CANNABIS
CURES CANCER
The
Medicinal Values of Cannabis
The Medical Revolution
Stes de Necker
CONTENTS
1. Cannabis
Oil is a Highly Efficient Natural Cancer Cure
2. CANNABIS
CURES CANCER - Grandfather Cured His Cancer with Homemade Cannabis Oil
3. CANNABIS
CURES CANCER - WHY CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT RESEARCH PARADIGM WHEN THERE IS
ALREADY A CURE
4. Cannabis
Annihilates Cancer - Over 100 Scientific Studies Agree
5. CANNABIS
CURES CANCER - Producing The Highest Quality Cannabis Oil
6. CANCER
- THE BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY - THERE IS A CURE FOR CANCER AND ITS CALLED
CANNABIS, BUT ....
7. Rick
Simpson’s Recipe for the Extraction and Use of Cannabis Oil
8. CANNABIS
CURES CANCER - LIST OF REFERENCES PUBLISHED ON FACEBOOK ABOUT THE HEALING
EFFECTS OF CANNABIS OIL
9. WORLDWIDE
IGNORANCE ABOUT THE USE OF MEDICINAL CANNABIS OIL
10. THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION AND CANNABIS - WHY IS THE MEDICAL PROFESSION RELUCTANT TO
SUPPORT THE USE OF CANNABIS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
12. CANCER
FREQUENCY BY COUNTRY
13. Cannabis
- The future of medicine
14. CANCER
- Eleven Facts on Cancer and Cancer Treatment you probably never heard of
15. CANNABIS
CURES CANCER AND THE US GOVERNMENT KNEW IT ALL ALONG - NIXON BAN RESEARCH
REPORT
16. WHY
IS CANNABIS ILLEGAL IN THE US
17. HEMP
==============================================================
1. Cannabis Oil is a Highly Efficient
Natural Cancer Cure
Stes de Necker
Ever since the mid 70s, medical scientists
have been well aware of the beneficial effects of cannabinoid compounds over
cancerous cells. Thanks to modern science, over a dozen studies conducted
during recent years have been able to partially reveal just how it works. Yet
cannabis is still not endorsed by pharmaceutical companies as a cancer cure,
and since it is not promoted through mainstream channels, very few people are
aware of its benefits. Consequently, it is not sought after as an alternative
to disfiguring chemotherapy and other harmful drugs.
Laboratory tests conducted in 2008 by a
team of scientists formed as a joint research effort between Spain, France and
Italy, and published in The Journal Of Clinical Investigation, showed that
the active ingredient in marijuana, known as tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, can
function as a cure for brain cancer by inducing human glioma cell death through
stimulation of autophagy.
The study concluded that via the same
biochemical process THC could terminate multiple types of cancers, affecting
various cells in the body. Other studies have shown that cannabinoids may work
by various mechanisms, including inhibiting cell growth, inducing cell death,
and inhibiting tumor metastasis.
What is amazing is that while cannabinoids
effectively target and kill cancerous cells, they do not affect healthy, normal
cells and may actually protect them against cellular death. Moreover,
cannabinoids are also researched for their pain-modulation and
anti-inflammatory abilities as they bind to special receptors in the brain,
much like opioid derivatives that are commonly prescribed today.
Further evidence to support the effects of
cannabis extract on malignant cells comes from the real life experience of
individuals who have successfully overcome cancer by using cannabis oil.
Examples include a patient, who managed to completely cure his skin
cancer by simply applying cannabis oil onto the affected areas of the skin, as
well as another, who recovered from a severe head injury with the aid of hemp
oil.
One of the cannabinoids that has displayed
amazing medical properties is cannabidiol, or CBD – a non-psychoactive compound
that is regarded by some as the medical discovery of the 21st century, and with
good reason. Research indicates that CBD can relieve convulsions, reduce
inflammation, lower anxiety and suppress nausea, while also inhibiting cancer
development. In addition, CBD has exhibited neuroprotective properties,
relieving symptoms of dystonia and proving just as effective as regular
antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia.
What stands out is that from the vast
amount of research and data available, as well as the personal experiences of
cancer survivors, is that no chemotherapy currently being used medically can
match the non-toxic anti-carcinogenic and anti-tumorigenic effects of these
natural plant compounds.
2. CANNABIS CURES CANCER - Grandfather
Cured His Cancer with Homemade Cannabis Oil
Stes de Necker
Mike Cutler claims the cancerous cells in his liver disappeared after he began
taking home-made cannabis oil.
Mike Cutler, 63, was diagnosed in 2009 and was given a transplant in November
the same year. He was given the all-clear but says the disease came back in
late 2012 attacking the new organ he had been given.
Out of desperation to survive he began researching online for alternative
cures, this is where he found a YouTube video which described the use of
cannabis oil as a cure. Cutler has said that just three days after taking the
class B drug, his excruciating pain disappeared.
In May this year, the grandfather-of-nine went for a biopsy at the Royal Free
Hospital in London.
Doctors confirmed that the new cancerous cells in his liver had vanished. A
spokeswoman for the Royal Free Hospital confirmed Mr Cutler had not received
any cancer treatment since his transplant in November 2009.
Cutler is a retired builder from Hastings, East Sussex, England. He said,
“finding out I could die was terrible. All I had in those dark days was my
laptop, and that’s when I began searching for something else that could help me
– I couldn’t accept I was going to die.”
He purchased the drug through a dealer and went on to cultivate his own tablets
from the oil, he would take 1 capsule a day. He said that his symptoms
disappeared after 3 days.
When Cutler found out his was cured he said that he “was just completely
shocked.” He has since began growing his own cannabis plant to keep up a ready
supply of the medication.
Cutler spoke at an event last week about the medical use of cannabis – together
with Professor David Nutt and MP Caroline Lucas in Brighton, England. He is now
campaigning for changes in the law to allow the oil and other forms of cannabis
to be legally used medicinally to treat other people.
Each day there is a new story confirming the magical medicinal powers of
cannabis oil (i), it is time for scientists to realize the full healing
potential of cannabis as a medical drug.
Dr Kat Arney, Cancer Research UK’s science communications manager,
said: “This could potentially lead to more effective treatments for cancer in
the future, but there’s still no good data from clinical trials to show that
cannabis or cannabinoids can safely and effectively treat cancer in patients at
the moment.” Because of these findings a number of charities have intensified
their research into the use of cannabis as a medical drug.
We need to make this viral, let the world see what an amazing natural cure cannabis
oil actually is.
3. CANNABIS CURES CANCER - WHY
CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT RESEARCH PARADIGM WHEN THERE IS ALREADY A CURE
Stes de Necker
Everyone knows there's no money to be made
in a cure !!
The US Government has known since 1974 that
Cannabis cures Cancer.
In '72 Richard Nixon wanted a larger budget
for his war on drugs. He thought that if he proved Cannabis caused lung cancer
like cigarettes do, he would get the support he needed. He gave the Medical
College of Virginia 2 years to do a study on the effects of THC on the body.
In '74 the study was completed. It turns
out, THC when ingested in highly concentrated forms (such as eating Cannabis
oil) will attack any mutated cells in your body while strengthening and
rejuvenating the healthy cells. They found the PERFECT cure for Cancer. It
worked fast, it worked well, it worked on many different forms of Cancer in ALL
stages and it had ZERO harmful side effects. Unlike Chemo which deteriorates
your entire body and kills 1 in 5 patients. Not only that, but it dissolves all
forms of tumors and can even combat super-bugs like MRSA.)
When Richard Nixon saw the results of the
study he was furious. He threw the entire report in the trash and deemed the
study classified.
In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to
all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major
pharmaceutical companies, who set out — unsuccessfully — to develop synthetic
forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the “high.”
We only found out about the study a few
years ago thanks to dedicated medical and law professionals who filed Freedom
of Information Requests.
The Govt lied for many reasons. One of the
main reasons is Pharmaceutical Companies. They spend billions every year
lobbying to keep Cannabis illegal because they make trillions off Cancer drugs
and research.
They are already well aware that Cannabis
cures Cancer. They have a great con going at the moment.
Cancer patients and their loved ones will
spend their entire life savings or even sell their houses and businesses in
order to pay for Chemotherapy and other Cancer treatment drugs. A lot of the
time they spend all that money and their loved one dies anyway.
If the public found out that the Government
has been lying for over 40 years, that millions of lives could have been saved
and that the dying could grow the cure they need in their backyard... The
Public would be going ‘APE-SHIT’.
Please keep an open mind about this. I
realize it's hard to believe but I promise you, it's true. If you want to know
more, you should Google 'Cannabis Cures Cancer'. You will see that there are
thousands of published scientific studies, articles, books and documentaries on
the subject.
I received the following comment from
someone I contacted some time ago:
“I feel the need to be EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR
here because many people have attacked me for sharing this information. SMOKING
CANNABIS DOES NOT CURE CANCER. EATING CANNABIS OIL DOES.
There have been A LOT of skeptics about
this. I highly suggest you actually RESEARCH THIS SUBJECT rather than demonize
the people that have already actually researched it.
Cannabis DOES CURE CANCER... This is not a
rumor, this is not some internet hoax. THIS IS A FACT.
Every single person I know that's tried
this cure, has successfully cured their cancer. Do you get what I'm saying?
I KNOW PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY
IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS CURE.”
The following few references are really
worth reading:
4. Cannabis Annihilates Cancer - Over
100 Scientific Studies Agree
Stes de Necker
Written by Carolanne Wright
The article is about cannabidoil –
OIL. Nothing to do with the smoking variety
Considering that up until about 85 years
ago, cannabis oil was used around the world to treat a variety of diseases,
including cancer, it is not surprising that the phasing out of cannabis to
treat illness coincided with the rise of pharmaceutical companies.
Rick Simpson, a medical marijuana activist,
is on a crusade to help others heal. He regards cannabis as the most
medicinally active plant on the face of the earth, and shared this
apparent miracle with others — completely free of charge. He now has
thousands of testimonials from those who were healed from ‘incurable’ disease
to back up his claims ~ that cannabis annihilates cancer.
For the naysayers out there who are still
not convinced about the effectiveness of cannabis for curing cancer, the
astounding healing attributes of the plant are well documented by a wealth of
peer-reviewed studies.
Breast
cancer
A study in Molecular Cancer
Therapeutics explored the relationship between the use of cannabidiol
(CBD) and the subsequent down regulation of breast cancer tumor aggressiveness.
The researchers concluded that CBD represents the first nontoxic agent to
decrease the aggressiveness of metastic breast cancer cells in vivo.
Several additional studies support these
findings, including “Pathways mediating the effects of cannabidiol on the
reduction of breast cancer cell proliferation, invasion and metastasis” and
“Cannabinoids: a new hope for breast cancer therapy?”
Furthermore, the journal PLoS
One reports further evidence of how cannabinoids modulate breast cancer
tumor growth and metastasis by inhibiting specific receptors.
Colon
cancer
As published in Pharmacological
Research:
“Studies on epithelial cells have shown
that cannabinoids exert antiproliferative, antimetastatic and apoptotic effects
as well as reducing cytokine release and promoting wound healing. In vivo,
cannabinoids – via direct or indirect activation of CB(1) and/or CB(2)
receptors – exert protective effects in well-established models of intestinal
inflammation and colon cancer.”
The team concluded that the administration
of cannabinoids “may be a promising strategy to counteract intestinal
inflammation and colon cancer.”
Moreover, research in the Scandinavian
Journal of Gastroenterology established that colon cancer cell lines were
strongly affected by cannabinoids.
Leukemia
Cannabis was shown to induce cytotoxicity
in leukemia cell lines, according the the journalBlood:
“We have shown that THC is a potent inducer
of apoptosis, even at 1 x IC(50) (inhibitory concentration 50%) concentrations
and as early as 6 hours after exposure to the drug. These effects were seen in
leukemic cell lines (CEM, HEL-92, and HL60) as well as in peripheral blood
mononuclear cells.”
It also did not appear that the cannabis
was simply aiding other chemo drugs — it was independently bringing
about results with the active compound THC responsible for cancer cell
death in vitro.
Likewise, a study in the Molecular
Pharmacology Journal found that non psychoactive cannabidiol dramatically
induced apoptosis (cell death) in leukemia cells. “Together, the results from
this study reveal that cannabidiol, acting through CB2 and regulation of Nox4
and p22(phox) expression, may be a novel and highly selective treatment for
leukemia.”
Two additional studies, “p38 MAPK is
involved in CB2 receptor-induced apoptosis of human leukemia cells” and
“Gamma-irradiation enhances apoptosis induced by cannabidiol, a
non-psychotropic cannabinoid, in cultured HL-60 myeloblastic leukemia cells“,
also demonstrated the effectiveness of cannabis in promoting leukemia cell
death.
Immunity
Research published in the
paper Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty
Acidsfound that cannabinoid compounds play a vital role in modulating the
immune system to improve the outcome of a cancer diagnosis. In short, the team
believes “[t]he experimental evidence reviewed in this article argues in favor
of the therapeutic potential of these compounds in immune disorders and
cancer.”
Moreover, the study Cannabinoids and
the immune system confirms that cannabimimetic agents have substantial
effects on natural killer cells, thereby providing therapeutic usefulness in
reducing tumor growth and the induction of apoptosis. Therefore, cannabis
demonstrates a “subtle but significant role in the regulation of immunity and
that this role can eventually be exploited in the management of human disease.”
Cervical
cancer
Uterine cervical cancer cells are
significantly influenced by cannabis as well. Published in Gynecologic
Oncology, the research team discovered that the compound induced apoptosis
in cervical carcinoma (CxCa) cell lines.
Melanoma
The most deadly form of skin cancer,
melanoma has relatively few options of treatment beyond prevention and early
detection. With this in mind, the findings of the study Cannabinoid
receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma are of particular
note. In animal tests, cannabinoids encouraged cancer cell death, while
decreasing growth, proliferation and metastasis of melanoma cells.
Non melanoma skin cancers also respond well
to cannabinoids. According to research in the Journal of Clinical
Investigation:
“Local administration of [cannabinoids]
induced a considerable growth inhibition of malignant tumors generated by
inoculation of epidermal tumor cells into nude mice. Cannabinoid-treated tumors
showed an increased number of apoptotic cells. This was accompanied by
impairment of tumor vascularization, as determined by altered blood vessel
morphology and decreased expression of proangiogenic factors (VEGF, placental
growth factor, and angiopoietin 2). … These results support a new therapeutic
approach for the treatment of skin tumors.”
These are just a few examples — among
hundreds — that demonstrate the effectiveness of cannabis in eradicating cancer
without adverse side-effects. Additionally, the following documentary explores
the history and modern uses of cannabis to heal serious diseases such as
cancer, AIDS, Crohn’s disease & more:
Scientific
Studies from the National Institute of Health
If you’re still in doubt regarding the
effectiveness of cannabis for healing cancer, have a look at these 100+
scientific studies from the National Institute of Health:
Cannabis
kills tumor cells
Uterine,
testicular, and pancreatic cancers
Brain
cancer
Mouth
and throat cancer
Breast
cancer
Lung
cancer
Prostate
cancer
Blood
cancer
Skin
cancer
Liver
cancer
Cannabis
cancer cures (general)
Cancers
of the head and neck
Cholangiocarcinoma
cancer
Leukemia
Cannabis
partially/fully induced cancer cell death
Translocation-positive
rhabdomyosarcoma
Lymphoma
Cannabis
kills cancer cells
Melanoma
Thyroid
carcinoma
Colon
cancer
Intestinal
inflammation and cancer
Cannabinoids
in health and disease
Cannabis
inhibits cancer cell invasion
Please pass this information on to as many
of your friends and contacts.
5. CANNABIS CURES CANCER - Producing The Highest Quality Cannabis Oil
Rick Simpson, The Man
Who Rediscovered the Cure for Cancer: Cannabis Oil
In the interest of allowing the common man to produce the highest quality and
most medicinal oils possible, I have discovered a simple method that will
enable just about everyone to produce oils with even more effective medicinal
values than I have showed the public in the past. All you actually have to do
is add a few more steps to the process we have already showed you, but
after you produce oil in this manner I think you will agree that it does make a
tremendous difference.
If you have high quality medicinal bud to work with, you should be able to
manufacture oils with very high cannabinoid levels, simply by using a good
solvent and a rice cooker. Oils that I produced in this manner usually showed
THC levels of 95% or more along with varying levels of other cannabinoids and
plant waxes. The healing power of oils such as this are what has finally given
the cannabis hemp plant the medical recognition it deserves, but still I have
found that the healing power of this substance can be taken to a whole new
level without much difficulty.
All you have to do is take the oil and put it in a heating unit that can catch
the cannabinoids as they vaporize off and this will produce oils of higher
quality and purity. Although an ordinary vaporizer can accomplish this task, in
truth they are not designed properly to fulfill this role, since it would take
so long to produce any amount of medication and most vaporizers which are
available tend to leak.
