Connect with us

General

Big Pharma Company Caught Faking Cancer Patients To Sell Deadly Opioid Drugs

Published

on

It’s no secret that many pharmaceutical drugs have life-threatening side effects, but oftentimes they aren’t discussed when the medication is being prescribed to the patient. It’s important that, when taking any pharmaceutical drug, you weigh the pros and cons of taking the drug, because when it comes to pharmaceuticals, the benefits don’t always outweigh the risks.

advertisement - learn more

Sometimes, the wrong drugs will be prescribed to patients, but it isn’t very often that Big Pharma companies get caught literally conspiring to do so. Pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics is currently under investigation for making it look like patients had cancer (when they did not) so they could sell their opioid drugs to them.

The Big Pharma corporation used a variety of tactics to trick both medical staff and patients, including falsifying medical records, misleading insurance companies, and bribing doctors, all of which is outlined in a federal indictment on the United States Department of Justice website.

How Insys Faked Cancer Patients to Push Deadly Drugs for Profit

Shortly after Insys was given approval to sell their opioid drug, they found one very significant problem. Their drug, a sprayable form of fentanyl called Subsys, was designed to treat cancer patients with acute pain. However, they soon found that their market of cancer patients wasn’t quite big enough to match their profit goals, so they started falsifying information to make it look like patients had cancer so they could sell more of their drug.

The U.S. Department of Justice document reads:

Several pharmaceutical executives and managers, formerly employed by Insys Therapeutics, Inc., were arrested today on charges that they led a nationwide conspiracy to bribe medical practitioners to unnecessarily prescribe a fentanyl-based pain medication and defraud healthcare insurers.

advertisement - learn more

Whenever someone needed prior authorization for Subsys, instead of someone from an actual doctor’s office calling the insurance companies, an Insys employee would. The insurance companies were tricked into thinking that they were talking to someone qualified, as Insys employees had a very strategically worded script to give them that impression and would hide their caller ID.

The most crucial element of their scheme surrounded the question of whether the patient had acute pain caused by cancer, referred to as “breakthrough pain.” Subsys is a drug for cancer patients, and so insurance companies needed to ensure that the patient indeed had cancer. Insys would strategically answer this question by implying that the patient had cancer without specifically saying so.

The authorities have a recording of such a call, which is frankly astonishing to listen to. It’s easy to see how the Insys employees got around answering this question but still made it seem like the patient had “breakthrough pain” from cancer.

You can listen to that recording here, which involves a conversation between an Insys employee and an insurance company regarding a New Jersey patient named Sarah Fuller, who was not diagnosed with cancer but was still prescribed Subsys by her doctor. Fuller actually passed away of a Subsys overdose, and her doctor’s license is currently in the process of being suspended.

You can hear the Insys employee stating that Subsys is “intended for the management of breakthrough cancer pain” without actually stating that the patient herself has cancer. The Insys employee also explains that Fuller experiences “breakthrough pain,” but doesn’t actually say the word “cancer.” It’s tricky wording like this that leads the insurance representatives to believe that the patient has cancer, when in reality they don’t.

This fraud and corruption is not going to be swept under the rug, though. Six former Insys higher-ups and employees have already been charged, including the former CEO, with fraud and racketeering crimes in relation to the drug Subsys.

Prosecutors described the situation as a “nationwide conspiracy to bribe medical practitioners to unnecessarily prescribe a fentanyl-based pain medication and defraud health care insurers.”

Special agent Harold Shaw of the FBI explained:

As alleged, top executives of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. paid kickbacks and committed fraud to sell a highly potent and addictive opioid that can lead to abuse and life threatening respiratory depression. In doing so, they contributed to the growing opioid epidemic and placed profit before patient safety. These indictments reflect the steadfast commitment of the FBI and our law enforcement partners to confront the opioid epidemic impacting our communities, while bringing to justice those who seek to profit from fraud or other criminal acts.

Since then, more federal charges have been announced against those connected to Subsys, and numerous state attorneys have filed their own lawsuits against other employees implicated. Though the six executives charged all pled not guilty, other employees have pled guilty.

Two months ago, former Insys regional manager Karen Hill pled guilty, giving the court details about how she trained employees to convince doctors to collude with the company.

