Cannabis: Gateway Drug or the Future of Medicine, Part 2

Last week in Part I of Cannabis: Gateway Drug or the Future of Medicine we discussed the largely untold history of Cannabis in the US and the fact that its medicinal properties have been recognized for thousands of years. But while the US government declared war on Cannabis and poured resources into other medicinal sources with easier profit potential, Israel’s Dr. Michoulam was discovering the amazing potential of Cannabis to revolutionize the future of medicine.

In the mid 90’s Dr. Michoulam discovered what is now called the endocannabinoid system in our bodies. This system, present in all humans and in many animals as well, holds the key to why Cannabis has the potential to be quite literally a miracle drug. Rick Pfrommer writes in his article, The Beginner’s Guide to the Endocannabinoid SystemThe Reason Our Bodies Easily Process Cannabis, “This system consists of a series of receptors that are configured only to accept cannabinoids, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)…Dr. Mechoulam’s world-changing research discovered two main receptors, cannabinoid 1 (CB1) and cannabinoid 2 (CB2), that are keyed to both the endocannabinoids that our body naturally produces and phytocannabinoids (plant-based) like THC and CBD.”

Put in simple terms: Our bodies respond so well to Cannabinoids because our bodies already produce them naturally. We produce these endocannabinoids in the same way our bodies produce endorphins, and our bodies are equipped with special receptors made to recognize just them.

 

 

Of course the pharmaceutical industry is hard at work to make synthetic cannabinoids so that they can profit, but these synthetic cannabinoids (so far) have not been shown to work as efficiently as the natural ones.

So let’s cut to the chase. What can Cannabis do? Well, scientists have been able to isolate more than 60 cannabinoids in the Cannabis plant (there may well be upwards of 100 by some estimations) and they all have massive potential to heal or at least relieve the symptoms of a staggering spectrum of ailments.

 

Let’s take just THC for instance- it moderates pain. However, unlike many narcotics, the receptors that it binds to are not present in the part of the brain that regulate heart rate and respiration. This means that there is no lethal dosage threshold for THC! An individual could take as much as needed to control pain. Also, Cannabis and narcotics are what is called co-agonists. This means that when they are used in combination they each magnify the effect of the other, which would allow patients to get a greater effect from a lower dose of narcotic.

THC is also a highly effective anti-nausea and vomiting compound. In 1995, Dr. Michoulam performed a clinical trial with Professor Aya Avramov ( head of the dept. of pediatric oncology in Jerusalem). He had found that Cannabis lowers the horrific side effects of anti-cancer drugs. The trial was initially meant to be a double blind trial, meaning that some of the children would receive THC oil under their tongues for nausea and vomiting and some would only receive olive oil. Avramov would not know which oil each child received. However, Avramov called off the double blind trial after a week because the results were so dramatic that she knew exactly which children were receiving the THC and which were not. They changed the trial to an open study and treated all the children with THC. The results were a complete block of nausea and vomiting with such a small dosage that no psychoactive side effects of the THC (THC is the psychoactive compound of Cannabis) occurred. The study was published, but completely ignored by the medical community. Since this trial, Cannabis has also been found to be extremely effective in relieving pain related side effects of anti-cancer treatments and could replace 5 separate medications prescribed to cancer patients that are aimed at combating the side effects of the anti-cancer treatment.

Are you diabetic or know someone that is? Dr. David Allen, a retired cardiac surgeon who is now an endocannabinoid system researcher, has some shocking research results. In his studies, he has found that if an individual uses Cannabis for 20 years or more, they reduce their risk of diabetes by a whopping 66%. Dr. Allen then puts that in perspective by noting that currently, your doctor cannot prescribe anything that will even reduce the incidence of diabetes by 2%.

This article, Can Cannabis Treat Epileptic Seizures, for Scientific American notes that new scientific research provides evidence that CBD (a non-psychoactive compound of Cannabis) could be an effective treatment for the nearly 1/3 of patients who have a treatment resistant form of epilepsy. Testimonials like the one in the video below from a woman who was on 14 different prescriptions for her epileptic seizures yet still had an average of 12 seizures a day should not be ignored. She consumes butter with marijuana in it on toast daily and is now seizure free.

Prakash Nagarkatti, professor of pathology and microbiology at the University of South Carolina, and his team made a potentially world changing discovery when they found that a cannabinoid key could seek out cancerous cells in the immune system and literally instruct them to self destruct. Could Cannabis actually be a cancer cure? Who knows, but Professor Nagarkatti’s findings are amazing. His experimental drug was able to kill almost all cancer in test tubes. When tested on mice, 25-30% of mice rejected their cancerous tumors and were completely cured. The tumors in the remaining mice were decreased significantly. Nagarkatti has already begun clinical trials in leukemia patients.

