Tagged: pharmaceutical Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • ShereeKrider 7:07 am on June 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ADDICTION DRUG, , , pharmaceutical   

    IMMEDIATELY STOP FEDERAL FUNDING for a pharmaceutical drug to treat "MARIJUANA ADDICTION". THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS! 


     

    1021495_1392179425.8185

    The Washington Times reported on 6/26/15 that the Federal Government is "fast tracking" Pharma research for a Marijuana addiction drug. The research gets $3 million grant as Obama encourages legalization of Cannabis.

    This is just too much! We do not need a "drug" to detoxify us from Cannabis! We need more Hemp and Cannabis Oil for Medical use,

    Stop the funding effective immediately and give that $3 Million to a better cause.

    Fact: GW Pharma has concluded that "Cannabis is not addictive" according to their ad for SATIVEX (which has not been approved for marketing in the U.S. as of yet — And SHOULD BE!). It additionally states that it does not appear to have withdrawal effects when stopped suddenly"…

    Stop the INSANITY NOW! Stop the funding for an addiction drug for Cannabis!

    Published Date: Jun 26, 2015

    Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Disabilities, Health Care

     

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/immediately-stop-federal-funding-pharmaceutical-drug-treat-marijuana-addiction-preposterous

     

    PLEASE SIGN PETITION ABOVE!!!

    Advertisements
     
  • ShereeKrider 8:06 pm on April 13, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctors, , , , , mandates, , , pharmaceutical,   

    Make the FDA Advisory, Not Mandatory 


    You should control what medicines you use, not the FDA. The FDA should make advisory recommendations only. It should NOT have the power to mandate which drugs you can buy, and which you cannot.

    • If pharmaceutical companies value the FDA seal of approval, then they can pay the FDA to evaluate their drugs.
    • If consumers value FDA approval, then they can decide to only buy FDA approved drugs.

    If the FDA’s seal of approval is really so valuable, then it does NOT need to be mandatory. No coercion is necessary. Instead, the FDA should be able to sell its services through voluntary means, just like Underwriter’s Laboratory does.

    Consumers and doctors should be free to consult available science, and make their own decisions about which treatments to try.

    All human beings are unique. Treatments that might be dangerous for one person, could be the only possible solution for another. There is zero chance that one-size-fits-all dictates can possibly account for the vastness of human variability. Patients and doctors must have the flexibility to deal with individual human uniqueness.

    The FDA should serve, not rule.

    Talking Points:

    There are thousands of reasons why the FDA should lose its power to coerce you and your loved ones. Some of these reasons will be listed below, so that you can use them when writing to Congress, or when asking your friends to contact Congress on this issue . . .

    The FDA gives consumers a false sense of security. Americans assume that the FDA is actually protecting them, but it is not. For instance . . .

    The Union of Concerned Scientists surveyed 6,000 FDA scientists in 2006, and 1,000 of them responded with the following disturbing admissions:

    • 17% admitted that they had been "asked explicitly by FDA decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information to the public, regulated industry, media, or elected/senior government officials."
    • Less than half agreed that the FDA "routinely provides complete and accurate information to the public."
    • 47% admitted to being aware of instances "where commercial interests have inappropriately induced or attempted to induce the reversal, withdrawal, or modification of FDA determinations of actions."

    The FDA is constantly attempting to expand its powers. The people in that agency are relentlessly pushing into areas that are NOT part of their mandate — even where there is NO problem that needs to be fixed.

    For Example: The FDA has made repeated attempts to regulate vitamins and supplements, even though there is no evidence that these things present any danger. Quite the contrary — vitamins and supplements are a powerful example of how health outcomes can be improved, without FDA involvement. The website of the Life Extension Foundation is full of scientific citations to demonstrate this. For instance . . .

    A review of 2009 information for "adverse events" reported to the national control center’s data system shows that, NO major adverse events or deaths were reported for . . .

    • Botanical supplements like St. John’s wort, ginseng, and Echinacea
    • Hormone supplements like DHEA, melatonin, and pregnenolone
    • Phytoestrogen supplements
    • The joint- and cartilage-support supplements glucosamine and chondroitin
    • Vitamins A and E, and only one adverse event each was reported for vitamin B6 and C

    In total, 41 major adverse events were reported for the entire spectrum of supplements including botanicals, amino acids, and vitamins, and only one was a death.

    In contrast, more than 7,000 major adverse events were reported for pharmaceutical drugs, including a total of 496 deaths. And based on previous studies, we know the overall death rate for physician prescribed drugs to be far higher.

    The Downsize DC position is pro-choice. The FDA should serve, not rule.

    Use the form at right to send your elected representatives a letter about this issue. It’s easy!

    • Your position will be counted by each Congressional office,
    • Will educate the Congressional staffer who reads it,
    • May be passed up the chain of command,
    • May receive a reply (many DC Downsizers get them). If you receive such a letter, please share it with us at Comments@DownsizeDC.org.

     

    Send a letter to Congress

    We provide the first few words of the letter so that Congressional offices will see the most important point

    right at the start, and so that no one can hijack our system for another purpose.

    Here’s the part we provide . . .

    Make the FDA advisory, not mandatory.

    LINK

    CONTINUE READING….

     
  • ShereeKrider 3:42 am on February 6, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Cannabinoids, corporate medicine, Medcial Marijuana, , pharmaceutical, , Schedule II,   

    Surgeon General Says Yes to Science, Admits Weed Has Medical Benefits 


    Vivek Murthy says marijuana is ‘helpful’ for certain medical conditions. Could this be the tide-turner for legalization?

