In Seattle, a fifty-six-year old man died last Thursday after being refused a liver transplant because he had followed his doctor’s recommendation to use marijuana to ease the symptoms of hepatitis C. From the Associated Press story: His death came a week after a doctor told him a University of Washington Medical Center committee had again denied him a spot on the liver transplant list. The team had previously told him it would not consider placing him on the list until he completed a 60-day drug-treatment class… The Virginia-based United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees the nation’s transplant system, leaves it to individual hospitals to develop criteria for transplant candidates. At some, people who use “illicit substances”-including medical marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically rejected. At others, patients are given a chance to reapply if they stay clean for six months. The cruelty and stupidity of this beggars belief. This patient did not need “drug treatment.” He was already undergoing drug treatment. Nor did he need to get “clean.” He was already clean. It’s the drug war that’s dirty. (H/t: John Leone.) -------------------- Murphy's law ? -------------------- Liver transplant patient set alight during surgery sues doctors and hospital
VANCOUVER — A Vernon, B.C., man is suing his doctors, Vancouver General Hospital and the local health authority after a heart-stopping liver transplant during which he was set aflame.
During the transplant surgery in February 2006, Robbin Reeves's heart stopped and doctors performed an open cardiac massage.
Reeves's lawsuit claims doctors tore one of the chambers of his heart and, in the rush to prepare for the emergency surgery, alcohol on his neck and shoulder caught fire, leaving him with serious burns.
Six months after the surgery doctors removed a broken sternal wire from his chest and then, in July 2006, he found out the first liver transplant failed and he had another transplant surgery last year.
Reeves's B.C. Supreme Court lawsuit claims the defendants failed to meet a reasonable standard of care and he's claiming unspecified damages for negligence and costs.
In article <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
ironjustice <teamtan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical > marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically > rejected.
There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep looking. I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on substantially flimsier medical documentation.
> In article > <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > ironjustice <teamtan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical >> marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically >> rejected.
> There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known > as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole > authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA > (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the > evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton > policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep > looking. > I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA > and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on > substantially flimsier medical documentation.
And you think you're getting an unbiased opinion from the FDA? The FDA is a joke.
The FDA's policy on medical marijuana is based soley on drug war politics and not science.
"In conclusion, the available evidence from animal and human studies indicates that cannabinoids can have a substantial analgesic effect." "Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting."
According to a 2001 national survey of US physicians conducted for the American Society of Addiction Medicine, nearly half of all doctors with an opinion on the subject support legalizing marijuana as a medicine. Moreover, no less than 80 state and national health care organizations - including the American Public Health Association, The American Nurses Association, and The New England Journal of Medicine - support immediate, legal patient access to medical marijuana.
The FDA Contradicts The National Academy of Sciences In the ongoing battle over the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, the Food and Drug Administration has now shown that ideology can bend almost anything to its will. Recently, the FDA claimed that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana - flatly contradicting the above review by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Could FDA scientists be so far off as to come up with a completely incorrect reading of the medicinal value of marijuana? Of course not. Right-wing politics have trumped science once again.
On Jun 14, 8:02 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on substantially flimsier medical documentation. <<
Not to argue whether marijuana is good or bad but in order to understand that statement one just has to remember 'they' tell us phytate the chaff of our grain is "bad for you binds up minerals and can illicit horrible body disfigurement".
When in fact it is very good for you and cures cancer.
> In article > <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> ironjustice <teamtan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical > > marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically > > rejected.
> There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known > as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole > authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA > (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the > evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton > policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep > looking. > I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA > and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on > substantially flimsier medical documentation.
The same FDA that approved Thalidomide, Vioxx and a thousand other dangerous substances on an unsuspecting and trusting public, killing thousands and dooming generations to serious health issues were still fighting? That FDA. Do you use Bear Stearns for your financial advice too? Everyone is missing the point anyway. Even in the most critical marijuana studies, there's never been any mention of effects to the liver. Of course if you're a stone cold drunk like David Crosby, you can get a new liver to destroy without missing more than a week at the local bar. But I guess smoking pot for pain control is worthy of a death sentence. At least in Washington state it is. A guy is dead from a stupid decision based on the idea that a human being will not do anything possible, legal or otherwise, to get out of pain. If you don't have it, you don't have a clue what you are talking about, either. They let murderers out of jail because there's no room, yet you applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you.
Moron--og
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> In article > <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > ironjustice <teamtan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical >> marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically >> rejected.
> There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known > as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole > authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA > (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the > evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton > policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep > looking. > I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA > and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on > substantially flimsier medical documentation.