“She gave examples that some of her doctors were motivated by money, chocolate, and spending time with her,” federal prosecutors stated in a release regarding her plea. “When the sales representative asked Hill how to identify doctors who were financially motivated to prescribe Subsys, Hill explained that she looks for doctors that are ‘money hungry,’ and went on to describe how to figure out if a doctor has a ‘light in their eyes’ and is willing to ‘play ball.’ “

“Patient safety is paramount and prescriptions for these highly addictive drugs, especially Fentanyl, which is among the most potent and addictive opioids, should be prescribed without the influence of corporate money,” noted United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz.  “I hope that today’s charges send a clear message that we will continue to attack the opioid epidemic from all angles, whether it is corporate greed or street level dealing.”

It’s inspiring to see that the justice system is taking this form of corruption seriously, especially with an industry as large and powerful as Big Pharma. However, this isn’t the first time doctors were paid money to push opioids or other pharmaceutical drugs.

recently published study in the American Journal of Public Health demonstrated just how deep this problem of the doctor-opioid relationship runs, proving that opioids represent a lucrative business for both physicians and Big Pharma.

The study found that an astonishing 1 in 12 doctors has received money from drug companies marketing opioid pharmaceuticals. Between August 2013 and December 2015, researchers at Boston Medical Center found that 68,177 doctors were paid a combined amount of $46 million from drug companies marketing these drugs. You can read more about that in our CE article here.

You can even figure out exactly how much your personal doctor gets paid to sell you drugs, regardless of whether or not they’re opioids or any other pharmaceutical drug. You can read more about that in our CE article here and discover how much Big Pharma pays your doctor to prescribe you drugs.

Final Thoughts 

Although the U.S. government has been lenient toward Big Pharma in the past, the situation with Insys clearly illustrates that they can and will take a stand against Big Pharma. Let’s hope that this trend continues into the future!

This entire situation also puts the doctor-patient relationship into question, and makes you wonder why it is that doctors are compensated when you’re sick rather than when you’re cured or feeling better. Doctors’ jobs are supposedly to help cure you, so shouldn’t doctors be paid when they get you off drugs, because that would imply they’ve helped cure you, not to get you on them?

The opioid epidemic is also a huge issue in and of itself, and I’d encourage you to read the following articles so you can get a better understanding of how Big Pharma and the U.S. government played fundamental roles in creating it.

It’s no secret that there’s an opium epidemic plaguing North America, and it’s been a growing issue for decades. Many people often picture drug dealers as these scary individuals selling pills on streets, when in reality, the drug pushers responsible for the abuse of opioids, opium, and heroin are largely the U.S. government, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors.

That’s right: The U.S. government and physicians are deeply connected to the opium trade. You have physicians as well as Big Pharma heavily pushing and marketing opioids, and then you have the U.S. government governing the opium trade. It’s very clear that we need a shift in values in the medical industry, from focusing on profit to focusing on healing.

To learn more, please read the following CE articles:

How The CIA-Operated A “Drug Smuggling Airline” For Heroin & The 9/11 Connection

U.S. Taxpayers Fund Heroin Vaccine, Despite U.S. Government Being The Biggest Heroin Dealer

Study Reveals Big Pharma Paid Doctors Millions of Dollars To Push Opioids

The History Channel’s America’s War On Drugs: How Accurate Was This Docu-Series?

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Yellow Vests Update: CNN Says They Are Creating Chaos, But Are They?

Published

on

Credit: Photo by IBL/REX/Shutterstock

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In a recent CNN article, they claim that the Yellow Vests are creating 'chaos in France.' But are they actually creating chaos? Or is there a bigger picture here?

  • Reflect On:

    Are we taking the time to look at multiple angles of coverage on this groundbreaking event to better determine truth? Is there a bigger play going on where the elite is scrambling to control this narrative?

France may never be the same. Protests, tear gas and more are filling the major cities in France as the “Yellow Vests” come together in the tens of thousands to raise awareness about a long list of demands they have for their government. Before we get into our most recent analysis, let’s have a recap of what has happened as of yet.

The current protest is being called the biggest and one of the most violent in the past 50 years. One of the most significant aspects of this recent uprising is multiple occurrences of police officers removing their helmets in solidarity with protesters. It brought some to tears and inspired many others, as it illustrated a level of solidarity that isn’t often seen in public protests. Everybody in France is being affected by the decisions being made by Macron and the governments of years prior, a story we covered in more detail here.

