Tuesday 28 August 2012

Amnesty run by US State Department representatives, funded by convicted financial criminals, and threatens real human rights advocacy worldwide.

by Tony Cartalucci

Image: From Amnesty International USA's website, "Free Pussy Riot." "Help Amnesty International send a truckload of balaclavas to Putin." This childish stunt smacks of US State Department-funded Gene Sharp antics - and meshes directly with the US State Department's goal of undermining the Russian government via its troupe of US-funded "opposition activists" including "Pussy Riot." That Amnesty is supporting the US State Department's agenda should be no surprise, it is run literally by the US State Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations, Suzanne Nossel.

....

August 22, 2012 - Mistakenly considered by many as the final word on human rights worldwide, it might surprise people to know that Amnesty International is in fact one of the greatest obstacles to real human rights advocacy on Earth. In its most recent 2012 annual report (page 4, .pdf), Amnesty reiterates one of the biggest lies it routinely tells:

"Amnesty International is funded mainly by its membership and public donations. No funds are sought or accepted from governments for investigating and campaigning against human rights abuses. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion."

This is categorically false. Amnesty international is indeed funded and run by not only governments, but also immense corporate-financier interests, and is not only absolutely entwined with political ideology and economic interests, it is an essential tool used for perpetuating just such interests.


Amnesty International's Funding


Finding financial information on Amnesty International's website is made purposefully difficult - specifically to protect the myth that the organization is "independent." Like any organized criminal operation, Amnesty separates compromising financial ties through a series of legal maneuvers and shell organizations. Upon Amnesty's website it states:

"The work carried out through Amnesty International's International Secretariat is organised into two legal entities, in compliance with United Kingdom law. These are Amnesty International Limited ("AIL") and Amnesty International Charity Limited ("AICL"). Amnesty International Limited undertakes charitable activities on behalf of Amnesty International Charity Limited, a registered charity."

And it is there, at Amnesty International Limited, where ties to both governments and corporate-financier interests are kept. On page 11 of Amnesty International Limited's 2011 Report and Financial Statement (.pdf) it states (emphasis added):

"The Directors are pleased to acknowledge the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Oak Foundation, Open Society Georgia Foundation, the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Programme, Mauro Tunes and American Jewish World Service. The UK Department for International Development (Governance and Transparency Fund) continued to fund a four year human rights education project in Africa. The European Commission (EuropeAid) generously awarded a multi-year grant towards Amnesty International’s human rights education work in Europe."

Clearly then, Amnesty does take money from both governments and corporate-financier interests, one of the most notorious of which, Open Society, is headed by convicted financial criminal George Soros. In March, 2012, it was reported that a Bloomberg's report, "Soros Loses Case Against French Insider-Trading Conviction,"
indicated that an appeal based on a "human rights" violation against Wall Street speculator George Soros had been rejected by the "European Court of Human Rights."

Soros, whose Open Society also funds Human Rights Watch and a myriad of other "human rights" advocates, literally attempted to use the West's human rights racket to defend himself against charges of financial fraud in perhaps the most transparent illustration of just how this racket operates.

Soros, who was convicted and fined for insider trading in 2002
regarding French bank Société Générale shares he bought in 1988, has built an empire out of obfuscating global criminal activity with the cause of "human rights." His support, as well as that of the British and European governments, of Amnesty International aims solely at expanding this obfuscating.


Amnesty International's Leadership

Amnesty's leadership is also telling of its true agenda. Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, for instance was drawn directly from the US State Department - again, utterly contradicting Amnesty's claims of being "independent" of governments and corporate interests. Nossel continued promoting US foreign policy, but simply behind a podium with a new logo, Amnesty International's logo, attached to it. Amnesty International's website specifically mentions Nossel's role behind US State Department-backed UN resolutions regarding Iran, Syria, Libya, and Cote d'Ivoire.

Image: Same lies, different podium. Suzanne Nossel previously of the US State Department, is now executive director of Amnesty International USA. Her primary function of dressing up aspirations of corporate-financier global hegemony as "human rights advocacy" has not changed.

....

It has been documented at great length how these issues revolve around a decades long plan devised by corporate-financier interests to divide, destroy and despoil these nations who are seen as obstacles to US global hegemony. In the case of Syria specifically, it was revealed that the current "human rights" catastrophe stems back to a malicious 2007 conspiracy documented by "New Yorker" journalist Seymour Hersh, between the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia which sought to purposefully fund, arm, and deploy sectarian extremists to undermine and overthrow the Syrian government - this knowing full well the human tragedy that would unfold.

Nossel's "contributions" then are simply to dress up naked military aggression and the pursuit of global corporate-financier hegemony with the pretense of "human rights" advocacy.

A glance at AmnestyUSA.org reveals that each and every front the US State Department is currently working on and has prioritized is also coincidentally prioritized by Amnesty International. This includes rallies and campaigns to support US State Department-funded Russian opposition groups (currently fixated on "Pussy Riot"), undermining the Syrian government, toppling the government of Belarus, and supporting the Wall Street-London created Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (still called by its British Imperial nomenclature of "Burma" by Suu Kyi herself).


Amnesty International Betrays Real Human Rights Advocacy


Amnesty does indeed cover issues that are critical of US foreign policy, toward the bottom of their websites and at the back of their reports. Likewise, the corporate-media selectively reports issues that coincide with their interests while other issues are either under-reported or not reported at all. And it is precisely because Amnesty covers all issues, but selectively emphasizes those that are conducive to the interests of immense corporate-financiers that makes Amnesty one of the greatest impediments to genuine human rights advocacy on Earth.

Images: Manufacturing Dissent. "Free Pussy Riot" (above). Ironically, FIDH is directly funded by the US State Department via the Neo-Con lined US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well as George Soros' Open Society. "Russia: Stop Arms Transfer to Syria!" (below). If the US State Department wants it, be sure that US State Department-run Amnesty International will stage a demonstration for it - and regardless of size or legitimacy of the demonstration, expect the corporate-media to make it headline news.

....

Ordinary people are given the false impression that "someone is watching out" for human rights abuses, when in reality, all Amnesty and other organizations like it are doing, is managing public perception selectively of global human rights abuses, fabricating and/or manipulating many cases specifically to suit the agenda of large corporate-financier interests. This can be seen when entire reports out of Amnesty or Human Rights Watch consist solely of "witness reports" compiled from accounts of US-backed opposition groups.

In the rare instance that a report includes references to actual photographic, video, or documented evidence, such as Human Rights Watch's 2011 "Descent into Chaos" (.pdf) report, deceptive language is intentionally included along with throwaway passages to enable selective reporting and spinning by not only the Western corporate media, but by a myriad of faux-NGOs funded and run by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch's sponsors and affiliates. The Descent into Chaos report, regarding Thailand, was promply and amply spun and manipulated by US State Department-funded faux-NGO and "rights advocate" Prachatai.

When people erroneously believe that credible organizations are handling "rights advocacy" they will not only become complacent, they will become negligent of their own responsibilities to objectively examine potential abuses and speak out against them. Wall Street and London's corporate-financier interests have filled a void - that should be occupied by their greatest opponents - instead with a large advocacy racket of their own creation. Not only are they given a free pass to abuse human rights globally, they've actually used their controlled opposition to attack their opponents.

