Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by backtoiam » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:38 pm
LolaB » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:33 am wrote:My favorite source is Starwest Botanicals. They are reasonably priced, very professional and it was easy to get a wholesale discount. Plus they have a huge selection of organics. http://www.starwest-botanicals.com 1 800 800 HERB (4372)
by LolaB » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:44 pm
How did you get a wholesale account? What was the process? Did you just ask and ye received?
by divideandconquer » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:18 am
by divideandconquer » Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:36 am
The Disappearance of the Word “CURE” from Modern Medicine
Do medicines cure? Can medicine cure? Recently I reported that Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary does not contain the words “cure”, “cured”, “cures”, nor “incurable”. I thought it was an exception. I was wrong. It’s not an exception, it’s the rule.
I’ve done some further checking. The words “cure” and “incurable” do not appear in The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary, Ninth Edition, 2015. They do not appear in The Bantam Medical Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 2009. “Cure” does not appear in Barron’s Dictionary of Medical Terms, Sixth Edition, 2013, although “incurable” is defined as “being such that a cure is impossible within the realm of known medical practice”. Medical Terminology for Dummies, Second Edition, does not contain the word “cure”.*
Further, “cure” is not defined and not in the index of most, if not all major medical references, including: Merck’s Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, Harrison’s Guide to Internal Medicine, and Lange’s Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment. In consistent fashion the DSM 5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not contain the word “cure” in the index. Cured is not defined for mental illness.
Seriously? What is going on?
Cure: The 4-letter word of modern medicine
Cure is truly a forbidden 4-letter-word in modern medicine. Why?
Today’s medical practice has serious challenges with the word ‘cure’. There are cures, of course, and reference books like Merck’s Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy occasionally refer to them as cures. But much of the use of the word cure in Merck, and other references, is inconsistent. “Cure” is not well defined in medicine. A large number of the uses of the word ‘cure’ in Merck are actually ‘incurable’ or ‘cannot be cured’. And yet, it is not scientifically possible to prove that a disease cannot be cured. I have traced these references back through many editions of Merck; and even in the 1950s, “cure” hardly appeared in Merck, was not defined, and was not used consistently. I do not have resources dating farther back, except the original version of Merck, where cures were commonly suggested, but as near as I can determine, never correctly. If you do have access to earlier versions of Merck’s editions, I would appreciate your assistance to study this question.
It is interesting to take a simple illness: scurvy, for which the cure appears to be well known. Merck, Harrison’s, and Lange’s each contain entries for scurvy. But all recommend treatments – and do not use the word cure. Only one, Merck, actually provides a cure – Harrison’s and Lange’s recommend a treatment that does not cure. According to the U.S. FDA, you cannot claim a nutritional cure, for scurvy, or beriberi, unless you also “say how widespread such a disease is in the United States”. Cures are not defined by science, instead, they are “not defined” by politics.
One common use of cure, in the current edition of Merck, and in many medical reference texts is the phrase ‘cure-rate’. But, what is cure rate if not ‘cure-wait’? A cure-wait is defined by waiting a specified period of time. If you wait 5 years, and the patient is still alive, and the patient is cannot be diagnosed with cancer, then we have established a ‘five year cure-wait’. Calling it a ‘cure-rate’ is unapologetic nonsense.
Most of the organizations that raise funds to ‘fight’ illness also avoid the word ‘cure’. The American Cancer Society’s mission statement does not contain the word ‘cure’. When cure is used, it is seldom defined, and perhaps most important, cures are not defined and not counted. If you do cure your illness, whether it be a cancer, a depression, or even something as simple as obesity, the cure is not recognized, and cannot be counted. Obesity cannot be cured, because the cure is ‘not something’ and ‘not something’ cannot be a cure in today’s medical science.
Cures cannot be counted, because there are no tests for cured, because cured is not defined. Therefore: cures do not exist. There are remissions, and spontaneous remissions, but there are few cures.
One problem presented by modern medicine is this: cure is generally defined as a substance that cures. That’s why there is “no cure for the common cold”, even though every healthy person cures their own, and healthier people cure it faster. Cures accomplished by health, not medicine, are not recognized by the field of medicine. As a result, there are many invisible cures.
Can any illnesses be cured with medicine? Of course. Illnesses caused by parasites, infections, pneumonia, etc. are cured by antibiotics. Illnesses caused by fungal infections are cured by anti-fungal medications. There are well defined tests to ensure that the cure is complete. So, why does cure not appear in most medical dictionaries.
