The Dirty Little Secret Pot Pushers Don’t Want You to Know About

States have passed so-called “medical marijuana” laws under the theory that pot has medicinal benefits that can’t be produced by other, legal means.

But what if there was a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug that gave you all the benefits of the active ingredients in marijuana, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol?

What if that drug had been rigorously tested through clinical trials to make sure that it worked as promised, was properly dosed, and had no unanticipated side effects?

And what if you could get that lawful drug from your doctor in pill or liquid form?

And what if there were three such different FDA-approved drugs, and two more on the FDA-approved fast track?

Would it surprise you to know there already are three FDA-approved THC drugs and that at least five more are on the way? We suspect so, because the pot pushers—those that push smoked and edible marijuana as “medicine”—don’t want you to know about these safe alternatives.

Some of those FDA-approved drugs have been around since the 1980s.

That’s right—the dirty little secret they hide from you is that you don’t have to smoke marijuana, eat it in a brownie, or chew it in a marijuana-laced gummy bear to reap the medicinal benefits of THC.

The three FDA-approved drugs are Marinol, Cesamet, and Syndros. Drugs like Syndros show great promise for countering today’s dangerous “medical marijuana” movement.

In early July, the FDA approved Syndros as the first orally administered liquid form of THC. Like Marinol, the original oral cannabinoid to gain FDA approval in 1985, Syndros treats anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS, as well as nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy.

Epidiolex is one drug currently on the FDA fast track. According to a recent press release from GW Pharmaceuticals, a study of 171 randomized patients suffering from Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes found that Epidiolex decreased seizure occurrence, was relatively well tolerated among patients, and generated no unexpected adverse effects.

Other cannabinoid-based medications on the international market today include Cesamet, another synthetic drug that treats nausea and vomiting stemming from chemotherapy; Cannador, which is currently used in Europe and has demonstrated potential to relieve multiple sclerosis symptoms and postoperative pain management; and Sativex, another GW Pharmaceuticals drug on the FDA fast track that treats spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis.

Since these are all medical cannabinoids, they do not require smoking. They are also safer to use because levels of THC can be monitored.

Knowing these safer alternatives exist, ask yourself: Why? Why have the pot pushers kept this secret and why don’t they want you to know this?

“The medicinal marijuana system in this country has become a bad joke, an affront to the concept of safe and reliable medicine, defying the standards that we have come to expect from the medical establishment,” Dr. Kevin Sabet, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama’s drug policy office, wrote in his book, “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana.”

We can thank Ed Rosenthal and Richard Cowan for creating the current public perception of the so-called “medical marijuana” marketplace.

In a video filmed many years ago, which we highlighted in this 2010 blog post, Rosenthal (former editor of High Times magazine) and Cowan (former director of NORML—the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law) joked about the nationwide “scam” they started. They realized that if they convinced enough people that smoking marijuana was “medical marijuana,” that would be the beginning of a movement toward full legalization.

“Once there’s medical access, if we continue to do what we have to do and we will, then we’ll get full legalization,” Cowan explained.

“I have to tell you that I also use marijuana medically,” Rosenthal joked. “I have a latent glaucoma which has never been diagnosed, and the reason why its never been diagnosed is because I’ve been treating it.”

But, according to Rosenthal, pleasure trumps any medicinal benefit he should derive from marijuana anyway.

“There is a reason why I do use it,” he said. “And that’s because I like to get high. Marijuana is fun.”

Sabet acknowledges that THC has potential therapeutic effects, but these do not come from smoking pot. (We don’t light any of our FDA-approved medicine on fire and smoke it, after all).

With the average strength of marijuana being five to six times what it was in the 1960s and 70s, the repercussions of marijuana and legalizing it are more evident than before. Some of these include higher risks of motor vehicle accidents, heart attacks, and impaired immune systems and short-term memories. Evidently, the pot pushers don’t want you to know this truth.

“America is being sold a false dichotomy: ‘We can either stick to our current failed policies, or we can try a ‘new approach’ with legalization,” Sabet said. “Sadly, this kind of black-and-white thinking conceals the fact that there are better, more effective ways than either legalization or incarceration to deal with this complex issue.”

Cannabinoid-based drugs are better alternatives because they reap the benefits of marijuana’s therapeutic components safely, as well as have the potential to become FDA approved if they aren’t already.

So the next time a pot pusher encourages a state to enact so-called “medical marijuana” laws, or goes for full legalization in violation of federal law, ask them: Why are they pushing an unsafe, untested product instead of pushing FDA-approved THC?


