problem, though this is the first time a study has attempted to get an overall picture of breast cancer awareness amongst those diagnosed with it. Most studies to this point have focused on specific treatments or cancer types.

One of the more problematic issues raised was the fact that most women were not informed that survival rates for alternatives to mastectomy, such as breast-conservation therapy, are the same. Further, those with a partial mastectomy were less likely to understand recurrence rates versus those who had a full mastectomy – despite the fact that rates are usually higher in partials.

The study sheds light on the long strides needed to improve education in breast cancer amongst the general populace and especially in women who have been diagnosed or are at risk.

from BreastCancer.co

New research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute this month shows that targeted radiation for breast cancer has been widely overused. The research uses new criteria established in 2009 by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) for the use of brachytherapy (targeted irradiation for breast cancer). It compares that new criteria with patient records from the past several years, showing that 2/3 of those receiving brachytherapy probably should not have.

Using records from 138,815 U.S. women who’d received brachytherapy from 2000 to 2007, the study shows that most of them do not fit into the currently recommended criteria for the therapy. This would likely account for some higher recurrence rates amongst the women.

The study compared women who received targeted radiation and those who received the more common whole breast irradiation (WBI). It found that 29.6% of the women receiving brachytherapy would have been classified as “cautionary” (not likely to benefit) and 36.2% would have been classified as “unsuitable” under current ASTRO criteria.

The study briefly discussed cancer return rates (versus recurrence in WBI), but admits that this data would be too preliminary given the specific scope of the study itself.

Targeted irradiation is more convenient for women, since it requires only about a week of therapy instead of a full month, but is designed for very specific situations that only about 7-10% of breast cancer patients fall into. Its use, the study found, varies greatly by geographic region, by rural versus urban (urban is more likely), and by racial demographic (whites are more likely to receive it), but not necessarily by means or income (Medicare covers it).

Findings from another study published this year show that women who receive brachytherapy at twice as likely to eventually have a mastectomy than those who receive WBI.

by Dr. Mercola

The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions.

While always claiming public safety as its reason for the attacks, the true reasons often involve protecting their monopoly of the healthcare market.

Medicine’s opposition to chiropractic was its strongest under the leadership of Morris Fishbein, Secretary of the American Medical Association from 1924 to 1949, who led a 50-year anti-chiropractic campaign in both professional publications and the public media.

Historical Antitrust Lawsuits Against Medical Societies

In 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. the Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt from antitrust suits.

In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC could enforce antitrust laws against medical societies.

These two suits paved the way for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suit against the American Medical Association (AMA) and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case).

Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and others guilty of an illegal conspiracy against the chiropractic profession in September of 1987, ordering a permanent injunction against the AMA and forcing them to print the court’s findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Even with success of the Wilkes Case and other anti-trust litigation, the AMA continues to this day to wage a campaign against chiropractic.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has maintained a decades-long battle against “alternative” healing traditions, dating back to the 1920s and arguably even earlier. The courts eventually ruled in favor of the chiropractors in 1987, finding the AMA guilty of a conspiracy to take down the chiropractic profession, as the above article recounts in detail.

But was this the end of it? Has the AMA resigned itself to the fact that chiropractic, as well as other forms of natural medicine, are here to stay? Not a chance.

The AMA’s Bedfellows

Even with the success of the Wilkes Case, the AMA has continued to wage war against natural medicine for the past 20 years—but in more covert ways. It’s the “Cold War” phase of this battle, but every bit as fierce. And now the AMA has rallied up a few significant allies, including:

• The American Dental Association (ADA)
• The American Cancer Society (ACS)
• The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and
• The American Psychiatric Association (APA)

… not to mention governmental regulatory agencies; all willing to march toward a common goal—a monopoly on medical care in this country. Together, they form a formidable lobbying force that controls just about every regulatory and legislative body in America. The truth is that chiropractic, naturopathic, and osteopathic medicine have PROVEN to be medically effective and cost effective for the patient, and the AMA can’t stomach this, viewing natural medicine as a huge threat to their bottom line.