To produce oil on a larger scale one would require a much larger vaporizing
unit which was airtight and it would also necessitate the use of a much larger
collection dome that is set on an angle, so that once the cannabinoids started
to collect they would begin to run down to the dome’s lowest point, where they
could be collected from a small drain hole in the form of a highly purified
oil. Anyone who is mechanically inclined should not have too much trouble
putting together a unit to perform this task, but it will take a little time
and effort to assemble the device.
The amount of oil which can be collected
after it has been vaporized depends on what cannabinoid percentage by weight
that the original starting oil had. If the oil you are using had 99%
cannabinoids by weight, then you should get roughly that amount back after it
has been vaporized.
I should also mention that this is a great way to improve the quality of lower
grade oils which have a lot of impurities, so they may be used as a more
powerful and effective medication. Even a starting oil with much lower
cannabinoid content may produce a decent medication, if the cannabinoids are
vaporized off and the impurities are left behind in the bowl. You may not get
out as much as you put in, but at least you will end up with an oil that is
much more medicinal than what you started out with. When it comes to healing, a
medicine’s purity and effectiveness mean everything to the patient, so if you
wish to produce the most medicinal oils possible, I think you should give what
I am saying some serious consideration.
As yet, I cannot explain why oils produced in this manner are so much more
medicinally active than even the best oils which have been produced using other
methods. Since the oils that I have vaporized had been decarboxylated before
they even went into the vaporizer, that should mean they were already as
medicinally active as possible, so one would expect to see little difference in
potency after the oil has been collected from the vaporizer. When the
cannabinoids are vaporized off these high quality oils, all that is left in the
bowl of the vaporizer are unwanted plant waxes and other contaminants. By
leaving these unwanted substances behind in the bowl, the oil that you collect
will be much purer, but since these oils had few impurities before they were
even put in the vaporizer, this does little to explain why the oil is now so
much more potent.
Cannabinoids vaporize off the oil between 300 and 400 degrees Fahrenheit and
these temperatures are much higher than those which we have been told are
required to accomplish decarboxylation. Either there is something that we do
not as yet understand about decarboxylation that is causing this amazing
increase in potency, or all this extra heat required to vaporize the
cannabinoids off may be doing something to the oil that we have never been
aware of in the past.
I have been talking about this new process for the last few weeks when I do
interviews and now there are some individuals, who have begun to manufacture
oils in this manner and from what I have been told they were shocked at the
difference in potency. From my experience, even the highest grade oils produced
with the use of distilling equipment or a rice cooker cannot be compared with
oils that are collected after the cannabinoids have been vaporized off. They
may look somewhat the same, but I think the vaporized oils are many times
stronger and indeed this should make them even more suited to treat individuals
with serious conditions.
Some people simply put plant material in a vaporizer and then collect the
cannabinoids in oil form from the dome of the vaporizer, after the plant
material has been heated. By using the raw plant material one can produce a
decent oil, but testing has shown that these oils do not equal the potency of
oils produced in a rice cooker and that is the reason why I instruct people to
produce the oil using my methods. If you put high quality oil in a vaporizer,
the resulting oil which will be produced after the cannabinoids have vaporized
off, will be much stronger than even the best oils that can be vaporized off
high quality bud material. So if you want to see great results, they can be
achieved simply by vaporizing the best oil possible and this will give you a
medicine, which I feel is beyond compare.
No matter if governments like it or not, in
the near future many of us will be producing our own medicines and since these
oils are so effective for such a large range of medical problems, I expect to
see this simple folk medicine manufactured everywhere, by those who do not have
the money to play games with drug companies. In the future I am sure the drug
companies will be trying to say that they are the only ones qualified to
produce this medication, but we all know that anything these criminals are
willing to provide would come at a very high price; and since just about anyone
can produce this substance, I see no need for drug companies to even play a
role.
After we do the simple research that is
required, we will be able to blend the different natural cannabinoids and
produce oils specifically designed to treat different illnesses, but even
though these new oils will have amazing healing abilities, oils which we
ourselves can produce will always have their place in our medicine cabinets. I
have never tried to patent any of the methods I have discovered, since I feel
that this knowledge should be available to anyone who chooses to use it and no
one has the right to hold anything back that can save someone’s life and, as a
matter of fact, I think it would be a much better world if we had no such thing
as patents at all.
Although those who wish to prohibit this medication’s use, like drug companies,
have proven in the past that they are more than happy to poison and kill us
with the trash which they have been providing, I am sure they will try to tell
us that they are the only ones who can produce this medication properly. Using
the new method I have just described, anyone can manufacture medications that
are just as pure as anything a drug company could provide. In addition, I think
medications that we can produce ourselves will be much more effective than what
a drug company would offer, because unlike them we are not in this for the
money and our aim is simply to heal ourselves.
There is now no sensible reason as to why we cannot produce our own medicines
and when our bought and paid for governments try to prevent us from doing so,
it will be just one more example of why we must rid ourselves of their
corruption and once and for all, free humanity from their clutches.
By now it should be more than obvious that
drug companies and our governments care little or nothing about our health and
well-being, so let’s give common sense and Mother Nature a chance to see what
they can do to improve our overall health, and once we do so, I am sure that we
will no longer accept what has gone on in the past.
- See more at:
http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/producing-the-highest-quality-cannabis-oil.html#sthash.PdYDa79J.dpuf
6. CANCER - THE BILLION DOLLAR
INDUSTRY - THERE IS A CURE FOR CANCER AND ITS CALLED CANNABIS, BUT ....
Stes de Necker
If you had a business selling something
that made you well over a hundred billion dollars per year, would you take
steps to eradicate the need for your business? Or would you make every effort
for that money continue rolling in?
Take cancer, for example. Don’t let all
the media hype about “The Cure” fool you. No one who is in a position to
do so wants to end cancer because they are all making a killing on the big
business of treatment, while ordinary people go broke, suffer horribly, and
die.
There will never be a “cure” brought to
market because there just isn’t enough profit in eradicating the disease
entirely. There will never be a governing body that protects consumers
from being subjected to known carcinogens, because that too, will stop the cash
from rolling in. A great deal of research is covered up and many potential
cures are ignored and discredited because there is far more money in
perpetuating illness than in curing it. In 2012, the reported spending on
cancer treatment was 124.6 billion dollars. Blood money.
The
Grim Statistics
Just the word “cancer” sends a frisson of
fear down the spine of the most stalwart optimist.
Terrifyingly, almost one in two people will
get the dreaded disease, and the numbers are only getting worse. Here are
some quick stats for background:
Nearly half of all Americans will develop
cancer in their lifetime. Quick math tells us that is an astonishing 157
million victims.
Over half a million people in America died
of cancer in 2012.
In 2011, cancer was the #1 cause of death
in the Western world, and #2 in developing countries.
Cancer is the #1 cause of childhood death
in the United States.
This is a fairly recent increase. A
hundred years ago, the number was far different. At that time, 1 in 33
people were stricken with the disease. And despite billions of dollars being
spent to find “the cure”, the World Health Organization predicts
that deaths from cancer will DOUBLE by the year 2030.
The news is full of photos of babies who
are missing an eye, of beautiful bald children who have lost their hair to
chemo, and of people who have had to have body parts removed in order to
survive a few more years. But cancer is NOT normal. It isn’t something
that “just happens”. Researchers know the things that cause cancer.
Government protection agencies do too, but they do nothing to limit these
toxins in the marketplace.
Why?
Because, cancer is big business and those
who are profiting have great financial interest in seeing the deadly trend
continue to increase.
Poisoned
for Profit
So what has changed? How did we go
from a 3% chance of contracting cancer to a 41% chance?
It’s the advent of Big Pharma, Big Agri and
Big Business. They are getting rich off of poisoning Americans through
the manufacture of toxic elements that we are exposed to on a daily basis.
Unless you live in a bubble and have no
contact with manufactured items, outside air, or the sun, you are exposed to a
staggering number of known and suspected carcinogens every day.
The statistics support that the cumulative
build up of all these different toxins in the human body eventually results in
cancer in many people.
First, the manufacturers and the “food”
producers profit when we buy their poisoned goods.
Then the medical system and pharmaceutical
companies profit when we become ill and must fight cancer.
The drugs alone can cost over $100,000 per
year, and that is on top of exorbitant costs for radiation, chemotherapy, and
physician’s bills. In the United States, cancer is the #1 most expensive “per
person” illness to treat.
Why would those who profit want to prevent
cancer when 95.5 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR is spent on treating it?
There is a vested interest in this increase in illness and the people
benefiting from it have no intention of reducing the cases of cancer.
Don’t
Count on Obamacare
Don’t look to Obamacare to be the
saving grace of cancer victims, either. With this type of government
controlled medicine, budgets will be strictly adhered to and the decisions on
how to proceed and what will be paid for will NOT be in the hands of the ill
person. Treatments, medications, and funds will be strictly allocated through
what many people are referring to as “death panels.”
Furthermore, Obamacare only covers 60% of
your medical costs in most cases (after a hefty deductible) and none of your
medication is covered. If you don’t have $50,000 or more kicking around
for your co-pay, you will be out of luck, despite diligently paying your
worthless monthly premiums.
Prevention:
Your Only Defense
Avoiding carcinogens as diligently as possible
is your best defense against becoming the “1 in 3″, but it isn’t easy.
Furthermore, you’ll be considered an “extremist” or a “kook” by those around
you who have buried their heads in the sand.
Basically, a spending day in the Western
world is a like spending a day running a gauntlet of toxins and carcinogens.
Big Pharma, Big Agri and Big Business are getting rich off of poisoning
Americans.
There are steps you can take to limit your
exposure but be prepared for many people to consider your actions extreme. Very
few people are committed enough to their health and the health of their family
to do the research required to identify the dangers around them and then go
against the current to avoid those perils.
Since most of us don’t live in a bubble, we
will be subjected to some of these toxins – they’re impossible to avoid
entirely. However, you can limit your exposure by taking the following
steps to reduce your exposure to everyday poisons. (This list is expanded
from the article, “The Great American Cancer Cluster” with permission
from The Daily Sheeple.)
Purchase organic foods as often as
possible. GMOs and pesticides are proven carcinogens.
Load your plate with colorful antioxidants.
Opt for organic versions of foods like berries, colorful veggies, dark
chocolate, and coffee, to name a few, are loaded with powerful, cancer-fighting
antioxidants and will boost your immune system against other types of illness
and disease as well.
Avoid processed foods. Many of
the additives and preservatives featured abundantly in North America
are banned in other countries precisely because of the health risks they
represent.
Select non-toxic cookware. Nonstick
cookware contains Teflon and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which emit at
least toxic gases within 5 minutes of heating up that nonstick pan. Once
the pans become scratched, toxic particles are leached directly into the food
you’re preparing. Aluminum cookware is also potentially toxic. Cast iron,
ceramic, glass, and clay are all better cookware options.
Don’t smoke.
Consume alcohol only in moderation.
Limit the use of plastic in your
home. BPA or Bisphenol-A are petrochemical plastics that are a major
component of many water bottles, lines the inside of canned goods, and makes up
the hard material of many reusable food containers, including some brands of
baby bottles. They leach cancer causing endocrine disruptors into food,
especially if the food is hot. Use glass containers whenever possible.
Select personal care products that do not
contain petrochemicals. Many cosmetics and other health and beauty aids contain
petrochemicals. The danger of this is their byproduct, 1,4-dioxane, a proven
carcinogen. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies
dioxane as a probable human carcinogen California state law has
classified dioxane to cause cancer. Animal studies in rats suggest that
the greatest health risk is associated with inhalation of vapors.
Avoid the
following ingredients:
Paraffin Wax
Mineral Oil
Toluene
Benzene
Phenoxyethanol
Anything with PEG (polyethylene
glycol)
Anything ending in ‘eth’ indicates
that it required ethylene oxide (a petrochemical) to produce e.g. myreth,
oleth, laureth, ceteareth
Anything
with DEA (diethanolamine) or MEA (ethanolamine)
Butanol and any
word with ‘butyl’ – butyl alcohol, butylparaben,butylene
glycol
Ethanol and word
with ‘ethyl’ – ethyl alcohol, ethylene
glycol, ethylene dichloride, EDTA (ethylene-diamine-tetracetatic
acid), ethylhexylglycerin
Any word with “propyl” –
isopropyl alcohol, propylene glycol, propylalcohol,
cocamidopropyl betaine
Methanol and any word
with ‘methyl’ – methyl alcohol, methylparaben,methylcellulose
Parfum or fragrance – 95% of chemicals used
in fragrance are from petroleum
Opt for natural, biodegradable food grade
cleaning products. According to the website Natural Pure Organics,
the average household contains up to 25 gallons of toxic materials, most of
which are in cleaning products. When you use these cleaners, they linger
in the air and on the surfaces, increasing your exposure to carcinogens as you
inhale the toxins into your lungs or absorb them through your skin.
Avoid artificial
sweeteners. Aspartame, for example, is a known carcinogen that breaks
down into formaldehyde in the human body.
Refuse vaccines. Many vaccines
contain formaldehyde and mercury, both of which are known carcinogens.
By the age of two, if a child has received all of
the recommended vaccines, he or she has received 2,370 times the
“allowable safe limit” for mercury (if there is such a thing as a safe level of
poison). The HPV vaccine can actually increase the risk of
reproductive cancer. The polio vaccine most recently came under fire
for its cancer-causing ingredients.
Avoid tap water. If you have
municipal water, drink it at the risk of ingesting loads of toxins. First,
there is the willful addition of sodium fluoride, a pesticide which is labeled
as “deadly to humans.”
Not only has the consumption of fluoride
been linked to cancer, but it also lowers IQs, causes infertility, and
causes hardening of the arteries. Then there is the addition of chlorine, which
is used to kill bacteria that could make us sick. Unfortunately, according
to Dr. Michael J. Plewa, a genetic toxicology expert at the
University of Illinois, chlorinated water is carcinogenic. “Individuals who
consume chlorinated drinking water have an elevated risk of cancer of the
bladder, stomach, pancreas, kidney and rectum as well as Hodgkin’s and
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
Maintain a healthy body
weight. Obesity has been linked to increased risks of cancers of the
esophagus, breast, endometrium, uterus, colon and rectum, kidney,
pancreas, thyroid, and gallbladder.
Exercise daily.
The mind boggling thing is that those who
strictly avoiding carcinogens and toxins are labelled “crazy” or
“hysterical”. I can’t tell you how many times I have watched people
roll their eyes or scoff when I refuse to partake in things that are hazardous.
Somehow, drinking water from my own BPA-free water bottle is considered
to be “extreme”. Not taking my children to McDonald’s or feeding them hot-dogs
and Doritos is “mean”. Making our body care products and cleaning products from
wholesome, non-toxic ingredients is “silly”.
I believe that knowingly ingesting toxic
ingredients is “crazy”. I believe that rubbing carcinogens on my body or
spraying them around my house is “ridiculous”. I think that having poison
injected into my defenseless children or feeding it to them on a colorful plate
is “mean”.
Never forget that the bottom line is
profit. Don’t expect the FDA or the EPA to step in. They’ve proven time
and again that their purpose is to serve the interests of Big Business, not the
consumers.
Cancer represents big money to the
pharmaceutical companies and the health industry. They do NOT have a vested
interest in prevention. So, maybe, just maybe, subjecting your body to
the tender mercies of Big Pharma and the AMA and lining their already
loaded pockets is just a little bit sillier than taking steps to avoid illness
altogether.
This article is dedicated to some beloved
people in my life, one of whom fought it and won and the other who is fighting
the good fight and will not go quietly… much love to SD and JS, and all who are
touched by this icy finger.
Some supplemental reading:
7. Rick Simpson’s Recipe for the
Extraction and Use of Cannabis Oil
Stes de Necker
Awareness with regards to cannabis as a
treatment and potential cure for cancer has been rapidly increasing over the
past few years. Several studies over the last decade have clearly (without
question) demonstrated the anti-tumoral effects of the plant. Cannabinoids (any
group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents
of cannabis) activate cannabinoid receptors in the body. The human body
itself produces compounds called endocannabinoids and they play a very
important role in many processes within the body to help create a healthy
environment.
Since radiation and chemotherapy are the
only two approved treatments for cancer, it’s important to let people know that
other options do exist. There’s nothing wrong with exploring these options and
finding out more information about them so people can make the best possible
choice for themselves.
As more become aware of the healing power
that this plant has, the next question to be asked is how is it made and how is
it used.
Extracting Cannabis Oil
To make Rick Simpson’s hash oil, start with
one ounce of dried herb. One ounce will typically produce 3-4 grams of oil,
although the amount of oil produced per ounce will vary strain to strain.
A pound of dried material will yield about
two ounces of high quality oil.
IMPORTANT: These instructions are directly
summarized from Rick Simpson’s website.
Be VERY careful when boiling solvent off
[solvent-free option], the flames are extremely flammable.
AVOID smoking, sparks, stove-tops and red
hot heating elements.