It is clear that Amnesty International is by no means an "advocate" of human rights, but rather an affront to human rights advocacy. It goes without saying that it should be boycotted out of existence and at the very least, identified as illegitimate and fraudulent - from its funding to its compromised leadership.

Additionally, we the people must tackle real violations of each others rights at the grassroots - because it is absolute folly to believe that global spanning organizations, funded by corporate-financiers, echoing the agenda of governments driven by special interests has our best interests and rights in mind.

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ie/2012/08/amnesty-international-is-us-sta...

Monday 27 August 2012

5 strategies for peacefully underthrowing the status quo

J.G. Vibes
Activist Post

One of the main obstacles that tie the general population to the status quo is that many people are looking for a step-by-step process for how we can peacefully neutralize the power structure and achieve peace on this planet.

This step-by-step process is not a possibility, because human actions and the advancement of technology are both totally unpredictable. Sadly, it seems that people are waiting for a list of instructions that could never exist.

However, there is definitely hope, because although we cannot precisely chart the course to freedom, we can develop workable solutions that will lead us in the right direction and help us achieve greater levels of peace in our own lives. In this article I am going to list the 5 strategies that I am most supportive of right now, and offer a brief description of how they work and why I believe they are effective approaches to meeting this goal.

(1) - Finding personal freedom – This should definitely be the first step, because when we find peace in our own hearts we are much better prepared and equipped to bring peace into the hearts of others. A few months ago I wrote an article on this subject which offered some solutions to speed along this process. When you are able to find freedom in your own personal life, you will set a positive example for your peers to follow and you will be contributing to the paradigm shift by “being the change that you want to see in the world” as Gandhi said.


(2) - Practicing Agorism – Agorism is a strategy of noncompliance that uses counter economics and underground markets as a way of keeping power in the hands of the average people, thus slowly diminishing the power and relevance of the control structure. Growing food, using bitcoin, homeschooling, running a small business without licenses, bartering and starting community currencies are all examples of agorist activities. Some agorists are even so bold as to create businesses that will challenge existing state monopolies, like we saw earlier this year when Detroit residents created their own community protection agencies because the police were no longer responding to 911 calls. It is as simple as finding a need in your community for a particular good or service, and attempting to provide that value without any sort of interaction with the government or any other unchosen 3rd parties. In other words, the basic idea is to try solving the problem yourself, with your community instead of waiting around for a politician to make the problem worse.

(3) - Reinventing oldspeak – When it comes to the power of words, the general population is far outmatched by the ruling class. There have been generations of work among the aristocracy completely dedicated to mastering the art of verbal manipulation and deception. They have their newspeak, which cloaks their transgressions in an air of false legitimacy, so we in turn, need to develop an oldspeak that describes reality as it is, but we need to be just as innovative and creative as those working against us. I touched on this subject in my book Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance and I will share a short excerpt below:

Get Book Here
“What we must do to counteract this problem is to expand the limits of our vocabulary and create new terms and new words to describe the indescribable. If you come up with a new word or new way of explaining something in your day to day conversations then by all means continue to use it! If it sounds good to you than your probably right and your addition to the language will most likely catch on, as long as it works. Terms like vibe, synchronicity, freedom, ego trip or civil liberties have revolutionized philosophical dialogue just as terms like inertia, gravity or relativity have revolutionized scientific dialogue. Imagine how hard it would be to have a conversation about the state of our society without words like “freedom”, “oppression” or “autonomy”.

These philosophical terms are all fairly new to our vocabulary and allow us to better describe things that were at one time just beyond our descriptive possibilities. Some of these terms were created by philosophers, scientist and psychologists, others by college students and hippies. Anyone can contribute to the positive expansion of their cultures vocabulary and tear down the linguistic barriers set by those who keep us mentally enslaved under their cultural paradigm.”

(4) - Peaceful parenting – The kind of society that we want to create, is eventually going to be the society that our children will be responsible for. When they become adults, they will interact with each other based on the example that was set for them by their elders. The more children who have lives that are filled with peace, negotiation and tranquility, the better chance there is of that kind of society existing when those children grow up.

Parenting is probably the most important responsibility that any of us will take on in our entire lives, and it is actually our greatest avenue of affecting real change in the world. It is very possible that the fight for freedom will be either won or lost by the next generation, which means that it is up to us to make sure that our children are free to create their own path in learning, without being subjected to the oppressive indoctrination processes that are so prevalent in government schools. Likewise, it is important that we are not authoritarian with our children, if we truly want the next generation to live in freedom. This does not mean letting children do whatever they want, but it means treating them with the same respect that you would treat an adult that was bigger than you.

(5) - Philosophy and education – As a society we have all been completely betrayed by the public education system and the mainstream media. We have been given false values, irrational principles, destructive examples and have been led completely astray to the point where it is difficult to make sense of the world, which ultimately results in unfavorable and dangerous behavior. A good many people in the world have fallen victim to this deception, but most people snap out of it quickly when they are able to make sense of reality. This is where philosophy and education come in, because the damage that propaganda has inflicted on our minds is actually fairly easy to reverse, and today with the internet people are now able to teach themselves any subject, any time, at any age and usually for free. So we do have that ability to advance philosophy and have widespread education even in this world today where we are still limited by the current system and its failures.

If you have any questions or disagreements feel free to email me at jgvibes@aotmr.com

You can support this information by voting on Reddit HERE

J.G. Vibes is an author with an established record label and event promotion company that hosts politically charged electronic dance music events. You can keep up with him and his new 87 chapter book Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance, as well as his Voluntary Hippie Podcast at www.aotmr.com

Sunday 26 August 2012

Can Cannabis Really Cure Cancer?


Cannabis is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoD Act)- the law that prohibits cannabis – as having no medicinal value. Of course, we know that is simply wrong and it was when one group of ill people – those suffering from Multiple sclerosis (MSers) – began to openly defy the law because they had discovered that cannabis brought them very real relief that the first cannabis medicine was reluctantly allowed in the UK. During the 1990′s there were two groups at the fore in supplying MSers ; THC4MS and Budbuddies. Budbuddies was fronted by Jeff Ditchfield who has continued to campaign, using a form of activism which doesn’t shy away from confronting the law. In 2007 Jeff was filmed by BBC TV’s “Inside Out” programme



The government has now changed its position slightly and claims there is no medical use for raw herbal cannabis, but as of yet the law hasn’t been changed and although SATIVEX is a licensed drug that a doctor can prescribe, it is still technically illegal under the MoD Act and it is very difficult to actually get, but the hardline blanket prohibition of cannabis has been cracked ever so slightly. It can only really be regarded a partial victory for many reasons, but had it not been for the sort of direct action Budbuddies and others undertook this would not have happened.

The issue of MSer’s access to cannabis proved a highly emotive causes – and rightly so. The medical campaign was threatening to get out of control and by the end of the 1990′s the government was genuinely afraid of the prospect of wheelchairs blocking Whitehall. But those of us who have been following the cannabis debate for years are aware the medical uses of the cannabis plant are not confined to MS, a quick look at the Medicinal users database here on UKCIA gives some idea of the huge range of applications ill people claim it has.

If the cause of MS relief wasn’t enough to motivate mass support for a total rethink on medical access to cannabis however, something else might be: What if cannabis products cured cancer – not just eased the symptoms but actually cured cancer, killed and eradicated it? absurd?