Federal Courts Rule AMA “Guilty as Charged”

In 1987, the federal courts found the AMA and several other medical groups guilty of seeking to create a healthcare monopoly. Specifically, they were found guilty of the following actions (published in the January 1988 issue of JAMA):

1. Systematic defamation of naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians
2. Publishing and distribution of propaganda specifically intended to ruin other healthcare professionals’ reputations
3. Forcing MDs to refuse collaboration with naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians in the co-management of patients
4. Denying hospital access to naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians

The attack on osteopathic medicine has largely faded away since then, but chiropractic and naturopathic practitioners, as well as other legitimate natural medicine practitioners, continue to be the targets of suppression and misrepresentation. The war isn’t over, but the rules of engagement have changed.

AMA Declares New War on Natural Medicine in 2006

In 2006, the AMA declared war on natural medicine by publicly stating on its website its intention to forcibly oppose licensure and practice of naturopathic physicians. Although they quickly removed this from their site, the following is a direct quote from that post, according to Naturopathy Digest:

“RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association work through its Board of Trustees to outline a policy opposing the licensure of naturopaths to practice medicine and report this policy to the House of Delegates no later than the 2006 Interim Meeting. (Directive to Take Action) Fiscal Note: Implement accordingly at estimated staff cost of $10,836.”

Translation: Eliminate the competition.

According to The Integrator Blog, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) joined the battle with a statement that their goal was to “thwart the growing threat of expansion of scope of practice for allied health professionals” and included psychologists on the list of medical practitioners who needed to be “thwarted” (in addition to naturopaths, chiropractors, and midwives). The APA pledged their allegiance to the AMA in assisting them with “coordinating research to help medical specialty societies and state medical associations fight expansions in non-medical scope of practice, and improve information sharing among those groups.”

Other medical associations have made similar pledges, such as the Minnesota Medical Association and the New York Academy of Family Physicians. They maintain that their position is based on concern for quality of care and patient safety, but the REAL agenda is just an attempt to destroy the competition.

As Chiropractor Louis Sportelli writes in his 2010 article in Dynamic Chiropractic:

“Just look around and you will see clear and compelling evidence that the long-standing war between the AMA and everyone else who does not come under the AMA umbrella is far from over. The names have changed, the venue has changed, but the intent has remained the same: to maintain monopolistic control over the delivery of health care.”

Old Mission, New Tactics: AMA Learns How to Discriminate with Impunity

In 2010, the AMA House of Delegates introduced a resolution regarding scope of practice that contains limitations on who can be considered a legitimate physician, and who can medically diagnose. Specifically, the AMA’s “Definition of a Physician” (H-405.969) contains the following language:

“The AMA affirms that a physician is an individual who has received a ‘Doctor of Medicine’ or a ‘Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine’ degree.”

This is proof, without a doubt, that the AMA as well as individual state medical associations intend to continue doing everything they can to prevent you from accessing natural healthcare. Texas and Connecticut medical associations were the first to join the cause, and others will likely follow. Similarly, the AMA’s “Comprehensive Physical Examination by Appropriate Practitioners” reads as follows:

“…the performance of comprehensive physical examinations to diagnose medical conditions [should be limited] to licensed MDs/DOs or those practitioners who are directly supervised by licensed MDs/DOs.”

State Medical Associations Jumping on Board

In 2010, the Texas Medical Board of Examiners filed an action against the Texas Chiropractic Board of Examiners challenging the authority of DCs (Doctors of Chiropractic) to perform some of their medical procedures, and challenging their authority to diagnose. How can medical associations get away with such shenanigans now, when they were given such a clear message to back off in the injunction of 1987? After all, these are very similar tactics to what they were found guilty of back in 1987.