This article, 5 Ways Cannabis Could Be Helping Alzheimer’s Patients, details very encouraging studies for this heartbreaking disease. THC has been found to slow the build up of plaques more effectively than any currently approved drugs. (Amyloid plaques are a characteristic pathological marker of Alzheimer’s.) Cannabis has also been found to be a powerful anti-inflammatory which would inhibit the formation of these plaques. Not only has CBD been found to prevent cell death which could delay the neurological degeneration that occurs in Alzheimer’s sufferers, but it also promotes cell growth- indicating a possible reversal of the neurological degeneration. Cannabis could also improve the overall quality of an Alzheimer’s patient’s life by treating some of the most notorious symptoms. Cannabis can stimulate appetite, control weight, improve motor function, and reduce agitation.

Cannabis may also be revolutionary for sufferers of autoimmune diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis, Celiac Disease, Fibromyalgia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Type 2 Diabetes according to this article, 5 Autoimmune Disorders That Have Met Their Match. CBD has been shown to not only support the immune system, but to enable the immune system to recognize the difference between “normal anatomy and a foreign body”. CBD is known to regulate inflammation and immune cell activity. 50% of lab mice at Hebrew University with Rheumatoid Arthritis experienced an increase in joint health in response to CBD. A Care By Design survey reported that 100% of the fibromyalgia sufferers polled had reduced pain with CBD use for 30 days. For type 2 diabetes sufferers, CBD has been shown to improve metabolism and support insulin activity.

This article, No Bones About It: How Cannabis May Combat Bone Disease, highlights some fascinating findings when it comes to the endocannabinoid system and bone health. 2015 research from Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University found that CBD helps to heal broken bones! Using the cannabinoid recepters, researchers were able to trigger bone formation as well as strengthen the bridge that connects broken bones. This led to research focusing on the effects of CBD on osteoperosis and osteoarthritis. They found that there is strong evidence to indicate the endocannabinoid system can be used to prevent age related bone disease.

I could literally go on and on and on. Medical Cannabis has promising research for the treatment of Hepatitis C, Tourette’s, Hypertention, Sleep Apnea, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Gastrointestinal Disorders, Incontinence… Honestly, the list of what it CAN’T do may be shorter. When you take into consideration the fact that the bulk of this excitingly promising research revolves around only two compounds (THC and CBD) of the Cannabis plant and there are at minimum 60 compounds total- the medicinal potential is literally mind boggling. Add to this the fact that very few researchers are actually working with Cannabis at all because of the bureaucratic red tape involved with getting access to Cannabis (and now that they own a patent- a license from the government) due to the fact that it’s still illegal in most states. If medical Cannabis were legalized, many more brilliant scientific minds would be able to study this phenomenal plant. For the millions of people who stand to benefit from Cannabis, ignoring its well evidenced potential is nothing short of criminal. When it comes to the future of Cannabis, I guess you could say: where there’s smoke there’s fire.

Sources not linked in the above article:

 

Cannabis: Gateway Drug or the Future of Medicine, Part 1

It’s a pretty polarizing topic these days. Many states are getting the opportunity to vote to legalize Cannabis or at least to allow it to be prescribed medically. The U.S. government and many in the medical field claim that it has no medical benefit that would justify its alleged potential for abuse. At the same time, stories of how people plagued with epilepsy, chronic pain, horrible nausea from cancer treatment, etc who are calling treatment with cannabis life saving are hard to ignore indeed. Cannabis researchers are announcing incredibly exciting treatment possibilities for a number of debilitating diseases. There have even been some promising trials using Cannabis to kill cancerous tumors. Amid all the clamor, well respected evangelists such as Franklin Graham have joined in on the side of the government, urging Christians to “vote against these laws that are harmful to youth, our nation, and to our future.”

But, has cannabis always had such a bad reputation, or are we just too young to remember its history? If the government truly believes that cannabis has no medical benefit, then why do they hold a patent on particular compounds included in the cannabis plant? Patent number 6,630,507. After all, the government patent states that, “…cannabinoids (some compounds in the Cannabis plant) are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and HIV dementia.” The patent was awarded to the US government in 2003 based on research by the National Institute of Health.

First let’s take a look at the largely forgotten (or in the case of the younger generations- never learned) history of medical Cannabis. You may be surprised to hear that Cannabis, in fact, has a medical history that spans at least a few thousand years. To see a historical timeline of Cannabis used for medicinal purposes all over the world for at least the last few thousand years you can check out this Historical Timeline from ProCon.org. Cannabis has been utilized in the Middle East medicinally for thousands of years. It’s numerous medical uses are well documented in ancient cultures- the Arabs, Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and Indians to name a few.

In the 1850’s, the medical benefits of Cannabis were widely known in the US. Doctors routinely prescribed it for neuralgia, typhus, opiate addiction, gout, convulsive disorders, among many other afflictions. Don’t you find it ironic, that historically, marijuana was used to treat opiate addiction? Fast forward to our current advanced medical age and we consider it to be a “gateway drug” while liberally prescribing synthetic opiates for pain relief.

Back in those days, there were no pharmaceutical standards to speak of when it comes to the “quality control” of medication. Doctors of ill repute (often called “snake doctors”) were known to prescribe medications that contained mostly alcohol and very little medicine. So, in 1906 Roosevelt created the FDA which required medications to be accurately labeled (yes, at one time the FDA was actually good and functioned with the benefit of the consumer in mind- I know, hard to imagine now.)