    Surgeon General Vivek Murthy believes in science.

    As he answered questions Wednesday about the measles outbreak that is turning into the year’s first public health emergency, the 37-year-old doctor assured Americans that vaccines are safe and that government policy is informed by sound data and scientific consensus. When CBS This Morning host Gayle King pivoted to ask Murthy for his views on marijuana, the country’s youngest ever surgeon general gave an answer that was at once historic and entirely consistent with his scientific approach.

    “We have some preliminary data showing that for certain medical conditions and symptoms that marijuana can be helpful,” Murthy said. “We have to use that data to drive policy making.”

    While a first for a surgeon general, this was not actually a risky statement. Murthy’s belief is in line with the positions of the American College of Physicians (PDF), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association (PDF), the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (PDF), The California Medical Association (PDF), Dr. Sanjay Gupta, countless less famous but equally sincere physicians, and laws in 23 states and the District of Washington that permit the use of marijuana for medical conditions including multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, epilepsy, and a host of cancer-related symptoms.

    But the statement also seemed to put the nation’s top health official in direct conflict with federal law. To the Department of Justice and its Drug Enforcement Agency, marijuana remains, along with heroin, a Schedule I narcotic, defined as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use.” Cocaine and crystal meth, on the other hand, are listed as Schedule II drugs, with “less abuse potential.”

    This absurd policy has been inexplicable for so long, that the nation’s highest officials have given up trying to defend it.

    “I don’t think it’s more dangerous than alcohol,” President Obama said to The New Yorker’s David Remnick about marijuana last year. Casual as his remark seemed, Obama rocked the drug reform movement. Just weeks after the president said what a sizable majority of Americans already agreed with, a group of 18 representatives from nine states took a stand on the issue and, in a gesture of bi-partisan consent, wrote a letter (PDF) that called on Obama to take executive action.

    “We were encouraged by your recent comments in your interview with David Remnick,” the name-dropping representatives wrote. “Classifying marijuana as Schedule I at the federal level perpetuates an unjust and irrational system. We request that you instruct Attorney General Holder to delist or classify marijuana in a more appropriate was, at the very least eliminating it from Schedule I or II.”

    This absurd policy has been inexplicable for so long, that the nation’s highest officials have given up trying to defend it.

    Nine months later, in his exit interview with Katie Couric, Holder passed the buck right back.

    “At the federal level marijuana is still classified in the same category as heroin,” Couric said. “In your view should that change?”

    “I think that’s certainly a question that we need to ask ourselves,” Holder said, “whether or not marijuana is as serious a drug as is heroin.” Couric nodded and as Holder weighed the pros and cons, she pressed him on decriminalization. That, he said, is “something for Congress to decide.”

    Congressional action might be Holder’s preference, but it is not actually mandated by the law.

    “Eric Holder could initiate that process today if he wanted to,” said Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, a decriminalization advocacy group, and pointed out that the 1970 Controlled Substances Act gives the attorney general sweeping power to define and classify the full schedule of illegal drugs. At the same time, Angell said, “Congress could pass a bill to move marijuana from Schedule I to a lesser one, or make it unscheduled, like alcohol or tobacco.”

    But as public opinion on the issue passes the super majority mark, neither branch of government has made a move. “In essence, the Justice Department and Congress are both begging each other to fix federal marijuana laws,” wrote Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post. An aide to Senator Rand Paul told The Daily Beast that the Kentucky lawmaker is considering a bill this year that would reschedule the drug. “It’s a work in progress,” the aide said, but couldn’t offer any specifics. 

    In his interview with Couric, Holder left open the possibility that his department could one day endorse rescheduling marijuana. Whatever is decided, Holder said the government should let science be the guide. “Use science as the basis for that determination,” he said.

    A Department of Justice spokesman said, “the Department supports research into potential medical uses of marijuana.” Surgeon General Murthy told the Daily Beast that “marijuana policy—and all public health policies—should be driven by science” and that “the Federal Government has and continues to fund research on possible health benefits of marijuana and its components.”

    The problem with this, said Angell, is how difficult it is even for academic institutions to gain government approval for such studies. The American Medical Association (AMA), one of the most conservative organizations on marijuana decriminalization, changed its long-held position on classification in 2009. Marijuana’s ongoing schedule I classification “limits the access to cannabinols for even research,” said Edward L. Langston, MD, an AMA Board of Trustees member. “It is very difficult,” he told American Medical News, to legally research the substance. A report by the AMA Council on Science and Public Health that same year found that, “bureaucratic hurdles apply to cannabis research that do not impede other drug investigations.”

    Evidence for the claim is not hard to find. At the University of Massachusetts, an agricultural professor has been trying for more than 15 years to gain approval to grow cannabis for research. In Kentucky, the DEA finally released a shipment of research-bound hemp seeds last May, but only after the state’s agricultural commissioner sued the agency in federal court.

    The medical community and public opinion has come a long way in the 20 years since Dr. Jocelyn Elders, Surgeon General under President Bill Clinton, took flak for defending decriminalization. But even as a new surgeon general calls for more science, Angell said the research opportunities won’t change until the laws do, and that politicians are lagging behind most Americans on the issue.

    “They don’t realize that a majority of Americans are ready for medical marijuana to be legalized,” he said. “They perceive it as dangerous when it is not.” 

    CONTINUE READING…

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: