Jon Rappoport of NoMoreFakeNews.com reveals the “not so secret” medical memos the FDA has buried over the last few decades that show the damage prescription drugs have done to the American people
Jon Rappoport of NoMoreFakeNews.com reveals the “not so secret” medical memos the FDA has buried over the last few decades that show the damage prescription drugs have done to the American people
The cannabinoids in cannabis – cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) – interact with your body by way of naturally-occurring cannabinoid receptors embedded in cell membranes throughout your body. In fact, scientists now believe the endocannabinoid system may represent the most widespread receptor system in your body.1
There are cannabinoid receptors in your brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, immune system and more, and both the therapeutic and psychoactive properties of marijuana occur when a cannabinoid activates a cannabinoid receptor. Your body actually makes its own cannabinoids, similar to those found in marijuana, albeit in much smaller quantities than you get from the plant.
The fact that your body is replete with cannabinoid receptors, key to so many biological functions, is why there’s such enormous medical potential for cannabis. More often than not, medicinal marijuana is made from plants bred to have high CBD and low THC content. While THC has psychoactive activity that can make you feel “stoned,” CBD has no psychoactive properties.
That doesn’t mean THC is medicinally useless, however. It too has been found to have a number of medicinal benefits, although it does need to be balanced with CBD to lessen its psychoactive effects. For example, recent animal research2 suggests THC has a beneficial influence on the aging brain.3,4 Rather than dulling or impairing cognition, THC appears to reverse the aging process and improve mental processes, raising the possibility it might be useful for the treatment of dementia.5
Drug Company Vies for CBD Monopoly
As reported by Motherboard, the drug industry is now pushing for legislation that would make CBD oil illegal – by turning it into a drug.6 The article discusses a South Dakota Senate bill, SB 95, which would exempt CBD from the definition of cannabis, thereby transferring it from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule IV substance. This would allow CBD products to be sold, legally, in South Dakota, where medicinal marijuana is currently not allowed.
This past summer, lobbyists for GW Pharmaceuticals and its U.S. subsidiary, Greenwich BioSciences, fought for an amendment to the bill that would have limited CBD rescheduling to products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – in other words, they wanted only CBD drugs to be legally obtainable.
“Not surprisingly, GW Pharmaceuticals has just such a drug in the pipeline. Epidiolex, a ‘proprietary oral solution of pure plant-derived cannabidiol,’ has already been given to epileptic children in the U.S. as part of a federal investigative study documented recently in the New England Journal of Medicine.” Motherboard writes. Epidiolex is currently under FDA review for approval.
“Since no other pharmaceutical company has a CBD drug anywhere close to market, and the wide range of CBD products already available in medical marijuana states lack FDA approval, if the bill had passed with that amendment intact, patients in South Dakota would have been subjected to a virtual CBD monopoly …
More ominously, The Great CBD Battle of South Dakota appears to be but the opening salvo in a nationwide war between GW Pharmaceuticals and traditional medical cannabis providers …
[U]nder the amendment, South Dakota would … ban myriad CBD products already available in many other states. Even though they cost far less than Epidiolex, and are potentially more effective for patients, since in addition to CBD those “full spectrum” cannabis extracts also contain small amounts of THC and other medicinal components of the plant.”
Study Confirms CBD Benefits for Drug-Resistant Seizures
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study7 published in The New England Journal of Medicine in May 2017 again confirmed what has long been known: that CBD offers relief for children with drug-resistant seizures, in this case patients diagnosed with Dravet syndrome, a “catastrophic early-onset encephalopathic epilepsy, with a high mortality rate.”
GW Pharmaceuticals funded the study and was responsible for the trial design. The company also supplied the CBD and placebo. The active treatment was an oral solution containing 100 milligrams (mg) of CBD per milliliter, given in addition to the child’s current antiseizure medication regimen. The placebo was identical to the treatment solution, but without CBD.
The dose was gradually increased over the course of 14 days, with a maximum dose of 20 mg per kilogram of body weight, taken twice a day. At the end of the treatment period, the CBD solution was tapered down over the course of 10 days, reducing the dosage by 10 percent each day. Following is a summary of the main findings:
Reported Side Effects
Interestingly, while medical cannabis is typically well-tolerated, with few side effects, a whopping 93 percent of children in the CBD group – as well as 75 percent of those in the placebo group – suffered adverse events in this trial.
Eighty-four percent of adverse events in the treatment group were deemed mild or moderate, and included vomiting, fatigue, fever, upper respiratory tract infection, decreased appetite, convulsions, lethargy, drowsiness and diarrhea. Eight patients in the treatment group withdrew from the study due to side effects.
Of course, these conventional investigators were clueless about the benefit of a ketogenic diet for the treatment of seizures, so that was something that was not evaluated in the study. This is unfortunate, as it would have radically decreased side effects and may even have been more effective than the CBD. According to the authors:
“Elevated levels of liver aminotransferase enzymes (alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase level >3 times the upper limit of the normal range) led to withdrawal from the trial of three patients in the cannabidiol group and one in the placebo group.