This is what we are seeing glimpses of when we watch police, firefighters, and protesters unify as people. Beyond their uniforms, they are all just people, living through an experience that affects them all. This is a terrifying reality for the Deep State as they and their system thrives off of humanity being divided, at war with one another and emotionally triggered and invested in the cabal’s system.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons why mainstream media doesn’t talk about this particular story, one where people are unifying. Instead, they want to focus on the crazy, wild protester vs the calm, needed police who protect the establishment.–Joe Martino, from his recent article explaining why the Deep State has a problem in France

Media Perception Control

This movement has seen no shortage of perception manipulation. This is why, as I’ve written about and documented many times before, intelligence/government agencies have a very close relationship with mainstream media. Mainstream media will always present events that show how much we are unifying and coming together, in a completely different manner. CE writer Richard Enos, who recently published an article with regards to what’s going on in France, sums up the issue quite well here.

Of course, what do we hear about most in the Mainstream Media when it comes to legitimate protests? An initial strategy might be to disperse the focus of the message, portray it as if people have many different agendas, ‘muddy the waters’ if you will, and hope that quenches things a bit. If the movement does not die down by itself, then we inevitably hear about how violent it has become. This one is no exception.

advertisement - learn more

But are they really violent? Or are they just presented that way? Are those who oppose these gatherings encouraged to start violence? Once a movement like this becomes so popular, are there hired ‘groups’ that come in an initiate violence? Provocateurs?

If there’s one thing that’s certain, it’s that the establishment does not like peaceful demonstrations of unity and solidarity, and they will do anything to sway the perception of the masses who are watching at home.

Don’t believe it? Look at all the mainstream headlines. As usual, they are all about violence and how order will be restored (order out of chaos, ordo ab chao, the timeless strategy of the elite). Meanwhile, the actual reason that so many ordinary citizens would go to the trouble of protesting is buried somewhere in the article and given little importance. The New York Times’ ‘Macron Inspects Damage After ‘Yellow Vest’ Protests as France Weighs State of Emergency’ is a typical example.

We have to ask ourselves: would a grassroots movement of concerned law-abiding citizens (which most citizens are) motivate these ordinary citizens to set someone’s car on fire? How could destroying another citizen’s car actually help the movement? Looting and breaking store windows? Why would law-abiding citizens take their frustrations out on innocent retail vendors? Would ordinary citizens contrive to harm civilians with bombs and gas attacks? – Richard Enos

Recent Terror Attacks?

Then suddenly, in the midst of an epic event raising so much attention, we see an alleged terror attack in Strasbourg, the perfect time to not only change the news cycle but to divert attention away from the Yellow Vets and back to FEAR and the narrative of TERRORISM! These are the big and timeless tactics used to start wars and keep people divided.

Are they legitimate? False flags like so many times in the past? Or is it all a convenient coincidence for the deep state and media?

CNN & Mainstream Put Forth Narrative

Below is a video of Joe Martino, founder of CE, providing analysis on some of the latest updates regarding the Yellow Vests, including a recent CNN piece claiming the Yellow Vets are creating ‘chaos in France.’ Big things are happening in France and the way we’re hearing about it has some very specific nuances that we will fail to recognize unless we step back and look at the bigger picture.

The Takeaway

When searching for information, it’s important to seek out multiple sources other than mainstream media. This is exactly why alternative or independent media outlets become so popular, because more people are starting to see through the lies and manipulation from mainstream outlets. Alternative media has gained the attention of millions of people, as it often presents evidence that supports a more believable, common-sense narrative that is not in the Deep State’s best interest.

The global elite lost their ability to keep all eyes on their platforms, and as a result many people have ‘woken up.’ This created a massive campaign to combat “fake news,” a tag that the mainstream originally concocted for alternative views that they considered dangerous to the status quo. And so recently the government, along with organizations like Facebook, has decided to step in and act as the ‘Ministry of Truth’ (Orwell).

Fortunately, the ‘war on fake news’ only further exposed how the global elite are trying to silence ANYTHING that opposes their plans. We are truly living in some interesting times!

“The problem of fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee, but rather because we as citizens, we as users of these services, help each other. We talk and we share and we point out what is fake. We point out what is true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, the answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters, now more than ever, given the fact that lies seem to be getting more popular.” –Edward Snowden (source)

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Finally, A Clear Explanation Of The “Baby It’s Cold Outside” Controversy

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Recently, the 1944 song 'Baby It's Cold Outside' came under fire from modern feminists claiming it was a song promoting rape culture. Some radio stations banned the song. A check into the lyrics and song's meaning proved that simply wasn't true.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we so quick to jump to aggressive conclusions without simple research? Why are we so emotionally driven about everything these days? Why are we so quick to protect ourselves from 'offensive' things? Don't we decide to get offended?