Set up a fan to blow fumes away from the
pot, and set up in a well-ventilated area for whole process.
1. Place the completely dry material
in a plastic bucket.
2. Dampen the material with the
solvent you are using. Many solvents can be used [solvent-free option]. You can
use pure naphtha, ether, butane, 99% isopropyl alcohol, or even water. Two
gallons of solvent is required to extract the THC from one pound, and 500 ml is
enough for an ounce.
3. Crush the plant material using a
stick of clean, untreated wood or any other similar device. Although the
material will be damp, it will still be relatively easy to crush up because it
is so dry.
4. Continue to crush the material with
the stick, while adding solvent until the plant material is completely covered
and soaked. Remain stirring the mixture for about three minutes. As you do
this, the THC is dissolved off the material into the solvent.
5. Pour the solvent oil mixture off
the plant material into another bucket. At this point you have stripped the
material of about 80% of its THC.
6. Second wash: again add solvent to
the mixture and work for another three minutes to extract the remaining THC.
7. Pour this solvent oil mix into the
bucket containing the first mix that was previously poured out.
8. Discard the twice washed plant
material.
9. Pour the solvent oil mixture
through a coffee filter into a clean container.
10. Boil the solvent off: a rice
cooker will boil the solvent off nicely, and will hold over a half gallon of
solvent mixture.
CAUTION: avoid stove-tops, red hot
elements, sparks, cigarettes and open flames as the fumes are extremely
flammable.
11. Add solvent to rice cooker until
it is about ¾ full and turn on HIGH heat.
Make sure you are in a well-ventilated area
and set up a fan to carry the solvent fumes away. Continue to add mixture to
cooker as solvent evaporates until you have added it all to the cooker.
12. As the level in the rice cooker
decreases for the last time, add a few drops of water (about 10 drops of water
for a pound of dry material). This will help to release the solvent residue,
and protect the oil from too much heat.
13. When there is about one inch of
solvent-water mixture in the rice cooker, put on your oven mitts and pick the
unit up and swirl the contents until the solvent has finished boiling off.
14. When the solvent has been boiled
off, turn the cooker to LOW heat. At no point should the oil ever reach over
290˚ F or 140˚ C.
15. Keep your oven mitts on and remove the
pot containing the oil from the rice cooker. Gently pour the oil into a
stainless steel container
16. Place the stainless steel
container in a dehydrator, or put it on a gentle heating device such as a
coffee warmer. It may take a few hours but the water and volatile terpenes will
be evaporated from the oil. When there is no longer any surface
activity on the oil, it is ready for use.
17. Suck the oil up in a plastic syringe,
or in any other container you see fit. A syringe will make the oil easy to
dispense. When the oil cools completely it will have the consistency of
thick grease.
Dosage
Rick Simpson:
“It takes the average person about 90 days
to ingest the full 60 gram treatment. I suggest that people start with three
doses per day, about the size of a half a grain of short grained rice. A
dose such as this would equal about ¼ of a drop. After four days at this
dosage, most people are able to increase their doses by doubling the amount of
their dose every four days.
It takes the average person about 5 weeks
to get to the point where they can ingest a gram per day.
Once they reach this dosage they can
continue at this rate until the cancer disappears.
By using this method it allows the body to
build up its tolerance slowly, in fact, I have many reports from people who
took the oil treatment and said they never got high. We all have different
tolerances for any medication. Your size and body weight have little to do
with your tolerance for hemp oil. Be aware when commencing treatment with hemp
oil that it will lower your blood pressure, so if you are currently taking
blood pressure medication, it is very likely that you will no longer need it.
When people are taking the oil, I like to
see them stay within their comfort zone, but the truth is, the faster you
take the oil the better the chance of surviving. At the end of their treatment
most people continue taking the oil but at a much reduced rate. About one gram
a month would be a good maintenance dose. I do not like to see people
overdosing on the oil, but an overdose does no harm.
The main side effect of this medication is
sleep and rest which plays an important role in the healing process. Usually,
within an hour or so of taking a dose, the oil is telling you to lay down and
relax.
Don’t fight the sleepy feeling, just lay
down and go with it. Usually within a month, the daytime tiredness associated
with this treatment fades away but the patient continues to sleep very well at
night.
The only time I would recommend that people
start out with larger doses would be to get off addictive and dangerous pain
medications. When people who are using such medications begin the oil
treatment, they usually cut their pain medications in half. The object is to
take enough oil to take care of the pain and to help the patient get off these
dangerous pharmaceutical drugs. Taking the oil makes it much easier for the
patient to get off these addictive chemicals.
I simply tell people the oil will do
one of two things; it will either cure your cancer or in cases where it is too
late to affect a cure, the oil will ease their way out and they can at least
die with dignity.
Hemp oil has a very high success rate
in the treatment of cancer. Unfortunately, many people who come to me have been
badly damaged by the medical system with their chemo and radiation etc. The
damage such treatments cause have a lasting effect and people who have suffered
the effects of such treatments are the hardest to cure.
It should also be mentioned that the oil
rejuvenates vital organs like the pancreas. Many diabetics who have taken the
oil find that after about six weeks on the oil that they no longer require
insulin since their pancreas is again doing its job.
Properly made hemp medicine is the greatest
healer on this planet bar none. Once you experience what this medication can do
you will understand why history and I call hemp medicine a cure all.
Treating
Skin Cancer
If you can get some properly made oil, it
will definitely work to cure skin cancer and usually it only takes a few
grams of oil to accomplish the task. Take about 30 grams of good Indica bud,
this amount of starting material should produce 3 to 4 grams of high grade oil.
Apply the oil to the skin cancer and cover it with a bandage, apply fresh
oil and a new bandage every 3 or 4 days and the cancer should soon disappear. I
always tell people to continue treatment until the cancer is gone, then they
should continue to treat the area for about two more weeks just as if the
cancer was still there.
Doing this will ensure that all the cancer
cells are dead and I have never seen a cancer return if my
instructions are followed. If you’ve had skin cancer for quite some time
and the cancer is well established, it may take some time to cure. But usually
even in quite severe cases the cancer will disappear in less than three weeks.
In an extreme case it may take longer but if so ,then just keep up the
treatment until it is gone. Many people can cure their skin cancer in no time,
but it all depends on your own rate of healing and how deeply embedded the
cancer has become.
Other
Natural Things You Can Do That Could Help
When people came to me for oil to treat
their cancer, the first thing I told them to do is change their diets. Try to
stay away from animal protein as much as possible, since such protein promotes
cancer growth. Get a juicing machine and start eating as many raw fruits and
vegetables as possible, since plant protein fights the growth of cancer. Stop
using sugar and replace its use with natural sweetener’s like raw honey. Get
the patient’s PH up as quickly as possible, cancer likes an acidic environment
and when you raise the body’s PH it makes it hard for cancer cells to survive.
Also start eating the seeds from two apples every day, this will give you a
good daily dose of B17 also known as laetrile. B17 in its own right has a
pretty good track record in the treatment of cancer and there are other natural
things such as wheat grass that you may find of benefit as well. Many people
who have used the oil to treat their cancers did not change a thing, but the
oil still worked its magic and they were healed.
But if you have a serious condition like
cancer I think its a good idea to take other natural things that may help the
oil eradicate the cancer and give you a better chance to survive. But the most
important thing of all is, people have to realize that for the most part, what
the medical system provides does much more harm than good. That is the reason I
tell people who contact me, if they want to survive its best to stay as far
away from the medical system as possible. That is the sad state, the medical
system we have today is in and it will not change until people who work within
this system finally realize that chemicals and poison do not heal. As far as
I’m concerned what most doctors today practice is madness and not medicine.”
(Rick Simpson)
8. CANNABIS CURES CANCER - LIST OF
REFERENCES PUBLISHED ON FACEBOOK ABOUT THE HEALING EFFECTS OF CANNABIS OIL
Stes de Necker
9. WORLDWIDE IGNORANCE ABOUT THE USE
OF MEDICINAL CANNABIS OIL - Australian Father Faces
20 Years Jail In After Trying To Treat Daughter’s Cancer With Cannabis Oil
YOU
CAN HELP CHANGE THE LAW
Stes de Necker
When Adam Koessler’s 2 year old daughter
was diagnosed with stage 4 Neuroblastoma – a very serious abdomen cancer – he
sought to do whatever he could to get her well again.
As a concerned parent that wanted to find
the least harmful way to treat his daughter’s illness, Adam came
across studies such as these, showing very positive results with
treating her type of cancer with an alternative therapy – Cannabis oil.
In Australia – where Adam and his daughter
reside – the use of medicinal marijuana is still currently illegal.
However, this didn’t stop Adam from trying
to treat her with cannabis oil.
Adam was arrested at the start of
this year, January 2nd, for “allegedly administering medicinal cannabis oil” to
his 2 year old daughter. He was also charged with ”possession
of a dangerous drug.”
He faces up to 20 years in jail if
found guilty.
His daughter has now been removed from his
care (he is not in a relationship with the girl’s mother, they split up several
years ago) and is allowed to visit her in the Lady Cilento Children’s
hospital in South Brisbane, Australia.
She is currently being treated with
aggressive chemotherapy.
Before his daughter’s diagnosis Adam was
allowed to see her four days a week as per a court order issued back in
2013.
He is now only allowed to visit her with
restricted access, and he is not being informed about her treatment and
progress – or, for that matter, about anything significant in relation to her
care.
Adam has sought to organize a registered
business to supply organic meals for her to have during her stay in hospital
but the hospital will not approve of the delivery of the meals.
After speaking to other parents in the same
hospital, Adam was told that they are allowed to bring whatever they like
to their own children. Some are even bringing food from the very same organic
business that Adam wanted to use.
Most people will agree that
it’s not okay to keep a parent away from a child during hospital
stays and treatments such as chemotherapy. The trauma that can occur
from this alone is incredibly stressful and damaging – particularly when the
child is only two years old.
To not allow a parent to
give healthier food (even airplane food tends to be far better than what is
served in our hospitals!) is truly disgusting.
What’s happening to Adam is another example
of how our human rights – and rights as parents – are being taken away from us.
Adam’s story is sadly not at all rare.
The government and medical system can “own”
our children and do as they will when they decide to step in, and when they do,
a parent loses all rights.
If you are a parent, can you even begin to
imagine what that would be like?
Wouldn’t it be your worst nightmare, not
only to have a child diagnosed with cancer, but to not be able to decide what
is given in the treatment of it, and then you are not allowed to see your child
when you wish, or be in charge of what they eat in order to get well again.
Medical Use Of Cannabis Is Legal In Many
Countries
The infuriating thing about this
case is that medical use of cannabis is now legal in quite a
few countries and jurisdictions.
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic,
Finland, Israel, Netherlands, Spain, and some states in the US (such
as Colorado), although it is illegal under US federal law. More states in
the USA are set to make Cannabis legal for medicinal use.
The use of cannabis oil alongside
standard cancer treatment also has it’s benefits, pain and nausea are
said to be far less due to the soothing effects of Cannabis.
Whilst Adam only wanted the best for his
daughter and has done intense research into Cannabis for cancer treatment,
Adam is being treated like a criminal. The laws in Australia ( and in many
other countries that still outlaws Cannabis Oil as a drug) clearly need to
change.
The US Government holds a patent for using
cannabis oil as a medicine. So it’s madness that people are vilified
for using it when Governments know it works and clearly have
plans for its use in the future.
Many people feel that they will only
release it as a ‘drug’ when pharmaceutical companies can profit from
it.
Let’s Help this father and
in so doing, help many more fathers and mothers in future.
Adam’s story has been in the Australian
media where he has a lot of support from some members of the
Australian public who are petitioning that this law regarding the use
of medical cannabis must be changed.
A positive outcome in this case will set a
president for many other Courts of Law who may recognise the Australian outcome
as International Law. This will truly be a watershed judgement if the Court
finds in Adam's favour.
Adam is now in desperate need
of funding to help him defend his case in court.
I therefore hope that we can get
behind Adam in this groundbreaking case this and donate, even if its
just $10.
There is a go fund me campaign to
help Adam. I really urge you to donate. I personally always
think when I see these sorts of cases that someone would help me
if I were in the same position.
Stes de Necker
Most medical practitioners are
apprehensive to their patients utilizing cancer treatments that are not
considered “standard of care.”
But not for the reasons you may think…
Most physicians interviewed in the research
done by Dr. Ivy Lynn Bourgeault’s ( from the Canada Medical Association) said
they opposed the use of alternative cancer therapies for their patients.
Yet, according to Dr. Bourgeault, “54% of
people with cancer use alternative therapies and up to half of those patients
completely abandon standard medical treatments in exchange for alternative
methods.”
But the question remains…if standard
medical methods were working, why are more than HALF of cancer patients turning
to alternative medicine for healing?
It has to be due to the failure of
conventional cancer treatments, or at least ineffective in the eyes of the
patients. [Cassileth BR, Brown H. Unorthodox cancer medicine. CA Cancer J
Clin 1988; 38:176-86]
In the survey done by Dr. Ivy Lynn
Bourgeault of cancer patients, 39% reported that their doctors reacted with
disapproval concerning their request for alternative therapy and 4% refused to
continue as their physician because they chose natural medicine.
Still, in that same survey, it was reported
that 30% of oncologists supported the use of alternative cancer treatments,
while 12% were neutral.
It is unnerving to discover that some
doctors refuse to consider alternative cancer treatments when their patients
clearly want to discuss and pursue those options.
Interestingly enough, most physicians
report being opposed to the alternatives by reason of insufficient knowledge,
not because they’re ineffective.
However, 83% of the doctors surveyed
reported that continuing education about alternative health services was of
interest…but the source of information was primarily from their patients, not
from peers or medical research.
A survey from Ontario and Alberta, Canada,
concluded with remarkable results namely: 54% of practitioners felt
conventional medicine could benefit from the concepts and methods of
alternative medicine for the following reasons: most patients were not
responding to conventional treatment, their patients requested it and
admittedly, alternative medicine is proven effective in treating particular
disorders.
Finally, whether medical practitioners
believe in alternative treatments or not, research supports the fact that
patients find them helpful.
So the question is, if doctors are open and
willing to learn about alternative medicine to treat cancer, and their patients
are turning to non-conventional cancer treatments, why isn’t more education
recommended to oncologists?
Two main reasons:
1.
The Flexner Report.
Due to an alliance between the American
Medical Association (AMA) and big business (the Rockefellers and Carnegies)
over 100 years ago, the medical schools in the USA focus solely on prescription
drugs for cancer treatment while actively turning people away from natural
remedies.
How can we counteract this
policy? One solution is to enthusiastically support the patient’s right
of choice when it comes to their bodies, as long as all the information has
been presented and discussed openly between the doctor and patient.
Research has shown that there is clearly a
need for more openness between doctors and their patients with regard to
alternative cancer treatments.
This is particularly important because many
cancer patients are rejecting conventional treatments, sometimes permanently,
in favour of alternative treatments.
Interestingly, according to a poll at
McGill Cancer Centre, in a poll of 64 oncologists, 58 indicated that they
would not utilize chemotherapy for themselves or their families, due to
the fact that this archaic, barbaric form of treatment is “too toxic.”
Long ago, medical doctors believed that
draining an ailing person’s blood would purge the “evil” infection out of the
body. And worse, medical doctors ignorantly recommended cigarettes to their
patients using the mantra, “a pack a day keeps lung cancer away.”!
Both of these ridiculous suggestions have
been proven to be pure quackery, but they were widely accepted by the “medical
establishment” of their day.
2.
The billion dollar industry
No one in the cancer ‘industry’ wants
to end cancer because they are all making a killing on the ‘big business’ of
treatment, while ordinary people go broke, suffer horribly, and die.
There will never be a “cure” brought to
market because there just isn’t enough profit in eradicating the disease
entirely.
There will never be a governing body that
protects consumers from being subjected to known carcinogens, because that too,
will stop the cash from rolling in. A great deal of research is covered up and
many potential cures are ignored and discredited because there is far more
money in perpetuating illness than in curing it.
In 2012, the reported spending on cancer
treatment was 124.6 billion dollars. Blood money.
Just the word “cancer” sends a frisson of
fear down the spine of the most stalwart optimist.
Terrifyingly, almost one in two people will
get the dreaded disease, and the numbers are only getting worse. Here are
some quick stats for background:
1. Nearly half of all Americans will
develop cancer in their lifetime. Quick math tells us that is an
astonishing 157 million victims.
2. Over half a million people in America
died of cancer in 2012.
3. In 2011, cancer was the number 1 cause
of death in the Western world, and number 2 in developing countries.
4. Cancer is the number 1 cause of
childhood death in the United States.
These are the recent statistics. A
hundred years ago, the number was far different. At that time, 1 in 33
people were stricken with the disease.
Despite billions of dollars being spent to
find “the cure” for cancer, the World Health
Organization predicts that deaths from cancer will DOUBLE by the year
2030.