Overall, elevated aminotransferase levels occurred in 12 patients in the cannabidiol group and one in the placebo group. All these patients were taking a form of valproate [editor’s note: a type of medication used to treat epilepsy] … There were … no instances of suicidal ideation … There were no deaths.”
As mentioned earlier, full spectrum cannabis extracts will not be pure CBD, as they’re derived from the whole plant. And, as noted by CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, ” … [E]vidence is mounting that these compounds work better together than in isolation.”8
It’s possible that “pharmaceutical strength” CBD might be too pure, hence the high rate of side effects. Regardless, there’s a significant difference in cost between a CBD drug and natural CBD oil, which in and of itself is of great concern for many patients and their families who now worry Big Pharma is trying to take over the cannabis industry.
Monopoly in South Dakota Avoided, for Now
As noted by Motherboard, “parents with children suffering from Dravet’s syndrome and many other serious illnesses have been pushing for access to the “miracle drug” since 2013, when Gupta’s “Weed” documentary debuted on CNN.” The program featured a 6-year-old girl beset by some 300 grand mal seizures each week. A CBD-rich cannabis oil reduced her seizures by 99 percent.
Following the airing of “Weed,” hundreds of families moved to Colorado to obtain the herbal medication for their ailing child. Other positive media attention has also helped to loosen the stigma surrounding medical marijuana. In 1969, only 12 percent of Americans favored marijuana legalization. Today, a majority of Americans favor legalization: 53 percent favor legalizing marijuana across the board and 77 percent support legal medical use.9 Even the new surgeon general has cited data on how helpful medical cannabis can be.
Unfortunately, medical cannabis may just be “too good.” Showing promise for a wide range of ailments, the drug industry sees cannabis as major competition, and rightfully so. In South Dakota, a scaled-back amendment to SB 95 was ultimately signed into law. South Dakotans who want legal access to CBD will still have to wait until Epidiolex gains FDA approval, but GW Pharmaceuticals was not successful in limiting the down-scheduling of CBD to FDA approved CBD drugs only.
As a result, GW Pharmaceuticals will not have a monopoly on the market. Still, GW Pharmaceuticals has reportedly contracted lobbyists in several different states10 to fight for its cause, and their combined efforts may well delay implementation of cannabis reform that could improve access to medicinal marijuana. As noted by Melissa Mentele, chairperson of New Approach South Dakota, a cannabis reform group, who herself found relief from chronic pain when she started taking CBD-rich cannabis oil:
“Cannabis patients and caregivers have organized and fought for decades for the government to look at cannabis as a treatment option. Nobody did until hundreds of patients bravely shared their stories. So, we as a community have done the work for them, and now Big Pharma wants to swoop in and use an unfair monopoly and an inferior product to profit off the backs of catastrophically ill and dying people. It is disgusting.”
Indiana Cracks Down on CBD Products
In related news, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb recently announced CDB oil containing THC, regardless of the amount, will no longer be legal in the state, and has instructed local police to “perform normal, periodic regulatory spot checks of CBD oil products.” Retailers were given 60 days to sell out or remove such products from their stores.
According to Indy Star, “Most of the CBD products being sold in Indiana contain less than 0.3 percent THC, meaning they can’t produce a ‘high,'” adding that “Advocates of CBD oil say those products don’t have as many benefits as full spectrum CBD oil products.” At present, Indiana law only allows CBD products to be used by epileptic patients, who must register with the state’s CBD oil registry.
Republican state Sen. Jim Tomes has vowed to introduce legislation that would expand access to CBD oil under state law. According to Indy Star, “He’s received calls from people who’ve used the product to treat arthritis, Parkinson’s disease and mental illnesses.” Tomes told the paper, “I just don’t understand why is there such a resistance to allow people to get this product here? You can’t abuse it. It either works or it doesn’t.” The answer to Tomes’ question appears to be drug industry pressure. As reported by New Hope:11
“Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill Jr. appears to be relying on a discredited opinion from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency on the legality of the hemp-derived cannabinoid, which must come from industrial hemp that contains less than 0.3 percent THC (the high-inducing cannabinoid).
The Nov. 21 advisory opinion was issued from the state capital of Indianapolis, which also happens to be the headquarters of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co., which is seeking fast-track approval from the FDA for its non-opioid painkiller drug, tanezumab.12
‘As a matter of legal interpretation, products or substances marketed for human consumption or ingestion, and containing cannabidiol, remain unlawful in Indiana, and under federal law,’ Hill wrote in his opinion. This conclusion does not apply to any product that is approved by the FDA.
There are currently two products that contain cannabidiol undergoing clinical trials; Epidiolex and Sativex. Simply put, cannabidiol is a Schedule I controlled substance because marijuana (Cannabis sativa) is a Schedule I controlled substance.'”
Legal Products Confiscated Amid Confusion
There’s plenty of confusion, however, as the attorney general’s opinion and Holcomb’s seizure instructions contradict a 2014 industrial hemp law that allows CBD products in Indiana as long as they contain less than 0.3 percent THC. The primary confusion appears to center around the fact that state law permits CBD as long as it is sourced from hemp and not marijuana.