When I first heard of the “Baby It’s Cold Outside” controversy it seemed to resemble the type of results from the common social engineering practices taking place right now whereby people are led to think incompletely about events and culture in order to create a divide amongst people. This creates enemies where they don’t truly exist and makes for a very easy to manipulate and control populace. Ultimately, this leads for people to call for greater governance.

And this is exactly what is happening when you observe the millions up in arms about issues they don’t fully understand, calling for the government or corporate bodies to step in and do something about it.

Common examples are microaggressions, trying to say everything is hate speech, and blaming gender, racism, or privilege at any possible time, even when those things have nothing to do with situations.

I feel this is often, not always, a reflection of the barriers we want to put up around ourselves so we don’t have to deal with much of the pain we have within ourselves. When we were children we were taught “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” The reason we are told that is simply because while we all do want to live in a world where everyone is nice to one another, people may sometimes say mean things. The piece we miss today is, how we react to what people say isn’t a reflection of what they said, it’s a reflection of how we feel within ourselves.

“I was just minding my own business looking for people to crucify in my witch hunts instead of dealing with my own pain…” JP Sears, Baby It’s Cold Outside Controversy Explained

Remember, when it comes to getting offended, we all decide what offends us and how to get offended by what someone says. TRUE empowerment means you have the control within yourself. We don’t have to allow things to offend us simply because someone says something, and this also doesn’t mean everyone is going to be mean to us all the time, this is an unsubstantiated fear.

advertisement - learn more

How The Controversy Began

The controversy began a few weeks ago when people claimed the lyrics of the song Baby It’s Cold Outside were promoting rape culture. A groundswell emerged on social media, causing the song to be banned on several radio stations in the US and Canada. Singer Melinda DeRocker even opted out of recording it on her recent holiday album.

But did anyone stop to find out what the writer of the song meant when they wrote it in 1944? Yes, actually, some did, thankfully.  But many didn’t and jumped on the hate bandwagon because nowadays many of us seem to have become headline and meme readers and take all we see as fact without ever questioning what we’re being told. We seem to shy away from delving deeper into content and research, as a general statement, and this is a big problem.

The truth is, the song’s composer Frank Loesser wrote the song so he and his wife Lynn Garland could perform it at holiday parties.

The song’s original score designates the duet partners as “wolf” and “mouse,” and genders are unspecified. This is why many decades of covers have had women and men switching roles as we saw with Lady Gaga and Joseph Gordon Levitt’s version where Gaga plays the wolf’s role. Heck, even Miss Piggy of the Muppets played the wolf as she pursued ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev.

The Real Meaning, All About Perspective

When you truly begin to observe the lyrics more clearly, you can actually deduce what it’s about. In fact, some have argued it’s a song about female empowerment.

In 2006, Slay Belle wrote for the feminist blog Persephone:

“At the time period the song was written, ‘good girls,’ especially young, unmarried girls, did not spend the night at a man’s house unsupervised,”

“Later in the song, she asks him for a comb (to fix her hair) and mentions that there’s going to be talk tomorrow – this is a song about sex, wanting it, having it, maybe having a long night of it by the fire, but it’s not a song about rape. It’s a song about the desires even good girls have.”

“The song ends with the woman doing what she wants to do, not what she’s expected to do, and there’s something very encouraging about that message.”

And in 2015, writer Helen Rosner decided to remove the part about the ‘aggressor’ in the song, or the wolf, and determined that the song was about a “sexually aware woman worried about slut-shaming.”

“The first two verses are both: (1) I have to go. (2)I’m having a great time, but (3) I’m scared of my family’s opinions,” Rosner wrote on Twitter. “She clearly wants to stay, is scared of the social ramifications of that choice, and in the end says ‘fuck society’s repressiveness’ & stays.”

“If you think Baby It’s Cold Outside is creepy, you are robbing the woman in that song of her agency,”
“You are the problem. I’m not kidding.” – Helen Rosner

The Takeaway

In this article, we covered 2 different perspectives of what this song is about. In 2018 it’s about rape, 2015 it’s about a sexually aware woman who is trying to avoid slut shaming, which was the same sentiment in 2006 as the song “was about sex, wanting it, having it, and maybe having a long night of it by the fire, a song about the desires even good girls have.”

The differences come down to important nuances that often don’t exist in many overly emotional activists these days: critical thinking. The 2006 and 2015 examples are intelligently thought out, researched, unemotional and balanced. The example from here in 2018 resembles movements that are about narratives, rhetoric, and creating enemies and divide. It’s angry, emotional and does not have a basis in truth when you take the time to analyze and look at original meanings.