The news is full of photos of babies who
are missing an eye, of beautiful bald children who have lost their hair to
chemo, and of people who have had to have body parts removed in order to
survive a few more years.
But cancer is NOT normal. It isn’t
something that “just happens”. How did we go from a 3% chance of
contracting cancer to a 41% chance?
Researchers know the things that cause
cancer. Government protection agencies do too, but they do nothing to
limit these toxins in the marketplace. Why?
Because, cancer is big business and those
who are profiting have great financial interest in seeing the deadly trend
continue to increase.
It’s the advent of Big Pharma, Big Agri and
Big Business. They are getting rich off of poisoning Americans through
the manufacture of toxic elements that we are exposed to on a daily basis:
Paraffin Wax
Mineral Oil
Toluene
Benzene
Phenoxyethanol
Anything with PEG (polyethylene
glycol)
Anything ending
in ‘eth’ indicates that it required ethylene oxide (a petrochemical)
to produce e.g. myreth, oleth, laureth, ceteareth
Anything
with DEA (diethanolamine) or MEA (ethanolamine)
Butanol and any
word with ‘butyl’ – butyl alcohol, butylparaben,butylene
glycol
Ethanol and word
with ‘ethyl’ – ethyl alcohol, ethylene
glycol, ethylene dichloride, EDTA (ethylene-diamine-tetracetatic
acid), ethylhexylglycerin
Any word with “propyl” –
isopropyl alcohol, propylene glycol, propylalcohol,
cocamidopropyl betaine
Methanol and any word
with ‘methyl’ – methyl alcohol, methylparaben,methylcellulose
Parfum or fragrance – 95% of chemicals used
in fragrance are from petroleum.
Unless you live in a bubble and have no
contact with manufactured items, outside air, or the sun, you are exposed to a
staggering number of known and suspected carcinogens every day.
It is mind boggling that that those who
strictly avoiding carcinogens and toxins are labelled “crazy” or
“hysterical”.
The statistics support that the cumulative
build up of all these different toxins in the human body eventually results in
cancer in many people.
First, the manufacturers and the “food”
producers profit when we buy their poisoned goods.
Then the medical system and pharmaceutical
companies profit when we become ill and must fight cancer.
The drugs alone can cost over $100,000 per
year, and that is on top of exorbitant costs for radiation, chemotherapy, and
physician’s bills.
In the United States, cancer is the number
1 most expensive illness to treat, per person.
Why would those who profit want to prevent
cancer when 95.5 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR is spent on treating it?
There is a vested interest in this increase in illness and the people
benefiting from it have no intention of reducing the cases of cancer.
Now is the time to openly discuss
alternative cancer treatments as a real solution to conventional medicine.
12. CANCER FREQUENCY BY COUNTRY
Age-standardized rate for all cancers
(excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) and total cost of treatment for the United
States
(WORLD
CANCER RESEARCH FUND INTERNATIONAL)
Stes de Necker
Data for cancer frequency by country.
There were an estimated 14.1 million cancer
cases around the world in 2012, according to the World Cancer Research Fund
International.
The for men and women combined was 182 per
100,000 in 2012.
The rate was higher for men (205 per
100,000) than women (165 per 100,000).
Of those cases, the United States had the
sixth highest number of new diagnoses, with 318 cases per 100,000 people.
Both sexes
The highest cancer rate for men and women
together was found in Denmark with 338 people per 100,000 being diagnosed in
2012.
The age-standardised rate was at least 300
per 100,000 for nine countries (Denmark, France, Australia, Belgium, Norway,
United States of America, Ireland, Republic of Korea and The Netherlands).
The countries in the top ten come from
Europe, Oceania, Northern America and Asia.
Rank
|
Country
|
Age-Standardised Rate per 100,000
(World)
|
1
|
Denmark
|
338.1
|
2
|
France (metropolitan)
|
324.6
|
3
|
Australia
|
323.0
|
4
|
Belgium
|
321.1
|
5
|
Norway
|
318.3
|
6
|
United States of America
|
318.0
|
7
|
Ireland
|
307.9
|
8
|
Korea, Republic of
|
307.8
|
9
|
The Netherlands
|
304.8
|
10
|
New Caledonia
|
297.9
|
11
|
Slovenia
|
296.3
|
12
|
Canada
|
295.7
|
13
|
New Zealand
|
295.0
|
14
|
Czech Republic
|
293.8
|
15
|
Switzerland
|
287.0
|
16
|
Hungary
|
285.4
|
17
|
Iceland
|
284.3
|
18
|
Germany
|
283.8
|
19
|
Israel
|
283.2
|
20
|
Luxembourg
|
280.3
|
21
|
Italy
|
278.6
|
22
|
Slovakia
|
276.9
|
23
|
United Kingdom
|
272.9
|
24
|
Sweden
|
270.0
|
25
|
Serbia
|
269.7
|
26
|
Croatia
|
266.9
|
27
|
Barbados
|
263.1
|
28
|
Armenia
|
257.0
|
29
|
Finland
|
256.8
|
30
|
French Polynesia
|
255.0
|
31
|
Austria
|
254.1
|
32
|
Lithuania
|
251.9
|
33
|
Uruguay
|
251.0
|
34
|
Spain
|
249.0
|
35
|
Latvia
|
246.8
|
36
|
Portugal
|
246.2
|
37
|
France, Martinique
|
245.0
|
38
|
Malta
|
242.9
|
39
|
Estonia
|
242.8
|
40
|
FYR Macedonia
|
239.3
|
41
|
Montenegro
|
238.3
|
42
|
Kazakhstan
|
236.5
|
43
|
Bulgaria
|
234.8
|
44
|
Poland
|
229.6
|
45
|
Romania
|
224.2
|
46
|
Belarus
|
218.7
|
47
|
Cuba
|
218.0
|
48
|
Japan
|
217.1
|
49
|
Argentina
|
216.7
|
50
|
Puerto Rico
|
211.1
|
Source: Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I,
Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F.
GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.1, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase
No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer;
2014. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr,
accessed on 16/01/2015.
Men
The highest cancer rate was found in France
with 385 men per 100,000 being diagnosed in 2012.
The age-standardised rate was at least 350
per 100,000 in eight countries (France, Australia, Norway, Belgium, Martinque,
Slovenia, Hungary and Denmark).
The countries in the top ten come from
Europe, Oceania and the Americas.
Rank
|
Country
|
Age-Standardised Rate per 100,000
(World)
|
1
|
France (metropolitan)
|
385.3
|
2
|
Australia
|
373.9
|
3
|
Norway
|
368.7
|
4
|
Belgium
|
364.8
|
5
|
France, Martinique
|
358.4
|
6
|
Slovenia
|
358.2
|
7
|
Hungary
|
356.1
|
8
|
Denmark
|
354.3
|
9
|
United States of America
|
347.0
|
10
|
Czech Republic
|
345.9
|
11
|
Ireland
|
343.3
|
12
|
Korea, Republic of
|
340.0
|
13
|
Slovakia
|
338.2
|
14
|
Switzerland
|
337.9
|
15
|
New Caledonia
|
330.7
|
16
|
The Netherlands
|
327.8
|
17
|
Latvia
|
325.0
|
18
|
Germany
|
323.7
|
19
|
Estonia
|
321.9
|
20
|
Canada
|
320.8
|
21
|
New Zealand
|
320.1
|
22
|
Croatia
|
319.9
|
23
|
Israel
|
318.0
|
24
|
Italy
|
312.9
|
25
|
Spain
|
312.8
|
26
|
Lithuania
|
311.8
|
27
|
Luxembourg
|
309.1
|
28
|
Portugal
|
306.3
|
29
|
Armenia
|
305.6
|
30
|
Iceland
|
299.5
|
31
|
Serbia
|
299.2
|
32
|
Uruguay
|
297.5
|
33
|
Sweden
|
296.8
|
34
|
Austria
|
295.2
|
35
|
Finland
|
290.1
|
36
|
French Polynesia
|
287.4
|
37
|
United Kingdom
|
284.0
|
38
|
Kazakhstan
|
282.2
|
39
|
Barbados
|
277.2
|
40
|
Belarus
|
275.5
|
41
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
273.5
|
42
|
Romania
|
271.0
|
43
|
Poland
|
269.2
|
44
|
Malta
|
267.7
|
45
|
FYR Macedonia
|
265.5
|
46
|
Montenegro
|
262.7
|
47
|
France, Guadeloupe
|
260.9
|
48
|
Bulgaria
|
260.5
|
49
|
Japan
|
260.4
|
50
|
Turkey
|
257.8
|
Source: Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I,
Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F.
GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.1, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase
No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer;
2014. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr,
accessed on 16/01/2015.
Women
The highest cancer rate was found in
Denmark with 329 women per 100,000 being diagnosed in 2012.
The age-standardised rate was at least 280
per 100,000 for Denmark, United States of America, Republic of Korea, The
Netherlands and Belgium.
The countries in the top ten come from
Europe, Oceania, Asia and Northern America.
Rank
|
Country
|
Age-Standardised Rate per 100,000
(World)
|
1
|
Denmark
|
328.8
|
2
|
United States of America
|
297.4
|
3
|
Korea, Republic of
|
293.6
|
4
|
The Netherlands
|
289.6
|
5
|
Belgium
|
288.9
|
6
|
Ireland
|
278.9
|
7
|
Australia
|
278.6
|
8
|
Canada
|
277.4
|
9
|
Norway
|
277.1
|
10
|
France (metropolitan)
|
267.7
|
11
|
New Zealand
|
274.3
|
12
|
Iceland
|
274.2
|
13
|
New Caledonia
|
269.3
|
14
|
United Kingdom
|
267.3
|
15
|
Luxembourg
|
259.6
|
16
|
Czech Republic
|
258.9
|
17
|
Israel
|
258.7
|
18
|
Barbados
|
258.1
|
19
|
Italy
|
255.2
|
20
|
Germany
|
252.5
|
21
|
Slovenia
|
251.5
|
22
|
Sweden
|
248.7
|
23
|
Serbia
|
247.6
|
24
|
Switzerland
|
245.9
|
25
|
Slovakia
|
238.0
|
26
|
Hungary
|
236.5
|
27
|
Finland
|
234.2
|
28
|
Croatia
|
231.6
|
29
|
Malta
|
228.9
|
30
|
French Polynesia
|
227.3
|
31
|
Armenia
|
226.4
|
32
|
Lithuania
|
224.0
|
33
|
Bahamas
|
223.4
|
34
|
Austria
|
222.7
|
35
|
Uruguay
|
220.9
|
36
|
FYR Macedonia
|
220.8
|
37
|
Bulgaria
|
220.1
|
38
|
Montenegro
|
219.7
|
39
|
Kazakhstan
|
216.7
|
40
|
Argentina
|
211.8
|
41
|
Zimbabwe
|
209.1
|
42
|
Latvia
|
206.5
|
43
|
Poland
|
205.6
|
44
|
Estonia
|
202.7
|
45
|
Singapore
|
198.7
|
46
|
Cyprus
|
198.2
|
47
|
Spain
|
198.1
|
48
|
Portugal
|
198.1
|
49
|
Kenya
|
196.6
|
50
|
Mauritius
|
193.9
|
Source: Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I,
Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F.
GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.1, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase
No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer;
2014. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr,
accessed on 16/01/2015.
Cost of treatment
In 2012, the reported spending on cancer
treatment in the US was 124.6 billion dollars.
Assuming constant incidence, survival, and
cost, the NCI (National Cancer Institute) projects 13.8 and 18.1 million cancer
survivors in 2010 and 2020, respectively, with associated costs of cancer care
of 124.57 and 157.77 billion 2010 US dollars.
This 27% increase in medical costs reflects
US population changes only. The largest increases were in the continuing phase
of care for prostate cancer (42%) and female breast cancer (32%). Projections
of current trends in incidence (declining) and survival (increasing) had small
effects on 2020 estimates.
However, if costs of care increase annually
by 2% in the initial and last year of life phases of care, the total cost in
2020 is projected to be $173 billion, which represents a 39% increase from
2010.
Terrifyingly, almost one in two people will
get the dreaded disease, and the numbers are only getting worse. Here are
some quick stats for background:
1. Nearly half of all Americans will
develop cancer in their lifetime. Quick math tells us that is an
astonishing 157 million victims.
2. Over half a million people in America
died of cancer in 2012.
3. In 2011, cancer was the number 1 cause
of death in the Western world, and number 2 in developing countries.
4. Cancer is the number 1 cause of
childhood death in the United States.
13. Cannabis - The future of medicine
Stes de Necker
The future of medicine rests on the
fundamental right we all have to use things that spring from the Earth
naturally as healing agents. Why should cannabis, used for at least 10000 years
by humankind to alleviate suffering, be excluded from this inexorable mandate?
The politics of cannabis are exceedingly
complex, and yet the truth is simple: this freely growing plant heals the human
body – not to mention provides food, fuel, clothing and shelter, if only we
will let it perform its birthright.
The human body is in many ways
pre-designed, or as it were, pre-loaded with a receptiveness to cannabis’
active compounds — cannabinoids — thanks to its well documented
endocannabinoid system. And yet, the medical-industrial complex in the U.S.
does not want you to use these freely growing compounds – they threaten its
very business model and existence.
This is why cannabis prohibition synergizes
so naturally with the burgeoning privatized prison sector in the U.S., which
now has the dubious title of having the highest incarceration rate in the
world.
For every 100,000 Americans, 743 citizens
sit behind bars. Presently, the prison population in America consists of more
than six million people, a number exceeding the amount of prisoners held
in the gulags of the former Soviet Union at any point in its
history.” According to a recent Al-Jeezera editorial, “One
explanation for the boom in the prison population is the mandatory sentencing
imposed for drug offences and the “tough on crime” attitude that has prevailed
since the 1980s”.
Cannabis/marijuana is presently on the
DEA’s Schedule 1 list. Since 1972, cannabis has been listed on the Schedule I
of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly restricted category reserved
for drugs which have “no currently accepted medical use”.
Opioids, stimulants, psychedelics and a few
antidepressants now populate this list of substances that can put you in jail
for possessing without a prescription.
The notion that marijuana has no ‘medicinal
benefits’ is preposterous, actually.
Since time immemorial it has been used as a
panacea (‘cure-all’). In fact, as far back as 2727 B.C., cannabis was recorded
in the Chinese pharmacopoeia as an effective medicine, and evidence for its use
as a food, textile and presumably as a healing agent stretch back even further,
to 12 BC.
When it comes to cannabis’ medical
applications, cannabis’ ‘healing properties’ is a loaded term.
In fact, it is extremely dangerous, as far
as the medical industrial complex goes, who has the FDA/FTC to enforce it’s
mandate: anything that prevents, diagnoses, treats or cures a disease must be
an FDA approved drug by law, i.e. pharmaceutical agents which often have 75 or
more adverse effects for each marketed and approved “therapeutic” effect.
Indeed, the dominant, drug-based
medical system does not even acknowledge the body’s healing abilities,
opting for a view that looks at most bodily suffering as fatalistic, primarily
genetically based, and resulting from dysfunction in the mechanical design of a
highly entropic ‘bag of enzymes and proteins’ destined to suffer along the
trajectory of time.
Accordingly. A two trillion dollar a
year industry stands between you and access to the disease alleviating
properties of this humble plant.
As Emerson said, “a weed is an herb whose
virtues have yet to be discovered,” and yet, by this definition, cannabis is
not a weed, but given that is has been extensively researched and used for
thousands of years for a wide range of health conditions, it should be
considered and respected as a medicinal herb and food.
Sadly, the fact that the whole herb is
non-patentable is the main reason why it is still struggling to gain approval
from the powers that be.