It has been known for some time that cannabis – or more specifically the THC cannabis contains – has anti cancer properties and kills tumours. There is growing body of good, solid research which shows this to be very, very possible – and there is a lot of it. Take for example a study by the name of Cannabinoids and gliomas from August 2007 from Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. which found:

Cannabinoids, the active components of Cannabis sativa L., act in the body by mimicking endogenous substances–the endocannabinoids–that activate specific cell surface receptors. Cannabinoids exert various palliative effects in cancer patients. In addition, cannabinoids inhibit the growth of different types of tumor cells, including glioma cells, in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell signaling pathways, mostly the endoplasmic reticulum stress response, thereby inducing antitumoral actions such as the apoptotic death of tumor cells and the inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. Of interest, cannabinoids seem to be selective antitumoral compounds, as they kill glioma cells, but not their non-transformed astroglial counterparts. On the basis of these preclinical findings, a pilot clinical study of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme has been recently run. The good safety profile of THC, together with its possible growth-inhibiting action on tumor cells, justifies the setting up of future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.

Fact is there are plenty of other studies out there which indicate something wonderful here; the possibility that cannabis produces compounds that can actually cure cancer. Surely the pressure to develop a treatment would be massive and studies would be underway all over the place to look into this? You would have thought, but no. Such a possibility of course is so far off the prohibition message it simply can’t be allowed to get into the public domain so news of these developments has simply not been reported. Once again it has been down to individuals to take matters into their own hands.

A few years ago in 2008 a video film was made on behalf of a Canadian called Rick Simpson. Rick isn’t a scientist but claims to have been using a concentrated form of cannabis – “hash oil”, or just “oil” as it’s long been known – to have cured cannabis in several very ill people. The film is “Run from the Cure” and can be seen here. It can be criticised for being a little naive and sentimental in places and it’s certainly a low-budget production, but Rick comes across as honest and genuine in his passion and the people interviewed seem to be speaking from genuine personal experience and their stories are heart wrenching.

Oil is an extraction of the active components of cannabis, which makes it a highly concentrated form, but as long as the process is done right it will contain the same profile of cannabinoids as the original plant. It’s worth noting that the SATIVEX medicine now licensed by the UK government is actually cannabis oil with a profile of 1:1 THC and CBD (made from a blend of two strains of cannabis). SATIVEX is then thinned down with alcohol so that it can be sprayed under the tong for easy absorption into the bloodstream, but in essence it is the same product Rick Simpson produces in his home. The film includes a section on how to make cannabis oil (please do not try this at home, it is a very dangerous process)

Rick is so sure of the truth of this he even gives a definitive dose in order to cure cancer: 2 oz of oil (about 60 grams) over a two to three-month period and to back this up the film several interviews people who claim to have been through this treatment with spectacular results. For more information see Ricks site Phoenix Tears

If these claims are even remotely true a huge injustice is being imposed on ill people by a combination of government imposed laws designed to uphold a policy of prohibition, perhaps allied to commercial interests of the massive pharmaceutical industry. After all, if this is true a lot of influential people stand to lose a lot of money. Enter Jeff Ditchfield again.

Jeff wrote a blog entry on NORML-UK this week with the title

Cannabis oil cured my cancer

Perhaps typical of his style, this title directly challenges the law as making claims of a cure for cancer is a specific offence under the Cancer Act of 1939, which bans claims to treat cancer and carries the threat of a three-month jail sentence (Wikipedia).,

The Cancer Act 1939 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in 1939. Its most notable provision is a clause prohibiting taking any part in publication, except under specified conditions, of advertisements that “offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof”.

The expression “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.

In fact the heading is a quote from the story the blog post relates, so there really should be quotes around the “cured my cancer”, but I suppose that’s just not Jeff’s style.

The blog concerned the the story of someone who isn’t called Dave, a man from the UK who claims to have been through this treatment and to have been cured of cancer as a result. It’s worth reading as an example of direct action. Dave’s story closely matches the accounts given in Rick Simpson’s film. After taking the oil as directed by Rick Simpson Dave, who had been suffering apparently incurable cancer returned to his doctor

He [the doctor] showed us the scans on his PC and he started to read out various test results and my wife asked him to speak in plain language, despite this request he continued with the medical jargon and again had to be told to speak plainly.

My wife finally lost patience and asked him bluntly “if there are no hotspots showing anywhere does that mean he no longer has cancer?”, after a moments contemplation he answered “at this moment in time, you are cancer free”

It should be noted his doctor rejects the claim that the cannabis oil had anything to do with this, but read the full story,

This is one hell of a claim, make no mistake if this is true it is something to be shouted from the rooftops. So are there any flaws in the description offered by Jeff which could undermine all this? Following Rick’s directions, Dave had taken the cannabis oil by swallowing “a small blob” at a time

I took the oil daily in small amounts, four times a day and slowly increased the dose up to a gram a day.

The problem is this raises a question. In order to be effective the THC has to get into the bloodstream and Cannabis oil is not water soluble, so simply swallowing a “blob” would seem to be an inefficient way to ingest the cannabis. No doubt some absorption will take place, but how much is open to question. Anyone who has ever wanted to get stoned by eating cannabis knows this; which is why cannabis is cooked into foods and then eaten (how to eat cannabis) Simply swallowing a blob of oil into the water environment of the stomach then is surely not going to be an effective way to administer the dose? It seemed a reasonable question to ask, so I posted this question to the comments section (along with a comment about the title) of the blog. I wrote:

I note he was taking 1 g of hash oil a day, Interestingly he claims to have simply swallowed “blobs” and I question the effectiveness of this form of administration. Cannabis oil is not water soluble, therefore simply swallowing a blob is going to be a very inefficient way to absorb THC etc into the bloodstream, most, I suspect, would simply pass through his digestive system untouched.

unfortunately when I did it was met with a mass of personal insults and virtually no serious debate.There is no moderation on the NORML-UK forum to keep the debate civilised or even on subject and to make it worse, the discussion thread seems to have become jumbled up in time, so it’s hard to follow the sequence of comments. Jeff himself seems to have taken this question as an insult and snapped back

Derek your ignorance is now plainly here for all to see. You are so ill informed, you are stating that a cannabinoid concentrated oil which has been made with a SOLVENT must then be diluted with another solvent or oil to make it effective. lol

Now this is a problem, because it clearly shows a lack of understanding of some pretty basic chemistry, let alone of the complex understanding of cannabis pharmacology. Of course the oils are indeed extracted from the plant with solvents – organic solvents which do not dissolve in water – and these solvents are removed to produce the pure oil as is explained in the video clip above. The aim of using another solvent is to allow the none-water soluble cannabis compounds to pass into the blood stream, not to dilute it.

This is all very unfortunate, there may well be an answer to my question which a reasonable debate would have produced, perhaps someone can provide an answer in the comments here? But it does seem to be a weakness in the treatment method. It is, after all, important to demonstrate that you understand how the method of administration works. The thing is Jeff does know this, as the video clip of him preparing cannabis medicines above demonstrates. If this form of direct action is to be taken seriously – by which I mean outside of the group of people who believe and have always believed that cannabis is a magical cure for everything – campaigners have to be prepared to answer difficult questions and to treat criticism as helpful.

What we need is properly conducted tests in controlled conditions, failing that direct action like this is the only way forward but it would be a disaster if a campaign to highlight the cancer curing properties of cannabis were mishandled to such an extent that the media could rubbish them on a stupid technicality.

