Smoke and Transplants
in [Hepatitis C]
|
From: ironjustice on 14 Jun 2008 10:47 http://www.impactlab.com/2008/05/13/drug-war-horror-stories/ 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. No statement of defence has yet been filed. Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk
From: Kurt Ullman on 14 Jun 2008 11:02 In article <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87b11(a)i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ironjustice <teamtanner(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > At some, people who use �illicit substances�-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.
From: Juba on 14 Jun 2008 13:24 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message: kurtullman-4FCE97.11023014062008(a)70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net, > In article > <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87b11(a)i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > ironjustice <teamtanner(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> At some, people who use �illicit substances�-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. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine: The Medical Value of Marijuana http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/ch4.html "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. -- Juba www.masterjuba.com
From: ironjustice on 14 Jun 2008 13:35 On Jun 14, 8:02 am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...(a)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. Just to keep things in .. perspective. Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://tinyurl.com/2r2nkh Man Is A Herbivore! http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3 DEAD PEOPLE WALKING http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk > In article > <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87...(a)i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > >  ironjustice <teamtan...(a)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.
From: Paul T. Holland on 15 Jun 2008 16:22
kurt - you are - quite simply - 'mis' or 'un' informed Kurt Ullman wrote: > > In article > <15a9fcb8-be01-41a2-80c8-00117fb87b11(a)i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > ironjustice <teamtanner(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > At some, people who use �illicit substances�-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 you might not know that there is still an extremely small remnant of that program in existence today: <http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-F-Subs-3.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=5&rnd=556.0115317119844> "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." here is one source of information: http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/geninfo/faq.htm 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: MAPS LAWSUITS Professor Lyle Craker, PhD, director of the medicinal plant program in the Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences, at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, has been attempting for six years to obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration Schedule I license to manufacture marijuana exclusively for privately funded, federally approved research. The federal government has a monopoly over the supply of marijuana � but no other Schedule I drug � and uses that monopoly to obstruct privately funded research. Craker�s case is the focal point of the struggle to bring medical marijuana before the FDA to determine whether it meets the FDA�s standards for safety and efficacy. Craker�s applications for regulatory approval, legal struggles, and proposed facility are sponsored by MAPS, which plans to design, fund, and obtain government approval for the clinical research necessary to develop marijuana into an FDA-approved prescription medicine. If successful, MAPS would bring smoked and/or vaporized marijuana to market under a nonprofit pharmaceutical model similar to the Population Council�s development and distribution of RU-486. On Feb. 12, 2007, following a comprehensive review of the available evidence from the 2005 DEA law hearing, DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner issued a decisive � but nonbinding � "Opinion and Recommended Ruling" that Craker�s application be approved. It is now up to the DEA to decide whether to accept or reject Bittner�s recommendation. US Representatives John Olver (D-MA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) are co-sponsoring a Congressional Sign-On Letter urging the DEA to accept DEA Administrative Law Judge Bittner's Recommended Ruling to license Prof. Lyle Craker's proposed MAPS-sponsored medical marijuana production facility. We need you to help by contacting your Congressional Representative -- here's how. For background on the case, see MAPS' DEA Lawsuit page. |