In 1913, the US government announced that it had “succeeded in growing domestic cannabis of equal quality to the Indian… “By 1918, some 60,000 pounds were being produced annually, all from pharmaceutical farms east of the Mississippi.” In the 1930’s there were actually two American pharmaceutical companies, Parke-Davis and Eli Lily, that sold marijuana extracts for use as “antispasmodics and sedatives”.

However, as this article, Medical Cannabis: The REAL reason the Government Wants to Keep it Banned for Health Impact News notes, the medications that pharmaceutical companies produce often have a “life cycle”. They produce a particular medication until the patent expires. “…then they will introduce a replacement medication, usually at a higher cost, which may or may not actually perform better than the medicine that was replaced.”

Indeed, by the mid 1930’s , almost all US states had enacted laws to regulate Cannabis and its use for medicinal purposes had declined due to the introduction of aspirin, morphine, and opium-derived drugs. In a medical hearing before Congress regarding a proposed Marijuana tax act in the late 30’s, Dr. William C. Woodward, (the legislative council for the American Medical Association) stated, “There is nothing in the medicinal use of Cannabis that has any relation to Cannabis addiction…To say, however, as has been proposed here, that the use of the drug should be prevented by a prohibitive tax, loses sight of the fact that future investigation may show that there are substantial medical uses for Cannabis.” Congress wasn’t impressed; the tax act was passed and it made possession of Cannabis criminal unless prescribed by a doctor.

So, contrary to what you may believe, medical Cannabis was legal in the US until Nixon’s war on drugs in 1970. Nixon’s IRS used the US tax code to penalize legal medical marijuana dispensaries. They were not allowed to deduct business expenses from their taxes, write off the cost of rent, payroll, or advertising, etc. The IRS effectively taxed legal dispensaries out of business. Nixon’s war on drugs focused heavily on Cannabis, associating it with recreational use and abuse only, and ignoring its long history of healing properties. When the federal drug classification system was established Cannabis was placed in schedule I, indicating that it has no medical value and is a danger to public health.

To put this in perspective, schedule II drugs are described as having high potential for abuse, yet are allowed to be prescribed medically. Examples of schedule II narcotics include hydromorphone (Dilaudid), methadone (Dolophine), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin, Percocet) and fentanyl (Sublimaze), morphine,opium, and codeine. You may recognize some of these if you have been prescribed pain medication following a surgical procedure or have required some type of short term pain management. You may also recognize these names from the nightly news where we are inundated with reports of prescription narcotic abuse and overdose deaths. Cannabis is listed as so much more dangerous than these drugs that its use outweighs any potential benefit. Is this true? Is Cannabis truly THAT addictive?

Not according to research or frankly according to any logical awareness of the world around you. Dr. Sanjay Gupta cites “…approximately 9% of people who use recreational cannabis will develop some level of addiction.” Alcohol has an 11% addiction rate comparatively. Cannabis has a lower rate of addiction than alcohol. Can you imagine the public outcry if the government tried to make alcohol illegal? Don’t start confusing substance abuse here, for the topic at hand. Those are two completely different animals.

Speaking of substance abuse, is Cannabis addiction as dangerous or even deadly as say, hydrocodone (which is synthetic heroine, by the way)? Think back. When is the last time you heard of someone dying from a marijuana overdose? Can’t think of any? That’s because there are literally no reported Cannabis overdose deaths. As in zero. None. Can you say the same for any of the narcotics listed as schedule II? Hardly. On the contrary, prescription narcotic abuse and overdose deaths are not A drug problem, they are THE drug problem.

So the logic the the government has going here is that Cannabis is too dangerous to be prescribed despite the mounting evidence of its amazing medicinal value- because, although it isn’t actually very addictive or particularly deadly- it leads to the abuse of other highly addictive and potential deadly drugs which incidentally are not deemed too dangerous to be prescribed. Hmmm.

What is the logic of anti- medical Cannabis Christians? Is using medical marijuana a sin? Not according to anything ever written in the Bible. Unless of course you are coming from the angle of being obedient to the laws of your government, those claiming medical Cannabis is a sin don’t have a Biblical leg to stand on. When it comes to your Christian vote not to legalize medical Cannabis on the grounds of “public safety” or “my body is a temple” or because an evangelical like Franklin Graham is anti medical Cannabis, I’m afraid the hypocrisy is too thick for me to navigate.

The same Christian who would be horrified to be prescribed Cannabis or a Cannabis derivative would demand their Percocet or Dilaudid to relieve pain after surgery. Even though, ironically, from a “body is a temple” stand point- medical Cannabis does not have anywhere near the toxicity or the harmful side effects of any legally prescribed synthetic pain killer.

The Bible cautions against excess or abuse. It does not designate specific substances as “sinful”. If you have no moral issue with taking a narcotic post surgery, you should have no moral issue with someone using Cannabis for medical purposes.