In an effort to resolve the problem, the hemp industry, led by CV Sciences, has held educational meetings to explain the differences between marijuana and hemp-derived CBD products. The campaign resulted in Indiana state police issuing a statement saying that CBD products are in fact legal in Indiana as long as they’re sourced from hemp. All of this just goes to show that when it comes to cannabis and its derivatives, there’s plenty of confusion to go around, and it’s not always easy to determine the legal status of a given product in a given state.
FDA Issues Warning Letters to CBD Manufacturers
The FDA is also increasing its scrutiny of companies making CBD products. As reported by The Cannabist,13 four Colorado businesses have received FDA warning letters for making “illegally unsubstantiated health claims” on their CBD products. In a November 1 press release, the FDA said:14
“[T]he agency today issued warning letters to four companies illegally selling products online that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure cancer without evidence to support these outcomes … The deceptive marketing of unproven treatments may keep some patients from accessing appropriate, recognized therapies to treat serious and even fatal diseases.
The FDA has grown increasingly concerned at the proliferation of products claiming to treat or cure serious diseases like cancer. In this case, the illegally sold products allegedly contain cannabidiol (CBD), a component of the marijuana plant that is not FDA approved in any drug product for any indication.”
The warning letters15 also rejected claims that CBD oil can be classified as dietary supplements, as Investigational New Drug (IND) applications have been submitted for the CBD-containing drugs Sativex and Epidiolex (both by GW Pharmaceuticals). This suggests the agency is not just aiming to clean up the cannabis industry’s propensity to make illegal claims; it also raises concerns that the legality of all CBD products is in question now that CBD-containing drugs await FDA approval.
Medical Marijuana Lowers Prescription Drug Use and Abuse
While CBD has now been reclassified to a Schedule IV substance in North Dakota by excluding it from the state’s definition of marijuana,16,17 it still remains a Schedule I (illegal) controlled substance in most other states. This is tragic, considering the evidence showing medical marijuana lowers prescription drug use. One wonders if perhaps that’s one of the reasons why it hasn’t been rescheduled across the nation.
There are no other truly compelling reasons why addictive narcotics like OxyContin are legal, while marijuana – which is extremely unlikely to kill you even if you take very high amounts – is not. The video above features W. David Bradford, Ph.D., whose study was published in the journal Health Affairs in July 2016.18 As reported by The Washington Post:19
“[R]esearchers at the University of Georgia scoured the database of all prescription drugs paid for under Medicare Part D from 2010 to 2013. They found that, in the 17 states with a medical-marijuana law in place by 2013, prescriptions for painkillers and other classes of drugs fell sharply compared with states that did not have a medical-marijuana law.
The drops were quite significant: In medical-marijuana states, the average doctor prescribed 265 fewer doses of antidepressants each year, 486 fewer doses of seizure medication, 541 fewer anti-nausea doses and 562 fewer doses of anti-anxiety medication. But most strikingly, the typical physician in a medical-marijuana state prescribed 1,826 fewer doses of painkillers in a given year.”
Legalizing Marijuana Could Save Medicare Hundreds of Millions Each Year
According to Bradford, the Medicare program could save $468 million per year if marijuana were legalized in all U.S. states.20,21 Already, $165 million was saved in 2013 in the 18 states where medical marijuana was legal that year. Similarly, a 2015 working paper by The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) states that:22
“If marijuana is used as a substitute for powerful and addictive pain relievers in medical marijuana states, a potential overlooked positive impact of medical marijuana laws may be a reduction in harms associated with opioid pain relievers, a far more addictive and potentially deadly substance.”
Not only did the NBER find that access to state-sanctioned medical marijuana dispensaries resulted in a significant decrease in prescription painkiller overdose deaths, it also led to a 15 to 35 percent drop in substance abuse admissions. So, it would seem medical marijuana – far from being the deadly drug it’s been made out to be – could actually save thousands of lives that would otherwise be destroyed by painkiller addiction and its lethal consequences.
It’s a real travesty that the U.S. Senate is more than willing to shell out taxpayer money to Big Pharma for addictive painkillers and the drugs to treat addiction when a safe and effective answer to the pain and opioid epidemics lies right before our noses.
Both CBD and THC Are Far Safer Than Commonly Used Pain Killers
Polls show older Americans are becoming increasingly converted to marijuana use.23 Between 2006 and 2013, use among 50- to 64-year-olds rose by 60 percent. Among seniors over 65, use jumped by 250 percent.24 Pain and sleep are among the most commonly cited complaints for which medicinal marijuana is taken. Considering the high risk of lethal consequences of opioid painkillers and sleeping pills, medical marijuana is a godsend.
As noted by Dr. Margaret Gedde, an award-winning Stanford-trained pathologist and founder of Gedde Whole Health, there’s enough scientific data to compare the side effects of cannabis against the known toxicities of many drugs currently in use. This includes liver and kidney toxicity, gastrointestinal damage, nerve damage and, of course, death.
