Postings

Friday 27 November 2015

WHEN CHILDREN WERE STILL CHILDREN - A SKETCH FROM THE LIFE OF STES DE NECKER




WHEN CHILDREN WERE STILL CHILDREN

A SKETCH FROM THE LIFE OF STES DE NECKER


Stes de Necker



One of the most tragic consequences of our so-called modern society is the fact that most of today’s youngsters have never learned how to play.

Today, every spare moment is spend chatting and texting on Blackberries, I-phones, Facebook, Twitter and what else. Grade 1 children are today learning what we learned in high school fifty years ago. It’s all about performance. Performance in the classroom, performance on cultural level and performance on the sports field. 

I grew up on a farm and usually there were never enough hours in a day or on weekends and not even holidays to do everything we wanted to do. Together with my farm friends, children of the farm workers, we went horse riding, donkey riding, building rafts to sail on the dam, catapult shooting, played marbles, making clay ‘sculptures’ and playing Tarzan. The school holidays were all too short, not to speak about weekends. 

Those wicked Mondays. After a weekend it was back to boarding school. Back to the deadly routine of getting up, breakfast, school, lunch, study, sports, dinner, study, bedtime. And all that while the desperate longing back to the farm and your playmates never leave you for one moment.  

If anyone were to ask me today what my marks in primary school were, I will not be able to remember it to save my life!

Because it was not important!

Of interest was to grow up a normal human being. To learn through play. To learn mutual respect and acceptance with your friends of different colour. To learn respect for your elders. To learn why dad has given you the hiding of your life because you called “Outa Jan” by his first name and not “outa” out of respect for his age and respect for his position as foreman on the farm.  

To learn about nature and to be able to figure out for yourself if there was rain on its way; to learn how to roast corn on the cob, to drink fresh “separator milk”, and to know the smell of a freshly picked tomato.

And then the greatest lessons of all, to learn that milk comes from cows and not from a bottle in the supermarket; that maize meal comes from maize that must first be planted and harvested. That butter comes from the cream that was separated from the milk and that cold butter will definitely crumple your bread if you haven’t warmed it up first.  

That was learning. Not all this elaborate academic horseshit our children are being fed today. Why must little Johnny or Mary already understand Newton's laws in grade one? What does it matter whether they are already understand Physics and Applied Mathematics at that age? They have their whole life ahead of them to learn all that.

But now it seems that as much as possible must as quickly as possible be drilled into them. One would swear that someone is afraid the poor little things may die before they have learned all this!  
I remember so well when I was in grade 5, we had to write an English essay about anything interesting that we have done or experienced the previous weekend. How could I help but write about the farm.

On the particular Saturday, a heavy thunderstorm broke on the farm. My dad’s sheep were in the pasture so I decided to bring them into the shed for safety.

So, the topic of my essay was “The Sheep and the Rain”

However, bear in mind that language and spelling was never one of my strong points. In those days we had to learn "dictation", instead of what is now called, spelling.

The second paragraph of my essay I will never forget. It went like this:

"I went to bring the sheep to the kraal (shed). But every time I keer (turn back the sheep) them here, the wetherlight (lightning) strikes there. And when I keer them there, the wetherlight strikes here."

A day later, when the teacher handed back my essay book she wrote at the bottom of my literary masterpiece: "For your story you get ten out of ten. But for English only half a point, because this time you did not spell sheep with a "j" again! 
    
Those were the days when children were still growing up normally.


When children were still children.

Friday 23 October 2015

CANNABIS CURES CANCER - The Medicinal Values of Cannabis (Note: This file may take a few minutes to open)





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

By: Rick Simpson



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.
Adam’s Facebook support page:  https://www.facebook.com/adamfearlessfather?fref=ts


10. THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND CANNABIS - WHY IS THE MEDICAL PROFESSION RELUCTANT TO SUPPORT THE USE OF CANNABIS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
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).

• The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School. A Speech to the California Judges Association 1995 annual conference.
• THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARIJUANA PROHIBITION by
Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW. VOLUME 56 OCTOBER 1970 NUMBER 6
• The Consumers Union Report  – Licit and Illicit Drugs
by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine
• The History of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
By David F. Musto, M.D., New Haven, Conn.
Originally published in Arch. Gen. Psychiat. Volume 26, February, 1972
• The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco.
History of Marihuana Legislation
• The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The history of how the Marihuana Tax Act came to be the law of the land.
• Marijuana – The First Twelve Thousand Years by Ernest L. Abel, 1980


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 ( 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: ), 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.