The Dirty Little Secret Pot Pushers Don’t Want You to Know About

Baby Foreskin Is Being Used To Make Vaccines

Warning: Some people may find the information in this article disturbing and the images graphic.

Every year, some infants are circumcised. During this surgical procedure, part of the child’s protective penile tissue is removed. This tissue removed from his penis may be sold to companies and institutions seeking the rich human fibroblast cells and other cells it contains. Most people are unaware that for decades, vaccine companies have been using these foreskin cells to research, grow and develop vaccines.

Certain microorganisms used by vaccine companies need living human cells to replicate. The cells within foreskin are being used for this purpose. Foreskin cells can be used to turn a wild-type microorganism found in nature into a genetically modified microorganism for use in vaccines.

Baby foreskins are used to research rubella, varicella and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. They are used to make cytomegalovirus vaccines, which is something pharmaceutical companies have been working on the last few decades. This vaccine is being created using foreskin cells and clinical trials have already begun. The child’s DNA whose foreskin was used to make the vaccine cannot be fully removed from the vaccines prior to administration. Researchers are also using foreskin to create a human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) immortalized cell line for use in vaccines.

Cells isolated from infant foreskin are preferred because the infant cells have a longer lifespan than those isolated from adult foreskin. The ongoing issue with companies using infant foreskin to develop vaccines and other products is vast; only a small fraction can be discussed here. It is important to research how vaccines are made prior to receiving them, if you want to avoid unwanted contaminants in your body.

Hospitals and Clinics Can Sell Foreskin Removed from Newborns

What we call foreskin is actually part of a whole skin system in both males and females. During the male circumcision procedure, twenty to fifty percent of the skin that protects the baby’s penis is surgically removed, with or without pain medicine. There are occasions where surgical accidents happen and more is removed.

If a hospital or clinic obtained consent to use the foreskin for purposes they felt were desired, the removed foreskin may then be sold at that point, even if the baby didn’t survive.


Surgically removing the foreskin kills at least one baby boy in the United States every two days. Before being circumcised, these infants are already trying to rid their body of the toxic chemicals injected from the synthetic vitamin K shot and hepatitis B vaccine given soon after birth. These circumcision deaths usually occur from an infection that arises, trauma experienced, blood loss, or their tiny lungs burst from intense crying. This is a conservative estimate since circumcision deaths are usually not reported in the United States or elsewhere. [1,2]

Each hospital or clinic determines what can happen to the excised piece of skin. It may be discarded as biological waste, sent home with the parents who want to save it, or it may become the property of the hospital or clinic to further use for what they deem necessary, if a consent form was signed agreeing to this.


more at


Baby Foreskin Is Being Used To Make Vaccines

Malawi: Medical Male genital mutilation no longer voluntary , luring boys with k2500

Circumcised men in Malawi have higher HIV rates than uncircumcised men



The controversial medical procedure, male circumcision which is believed to reduce risk of being infected with HIV has gone sour in Malawi , it is no longer voluntary as some health practitioners reportedly to lure young boys and men with k2500.


Despite male circumcision is meant to be done on voluntary basis, it was in the case in Pensulo village in Blantyre two week ago,  where young boys were reported to undergo the procedure after being convinced by what health officers promised to give them.

” Anali m’galito imazungulira kunoko, ifeyo timasewera nde anatinyengelera kuti atipetsa k2500, tikakwera kuti akatidulidwe ku Joshua,” said one of the boys in vernacular language.

Pensulo health centre widely known as Joshua for its donor’ name is where this exercise was taken place.

A woman  in the community said her young brother came to her for permission after being convinced with the amount.

” If it has such benefits they are claiming why they are giving such money, who is benefiting from the procedure then? I told my brother  dont go there,” she disclosed in an interview with faceofmalawi.

It seems the exercise is not convincing at its own as they are trying to paint it with new colours, giving the beneficiaries free-ride back home, now are receiving k2500.

It is not clear if this medical procedure really helps to reduce chances of being infected with HIV as circumcised males are also reported to enhance the dryness during sex which is arguable to promote the spread of the pandemic.