Let’s look at the actual, vetted, published
and peer-reviewed research – bullet proof, if we are to subscribe to the
‘evidence-based’ model of medicine – which includes over 100 proven
therapeutic actions of this amazing plant, featuring the following:
Multiple Sclerosis
Tourette Syndrome
Pain
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Brachial Plexus Neuropathies
Insomnia
Multiple Splasticity
Memory Disorders
Social Anxiety Disorders
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Cancer
Opiate Addiction
Anorexia
Bladder Dysfunction
Bronchial Asthma
Chemotherapy-induced Harm
Constipation
Crack Addiction
Dementia
Fibromyalgia
Glaucoma
Heroin Addiction
Lymphoma
Nausea
Neuropathy
Obesity
Phantom Limb
Spinal Cord Injuries
Endotoxemia
Myocardia Infarction (Heart Attack)
Oxidative Stress
Diabetes: Cataract
Tremor
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Fatigue
Fulminant Liver Failure
Low Immune Function
Aging
Alcohol Toxicity
Allodynia
Arthritis: Rheumatoid
Ascites
Atherosclerosis
Diabetes Type 1
High Cholesterol
Liver Damage
Menopausal Syndrome
Morphine Dependence
Appetite Disorders
Auditory Disease
Dystonia
Epstein-Barr infections
Gynecomasia
Hepatitis
Intestinal permeability
Leukemia
Liver Fibrosis
Migraine Disorders
Oncoviruses
Psoriasis
Thymoma
Moreover, this plant’s therapeutic
properties have been subdivided into the following 40+ pharmacological actions:
Analgesic (Pain Killing)
Neuroprotective
Antispasmodic
Anxiolytic
Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor
Anti-inflammatory
Antiproliferative
Apoptotic
Chempreventive
Antidepressive
Antiemetic
Bronchodilator
Anti-metastatic
Anti-neoplastic
Antioxidant
Cardioprotective
Hepatoprotective
Anti-tumor
Enzyme inhibitor
Immunomodulatory
Anti-angiogenic
Autophagy up-regulation
Acetylocholinesterase inhibitor
Anti-platelet
Calcium channel blocker
Cell cycle arrest
Cylooxygenase inhibitor
Glycine agents
Immunomodulatory: T-Cell down-regulation
Intracellular adhesion molecule-1 inducer
Matrix mettaproteinase-1 inhibitor
Neuritohgenic
Platelet Aggregration Inhibito
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
inhibitor
Anti-apoptotic
Anti-proliferative
Anti-psychotic
Antiviral
Caspase-3 activation
Chemosensitizer
Immunosupressive agent
Interleukin-6 upregulation
Tumor suppressor protein p53 upregulation
Thanks to modern scientific investigation,
it is no longer considered strictly ‘theoretical’ that cannabis has a role to
play in medicine. There is a growing movement to wrench back control from the
powers that be, whose primary objectives appear to be the subjection of the
human body in order to control the population (political motives) — what 20th
century French philosopher Michel Foucault termed biopower — and not to awaken
true healing powers intrinsic within the body of all self-possessed members of
society.
Even the instinct towards recreational use
– think of the etymology: to re-create – should be allowed, as long
as those who choose to use cannabis instead of tobacco and alcohol (and
prescription drugs) do not cause harm to themselves or others.
How many deaths are attributed to cannabis
each year versus these other societally approved recreational agents? Not to
mention prescription drugs, which are the 3rd leading cause of death in the
developed world?
And understanding the healing benefits of
cannabis, how many deaths can be attributed to
cannabis prohibition each year?
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? ~ Willie Nelson
Ultimately, the politics surrounding
cannabis access and the truth about its medicinal properties are so heavily a
politicized issue that it is doubtful the science itself will prevail against
the distorted lens of media characterizations of it as a ‘dangerous drug’, and
certainly not the iron-clad impasse represented by federal laws against its
possession and use.
All we can do is to advocate for the
fundamental rights we all possess as free men and women, and our inborn right
towards self-possession, i.e as long as what we do does not interfere with the
choices and rights of others, we should be free to use an herb/food/textile
that sprouts freely and grows freely from this earth, as God/Nature as freely
made available.
14. CANCER - Eleven Facts on Cancer
and Cancer Treatment you probably never heard of
Stes de Necker
1. The Real Cause of Cancer
More than 85 years ago one of the
most remarkable and renowned scientist, Otto Warburg, won 2 Nobel
Prizes for determining the cause of cancer. He proved the cause
was anaerobism, or a lack of oxygen in the cells. When he went to America
to teach students at Berkeley University, he stated that there is no disease
that we know more about the cause and the cure than cancer. He also said that
due to the malicious nature of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the
FDA, they will prevent people from knowing the truth and taking the nutrients
they need which would in turn cause millions of people to die needlessly.
Since then more than 30 million Americans
have died. Science had the cure 100 years ago, but the greed and corruption
prevented these cures from reaching you and me.
Cancer occurs when there is a lack of
oxygen in our cells which is caused by a polluted cellular environment, acidic
foods (meat, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, sugars etc.), polluted air, heavy
metals in our environment and other factors; the biggest being our diet.
2.
Monopoly On Your Health
The US Government has a law which states
"Only drugs can cure, prevent, and treat disease." Currently, under
U. S. Federal law, no natural substance can be advertised as a cure
for any condition – period. Companies that get too successful with
cancer treatment are shut down by FDA lawsuits that are
supported directly by the pharmaceutical companies.
This means only the chemicals
that come from the factories of pharmaceutical companies can treat you, nothing
else.
Big Pharma has a monopoly on your health
and they are not about to jeopardize their trillion dollar profits by teaching
you inexpensive and powerful natural remedies. And if a doctor decides to treat
their patients with a natural remedy, even if it's over 90% successful, that
means he is breaking the law and his license will be suspended and he may even
be sentenced to jail (which has happened numerous times to honest medical
doctors).
Once in practice they have health agencies,
insurance companies, and the government all looking over their shoulders,
checking every examination and diagnosis, with attorneys ready to pounce on any
mistake or slip.
With insurance companies and
Medicare/Medicaid only paying a fraction of what the doctor bills them, they
are under intense economic pressure to keep the face-to-face appointment as
brief as possible.
Studies showed that on average patients
spend about two minutes with the doctor during each visit.
Is it possible for them to question you, or
figure out why you are sick? How can they in 2 minutes? All they really have
time to do is write you a prescription slip.
Nobody wants to be sick, not you or your
doctors. But sickness keeps Big Pharma alive. They make their profits on the
sickness of others. Be it a pill for a headache or acne, an injection vaccine,
Big Pharma not only needs you to want their drugs, they need you
to NEED them. They can only increase their profits through
disease-mongering; creating new diseases, inciting fear of them, and then
telling you they have the only solution through direct advertising.
And it works like a charm.
3.
How does this happen?
Throughout the 20th century, the
pharmaceutical industry has been constructed by investors, the goal
being to replace effective but non-patentable natural remedies with mostly
ineffective but patentable and highly profitable pharmaceutical drugs.
The very nature of the pharmaceutical
industry is to make money from ongoing diseases.
Like other industries, the pharmaceutical
industry tries to expand their market - that is to maintain ongoing diseases
and to find new diseases for their drugs. Prevention and cure of diseases
damages the pharmaceutical business and the eradication of common diseases
threatens its very existence.
Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry
fights the eradication of any disease at all costs.
The pharmaceutical industry itself is the
main obstacle, why today's most widespread diseases are further expanding
including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes,
osteoporosis, and many others. Pharmaceutical drugs are not intended to cure
diseases.
According to health insurers, over 24,000
pharmaceutical drugs are currently marketed and prescribed without any proven
therapeutic value (AOK Magazine 4/98).
According to medical doctors associations,
the known dangerous side-effects of pharmaceutical drugs have become the fourth
leading cause of death after heart attacks, cancer and strokes (Journal of the
American Medical Association, JAMA April 15, 1998)
Millions of people and patients around the
world are defrauded twice: A major portion of their income is used up to
finance the exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they
are offered a medicine that does not even cure.
4.
We are not dealing with a scientific problem. We are dealing with a
commercial issue
Every discoverer of a cancer remedy has
encountered a Chinese wall of resistance, which has been the same in every page
of recorded cancer history, and that the myth that the discoverer of a cancer
cure would be "honored, acclaimed, and practically deified as a saviour of
the human race, should be changed to "dishonored, denounced and crucified.
If this information would be made freely
available tomorrow to mainstream news, that would mean the end of the billion
dollar drug industry, it would be wiped out overnight; huge institutes, million
dollar research labs, universities, grants, journals, professors, experts, and
cushy multi million dollar jobs would be erased within a day, and not to
mention the fact that someone would have to answer for the hundreds of thousands
of dead people who didn't have to die, and the fact that what they were doing
was not only wrong, but they kept lying to keep this failing system alive even
with overwhelming scientific evidence going against them.
This is something big pharma will fight to
protect until the very end.
Believe it or not, there are many natural
cures for cancer. As the legendary Robert Atkins, M.D., once remarked:
“Consider this. You are worth anywhere from $300,000 to $1,000,000 to Big
Pharma from your cancer treatments. And the racketeers who rake in this money
couldn’t care less whether you live or die.
A chemo drug called Erlotinib costs $3,500
a month. The FDA approved it as a treatment for cancer because it supposedly
improved survival by 12 days! Another chemo drug that costs $10,000 a month
improved survival by six weeks. Six weeks of hell, I might add. Chemo makes you
feel like hell and look like hell.
There’s big money at stake in keeping this
drug racket going. The profits of the 10 drug companies in the Fortune 500
exceed the profits of the other 490 companies put together! These profits are
simply mind-boggling. The drug profiteers are making money hand over fist by
poisoning cancer patient
The truth is they have been systematically
destroying and suppressing any and all natural remedies since the early 1900's!
We know that conventional therapy
doesn't work—if it did you would not fear cancer any more than you fear
pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional
treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of
cancer therapy.
Yet most so-called alternative therapies
regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients
to submit to the failures we know don't work, because there is no other choice.
Most patients in the US die of
chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung
cancer. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors
still use chemotherapy for these tumors.
Except for two forms of cancer,
chemotherapy does not cure. There is no proof that chemotherapy in the
vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about
chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and
extending the life of the patient.
Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the
risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times.
In most cases, when people die from cancer,
they are NOT actually dying from cancer, but instead, they are dying from the
medical TREATMENT itself. They are dying from the chemotherapy, radiation and
surgery.
Clearly, conventional cancer treatments
have an important place in medicine and save lives. But since the 1950s,
evidence has steadily accumulated that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy are
far less effective than the public is being led to believe.
A study of over 10,000 patients clearly
shows that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease
(lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more
likely to develop leukaemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the
bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo
chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10).
Children who are successfully treated for
Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant
tumors. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time
they are 40, which is 75 times greater than the average.
The risk of leukaemia increased markedly
four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau
after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumors remained high and
approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)
5.
While In Office, President Ronald Reagan Cured His Cancer Naturally
When President Ronald Reagan got cancer
during his presidency, the great German doctor Hans Nieper, M.D, treated him
with natural remedies which will be discussed shortly. It would have been front
page news if it hadn't been hushed up at the time. That’s why the
method he used was hushed and suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just imagine if the American public knew a
sitting president preferred German cancer treatments!
Many American cancer patients lose their hair, their dignity and their lives for
traditional barbaric treatments. But the president of the United States
was treated with natural remedies and lived until the lively age of 93,
but he certainly didn't die of cancer.
Why is the president allowed to know the
truth, but you don’t?
Because if the news of his astounding
recovery and perfect health due to natural treatments would have collapsed the
pharmaceutical industry overnight.
6.
CANCER COVER-UP No. 1
The FTC Launches a Covert Campaign to
Censor Natural Cancer Remedies and Financially Ruin Doctors and Companies
Offering Them.
Sad as it seems, the harassment of doctors
using natural therapies to treat cancers has been going on for more than 50
years in America. Doctors treating malignant tumors with detoxification, immune
stimulation, nutrient, herb and juice fasting secrets from Europe, Tibet, China
and India have been persecuted and booted out of the U.S. if they wanted to
continue treating cancer patients.
Take the case of William Kelly, DDS. Dr.
Kelly discovered a natural enzyme therapy that, combined with strict nutrition
and a detoxification regime, "digested" pancreatic cancer cells. This
therapy achieved nearly a 90 percent, five-year survival rate for close to
33,000 patients-even though pancreatic cancer is by far the most rapid and
deadly cancer.
What did the government do when they heard
about Dr. Kelly's amazing discovery? They threw him in jail!
Now, the government is bringing out the Big
Guns! The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently launched what they call
"Operation False Cures" to stamp out natural cancer cures for good.
Here's what Dr. Hollohan, former chief of
the Fraud Division of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said about the
public's ability to make sound choices regarding medical care: "For the
majority of alternative therapies being offered today, there is virtually no
scientific evidence that one can expect to benefit from any of them. The public
in general doesn't have the knowledge to make an informed choice." What
Arrogance!
According to the FTC, "Anyone mentioning
a cure for cancer is automatically a quack, regardless of science backing
their position." By their own admission, they state that any mention of a
cancer "cure" is by itself fraudulent. And anyone using the word
"cure" on a website to promote a product is instantly presumed to be
guilty of criminal acts.
7.
CANCER COVER-UP No. 2
Drug Companies Pay Oncologists Big
"Kickbacks" to Promote High-Priced, but Ineffective Cancer Drugs.
Do you know how most oncologists make
money? Not by treating patients, but by selling cancer drugs.
According to the Journal of the
American Medical Association, as much as 75 percent of the average
oncologists' earnings come from selling chemotherapy drugs in
his or her office. And at a substantial mark-up!
The U.S. drug industry spent over$33.5
billion in promotion costs last year.
A former drug rep from Eli Lily testified
before Congress saying, "Pharmaceutical companies hire former
cheerleaders and ex-models to wine and dine doctors, exaggerate drug
benefits and underplay side effects."
An article in the Journal of the
American Medical Association reported that the average oncologist makes
$253,000 per year. Incredible as it sounds, the article says that 75 percent of
those earnings — about $190,000 — come from chemotherapy drug
profits!
If you subtract those drug profits, the
oncologist would make little more than $60,000 per year.
They get paid to kill people!
Worse, they pay oncologists kickbacks to
push their drugs. For example, AstraZeneca, Inc. had to pay $280 million in
civil penalties and $63 million in criminal penalties to the federal government
because it paid kickbacks to doctors for promoting its prostate cancer drug.
8.
WHAT IS CHEMOTHERAPY
Chemotherapy is a derivative
of mustard gas, the toxin that was used by the United States Army
to kill enemy forces in World War I, and was eventually
outlawed by the Geneva Convention.
In the 1930's Memorial Sloan-Kettering
began testing these mustard gas derivatives to treat cancer.
They had 0 percent success rates. In the
1940's more testing was conducted at Yale; out of 160 patient
treated nobody was cured.
During the first trials to find the perfect
drug, some 400,000 "cytotoxins" were tested by Sloan-Kettering and
the NCI (National Cancer Institute). Their only criterion for testing was;
which toxic compound will kill some of the cancer cells before it kills the
patient.
Thousands of the compounds tested were
simply refined poisons. After their trials about 50 toxins were chosen and are
still the basis of today's chemotherapy 'treatments'.
Despite absolutely no positive results, not
one person cured, not a shred of proof these toxins had any benefit whatsoever
to a cancer patient, these drugs gained popularity over the decades and are
still in use today.
About 27% of people that get diagnosed with
cancer and don’t do anything, heal spontaneously!
That's the statistics from
many doctors; a quarter of people that do absolutely nothing, no chemo, no
radiation, no orthodox or even alternative methods cure themselves of cancer.
So with the current modern medical 2% cure
rate, chemo and radiation is killing off the 25% of people that would have
otherwise survived by doing absolutely nothing.
In 1994 the British Journal of Cancer
showed double the survival rates for cancer patients using
a placebo instead of Levamisole, a popular chemotherapy drug (was
previously used as a de-worming agents for sheep, and sold for $1 a month, and
as soon as it was labelled as a "cancer drug" it is sold for over
$1000 a treatment, mind you its the same compound and nothing was done to
change it).
Modern medicine itself states that any drug
that has an effectiveness rate of less than 30% is considered no better than a
placebo, or as they call it: a sugar pill. A cure rate of 2% is
so abysmally low in the medical world, it is astounding they still
even consider calling chemo and radiation worthy treatments.
If you start chemo, you have an added 2%
survival rate. If you don't do anything at all, you have a 25% chance of
surviving, but if you start utilizing some simple, natural cures currently used
today around the world, you have a 70-95% chance of survival. So
which treatment would you prefer?
If modern medical treatments actually
worked, you would see a decline in cancer, NOT an INCREASE!
If chemotherapy, drugs, or radiation
worked, cancer would be cured and wiped out. Yet the rates of this disease
keep rising every single year.
1900 – 3%
1950 – 20%
1972 – 27%
1999 – 39%
By 2020 – It is estimated that 50% of the
population will have cancer.
In the past 100 years, there has never been
a year when cancer rates have decreased. Every single year, like clockwork,
cancer rates are rising exponentially. What about our
"state-of-the-art" cancer treatments? They should be working, but the
statistics show the contrary.
Traditional treatments have failed.
The New England Journal of Medicine
Reports— War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and
treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate
not lower, but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D.,
Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies
at the University of Chicago in Illinois.
9.
CANCER COVER-UP No. 3
Big Pharma Resorts to Outrageous Lies to
Convince You That Their So-Called Cancer "Cures" Work.
For instance, if you or a loved one has
breast cancer, doctors may recommend the drug Tamoxifen.
You'll likely hear that it reduces the
chances of breast cancer recurring by 49 percent.
But the truth is, based on absolute
numbers, Tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer returning by 1.6
percent-30 times less than advertised.
"Relative" numbers are used
because they can be manipulated in many ways. Relative to what? It could be to
a previous test or some other obscure number.
10.
CANCER COVER-UP No. 4
Mammograms Do More Damage Than Good-and
Actually HARM Ten Women for Every One It Helps
The $4 billion-a-year mammogram industry
urges women to rely on x-ray tests to protect their health.