Cannabidiol has no toxicity and it’s virtually impossible to die from marijuana. It’s also self-limiting, as excessive doses of THC will provoke anxiety, paranoia and nausea. Such side effects will disappear as the drug dissipates from your system without resulting in permanent harm, but it’ll make you think twice about taking such a high dose again. Make the same mistake with an opioid, and chances are you’ll end up in the morgue.
Gedde also notes that cannabis products often work when other medications fail, so not only are they safer, they also tend to provide greater efficacy. In 2010, the Center for Medical Cannabis Research (CMCR25) released a report26 on 14 clinical studies about the use of marijuana for pain, most of which were FDA-approved, double-blind and placebo-controlled. The report revealed that marijuana not only controls pain, but in many cases, it does so better than pharmaceutical alternatives.
Where to Find Reputable Information About Medical Cannabis, Its Uses and Benefits
While reputable information about cannabis can be hard to come by, it’s not impossible to find. One good source is cancer.gov.27,28 This is the U.S. government’s site on cancer. Simply enter “cannabis” into the search bar. You can also peruse the medical literature through PubMed,29 which is a public resource (again, simply enter “cannabis” or related terms into the search bar).
CMCR also provides a hyperlinked list30 of scientific publications relating to a wide variety of medicinal uses of cannabis, and the Journal of Pain,31 a publication by the American Pain Society, has a long list of studies on the pain-relieving effects of cannabis.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse,32 which also has information relating to the medicinal aspects of marijuana, preclinical and clinical trials are underway to test marijuana and various extracts for the treatment of a number of diseases, including autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, inflammation, pain and mental disorders.
To learn more, I also recommend listening to my previous interviews with Gedde and Dr. Allan Frankel, in which they discuss the clinical benefits of cannabis. Frankel is a board-certified internist in California who has treated patients with medical cannabis for the past decade. Awareness is starting to shift, and many are now starting to recognize the medical value of cannabis.
Unfortunately, that also means the drug industry is doing everything it can to secure its place in the market, and in so doing, eliminating the legal use of natural and far less expensive cannabis products. It’s up to us to make sure we stay involved in the political process whenever marijuana-related legislation is brought up. If we don’t, you can be sure the drug industry will become the only game in town.
Sources and References
With permission from
July 7, 2017
When a trend goes viral, millions of Americans “board that train” without giving it a second thought; however, come to find out, most of these massively popular trends aren’t trends at all, but rather propaganda-led health Ponzi schemes that have led millions of “sheeple” (people who act like ignorant sheep) off their own health cliff.
Long before the internet, and even before television, science demons (evil humans in white lab coats) were hard at work inventing ways to slowly poison Americans with chemical-based food and chemical-laced medicine, and they needed marketing experts to fool the public with catchy tag lines and slogans that could be plastered all over print media.
Anything that sounds well-researched and is broadcast through thousands of advertised media outlets catches on eventually, and no matter how sick and demented the lie, after enough marketing and advertising, the masses buy in.
That’s called cognitive dissonance – something irritates your brain just enough to peek your interest, and then you investigate a little, see “everyone else” doing it, and you hop aboard that trendy train.
Let’s dig right in by dialing it all back a whole century, when the evil plotting first began in the land of toxic processed food and chronic sick care.
Beware of the 10 worst health HOAXES pushed as “science” over the last 100 years
LIE #1. If a health study is “peer reviewed,” then it is evidence-based, reliable and true.
Did you know that as much as 90% of the published medical information that doctors rely on is completely wrong?
Many science “studies” and research have predetermined outcomes and results that are scripted first by the companies and corporations that will profit from the product, then, after that, the tests are “run” by shill scientists who twist, distort or even discard the findings that don’t fit the scripted conclusion.
Then big bucks trade hands and the findings are published in quack journals like JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). This has been going on for a century.
LIE #2. If a food additive, prescription drug or immunization is approved by the FDA or the CDC, then scientists have tested it thoroughly for “safety and efficacy” and you should consume it without question.
The CDC and FDA are businesses that function for profit at the health expense of Americans. Never rely on anything approved by these rogue “regulatory” agencies that are in the business of chronic sick care, and have been since their inception.
Ask your naturopathic doctor for advice about food and medicine that’s “approved” by the FDA or CDC.
LIE #3. Cigarettes are good for digestion and recommended by more than 20,000 doctors in America.
Yes, they did do that. Doctors advertised their favorite brands and lied to Americans for decades after science had proven cigarette smoke causes lung cancer.
LIE #4. The Polio vaccine is a miraculous invention that eradicated the polio pandemic that was sweeping the world.
The infamous Dr. Salk did not invent a vaccine that prevented polio, but rather he mixed several strains of polio [i.e. he actually CREATED new polio strands] and helped spread the disease around the world.
The hoax worked because statistics were skewed to show that any polio cases that didn’t cripple the victim were labeled as meningitis, therefore “proving” the vaccine nearly wiped out polio around the world!
That’s how 200 million Americans have been brainwashed into believing today’s vaccines are “safe and effective.”