Medical Male circumcision no longer voluntary , luring boys with k2500

The Consequences of Heterosexual Anal Sex for Women

The Consequences of Heterosexual Anal Sex for Women




MI Science Staff: August 2016

Anal sex is currently a “hot topic” of discussion for it is increasingly prevalent among young men and women, and older adults.1 In 2007, a study based on the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), found that one-third of U.S. men and women had experienced heterosexual anal sex.2 In the study, starting from the age 15, the percentage of participants reporting heterosexual anal sex increased with age, was significantly higher among 20-24 year olds and peaked among 30 to 34 year olds. Another study conducted by the University of Indiana asked questions on heterosexual anal sex and found that the percentage having anal intercourse within the past year demonstrated a similar age breakdown as that of the NSFG.3

Adolescents are also practicing heterosexual anal sex; and again, the prevalence increases with age. Only 5% of females ages 16-17 reported receptive anal intercourse over the past year, while 18% of females aged 18-19 years reported the same activity.3 A smaller study sample from a 2007 study looking at “main” and “casual” sexual relations among urban minority adolescent females found that teen girls with “casual” partners and those with a “main” partner had a similar percentage experiencing anal intercourse (12% and 16% respectively). The frequency of heterosexual anal intercourse increased in teens with “main” partners.4

Are there health concerns regarding heterosexual anal intercourse? Of course – as with all types of sexual activity – there are both emotional and physical pitfalls. People need to be educated about the dangers of anal intercourse, so they can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in the activity. Heterosexual anal intercourse predominantly impacts the health of young females as compared to young males. These same risks can affect women of any age. Some examples follow:

A) A small Guttmacher Institute study (28 women) from 2009 reports that 25% of the women interviewed had been forced into having anal intercourse at least once. It goes on to say, “Coercion and violence notwithstanding, many participants reported pain and discomfort, including emotional distress, during anal intercourse.” 5 Furthermore, a qualitative study from the United Kingdom concludes, “Young people’s narratives normalized coercive, painful and unsafe anal heterosex. This study suggests an urgent need for harm reduction efforts targeting anal sex to help encourage discussion about mutuality and consent, reduce risky and painful techniques and challenge views that normalize coercion.” 1 It is the woman who is being coerced and feels the pain.

B) Anal intercourse can eventually lead to fecal incontinence. A February 2016 study concludes: “The findings support the assessment of anal intercourse as a factor contributing to fecal incontinence in adults, especially among men.” 6 In the case of heterosexual anal intercourse it is the woman who is at risk to develop fecal incontinence.

C) The American Cancer Society reports, “Receptive anal intercourse also increases the risk of anal cancer in both men and women, particularly in those younger than 30.” 7 HPV (human papillomavirus) is the main cause of anal cancer; but apparently, anal intercourse in particular increases the likelihood that the virus will attack the anus or rectum. Multiple sexual partners is also listed as a risk factor for anal cancer. Again, it is the woman experiencing heterosexual anal intercourse who is at risk.

D) The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just released (August 2016) a new fact sheet on “Anal Sex and HIV Risk”. The first statement on the page says, “Anal sex is the riskiest sexual behavior for getting and transmitting HIV for men and women.” It goes on to say that receptive anal sex is 13 times more risky than insertive anal sex for acquiring HIV infection.8 In heterosexual anal intercourse, it is the woman who is always experiencing the highest sexual risk for the transmission of HIV, receptive anal intercourse. Furthermore, receptive anal intercourse carries a risk 17 times greater than receptive vaginal intercourse. Moreover, receptive anal intercourse even carries a risk 2 times greater than that of needle-sharing during injection drug use.9

In August 2016 the CDC also reported that using condoms consistently reduced the risk of acquiring HIV on an average of 63% for insertive anal intercourse and 72% for receptive anal intercourse with an HIV-positive partner. Because “condoms are not 100% effective” the CDC advises that one “consider using other prevention methods to further reduce your risk.” That would require taking a medication, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which has to be taken consistently. Obviously, protecting oneself against acquiring HIV when practicing anal sex is complex. Therefore, heterosexual anal sex is obviously very high risk to the woman, 8 especially in locations where HIV prevalence is high. (At best, HIV remains a serious chronic disease requiring a lifetime of treatment and medical follow up; at worst it can result in mortality.)

E) The CDC reports that in addition to the same sexually transmitted infections that are passed through vaginal sex (gonorrhea, etc.), anal sex can also expose participants to hepatitis A, B and C; parasites like Giardia and intestinal amoebas; bacteria like Shigella, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli.8

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet on heterosexual anal intercourse. As a result the Medical Institute is concerned that the public in general, and adolescents and young adults in particular, are not receiving the whole truth about heterosexual anal sex. Therefore, MI would like to encourage sex educators, health providers, counselors, youth workers and parents to include specific information about anal sex in their communication with adolescents and young adults. (Receptive anal sex carries the same risks for both men and women). For women there appears to be a high degree of coercion and emotional distress associated with heterosexual anal intercourse; this aspect should be included in healthy and unhealthy relationship education.

In summary, the information provided shows receptive anal intercourse to be a very high-risk sexual activity for women as well as men: fecal incontinence, anal cancer, HIV infection, etc. Awareness of these substantial health risks can enable women of all ages to emphatically say no to anal intercourse.


