Study: Non-hallucinogenic Cannabinoids are Effective Anti-Cancer Drugs

New research has shown that the non-hallucinogenic components of cannabis could act as effective anti-cancer agents.

The anti-cancer properties of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary hallucinogenic component of cannabis, has been recognised for many years, but research into similar cannabis-derived compounds, known as cannabinoids, has been limited.

The study was carried out by a team at St George’s, University of London. It has been published in the journal Anticancer Research.

The team, led by Dr Wai Liu and colleagues carried out laboratory investigations using a number of cannabinoids, either alone or in combination with each other, to measure their anti-cancer actions in relation to leukaemia.

Of six cannabinoids studied, each demonstrated anti-cancer properties as effective as those seen in THC. Importantly, they had an increased effect on cancer cells when combined with each other.

Dr Liu said: “This study is a critical step in unpicking the mysteries of cannabis as a source of medicine. The cannabinoids examined have minimal, if any, hallucinogenic side effects, and their properties as anti-cancer agents are promising.

“These agents are able to interfere with the development of cancerous cells, stopping them in their tracks and preventing them from growing. In some cases, by using specific dosage patterns, they can destroy cancer cells on their own.

“Used in combination with existing treatment, we could discover some highly effective strategies for tackling cancer. Significantly, these compounds are inexpensive to produce and making better use of their unique properties could result in much more cost effective anti-cancer drugs in future.”

This latest research is part of a growing portfolio of studies into the medicinal properties of cannabis by the research team at St George’s. The next step will be to examine in the laboratory these compounds in combination with existing anti-cancer treatments and study treatment schedules to identify strategies that will maximise their efficacy.

The study examined two forms of cannabidiol (CBD), two forms of cannabigerol (CBG) and two forms of cannabigevarin (CBGV). These represent the most common cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant apart from THC.

Enhancing the Activity of Cannabidiol and Other Cannabinoids In Vitro Through Modifications to Drug Combinations and Treatment Schedules KATHERINE ANN SCOTT, SINI SHAH, ANGUS GEORGE DALGLEISH and WAI MAN LIU, Department of Oncology, Division of Clinical Sciences, St. George's, University of London, London, U.K. Anti Cancer Research.

Source:
http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/33/10/4373.abstract

3 Companies Using GMOs in Baby Formula

It seems with the many reports of birth defects, organ failure, cancer, and other unsavory health conditions associated with GMO consumption, we should limit the use of GMO in baby products. After all, babies are very sensitive to the foods they consume, and we already know that pesticides found in mother’s milk can be damaging. Below you will learn of three companies which represent more than 90% of baby formula sales in the US that won’t consider removing GMOs from your baby’s food.

Health-Damaging GMOs in Baby Formula

Why would we knowingly feed our children GMOs before it has really been proven to be ‘safe’ as Monsanto, BASF, and other companies like Abbott Laboratories, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Nestlé USA, the company who wants to own water rights, tout?

If you feed your baby one of the following three infant formulas, you are perhaps, unknowingly, feeding them GMO corn, sugar beets, and soy, since they are often used these companies’ products:

1. Similac

One of the widest used brands and often given out for ‘free’ at hospitals, this baby formula is made by Abbott Laboratories. The company is selling you a can of baby formula for over $100 that is full of GMO poisons. You could contact the company to ask why it would include GMOs, or, you can just boycott it altogether. Shareholders are supposed to vote on whether the company is able to continue to use GMO in baby formulas. Abott Laboratories is one of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies – go figure.

2. Enfamil

Another baby formula often given out as ‘free’ samples to new mothers iis made by Mead Johnson Nutrition. Their website boasts, ‘Enfamil, scientifically designed to meet the nutritional needs of newborns and infants.’ The following Mead Johnson formulas are known to have GMO toxins:

• Enfamil with Iron
• Enfamil with low Iron
• Enfamil Lacto Free
• Enfamil 22
• Enfamil Next Step (both soy and milk varieties)
• Enfamil Nutramigen
• Enfamil Pro-Soybee

3. Gerber Good Start

The GMO-riddled formula made by Nestlé USA is perhaps the most questionable since the company has knowingly tried to ‘patent’ water and make it a commodity though it is all part of life itself on this planet. Do we really want to trust a company who wants privatize water with feeding our children health foods? The company went GMO free in South Africa, according to Corporate Action Network, but continues to sell American families the contaminated GMO formula we feed our babies every day.

Nestlé USA and Mead Johnson Nutrition have dismissed calls to remove genetically-modified organisms (GMO) from their infant formula products in the US – citing the approved use of GMOs by several national and global regulatory bodies.

You can boycott all these companies and start making your own home-made, natural baby formula without toxic chemicals and pesticides and nasty GMOs. The assistant director of the FDA, Nick Duy, says we shouldn’t make our own baby formula, but why isn’t he ousting these companies for using questionable (at best) and health-damaging GMOs?

