User talk:Alphaquad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone kindly alerted me about a series of edits by yourself to seizure-related articles. You appear to be promoting the view that cannabis is a useful drug. Regulators and the medical profession seem to take a different stance. Unless you can demonstrate unequivocally that the professional societies approve the use of cannabis for seizures, or you can demonstrate that a very large subgroup of epilepsy patients uses cannabis specifically to prevent seizures, I'd very much like you to keep this material out of Wikipedia. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:ATT, our most important content guidelines.

On a seperate note, I have reverted your rather odd addition to prochlorperazine. This is a plain case of guilt by association, and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The same goes for all your inclusions to various articles of the 1994 USA Today article. As it happens, that article is horrendously one-sided and does no justice at all to the attempts to create effective and safe antipsychotics. In fact, without antipsychotics there would still be 100,000's of people locked up inside lunatics' asylums. But I suspect you'll disagree with me on that count. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"You appear to be promoting the view that cannabis is a useful drug." You appear to be ignorant of that fact that the results promote cannabis as a useful drug. Your wording appears to be an attempt to discredit me as someone who justifies an otherwise illogical and moronic witch hunt called the drug war.

"...guilt by association...". If the shoe fits...

Yes indeed I disagree. The very drugs used as treatment cause more of the same symptoms only worse except while in the sedated and zombified state. Long term use destroys the nervous system completely. Proper antipsychotics have already been developed in nature and by Albert Hofmann and Alexander Shulgin but have been removed and ignored, setting an understanding of real medicine back 70 years (nature: 1937 Hemp Tax Transfer Law) for the profiteering insanity of the greed and ignorance driven drug war. Albert Hofmann is/was alive and well at more 100 years of age in 2006 and knows the truth of LSD as medicine.

"I think that in human evolution it has never been as necessary to have this substance LSD," said Hofmann. "It is just a tool to turn us into what we are supposed to be."

Dear Dr. Hofmann, the brainwashed world of ignorance and greed will never know the truth. Alphaquad 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reply 2 Proof by Death Tolls 3 Change For A Change 4 Response 5 The Fraud 6 Credits 7 Wait A Minute 8 Spiritual Poverty

[edit] Reply

I assume you have the final say in this matter therefore I withdraw completely from adding correct information to Wikipedia because your actions constitute

• Conspiracy to withhold referenced information from the public
• An illogical bias towards a medical profession of proven malice for profit
• A malicious action against sick people that carries liability for that action
• Ignoring the evidence as a brainwashed and thoroughly propagandized individual of limited intelligence - fitting in perfectly with all those who will be - ah what's the point of explaining to one so clearly incapable of knowing, all true prophecy is fulfilled.

Facts are facts and ARE suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If that were your grandmother drooling and shaking after being pharmaceutically assassinated, would you be apathetic and too ignorant to see the cause, or feel that referenced article was not one-sided.

In any case your actions mean that countless others will be harmed maliciously or ignorantly by the withholding of correct information. I don't know how your kind sleeps at night. Oh ya, no conscience and no soul. See ya, wouldn't want to be you - a statement for which you will not realize a meaning until 2018, if you live that long considering the trouble Bush has stirred in the world.

Here's the referenced proof, use it as you see fit, as I am not as experienced. Use it or live up to my precursory evaluation of you as evidenced by your own actions.

I don't have time to fight with morons and have better things to do. You have successfully harmed others by preventing my help and my dissemination of real information.

From clandestine research Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, Dr. Sim reported to Medical World News: "Marijuana… is probably the most potent anti-epileptic known to medicine today". Marijuana Medical Handbook, Todd Mikuriya, M.D.

Jean P. Davis M.D., and H.H. Ramsey, M.D. The demonstration of anticonvulsant activity of the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cogeners by laboratory tests (Loewe and Goodman, Federation Proc. 6:352, 1947) prompted clinical trial in five institutionalized epileptic children. All of them had symptomatic grand mal epilepsy with retardation; three has cerebral palsy in addition. EEG tracings were grossly abnormal in the entire group; three has focal seizure activity. Their attacks had been inadequately controlled on 0.13 gm. of Phenobarbital daily, combined with 0.3 gm. of Dilantin per day in two of the patients, and in a third, with 0.2 gm. of Mesantoin daily.

Two isomeric 3(1,2-dimethyl heptyl) homologs of THC were tested, numbers 122 and 125A, with ataxia potencies 50 and 8 times, respectively, that of natural Marijuana principles. Number 122 was given to 2 patients for 3 weeks and to 3 patients for 7 weeks. 3 responded at least as well to previous therapy; the 4th became almost completely and the 5th entirely seizure free. One patient transferred to 125A after 3 weeks, had prompt exacerbation of seizures during the ensuing 4 weeks, despite dosages up to 4 mg. daily. The 2nd patient transferred to 125A was adequately controlled on this dosage, except for a brief period of paranoid behavior three and a half weeks later; similar episodes had occurred prior to cannabinol therapy. Other psychic disturbances or toxic reactions were not manifested during the periods of treatment. Blood counts were normal. The cannabinoids herein reported deserve further trial in non-institutionalized epileptics. Federation Proceedings, Federation of American Society for Experimental Biology, vol 8, 1949, p.284.