Well, according to Sportinelli, the AMA has learned some lessons about how to beat the law—loopholes that allow them to go on the attack while sidestepping “restraint of trade” or “illegal boycott” violations:

“It [AMA] now understands that government action is protected under the Constitution, as is action in petitioning the government. It can lawfully petition local, state and federal legislators and attempt to influence any legislation without fear of committing actionable restraint of trade or illegal boycott. (However, the AMA does seem to be getting dangerously close with its resolution regarding the “definition of a physician,” in that it appears to involve hospital action without the intervention of government.)”

And what does one need in order to effectively influence the government? Money. This is something the AMA has—and piles of it.Sportinelli goes on to say that the medical industry is likely gearing up for a 50-state effort to put non-MD/DO physicians out of business. And this means fewer choices about your own medical care.

Profit Motives Cleverly Disguised as Concern for Your Health and Safety

According to Naturopathy Digest, the AMA and other medical groups justify their opposition to natural medicine on the basis of three areas of concern:

1. Quality of patient care
2. Patient safety
3. Quality of education of medical practitioners

As the article so eloquently points out, none of these arguments holds up, and most are based on medical and pharmaceutical industry propaganda. If they were TRULY concerned about patient care and safety, they would not be targeting natural medicine, which has an incredibly low incidence of adverse consequences, but instead going after their own allopathic medical practices that are leaving a trail of death and destruction.

Drug “side effects”, prescription errors, unnecessary surgeries, nosocomial infections, and hospital “errors” are a leading cause of death in the United States. In fact, one estimate is that allopathic medicine kills 493 American patients daily. The number of people who die each week as a result of medical treatments surpasses the number of deaths caused by the September 11^th terrorist attacks.

Yes, each and every week!

Many of the drugs advertised in JAMA (the AMA’s scientific journal) are the very same drugs that are killing tens of thousands of Americans each year. This massive funding of the AMA by drug companies is a blatant conflict of interest. If the AMA really cared about your safety, they’d be putting their substantial assets into overhauling the American healthcare system. The AMA is fond of lambasting the education and training of chiropractors, when in actuality, they should be more concerned about the educational qualifications of their own physicians. In their own publications, they have stated:

“Medical education is failing to prepare students adequately for their future practice… medical education is currently being held together with peanut butter and bubble gum.”

At least four consecutive studies have documented that most MDs are incompetent when it comes to diagnosing and treating musculoskeletal problems, something at which chiropractors excel. Another example of an abysmal lack of education of Western physicians is in the area of diet and nutrition. The AMA itself has published research showing that dietary interventions should be used before drugs in the treatment of heart disease. Yet, medical students receive virtually NO training in nutrition. Naturopathic and chiropractic physicians, on the other hand, are usually well versed in the importance of nutrition and exercise.

It’s Not Just the AMA

Perhaps it’s time to take a real look at medical associations, and the concern that they may be doing more harm than good. For groups who claim to exist in order to protect your health, they inevitably end up sabotaging it. It isn’t just the AMA. Other medical associations that claim to exist for the betterment of public health include the following:

• American Dental Association (ADA): Continues to support the use of mercury fillings and demonizes biological dentists who oppose the use of mercury in dentistry; continues to support fluoridation, in spite of the evidence it does more harm than good.
• American Cancer Society (ACS): This charity has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry; has rampant conflicts of interest; consistently promotes drugs and screening procedures while ignoring environmental causes of cancer.
• National Cancer Institute (NCI): Has spent billions of taxpayer dollars promoting treatments while ignoring strategies for preventing cancer; abundant ties to the cancer drug industry (for more information, read Samuel Epstein’s new book, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest)
• American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): Claiming to be protecting your children, the AAP is largely funded by vaccine manufacturers but refuses to disclose just how much money it gets from them; partners with Congress to protect pediatricians and drug companies from liability for vaccine injuries, while preventing you from getting truthful vaccine information.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

When someone’s words differ from their actions, chances are that their actions more accurately reflect their values—and this is true for organizations, as well as individuals. Although medical associations claim to have your best interests at heart, their actions tell a different story. It’s time to begin holding them accountable for their behavior and stop letting them hide behind the same old tired rhetoric.