But what they don't tell you is mammograms
are really an unnecessary and even harmful treatment.
Terrified of Developing Breast of Prostate
Cancer?
A new study by researchers from the Nordic
Cochrane Center in Demark reviewed the benefits and negative effects of seven
breast cancer screening programs on 500,000 women-and the results were
shocking.
For every 2,000 women who received
mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged,
but ten would be harmed. Mammograms can actually increase a
woman's risk of developing breast cancer by as much as 3 percent per year by
irradiating the breast cells and triggering breast cancer.
And that’s while there is a new test for
breast cancer with no false negatives or positives... from urine.
That's right. Researchers discovered that
people with cancer carry different proteins then people with no cancer-and this
can be tested by a simple test. So simple you can do it right at home.
11.
CANCER COVER-UP No. 5
One Percent of Oncologists Would REFUSE
Chemotherapy If They Had Cancer.
Why? Because they know it's extremely
ineffective and extremely toxic.
The true 5-year cure rate of conventional
cancer treatments is less than 3% (actually, about 2.1%).
This statistic is from the Journal of
Oncology in 2004. Their "cure rate" hasn't changed much, if any,
since 2004. They hide their true cure rate by using clever terminology, such as
by using the term "response," which means nothing as far as survival
is concerned.
Research has shown that 3 of every 4
doctors and scientists would refuse chemotherapy for themselves due to its
devastating effects body and immune system, and because of its extremely
low success rate. On top of that, only 2 to 4% of all cancers even respond to
chemotherapy or prove to be "life extending," yet it is prescribed
across the board for just about every kind of cancer.
The McGill Cancer Center in Montreal, Quebec, one of the largest and
most prestigious cancer treatment centers in the world, did a study of
oncologists to determine how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer.
On the confidential questionnaire, 91% said
that ALL chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them
and their family members. The overriding reasons they gave for this
decision were that the drugs are ineffective and have an unacceptable
degree of toxicity.
These are the same doctors who will tell
you that their chemotherapy treatments will shrink your tumor and prolong your
life.
15. CANNABIS CURES CANCER AND THE US
GOVERNMENT KNEW IT ALL ALONG - NIXON BAN RESEARCH REPORT
Stes de Necker
Cannabis is labeled by the US Government as
a Schedule One Narcotic, meaning little to no known medical value. (Even though
the US Govt holds patents that state otherwise) Marinol, which is APPROVED BY
THE FDA, is synthesized THC.
Millions of people are sitting in jail for
using Cannabis raw, but it’s ‘perfectly fine’ to use the plant if the
Government and their corporate owners take most of the medicine out of it, then
get to charge you an arm and a leg for it. Why is that?
The US Government is well aware Cannabis
has medicinal properties. How could they not? It’s been used as a medicine
for at least the past 10,000 years. Even in America, Cannabis was used as a
medicine for over 100 years. It was in over a hundred over the counter
medicines for a wide range of reasons. Everything from pain and nausea
medication to sleeping tonics.
Why did the US Government made Cannabis
illegal?
You can read about the greed and racism
that caused the criminalization of the world’s most useful plant in following
article.
Among the reasons you will learn about on
the link I shared above, the US Government has even more reason to keep it
illegal today. If Cannabis were to become legalized, it would eat away at
TRILLIONS of pharmaceutical profits over the years. (Not including other
profits like the billions they get for keeping our privately owned prisons
full)
What most people don’t realize is, the
Government(s) have been helping the major pharmaceutical companies stonewall
natural cures for decades. (Cannabis is merely one of many they have tried
to bury and discredit) In fact, the US Government has known since 1974 that
Cannabis cures Cancer.
In ’72 Richard Nixon wanted a larger budget
for his war on drugs. He thought that if he proved Cannabis caused lung cancer
like cigarettes do, he would get the support he needed.
He gave the Medical College of Virginia 2
years to do a study on the effects of THC on the body. The study was completed
in 1974.
It turns out, THC when ingested in highly
concentrated forms (such as eating Cannabis oil) will attack any mutated cells
in your body while strengthening and rejuvenating the healthy cells.
They found the PERFECT cure for Cancer!
It worked fast, it worked well, it worked
on many different forms of Cancer in ALL stages and it had ZERO harmful side
effects. (Unlike Chemo which deteriorates your entire body and kills 1 in 5
patients).
Not only that, but other research shows it
dissolves ALL forms of tumors and can even combat super-bugs like MRSA.
When Richard Nixon saw the results of the study
he was FURIOUS. He threw the entire report in the trash and deemed the study
classified.
In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to
all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major
pharmaceutical companies, who set out — unsuccessfully — to develop synthetic
forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the “high.”
This study was only discovered a few years
ago thanks to dedicated medical and law professionals who filed Freedom of
Information Requests.
The Government lied for many reasons.
One of the main reasons is Pharmaceutical
Companies.
They spend billions every year lobbying to
keep Cannabis illegal because they make TRILLIONS off Cancer drugs and
research. They are already well aware that Cannabis cures Cancer. They have a
well thought out con going at the moment.
Cancer patients and their loved ones will
spend their entire life savings or even sell their houses and businesses in
order to pay for Chemotherapy and other Cancer treatment drugs. A lot of the
time they spend all that money and their loved one dies anyway.
The day the American public would accept
that their Government has been lying for over 40 years, that MILLIONS of lives
could have been saved and that the dying could grow the cure they so
desperately need in their own backyard… The American public would be going nuts
over it.
This is why we need your help telling
people!
Here is an article about what they did if
you’d like to read more, as well as an article about more suppressed research.
Bear in mind that the US Government also
holds a Patent on Cannabis and it’s medicinal properties.
US Patent 6630507 states unequivocally that
cannabinoids are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of
diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson’s,
Alzheimer’s and HIV dementia. The patent, awarded in 2003, is based on research
done by the National Institute of Health, and is assigned to the US Dept. of
Health and Human Services.
In the age of information, they can no
longer keep their lies about Cannabis afloat!
SHARE THIS INFORMATION EVERYWHERE!
16. WHY IS CANNABIS ILLEGAL IN THE US
Stes de Necker
Many people assume that marijuana was made
illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government
hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a
dangerous drug.
The actual story shows a much different
picture.
Those who voted on the legal fate of this
plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those
who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very
first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie
on the floor of the US Senate.
The history of marijuana’s criminalization
is filled with:
Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt
Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
These are the actual reasons why
cannabis is illegal.
Background
For most of human history, marijuana has
been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is it a
long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that
it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C. and it was
legal as recently as when Ronald Reagan was a boy.
The marijuana (hemp) plant, of course, has
an incredible number of uses. The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of
hemp, and over the centuries the plant was used for food, incense, cloth, rope,
and much more. This adds to some of the confusion over its introduction in the
United States, as the plant was well known from the early 1600’s, but did not
reach public awareness as a recreational drug until the early 1900’s.
America’s first marijuana law was enacted
at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law “ordering” all farmers to
grow Indian hempseed.
There were several other “must grow” laws
over the next 200 years (Americans could be jailed for not growing hemp
during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of
that time, hemp was legal tender (Americans could even pay your taxes with
hemp)
Hemp was such a critical crop for a number
of purposes (including essential war requirements – rope, etc.) that the
government went out of its way to encourage growth.
The United States Census of 1850 counted
8,327 hemp “plantations” (minimum 2,000-acre farm) growing cannabis hemp for
cloth, canvas and even the cordage used for baling cotton.
The Mexican Connection
In the early 1900s, the western states
developed significant tensions regarding the influx of
Mexican-Americans. (Donald Trump will be excited to know this!)
The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled
over the border, with General Pershing’s army clashing with bandit Pancho
Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer
and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came
and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.
One of the “differences” seized upon during
this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the
plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the
first state marijuana law, outlawing “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”
However, one of the first state laws
outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the
drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to
Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana.
The church’s reaction to this may have
contributed to the state’s marijuana law. (Note: the source for this
speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law
School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California
Judges Association (sourced below).
Other states quickly followed suit with
marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa
(1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and
Nebraska (1927).
These laws tended to be specifically
targeted against the Mexican-American population.
When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927,
the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator’s comment: “When some beet
field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected
president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.” In
Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: “All Mexicans are crazy, and
this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.”
Jazz and Assassins
In the eastern states, the “problem” was
attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians.
Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem,
where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering
the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong’s “Muggles”, Cab
Calloway’s “That Funny Reefer Man”, Fats Waller’s “Viper’s Drag”).
Again, racism was part of the charge
against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: “Marihuana influences
Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and
look at a white woman twice.”
Two other fear-tactic rumors started to
spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white
children with marijuana; and two, the story of the “assassins.”
Early stories of Marco Polo had told of
“hasheesh-eaters” or hashashin, from which derived the term “assassin.” In the
original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish
and brought to the ruler’s garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that
awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the
effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler’s wishes
with cool, calculating loyalty.
By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A.
E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: “Under
the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and
ruthlessly massacre everyone within their grasp.”
Within a very short time, marijuana started
being linked to violent behavior.
Alcohol Prohibition and Federal Approaches
to Drug Prohibition
During this time, the United States was
also dealing with alcohol prohibition, which lasted from 1919 to 1933. Alcohol
prohibition was extremely visible and debated at all levels, while drug laws
were passed without the general public’s knowledge. National alcohol
prohibition happened through the mechanism of an amendment to the constitution.
Earlier (1914), the Harrison Act was
passed, which provided federal tax penalties for opiates and cocaine.
The federal approach is important. It was
considered at the time that the federal government did not have the
constitutional power to outlaw alcohol or drugs. It is because of this that
alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment.
At that time in our country’s history, the
judiciary regularly placed the tenth amendment in the path of congressional
regulation of “local” affairs, and direct regulation of medical practice was
considered beyond congressional power under the commerce clause (since then,
both provisions have been weakened so far as to have almost no meaning).
Since drugs could not be outlawed at the
federal level, the decision was made to use federal taxes as a way around the
restriction.
In the Harrison Act, legal uses of opiates
and cocaine were taxed (supposedly as a revenue need by the federal government,
which is the only way it would hold up in the courts), and those who didn’t
follow the law found themselves in trouble with the treasury department.
In 1930, a new division in the Treasury
Department was established — the Federal Bureau of Narcotics — and Harry J.
Anslinger was named director.
This, if anything, marked the beginning of
the all-out war against marijuana.
Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man,
and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity — a
new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the
solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn’t be enough to
help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on
making it illegal at the federal level.
Anslinger immediately drew upon the themes
of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to
create. He also promoted and frequently read from “Gore Files” — wild
reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex
and… Negroes. Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to
Anslinger and his Gore Files:
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers
in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their
Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use.
This marijuana causes white women to seek
sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is
its effect on the degenerate races.”
“Marijuana is an addictive drug which
produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good
as white men.”
“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist
brainwashing”
“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to
kill your brother.”
“Marijuana is the most violence-causing
drug in the history of mankind.”
And he loved to pull out his own version of
the “assassin” definition:
“In the year 1090, there was founded in
Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one
of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were
confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs’ ‘hashashin’
that we have the English word ‘assassin.'”
Yellow Journalism
Harry Anslinger got some additional help
from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had
lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested
heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn’t want
to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000
acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling
lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold
newspapers, making him rich.
Some samples from the San Francisco
Examiner:
“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty
days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”
“By the tons it is coming into this country
— the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the
very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any
of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane
asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain
will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer
who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever
laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”
And other nationwide columns:
“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as
they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in
this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”
“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug,
that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her
victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this
country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”
Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by
Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to
outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as
competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor
standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow
their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.
This all set the stage for The Marijuana
Tax Act of 1937.
After two years of secret planning, Anslinger
brought his plan to Congress — complete with a scrapbook full of sensational
Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana,
and racial slurs.
It was a remarkably short set of hearings.
The one fly in Anslinger’s ointment was the
appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American
Medical Association.
Woodward started by slamming Harry
Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements
that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA
endorsement for Anslinger’s view.
He also reproached the legislature and the
Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it
as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a
sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been
connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus,
many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.
Woodward went on to state that the AMA was
opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings,
coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the
committee:
“That there is a certain amount of narcotic
addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny.
The newspapers have
called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for
[their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst’s
propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these
statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by
competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications
concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of
marihuana causes crime.
But yet no one has been produced from the
Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted
to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons
has no evidence on that point.
Americans have been told that school
children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from
the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among
children.
Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that
they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of
it.
Inquiry of the Office of Education— and
they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the
school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit— indicates that
they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.
Moreover, there is in the Treasury
Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental
Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division
of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental
Hygiene, round about 1930.
That particular Bureau has control at the
present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and
came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that
Bureau to give evidence on that point.
Informal inquiry indicated that
they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been
committed to those farms.
The bureau of Public Health Service has
also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology
of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary
evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.”
Committee members then proceeded to attack
Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation.
Even the Chairman joined in:
The Chairman: If you want to advise us
on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather
than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something
that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish
motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.
Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand
yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2
years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being
prepared.
After some further bantering…
The Chairman: I would like to read a
quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:
The marihuana cigarette is one of the most
insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to
understand its fatal qualities.
The Nation is
almost defenceless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it
and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.
The result is tragic.
School children are the prey of peddlers
who infest school neighbourhoods.
High school boys and girls buy the
destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless
dealers sell it with impunity.
This is a national problem, and it must
have national attention.
The fatal marihuana cigarette must be
recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against
it.
That is a pretty severe indictment.
They say it is a national question and that
it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have
responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it
is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country
as such.
And that was basically it. Yellow
journalism won over medical science.
The committee passed the legislation on.
And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:
Member from upstate New York: “Mr.
Speaker, what is this bill about?”
Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has
something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some
kind.”
“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical
Association support this bill?”
Member on the committee jumps up and
says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill
100 percent.”
And on the basis of that lie, on August 2,
1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level!
The entire coverage in the New York Times:
“President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic,
marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions.”
Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars
Anslinger was essentially the first Drug
Czar. Even though the term didn’t exist until William Bennett’s position as
director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in
a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger
and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go
around demonizing drugs and drug users.
Both had resources and a large public
podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both
lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the
ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and
others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into
squelching or downplaying any opposition views.
Anslinger even had the ability to
circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie “Drug Addict,” a
1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement
efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or
failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada
refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping
harsh marijuana laws.)
Anslinger had 37 years to solidify the
propaganda and stifle opposition. The lies continued the entire time (although
the stories would adjust — the 21 year old Florida boy who killed his family of
five got younger each time he told it).
In 1961, he looked back at his efforts:
“Much of the most irrational juvenile
violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable
directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two
school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A
sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota
puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado husband
tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself.
Every one of these crimes had been proceeded [sic] by the smoking of one or
more marijuana “reefers.”
As the marijuana situation grew worse, I
knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under
my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps First, a legislative plan
to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution
directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that
presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this
evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for
magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social
and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of
crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its
close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts.
I believe we did a thorough job, for the
public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally
and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing
marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up
hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the
roadsides.”
The narrative since then has been a
continual litany of:
Politicians wanting to appear tough on
crime and passing tougher penalties
Constant increases in spending on law
enforcement and prisons
Racist application of drug laws
Taxpayer funded propaganda
Stifling of opposition speech
Political contributions from corporations
that profit from marijuana being illegal (pharmaceuticals, alcohol, etc.)
Chronology of the cannabis saga
7000-8000 B.C.
First woven fabric believed to be from
hemp.
1619
Jamestown Colony, Virginia passes law
requiring farmers to grow hemp.
1700s
Hemp was the primary crop grown by George
Washington at Mount Vernon, and a secondary crop grown by Thomas Jefferson at
Monticello.
1884
Maine is the first state to outlaw alcohol.
1906
Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, forming
the Food and Drug Administration. First time that drugs have any government
oversight.
1913California, apparently, passes the
first state marijuana law, though missed by many because it referred to
“preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”
1914
Harrison Act passed, outlawing opiates and
cocaine (taxing scheme)
1915
Utah passes state anti-marijuana law.
1919
18th Amendment to the Constitution (alcohol
prohibition) is ratified.
1930
Harry J. Anslinger given control of the new
Federal Bureau of Narcotics (he remains in the position until 1962)
1933
21st Amendment to the Constitution is
ratified, repealing alcohol prohibition.
1937
Marijuana Tax Act
1938
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
1951
Boggs Amendment to the Harrison Narcotic
Act (mandatory sentences)
1956
Narcotics Control Act adds more severe
penalties
1970
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act.
Replaces and updates all previous laws concerning narcotics and other dangerous
drugs. Empasis on law enforcement. Includes the Controlled Substances Act,
where marijuana is classified a Schedule 1 drug (reserved for the most
dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use).
1972
Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act.
Establishes federally funded programs for prevention and treatment
1973
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Changes Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs into the DEA
1974 and 1978
Drug Abuse Treatment and Control
Amendments. Extends 1972 act
1988
Anti-Drug Abuse Act.