There are many illnesses that can be cured, but not by medicines. Any illness caused by a lack of healthiness – from arthritis, to depression, to heart disease and hypertension, and even obesity – cannot be cured by medicines. They are not caused by a parasite that can be killed. They can only be cured with health. All illnesses caused by deficiencies, whether it be scurvy, caused by a nutritional deficiency, or bedsores, caused by a deficiency of movement, a deficiency of physical stress – can only be cured by addressing the cause. No medicine can cure these conditions. Any illness caused by toxicity, by toxic chemicals, or even toxic social environments, cannot be cured by medicines. These can only be cured by addressing the cause.
Cure and cause are linked. But not, apparently, in modern medicine. Medicines treat symptoms, and ignore cause. As a result, cure is disappearing from our medical systems, our medical texts, our medical dictionaries, and the science and technology of medicine.
Every cause of an illness can also be viewed as a lack of healthiness, even parasitic illnesses. We don’t get an infection ‘because’ of the infecting bacteria, we get an infection because of a cut, or sometimes because of a weakness in our immune system – that would normally defend us. All illnesses are best viewed as caused by a lack of healthiness. The best medicines are those that work by improving healthiness.
But today’s medicines do not produce healthiness. Many of them actually harm healthiness, in hope that the illness will be harmed more. Today’s medicines cannot improve healthiness. So these medicines cannot cure illnesses. So cure is not in the medical dictionaries. How can we cure, if cure is not in the medical dictionary?
We need to define cure, from a scientific perspective, not from a medical perspective. We need a definition, or definitions, such that cures and be tested and found true. We need to define cure for every illness and work to improve our general and specific definitions of cure, and cured. This is the way of science. Until we do this, medicine will always be a practice of superstition, depressing symptoms, and patients and even their families, while never actually curing any illness, never claiming to cure any illness. There is a myth that medicines are intended to cure. But it is only a myth.
Can we define ‘cure’? Can we define ‘cured’? Yes.
(Note: To cure an illness is to successfully address a cause. Only a specific case, only an illness, can be cured. No disease, no general class of illness, can be cured. Every cure is an anecdote.)
An illness is cured when the cause is successfully addressed. We need to cure illnesses, one at a time. A patient might have many illnesses, and many of them might be invisible until we aim to cure, until the most visible illness is cured. When we begin to study cures, we will see these patterns, and be able to predict them and treat them more effectively.
Today’s medicine is stuck on ‘symptoms’, working to treat symptoms. When we work to treat symptoms, we have a problem. A symptom, even in a single patient, whether it be a cough, or depression, or a cancer, can have many individual causes.
It is possible to be infected with TWO colds and a flu. If one is cured, it has been cured, but the patient is not yet completely cured. It is a valid, important cure – even though it doesn’t look like a cure, and many doctors, and many patients might not consider it a cure. But when we develop a science of cures, we will learn that we must cure one illness at a time.
It is also possible, and commonplace for a patient to be suffering from two or three illnesses of depressio, to be two depressed, not too depressed. There might be a depression illness caused by a nutritional deficiency. There might be a different depression illness caused by consuming toxic substances. And there might be a third depression illness caused by lack of sleep due to a stressful job, relationship, etc. Modern medicine makes no attempt to cure depression – although if you go back 50 years, most cases of depression were cured.
An illness consists of the cause and the symptoms. Every illness, every single illness, is a link between CAUSE and SYMPTOMS. Every unique link between cause and symptoms is a unique illness – even if the symptoms are very similar or even identical. Therefore, the illness is an invisible concept that cannot be addressed by treating symptoms alone.
A disease is commonly diagnosed by symptoms, not by cause. As a result, any diagnosis of a disease might actually be several cases of illness. This makes the ‘disease’ very difficult, seemingly impossible to cure. Every illness can be cured. No disease can be cured. But today, when a disease is cured, it’s considered a miracle, not a medicine.
Each illness has unique cures, related to the unique cause. We can define a calculus of illness, and use it to search for causes and cures. A disease, without a cause that can be addressed, cannot be cured. If cure is not defined, if cure is not in the dictionary, we might as well be hunting a wumpus.
Once we come to this basic understanding, we can begin to cure. We can build a science of cures. We have the technology, but it is not a technology of medicine, it can only begin with a technology of language. We can put ‘cure’, cures, and cured, back into the dictionary – and work to remove ‘incurable’.
To your health,
Tracy
Founder of Healthicine.org
*Author’s note: The new, 2016 edition of Webster’s Medical Dictionary, does contain the word “cure”. However, the definitions provided are simplistic pap, food for babies, not for scientists. It offers “to make or become sound, healthy, or normal again” and “a course or period of treatment, esp: one designed to interrupt an addiction or compulsive habit or to improve general health”. “Incurable” also appears in this new edition, but unfortunately it is defined as “impossible to cure”, which sits in contradiction with Barron’s definition, and in contradiction with science and common sense. It is simply not possible to prove that any illness cannot be cured without trying every possible treatment – which is not possible.