Dave was taking a gram of oil a day in four doses, that is a huge dose of THC, especially as by his account it was a high THC oil. Oil is a concentrated form of cannabis, so 1 gram of oil might be equivalent to anything up to 10 grams worth of raw cannabis. If this is all making its way into his blood stream wouldn’t he be getting more than a bit stoned? In fact Dave reported

The oil I was given was high in THC and 60 grams of this oil cured my lung cancer, I knew the oil was mostly THC because the first few doses felt quite ‘trippy’ with some mild psychedelic moments. I’ve never actually felt a highness like that before just from cannabis, it seemed more like LSD or mushrooms but it was all very positive and I feel that it was an important part of my cure. I don’t want to sound evangelical or too over the top but the highs helped me find the real me and they really lifted my depression.

After which the intoxicating effect seems to have decreased as the dose increased. So how can this be working? Would it be better to prepare some kind of “hashcake” style food to aid the absorption of the oils into the blood? Indeed, what’s so special about the oil that good quality hashish can’t provide apart from strength? Perhaps the highly concentrate oil compensated for the inefficient method of application? If so it seems odd to use a concentrated form of cannabis in an inefficient way.

Rick Simpson discussed this issue:

Rick’s account of how a small woman felt no effect from the same dose that laid out a large man indicates there is something at least hit and miss about this method of delivery. One comment to the video asks

Isn’t THC fat soluble? does that explain the dosage discrepancy in the story?

Which gets the response

THC is lipid soluble, yes.

Which might indicate this method of application is going to be more effective on fat people than thin, which of course means less effective on someone who can’t eat and has lost a lot of weight, such as someone suffering terminal cancer. There might be an answer to this issue, but I can’t see it.

Interestingly in Ricks film several people are shown taking the oil not by simply swallowing it, but by rubbing it into their gums. That would seem to be a better way to get the oil into the bloodstream.

One considered reply amongst all the dross on NORML-UK came from Dave Dangleberry. I had assumed the oil, if not absorbed into the blood, would simple pass through the body, Dave Dangleberry suggested

Fats and oil are broken down in the stomach by enzymes, the THC et al will not simply pass through the body.

In which case the THC will be broken down before getting into the blood, so doesn’t it amount to the same thing as passing through the body in that the THC will have been wasted?

Dave Dangleberry continues

I suspect that a small lump will be pretty much completely absorbed so all making it more easily absorbed will achieve is to increase the rate of absorption. This isn’t necessarily what you want. The aim is to find the sweet spot, too much over a short space of time could be less effective than just the right amount over a longer period. I’m sure we could achieve similar results with larger doses of hash but given cancer patients often have to deal with nausea and vomiting ingesting large amounts of fatty food probably isn’t the best way to go about

He is arguing that the blobs of oil will in fact be absorbed but slowly, giving a more even dose over time might be a reasonable answer, although the doses based on the amount taken are very high and yet the person is apparently not so very stoned. But this comment from Dave Dangleberry was the sort of considered reply I was hoping for.

Assuming the oil is somehow absorbed into the bloodstream, could there be another issue at work accounting for the lack of stonedness? Well, yes there might.

There is another possibility which may at least partially account for things, and to understand it you need to understand a little about the pharmacology of cannabis. It’s often claimed that cannabis contains THC, strictly speaking that isn’t actually true; the plant contains an acid version of THC; THC-A as well as the -A versions of other cannabinoids.

THC-A is the chemical the plant produces and is reduced (as opposed to oxidised) to THC by heating – as would happen in a joint or vape. THC-A is far less psycho-active than THC. Cooking food or heating it into some vegetable oil will also perhaps do this conversion. However, the oil hasn’t been heated to a great extent and will therefore mostly contain the acid version, THC-A. Perhaps this is the reason such large doses can be tolerated without getting stoned? THC-A shares the cancer reducing properties of THC. For some background on THC-A, see here.

So there may well be good answers to what seem like obvious shortfalls to the method of administration, and I do applaud Jeff for his dedication to direct action against this unjust and inhumane law, but it is important that anyone who wants to try to bring this really important discovery of cannabis being a cancer cure – if that’s what it is – becomes very well briefed on the way things work, rather than simply doing what Rick Simpson claims to be an effective method and promoting him as the expert who cannot be questioned whilst becoming aggressive when questions are asked. It doesn’t help NORML-UK to allow serious debate about such a potentially wonderful discovery to be drowned out by infantile abuse in their forum either if they want to be taken seriously, this isn’t a matter of faith, it’s something we have to prove to sceptics.

There is also perhaps a problem with this sort of direct action focusing on medical campaigning being done by an organisation openly campaigning for recreational use – “they would say that wouldn’t they” is an easy charge to make. Of course that applies to UKCIA, CLEAR and any other cannabis law reform campaign. It’s another reason this needs to be done and presented in a rigorous way.

If cannabis really can cure cancer then we need to know for sure and to do that we need properly run tests on ill people in a controlled environment. Now it would seem to be an easy enough thing to do, after all there are plenty of people out there suffering terminal cancer who cannot be treated by conventional medicine so it should be possible to find a volunteer or two. What possible harm would it do to offer them the chance of trying cannabis oil, other than possibly undermining a lot of pharmaceutical companies profits?

The government will no doubt reply that cannabis has no medicinal value – as it always does – and slam the door on idea of testing these claims, but they are getting a bit too widespread to ignore and It does start to look more than a little like a cover up. For now, direct action seems to be the only option. Let’s just make sure get it right.

The government has now changed its position slightly and claims there is no medical use for raw herbal cannabis, but as of yet the law hasn’t been changed and although SATIVEX is a licensed drug that a doctor can prescribe, it is still technically illegal under the MoD Act and it is very difficult to actually get, but the hardline blanket prohibition of cannabis has been cracked ever so slightly. It can only really be regarded a partial victory for many reasons, but had it not been for the sort of direct action Budbuddies and others undertook this would not have happened.

The issue of MSer’s access to cannabis proved a highly emotive causes – and rightly so. The medical campaign was threatening to get out of control and by the end of the 1990′s the government was genuinely afraid of the prospect of wheelchairs blocking Whitehall. But those of us who have been following the cannabis debate for years are aware the medical uses of the cannabis plant are not confined to MS, a quick look at the Medicinal users database here on UKCIA gives some idea of the huge range of applications ill people claim it has.

If the cause of MS relief wasn’t enough to motivate mass support for a total rethink on medical access to cannabis however, something else might be: What if cannabis products cured cancer – not just eased the symptoms but actually cured cancer, killed and eradicated it? absurd?

It has been known for some time that cannabis – or more specifically the THC cannabis contains – has anti cancer properties and kills tumours. There is growing body of good, solid research which shows this to be very, very possible – and there is a lot of it. Take for example a study by the name of Cannabinoids and gliomas from August 2007 from Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. which found:

Cannabinoids, the active components of Cannabis sativa L., act in the body by mimicking endogenous substances–the endocannabinoids–that activate specific cell surface receptors. Cannabinoids exert various palliative effects in cancer patients. In addition, cannabinoids inhibit the growth of different types of tumor cells, including glioma cells, in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell signaling pathways, mostly the endoplasmic reticulum stress response, thereby inducing antitumoral actions such as the apoptotic death of tumor cells and the inhibition of tumor angiogenesis. Of interest, cannabinoids seem to be selective antitumoral compounds, as they kill glioma cells, but not their non-transformed astroglial counterparts. On the basis of these preclinical findings, a pilot clinical study of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme has been recently run. The good safety profile of THC, together with its possible growth-inhibiting action on tumor cells, justifies the setting up of future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.