On Jun 14, 2:34 pm, "OldGoat" <oldgoatm...@ERdocsuckYahoo.com> wrote:They let murderers out of jail because there's no room, yet you applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you. Kurt, <<
One story I heard is that this law targets young decently educated children so they can use them in the jails for telemarketing ..
I kinda go with the old school of Hearst and his cronies destroying it for the cash. Hearst had all his money tied up in pulp and paper mills. When the developement of hemp paper threatened to cost him alot of money he lobbied and got marijuana outlawed for use for **anything**. That included the ropes the sailors were using to tie themselves to the boat to keep from dying .. and PLENTY of different medicines / prescribed at that time. Sooo now his paper empire was safe. Kinda makes sense from a distance seeing 900 legal hashshops in New York at the time? I may be wrong about that part but they were still legal at the turn of the century.
> The same FDA that approved Thalidomide, Vioxx and a thousand other dangerous > substances on an unsuspecting and trusting public, killing thousands and > dooming generations to serious health issues were still fighting? That FDA. > Do you use Bear Stearns for your financial advice too? > Everyone is missing the point anyway. Even in the most critical marijuana > studies, there's never been any mention of effects to the liver. Of course > if you're a stone cold drunk like David Crosby, you can get a new liver to > destroy without missing more than a week at the local bar. But I guess > smoking pot for pain control is worthy of a death sentence. At least in > Washington state it is. A guy is dead from a stupid decision based on the > idea that a human being will not do anything possible, legal or otherwise, > to get out of pain. If you don't have it, you don't have a clue what you are > talking about, either. They let murderers out of jail because there's no > room, yet you applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you.
> Moron--og
> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical > >> marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically > >> rejected.
> > There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known > > as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole > > authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA > > (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the > > evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton > > policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep > > looking. > > I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA > > and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on > > substantially flimsier medical documentation.- Hide quoted text -
ironjustice wrote: > On Jun 14, 2:34 pm, "OldGoat" <oldgoatm...@ERdocsuckYahoo.com> > wrote:They let murderers out of jail because there's no room, yet you > applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you. Kurt, <<
> One story I heard is that this law targets young decently educated > children so they can use them in the jails for telemarketing ..
> I kinda go with the old school of Hearst and his cronies destroying it > for the cash. > Hearst had all his money tied up in pulp and paper mills. > When the developement of hemp paper threatened to cost him alot of > money he lobbied and got marijuana outlawed for use for **anything**. > That included the ropes the sailors were using to tie themselves to > the boat to keep from dying .. and PLENTY of different medicines / > prescribed at that time. > Sooo now his paper empire was safe. > Kinda makes sense from a distance seeing 900 legal hashshops in New > York at the time? > I may be wrong about that part but they were still legal at the turn > of the century.
>> The same FDA that approved Thalidomide, Vioxx and a thousand other dangerous >> substances on an unsuspecting and trusting public, killing thousands and >> dooming generations to serious health issues were still fighting? That FDA. >> Do you use Bear Stearns for your financial advice too? >> Everyone is missing the point anyway. Even in the most critical marijuana >> studies, there's never been any mention of effects to the liver. Of course >> if you're a stone cold drunk like David Crosby, you can get a new liver to >> destroy without missing more than a week at the local bar. But I guess >> smoking pot for pain control is worthy of a death sentence. At least in >> Washington state it is. A guy is dead from a stupid decision based on the >> idea that a human being will not do anything possible, legal or otherwise, >> to get out of pain. If you don't have it, you don't have a clue what you are >> talking about, either. They let murderers out of jail because there's no >> room, yet you applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you.
>> Moron--og
>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> In article >>> <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, >>> ironjustice <teamtan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical >>>> marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically >>>> rejected. >>> There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known >>> as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole >>> authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA >>> (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the >>> evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton >>> policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep >>> looking. >>> I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA >>> and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on >>> substantially flimsier medical documentation.- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text -
> "One story I heard is that this law targets young decently educated > children so they can use them in the jails for telemarketing .."
> I guess that makes you safe then...............
> ironjustice wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2:34 pm, "OldGoat" <oldgoatm...@ERdocsuckYahoo.com> > > wrote:They let murderers out of jail because there's no room, yet you > > applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you. Kurt, <<
> > One story I heard is that this law targets young decently educated > > children so they can use them in the jails for telemarketing ..