You have a right to make your own choices about your healthcare, be it allopathic or naturopathic—whether you see an MD, an ND, or a DC should be YOUR decision and yours alone.

References:

• JAMA January 1988
• Naturopathy Digest August 2006
• The Integrator Blog May 2006
• Dynamic Chiropractic July 2010
• Clin Orthop Relat Res. August 2005

A new study published in the Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development looked at non-cancer chronic pain and complementary and alternative medicine use in military veterans.  It found that of the 401 veterans suffering chronic pain interviewed, 82% had tried a complementary or alternative medicine (CAM) for their pain. Nearly all (99%) were willing to try it.

Massage therapy was the most preferred method and those who used CAM therapies were less likely (68% vs 54%) to have service-connected disabilities, despite lifelong pain.

The study discusses the implications these findings have for Veterans Administration policy.

Although direct comparisons are difficult because of differing methodologies and definitions of CAM, a larger percentage of the veterans in this study reported previous CAM use and greater treatment willingness than in the few prior veteran studies [23,25]. Several reasons may explain these differences. As CAM is more accepted and used in the general public, an increase in CAM use among veterans over time may be expected.

Image by jainaj via Flickr

Americans are using more alternative and preventive medicine as costs for traditional healthcare swells. 38 percent of American adults use alternative and complementary medicine, according to the National Institutes of Health. An increasing reliance on alternative and preventative medicine is not surprising when healthcare costs rise 8 percent each year, nearly three times the rate of inflation.

What may surprise some, though, is how effective alternative and preventative medicine can be. Elderberry, used medicinally in Europe for hundreds of years, received some long-overdue respect when researchers in Norway confirmed that it effectively relieves flu symptoms.¹ Even ardent fans of Dr. Oz may have a hard time pronouncing this funny-sounding herb after he featured it on one of his episodes, but Umckaloabo is gaining recognition as an immunity booster since The Journal of Family Practice cited four encouraging studies before saying that Umckaloabo “represents a promising treatment” for viral upper respiratory infections.² And while licorice may go down better than a spoonful of sugar, several studies show that it may be a promising treatment for ulcers as well.

While alternative treatments and herbs have shown promise when used in conjunction with traditional medicine for existing illnesses, the real promise in curtailing healthcare costs lies in prevention. According to the Prevention Institute, even a 5 percent reduction in preventable illnesses and injuries could mean substantial healthcare savings.

While genetics and lifestyle have long been the primary focus of preventative measures, recent science points to the immune system as a powerful predictor of illness. According to the Integrative Medicine Department at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, the immune system is the deciding factor between who gets sick and who doesn’t.

from BreastCancer.co

In a retrospective study, Barbara Brouwers, PhD of the University of Leuven in Belgium found that women who have higher levels of vitamin D when diagnosed with breast cancer appear to have smaller tumors on average.

“Lower vitamin D levels were correlated with much bigger tumors,” says Dr. Brouwers. “We also saw that higher vitamin D levels were associated with better outcomes, but it wasn’t significant.”

Studies have shown that vitamin D status is important in many chronic disease and illness of various types. Low vitamin D levels have been associated with higher breast and other cancer risks and in some studies higher levels have been shown to correlate with better outcomes for some cancers.

Brouwers and her colleagues look at data from 1,800 breast cancer patients treated at the University of Leuven from 2003 to 2010 which included data on serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D₃ collected at diagnosis. Following those patients for four years showed that lower vitamin D levels were significantly associated with larger tumor sizes (every 0.4ng/mL decrease in level linked to 1cm in tumor increase).

Accompanying this, to no surprise, was a 27% lower risk of death per 10ng/mL increase in vitamin D levels at diagnosis. Close the same could be said for risk of relapse as well.

Research published in the October 26, 2011 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) conclusively proved that “annual screening with chest radiographs over a 4-year period did not significantly reduce lung cancer mortality.” The trial included more than 150,000 participants who underwent an annual chest radiograph for 4 years. These findings are changing the way medical professionals approach the diagnosis of lung cancer.