The dark side of psychiatric drugs (supported by Wiikipedia) - The United States of Violence: A Special Section - Cover Story USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), May, 1994 by Tanya Bibeau

Thorazine, Haldol, and other medication prescribed by psychiatrists can destroy the lives of people who take them.

Virtually all person who go to psychiatrists are put on one or more drugs. However, psychiatric drugs, which are unpredictable and extremely deadly, do not cure anything, and instead destroy the life of the person who takes them.

The most dangerous of these are major tranquilizer, also known as neuroleptic (nerve-seizing) drugs or anti-psychotics. Of the more than two dozen in this class, introduced in the mid 1950s, the most commonly used are Haldol (haloperidol), Compazine (prochlorperazine), (Thorazine (chlorpromazine), Navane (thiothixene), Prolixin (fluphenazine), Mellaril (thioridazine), and Trilafon (perhenazine).

The range of interactions can produce different adverse effects including extrapyramidal reactions, including acute dystonias, akathisia, parkinsonism (rigidity and tremor), tardive dyskinesia, tachycardia, hypotension, impotence, lethargy, seizures, and hyperprolactinaemia.

Their purpose is to create "maximum behavioral disruption" - a goal clearly reflected in 1950 tests conducted with rats on Thorazine. Through chemicals, psychiatrists sought to sabotage thought processes and thereby deny the person control of his own body.

At the time the major tranquilizers were introduced, the lobotomy was touted highly and widely used by psychiatrists. With the procedure, the shredded brain was damaged forever, generating objections from family and friends of the patient.

The major tranquilizers were able to create a zombie state, identical to that seen after a lobotomy, in a person whose brain remained intact. For this reason, Thorazine became known as a "chemical lobotomy."

"[On Thorazine] my thoughts spun and never got too far. My hands were rubber and I could hardly hold a fork," said one patient who had been put on the drugs by a psychiatrist. "After six weeks ... I felt like my mind had been put through a meat grinder. No longer could I think clearly; no longer could I speak articulately; no longer could I act confidently."

Another stated that, after a week on Haldol, "I was unable to speak. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't say anything out loud and spoke only with the greatest difficulty .... It was as if my whole body was succumbing to a lethal poison."

The horrifying mental upheaval and devastation this lobotomizing effect causes was precisely what appealed to psychiatrists. These chemicals would enable people to be warehoused with the least "inconvenience" to psychiatrists and staffs of psychiatric institutions.

Today, these drugs are being used against the elderly in enormous quantities to straitjacket them chemically. By 1985, the National Disease and Therapeutic Index reported that, while adults 60 years and older made up 11% of the population, they used more than one-third of all antipsychotic drugs. A study of 2,000 pharmacies in 1986 showed that 60.5% of prescriptions for nursing home residents over 65 years of age were for major tranquilizers and 17. 1% for minor versions.

A Harvard Medical School study of 55 Boston-area rest homes published in the Jan. 26, 1989, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 55% of the 1,201 nursing home residents it surveyed took at least one psychiatric drug, with 39% being given anti-psychotics.

These are not prescribed to "treat" any condition. They are administered solely to turn the patient into a zombie incapable of complaining or presenting problems to staff. Concerning their use on the elderly, Jerome Avorn, director of the program for the Analysis of Clinical Strategies at Harvard, pointed out, "Drugs do work. They do quiet them down. So does a lead pipe to the head."

Larry Hodge, administrator at the Life Care Center in Tennessee, described the impact on the elderly of these drugs: "Too often they were so zonked out during their meals that their heads were in the mashed potatoes."

Wilda Henry told The Arizona Republic that her 83-year-old mother became "a vegetable" five weeks after taking Haldol. This powerful mind-altering chemical, which the Soviet Union used for years to control dissidents, left her mother babbling, drooling, shaking, and unable to control her bowel functions.

Anise Debose of Washington, D.C., said her 76-year-old father entered a nursing home active, laughing, and talking. Four days later, after taking Mellaril and four other drugs, "He was restrained to a chair as rigid as a board when I saw him. His head was thrown back and his mouth was limply hanging down. Both eyes were closed. The impression all of us had was that he was dead."

In 1989, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Aging reported that, while those over 60 years of age make up 17% of the population, they accounted for more than half the fatalities resulting from drug reactions. According to the American Hospital Association, of the 10,800,000 elderly admitted to hospitals each year, 1,900,000 are due to drug reactions. Four percent of those cases, an estimated 76,000 elderly a year, die. This annual death rate far exceeds the 58,021 Americans who lost their lives during the Vietnam War. An average of more than 200 elderly Americans die each day from drug reactions.