> > I kinda go with the old school of Hearst and his cronies destroying it > > for the cash. > > Hearst had all his money tied up in pulp and paper mills. > > When the developement of hemp paper threatened to cost him alot of > > money he lobbied and got marijuana outlawed for use for **anything**. > > That included the ropes the sailors were using to tie themselves to > > the boat to keep from dying .. and PLENTY of different medicines / > > prescribed at that time. > > Sooo now his paper empire was safe. > > Kinda makes sense from a distance seeing 900 legal hashshops in New > > York at the time? > > I may be wrong about that part but they were still legal at the turn > > of the century.
> >> The same FDA that approved Thalidomide, Vioxx and a thousand other dangerous > >> substances on an unsuspecting and trusting public, killing thousands and > >> dooming generations to serious health issues were still fighting? That FDA. > >> Do you use Bear Stearns for your financial advice too? > >> Everyone is missing the point anyway. Even in the most critical marijuana > >> studies, there's never been any mention of effects to the liver. Of course > >> if you're a stone cold drunk like David Crosby, you can get a new liver to > >> destroy without missing more than a week at the local bar. But I guess > >> smoking pot for pain control is worthy of a death sentence. At least in > >> Washington state it is. A guy is dead from a stupid decision based on the > >> idea that a human being will not do anything possible, legal or otherwise, > >> to get out of pain. If you don't have it, you don't have a clue what you are > >> talking about, either. They let murderers out of jail because there's no > >> room, yet you applaud a death sentence for smoking pot. How humane of you.
> >> Moron--og
> >> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> In article > >>> <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > >>> ironjustice <teamtan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical > >>>> marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically > >>>> rejected. > >>> There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known > >>> as medical marijuana. Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole > >>> authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA > >>> (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the > >>> evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM. The Clinton > >>> policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep > >>> looking. > >>> I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA > >>> and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on > >>> substantially flimsier medical documentation.- Hide quoted text - > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
kurt - you are - quite simply - 'mis' or 'un' informed
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article > <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > ironjustice <teamtan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > At some, people who use ³illicit substances²-including medical > > marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it-are automatically > > rejected.
> There is not now nor has there ever been a substance legally known > as medical marijuana.
factually incorrect - there have been several sanctioned uses of the word.
one of the first federally 'recognized', and authorized usage's of the term was for marijuana [inhaled] usage to relieve symptoms and effects of severe glaucoma.
an acquaintance of mine from off-broadway theatre was among the first 20 individuals to receive it thru a government run program back in the early 70's - not thru a lab, but directly from a federally run and operated agricultural farm. and it was/is called medical mj - compassionate clinical use
"Smoked marijuana has been shown to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in subjects with normal IOP and patients with glaucoma. The duration of the pressure-lowering effect is 3 to 4 hours. Single-administration studies have reported blood pressure falls concurrently with the IOP lowering, raising concern that blood flow to the optic nerve could be compromised. Mitigating this concern are data suggesting that tolerance may develop to cardiovascular effects. Efforts to avoid or reduce side effects led to the development of a topical dosage form of THC. Topically applied THC did not lower IOP." [1977]
and the studies continue, albeit curtailed to a great degree -
"In summary, the testing of smoked marijuana to evaluate its therapeutic effects is a difficult, but not impossible, task. Until studies are done using scientifically acceptable clinical trial design and subjected to appropriate statistical analysis, the questions concerning the therapeutic utility of marijuana will likely remain much as they have to date–largely unanswered. To the extent that the NIH can facilitate the development of a scientifically rigorous and relevant database, the NIH should do so."
it is also important to remember that this isn't just an issue for the u.s.a., rather it's worldwide, and the rest of the world certainly uses the term
below is the summery of the 1999 institute of medicine review on this issue - it clearly shows the medical benefits, as well as the concerns about oral [smoked] delivery systems that contain harmful [pulmonary] substances along with the beneficial elements - as you will read - the sceintists understand the medical aspects, and you can infer that the conservative political arm simply doesn't want to hear it.
but!!! the science is there, and regardless of your political bent, this is a government paid for review, it shows/confirms the benefits.
>Congress, a LONG time ago, gave the FDA sole > authority in the US decide what is and is not a medication. The FDA > (from at least Bill Clinton's forward) has consistently said that the > evidence doesn't support either safety or efficacy of MM.
yet the government paid for studies call for further tests to be done. and the political powers sideline those efforts.
>The Clinton > policy in '97 said that, but then specifically ordered HHS to keep > looking. > I find it instructive that many who howl the loudest about the FDA > and Pharm companies, see no particular problems with MM approval on > substantially flimsier medical documentation.
the true effort is to insist that the remaining and necessary studies be done - as such, there are several lwasuits and hearings pending - here is just one:
