------------------- >8 snip ! --------------------- JK> The U. of W. taught her to use computers to restablish neural JK> pathways. They have been using them in their brain damage clinic there JK> for some time. JK> If you ever find out what is being done now along those lines, please JK> let us know. I am convinced, after seeing this woman after her second JK> surgery, that her case represented the best of traditional aboriginal JK> medicine combined with avant garde Western surgery. Many of my native American friends have been deprived of their tribal/national heritage becuase they were kidnapped as children and were forced to attend "Indain schools" run by the BIA, whose mission it was to eradicate all vestiges of their traditional culture. The government was very successful in that mission, and one of the emptiest places in their hearts is the result of the loss of that culture, history, tradition, including the loss of all that traditional medicine. "Cultural genocide" may seem like a fanciful term to Europeans (including Euro-Americans) who populate our society here online, but it is VERY real and its effects are no less devastating than The Holocaust. I know that criticising Europeans is the greatest crime I can commit, online, and it will probabaly get me banned from this conference too, but I'm very glad that Canada has not practiced this kind of book burning of traditional knowledge, including the greatest source of alternative medicine in the western world. Regards, Ty Ty Meissner E-MAIL: Ty.meissner@grape.net I will sleep and dream like the air, and move like the wind, with assion when it pleases me. The Universe is not up there... Its here, and we're in it, third rock out from the sun. -- Peter Spiro ... Living a Third world life in a First World country. - Ty Meissner ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR] --- QScan/PCB v1.16b / 01-0507 * Origin: The Electronic Grapevine [707] 257-2338 (1:161/910) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EBC00011Date: 07/06/97 From: TY MEISSNER Time: 07:52pm \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: you can't escape ch [1/2] >>> Part 1 of 2... . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #553 . . ---July 3, 1997--- . . HEADLINES: . . LET'S STOP WASTING TIME . LET'S STOP WASTING OUR TIME The mainstream environmental movement spends its time urging government to regulate corporations that are making people sick while poisoning the planet's air, water, and soil. Regulation is what mainstream environmentalists aim to do. They gather data, write reports to show how bad things have gotten, and then they ask government regulators to modify the behavior of the responsible corporations. In Washington, D.C., and in all 50 state capitals, hundreds or thousands of environmentalists toil tirelessly year after year after year, proposing new laws, urging new regulations, and opposing the latest efforts by officials (corporate and governmental) to weaken existing laws and regulations. They write letters, meet with agency personnel, publish pamphlets and hold conferences, prepare testimony for subcommittees, serve for years on citizen advisory boards, create "media events," mail out newsletters and magazines, organize phone trees to create awareness and raise funds. They pore over immense volumes of technical information, becoming experts in arcane sub-specialties of science and law. They work hard, much harder than most other people. When they find that their efforts have been ineffective, they redouble their efforts, evidently hoping that more of the same will work better next time. Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Audubon, National Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness Society, The Environmental Working Group, and many others that make up the mainstream environmental community are well-intentioned, earnest, and diligent. They are also, it must be admitted, largely ineffective. An eye-opening new book describes the nearly-complete failure of all our attempts to regulate the behavior of the chemical corporations. TOXIC DECEPTION, by Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle,[1] is subtitled "How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law, and Endangers Your Health." In his day job, Dan Fagin writes for NEWSDAY (the Long Island newspaper) and Marianne Lavelle writes for the NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL. Both are award-winning investigative reporters, and this book shows why: it is thorough and thoroughly-documented, even-handed, careful in its conclusions, and absolutely astonishing in how grim a picture it paints of our corporatized democracy. Even those of us who study chemicals-and-health full-time have never put all the pieces together the way these two have. The book is organized as a case study of only four dangerous chemicals: atrazine, alachlor, perchloroethylene