The same Christian who would condemn a medical marijuana user because of the government given stigma, will regularly engage in gluttony or survive off of a processed and fast food diet without batting an eyelash. For the record, I have a lot of respect for Franklin Graham- but he has no medical expertise that I’m aware of. Has he personally researched or discussed the benefits of medical Cannabis with anyone qualified to advise him? I’ve never seen him claim that he has. Therefore, his opinion of the medical value of Cannabis doesn’t even register on my radar. In fact, I find it to be quite a hypocritical stance since I do not find him campaigning to make highly addictive prescription narcotics illegal due to their devastating effects on our youth.

I mentioned previously that our government currently holds a patent to certain compounds of the Cannabis plant for specific medical uses. A cursory knowledge of patent law lends a transparency to the motives of our government and shockingly- it isn’t public safety. According to Douglas Sorocco, a biochemist and intellectual property lawyer in Oklahoma, “If a composition exists in nature, it is not patentable according to the Supreme Court unless it has somehow been changed or manipulated by the hand of man.” If the government can’t hold a patent- they can’t make money from it. The National Institutes of Health (a government entity), also known as NIH, then advertises patents (such as those related to cannabinoids) as available for licensing. The NIH then grants licenses to certain companies to develop these synthetic cannabinoids. Mark Rohrbaugh, special advisor for technology transfer at the NIH describes it this way, “It’s like a piece of land. You wouldn’t build a million-dollar house on a piece of land you wouldn’t have some title to.”

And- there you have it. Exactly what is going on now with respect to Cannabis research in the US. A prime example is Kannalife, who according to their website hold the “first two licenses awarded to develop and commercialize drug treatments under the US government’s only cannabinoid patent.” Check out their glowing description of their synthesized Cannabinoids to treat two neurological diseases caused by none other than damage to the liver from alcohol and prescription pill abuse.

Back to history…While the US black balled medical Cannabis in favor of more lucrative synthetic pharmaceutical options, an Israeli doctor- Dr. Raphael Michoulam- was making groundbreaking medical discoveries with it in his home country of Israel. In Part 2 of this article, we’ll talk about Dr. Michoulam’s amazing discoveries and their implications for those who suffer from conditions that our medical community can currently offer no hope.

Dear Pro-Choice Christian or Political Moderate, Please Stop Killing in the Name of Kindness

I could try to sit here and think of ways to word this less offensively, but instead I’m just going to tell it like it is. There is nothing that gets me more riled up than to a hear a person, Christian or not, who I KNOW is a genuinely caring and loving individual tell me they are pro-choice- not because they support abortion on demand, but rather because they want to protect the right of individuals who are victims of rape or incest, or those whose lives may be endangered by the child they are carrying, or those whose unborn child may or may not have a genetic abnormality, to have an abortion.

Before we go any further let’s get some data to roughly ascertain the numbers of those women who get abortions based on those criteria we listed above. There are only two sources that provide nationwide abortion statistics- the Guttmacher Institute privately and the CDC publicly. The CDC can no longer get accurate numbers because a few states have not been publicly releasing their abortion totals and the Guttmacher Institute is obviously associated with Planned Parenthood, but even using figures that are most likely problematic, we can get a working estimate. The numbers, if anything would be skewed in favor of the Pro-Choice movement. According to state data, 906,000 abortions took place in 2015. In 2013, in New York City, approximately 37.4% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) were aborted. (CDC) A 2004 Guttmacher anonymous survey asking women to provide the reason for their abortions yielded these results:

    • less than .5% were victim’s of rape
    • 3% cited fetal health problems
    • 4% cited physical health problems
    • 4% said it would interfere with their education or career
    • 7% said they were not mature enough to raise a child
    • 8% didn’t want to be a single mother
    • 19% were just done having children
    • 23% said they couldn’t afford a baby
    • 25% said they were not ready for a child
    • 6% checks that good old “other” box

First, I’d just like to point out that a whopping 92% of these “issues” would have been resolved by giving the child a chance and blessing a family who wishes to adopt. If only the mother was willing to “inconvenience” herself by enduring the pregnancy instead of sentencing the child to death. So, we are left with less than 8% who you may argue “need” champions. If we apply these percentages to the overall number of abortions ( I know we can’t “technically” do that because the numbers are from different years, but its close enough to get a good mental picture of what we’re talking about here) you will find that to be the champion of 72,480 women, you have been a party to the murder of 833,520 innocent lives. How’s that for perspective?

It doesn’t upset me that they believe those women need champions and that they want to stand for them. It upsets me that they have bought into the lie that in order to protect that miniscule part of the population, they MUST join with the progressive movement which lobbies for a woman’s “right” to abortion on demand for any reason- that reason usually being rooted in convenience and selfishness. Talk about a deal with the devil. The abortion on demand type of “progressives” are distasteful enough, but of even more cause for alarm are the “people behind the curtain” who take advantage of these “useful idiots” (because that’s how THEY see you, not how I see you- I told you I’m not pulling any punches) to further their horrific agendas of the age old practice of eugenics or the intellectual penchant for population control.

By now, if you identify with this group I am describing, you’re probably seething. To that I say I’m sorry- but sometimes being a real friend means you have to be willing to tell the truth even when you may anger some people in the process. I intend today to be that friend. I care enough about you, about the millions of babies who have been murdered for convenience, and about the under- privileged populations both in the US and abroad that are suffering due to the politically correct “re-branding” of evil agendas into the more palatable terms “pro-choice”, “human rights”, and “humanitarianism”, to tell you the TRUTH. Let me explain from the beginning, because that’s always the best place to start.