EarlyCDT-Lung is a commercially available blood test used to measure specific autoantibodes, or immunobiomarkers, which are elevated in patients with lung cancer. Because these autoantibodies are present at the earliest stages of the disease, EarlyCDT-Lung can be used to determine a patient’s lung cancer risk before a tumor is detected. This critical information can then aid in the early diagnosis of the disease, potentially before a patient exhibits specific symptoms of lung cancer.

CT scans are another screening method for those at risk for lung cancer. As reported in the landmark National Lung Cancer Screening Trials study (NLST) published in the NEJM in July 2011, early detection enabled by low-dose CT scans resulted in a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in a high risk patient population. Though this news is very positive in regard to early lung cancer detection, there are several issues associated with utilizing CT scans for lung cancer screening. These issues include: a high false-positive rate, a significant out-of-pocket cost for patients and radiation exposure.

This newly published study by King’s College London establishes a more conclusive role for Essential Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Depression and Anxiety Disorders, from young to old.

The study by the King’s College London states Plasma linoleic acid (Omega-6) levels were found to have a negative linear relationship with depressive symptoms. (Negative association denotes factors that lead to various forms of mental disorder.)

The study, which included 130 participants, aged 60 to 86 years of age, from outpatient psychiatric services of four hospitals, concluded that the higher levels of Omega-6 are associated with higher residual Depression and Anxiety.

The results of another recent study by National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) suggested that a daily diet of Omega-3 fatty acids should be incorporated for the young and healthy individuals, since it has reduced their symptoms of anxiety.

According to the NCCAM study, a 12 week, double-blind study that included 68 healthy young medical students (38 men, 30 women), not only suggested that omega-3 fatty acids reduced the symptoms of Anxiety, and consistent with the previous studies of NCCAM, Omega-3 diet was suggested for reducing depressive symptoms in “clinically” depressed young subjects.

Moreover, another recent study by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of National Institutes of Health and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHA) recommended that 2 grams of omega-3 fatty acids per day to reduce depression and anxiety scores among active service members with recurrent self-harm tendency.

Omega-3 and Omega-6 are classified as Essential Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids, both of which are only obtained through diet and they form an important part of all cellular membranes. Human body is incapable of producing either Omega-3 or Omega-6 and thus depends on the diet for their supply.

Omega-6 is found in most food but Omega-3 can only be attained from leafy green vegetables and cold-water fishes. Due to its scarcity in the diet, the deficiency of Omega-3 is substituted with readily available Omega-6, which explains the association between the higher residual depression / anxiety and the higher levels of Omega-6, as suggested by the King’s College study.

The higher levels of Omega-6 can only be reduced through higher dietary intake of Omega-3.

Higher intake of Omega-3, not only would reduce the high levels of Omega-6, determined to be the key focus of elderly depression and anxiety in the King’s College London study, but consistent with the various recent studies of NIH, higher intake of Omega-3 reduces the anxiety symptoms for the younger population.

by Dr. Mercola

Marijuana was a popular botanical medicine in the 19th and 20th centuries, common in U.S. pharmacies of the time.

Yet, in 1970, the herb was declared a Schedule 1 controlled substance and labeled as a drug with a “high potential for abuse” and “no accepted medical use.”

Three years later the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was formed to enforce the newly created drug schedules, and the fight against marijuana use began.

The Huffington Post has a concise history of marijuana prohibition, and the struggle for legalization, that is well worth reading — but the most successful movement to date, and the one that is set to produce the first legal marijuana market in decades, is the medical marijuana movement.

Unfortunately, the feds have recently announced a blatant reversal on their previous pro-medical marijuana stance — a move that is threatening to stop the industry cold.

Why are the Feds So Concerned About Medical Marijuana?

Fifteen states plus the District of Columbia have laws allowing medical marijuana.

In other words, in those states it is considered legal to consume, possess or distribute marijuana for medical use.