and formaldehyde. ** Atrazine is a weed killer used on 96% of the U.S. corn crop each year. Introduced in 1958, some 68 to 73 million pounds were used in 1995, making it the best-selling pesticide in the nation. Atrazine interferes with the hormone systems of mammals. In female rats, it causes tumors of the mammary glands, uterus, and ovaries. Two studies have suggested that it causes ovarian cancer in humans. EPA categorizes it as a "possible human carcinogen." Atrazine is found in much of the drinking water in the midwest, and it is measurable in corn, milk, beef and other foods. ** In 1989, Monsanto introduced Alachlor, a weed killer that complements atrazine. Atrazine is best against weeds and alachlor is best against grasses. Often both are applied at the same time. Alachlor causes lung tumors in mice; brain tumors in rats; stomach tumors in rats; and tumors of the thyroid gland in rats. It also causes liver degeneration, kidney disease, eye lesions, and cataracts in rats fed high doses. Canada banned alachlor in 1985. EPA's Science Advisory Board labeled alachlor a "probably human carcinogen" in 1986. In 1987, EPA restricted the use of alachlor by requiring that farmers who apply it must first take a short course of instruction. Much of the well water in the midwest now contains alachlor and its use continues unabated. ** Perchloroethylene ("perc") is the common chlorinated solvent used in "dry cleaning" (which is only "dry" in the sense that it doesn't use water). In the early 1970s, scientists learned that perc causes liver cancer in mice. Workers in dry cleaning shops get cancer of the esophagus seven times as often as the average American, and they get bladder cancer twice as often. A few communities on Cape Cod in Massachusetts have perc in their drinking water; a study in 1994 revealed that those communities also have leukemia rates five to eight times the national average. Perc is ranked as a "probable human carcinogen" and we all take it into our homes whenever we pick up the dry cleaning. ** Formaldehyde is a naturally-occurring substance present in the human body in very small quantities. Mixed with urea, formaldehyde makes a glue that handily holds plywood and particle board together. Mixed with a soap, urea-formaldehyde makes a stiff foam that has excellent insulating properties. After the oil shortage of 1973, Americans began to conserve fuel oil by tightening and insulating their homes, and it was then that people discovered that formaldehyde can be toxic. In tens of thousands of individuals, urea-formaldehyde has caused flu-like symptoms, rashes, and neurological illnesses. In some people, it triggers multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), a life-long, debilitating sensitivity to many other chemicals, including fragrances and perfumes. In recent years, scientists have confirmed that formaldehyde causes rare nasal tumors in mice and in industrial workers exposed to high levels of formaldehyde gas. It is also linked to brain tumors in people exposed to it on the job (embalmers and anatomists). It is ranked as a "probable human carcinogen" in humans, and we are all widely exposed to it through cabinets, furniture, walls and flooring. TOXIC DECEPTION documents how the manufacturers of these chemicals --and thousands of others like them --have managed to keep their dangerous, cancer-causing products on the market despite hugely expensive government regulatory efforts, civil litigation by citizens who feel victimized, investigative news reports, congressional oversight of the regulators, right-to-know laws, and hundreds of scientific studies confirming harm to humans and the environment. The book documents how corporations buy the complicity of politicians; offer jobs, junkets and sometimes threats to regulators; pursue scorched-earth courtroom strategies; shape, manipulate, and sometimes falsify science; and spend millions of dollars on misleading advertising and public relations to deflect public concerns. In sum, the book shows how corporations have turned the regulatory system --and those who devote their lives to working within that system --into their best allies. After reading this book, one realizes that the purpose of the regulatory system is not to protect human health and the environment. The purpose of the regulatory system is to protect the property rights of the corporations, using every branch of government to thwart any serious attempts by citizens to assert that human rights should take precedence. "At the most fundamental level," write Fagin and Lavelle, "the federal regulatory system is driven by the economic imperatives of the chemical manufacturers--to expand markets and profits--and not by its mandate to protect public health."