You are witnessing cannabis history in the making.
You can clearly see what happened, in the illustration above. The government has changed the verbiage regarding cannabis on the National Cancer Institute's cancer.gov website, only 11 days after it was added.
We demand that the original statement be re-posted as it was, and for the National Cancer Institute to stand by its original research statement.
This was a naked political move. Please call the NCI public inquiry phone line at 301-435-3848 or email them at http://www.cancer.gov/global/contact/email-us.
We, the cancer patients, supported by our friends and family members, will not allow this medical censorship to stand.
|Graphic: Health Freedom Alliance|
This statement gave the green light to every cancer specialist and every general practitioner to prescribe cannabis to cancer patients under their care as a non-toxic chemotherapy agent to shrink tumors, and also as an adjunct to treat traditional chemotherapy side effects.
This medical breakthrough dramatically raised the hopes of millions of gravely ill cancer patients, only to have it taken away by unseen political interests.
|Photo: Coalition Of The Obvious|
The NCI cannot just walk away from this medical conclusion after posting it and then mysteriously removing it 11 days later. So what are we to believe, that it just never happened? You can't un-ring a bell!
Apparently, as NORML's "Radical" Russ Belville wrote, the NCI got a "talking to" from someone. Who did the talking? Who gave the order to delete? Who are the men in the shadows?
The NCI is a publicly funded science research center, paid for with our tax dollars. It exists to serve cancer patients. This is an open, public access organization. Nothing the NCI does is top secret or sensitive to national security; its very existence is based on openness and user-friendly access.
All of the research performed at the NCI is open source. The scientific method demands that researchers show all data as part of any study conducted.
So what was the back-story that led up to this statement: "In the practice of integrative oncology the health care provider may recommend medicinal cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct anti-tumor effect"? Who wrote that?
It probably went down like this.
The creation of this new web page must have been in development for months. A research team was assembled and given the task to conduct a meta-analysis, which is a collection process and overview of all the existing data that was conducted since 1974.
Why 1974? Because in 1974 researchers learned that THC, an active chemicaxl in marijuana, shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice.
|Graphic: Social Media Dudes|
After combing through hundreds of studies, 75 studies were chosen as representatives for the systematic review. A systematic review uses an objective and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of minimizing bias. After review by leading medical cancer researchers, an overarching conclusion is reached, based on this empirical evidence.
This conclusion was written up, edited several times, and peer-reviewed by multiple in-house researchers at NCI. It its final form it was sent up the chain of command to be endorsed as accurate. This publication was produced on the watch of Harold Varmus, M.D., who is the present director of the NCI.
Dr. Varmus is a co-recipient of a Nobel Prize for studies of the genetic basis of cancer. He also previously served as president and chief executive officer of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the top cancer hospital in the country, and as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is ultimately responsible for the public release and all information on the NCI website, meaning he stands behind its conclusions once public.
Are we to believe that the leading cancer researchers at NCI, including Director Harold Varmus, M.D., made a mistake after months of careful analysis of the evidence on medical cannabis?
Let me tell you something about medical researchers. By nature they are a very conservative group; their reputation and research integrity are the basis of their profession. They will not put their names on any research conclusions of which they are not 100 percent sure, because if they are wrong and people get hurt, their professional future is over.
This statement: "In the practice of integrative oncology the health care provider may recommend medicinal cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct anti-tumor effect," is not just a footnote. It is a groundbreaking paradigm shift.
|Graphic: Nepali Blogger|
It had to be vetted and discussed by the governing body at NCI, because of the changes it is recommending to cancer treatment protocol, affecting thousands of people.
Who headed this research team? Who were the members of this team? How was this study conducted, and what scientific evidence was examined to reach the conclusions? Who was the person directly responsible for the above statement?
And since we, the taxpayers, funded the study and pay all their salaries, and since they work for us, we, the American people, own the study. We would also like to examine the same evidence NCI examined, so that an independent, non-biased team of medical researchers can verify the conclusions, using the same complete original data.
NCI, your reputation has now been compromised. The scientific method demands that you share your research, since you made the positive claim.
So why was this medical breakthrough censored? Let's see... Who stands to lose?
First on the list is Big Pharma, whose profits on cancer treatment drugs, which would make robber baron blush, would take a huge hit.
Second, the DEA, police departments and courts would lose major funding, and for-profit prisons would lose half their populations (forced "customers").
Third, the drug "rehabilitation" industry would lose their forced customers from marijuana users being court-ordered into treatment.
|Photo: The Foundry|
The American people would be the real winners. Want to lower government health care costs? Legalized medical cannabis could reduce expensive prescription drugs by half, not only for cancer but for a whole host of other conditions. Cancer treatment would only be the first domino to fall.
When I called the National Cancer Institute public inquiry phone number at 301-435-3848, I was told that the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) section was responsible for this information and is separate from the NCI! You guys are going to have to do better than that.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and cover-ups never work. Full explanation of this censorship is demanded. This is not going to go away.
Note to NCI: Your scientific independence and reputation are now in question. What other medical information that you provide may be controlled by the DEA and/or Big Pharma?
Maybe all the other cancer information you give out is tainted by profit-driven corporations and law enforcement trying to control medical treatment.
Who owns you? Is protecting profits more important than protecting people, and cancer patients in particular?
We have proof that cannabis shrinks tumors. Start with my four previous "Worth Repeating" posts on the subject.
|Graphic: Logic Over Lies|
We have just been handed the evidence needed for legalization. This is a direct conspiracy, "caught you with your pants down" evidence of unseen forces who direct government policy, who are unelected and out of sight.
Please tell me that this is not an April Fool's joke or a headline from The Onion: "National Canter Institute just messing with nation's cancer patients." Is it really 1937 all over again?
President-elect Barack Obama said he was taking "a bold stand for making decisions based on science and facts rather than ideology" as he introduced leading members of his science and technology team.
"The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources -- it's about protecting free and open inquiry," President-elect Obama said. "It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient -- especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. A bold stand for making decisions based on science and facts rather than ideology. That will be my goal as President of the United States."
The Green Genie is not going back into the bottle.
Once you politicize science, it's no longer science.
There is no political compromise possible on the scientific method -- sorry!
This post is dedicated to Jack Herer. Jack came to me in a smoky vision and told me to give them hell! And I always do what Jack tells me.