Source: Waking Times

Awesome and a world's first - Wingsuit Man Lands on Water Without Parachute

Epic Battle For Internet Control Has Begun

"You can't stop things like Bitcoin" John McAfee

Investigation launched in Luxembourg over Skype’s links to NSA surveillance programs

The data protection commissioner in Luxembourg has launched an investigation into Skype’s covert involvement with surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency (NSA), according to a report Friday.

The link between the NSA and Skype is hardly secret at this point, especially given the exposure of “Project Chess,” the secret program aimed at making Skype calls easily available to intelligence agencies.

Furthermore, in early June it was revealed that Skype was one of the partners working with the NSA on their massive Prism program.

Skype, owned by Microsoft, could face both administrative and criminal sanctions, including a ban on secretly passing any user communications to US intelligence agencies, the Guardian reports.

If the investigation finds that Skype’s data sharing is found to violate Luxembourg’s data protection laws, the company, headquartered in the European country, could also be fined.

The Guardian reports that this investigation, launched by Gerard Lommel, apparently began in June after Skype’s ties to NSA surveillance were revealed.

In Luxembourg, communications can only be monitored with judicial approval or authorization of a tribunal established by the prime minister.

As the Guardian notes, “it is unclear whether Skype’s transfer of communications to the NSA have been sanctioned by Luxembourg through a secret legal assistance or data transfer agreement that would not be known to the data protection commissioner at the start of their inquiry.”

Indeed, some European countries, including Germany, have worked closely with the NSA on their surveillance program despite data protection laws.

This led to the German interior minister advising people to avoid using Google and Facebook if they’re concerned about NSA spying.

As the Guardian reported in July, after Skype was acquired by Microsoft, “the NSA boasted that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being collected through Prism.”

“It is what many of us feared, and now we know for sure,” Grégoire Pouget, an information security expert with Reporters Without Borders, said to the Guardian.

“If you are a journalist working on issues that could interest the US government or some of their allies, you should not use Skype,” Pouget said.

When a Microsoft representative spoke to VentureBeat, they suggested that the investigation in Luxembourg may stem from complaints filed by Europe v. Facebook, which I reported on in June.

“We regularly engage in a dialogue with data protection authorities around the world and are always happy to answer their questions,” the Microsoft representative said to VentureBeat.

“It has been previously widely reported that the Luxembourg [data protection authority] was one of the [data protection authorities] that received complaints from the Europe v. Facebook group, so we’re happy to answer any questions they may have,” the representative added.

Interestingly, the Guardian reported that Microsoft would not respond for comment.

The data protection commissioner’s office in Luxembourg did not respond to either VentureBeat or the Guardian for comment.

Source:End the Lie

Google Tells Feds It Wants to Disclose Surveillance Orders

Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo and LinkedIn are ramping up efforts in Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to win authority to publish figures about data-collection orders received from the feds. However, the Justice Department says that would undermine the intelligence community.

CIO —

Google, one of the tech companies at the heart of the public-private friction over government requests for commercial data related to national security, is planning to step up its efforts to win the authority to make public disclosures about the scope of those surveillance orders.

That campaign will play out on two fronts, according to David Lieber, a privacy policy counsel with Google.

In Congress, the search giant is backing bills introduced by Al Franken (D-Minn.) in the Senate and, in the House, by Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that would authorize (but not require) companies to release aggregate statistics describing the number of national security orders they have received in a given time period and how many users have been impacted.

"We've been supportive of that legislation, along with a number of other companies, trade associations and civil society groups. And we're looking forward to a broader campaign to codify the principles that are reflected in those bills," Lieber said this week at an event hosted by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Lieber says that those bills "advance bedrock First Amendment principles" involving disclosures that, under normal circumstances, would require no special action for companies to make. But the Justice Department and national security authorities have pushed back against the efforts of tech firms like Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo to publish aggregate data about the volume and scope of national security orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"If these leading Internet companies are permitted to make these disclosures, the harm to national security would be compounded by the fact that other companies would surely seek to make similar disclosures."

--Department of Justice

Those four companies, joined by LinkedIn, have taken their case to the FISA court, or FISC, where they are seeking a declaratory judgment that would permit them to disclose figures about the data requests they receive under each section of the law, further parsing the numbers by delineating "content" and "non-content" requests.

In a response filed with the FISC Sept. 30 arguing against the tech firms' motion, the Justice Department cited reforms the government has taken in the interest of greater transparency, including granting permission for companies to publish aggregate figures about how many administrative subpoenas (known as national security letters) they receive from federal authorities, as well as a commitment to report the total number of orders -- broadly defined to include FISA actions and national security letters -- issued each year.

Source: CIO