Up until 2009, the U.S. Justice Department essentially told federal prosecutors to lay off Americans producing and using medical marijuana in accordance with state laws.

But despite marijuana’s legal status at the state level, historically it was common for the DEA to raid medical marijuana suppliers and even arrest patients.

This is because federal law overrides state law, defining the possession or distribution of marijuana as a criminal offense.

According to The State of the Medical Marijuana Markets 2011, the national market for medical marijuana is now worth $1.7 billion — and could grow to close to $9 billion in the next five years — if not for a stunning reversal by the Obama administration. In October 2011, the Obama administration released a letter to clarify their earlier position, which, as Seattle Weekly reports, indicates, “The only people safe from arrest were the “seriously ill” patients and their caregivers… Everyone else? Be forewarned.”

The Obama administration has long been supportive of the medical marijuana movement, evenstating during the presidential campaign that, “The basic concept of using medical marijuana… [is] entirely appropriate.” However the Feds now appear to be launching a full-fledged attack against this legitimate industry, not only by threatening prosecution and arrest, but also by intimidating and coercing banks, land and store owners, as well as other business entities, that help keep the medical marijuana industry alive.

Feds Attempt to Force Medical Marijuana Industry Out of Business

In recent months there have been several blows to the various industries who support the medical marijuana market. Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, reported in U.S. News & World Report Opinion, these disturbing changes:

• “The Department of Justice sent letters this past spring to state lawmakers that were debating legislation to allow for the licensed distribution of medical cannabis, threatening prosecution of those involved with said efforts if the measures went forward;
• The IRS has assessed crippling penalties on taxpaying medical cannabis facilities in California by denying these operations the right to file standard expense deductions;
• The Department of Treasury has strong-armed local banks and other financial institutions into closing their accounts with medicinal cannabis operators;
• The Drug Enforcement Administration has rejected a nine-year-old administrative petition that called for hearings regarding the federal rescheduling of cannabis for medical use, ignoring extensive scientific evidence of its medical efficacy;
• The National Institute on Drug Abuse rejected an FDA-approved protocol to allow for clinical research assessing the use of cannabis to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, stating, “We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”
• Most recently, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, along with the four U.S. attorneys from California, announced plans for a coordinated effort against operations in California that provide above-ground access to cannabis for those patients qualified to use the substance in accordance with state law.”

The war on marijuana is indeed a strange one, considering the legality of cigarettes and alcohol — products that have vastly greater potential to harm public health, without any of the medicinal benefits. Not to mention that the FDA approves drugs, prescribed by doctors every day, that kill over 100,000 Americans a year.

Moreover, by shutting down reputable marijuana dispensaries, it will only force those who legitimately depend upon it to alleviate their suffering to enter the (sometimes dangerous) black market.

As Seattle Weekly wrote:

“Landlords, worried the feds will steal their property, will tell dispensaries to move out. Banks won’t handle money for pot-themed businesses. Dispensaries will be taxed so heavily they won’t be able to cover the payroll or pay the electric bill.

… An estimated one million people in California have obtained a doctor’s recommendation to grow and use marijuana legally. Patient estimates in Washington are hazier, but the number is thought to be around 100,000.

If the feds shut down every dispensary in the country, all these people will still be able to legally possess marijuana—no matter where they bought it—under their state laws. The only difference is they’ll be forced to go back to buying their weed from Mexican drug cartels, rather than from Americans who provide jobs and pay taxes.”

What are the Medical Uses for Marijuana?

In order to really comprehend the movement behind medical marijuana, you must first understand that this herb truly does show outstanding promise as a medicinal plant. The studies conducted so far show significant potential for the use of cannabis in the prevention and treatment of a wide range of health conditions, including cancer.

For instance, in 2009 a study in the journal Cancer Prevention Research found that marijuana smokers have a lower risk of head and neck cancers than non-marijuana smokers.

Harvard researchers also found that THC in marijuana cuts tumor growth in lung cancer while significantly reducing its ability to spread. There is also a wealth of research linking marijuana with pain relief and improved sleep. In one recent study, just three puffs of marijuana a day for five days helped those with chronic nerve pain to relieve pain and sleep better.