The movement to legalize abortion has its roots in the scarcely mentioned eugenics movement of the early 20th century which in turn has inspired the present day population control agenda. (If you think population control isn’t an actual “thing”, you might want to start paying attention to what Bill Gates credits for driving his humanitarian efforts- spoiler alert- it’s population control)What is eugenics? The eugenic“science” was introduced by Francis Galton (a cousin of none other than Charles Darwin) who was drawing from the ideas of “breeding” humans put forth by none other than Plato himself in his book, Republic. Edwin Black writing for the History News Network defines it as, “…the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed “unfit” preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype.” The Nordic stereotype being tall, blonde, blue-eyed- (sound familiar yet?) Black continues, “Elements of the philosophy were enshrined in national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions enacted in 27 states…Ultimately eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in “colonies”, and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning.” While early eugenics did have quite an extreme racist component, the broader definition of “unfit” also included individuals who were a “drain” on society- criminals, the poor, addicts, individuals with “unsavory” characteristics such as “loose” women or other traits considered immoral.

Who was “on board” with this eugenics philosophy? Early financiers of the movement were the Carnegie Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman family. Some of America’s most prestigious scientists from Stamford, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale espoused the philosophy. Socialists like George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb advocated it. The US Supreme Court endorsed it. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his 1927 decision wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for a crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Most surprising for some however, is none other than Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger- who is elevated to nothing less than sainthood by the proponents of the pro-choice movement. Though Sanger herself denounced abortion (odd considering how her life’s work is presented to our society today), she devoted her life to ushering in a “superior” race through her fight to legalize birth control.

Legalizing birth control seems a laudable effort until you read Sanger’s own words regarding her vision for society and who she wanted to “eradicate”. Don’t take my word for it; I’ll let Margaret speak for herself:

“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly…Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.”

“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

“Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.”

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying…demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism…[Philathropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of the unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.”

Let me just state it plainly for those who may not be “picking up” what Sanger is “putting down” here: If you identify as a member of society who endeavors to help those less fortunate than yourself through social programs or charity, Margaret thinks you are a sentimental fool and compares you to a deadly societal disease. Feeling the love yet? Most of these quotes come from her books The Pivot of Civilization and A Plan for Peace. You can check out these books if you’d like to read up on more of Margaret’s “pearls of wisdom”. In 1921 Sanger founded The American Birth Control League. Sanger actually tried to merge her organization with the American Eugenics Association twice, unsuccessfully. In 1946, the Birth Control League became The Planned Parenthood Federation of America. According to Mark Crutcher’s Maafa 21 documentary, “Planned Parenthood was an integral part of the sterilization boards that operated in more than 30 states.”

One fellow who was taking notice of this new American philosophy was none other than Hitler himself. Americans were more than happy to oblige. Edwin Black reports, “More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money- to hundreds of German researchers.

Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf, “There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States.”

I’m guessing this lady isn’t aware that the founders of her ideology were the inspiration for actual Nazis.

As much as Margaret admired the eugenics ideology and wanted to make her own contribution in the form of her legalization of birth control, many of the popular socialist eugenicists of her time couldn’t initially see Margaret’s efforts as valuable. Leonard points out in his book, “Many eugenicists feared unregulated birth control was dysgenic in its effects, because, as a progressive socialist Charles Horton Cooley warned, the ‘intelligent classes’ used it, and the inferior classes did not.” However, Margaret must have persuaded him, because Cooley notes later, “If the state delivered birth control to the inferior classes, then contraception could indeed work eugenically.” And tadaa! Just like that eugenics put on a “humanitarian” mask that the progressive movement now fights for under the re-branded cause of “human rights” to government funded birth control and now abortion. Are you feeling manipulated yet?

No? Just wait…

The problem that eugenicists faced at this point in history was the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public still viewed abortion as a practice that should only be used in the most dire of circumstances. For instance if the life of the mother was in danger. Many people believed at that time also that victims of rape or incest for example should be given the option to end the pregnancy. (We were so sweet and innocent back then.) So, in order for abortion to become an effective means of eradicating “undesirable” individuals and reducing the population of “societal drains”, they faced the monumental task of changing the societal view of the value of life, eroding maternal instinct, instilling a false “right” to idolize oneself by murdering the child you have created if said child’s existence will be “inconvenient” for you, as well as the false “right” to a promiscuous lifestyle in which you are able to “erase” the “unfortunate consequences” of said promiscuity.

Mary Meehan explains the disagreements that existed in the eugenics community regarding whether to take a more radical approach to repealing the anti-abortion laws vs more of an evolution, so to speak. “In 1963 Prof. Hardin, an environmentalist who was also an ardent population controller and a member of the American Eugenics Society, made a radical argument for repealing anti-abortion laws. In an approach that would be copied by many others, he put his population and eugenics concerns in the background and based his argument mainly on the welfare and rights of women.” (Time out! Please tell me you are drawing the obvious parallels to our current day!) Meehan continues, “Dr. Alan Guttmacher, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote Hardin that anti-abortion laws could be changed ‘inch by inch and foot by foot, but not a mile at a time.’ Later Guttmacher told another correspondent that ‘I am in favor of abortion on demand, but feel from the practical point of view that such a social revolution should evolve by stages.’”