(pg. 13) Why are so many of us still defining our environmental work entirely within the confines of this hopeless system? After 27 years of unremitting, well-meaning attempts to regulate corporate polluters, here is our situation: ** The government does not screen chemicals for safety before they go on the market. ** Chemicals are presumed innocent until members of the public can prove them guilty of causing harm. Naturally this guarantees that people will be hurt before control can even be considered. After harm has been widely documented, then government begins to gather data on a chemical, but "the agency usually relies on research conducted by or for manufacturers when it is time to make a decision about regulating a toxic chemical."(pg. 14) ** Industry manipulates scientific studies to reach the desired conclusions. According to Fagin and Lavelle, when chemical corporations paid for 43 scientific studies of any of the four chemicals (atrazine, alachlor, perc or formaldehyde), 32 studies (74%) returned results favorable to the chemicals involved, 5 were ambivalent, and 6 (14%) were unfavorable.(pg. 51) When independent nonindustry organizations --government agencies, universities or medical/charitable organizations (such as the March of Dimes) --paid for 118 studies of the same four chemicals, only 27 of the studies (23%) gave results favorable to the chemicals involved, 20 were ambivalent, and 71 (60%) were unfavorable.(pg. 51) ** As of 1994, after 24 years of trying, EPA had issued regulations for only 9 chemicals.(pg. 12) EPA has officially registered only 150 pesticides, though there are thousands of others in daily use awaiting review by the agency.(pg. 11) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has done only slightly better, setting limits on 24 chemicals after 18 years of effort.(pg. 81) ** Close to 2000 new chemicals are introduced into commercial channels each year in the U.S., virtually none of then screened for safety by government prior to introduction. When screening does occur, it occurs AFTER trouble has become apparent. All together, about 70,000 different chemicals are now in commercial use, with nearly 6 trillion pounds produced annually in the U.S. for plastics, solvents, glues, dyes, fuels, and other uses. All six trillion pounds eventually enter the environment. >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR] --- QScan/PCB v1.16b / 01-0507 * Origin: The Electronic Grapevine [707] 257-2338 (1:161/910) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EBC00012Date: 07/07/97 From: DALE LANE Time: 02:02am \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: ?ZEN the position expresses the oneness of duality: not two, and not one. This is the most important teaching:not two ,and not one. Our body and mind are not two , and not one. If you think your body and mind are two ,that is wrong. If you think that they are one , that is also wrong. Our body and mind are both two and one . We usually think that if something is not one , it is more than one. If it is not singular , it is plural . But in actual experience , our life is not only plural but also singular. Each of us is both dependent and independent. After some years we will die. If we think this will be the end of our life , this will be the wrong understanding. But, on the other hand,if we think that we do not die, this is also wrong. We die and we do not die. This is the right understanding. from "ZEN MIND, BEGINNER'S MIND" what do you think ? --- WM v2.09/92-0335 * Origin: MoonRose HQ - (407) 568-8774 Fla, USA (1:363/153) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EBC00013Date: 07/04/97 From: LISA MADGE Time: 03:55pm \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: A.D.D Does anyone have any suggestions for a alternative to Ritalin???? While this drug has had remarkable success with my 9 year old daughter,its not something I want her to stay on permanently.There is so much conflicting infomation on this subject all the Doctors that I have spoken to REFUSE to hear anything bad about Ritalin and say that it is all hype,but when you mention some of the (RARE) side effects such as Leukopenia they do not denie it but insist that the benefits outway the risks.Don't get me wrong I'm not against medicine as I myself have Glaucoma and rely on medication for this,I was just wondering if anyone out there has a problem similar to mine that has found another way of dealing with it without the use of "drugs". Eagerly awaiting for your reply...... Lisa Madge --- FMail 1.20 * Origin: Reggie's BBS Bomaderry NSW Australia +61 044 210720 (3:624/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EBC00014Date: 06/30/97 From: ALEX VASAUSKAS Time: 09:32am \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: marijuana & addicti [1/3 >>> Part 1 of 3... -=> Quoting Jane Kelley to Alex Vasauskas <=- AV>Since we were talking about marijuana, and I understand "junky" AV>to be synonymous with "addict", are you suggesting that marijuana AV>is addictive? JK> If you don't know that it is, go find the