Americans for Safe Access also has links to research studies suggesting that cannabis may help in the treatment or prevention of Alzheimer’s disease and cancer, while the International Association for Cannabis as Medicine highlights the following medical uses:

Lastly, the research site GreenMedInfo.com lists over 126 potential therapeutic applications for marijuana in disease prevention and treatment, further illustrating just how voluminous the scientific evidence really is in support of the medical marijuana movement.

Your Body is Hard-Wired to Respond to Cannabinoids in the Marijuana Plant

There are more than 60 chemical compounds known as cannabinoids in the marijuana plant. Cannabinoids interact with your body by way of naturally occurring cannabinoid receptors embedded in cell membranes throughout your body. There are cannabinoid receptors in your brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, immune system and more; both the therapeutic and psychoactive properties of marijuana occur when a cannabinoid (such as the THC produced by the cannabis plant) activates a cannabinoid receptor.

Your body also has naturally occurring endocannabinoids that stimulate your cannabinoid receptors and produce a variety of important physiologic processes, far beyond that of the traditional “highs” associated with THC.

What is amazing is that your body is actually hard-wired to respond to cannabinoids through this unique cannabinoid receptor system; research is still ongoing on just how extensive their impact is on our health, but to date it’s known that cannabinoid receptors play an important role in many body processes, including metabolic regulation, cravings, pain, anxiety, bone growth, and immune function.

A report by Dr. Manuel Guzman in the journal of Nature Reviews suggests that these active components of cannabis and their derivatives are potential anti-cancer agents:

” … these compounds [cannabinoids] have been shown to inhibit the growth of tumour cells in culture and animal models by modulating key cell-signaling pathways. Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.”

A report by the American College of Physicians (ACP) further notes that:

“Marijuana has been smoked for its medicinal properties for centuries. It was in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia until 1942 when it was removed because federal legislation made the drug illegal … Still, the overwhelming number of anecdotal reports on the therapeutic properties of marijuana sparks interest from scientists, health care providers, and patients.

Over the past 20 years, researchers have discovered cannabinoid receptors: CB1, which mediates the central nervous system (CNS), and CB2, which occurs outside the CNS and is believed to have anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive activity.

These scientific developments have revealed much information supporting expansion of research into the potential therapeutic properties of marijuana and its cannabinoids.”

Why Isn’t Marijuana Being Studied?

This is the burning question, as even a quick review of the data suggests that cannabis deserves more than a passing glance as a potential treatment for various diseases. But in the United States – primarily for political reasons — these studies are not being performed.

According to a report by Americans for Safe Access:

“In the past three decades, there has been an explosion of international studies designed to investigate the therapeutic value of cannabis (marijuana).

However, drastic restrictions on research in the U.S. have meant that few clinical trials are being conducted domestically and none are being conducted as part of a sponsor-funded drug development plan aimed at obtaining Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the prescription use of the botanical plant itself.

Meanwhile, research teams in Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Israel, and elsewhere have confirmed – through case studies, basic research, pre-clinical, and preliminary clinical investigations – the medical value of cannabis … “

Of course, in the United States marijuana is so heavily controlled that even if you wanted to conduct a clinical trial, you would have a hard time getting a supply for research purposes. As the Safe Access report states:

” … the federal monopoly on the supply of cannabis has fundamentally limited FDA-approved clinical research to investigate its safety and efficacy in controlling symptoms of serious and chronic illnesses.

In the United States, research is stalled, and in some cases blocked, by a complicated federal approval process, restricted access to research-grade cannabis, and the refusal of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to license private production of cannabis for use exclusively in federally approved research.”

The DEA appears to be behind many puzzling restrictions concerning the marijuana plant, including the fact that it is even illegal to grow hemp in the United States.