Fact is there are plenty of other studies out there which indicate something wonderful here; the possibility that cannabis produces compounds that can actually cure cancer. Surely the pressure to develop a treatment would be massive and studies would be underway all over the place to look into this? You would have thought, but no. Such a possibility of course is so far off the prohibition message it simply can’t be allowed to get into the public domain so news of these developments has simply not been reported. Once again it has been down to individuals to take matters into their own hands.

A few years ago in 2008 a video film was made on behalf of a Canadian called Rick Simpson. Rick isn’t a scientist but claims to have been using a concentrated form of cannabis – “hash oil”, or just “oil” as it’s long been known – to have cured cannabis in several very ill people. The film is “Run from the Cure” and can be seen here. It can be criticised for being a little naive and sentimental in places and it’s certainly a low-budget production, but Rick comes across as honest and genuine in his passion and the people interviewed seem to be speaking from genuine personal experience and their stories are heart wrenching.

Oil is an extraction of the active components of cannabis, which makes it a highly concentrated form, but as long as the process is done right it will contain the same profile of cannabinoids as the original plant. It’s worth noting that the SATIVEX medicine now licensed by the UK government is actually cannabis oil with a profile of 1:1 THC and CBD (made from a blend of two strains of cannabis). SATIVEX is then thinned down with alcohol so that it can be sprayed under the tong for easy absorption into the bloodstream, but in essence it is the same product Rick Simpson produces in his home. The film includes a section on how to make cannabis oil (please do not try this at home, it is a very dangerous process)


Rick is so sure of the truth of this he even gives a definitive dose in order to cure cancer: 2 oz of oil (about 60 grams) over a two to three-month period and to back this up the film several interviews people who claim to have been through this treatment with spectacular results. For more information see Ricks site Phoenix Tears

If these claims are even remotely true a huge injustice is being imposed on ill people by a combination of government imposed laws designed to uphold a policy of prohibition, perhaps allied to commercial interests of the massive pharmaceutical industry. After all, if this is true a lot of influential people stand to lose a lot of money. Enter Jeff Ditchfield again.

Jeff wrote a blog entry on NORML-UK this week with the title

Cannabis oil cured my cancer

Perhaps typical of his style, this title directly challenges the law as making claims of a cure for cancer is a specific offence under the Cancer Act of 1939, which bans claims to treat cancer and carries the threat of a three-month jail sentence (Wikipedia).,

The Cancer Act 1939 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in 1939. Its most notable provision is a clause prohibiting taking any part in publication, except under specified conditions, of advertisements that “offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof”.

The expression “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.

In fact the heading is a quote from the story the blog post relates, so there really should be quotes around the “cured my cancer”, but I suppose that’s just not Jeff’s style.

The blog concerned the the story of someone who isn’t called Dave, a man from the UK who claims to have been through this treatment and to have been cured of cancer as a result. It’s worth reading as an example of direct action. Dave’s story closely matches the accounts given in Rick Simpson’s film. After taking the oil as directed by Rick Simpson Dave, who had been suffering apparently incurable cancer returned to his doctor

He [the doctor] showed us the scans on his PC and he started to read out various test results and my wife asked him to speak in plain language, despite this request he continued with the medical jargon and again had to be told to speak plainly.

My wife finally lost patience and asked him bluntly “if there are no hotspots showing anywhere does that mean he no longer has cancer?”, after a moments contemplation he answered “at this moment in time, you are cancer free”

It should be noted his doctor rejects the claim that the cannabis oil had anything to do with this, but read the full story,

This is one hell of a claim, make no mistake if this is true it is something to be shouted from the rooftops. So are there any flaws in the description offered by Jeff which could undermine all this? Following Rick’s directions, Dave had taken the cannabis oil by swallowing “a small blob” at a time

I took the oil daily in small amounts, four times a day and slowly increased the dose up to a gram a day.

The problem is this raises a question. In order to be effective the THC has to get into the bloodstream and Cannabis oil is not water soluble, so simply swallowing a “blob” would seem to be an inefficient way to ingest the cannabis. No doubt some absorption will take place, but how much is open to question. Anyone who has ever wanted to get stoned by eating cannabis knows this; which is why cannabis is cooked into foods and then eaten (how to eat cannabis) Simply swallowing a blob of oil into the water environment of the stomach then is surely not going to be an effective way to administer the dose? It seemed a reasonable question to ask, so I posted this question to the comments section (along with a comment about the title) of the blog. I wrote:

I note he was taking 1 g of hash oil a day, Interestingly he claims to have simply swallowed “blobs” and I question the effectiveness of this form of administration. Cannabis oil is not water soluble, therefore simply swallowing a blob is going to be a very inefficient way to absorb THC etc into the bloodstream, most, I suspect, would simply pass through his digestive system untouched.

unfortunately when I did it was met with a mass of personal insults and virtually no serious debate.There is no moderation on the NORML-UK forum to keep the debate civilised or even on subject and to make it worse, the discussion thread seems to have become jumbled up in time, so it’s hard to follow the sequence of comments. Jeff himself seems to have taken this question as an insult and snapped back

Derek your ignorance is now plainly here for all to see. You are so ill informed, you are stating that a cannabinoid concentrated oil which has been made with a SOLVENT must then be diluted with another solvent or oil to make it effective. lol

Now this is a problem, because it clearly shows a lack of understanding of some pretty basic chemistry, let alone of the complex understanding of cannabis pharmacology. Of course the oils are indeed extracted from the plant with solvents – organic solvents which do not dissolve in water – and these solvents are removed to produce the pure oil as is explained in the video clip above. The aim of using another solvent is to allow the none-water soluble cannabis compounds to pass into the blood stream, not to dilute it.

This is all very unfortunate, there may well be an answer to my question which a reasonable debate would have produced, perhaps someone can provide an answer in the comments here? But it does seem to be a weakness in the treatment method. It is, after all, important to demonstrate that you understand how the method of administration works. The thing is Jeff does know this, as the video clip of him preparing cannabis medicines above demonstrates. If this form of direct action is to be taken seriously – by which I mean outside of the group of people who believe and have always believed that cannabis is a magical cure for everything – campaigners have to be prepared to answer difficult questions and to treat criticism as helpful.

What we need is properly conducted tests in controlled conditions, failing that direct action like this is the only way forward but it would be a disaster if a campaign to highlight the cancer curing properties of cannabis were mishandled to such an extent that the media could rubbish them on a stupid technicality.

Dave was taking a gram of oil a day in four doses, that is a huge dose of THC, especially as by his account it was a high THC oil. Oil is a concentrated form of cannabis, so 1 gram of oil might be equivalent to anything up to 10 grams worth of raw cannabis. If this is all making its way into his blood stream wouldn’t he be getting more than a bit stoned? In fact Dave reported

The oil I was given was high in THC and 60 grams of this oil cured my lung cancer, I knew the oil was mostly THC because the first few doses felt quite ‘trippy’ with some mild psychedelic moments. I’ve never actually felt a highness like that before just from cannabis, it seemed more like LSD or mushrooms but it was all very positive and I feel that it was an important part of my cure. I don’t want to sound evangelical or too over the top but the highs helped me find the real me and they really lifted my depression.