LIE #5. Artificial sweeteners contain no calories, so they help you lose weight.
Fake sugars are hundreds of times sweeter than sucrose, fooling your body into ingesting them and making you crave sugar even more. So much for self control.
LIE #6. Any “high” cholesterol is bad cholesterol and so you should ask your doctor about a medication to lower yours.
Conversely, according to a highly informative article published in Metabolic Healing, “Efforts to reduce the body’s production of cholesterol and its adjacent lipoproteins, whether through medical intervention, or through nutritional intervention, may have very serious repercussions for one’s health.”
Click here for more articles debunking the cholesterol myth.
LIE #7. All saturated fat is unhealthy and causes cardiovascular disease.
LIE #8. Milk – it does a body good.
Most processed (homogenized / pasteurized) dairy products cause inflammation and excess mucus production. Look it up.
LIE #9. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are drought resistant, safe for human consumption, increase yield for farmers and are totally sustainable.
GMO means that toxic pesticides have been infused into the genes of crops, and many farmers who plant GMOs are finding they have to use much more pesticide to control the bugs and weeds now.
LIE #10. Chemotherapy is your best chance and may be your only chance at surviving cancer. Chemotherapy yields a miserable 2.3% average success rate.
Read more on the subject here: 97% of the Time, Chemotherapy Does Not Work And Continues to be Used Only for ONE Reason.
Chemotherapy destroys your immune system – the one thing that helps you survive cancer. Go figure.
Conclusion: When you hear a health slogan on television, see it printed in the newspaper, or some politician keeps harping on it over and over, you can be 99.9% sure it’s a health hoax designed and propagated to steal your money and your peace of mind.
Side effects of health hoaxes include cancer, Alzheimer’s and loss of critical thinking skills. Ask your naturopathic doctor if popular health hoaxes are right for you.
By S.D. Wells, Guest author
By Carey Wedler
One-third of FDA-approved drugs were later found to have safety risks, according to a recent analysis of drugs cleared by the agency between 2001 and 2010.
According to the study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Among 222 novel therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2001 through 2010, 71 (32.0%) were affected by a postmarket safety event.”
A postmarket safety event includes “(1) withdrawals due to safety concerns, (2) FDA issuance of incremental boxed warnings added in the postmarket period, and (3) FDA issuance of safety communications.”
The researchers, many of them from Yale University, found these events were more common among biologic and psychiatric drugs, as well as those granted access to the FDA’s expedited approval process. The Washington Post summarized the researchers’ findings:
Three of the drugs were withdrawn from the market. The FDA also required 61 new black-box warnings — the agency’s most serious safety alert, included in the drug’s packaging — and issued 59 safety communications to inform doctors and consumers about newly identified concerns. Some products had more than one boxed warning added or safety communication issued over the time of the study.
“We seem to have decided as a society that we want drugs reviewed faster,” he told the Post, adding that for this reason, it’s vital “that we have a strong system in place to continually evaluate drugs and to communicate new safety concerns quickly and effectively.”
Further, according to a 2014 study published in the British Medical Journal, the industry directly funds the FDA, and this is likely a factor in the agency’s willingness to approve pharmaceutical drugs. That study explained:
In 1992, because of widespread concern that the US Food and Drug Administration was taking too long to approve drugs, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was enacted, authorizing the FDA to collect user fees from drug companies to expedite the approval process. Besides providing funding for an increased FDA staff, the act established performance goals during the approval process to ensure more rapid review.
The analysis noted that “As of the current fiscal year (October 2013 to September 2014), $760m (£450m; €570m) in drug industry money is allocated to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, comprising a large proportion, more than 60%, of the center’s drug review expenditure.”Though it is highly questionable that pharmaceutical companies directly fund the FDA, that study concluded it could not establish a definitive causal relationship between industry funding and increased safety issues. Still, it acknowledged “that the faster post-PDUFA drug approvals were associated with a higher rate of subsequent safety withdrawals and black box warnings.”
Perhaps another reason for the FDA’s inability to prevent drugs with adverse health effects from reaching the market is its acceptance of industry-backed research. For example, the agency recently approved a new drug for multiple sclerosis, Ocrevus (the generic version is called ocrelizumab), based on two studies. One of those studies was sponsored by Roche, the company that owns ocrelizumab’s manufacturer, Genetech. That study was conducted by scientists who disclosed financial ties to Roche and countless other pharmaceutical companies. STAT News reported that this study provided the bulk of the agency’s decision to approve the new drug.
The FDA acknowledged that side effects of Ocrevus include “upper respiratory tract infection, skin infection, and lower respiratory tract infection.” Another potential side effect is cancer, which the FDA failed to note in its press release touting the drug’s approval. Further, as CBS News reported, “the new drug only modestly slowed decline” in symptoms of MS but was still considered a breakthrough.
Keeping with the findings of the recent analysis published in JAMA, this study was granted fast-track approval process and priority review.
Despite ever-growing volumes of research — usually conducted with moldy, low-quality weed provided by the government — the FDA refuses to budge.