I feel it’s very important we remember not to push so hard about taking sides and trying to identify with certain movements. The more we do this, the more we filter everything through that narrative. Thus we become unconscious.

I wanted to end with a laugh. I will say, I like JP Sears for his comedy. Sure sometimes I am not sure if it comes across to most people as making fun of spirituality and personal work, or if it just calls out the ridiculousness of some of it when we do it inauthentically, but he still has some great jokes. Perhaps though, a shift in his style is needed or even emerging, so his message, whatever it may be, can be a lot clearer to viewers.

That said, I feel in this video’s tone, it hits pretty well on what things are like today with many activists.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

If Cannabis Can Kill “Incurable” Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cannabis contains a compound that may kill brain cancers that chemotherapy and radiation can't touch. This is outlined by the research below.

  • Reflect On:

    Why has it been such a struggle for patients interested in medical marijuana to actually find it? Why, with all its medicinal potential, is this the case?

This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com. His work is reproduced and distributed here with permission. 

In recent years, we’ve focused heavily on educating our readers about the still relatively unknown role that cancer stem cells play in cancer, both in terms of conventional cancer treatment failure and the exceptionally promising role that natural interventions play in targeting these highly malignant cells.

It is encouraging to witness a growing awareness that cancer has been completely misunderstood, and that in order to make progress against the global epidemic we will have to go back to the wisdom of the ancients by using foods and spices instead of toxic chemicals and radiation to fight a disease that should be classified more as a survival mechanism unmasked than an inexorably lethal, genetically-driven condition. Even the National Cancer Institute now admits that it had been wrong for decades about “early stage” breast (DCIS) and prostate (HGPIN) “cancers,” and that they should be reclassified as indolent or benign lesions of epithelial origin, i.e. not “cancer” at all! Essentially, therefore, millions were overdiagnosed and overtreated for cancers they never had. Even now, despite this admission, the vast majority of conventional doctors have yet to account for, acknowledge, or integrate this radically different definition of cancer and its implications for treatment into their “standard of care.”

Only last week, we featured a new review on natural therapies that target cancer stem cells, many of which included common foods and spices. You can view it here. But one substance conspicuously absent from the list was cannabis, which is the herb we now turn to to give it a fair representation in the context of this topic.

A recent article published in the Journal Neuroimmune Pharmacology titled, “The Antitumor Activity of Plant-Derived Non-Psychoactive Cannabinoids,” reviewed the therapeutic potential of a non-psychoactive class of phytochemicals found in cannabis known as cannabinoids. Unlike THC, cannabinoids do not activate the cannabinoid 1 and cannabinoid 2 receptors in the central nervous system in any significant way, making their activity less controversial as they do not produce changes in perception and sensation associated with “recreational” and/or “psychedelic” drugs. There are actually over 60 cannabinoids in cannabis, but the second most abundant one, cannabidiol (CBD), has been found to inhibit and/or kill a wide range of cancers in the animal model, including gliobastoma (a difficult-to-treat type of brain cancer), breast, lung, prostate, and colon cancer. There have been a wide range of mechanisms identified behind these observed anti-tumor activities, including anti-angiogenic (preventing new blood vessel formation), anti-metastatic, anti-cell viability, but the one we wish to focus on in this report is its ability to to inhibit the stem-like potential of cancer cells.

Stem cells are unique within the body as they are capable of continual self-renewal, theoretically making them immortal relative to regular body cells (somatic cells), which die after a fixed number or replication cycles. In their normal state of function they are essential for healing and bodily regeneration, as they are capable of differentiating into the wide range of cells that make up the body and need to be regularly replaced when damaged.

advertisement - learn more

This so-called pluripotent property of stem cells is also observed in tumor formation and maintenance, as cancer stem cells are capable of producing the entire range of different cells that make up a tumor colony. Unlike regular tumor cells, cancer stem cells are uniquely tumorigenic because they are capable of breaking off from an existing lesion or tumor and forming a new tumor colony of cells. In this sense, they are “mother cells” at the heart of cancer malignancy, whose ability to colonize other tissues by producing all the “daughter cells” necessary to form a new tumor make their existence highly concerning from the perspective of cancer prevention and treatment. Radiation and chemotherapy, while capable of reducing the size of a tumor, actually enrich the post-treatment residual lesion or tumor with higher levels of cancer stem cells, and in some cases transform non-cancer stem cells into cancer stem cells, ultimately making the post-treatment state of the treated tissue far worse than its pre-treatment condition. This is why identifying and using natural, safe, effective and affordable ways to target cancer stem cells versus the non-tumorigenic tumor cells in a lesion or tumor is the only rational way to treat cancer, and should be the primary focus of present day cancer treatment approaches.