After which the intoxicating effect seems to have decreased as the dose increased. So how can this be working? Would it be better to prepare some kind of “hashcake” style food to aid the absorption of the oils into the blood? Indeed, what’s so special about the oil that good quality hashish can’t provide apart from strength? Perhaps the highly concentrate oil compensated for the inefficient method of application? If so it seems odd to use a concentrated form of cannabis in an inefficient way.

Rick Simpson discussed this issue:


Rick’s account of how a small woman felt no effect from the same dose that laid out a large man indicates there is something at least hit and miss about this method of delivery. One comment to the video asks

Isn’t THC fat soluble? does that explain the dosage discrepancy in the story?

Which gets the response

THC is lipid soluble, yes.

Which might indicate this method of application is going to be more effective on fat people than thin, which of course means less effective on someone who can’t eat and has lost a lot of weight, such as someone suffering terminal cancer. There might be an answer to this issue, but I can’t see it.

Interestingly in Ricks film several people are shown taking the oil not by simply swallowing it, but by rubbing it into their gums. That would seem to be a better way to get the oil into the bloodstream.

One considered reply amongst all the dross on NORML-UK came from Dave Dangleberry. I had assumed the oil, if not absorbed into the blood, would simple pass through the body, Dave Dangleberry suggested

Fats and oil are broken down in the stomach by enzymes, the THC et al will not simply pass through the body.

In which case the THC will be broken down before getting into the blood, so doesn’t it amount to the same thing as passing through the body in that the THC will have been wasted?

Dave Dangleberry continues

I suspect that a small lump will be pretty much completely absorbed so all making it more easily absorbed will achieve is to increase the rate of absorption. This isn’t necessarily what you want. The aim is to find the sweet spot, too much over a short space of time could be less effective than just the right amount over a longer period. I’m sure we could achieve similar results with larger doses of hash but given cancer patients often have to deal with nausea and vomiting ingesting large amounts of fatty food probably isn’t the best way to go about

He is arguing that the blobs of oil will in fact be absorbed but slowly, giving a more even dose over time might be a reasonable answer, although the doses based on the amount taken are very high and yet the person is apparently not so very stoned. But this comment from Dave Dangleberry was the sort of considered reply I was hoping for.

Assuming the oil is somehow absorbed into the bloodstream, could there be another issue at work accounting for the lack of stonedness? Well, yes there might.

There is another possibility which may at least partially account for things, and to understand it you need to understand a little about the pharmacology of cannabis. It’s often claimed that cannabis contains THC, strictly speaking that isn’t actually true; the plant contains an acid version of THC; THC-A as well as the -A versions of other cannabinoids.

THC-A is the chemical the plant produces and is reduced (as opposed to oxidised) to THC by heating – as would happen in a joint or vape. THC-A is far less psycho-active than THC. Cooking food or heating it into some vegetable oil will also perhaps do this conversion. However, the oil hasn’t been heated to a great extent and will therefore mostly contain the acid version, THC-A. Perhaps this is the reason such large doses can be tolerated without getting stoned? THC-A shares the cancer reducing properties of THC. For some background on THC-A, see here.

So there may well be good answers to what seem like obvious shortfalls to the method of administration, and I do applaud Jeff for his dedication to direct action against this unjust and inhumane law, but it is important that anyone who wants to try to bring this really important discovery of cannabis being a cancer cure – if that’s what it is – becomes very well briefed on the way things work, rather than simply doing what Rick Simpson claims to be an effective method and promoting him as the expert who cannot be questioned whilst becoming aggressive when questions are asked. It doesn’t help NORML-UK to allow serious debate about such a potentially wonderful discovery to be drowned out by infantile abuse in their forum either if they want to be taken seriously, this isn’t a matter of faith, it’s something we have to prove to sceptics.

There is also perhaps a problem with this sort of direct action focusing on medical campaigning being done by an organisation openly campaigning for recreational use – “they would say that wouldn’t they” is an easy charge to make. Of course that applies to UKCIA, CLEAR and any other cannabis law reform campaign. It’s another reason this needs to be done and presented in a rigorous way.

If cannabis really can cure cancer then we need to know for sure and to do that we need properly run tests on ill people in a controlled environment. Now it would seem to be an easy enough thing to do, after all there are plenty of people out there suffering terminal cancer who cannot be treated by conventional medicine so it should be possible to find a volunteer or two. What possible harm would it do to offer them the chance of trying cannabis oil, other than possibly undermining a lot of pharmaceutical companies profits?

The government will no doubt reply that cannabis has no medicinal value – as it always does – and slam the door on idea of testing these claims, but they are getting a bit too widespread to ignore and It does start to look more than a little like a cover up. For now, direct action seems to be the only option. Let’s just make sure get it right.

Friday 24 August 2012

Deep Web, Deep Privacy

By Conrad Jaeger:

Tell someone that you know how to go off-radar on the Internet and, as a rule, they won’t believe you. They imagine shadowy intelligence agencies have state-of-the-art technology and can see everything you do. Bkut they would be wrong.

No doubt they do have amazing technology, but it is perfectly possible to hide yourself on the Internet, to send and receive emails that nobody can intercept or read, to upload and download securely, to visit banned websites, blog anonymously, and do anything you want without being followed, profiled or analysed. Those that know how use the Deep Web.

In essence, the Deep Web is the same Internet we’re using now but it’s the hidden parts of it, the parts not indexed by Google and the other search engines. Most of it is made up of databases and archives, many of which can be accessed by anyone with the right knowledge.

Twitter Joke TrialAnd then there are the Hidden Networks of the Deep Web. Nobody knows how many there are because that’s the nature of the thing. The most popular and easiest to access is Tor. You can start now by downloading the Tor/Firefox covert browser but, be warned, there are a lot of seriously bad people down there and it’s very easy to give yourself lasting nightmares by following some of the links at the main entry point, the Hidden Wiki.

But not everybody who uses these Hidden Networks is up to no good. Lots of people would rather that the Internet allowed them to be anonymous and to go and look up things and chat and all the rest of it without having someone or something looking over their shoulder.

Journalists use these networks to talk securely with whistle-blowers and dissidents. Aid agencies use them to stay in touch with base from inside repressive regimes. Activists of all sorts can organise amongst themselves and get their message out to the rest of the world.

And to do so they use much the same tools as we use on the Surface Web. To send emails that cannot be traced, consider an email re-mailer like awxcnx.de or cotse.net which strip off any identifying codes and add new ones along the journey. When the email arrives at its destination, there is no way that it can traced back to you.

The Deep Web has several email options, such as TorMail, which allows you to send and receive secure email with a you@tormail.org address both to addresses within and outside of Tor.
Additionally, the content of emails can easily be encrypted with both free and paid-for programs like PGP keys which are uncrackable even by the new mega-computers being used by the National Security Agency.

You can send someone a harmless-looking photo of yourself on holiday but nobody need know that the image contains a secret document. You can hide almost any kind of digital file by embedding it inside another digital file. This art is called steganography and there are a number of programs that perform this magic, some free like QuickCrypto.

Top Secret documents can be embedded inside a photo, short videos can be transmitted secretly inside a music file, and messages can be passed on by a digital ‘drop box’ held on a photo within a website. Counter-technology is next to hopeless.