At this stage, the “people behind the curtain” were acutely aware that they needed a cover of legitimacy with which to veil their efforts. One of many organizations that lent this legitimacy was the ACLU. Mary Meehan writes a section specifically regarding the ACLU in her book Prolife Feminism:Yesterday and Today. The ACLU handled Roe v Wade’s companion case, Doe v Bolton, in which basically resulted abortion on demand. Of course, the ACLU represented the legalization of abortion behind for “humanitarian” reasons. But were they aware of the agendas behind the push for legalized abortion. Mary Meehan writes, “Aryah Neier, ACLU executive director from 1970-78 later referred to some African Americans’ feeling that there were some whites who were eager to eliminate or limit the number of welfare mother babies out of anti-black feeling and that’s why they were supporting abortion.” Neier also added, “There was a foundation in Pittsburg that was willing to provide support for litigation efforts on behalf of abortion because of that feeling.” When Neir was asked if he was bothered by accepting that kind of money he responded, “I don’t regard it as dirty money…If you tried to go back and find out where people made their money and what all their beliefs are…you’d go crazy.” Apparently, Neier had no problem being a “useful idiot”.

Just in case you need someone to be candid about what the “people behind the curtain” think about citizens (their “useful idiots”)who are pushing their doctored up eugenics and population control agenda, Meehan clears that up with a quote from C. Lalor Burdick, a foundation executive and eugenicist. “ [Burdick] had also complained that Americans ‘seem to be deifying our scruffy and unfit by putting them in temples (welfare housing)’ and ‘recreating some ancient fertility cult where we provide breeding pads and free sustenance for the proliferation of a kind of people that hate us and would destroy us, if they could.’…Lalor also remarked, ‘ The “maternal impulse” is partly bunk. De-bunking of this might get some females off their fat duffs and into useful endeavor.’” If you’re currently “off your fat duff” (as Burdick so colorfully expressed it) furthering this abortion on demand cause- please feel free to be offended. As an interesting side note, Lalor Foundation is still up and running today. This is the mission statement front and center on their website: “The Anna Lalor Burdick Program focuses on young women who have inadequate access to information regarding reproductive health, including the subjects of contraception and pregnancy termination, and as such may be particularly lacking options in their lives.”

So, to sum up- again- these people are NOT humanitarian- they have an undeniable ulterior motive which is veiled behind the faux legitimacy of “helping our fellow man.” Sadly enough they have successfully “debunked” the existence of a “maternal impulse” in a wide swathe of our population, which is now represented by the self idolizing abortion on demand crowd. So, next time you feel like toting around a pro-choice sign in an organized march, please be acutely aware of the opinion the march financiers hold of you. While you’re at it, if you are in said march, yet you don’t believe in abortion on demand- you might consider disassociating yourself with these people and putting together your own cause to march in instead of borrowing one that doesn’t fit.

If you would like a smack you in the face insight into whose cause you are aligning yourself with, please take the time to visit this blog and be horrified as she admits the eugenic roots of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger (and claims they no longer describe her movement) and then goes on to detail how she fancies herself a “civic-minded Lesbian selflessly investing her time and energy helping poor straight women escape the unfortunate consequences of their sex lives.” I suppose the “unfortunate consequences” would be those pesky babies they need to murder so as not to be inconvenienced. She goes on to describe a circumstance in which no one should be expected to follow through with a pregnancy. “There were queer couples who planned to have children together, inseminated, and then broke up, leaving one partner to choose between abortion and single parenthood.” Upon reading this quote all I could think of was this picture in a  recent pregnancy annoucement that embodies the struggle of those that desperately want children:

If this woman’s ideology is not the definition of depravity and the fruition of the break down in maternal instinct and self responsibility the eugenicists sought to usher in, I don’t know what is. We are not talking about a calling off a pet adoption people! This is a human life that you have created and are responsible for! Pro-choicer, is THIS who you want to align yourself with?!?

Some of you may be thinking something along the lines of, “This doesn’t even apply to the progressive ideology anymore”, or “This is ancient history, these ulterior motives no longer exist.” For you, I submit this letter written to Bill Clinton from James R. Weddington (one of the co-counsels for Roe v. Wade) just prior to Clinton’s first term as president. (If you would like to hear the heart wrenching testimony of Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, who was manipulated into playing a false role in order to stir up public sympathies based on false information in order to legalize abortion, please watch the video at the end of this article.) Here’s the letter Weddington wrote advocating the elimination of the socially dependent class through birth control and abortion:

“But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I’m not advocating some, sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies. There. I’ve said it…Condoms alone won’t do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer…No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions…RUA 486 (he’s referring to the morning after pill) and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies. There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery…and then add 30 million unwanted babies into the scenario.”