Contrary to popular opinion, hemp and marijuana are not the same. Both are members of the Cannabis sativa plant species, but they are two distinct varieties, with hemp generally being too low in THC (the compound responsible for the plant’s notorious psychoactive effect) to create a “high.” In fact, the THC is intentionally bred out of the plant in order to maximize its fiber, seeds and oil — the constituents for which it is most commonly used.

Ironically, despite these differences, the DEA classifies all Cannabis sativa varieties as “marijuana.” This is why the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world where growing industrial hemp is next to impossible. To do so requires a permit from the DEA — and it is reportedly almost impossible to get one.

Could it be that the DEA has its own agenda for keeping marijuana a controlled substance?

Seattle Weekly speculates:

“Ignorance, false propaganda, and rank political posturing tend to be the foundation of the anti-marijuana argument. (Throw in bureaucratic turf protection as well. The DEA, for example, would need fewer agents if pot was decriminalized nationwide.)”

Many Americans Have an Open Mind About Legalizing Marijuana

A new Gallup poll found that a record high number of Americans — 50 percent — favor legalizing marijuana use, which suggests that public pressure will continue to build for a (pun-intended) grassroots legislative overhaul of U.S marijuana laws…

Of course, there are certainly some downsides to marijuana use that need to be addressed, particularly if you are thinking of smoking it for recreational purposes.

Marijuana use can be addictive, and no doubt resources have been squandered, families have been broken up and jobs lost over its use. In the short-term, marijuana use can cause trouble with your ability to think clearly and may impair memory. Marijuana also leads to motor skill impairment and may adversely affect alertness, coordination and reaction time, which is why it should never be used prior to driving.

There is also some evidence that marijuana use can exacerbate psychotic symptoms in those with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, as well as serve as a “gateway” drug that eventually leads to the use of “harder” drugs like cocaine and heroine, although this is still a matter of debate.

Marijuana use among children and teens can also have dire consequences, as drug use of any kind may encourage risky choices and irresponsible behaviors.

Furthermore, while the vast majority of marijuana use is through the act of smoking it, it is worth noting that anytime you heat materials and inhale them you run the risk of introducing toxic elements into your system. Because of this it is always best to use an organic version; any pesticides that are on the material that is burned and inhaled will dramatically increase its toxicity.

It is possible to avoid these risks entirely by either using cannabis in hemp oil form or, as many medical marijuana patients advocate, by using a vaporizer. The device allows for the ingestion of marijuana without any combustion byproducts, eliminating rightful concerns about the cumulative harms associated with smoking it. It is also possible to minimize harm by eating marijuana (along with some fat, as THC is fat-soluble and will not dissolve in water).

It is important to note that in the United States today using marijuana for any reason is still considered an illegal activity that can result in serious legal consequences, including imprisonment.

Sadly, it is not the scientific evidence — but rather politics and an increasingly insatiable privatized industrial-prison complex in need of more drug-convicted “criminals” — which maintains the stranglehold on our freedom to choose wild growing plants as our medicine rather than soley FDA-approved drugs.

I think Willie Nelson said it well in the following quote:

I think people need to be educated to the fact that marijuana is not a drug. Marijuana is an herb and a flower. God put it here. If He put it here and He wants it to grow, what gives the government the right to say that God is wrong?

by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral

A new study in the United Kingdom found that those tested with high IQs in early childhood were likely to become cannabis or cocaine users in adulthood. Men who scored high (ha!) on the test were 50% more likely to have experimented with illicit drugs in general while women were 50% more likely to have tried marijuana or cocaine.

The study, published in The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, found that by the age of 30, women who tested into a high IQ had a 15.9% likelihood of trying cannabis (over the population baseline) and men were 35.4% more likely to have toked. Cocaine numbers were similarly split with 3.6% of women and 8.6% of men trying it by age 30.

The research looked at 8,000 Britons (7,904 tested at 5 years, 7,946 at 10) who’d scored high on IQ tests given at age 5 and 10 (standard in UK schools).

The study coincides with similar research showing that these same adults are also more likely to have heavier alcohol use in adult life than the rest of the population.

[source Science Daily]