But we can hardly fault Webster’s, or Merck’s, or Harrison’s, or Lange’s, or Barron’s or Bantam for not publishing the word cure, or not providing a scientific definition. The fault lies in the science, or the non-science, of today’s medical practices.
To your health, Tracy.
by backtoiam » Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:46 pm
by divideandconquer » Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:52 pm
DEA Spokesman Says They Will Start Making Bust After Kratom Ban Takes Effect & Thinks It’s Funny That People Are Stockpiling
DEA spokesman Melvin Patterson says the agency acted following a boom in popularity and that the DEA likely will feel the need to make busts when the ban takes effect. He says it’s unwise to stock up, as that may result in more serious criminal charges.
“It’s real funny because it still will be considered a Schedule I and if they’re in possession of it they will be at risk, so I wouldn’t want to be stockpiling it – that only makes it worse,” he says. “Obviously, there are no actions DEA can take in the next 30 days, but thereafter things will change.”
After 30 days, he says, “I could see something happen to show this is serious.”
by backtoiam » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:34 pm
by backtoiam » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:08 am
By Brandon Turbeville
On September 12, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, an independent think tank and regulatory watchdog organization, wrote an open letter to the DEA regarding the notoriously corrupt and rights-crushing agency’s recent ban on kratom. In this letter, the CRE has made a number of recommendations to the DEA that would at least put an element of logic to the agency’s actions.
The CRE points out that the DEA’s policy on kratom is in conflict with the policy of a number of other federal agencies and, thus, the legality of kratom falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget whose job it is to settle inter-agency conflicts of policy.
The letter reads:
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has been described as the cockpit of the regulatory state. It is an organization that has a statutory mandate to manage and oversee the flow of regulatory actions taken by federal agencies. In the discharge of these duties OIRA is often involved in one-on-one discussions with agency personnel to resolve potential conflicts with OMB personnel.
However in this instance, the DEA action to ban kratom, the conflict is considerably wider in scope. In this instance there is a sharp disagreement among a number of federal agencies. Consequently if there were ever a time for an OMB intervention this is it.
The CRE’s letter also calls into question the shaky “science” used by the DEA in order to push its ban when it states:
‘The DEA’s August 31, 2016 Federal Register notice placing Mitragynine and 7-Hydroxymitragynine into Schedule I5 highlights the out of context observation that the “consumption of kratom individually,or in conjunction with alcohol or other drugs, is of serious concern as it can lead to severe adverse effects and death.’ The FR notice, however, left out the crucial supporting data that is necessary to understand the information provided by DEA and to it place in a policy context. Earlier this year, the peer-reviewed neuroscience journal Brain Research Bulletin published a survey of the literature on traditional and non-traditional uses of Mitragynin which found that,
‘While several cases of toxicity and death have emerged in the West, such reports have been non-existent in South East Asia where kratom has had a longer history of use. We highlight the possible reasons for this as discussed in the literature. More importantly, it should be borne in mind that the individual clinical casereports emerging from the West that link kratom use to adverse reactions or fatalities frequently pertained to kratom used together with other substances. Therefore, there is a danger of these reports being used to strengthen the case for legal sanction against kratom. This would be unfortunate since the experiences from South East Asia suggest considerable potential for therapeutic use among people who use drugs.’
Thus, one federal agency–law enforcement agency–DEA, is in the process of making the possession of kratom a felony at the same time that a journal edited by the Principal Investigator of another federal agency, the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, published an article which concluded that “more scientific clinical human studies are necessary to determine [kratom’s] potential therapeutic value.”
Citing research conducted by the USDA, NIH, University of Massachusetts Medical School, and the University of Mississippi, the CRE shows that the DEA has “arbitrarily” banned kratom and that the DEA’s own claims are either disproven or contradicted by the findings of organizations who have actually conducted research on the substance.
The CRE writes,
The kratom footprint grows even further. The research was so well conducted and received by the scientific community that the aforementioned institutions applied for a patent. How much more additional evidence is needed to demonstrate that the DEA has acted arbitrarily in issuing a ban on kratom?
In short, without going through a notice-and-comment process, DEA is obviating another agency’s research that was conducted with appropriated funds. With its action, DEA is also obviating the progress and promise of kratom research to boosting the American bio-sciences industry.
In short the arbitrary cancellation of kratom by DEA without any public input suggests that OMB must reassert itself with respect to the regulatory actions of the agency. In addition where have been the officials the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice whose job is to review regulatory actions taken by the components of the agency before they are submitted to OMB?
CRE also states that the DEA’s actions violate the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Agreement since the U.S. regulatory system coordinates closely with that of Canada. As the FDA recently stated that the Canadian food safety system is comparable to that of the U.S. and since Canada lists kratom as a Natural Health Product, the DEA’s actions not only put it in conflict with the RCC but also with the FDA.