Rather, in fact, the agency has approved synthetic cannabis produced by pharmaceutical companies — one of which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against cannabis legalization in Arizona last year and also manufactures fentanyl, a powerful opioid painkiller.
Meanwhile, despite the lack of serious side effects cannabis causes in individuals who find relief from it, last year the FDA actually advised the DEA to keep it on the list of Schedule I drugs, which are designated to have no medicinal value.
As the failures of the FDA continue to mount — including the pharmaceutical industry’s infiltration of the department — Americans have increasing reasons to avoid trusting their government and to do their own research before consuming potentially dangerous treatments.
By: Higher Perspectives As more and more people are starting to realize, the pharmaceutical industry is basically one big legal drug ring.
Just as people get addicted to heroin and methamphetamine, pharmaceutical companies push drugs with slightly altered chemical compositions deemed legal by the government.
The one good thing to come of this is the increased demand for natural and alternative treatments that lie outside the domain of ‘Big Pharma.’ One substance, in particular, has been seen to hold great medicinal potential, and that’s cannabis (marijuana).
In fact, some organizations have started making cannabis-infused products to treat a variety of highly painful ailments and symptoms.
The Foria Relief Company has created vaginal cannabis suppositories using cocoa butter as the perfect alternative to pills like Vicodin, Midol and Ibuprofen. The suppository helps relax muscles, preventing or soothing menstrual cramps.
The cannabis capsule is made from the extract of cannabis flower, all of which are pesticide-free. The active ingredients are processed without microbials and then packaged with a specific mix of 60 mg of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and 10 mg of CBD (cannabidiol).
The combination together creates the perfect effect to relieve pain. The THC helps send happy feelings to the brain, while the CBD helps promote relaxation of the muscles. This helps reduce muscle spasms as well as inflammation.
After taking the suppository, one woman described the area from her waist to her thighs as “floating in some other galaxy.” It helped ease up any clenched, tense muscles and completely got rid of all of the pain in her midsection.
Unfortunately, this product is only purchasable in California at the moment, and it has not been approved by the FDA (Food & Drug Administration). However, if you think this product might be for you, please consult with a doctor before trying it, just to be safe!
With permission of
In today’s highly controversial and aggressive world, virtually anything can present a threat to the life of a human being, not just wars, climate change, or short-sighted and often criminal actions of certain politicians.
As it has been shown by a number of scientific studies, the activities of a number of American corporations present a very real threat the well-being of the population mainly due to the use of genetically modified substances in their products while manufacturing substandard health and beauty aids. The truth is that it’s the people of developing countries that are being affected by these fraudulent business practices the most, since Western corporations try to suppress any information about the health effects of their products to obtain maximum profit.
At the end of the twentieth century British scientists have come to a sensational conclusion that parabens are capable of penetrating the skin barrier and are being accumulated in the tissues of the body, causing cancer, hormone system failures, endocrine system suppression, and skin diseases. Research made this finding while studying malignant tumors in breast tissue, all of which contained parabens, Later on, these findings were confirmed by Canadian and French scientists.
Parabens are artificial preservatives that are often used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry by a number of Western corporations. Even though they are effectively increasing the shelf life of a product, while remaining relatively cheap to use, parabens pose a serious threat to human health and well-being. From time to time one can come across articles on the harmful effects of parabens in Europe and the United States, forcing certain companies to replace parabens with less harmful preservatives. However, the markets of developing countries, especially those with hot and humid climates, are flooded with Western cosmetic products that contain the dangerous substance.
In order to attract international attention to this danger, the French Le Monde went as far as to publish a list of the 400 Western pharmaceutical products containing parabens and that are, therefore, dangerous for use or consumption. In this list one may find the baby cream Biafine, such cough medicines as Clarix, Codotussyl, Drill, Hexapneumine, Humex, Pectosan, and Rhinathiol, stomach relief medicine such as Maalox, Gaviscon, Josacine, and antibiotic Zinnat, along with a list of other drugs produced by Western corporations and actively advertised for mass consumption.
As it has been pointed out by French journalists, numerous studies have shown that drugs from this list compromise the functioning of the hormone system, especially the reproductive ability of men and women, and may result in cancer.
At the same time, scientists are stressing the danger of hydro-alcoholic gels which were brought to the market in the wake of the artificially created hysteria around the “danger” of the so-called “bird flu,” the H1N1. These gels are advertised as the ultimate solution for sanitizing hands and body in the absence of soap. A study carried out by the University of Missouri and published in the Plos ONE journal shows that hydro-alcoholic gels make a person more susceptible to Bisphénol-A.
In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially recognized that Bisphénol-A is harmful to human health due to the negative effect it has on brain functions and the reproductive system. It also causes a number of cancers (in both women and men) – in particular, prostate cancer, breast cancer as well as autism, depression, reproductive and endocrine systems failure, delays in brain development, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.