nearest meeting place of JK> Narcotics Anonymous and listen to those who speak there. You accept the self-serving diagnosis of people who earnestly want to believe that they are victims of external forces and are looking for any excuse to blame their problems on something other than themselves? Physiological research, including what I have presented to you here previously and that you have chosen to ignore, has conclusively demonstrated that marijuana doesn't stimulate the same processes as are involved in addictive substances, like heroin and nicotine, and which include even chocolate. The question of marijuana and addiction is a non-issue, notwithstanding your irrational denial. Even using the prohibitionists' studies, which toy with the definition of "addiction", marijuana doesn't even come up to the level of caffeine: From: http://www.pantless.com/~pdxnorml [The U.S. government's top addiction experts discuss the current scientific understanding of addiction and admit that marijuana is the least habit-forming drug. If only the government were so candid when the issue was marijuana! Note the chart where the federal government's top addiction expert, Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco, rank six substances based on five criteria for addiction and find marijuana to be the least habit-forming. More myth-debunking - "According to large Government surveys of alcohol users, only about 15 percent are regular, dependent drinkers. Among cocaine users, about 8 percent become dependent. ... About 90 percent of smokers are persistent daily users." (Note that "users" means "current users." The numbers can differ considerably when the proportion of dependent users is compared to the number of those who have *ever* used particular substances.)] Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends On Whose Criteria You Use Experts say the definition of addiction is evolving. By Philip J. Hilts Special to The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com _The New York Times_, August 2, 1994, p. C3. WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 - When heavily dependent users of cocaine are asked to compare the urge to smoke cigarettes, about 45 percent say the urge to smoke is as strong or stronger than that for cocaine. Among heroin addicts, about 38 percent rank the urge to smoke as equal to or stronger than the urge to take heroin. Among those addicted to alcohol, about 50 percent say the urge to smoke is at least as strong as the urge to drink. In April, seven chief executives of tobacco companies testified before a Congressional subcommittee that nicotine was not addictive. Experts in addiction, while disagreeing with that assessment, say that the definition of addiction is evolving, and that they can see how such a statement might be made. Hearings on Smoking This week, the Food and Drug Administration is holding hearings to consider whether cigarettes fit in the array of addictive drugs and whether the Government should regulate them. The standard definition of addiction comes from the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization, which list nine criteria for determining addiction. The two groups, which prefer the term drug dependence, base their definition on research done since the 1960's, which has determined that multiple traits must be considered in determining whether a substance is addictive. Thus although cigarettes do not offer as intense an effect as drugs like heroin and cocaine, they rank higher in a number of other factors. They not only create dependence among users but also elicit a high degree of tolerance, the need for more and more of a drug to satisfy the craving. When all the factors are added up, the consensus view among scientists is that nicotine is strongly addictive. In smoking, it is not the nicotine or addiction that is most harmful, but other toxic chemicals produced by burning tobacco, which cause most of the 400,000 deaths each year that are attributed to smoking. Dr. Lynn T. Kozlowski, an addiction expert at Pennsylvania State University, said addiction could generally be defined as "the repeated use of a psychoactive drug which is difficult to stop." He added that there might be many explanations for why it was hard to stop, including withdrawal that was too disturbing, or a high that was too enticing. A diagnosis of mild dependence on a psychoactive drug is determined >>> Continued to next message... ___ X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Who's Askin'? (1:17/75) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EBC00015Date: 06/30/97 From: ALEX VASAUSKAS Time: 09:32am \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: marijuana & addicti [2/3 >>> Part 2 of 3... by meeting three of the nine criteria. Five items show moderate dependence and seven items indicate a strong dependence. (Not all nine items apply to each drug. For example, time and effort spent acquiring a drug are a significant feature of heroin addiction, but have no meaning in nicotine addiction.) 