The CRE also states that the DEA’s decision violates the Information Quality Act since it did not designate the Schedule 1 classification of kratom as a HISA (Highly Influential Scientific Assessment). CRE states,
The OMB Peer Review Guidelines, which govern the Information Quality responsibility of all federal agencies, define a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment ( HISA) as follows:
“A scientific assessment is considered ‘‘highly influential’’ if the agency or the OIRA Administrator determines that the dissemination could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any one year on either the public or private sector or that the dissemination is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting, or has significant interagency interest.”
The aforementioned information most certainly demonstrates that the Schedule I listing is controversial and has significant interagency interest. Consequently DEA is required by law to conduct a HISA. Either DEA or OMB can designate a scientific study as a HISA.
CRE also points out that the alleged hazards of kratom are not imminent according to the standards set by the Controlled Substances Act. CRE writes,
The Controlled Substances Act states ( 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) that the Attorney General may act without adherence to established administrative processes “If the Attorney General finds that the scheduling of a substance in Schedule I on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.” With respect to established administrative processes the statute states: “Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing..”
Kratom has been in use for decades, if not centuries. What compelling documentation does the DEA, a law enforcement agency, have in its possession that would support a finding of an imminent hazard? DEA did present arguments in the Federal Register in which they claim kratom poses a threat to public health, but none so convincing that it is an imminent threat to public health. The public, including a wide range of experts, should have been given the opportunity to comment on DEA’s findings. The DEA chose to bypass the preferred listing process in the Controlled Substances Act, which allows for public comment, by claiming that kratom is an “imminent hazard.” By taking this action without providing sufficient detail of the factual predicate justifying its determination that kratom is somehow an imminent hazard, the DEA inappropriately revoked any rights of the public to comment on the agency’s findings.
With all of this in mind, the CRE has issued its recommendations for the DEA, none of which would actually prevent the DEA from moving forward on its plans but which would at least give the American people some breathing room in terms of how long they have to address, fight, and resist the primitive agency’s tactics. The CRE recommends the following:
1. Extend the effective date for placing kratom into schedule I until July, 1, 2017.
2. Open a Federal Register notice-and-comment proceeding on placing kratom into Schedule I and inform the public that the DEA’s proposal is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 because it,
a) Has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
b) Creates a serious inconsistency with an action taken by another agency, FDA, or
c) Raises novel legal and policy issues arising out of legal mandates.
3. Submit the proposed listing to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
4. Inform the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) via OMB of DEA’s intent to place kratom on schedule I and seek its comments.
5. Conduct an interagency peer review of DEA’s science which lead to a Schedule I listing of kratom as required by the HISA requirements of the Data (Information) Quality Act.
We support the calls of the CRE, although we must readily point out that we are demanding that the DEA back off of Kratom completely and allow the substance to be bought, sold, possessed, consumed, and transported freely. The DEA has already pushed far enough with its ridiculous and totalitarian drug war. It is time that the agency realizes that the mindset of prohibition is coming to an end.
Please see this Action Alert to see what you can do to help keep Kratom legal.
http://www.brandonturbeville.com/2016/0 ... -deas.html
http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/09/dea-kratom-ban.html
by divideandconquer » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:59 am
" mindset of prohibition is coming to an end."
by slimmouse » Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:44 pm
by norton ash » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:14 am
slimmouse » Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:44 pm wrote:When you ask a simple question, such as ;
" Who has the right to tell me that a plant is illegal?"
Then if you decide that someone else does, surely your an idiot?
by Burnt Hill » Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:33 pm
norton ash » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:14 am wrote:slimmouse » Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:44 pm wrote:When you ask a simple question, such as ;
" Who has the right to tell me that a plant is illegal?"
Then if you decide that someone else does, surely your an idiot?
Tell that to the judge, idiot.
by norton ash » Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:44 pm
by Burnt Hill » Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:51 pm
by norton ash » Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:58 pm
Canada will push the United States to change a border policy that has banned Canadians who admit to having used marijuana from travel to the United States, given Canada’s plans to legalize pot, a government spokesman said on Friday.
The case of a Canadian man barred from U.S. travel because he admitted to having smoked pot recreationally has sparked a debate about U.S. border agents using a federal law against marijuana use, even though pot use is legal in several states and soon to be legal in Canada.
“We obviously need to intensify our discussions with our border authorities in the United States, including the Department of Homeland Security,” Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp late on Thursday.
“This does seem to be a ludicrous situation,” he said, noting that marijuana is legal in Washington state as well as “three or four other jurisdictions in the United States.”
Users browsing this forum: stickdog99 and 60 guests