Yet another study conducted in Argentina showed that 85% of the women’s hygienic pads presented a serious threat to women since they contain the chemically hazardous substance known as glyphosate. This fact was revealed by researchers of the National Argentine University of La Plata at a recent congress of physicians in Buenos Aires, upon examining sanitary towels and sanitary pads produced with the use of genetically-modified cotton that was grown using Roundup herbicide of the American company Monsanto-Bayer. As we learn from this study, after the use of this herbicide, all cotton products contain this carcinogenic substance. For this reason, there’s been a massive movement in many countries through the collection of signatures to force such producers as Tampax or Always to state the composition of their products.
More than 20 studies have linked the use of talcum powder around the genital area to ovarian cancer. Are your cosmetics and personal care products safe to use?
With permission from
By Dr. Mercola
Aug 17, 2016
Nearly 13,000 chemicals are used in cosmetics, of which only an estimated 10 percent have been evaluated for safety. Many do not realize that cosmetics can be brought to market without having to undergo an approval process.
Cosmetics are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but they’re not FDA-approved. This means that only AFTER a product is deemed harmful, adulterated or misbranded will the FDA take regulatory action.1 The only cosmetic ingredients requiring FDA premarket approval are color additives.
So who is responsible for ensuring cosmetics and personal care products are safe? The answer is the companies that manufacture and market the products. It’s a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse, which puts us all at serious risks.
Not only do FDA regulations not require specific tests to demonstrate safety, but companies are also not required to share whatever safety information they might have with the FDA. This poses an obvious conflict of interest, and as recent lawsuits show, this can have serious consequences for public health.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is a well-known and trusted “baby friendly” brand, producing a range of baby products and feminine hygiene items. Unfortunately, J&J has failed the public trust yet again. And the lack of regulations relating to cosmetics is what helped them bury the dangers of one of its flagship products.
In 2008, I warned women to cease using talcum powder. I noted there were several studies showing that applying talcum powder to the genital area might raise a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer if the powder particles were to travel up through her vagina and get lodged in her ovaries.2
As noted by Robinson Calcagnie Inc., a legal firm representing talcum powder victims, more than 20 such studies exist.3 Some date back to 1971, when British researchers found talc particles embedded in a majority of the ovarian tumors investigated.4
While the measure of risk varies from study to study, the results suggest women may increase their risk for ovarian cancer anywhere from 30 to 90 percent by applying talcum powder to their genital area.5
A 2008 study concluded that using talc as little as once a week raised a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer by 36 percent. Daily users faced a 41 percent increased risk.6
According to Robinson Calcagnie:
“The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] has designated ‘perineal [genital] use of talc-based body powder is possibly carcinogenic to humans.’
However, manufacturers of talc-containing products, such as [J&J] and its Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products, have refused to acknowledge the link between talc and ovarian cancer and have failed [to] adequately warn consumers of the risks.
Now, more than 1,000 women across the country have filed lawsuits against [J&J] and its talc distributor Imerys, claiming the companies knew of the association between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer yet failed to adequately warn consumers.”
In February, 2016, a jury found J&J’s talcum powder had contributed to 62-year old Jacqueline Fox’s ovarian cancer, awarding Fox $72 million in damages.7
Ten million dollars was awarded for compensatory damages. Another $62 million in punitive damages was awarded to her family members, as Fox died last fall, succumbing to the disease after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer three years ago.
Fox’s deposition was delivered via a prerecorded statement, in which she said she’d been using J&J’s talcum powder and Shower to Shower body powder for 35 years. She now believed these products were responsible for killing her. Fox was the first to receive financial compensation.
Waiting for their day in court are another 1,200 women who, like Fox, claim J&J knew about the risks yet failed to warn them about the dangers of its talcum products. One Missouri-based law firm was contacted by 17,000 individuals after hearing about Fox’s case, so the number of plaintiffs is likely to increase exponentially with time.8
The second defendant in the case, Imerys Talc America, was not found to be at fault. According to the jury foreman, Krista Smith, internal J&J documents clearly showed the company was hiding their knowledge about the products’ risks.
“We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial. We sympathize with the plaintiff’s family but firmly believe the safety of the cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence.”
Two additional court cases have tied J&J’s talcum powder to ovarian cancer. On May 2, 2016, jurors awarded Gloria Ristesund $55 million in damages. Ristesund, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011, had used J&J’s talcum products for 40 years.
After her hysterectomy, doctors did indeed find talcum powder in her ovarian tissue. According to the Huffington Post, internal documents and memos sealed the deal for jurors in this case as well, proving the company “tried to cover up and influence the boards that regulate cosmetics.”11
Talcum powder is a magnesium trisilicate mineral. In the 1970s, concerns were raised when talc was found to contain cancer-causing asbestos. In 1973, it was written into law that all talcum powders must be asbestos-free.
However, the ovarian cancer connection is actually not related to the asbestos but is an independent risk factor. As reported by the Huffington Post:
“In 1993, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a study on the toxicity of non-asbestiform talc and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or without the presence of asbestos-like fibers.
In response to the federal NTP study, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association formed the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF). Johnson & Johnson was a member of the trade lobby and was the primary actor and contributors of TIPTF.