1. Marston C and Lewis R, “Anal heterosex among young people and implications for health promotion: a qualitative study in the UK., BMJ Open, 2014

2. Leichliter JS, Chandra A, Liddon N, et al, “Prevalence and Correlates of Heterosexual Anal and Oral Sex in Adolescents and Adults in the United States,” Journal of Infec Dis (2007) 196 (12):1852-1859.

3. Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, et al, “Sexual Behavior in the United States: Results from a National Probability Sample of Men and Women Ages 14-94,” The Journal of Sexual Medicine October 2010, Vol. 7, Supple 5, pages 255-265.

4. Houston AM, Fang J, Husman C and Peralta L, “More than just vaginal intercourse. Anal intercourse and condom use patterns in the context of “main” and “casual” sexual relations among urban minority adolescent females,” Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 20, 299-304 (2007).

5. Maynard E, Carballo-Dieguez A, Ventuneac A, et al, “Women’s Experiences with Anal Sex: Motivations and Implications for STD Prevention,” Perspec Sex Reprod Health Volume 41, Issue 3, September 2009, Pages 142-149

6. Markland AD, Dunivan GC, Vaughan CP and Rogers RG, “Anal Intercourse and Fecal Incontinence: Evidence from the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,” The American Journal of Gastroenterology 111, 269-274 (February 2016)

7. American Cancer Society, “What are the Risk Factors for Anal Cancer?”

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Anal Sex and HIV Risk,”

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “HIV Risk Behaviors,”


Circumcised men at twice the risk for cancer-causing HPV, study shows

Circumcised men should be as vigilant in preventing oncogenic HPV infection as those who are uncircumcised, new research suggests.

Circumcised participants in a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association were twice as likely as their uncircumcised counterparts to have either of two HPV strains associated with penile cancer, researchers said. Their findings are not consistent with previous research.


“Classically, circumcision has been shown to be protective against HPV infection and … we’re not completely sure why, but there was a higher rate of these higher-risk HPV infections in men who are circumcised,” study researcher Mickey Daugherty, MD, a urology resident at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University, told Infectious Disease News.

Daugherty said the high proportion of men in the United States who are circumcised could account for the prevalence of HPV in that population. Nonetheless, he said, the results show that circumcision alone is not a preventive measure.

Daugherty and colleagues analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2013 and 2014 on 1,520 men aged 18 to 59 years who had complete information on HPV infection and circumcision status.

The men provided penile swabs, which were tested for 37 HPV strains. The researchers stratified two strains of low-risk HPV linked to genital warts, HPV 6 and 11. They also stratified two strains of high-risk HPV linked to penile cancer, HPV 16 and 18.

Reflecting previous NHANES data, 45.2% of participants had some strain of genital HPV. In all, 2.9% were infected with one of the two low-risk strains, while 5.8% had one of the high-risk strains.

Most participants (77.8%) were circumcised. The higher risk for high-risk HPV was evident (OR = 2; = .03), but there was no significant increase in risk for low-risk HPV in circumcised men (OR = 1.05; = 0.9).

Despite the risk for circumcised men, only 7.8% of all participants — and 13.4% of those aged 18 to 29 years — received HPV vaccinations.

“This again brings up the importance of talking about vaccination,” Daugherty said. “Some of the HPV strains don’t necessarily cause major disease … but at the same time, there are certain types of strains that you can prevent, and the big thing is people are unaware that the vaccine is available, and that this is something you can prevent.”

Although results have varied, earlier studies have generally shown that uncircumcised men are more likely to be infected with HPV than circumcised men. In a 2008 study published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers found that uncircumcised men were significantly more likely than those who were circumcised to be infected with a potentially cancer-causing HPV strain (adjusted OR = 2.51) and to be infected with several HPV strains (aOR = 3.56).

Previous NHANES data, meanwhile, have shown cause for alarm in all populations. Nearly half of 1,868 men had some kind of genital HPV strain. Another NHANES dataset showed that 25.1% of men and 20.4% of women in the U.S. have at least one high-risk genital HPV strain.

“Part of the issue is that HPV is much more prevalent than most people think or assume,” Daugherty said. “The concern is that most of them will not actually develop any sort of lesions from it, but at the same time, they could turn out to be infectious and infect others.” – by Joe Green


Daugherty M, et al. Abstract MP11-03. Presented at: The Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association: May 14-16, 2017; Boston, Mass.

Han JJ, et al. Jama Oncol. 2017;doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6192.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Hernandez BY, et al. J Infect Dis. 2008;doi:10.1086/528379.

Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.