Establishes oversight office: National Office of Drug Control Policy and the
Drug Czar
1992
ADAMHA Reorganization.
Transfers NIDA, NIMH, and NIAAA to NIH and incorporates ADAMHA’s programs into
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Anyone wanting to know more about the
history of marijuana, Harry Anslinger, and the saga of criminalization in the
United States and elsewhere, can visit the links below.
(All data and quotes for this article came from these sources as
well).
17. HEMP
Stes de Necker
Source - Wikipedia
Hemp (from Old
English hænep) is a commonly used term for high-growing varieties of
the Cannabis plant and its products, which include fiber, oil, and
seed. Hemp is refined into products such as hemp seed foods, hemp oil, wax,
resin, rope, cloth, pulp, paper, and fuel.
Other variants of the
herb Cannabis are widely used as a drug, commonly known
as marijuana. These variants are typically low-growing and have higher
content of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD),
and other cannabinoids.
The legality of Cannabis varies
widely from country to country, and from state to state in the United States.
In many countries regulatory limits for concentrations of psychoactive drug
compounds, particularly THC, in hemp require the use of strains of the plant
which are bred for low content.
Contents
1 Uses
1.1 Food
1.1.1 Market share
1.1.2 Nutrition
1.1.3 Storage
1.2 Fiber
1.3 Building material
1.4 Plastic and composite materials
1.5 Paper
1.5.1 History and development
1.5.2 Contemporary
1.5.3 Market share
1.6 Jewelry
1.7 Cordage
1.8 Animal bedding
1.9 Water and soil purification
1.10 Weed control
1.11 Fuel
2 Cultivation
2.1 Cultivars
2.2 Harvesting
2.3 Location and crop rotation
2.4 Diseases
2.5 Environmental impact
3 Producers
3.1 Australia
3.2 Canada
3.3 France
3.4 Russia and Ukraine
3.5 United Kingdom
3.6 United States
4 History
4.1 Historical cultivation
4.1.1 Japan
4.1.2 Portugal
Hemp is used for many varieties of products
including the manufacture of cordage of varying tensile
strength, durable clothing and nutritional products. The bast
fibers can be used in 100% hemp products, but are commonly blended with
other organic fibers such asflax, cotton or silk, for apparel
and furnishings, most commonly at a 55%/45% hemp/cotton blend. The inner two
fibers of hemp are more woody and are more often used in non-woven items and
other industrial applications, such as mulch, animal bedding and litter.
The oil from the fruits ("seeds") oxidizes (commonly,
though inaccurately, called "drying") to become solid on exposure to
air, similar to linseedoil, and is sometimes used in the manufacture of
oil-based paints, in creams as a moisturizing agent, for cooking, and in
plastics. Hemp seeds have been used in bird feed mix as well. A survey in
2003 showed that more than 95% of hemp seed sold in the EU was used
in animal and bird feed.
In modern times hemp is used for industrial
purposes
including paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable
plastics, construction (as with Hempcrete and insulation),
body products, health food and bio-fuel.
Hemp
seeds.
Hemp seeds can be eaten raw, ground into a
meal, sprouted, made into hemp milk (akin to soy milk), prepared
as tea, and used in baking. The fresh leaves can also be consumed in
salads. Products include cereals, frozen waffles, hemp milk ice cream,
hemp tofu, and nut butters. A few companies produce value added hemp
seed items that include the seed oils, whole hemp grain (which is
sterilized by law in the United States, where they import it from China and
Canada), dehulled hemp seed (the whole seed without the mineral rich outer
shell), hemp flour, hemp cake (a by-product of pressing the seed for oil) and
hemp protein powder. Even though hemp and marijuana are both made
from the Cannabis plant, hemp seeds contain negligible levels
of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is
the psychoactive substance in marijuana.
Market
share
Within the UK, the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has treated hemp as purely a
non-food crop. Seed appears on the UK market as a legal food product, and
cultivation licenses are available for this purpose. In North America, hemp
seed food products are sold, typically in health food stores or through mail
order. The United States Department of Agriculture has concluded that
"the market potential for hemp seed as a food ingredient is unknown.
However, it probably will remain a small market, like those for sesame and
poppy seeds." In 2011, the U.S. imported $11.5 million worth of legal
hemp products, up from $1.4 million in 2000, most of that driven by growth in
hemp seed and hemp oil used in food products.
Nutrition
Typical nutritional analysis
of hulled hemp seeds
Calories/100 g 580 kcal
Protein
37 g, 73% Daily Value, DV
Carbohydrate 7 g
Dietary
fiber 3 g, 13% DV
Fat 45 g
Saturated
fat 3 g
Sodium
0 mg, 0% DV
Magnesium
640 mg, 160% DV
Iron 9.6 mg, 53% DV
Zinc 11.5 mg, 77% DV
Hemp seeds are notable as a
high-protein food source, providing 73% of the Daily Value (DV) in a 100 g
serving. Hempseed amino acid profile is comparable to other
sources of protein such as meat, milk, eggs and soy. Protein
Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score values (PDCAAS), which measure
the degree to which a food for humans is a "complete protein", were
0.49-0.53 for whole hemp seed, 0.46-0.51 for hemp seed meal, and 0.63-0.66 for
dehulled hemp seed.
Hemp seeds are also a rich source of
the dietary minerals, magnesium (160% DV), zinc (77%
DV) and iron (53% DV), and a good source of dietary
fiber (13% DV).
Approximately 73% of the energy in hemp
seeds is in the form of fats and essential fatty acids,
mainly polyunsaturated fatty
acids, linoleic, oleic and alpha-linolenic acids.
Storage
Hemp oil, like any food oil rich in
essential fatty acids, will spontaneously oxidize and turn rancid within a
short period of time if not stored properly; its shelf life is extended when
stored in a dark airtight container and refrigerated.
Fiber
Hemp fiber has been used extensively
throughout history, with production climaxing soon after being introduced to
the New World. Items ranging from rope, to fabrics, to industrial materials
were made from hemp fiber. Hemp was often used to make sail canvas, and
the word canvas derives from cannabis. Today, a modest hemp
fabric industry exists, and hemp fibers can be used in clothing. Pure hemp
has a texture similar to linen.
Building
material
Concrete-like blocks made with hemp and
lime have been used as an insulating material for construction. Such blocks are
not strong enough to be used for structural elements; they must be supported by
a brick, wood, or steel frame. However hemp fibres are extremely strong
and durable and have been shown to be used in replacement of wood for many jobs
including creating very durable and breathable homes.
The first example of the use of hempcrete
was in 1986 in France with the renovation of the Maison de la Turque
in Nogent-sur-Seine by the innovator Charles Rasetti. In the UK
hemp lime was first used in 2000 for the construction of two test dwellings in
Haverhill. Designed by Modece Architects, who pioneered hemp's use in
UK construction, the hemp houses were monitored in comparison with other
standard dwellings by BRE. Completed in 2009, The Renewable House is one of the
most technologically advanced made from hemp-based materials. The first US
home made of hemp-based materials was completed in August 2010 in Asheville,
North Carolina.
A panellized system of hemp-lime panels for
use in building construction is currently under test in a European Union funded
research collaboration led by the University of Bath. The panels are being
designed to assure high quality construction, rapid on-site erection, optimal
hygrothermal performance from day one and energy and resource efficient
buildings. The 36-month-long work programme aims to refine product and
manufacturing protocols, produce data for certification and marketing,
warranty, insurance cover and availability of finance. It also includes the
development of markets in Britain, France and Spain.
Hemp is used as an internal plaster and is
a mixture of hemp hurd (shive) mixed with larger proportions of a lime based
binder. Hemp plaster has insulative qualities.
Continued research is leading to novel
formulas for Hempcrete that are being developed (thanks in part to
the relaxing of regulations in the United States). Some of these formulas
enable the new forms of hempcrete to act as structural elements, due to a
reduction in material (hemp hurd and lime binder) particle sizes and greater
density. If combined with alternative construction methods such as 3D
printing, construction in the 21st century could potentially not only be much
more sustainable, but virtually waste-less.
Plastic
and composite materials
A mixture of fiberglass, hemp
fiber, kenaf, and flax has been used since 2002 to make
composite panels for automobiles. The choice of which bast fiber to
use is primarily based on cost and availability. Various car makers are
beginning to use hemp in their cars,
including Audi, BMW, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Iveco, Lotus, Mercedes, Mitsubishi,Porsche,
Saturn, Volkswagen and Volvo. For example, the Lotus Eco
Elise and the Mercedes C-Class both contain hemp (up to 20 kg in each
car in the case of the latter).
The first identified
coarse paper, made from hemp, dates to the early Western Han Dynasty,
two hundred years before the nominal invention of papermaking by Cai
Lun, who improved and standardized paper production using a range of
inexpensive materials, including hemp ends, approximately 2000 years
ago. Recycled hemp clothing, rags and fishing nets were used as inputs for
paper production.
The Saint Petersburg, Russia, paper
mill of Goznak opened in 1818. It used hemp as its main input material. Paper
from the mill was used in the printing of "bank notes, stamped paper,
credit bills, postal stamps, bonds, stocks, and other watermarked paper."
In 1916, U.S. Department of Agriculture
chief scientists Lyster Hoxie Dewey and Jason L. Merrill created
paper made from hemp pulp and concluded that paper from hemp hurds was
"favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood." Modern
research (also Lyster Hoxie Dewey in 1943) has not confirmed the positive
finding about hemp hurds from 1916. There are only 32% and 38%
cellulose. On the other hand, hemp contains only 4-10% lignin against the
18-30% found in wood.
This lignin must be removed chemically and wood requires
more use of chemicals in the process.
The actual production of hemp fiber in the
U.S continued to decline until 1933 to around 500 tons/year. Between 1934-35,
the cultivation of hemp began to increase but still at a very low level and
with no significant increase of paper from hemp.
Contemporary
Hemp has never been used for commercial
high-volume paper production due to its relatively high processing
cost. Currently there is a small niche market for hemp pulp, for example
as cigarette paper. Hemp fiber is mixed with fiber from other sources than
hemp. In 1994 there was no significant production of 100% true hemp paper.
World hemp pulp production was believed to be around 120,000 tons per year in
1991 which was about 0.05% of the world's annual pulp production volume.
The total world production of hemp fiber
had in 2003 declined to about 60,000 from 80,000 tons. This can be
compared to a typical pulp mill for wood fiber, which is never smaller than
250,000 tons per anum. The cost of hemp pulp is approximately six times
that of wood pulp, mostly because of the small size and outdated equipment
of the few hemp processing plants in the Western world, and because hemp is
harvested once a year (during August) and needs to be stored to feed the
mill the whole year through. This storage requires a lot of (mostly manual)
handling of the bulky stalk bundles.
Another issue is that the entire hemp plant
cannot be economically prepared for paper production.
While the wood products
industry uses nearly 100% of the fiber from harvested trees, only about 25% of
the dried hemp stem — the bark, called bast — contains the long, strong fibers
desirable for paper production. All this accounts for a high raw material
cost. Hemp pulp is bleached with hydrogen peroxide, a process today also
commonly used for wood pulp.
Market
share
Around the year 2000, the production
quantity of flax and hemp pulp total 25000-30000 tons per year, having been
produced from approximately 37000-45000 tonnes fibers. Up to 80% of the produced
pulp is used for specialty papers (including 95% of cigarette paper). Only
about 20% hemp fiber input goes into the standard pulp area and are here mostly
in lower quality (untreated oakum high shive content added)
wood pulps. With hemp pulp alone, the proportion of specialty papers probably
at about 99%. The market is considered saturated with little or no growth in
this area.
Jewelry
Hemp jewelry is the product of
knotting hemp twine through the practice of macramé. Hemp jewellery
includes bracelets, necklaces, anklets, rings, watches and other adornments.
Some jewellery features beads made
from glass, stone, wood and bones. The hemp twine
varies in thickness and comes in a variety of colors. There are many
different stitches used to create hemp jewellery, however, the half
knot and full knot stitches are most common.
Cordage
Hemp rope was used in the age of
sailing ships, though the rope had to be protected by tarring, since hemp
rope has a propensity for breaking from rot, as the capillary effect of the
rope-woven fibers tended to hold liquid at the interior, while seeming dry from
the outside. Tarring was a labor-intensive process, and earned sailors the
nickname "Jack Tar". Hemp rope was phased out when Manila, which does
not require tarring, became widely available. Manila is sometimes referred to
as Manila hemp, but is not related to hemp; it is abacá, a species
of banana.
Animal
bedding
Hemp shives are the core of the stem, hemp
hurds are broken parts of the core. In the EU, they are used for animal bedding
(horses, for instance), or for horticultural mulch. Industrial hemp is
much more profitable if both fibers and shives (or even seeds) can be used.
Water
and soil purification
Hemp can be used as a "mop crop"
to clear impurities out of wastewater, such as sewage effluent, excessive
phosphorus from chicken litter, or other unwanted substances or chemicals.
Eco-technologist Dr. Keith Bolton from Southern Cross University
in Lismore, New South Wales, Australia, is a leading researcher in this area.
Hemp is being used to clean contaminants at the Chernobyl nuclear
disaster site. This is known as phytoremediation - the process
of clearing radioisotopes as well as a variety of other toxins from the soil,
water, and air.
Weed
control
Hemp, because of its height, dense foliage
and its high planting density as a crop, is a very effective and long used
method of killing tough weeds in farming by minimizing the pool of weed seeds
of the soil. Using hemp this way can help farmers avoid the use of
herbicides, to help gain organic certification and to gain the
benefits of crop rotation. Due to its rapid, dense growth characteristics,
in some jurisdictions hemp is considered a prohibited noxious weed, much
like Scotch Broom. It has been used extensively to kill weeds in
agriculture.
Fuel
Biofuels, such
as biodiesel and alcohol fuel, can be made from the oils in hemp
seeds and stalks, and the fermentation of the plant as a whole, respectively.
Biodiesel produced from hemp is sometimes known as "hempoline".
Filtered hemp oil can be used directly to
power diesel engines. In 1892, Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel
engine, which he intended to fuel "by a variety of fuels, especially
vegetable and seed oils, which earlier were used for oil lamps, i.e.
the Argand lamp."
Production of vehicle fuel from hemp is
very small. Commercial biodiesel and biogas is typically
produced from cereals, coconuts, palmseeds and cheaper raw materials like
garbage, wastewater, dead plant and animal material, animal feces and
kitchen waste.
Cultivation
Hemp is usually planted between March and
May in the northern hemisphere, between September and November in the southern
hemisphere. It matures in about three to four months.
Millennia of selective
breeding have resulted in varieties that look quite different.
Also, breeding since circa 1930 has focused quite specifically on producing
strains which would perform very poorly as sources of drug material. Hemp grown
for fiber is planted closely, resulting in tall, slender plants with long
fibers. "Until the early 1900s industrial hemp was a valuable crop used
all over the world for its strong fibers and oil seeds.
Today, however, the common perception of
the industrial hemp plant is generally negative and associated with the
drug marijuana. This perception is the legacy of a century of powerful
influences constructing hemp as a dangerous drug, even though it is not a drug
and it has the potential to be a profitable alternative crop. In the United
States, the public's perception of hemp as marijuana has blocked hemp from
becoming a useful crop and product," in spite of its vital importance
prior to World War II. Ideally, according to Britain's Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the herb should be desiccated and harvested
towards the end of flowering. This early cropping reduces the seed yield but
improves the fiber yield and quality. In these strains of industrial hemp
the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content would have been very low.
The seeds are sown from mid-April to
mid-May with grain drills to 4–6 cm sowing depth. Hemp needs less
fertilizer than corn does. A total of 60–150 kg of nitrogen,
40–140 kg phosphorus (P2O5) and 75–200 kg of potassium per acre
for hemp fiber made before sowing and again later, maybe three to four weeks.
When practiced, especially in France double use of fiber and seed fertilization
with nitrogen doses up to 100 kg / ha rather low. Organic
fertilizers such as manure can utilize industrial hemp well. Neither weeds nor
crop protection measures are necessary.
Cultivars
A total of 26 varieties of hemp with low
levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are certified by the European
Union (EU). They have, unlike other types, a very high fiber content
of 30-40%. In contrast to cannabis for medical use, varieties grown for fiber
and seed have less than 0.2% THC and they are unsuitable for producing hashish
and marijuana. The most important cannabinoid in industrial hemp
is cannabidiol (CBD) with a proportion of 1 to 5%.
Cannabis sativa L.
subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for
industrial use, while C. sativa subsp. indica generally has
poor fiber quality and is primarily used for recreational and medicinal
purposes. The major difference between the two types of plants is the
appearance and the amount of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) secreted in a
resinous mixture by epidermal hairs called glandular trichomes,
although they can also be distinguished genetically. Oilseed and fiber
varieties of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce
only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or
psychological effects. Typically, hemp contains below 0.3% THC, while cultivars
of Cannabis grown for recreational use can contain anywhere from 2%
to over 20%.