The new review discussed the way that cannabidiol targets and/or inhibits the cancer stem cell subpopulation in cancers such as the highly treatment-resistant form of brain cancer known as glioblastoma, which is widely considered by conventional medicine as “incurable.” A 2013 study,1mentioned in the review, found that patient-derived glioblastoma cells when exposed to cannabidiol saw a significant down-regulation of the genetic tumor marker Id-1, which has been closely correlated with brain cancer cell invasiveness. They also found that cannabidiol was capable of inhibiting neurosphere formation (a sign of cancer stem cell tumor formation), as well as was capable of inhibiting glioblastoma tumor invasiveness in an animal model.

The results of this preclinical study were so compelling that the researchers concluded cannibidiol might make an ideal adjunct treatment:

With its lack of systemic toxicity and psychoactivity, cannabidiol is an ideal candidate agent in this regard and may prove useful in combination with front-line agents for the treatment of patients with aggressive and high-grade glioblastoma tumors.

Integrative approaches often focus on using natural interventions as “adjuncts” to conventional, inherently toxic approaches like chemotherapy and radiation, we believe that another possibility exists, namely, that cannabidiol in combination with a wide range of other natural substances studied for targeting glioblastoma is more effective (and certainly far safer) than a combination approach. To view other anti-glioblastoma substances, view our database on the subject.

Another highly relevant study published in 2007 titled, “Cannabinoids induce glioma stem-like cell differentiation and inhibit gliomagenesis,”2 found that cannabinoids target the stem-like properties of glioma cells, encouraging their differentiation into functioning, non-tumorigenic cells, and inhibiting the dysregulated increased production of glioma cells.

A more recent 2015 study,3 found that glioblastoma cells treated with cannabidiol inhibited their self-renewal by down-regulating “critical stem cell maintenance and growth regulators.”

Another study, published last month, found that cannabidiol inhibits glioma stem-like proliferation by inducing autophagy, a natural form of programmed cell death.4

Consider, finally, that the cancer stem cell targeting and killing properties of cannabidiol are only one of a wide range of potential mechanisms through which cannabis as a whole plant, comprised of hundreds of different phytochemicals and phytonutrients, can treat cancer. We have indexed hundreds of studies on cannabis’ therapeutic properties, a good subset concerning its ability to prevent, kill, or regress a wide range of different cancer types. You can view them all on our cannabis research database.

Research on cannabis and brain cancer has only just begun, but considering the abject failure if not also sheer violence of conventional approaches, waiting for sufficient quantities of Pharma or government capital to flow in the direction of a non-patentable substance already saddled with archaic laws in some cases criminalizing its possession is a no win proposition. Anecdotes of healing with cannabis are not uncommon. One such report can be viewed on our colleague Dr. Jeffrey Dach’s website, titled, “Cannabis Oil Brain Tumor Remission,” demonstrating just how powerful cannabis and its cannabinoids may be for accomplishing what conventional approaches can not. Last year, we reported on a similar case of temporary remission in childhood leukemia using cannabis extract. Also, consider reports like this one, where a woman clearly being victimized by conventional medicine was able to replace 40 different medications through using raw cannabis juice.

The short of it is that the future of medicine, if it is to continue to advertise itself to be concerned with alleviating human suffering and being guided by “evidence,” must incorporate this safe, time-tested, affordable and effective healing agent into its standard of care. Failing to do so will not de-validate cannabis, rather, but the medical system itself. One might ask, if cannabis can treat “incurable” brain cancers, and is safer and more effective than chemotherapy and radiation, shouldn’t withholding it or information about its healing properties be considered criminal? Instead we still live in a time and age where simply possessing it or using it is in some jurisdictions classified as a criminal offense of dire if not irreparable consequence to our civil liberties. Perhaps we are at a critical turning point now and the aforementioned research will lead us all forward to a more enlightened medical ethos that respects the right of a patient to choose his or her treatment as long as it does no harm to others.

  • Get access to the upcoming documentary on the healing properties of medicinal cannabis starting on Dec. 12th, 2018. Save Your Spot.

 Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

For as little as $3 a month, you can contribute to keeping CE alive! Thanks for being on our Hero's Team. We appreciate you and your support deeply! https://explorers.collective-evolution.com/cmm/

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.