And when the authorities force the ISPs to switch off access to Twitter and Facebook during civil unrest, the Deep Web allows those that know how to maintain connection. There are even Twitter and Facebook clones on Tor.

You can upload and download any amount of data via dozens of free hosting sites on the Deep Web, such as PasteOnion. Here you can make your post public or set a password, and determine how long it stays up there. Use can also use this service to construct a simple webpage in HTML or even as an image file and then upload it and pass on the address.

You can also go all James Bond and install the covert browser in a smart-phone or onto a USB thumb drive which you can then plug into a computer in a cybercafé or public library and leave no trace.

But don’t assume that everything done on the Deep Web will make you invisible. The Hidden Networks have their flaws and these need to be fully understood before embarking on anything that might cause a problem.

The art is to combine the different techniques available, to mix and match, until not even the most determined adversary can find you.

Conrad Jaeger


Conrad Jaeger is the author of Deep Web Secrecy and SecurityDeep Web
(available for Kindle at Amazon.co.uk and at Smashwords for
all other formats).

Thursday 23 August 2012

How Much is Your Cannabis?

Posted by

The price of cannabis in the UK today fluctuates from city to city dramatically. Does the term ‘point eight’ make the hair stand up on the back of your neck as mine does? Or even the term ‘point six’ perhaps? That makes hair stand up elsewhere on my body where I would care not to mention.

Everyone I know at the moment who enjoys a good smoke has a problem with the price that they are paying for their cannabis, with the standard price of an Ounce being two hundred pounds minimum these days, smaller-level dealers have no choice but to under weigh almost every deal they make.

The average price of some good bud back five years ago was twenty five quid for three and a half grams, three and a half grams being 1/8 of an imperial ounce, NOT two grams referring to some places where florists have been labeling two grams as ’1/8′ and even then it’s under weighed to one point seven grams (about ten decent spliffs.)

Cannabis is a plant, a plant that can be grown from earth, water, warmth and light, a natural occurrence of nature, and therefore should not have a high price tag. But as I’m sure as you all know, this lovely wonderful plant is not allowed to be grown, kept or consumed into this country by our legal system, so the price is essentially decided corresponding to the risk undertaken by growers.

This year I went to visit the glorious city that is Amsterdam to taste the local produce, and it was delicious. The general price of bud in Amsterdam is from as little as seven Euros to fifteen Euros and above. Sounds pricy but you will always get the correct weight, and you know what strain you are smoking and that it is free from nasty containments.

I’m sure you have all found thrifty ways of getting around this financial crisis in the UK when purchasing your weed but are a couple of suggestions to help you save the pennies:

Hash is still around in this country like it ever was and if you avoid the infamous ‘soap bar’ you can pick up some beautiful well-made pollen and black. Where I’m the prices haven’t changed as rapidly as bud. Average standard Afghan Hashish can be found for as little as twenty quid for three and a half grams if you find a good florist. High grade hash for 1/8 is only twenty five pounds again if your supplier is reasonable.

Not a hash smoker? Prefer bud you say? Have no fear! Get together with your stoner friends (who I’m sure would be happy to help) put your money together and find a good, safe, reliable and most importantly trustworthy florist and pick up an ounce of high grade Cannabis for around two hundred quid of which you and your friends could share in order to save cash. However this latter method could actually constitute you becoming a cannabis dealer under our current legal system, as supplying your friends still constitutes to dealing. The most important thing is to stay safe – as professor David Nutt says, the biggest danger of cannabis comes from the criminal record that can follow if you are caught with it.

Please comment below – it would be interesting to see how much you are paying and what quality of bud you are getting in your area.

-Harvey Jones

---
Follow ISMOKE Magazine on Twitter @ISMOKEMAG
ISMOKE Magazine on Facebook

Wednesday 22 August 2012

Fluoride Dangers ~ They Knew All Along


Fluoridation: The Overdosing of America
http://www.icnr.com/FluoridePres/FluoridationOverdose.html

More and more people are becoming aware of the dangers of sodium fluoride and demanding that the fluoridation of our drinking water be stopped. However, doubts about putting a poison in our drinking water are not new.

This antiquated film clip demonstrates that our government has known for a very long time that sodium fluoride, even in weak concentrations, is damaging and destructive to cellular tissue.

Fluoride: they've known the dangers all along...

Fluoride and fluoridation will go down as one of the greatest controversies of the 20th century. Up until the early 1940's, fluorine's effect on life was always deemed poisonous. For instance, the Journal of the American Medical Association noted, in 1943: "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems ... The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1 ppm or more of fluorine, fluorine compounds used as insecticidal sprays for fruits and vegetables (cryolite and barium fluosilicate) and the mining and conversion of phosphate rock to superphosphate, which is used as fertilizer. The fluorine content of phosphate rock, about 25% of the fluorine present, is volatilized and represents a pouring into the atmosphere of approximately 25,000 tons of pure fluorine annually ... The known effects of chronic fluorine intoxication are those of hypophasia of the teeth, which has been called mottled enamel, and of bone sclerosis." -- Journal of the American Medical Association, editorial, September 18, 1943 (123:50): http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/123/3/150.2.short

It was proven to be altering enzymes used by living organisms to carry out a multitude of essential processes. Fluorine, the most reactive element on the planet, is also the strongest free radical. Scientists in the 1930's and 1940's experimented with this element to create the most deadly nerve gasses, rocket fuel, and radioactive U235 for the bomb. As a wood preservative, rodentcide and insecticide, fluorine compounds are second to none.

Chronic doses of fluoride, like arsenic and lead, accumulate in our bodies causing a blockage in the way cells breathe and leads to the malformation of collagen. Cancer, diabetes, thyroid and neurological disorders, hormonal imbalances, heart disease, arthritis and osteoporosis have all been linked to chronic fluoride ingestion. We are now exposed to increasing doses of fluoride from toothpaste, rinses, water, food, medicines, showering, bathing, and even the air that we breathe. Our environment has become a literal fluoride dumping ground.

Fluoride has been linked to brain damage (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357509001205), and chromosome damage (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748546).

It has also been linked to long term organ damage and cell degeneration. On this, see the following:
Sodium Fluoride and Cell Growth
British Medical Journal - Oct. 26, 1963 - Roger J. Berry and W. Trillwood
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1873187/pdf/brmedj02521-0089f.pdf

Effects of Fluoride on Cells and Tissue in Culture, A Review : by Roger J. Berry, Oxford, England
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/023/files/FJ1969_v02_n3_p157-167.pdf

For more, see the following:
Fluoridation Falsified : Hugh Sinclair - 1964 February 29; 1(5382): 554, 555.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1813571/?page=1

Dr. John McDougall interview with Dr. John Yiamouyannis - 3/10/96 (MP3)
http://maebrussell.com/Fluoride/DrJohnYiamouyannis.mp3

FLUORIDE HEALTH EFFECTS DATABASE - OVERVIEW PAGE
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/

Reference at 4:12 minute mark
The Honorable James J. Delaney of New York
http://library.albany.edu/speccoll/findaids/apap241.htm

New research reveals a startling new finding: fluoride is likely contributing to the epidemic of cardiovascular disease by stimulating calcification of the vascular system, including the coronary arteries.
http://www.infowars.com/fluoride-linked-to-1-cause-of-death-in-new-research/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21946616

The following provides a concise overview: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31568

Dr. J. William Hirzy, of the E.P.A., said it best: "If FLUORIDE gets into the river, it`s a pollutant. If it gets into the lake, it`s a pollutant, but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it`s not a pollutant. That`s amazing!": http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluosilicic-acid.htm

Tuesday 21 August 2012

High Art

ShroomPortrait.jpeg

Different drugs influence our self-perception in unique and strange ways. Artist Bryan Lewis Saunders manifested these effects by taking a different drug every day for 45 days, and drawing himself under the influence. The result is a series of portraits that range from amusing to surreal, haunting and bizarre. Above all, they reveal how malleable and fluid our perception of ourselves and the world around us really is.