9 Addiction Criteria These are the criteria: * Taking the drug more often or in larger amounts than intended. * Unsuccessful attempts to quit; persistent desire, craving. * Excessive time spent in drug seeking. * Feeling intoxicated at inappropriate times, or feeling withdrawal symptoms from a drug at such times. * Giving up other things for it. * Continued use, despite knowledge of harm to oneself and others. * Marked tolerance in which the amount needed to satisfy increases at first before leveling off. * Characteristic withdrawal symptoms for particular drugs. * Taking the drug to relieve or avoid withdrawal. How Experts Rate Problem Substances Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas. 1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious Henningfield Ratings Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5 Heroin 2 2 1 2 2 Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3 Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1 Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6 Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4 Benowitz Ratings Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication Nicotine 3* 4 4 1 6 Heroin 2 2 2 2 2 Cocaine 3* 1 1 3 3 Alcohol 1 3 4 4 1 Caffeine 4 5 3 5 5 Marijuana 5 6 5 6 4 * Equal ratings Withdrawal - Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms. Reinforcement - A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances. Tolerance - How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached. Dependence - How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm. Intoxication - Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do. Before applying a test of the nine criteria, the expert first determines if the symptoms have persisted for at least a month or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time. Asked about the tobacco executives' testimony on addiction, Dr. Kozlowski said: "In a way, I can see how they could say that. It has to do with a mistaken image of what addiction is, and I have many well-educated, intelligent people say something like that to me. People often think of a person taking one injection of heroin and becoming hopelessly addicted for the rest of their lives. That is wrong." In addition, he said, when people tend to think of the high that heroin produces, one that is about as intense as cocaine and alcohol, they cannot believe cigarettes are in the same category. And they are not. Even though in large doses nicotine can cause a strong high and >>> Continued to next message... ___ X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Who's Askin'? (1:17/75) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EBC00016Date: 06/30/97 From: ALEX VASAUSKAS Time: 09:33am \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: marijuana & addicti [3/3 >>> Part 3 of 3... hallucinations, the doses used in cigarettes produce only a very mild high. But researchers now know, says Dr. Jack Henningfield, chief of clinical pharmacology at the Addiction Research Center of the Government's National Institute on Drug Abuse, that many qualities are related to a drug's addictiveness, and the level of intoxication it produces may be one of the least important. If one merely asks how much pleasure the drugs produce, as researchers used to do and tobacco companies still do, then heroin or cocaine and nicotine do not seem to be in the same category. Dr. Kozlowski said, "It's not that cigarettes are without pleasure, but the pleasure is not in the same ball park with heroin." But now, he said, there are more questions to ask. "If the question is, How hard is it to stop? then nicotine is a very impressive drug," he said. "Its urges are very similar to heroin." Among the properties of a psychoactive drug - how much craving it can cause, how severe is the withdrawal, how intense a high it brings - each addicting drug has its own profile. Heroin has a painful, powerful withdrawal, as does alcohol. But cocaine has little or no withdrawal. On the other hand, cocaine is more habit-forming in some respects. It is more reinforcing in the scientific terminology, meaning that animals and humans will seek to use it frequently in short periods of time, even over food and water. Drugs rank differently on the scale of how difficult they are to quit as well, with nicotine rated by most experts as the most difficult to quit. Moreover, it is not merely the drug that determines addiction, says Dr. John R. Hughes, an addiction expert at the University of Vermont. It is also the person, and the circumstances in the person's life. A user may be able to resist dependence at one time and not at another. A central property of addiction is the user's control over the substance. With all drugs, including heroin, many are occasional users. The