We have no idea if Bill Clinton ever responded, but do we need to? His actions are clear enough. In 1996, Clinton vetoed a bill to ban partial birth abortions. Hillary ran a significant part of her campaign last year on the woman’s “right to choose” and a woman’s “right” to be funded by the government in her “health care” choices.

Would you like, perhaps, some more direct governmental proof? In 1990, the Kissinger Report, which was a top secret document compiled by the US Security Council with the subject of “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests”, was declassified and moved to the U.S. National Archives. It is a document that details the US policy on population control. (I guess that pretty much proves we do indeed have a population control policy, so that notion can’t be relegated to conspiracy theory.) Here are some of the elements of the implementation of the population control efforts stated in the report:

    • the legalization of abortion
    • financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion and sterilization and contraception-use rates
    • indoctrination of children
    • mandatory population control and coercion of other forms, such as holding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

The report also details that the US should disguise its population control activities in foreign countries so as to avoid charges of “imperialism” by using the UN and non governmental organizations. Not suprisingly, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation is specifically named, along with the Pathfinder Fund, and others. You might also be surprised to learn that the US, for many years, has funded the United Nations Population Control Fund, which has donated over $100 million to China’s population control program and even recognized China with an award for their outstanding population control program, which many of us know have been the catalyst for innumerable human rights violations.

But hey! That was the 70’s right? We already know that Planned Parenthood functions primarily as an abortion on demand provider and as a financier of the abortion on demand movement. Let’s take a look at the top funders of Planned Parenthood and compare them to the original eugenics supporters. Also notice the language (re-branding) used in describing these “humanitarian” causes.

The largest donor is the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (named for Warren Buffet’s late wife) to the tune of $230,915,706. However, Buffet makes no bones about the fact that he doesn’t want his donations publicized and the media apparently respect his wishes for the most part. Planned Parenthood received the biggest check from Buffet, but according to the Media Research Center, Buffet also gives hefty donations to Marie Stopes International ($211 million), National Abortion Federation ($85 million), DKT International ($78 million- DKT also has ties to funding India’s human rights atrocity referred to as a “family planning program”), Engender Health ($32 million), Guttmacher Institute ($29 million), and NARAL ($24 million).

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation comes in next at $22,827,000. According to Aly Nielson’s article, “The foundations Planned Parenthood support is part of Hewlett’s larger Global Development and Population Program, which claims to ‘expand women’s choices’ about whether to have children.”

Next, we have George Soros’ Open Society Institute with $18,350,000. According to Nielson, this grant was “specifically to build centers in the ‘south and southeast’ regions of the U.S.” I’d hate to sell George short, so I’ll go ahead and make mention here that Soros has indeed been confirmed to have had funding ties to more than 50 partners of the Women’s March on Washington. He also has his hands in MoveOn.org and the National Action Network which are very politically left organizations that encourage activism for liberal causes. You see, Soros has a very lucrative side hobby of manipulating currency, which unfortunately results in destroying the economies of the countries whose currency he manipulates. He bets on the devaluation of a currency in the market, then actively promotes causes that destroy the economies of these countries- very successfully I might add. Currently he is heavily vested in gold and calling for the devaluation of the US dollar, which explains his efforts to align with our nation destroying causes. So, if you find yourself agreeing with Soros’ pet projects, you may need to reevaluate your stances. Just a thought…

Also of note is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation coming in at $14,521,748. The Gates’ are also involved in sponsoring each International Conference on Family Planning.

While we’re on the topic of Bill and Melinda Gates, it bears mentioning that a while back, the Gates, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg all met in New York to discuss how they might “harness their interests” into a common cause. I didn’t link a source because this meeting was widely reported and you can google it and take your pick. The conservative sources describe this meeting as an apocalyptic omen, while the liberal sources bill it more as a “humanitarian meeting of the minds”. According to reports, these “great humanitarians” decided that population control is our number one issue, taking their cue from Bill Gates who is reported to have “outlined an ambitious plan to cap global population at 8.3 billion.” Hmm.

How does Gates propose to do this you might wonder? Through his “humanitarian” efforts of course. James Tillman reports Gates’ comments while speaking at a conference regarding how humans can reduce our CO2 emissions, “ Because the quantity of CO2 emitted is related to the human population, Gates briefly mentioned means to reduce the projected world population, including ‘reproductive health services’- abortion and contraception- as well as vaccines.”

We’ve already belabored the “reproductive health scam” point, so let me touch on Gates’ vaccination pet project. Gates likes to spend huge sums of money providing vaccinations in poverty stricken countries in an effort to improve the health and mortality rates in these countries. Gates has explained the logical relationship between vaccinations, healthier populations, and population control in this way:

As Gates sees it, the main reason parents in these impoverished countries have multiple children, is because they know only one or two may actually make it to adulthood. So, by improving the health and mortality of these populations, these parents can begin to decrease the number of children they have, thereby reducing the overall population. Makes sense, right?