Below are a couple of photos. Click here to see the rest.

AbsinthAbsinth MarijuanaMarijuana Cough SyrupCough Syrup

Monday 20 August 2012

Dental Health 101

Protecting and Treating
Your Teeth and Gums - Part II
In an effort to entirely avoid tooth and gum problems, Gerald Judd spent years researching this topic. Gerard F. Judd, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus ofChemistry at Purdue University. In his storied career, he was an industry researcher for 18 years and a chemistry professor for 33 years. In addition, he was a speaker, writer, radio host, and author of several books including Chemistry: Its Uses In Everyday Life.
Having lived his entire adulthood observing the chemical nature of everyday life, Dr. Judd turned his attention to a subject which concerns every human being—the good health of our teeth and gums. In 1997, he penned the book Good Teeth, Birth to Death: The Prescription for Perfect Teeth.
According to the American Dental Association, there is an epidemic of tooth decay in America. Over 40% of American’s over 65 years old and 25% over 44 years old have no natural teeth remaining. Forty-four-year-olds have had an average of 30 cavities, 17-year-olds an average of 13, blacks and poor whites have twice this incidence, and Native Americans have even higher rates.
In his book Good Teeth, Birth to Death, Dr. Judd describes the chemistry that is the basis of tooth decay and gum disease. He states that he has learned the real causes of dental cavities and gum infection, and that an overwhelming amount of dental research proves the following (1):
Cavities / Decay
  • Only acids—which are introduced into the mouth from food and drink—are capable of eroding tooth enamel (calcium hydroxy phosphate), and causing cavities. Protons of the acid quickly pull phosphate from the enamel. Food and drink not containing acids have no action on tooth enamel.

  • Sugars are not capable of having any action on tooth enamel. Sugars (fructose, glucose, and sucrose) were found in Dr. Judd’s laboratory studies to be unable to dissolve calcium phosphate to any extent, even in a hot water solution. The reason for this is that the chelation process of sugar toward teeth is slow due to the large size of the molecule and perhaps due to the particular shape of the chelate formed. Sugars are not the cause of tooth cavities to any great extent, but still it would do no harm to rinse them off the teeth after consuming candy, especially the sticky variety. The adhering barrier will prevent re-enamelization.

  • Bacteria are not capable of having any action on tooth enamel. Both human and animalremains show teeth and bones are resistant to earth-bound organisms such as bacteria. Teeth cannot be affected by bacteria, because enamel contains no carbon or hydrogen upon which bacteria subsist. Study of Streptococcus mutans as a source of so-called “decay” is a waste of government funding which is donated to dental organizations.

  • When acids are properly removed from the teeth, cavities do not occur. Removal of acids is easily accomplished by simply sipping water, milk, coffee, or other non-acidic liquids while eating. The acids quickly react chemically with the liquids to form hydronium ions, thereby saving the enamel.

  • Harmful acids (with a pH <4.0) which attack the enamel include lemons, grapefruit, oranges, pineapple, kiwi, tomatoes, vinegar, cider, vitamin C (especially chewable) and stomach acid. The lower the pH, the more rapidly the acid’s attack

  • Teeth are able to re-enamelize when clean. Teeth are best cleaned by brushing with any bar (not liquid) soap. Bar soap does an excellent job in cleaning tooth surfaces, enabling the enamel to thicken and causing the teeth to become less sensitive.

  • Toothpastes containing glycerine—which most do—are very sticky, requiring over 20 rinses to remove it from tooth surfaces. Glycerine-containing toothpastes leave a residual film, preventing the teeth from proper re-enamelization. Soap, on the other hand, is removed with two rinses.

  • Dietary or supplemental calcium and phosphate result in tooth re-enamelization, but only when the teeth are clean. Re-enamelization is necessary on a daily basis as enamel leaches slightly with water over decades, even in the absence of acid. Without re-enamelization, having healthy teeth is not possible.

  • Abscesses can be offset by holding Cepacol ® (14% alcohol) in the mouth for five minutes.
  • Fluoride
  • Removal of fluoride from drinking water, toothpastes and gels saves the enzyme adenosine diphosphatase so it can deliver phosphate to calcium at the tooth surface, resulting in a beautiful enamel.
  • If fluoridation were effective in preventing cavities, Native Americans would have the least cavities. They have had forced fluoridation for approximately 60 years.
  • Fluoride in water at one part per million (ppm) increased tooth cavities in four large, reliable studies (7%, 22%, 45% and 10%—averaging 21%). The reason is that adenosine diphosphatase is destroyed by fluoride and calcium fluoride, which slips into the enamel, is alien to the tooth composite and makes the enamel weak, brittle and discolored.
  • Methyl mercury formed from amalgams is deadly. It causes brain disease. Fillings made of quartzite and epoxy are a safe substitute.
  • Fluoride is the smallest negative particle on Earth. Since the fluoride particles are so small and so intensely negative, they connect with the hydrogen enzyme molecules at very low concentrations—around 1-3 ppm. The mechanism for destruction of enzymes by fluoride has been proven by x-ray analysis. Hydrogen bonds have been shown to be broken by fluoride.
  • Avoiding fluoride prevents more than 114 ailments listed with references in Dr. Judd’s book. These 114 medical side-effects range from cancer to headaches, which are caused by levels as small as one ppm of fluoride in the water.
  • Fluoride harms the economy by requiring people to purchase sources other than fluorinated water. It also harms the economy by making people dependent upon undependable professionals that know nothing about its effects. Lack of knowledge about fluoride’s detrimental effects is worldwide.
  • The lethal dosage of the fluoride compound (fluoroacetic acid) for a 110 pound person is 2.5 mg, compared with 400 mg for arsenic oxide. Toothpaste companies are now required to place a warning on tubes so children will not consume enough of the 1,000 ppm (.1%) material to make them sick or cause death. This requirement arises out of lawsuits in which children were poisoned by fluoride-containing toothpaste.
  • The best available data indicates about 120,000 cancer patients are killed annually because of fluoride in their drinking water. These include patients with every type of cancer. Dentists share some responsibility due to their efforts in convincing city councils to put fluoride in the water for “the children’s teeth.” The unique character of fluoride ions in destroying enzymes deserves attention.
In summary, according to Dr. Judd the health of our teeth will increase to be very nearly perfect if the regimen of water rinsing, soap brushing and taking calcium, phosphate and vitamin C in the diet is implemented. Wet the brush, swipe the bar two or three times, then brush the teeth thoroughly and the gums gently. Rinse with water three or four times. All oils are thus washed off the teeth and the gums are disinfected. The bacteria are killed by the soap. The teeth are then ready for re-enamelization with calcium and phosphate in the diet.