addictive property of the substance can be measured by how many users maintain a casual habit and how many are persistent, regular users. According to large Government surveys of alcohol users, only about 15 percent are regular, dependent drinkers. Among cocaine users, about 8 percent become dependent. For cigarettes, the percentage is reversed. About 90 percent of smokers are persistent daily users, and 55 percent become dependent by official American Psychiatric Association criteria, according to a study by Dr. Naomi Breslau of the Henry Ford Health Sciences Center in Detroit. Only 10 percent are occasional users. Surveys also indicate that two-thirds to four-fifths of smokers want to quit but cannot, even after a number of attempts. Dr. John Robinson, a psychologist who works for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, contests the consensus view of nicotine as addictive. Using the current standard definition of addiction, he said at a recent meeting on nicotine addiction, he could not distinguish "crack smoking from coffee drinking, glue sniffing from jogging, heroin from carrots and cocaine from colas." It is not that Dr. Robinson and other scientists supported by tobacco companies disagree with the main points made by mainstream scientists, but that they define addiction differently. Dr. Robinson says intoxication that is psychologically debilitating is the major defining trait of an addicting substance. It is a feature that was part of standard definitions of the 1950's, and is still linked to popular ideas about addiction, but which experts now say is too simplistic and has been left behind as scientific evidence accumulates. ___ X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Who's Askin'? (1:17/75) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EBC00017Date: 06/30/97 From: ALEX VASAUSKAS Time: 09:59am \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 2 times) Subj: Marijuana as medicine 1/ >>> Part 1 of 3... Jane Kelley wrote in a message to Alex Vasauskas: AV>This is not a rational argument for precluding research into the AV>medical benefits of marijuana. JK> The "research into the medical benefits of marijuana" is touted by JK> those who are determined to find an excuse for the drug of their JK> choice in all too many posts I see. No "excuse" should be needed for adults to do what they decide to do with their personal lives according to their own prerogatives. This includes taking marijuana as an herb for medicinal purposes, and for some it may include occasional, stress-relieving or even just hedonistic intoxication. Furthermore, the only need for currrent, medical research is to refine and expand our knowledge regarding the herb, *not* to *discover* that it has medical benefits: (free 2 copy (*)-------------------(free 2 forward) C A N N A B I S: MEDICAL REALITY VERSUS AUTHORITARIAN BRUTALITY by Ian Williams Goddard [...] CANNABIS: THE MEDICAL REALITY Classified by the DEA as a "Schedule One" drug, can- nabis is defined as extremely dangerous possessing NO MEDICAL VALUE. This classification stands in sharp contradiction to the medical reality. A Brief History of Medical Cannabis For thousands of years prior to its prohibition in the 20th century, cannabis was used as a medicine throughout the world [1]. During the 19th century, sold by major drug companies such as Eli Lilly, Squibb, Parke-Davis, Smith Brothers, and Tildens, the potent extract of cannabis was one of the top three most prescribed medical agents in the United States [2] [3]. Until the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, cannabis, being a powerful topical analgesic, muscle relaxant, anti- inflammatory, and anti-spasmodic agent, was found in virtually all fistulas, corn and mustard plasters, muscle ointments, and fibrosis poultices [3]. UNITED STATES PHARMACOPEIA listed cannabis until 1942 [4], after which it was removed under political pressure. The U.S. PHARMACOPEIA recommended cannabis for the treatment of over 100 illnesses, such as: fatigue, fits of coughing, rheumatism, asthma, delirium tremens, migraine headaches, and the cramps and depression associated with menstruation [3]. UNITED STATES DISPENSATORY [5] also listed cannabis as a useful medicine. The 1851 edition states: The complaints in which it [cannabis] has been specially recommended are neuralgia, gout, rheumatism, tetanus, hyrdophobia, epidemic cholera, convulsions, chorea, hysteria, mental depression, delirium tremens, insanity and uterine hemorrhage. In 1890, Dr. J. Russell Reynolds, Fellow of the Royal Society and the Physician in Order to Her Majesty's Household, stated in the journal LANCET that cannabis is ``one of the most valuable medicines we possess [4].'' He prescribed cannabis to Queen Victoria for PMS [3]. In 1898 Sir William Osler, Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford, stated that for migraine headaches, cannabis ``is