So how have the U.S.’ and Gates’ humanitarian vaccination efforts panned out? Quite scandalously. Tillman reports, “Previous vaccination programs have been shown to have been covertly used to sterilize women. In 1995, the Supreme Court of the Philipines found that vaccines used in a UNICEF anti-tetanus vaccination program contained B-hCG, which when given in a vaccine , permanently destroys a woman’s ability to sustain a pregnancy. Approximately 3 million women had already been given the vaccine.” Was this an isolated occurrence? Hardly. B-hCG “contaminated” vaccines were found in at least four other developing countries. Crazy coincidence?

In 2004, a UNICEF campaign to administer polio vaccines to Nigerian children came under fire for being a sterilization front. A pharmaceutical scientist from the University of Zaria took samples of the vaccines back to India for analysis and found the vaccines were severely “contaminated”. “Some of the things we discovered in the vaccines are harmful, toxic; some have direct effects on the human reproductive system,” says Dr. Haruna Kaita. He continues, “I and some of the other professional colleagues who are Indians who were in the Lab could not believe the discovery.” Tillman reports that, “A Nigerian government doctor tried to persuade Dr. Kaita that the contaminants would have no bearing on human reproduction.” Dr. Kaita elaborates, “I was surprised when one of the federal government doctors was telling me something contrary to what I have learned, studied, taught and is the common knowledge of all pharmaceutical scientists- that estrogen cannot induce an anti-fertility response in humans. I found that argument very disturbing and ridiculous.”

This doesn’t even count the large number of children that have incurred vaccine injury due to the polio vaccinations that Gates and the US are NOT helping. Just collateral damage I suppose.

I seem to remember reading something about these tactics in the Kissinger Report. Another horrific and current example of the US funding “family planning” in foreign countries are the atrocities being committed in India’s sterilization program. India’s program has been described as an unimaginable “assembly line” type scenario in which sterilizations are performed in “grotesquely unsanitary conditions”. These women are paid the equivalent of about $10 USD to be sterilized; some say they are sterilized without giving consent. One health official reports that “…83 women underwent surgical sterilization at the hands of one doctor in just a few hours.” Many women have died and even more have been seriously injured. Unfortunately, our very own tax dollars have gone to support this horror, as India receives “family planning aid” from USAID. Bill and Melinda Gates also privately donate to India’s “family planning” programs.

Now, with ALL of this information presented- I honestly ask: How can ANY individual who does not advocate abortion on demand, support in any way, shape, or form, the current progressive Pro-Choice movement? How? On what grounds do you justify your support? How do you rationalize these facts away? If you desire to be the champion for what is a miniscule portion of the population (regardless of what the pro-choice movement will try to sell you) who YOU feel deserve the right to end a pregnancy and you do so by supporting the progressive Pro-Choice movement, then I say to you: You are championing the few by standing on the shoulders of the millions of babies who have died and will die as a result of legalized abortion on demand. Abortion on demand is rooted in the age old effort to “breed a superior race” as well as the more modern effort to curb the population by ridding the world of “societal drains”, and supported by a depraved faction of our population who demand the “right” to murder the “unfortunate consequences” of their irresponsible sexual lifestyles. You stand on the shoulders of the millions of women who have been sterilized against their will, who have died or have suffered incomprehensible misery and injury due to coerced sterilization efforts supported by our tax dollars and encouraged by our government in our own country and abroad. You may continue your support if you wish, but if you have read this evidence, you can no longer claim innocent ignorance. OR, you may break away from a progressive movement than never represented you anyway, and form your own movement. A movement not yet named that would stand for the rights of the few and not be stained by the blood of the innocent. Stop killing in the name of kindness.

7 powerful quotes from ‘Jane Roe’ of Roe v. Wade

Sources:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/evangelical-history/2017/01/27/the-historic-connection-between-eugenics-and-abortion/

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/star-tribune_eugenics.html

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/evangelical-history/2017/01/27/the-historic-connection-between-eugenics-and-abortion/

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mark-crutcher/eugenics-real-reason-legalized-abortion

http://www.meehanreports.com/how-led.html

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/moderneugenics.html

Letter to Bill Clinton link:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/weddington.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=_ACd-_bMgmEC&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=aclu+ties+to+eugenics&source=bl&ots=38_AfLd5Km&sig=KRXK7LBnatNNJ3f-mEfR3EtsfCE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz-sG-15fSAhUl6YMKHeQtBG8Q6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q=aclu%20ties%20to%20eugenics&f=false

http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics

http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/01/23/political-agitator-globalist-george-soros-linked-to-over-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alatheia-larsen/2015/07/31/planned-parenthoods-biggest-donors-gave-374-million-four-years

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gates-foundation-explains-bill-gates-re-vaccines-reducing-population

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/unicef-nigerian-polio-vaccine-contaminated-with-sterilizing-agents-scientis

Link to Kissinger Report:

http://www.hli.org/resources/exposing-the-global-population-control/?gclid=CjwKEAiA_p_FBRCRi_mW5Myl4S0SJAAkezZrYXVpgkvEOpSmWG4bM9GgAoxf1V7UrgqwQJk3SUDVqhoC_PDw_wcB

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/13/united-states-is-funding-sterilization-camps-targeting-women-in-india/

https://www.mrc.org/articles/warren-buffett-billion-dollar-king-abortion