The stated purpose of TIPTF was to pool financial resources of these companies in an effort to collectively defend talc use and to prevent regulation of any type over this industry.”
As many other dangerous industries have done, TIPTF hired scientists to produce biased research that was then used to give consumers a false sense of security.
This worked for a number of decades, but then, in 2006, the Canadian government classified talc as a D2A substance under its Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. D2A substances are considered “very toxic” and “cancer causing.”
That same year, J&J’s talc supplier, Imerys Talc, started adding warnings to the talc sold to J&J, providing safety information not only from the IARC but also the Canadian government.
J&J never passed these warnings on to consumers, and still don’t, claiming the scientific evidence supports its safety.
J&J also continues to “educate” consumers about the safety of talc on its website, making no mention of having been found guilty of negligence by two separate juries, or the 1,200 pending cases charging talcum powder contributed to ovarian cancer.
BASF and its lawyers are also facing fraud charges related to talc — in this case asbestos-contaminated talc. A class action lawsuit filed against them alleges the parties “conspired to hide and/or destroy evidence of asbestos exposure to prevent lawsuits.”
As it turns out, while asbestos-containing talc has been banned since 1973, a company called Engelhard sourced talc from a mine in Vermont that contained asbestos. Engelhard was later acquired by BASF, which inherited the company’s liabilities. According to the law office Bergman Draper Ladenburg:12
“Three Engelhard officials testified in depositions that there was in fact asbestos in the talc and that company officials hid this fact.”
You may be surprised to realize that J&J actually has a long history of corporate malfeasance. AllBusiness.com named J&J as one of the Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s13 for deliberately destroying documents related to a criminal investigation of one its products. In the last three years alone the company has spent more than $5 billion to settle lawsuits related to its products.
2010 was a particularly bad year for J&J. First it was discovered the company hid drug manufacturing problems, and instead of recalling its defective Motrin tablets, it sent undercover agents disguised as regular shoppers to buy up remaining stock.
That same year, the government of British Columbia, Canada, filed suit against J&J, claiming they aggressively marketed the Ortho Evra contraception patch without disclosing serious side effects like blood clots, pulmonary embolism, strokes, heart attacks and deep vein thrombosis. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also accused the company of paying tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks to Omnicare Inc. to buy and recommend J&J drugs.14
Investigations also revealed J&J’s No More Tears baby shampoo contained two potentially cancer-causing chemicals: quaternium-15, which releases formaldehyde (a skin, eye and respiratory irritant, and a known carcinogen), and 1,4-dioxane, known to be a likely carcinogen. After several years of pressure from consumer advocates, J&J finally removed these dangerous ingredients from its baby shampoo in 2014.15
The average American woman uses 12 personal care products and/or cosmetics a day, containing 168 different chemicals, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG). While most men use fewer products, they’re still exposed to about 85 such chemicals daily, while teens, who use an average of 17 personal care products a day, are exposed to even more.16 Clearly, such chemical exposures are not insignificant, especially when they occur virtually daily for a lifetime.
When EWG tested teens to find out which chemicals in personal care products were found in their bodies, 16 different hormone-altering chemicals, including parabens and phthalates, were detected. There are other chemicals risks as well.
In the report “Heavy Metal Hazard: The Health Risks of Hidden Heavy Metals in Face Makeup,”17 Environmental Defense tested 49 different makeup items, including foundations, concealers, powders, blushes, mascaras, eye liners, eye shadows, lipsticks and lip glosses. Their testing revealed serious heavy metal contamination in virtually all of the products:
1. 96 percent contained lead
2. 90 percent contained beryllium
3. 61 percent contained thallium
4. 51 percent contained cadmium
5. 20 percent contained arsenic
Your skin is your largest organ, and anything you put on it should contain only the best and safest ingredients from nature. So before slathering lotion or body wash on your skin, take a look at this infographic on toxic chemicals found in personal-care-products.
How to Reduce Your Chemical ExposuresThe EWG has a great database to help you find personal care products that are free of potentially dangerous chemicals.18 Products bearing the “USDA 100% Organic” seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients. Beware that products boasting “all-natural” labels can still contain harmful chemicals, so be sure to check the full list of ingredients.
Better yet, simplify your routine and make your own products. A slew of lotions, potions and hair treatments can be eliminated with a jar of coconut oil, for example, to which you can add a high-quality essential oil, if you like, for scent.
It’s important to remember that your skin is your largest and most permeable organ. Just about anything you put on your skin will end up in your bloodstream and distributed throughout your body. Once these chemicals find their way into your body, they tend to accumulate over time because you typically lack the necessary enzymes to break them down.
When it comes to talcum powder, my recommendation is to avoid it altogether. Also remember that adult women are not the ones most commonly exposed to talc. Most parents generously apply baby talcum powder to their baby’s bottom at each diaper change.
A safe substitute that can absorb moisture is cornstarch. In 1999, following reports of talcum dangers, the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition (NOCC) came out with the recommendation to use cornstarch-based products in the genital area in lieu of talcum powder.19