probably the most satisfactory remedy [6].'' The 1931 medical text, A MODERN HERBAL [7], states: The principal use of Hemp in medicine is for easing pain and inducing sleep, and for soothing influences in nervous disorders. It is useful in neuralgia, gout, rheumatism, delirium tremens, insanity, infantile convulsions, insomnia, etc. >>> Continued to next message... ___ X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Who's Askin'? (1:17/75) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EBC00018Date: 06/30/97 From: ALEX VASAUSKAS Time: 09:59am \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Marijuana as medicine 2/ >>> Part 2 of 3... The tincture helps parturition, and is used in senile catarrh, gonorrhea, menorrhagia, chronic cystitis and painful urinary affections. An infusion of the seed is useful in after pains and prolapsus uteri. The resin may be combined with ointments [ to remedy ] inflammatory and neuralgic complaints. The "no known medical value" claim looks like yet another govt Big Lie. However, as the text continues, we can see that cannabis does have an "evil" downside: It can produce an exhilarating intoxication... hence its names ... 'increaser of pleasure,' 'cementer of friendship,' etc. [ god forbid ] Medical Cannabis: the 20th Century During the 20th century cannabis has been discovered to be an effective treatment for many more ailments. For example, based on major research, Dr. Van Sim concluded that ``marijuana ... is probably the most potent anti-epileptic known to medicine today [8].'' More powerful than standard anti-epileptic drugs, cannabis totally eliminated epileptic seizures in children not responding to legal drug therapies [9]. But of course, as our benevolent Drug Czars remind us, healing the sick and aiding those who suffer could "send the wrong message to children." Let the children suffer and seizure in silence, just don't kill our prison proliferating pot prohibition pogrom. Dr. Robert Hepler, neuro-opthalmologist with the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA, published a major study in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION in 1971 demonstrating that cannabis lowers intraocular pressure in the eyes [10]. Glaucoma, a leading cause of blindness, is a condition in which intraocular pressures build up causing optical damage. Cannabis has been proven to reduce these pressures far better than legal drugs, allowing glaucoma patients to keep their vision so long as they use cannabis regularly. Several of the eight patients who legally receive cannabis from the govt under the compassionate IND program do so for the treatment of glaucoma. Yet, thanks to cannabis prohibition and the fact that no more patients will be allowed into the compassionate IND program, most glaucoma patients will be forced by law to slowly go blind, all in the name of keeping peaceful and productive people in prison. Research at the Harvard Medical School published in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE [11] demonstrated conclusively that cannabis is the most effective anti- emetic, or anti-nausea, agent available. It has been used in this regard to eliminate the violent nausea and vomiting experienced by cancer patents undergoing chemotherapy. Cancer ward workers have been known to turn a blind-eye on cannabis smoking in the hospital. Based on extensive anecdotal evidence, cannabis, with its known appetite-stimulating effects -- described by users as "getting the munchies" -- is known to counter the "wasting syndrome" of full-blown AIDS. During this syndrome an AIDS patient, loosing all appetite, quickly loses weight in a free-fall to death. In case after case, AIDS patients have totally reversed their weight loss with the use of cannabis, snatching them from the quickly closing jaws of death, giving them a powerful fighting edge over this devastating disease. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the compassionate IND program, chose to slam the door on hope by ending this program after receiving a flood of cannabis-access requests from AIDS patients. The DEA and other agencies funded studies at the Medical College of Virginia looking for evidence that cannabis causes health problems. Instead of finding problems, the researchers made a breakthrough when they discovered in 1975 that cannabis showed powerful anti-tumor activity against both benign and malignant tumors. The DEA and NIH quickly defunded the studies and prohibited any future cannabis/tumor research [3]. In 1988 the DEA's own conservative judge, Francis Young, after hearing medical testimony for 15 days and reviewing hundreds of DEA and NIDA documents that argued against medical cannabis, concluded that [3]: ``Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances know to man.'' >>> Continued to next message... ___ X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Who's Askin'? (1:17/75)