Harvesting
Smallholder plots are usually harvested by
hand. The plants are cut at 2 to 3 cm above the soil and left on the
ground to dry. Mechanical harvesting is now common, using specially adapted
cutter-binders or simpler cutters.
The cut hemp is laid in swathes to dry for
up to four days. This was traditionally followed by retting, either water
retting (the bundled hemp floats in water) or dew retting (the hemp remains on
the ground and is affected by the moisture in dew, and by molds
and bacterial action). Modern processes use steam and machinery to
separate the fiber, a process known as thermomechanical pulping.
Location
and crop rotation
For profitable hemp farming, particularly
deep, humus-rich, nutrient-rich soil with controlled water flow is
preferable. Water logged acidic, compressed or extremely light (sandy) soils
primarily affect the early development of plants. Steep and high altitudes
of more than 400 m above sea level are best avoided. Hemp is relatively
insensitive to cold temperatures and can withstand frost down to -5 degrees
C. Seeds can germinate down to 1-3 degrees. Hemp needs a lot of heat,
so earlier varieties come to maturation. The water requirement is 300-500 l /
kg dry matter. Up to 3 feet growing roots into the soil can also use water
supplies from deeper soil layers. Worth noting is that the water requirement of
hemp is at least 14 times lower than that of cotton which takes between 7
000-29 000 l/kg, according to WWF.
Hemp benefits crops grown after it. For
this reason, it is generally grown before winter cereals. Advantageous changes
are high weed suppression, soil loosening by the large hemp root system and the
positive effect on soil tilth. Since hemp is very self-compatible, it can
also be grown several years in a row in the same fields (monoculture).
Diseases
Hemp plants can be vulnerable to
various pathogens,
including bacteria, fungi, nematodes, viruses and
other miscellaneous pathogens. Such diseases often lead to reduced fiber
quality, stunted growth, and death of the plant. These diseases rarely affect
the yield of a hemp field, so hemp production is not traditionally dependent on
the use of pesticides.
Environmental
impact
Hemp is considered by a 1998 study
in Environmental Economics to be environmentally
friendly due to a decrease of land use and other environmental
impacts, indicating a possible decrease of ecological footprint in a
US context compared to typical benchmarks. A 2010 study, however, that
compared the production of paper specifically from hemp
and eucalyptus concluded that "industrial hemp presents higher
environmental impacts than eucalyptus paper"; however, the article also
highlights that "there is scope for improving industrial hemp paper
production".
Hemp is also claimed to require
few pesticides and no herbicides, and it has been called a carbon
negative raw material. Results indicate that high yield of hemp may
require high total nutrient levels (field plus fertilizer nutrients) similar to
a high yielding wheat crop.
Producers
The world-leading producer of hemp
is China, with smaller production
in Europe, Chile and North Korea. Over thirty countries
produce industrial hemp,
including Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great
Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine.
The United Kingdom and Germany
resumed commercial production in the 1990s. British production is mostly used
as bedding for horses; other uses are under development. Companies in
Canada, the UK, the United States and Germany, among many others, process hemp
seed into a growing range of food products and cosmetics; many
traditional growing countries still continue to produce textile-grade
fibre.
Air dry stem yields in Ontario have from
1998 and onward ranged from 2.6-14.0 tonnes of dry, retted stalks per hectare
(1-5.5 t/ac) at 12% moisture. Yields in Kent County, have averaged 8.75 t/ha
(3.5 t/ac). Northern Ontario crops averaged 6.1 t/ha (2.5 t/ac) in 1998.
Statistic for the European Union for 2008 to 2010 say that the average yield of
hemp straw has varied between 6.3 and 7.3 ton per ha. Only a part of that is
bast fiber. Approximately one tonne of bast fiber and 2-3 tonnes of core
material can be decorticated from 3-4 tonnes of good quality, dry retted straw.
For an annual yield of this level is it in Ontario recommended to add nitrogen
(N):70–110 kg/ha, phosphate (P2O5): up to 80 kg/ha
and potash (K2O): 40–90 kg/ha. The average yield of dry
hemp stalks in Europe was 6 ton/ha (2.4 ton/ac) in 2001 and 2002.
FAO argue that an optimum yield of
hemp fiber is more than 2 tonnes per ha, while average yields are around
650 kg/ha.
Australia
In the Australian states
of Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and, most recently, New
South Wales, the state governments have issued licences to grow hemp for
industrial use. The state of Tasmania pioneered the licensing of hemp in
1990. The state of Victoria was an early adopter in 1998, and has reissued
the regulation in 2008.
Hemp production in tonnes 2003–2004
FAOSTAT (FAO)
|
|
|
23000
|
79 %
|
24000
|
79 %
|
|
|
|
4300
|
15 %
|
4300
|
14 %
|
|
|
|
1250
|
4 %
|
1250
|
4 %
|
|
|
|
200
|
1 %
|
300
|
1 %
|
|
|
|
150
|
1 %
|
150
|
< 1%
|
|
|
|
150
|
1 %
|
150
|
< 1%
|
|
|
|
100
|
< 1 %
|
100
|
< 1%
|
|
|
|
40
|
< 1 %
|
40
|
< 1%
|
|
|
|
15
|
< 1 %
|
15
|
< 1%
|
|
|
|
8
|
< 1 %
|
8
|
< 1%
|
|
|
|
2
|
< 1 %
|
2
|
< 1%
|
|
Total
|
29215
|
100 %
|
30315
|
100 %
|
|
Queensland has allowed industrial
production under licence since 2002, where the issuance is controlled
under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986. Most recently, New South Wales now issues
licences under a law, the Hemp Industry Regulations Act 2008 (No 58), that
came into effect as of 6 November 2008.
Canada
Commercial production (including
cultivation) of industrial hemp has been permitted in Canada since 1998 under
licenses and authorization issued by Health Canada (9,725 ha in 2004, 5450 ha
in 2009).
In the early 1990s, industrial hemp
agriculture in North America began with the Hemp Awareness
Committee at the University of Manitoba. The Committee worked with
the provincial government to get research and development assistance, and was
able to obtain test plot permits from the Canadian government. Their
efforts led to the legalization of industrial hemp (hemp with only
minute amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol) in Canada and the first
harvest in 1998.
The cultivated area for hemp in
the Prairie provinces of Canada is stable at about 90,000 acres over
2013-15.
France
France is Europe's biggest producer
with 8,000 hectares cultivated. 70-80% of the hemp fibre produced in Europe in
2003 was used for specialty pulp for cigarette papers and technical
applications. Abut 15% is used in the automotive sector and 5-6% were used for
insulation mats.
Approximately 95% of hurds were used as animal bedding, while
almost 5% were used in the building sector. In 2010/2011, a total of 11
000 ha was cultivated with hemp in the EU, a decline compared with previous
year.
Russia
and Ukraine
From the 1950s to the 1980s,
the Soviet Union was the world's largest producer of hemp
(3,000 km² in 1970). The main production areas were
in Ukraine, the Kursk and Orel regions
of Russia, and near the Polish border. Since its inception in
1931, the Hemp Breeding Department at the Institute of Bast Crops
in Hlukhiv (Glukhov), Ukraine, has been one of the world's largest
centers for developing new hemp varieties, focusing on improving fiber quality,
per-hectare yields, and low THC content.
After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the commercial cultivation of hemp declined sharply. However, it is
estimated that at least 2.5 million acres of hemp grows wild in the Russian Far
East and Black Sea regions.
United
Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, cultivation
licences are issued by the Home Office under the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1971. When grown for non-drug purposes, hemp is referred to as industrial
hemp, and a common product is fibre for use in a wide variety of
products, as well as the seed for nutritional aspects and for the oil. Feral
hemp or ditch weed is usually a naturalized fibre or oilseed strain
of Cannabis that has escaped from cultivation and is self-seeding.
United
States
Hemp was made illegal to grow without a
permit in the U.S. under the Controlled Substances Act passed in 1970
because of its relation to marijuana, and any imported hemp products must
meet a zero tolerance level.
Some states have made the cultivation of
industrial hemp legal, but farmers in North Dakota, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Oregon, California, Montana, West Virginia and Vermont have not yet
begun to grow it because of resistance from the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration. In 2013, after the legalization of marijuana in the state,
several farmers in Colorado planted and harvested several acres of hemp,
bringing in the first hemp crop in the United States in over half a
century. Colorado, Vermont, California, and North Dakota have passed
laws enabling hemp licensure.
All four states are waiting for permission
to grow hemp from the DEA. Currently, North Dakota representatives are
pursuing legal measures to force DEA approval. Oregon has licensed
industrial hemp as of August 2009. Congress included a provision in
the Agricultural Act of 2014 that allowed colleges and state agencies
to grow and conduct research on hemp in states where it is legal.
History
Radical 200 (麻 or má), the Chinese character for hemp, depicts
two plants under a shelter. The use of hemp in Taiwan dates back at least
10,000 years.
Hemp is one of the earliest domesticated
plants known. It has been cultivated by many civilizations for over 12,000
years. Hemp use archaeologically dates back to the Neolithic
Age in China, with hemp fiber imprints found on Yangshao
culture pottery dating from the 5th millennium BC. The Chinese later
used hemp to make clothes, shoes, ropes, and an early form
of paper. The classical Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 480
BC) reported that the inhabitants of Scythia would often inhale the
vapors of hemp-seed smoke, both as ritual and for their own pleasurable
recreation.
Textile expert Elizabeth Wayland
Barber summarizes the historical evidence that Cannabis sativa,
"grew and was known in the Neolithic period all across the northern
latitudes, from Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Romania, Ukraine) to
East Asia (Tibet and China)," but, "textile use of Cannabis sativa
does not surface for certain in the West until relatively late, namely the Iron
Age." "I strongly suspect, however, that what catapulted hemp
to sudden fame and fortune as a cultigen and caused it to spread rapidly
westwards in the first millennium B.C. was the spread of the habit of
pot-smoking from somewhere in south-central Asia, where the drug-bearing
variety of the plant originally occurred. The linguistic evidence strongly
supports this theory, both as to time and direction of spread and as to
cause."
Jews living in Palestine in the
2nd century were familiar with the cultivation of hemp, as witnessed by a
reference to it in the Mishna (Kil'ayim 2:5) as a variety of
plant, along with Arum, that sometimes takes as many as three years to
grow from a seedling. In late medieval Germany and Italy,
hemp was employed in cooked dishes, as filling in pies and tortes,
or boiled in a soup.
Hemp in later Europe was mainly cultivated
for its fibers, and was used for ropes on many ships, including those
of Christopher Columbus. The use of hemp as a cloth was centered largely
in the countryside, with higher quality textiles being available in
the towns.
The Spaniards brought hemp to the Western
Hemisphere and cultivated it in Chile starting about
1545. However, in May 1607, "hempe" was among the crops Gabriel
Archer observed being cultivated by the natives at the main Powhatan village,
where Richmond, Virginia is now situated; and in 1613, Samuell
Argall reported wild hemp "better than that in England" growing
along the shores of the upper Potomac. As early as 1619, the first
Virginia House of Burgesses passed an Act requiring all planters in
Virginia to sow "both English and Indian" hemp on their
plantations. The Puritans are first known to have cultivated
hemp in New England in 1645.
In the United States, hemp cultivation
is legally prohibited, but during World War II farmers were
encouraged to grow hemp for cordage, to replace Manila
hemp previously obtained from Japanese-controlled areas. The U.S.
government produced a film explaining the uses of hemp, called Hemp for
Victory.
George Washington pushed for the growth of
hemp and even grew hemp himself, as it was a cash crop commonly used
to make rope and fabric. In May 1765 he noted in his diary about the sowing of
seeds each day until mid-April. Then he recounts the harvest in October which
he grew 27 bushels that year.
There is some speculation that George
Washington smoked the flower of the cannabis plant in order to achieve a
recreational high, but there is no evidence in any of his writings that he
grew hemp for anything other than industrial purposes. It is sometimes supposed
that an excerpt from Washington's diary, which reads "Began to separate
the Male from the Female hemp at Do.&—rather too late" is evidence
that he was trying to grow female plants for the THC found in the
flowers. However, the editorial remark accompanying the diary states that
"This may arise from their [the male] being coarser, and the stalks
larger" In subsequent days, he describes soaking the hemp (to
make the fibers usable) and harvesting the seeds, suggesting that he was
growing hemp for industrial purposes, not recreational.
George Washington also imported the Indian
Hemp plant from Asia, which was used for fiber and, by some growers, for
intoxicating resin production. In a letter to William Pearce who managed the
plants for him Washington says, "What was done with the Indian Hemp plant
from last summer? It ought, all of it, to be sown again; that not only a stock
of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raised, but to have
disseminated seed to others; as it is more valuable than common hemp."
Additional presidents known to have farmed
hemp include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew
Jackson, Zachary Taylor, and Franklin Pierce.
Historically, hemp production had made up a
significant portion of antebellum Kentucky's economy. Before the American
Civil War, many slaves worked on plantations producing hemp.
In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act of
1937 was passed in the United States. levying a tax on anyone who dealt
commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. The passing of the Act to destroy
the US hemp industry has been disputed to involve businessmen Andrew
Mellon, Randolph Hearst and the Du Pont family.
One claim is that Hearst believed that
his extensive timber holdings were threatened by the invention of
the decorticator which he feared would allow hemp to become a cheap
substitute for the paper pulp used for newspaper. Historical
research indicates this fear was unfounded because improvements of
the decorticators in the 1930s – machines that separated the fibers
from the hemp stem – could not make hemp fiber a cheaper substitute for fibers
from other sources. Further, decorticators did not perform satisfactorily in
commercial production.
Another claim is that
Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America
at that time, had invested heavily in DuPont's new synthetic
fiber, nylon, and believed that the replacement of the traditional
resource, hemp, was integral to the new product's success. The company
DuPont and many industrial historians dispute a link between nylon and
hemp, nylon became immediately a scarce commodity. Nylon had characteristics
that could be used for toothbrushes (sold from 1938) and very thin
nylon fiber could compete with silk and rayon in various
textiles normally not produced from hemp fiber, such as very thin stockings for
women.
Hemp was used extensively by the United
States during World War II to make uniforms, canvas, and rope. Much of the
hemp used was cultivated in Kentucky and the Midwest. During
World War II, the U.S. produced a short 1942 film, Hemp for Victory,
promoting hemp as a necessary crop to win the war.
Historical
cultivation
Hemp has been grown for millennia in Asia
and the Middle East for its fibre. Commercial production of hemp in the West
took off in the eighteenth century, but was grown in the sixteenth century in
eastern England. Because of colonial and naval expansion of the era,
economies needed large quantities of hemp for rope and oakum. In the early
1940s, world production of hemp fiber ranged from 250 000 to 350 000 metric
tonnes, Russia was the biggest producer.
In Western Europe, the cultivation of hemp
was not legally banned by the 1930s, but the commercial cultivation stopped by
then, due to decreased demand compared to increasingly popular artificial
fibers. Speculation about the potential for commercial cultivation of hemp
in large quantities has been criticized due to successful competition from
other fibers for many products. The world production of hemp fiber fell from
over 300,000 metric tons 1961 to about 75,000 metric tons in the early 1990s
and has after that been stable at that level.
Japan
In Japan, hemp was historically used
as paper and a fiber crop. There is archaeological evidence cannabis was used
for clothing and the seeds were eaten in Japan back to the Jōmon
period (10,000 to 300 BCE). Many Kimono designs portray hemp,
or asa (Japanese: 麻), as a beautiful plant. In 1948, marijuana was restricted as a
narcotic drug. The ban on marijuana imposed by the United States authorities
was alien to Japanese culture, as the drug had never been widely used in Japan
before.
Though these laws against marijuana are
some of the world's strictest, allowing five years imprisonment for possession
of the drug, they exempt hemp growers, whose crop is used to make robes
for Buddhist monks and loincloths for Sumo wrestlers.
Because marijuana use in Japan has doubled in the past decade, these exemptions
have recently been called into question.
Portugal
The cultivation of hemp in Portuguese lands
began around the fourteenth century onwards, it was raw material for the
preparation of rope and plugs for the Portuguese ships. Colonies for factories
for the production of flax hemp, such as the Royal Flax Hemp Factory in Brazil.
After the Restoration of Independence in
1640, in order to recover the ailing Portuguese naval fleet, were encouraged
its cultivation as the Royal Decree of D. John IV in 1656. At that time its
cultivation was carried out in Trás-os-Montes, Zone Tower Moncorvo, more
precisely in Vilariça Valley, fertile land for any crop irrigation, and a very
large area, flat and very fertile culture still wide until the last century
grew up tobacco, a plant that needs a large space to expand and grow, the area
lies in the valley of Serra de Bornes.
As of 1971, this cultivar is considered
illegal because of marijuana, a decision subsequently revoked by the European
Union.