"People don't just die of old age," Theodore Leiff, professor of gerontology, Eastern Virginia University School of Medicine, points out. "Their deaths are caused by something." As case after case demonstrates, they are being killed behind the locked doors of nursing homes by lazy, incompetent, or criminal psychiatric staffs who use deadly drugs to quash complaints before they ever are voiced.

[edit] Proof by Death Tolls

Death Reports

[edit] Change For A Change

DEA's own Administrative Law Judge sees the light

Conlusion

I conclude that granting Respondent's application would not be inconsistent with the Single Convention, that there would be minimal risk of diversion of marijuana resulting from Respondent's registration, that there is currently an inadequate supply marijuana available for research purposes, that competition in the provision of marijuana for such purposes is inadequate, and that Respondent has complied with applicable laws and has never been convicted of any violation of any law pertaining to controlled substances. I therefore find that Respondent's registration to cultivate marijuana would be in the public interest.

Recommended Decision

I recommend that Respondent's application be granted.

Dated: February 12,2007

Mary Ellen Bittner

Administrative Law Judge

Researchers trying to get approval have noted a peculiar fact of the DEA, "the DEA is outright hostile to medical marijuana research".

Of course that would be the case as any Demon would be hostile who is ignoring medical benefits to put the seized (stolen) marijuana on the street without regard for the consequences at a retail price of $1000 per ounce in some cases; all pure profit.

When we finally get things right and the profiteering lunatics brought to justice, all the foolish and narrow minded ones will be remembered for their involvement.

It would be obvious justice that these harmful idiots should have to take the poisons they have supported and forced others to take against their will. But even I would speak against it, as that would make us, the right ones, be no better than they. And clearly that is NOT the case.

Alphaquad 06:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

All I actually wanted to do is explain why your edits needed improvement. If you take that as a cue to leave then that was certainly not my intention.

Many of your points above are not widely held, and it becomes all the more essential to provide scrupulous supportive evidence. If a point-of-view is not widely held, it must at least meet notability requirements. I suspect that many of your convictions stated above would not meet those requirements. If in doubt: every article has a "talk page" where matters can be discussed before inserting them into the article. With regards to evidence, please see WP:ATT.

You must concede that many of your views are not mainstream. It would help if you read WP:TIGERS, an essay written exactly with this problem in mind. JFW | T@lk 13:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I dispute your assertion that I am guilty of "conspiracy, bias, malicious action against sick people and ignoring evidence". Neither am I brainwashed or propagandized, and my IQ is fine. I suggest you withdraw those remarks, as I'd prefer to discuss issues rather than motivation, intellect etc. JFW | T@lk 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid language like "biased" etc. I'm setting a perfectly reasonable criterion for the notability of cannabis as an anticonvulsant. At the moment, there is very little to suggest that it is used for that indication. The evidence you cite to support it is 50 years old and would not be consider acceptable by regulators (e.g. the FDA). These are ongoing problems and I wonder whether you're doing right by trying to get this into Wikipedia. You can try to raise this point at WP:CLINMED, the medical WikiProject, but I'll suspect you'll get a similar answer. JFW | T@lk 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"I dispute your assertion..." Yes, I agree with you on that point, you are none of these things by intent. Your ignorance does it for you. As long as you ignore, cover-up and attempt to hide the truth of cannabis, you are co-conspiring with the flatulent companies that gave us prohibition. Whether by ignorance or intent, neither relieves you of responsibility and liability for your actions.

Given we are on the verge of self-annihilation for mainstream thought and my "views are not mainstream" is clear reason for consideration.

There are other citations older than 50 years on that page. Lets throw out 1912 for starters, or lets make you take it, maybe that will straighten your head out. The reason that anything is used or not used for an indication is a biased issue of profit motive, disinformation, ignorance, malice, treason, conspiracy, soullessness, mindlessness, heartlessness, or the product of genuine information you have been lucky enough to get; e.g. the ungodly war on nature's compliment to health in a country now devoid of intended freedom. I have presented fact you continue to delete and you are therefore liable for the results of your biased action, or should we say, peer pressure induced action. I withdraw nothing and stand by my original evaluation. You are a small-minded problem that should be educated. I quit for the futility you create with such childish behavior.

What is acceptable to the FDA/DEA is fraud, conspiracy (since 1937, what was then the "FBNDD" Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) and poison, and should in no way be used as a measuring device of acceptability. This is perfectly UNreasonable criterion. Small minds can only wonder.

I suggest everyone beware of pharmaceuticals, especially the adverse reactions not physician-patient disclosed, given freely like the pesticide Compazine/Phenothiazine for nausea. They will usually try to mask the adverse reactions to Compazine with diphenhydramine. The "antipsuchotics" (wondrous and synchronous typo) are really psychosis inducing, nerve-seizing poison. I restrain myself in using adjectives for this quackery. There are no words that can describe such evil.

Yes tigers are awesome and majestic. "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"

Alphaquad 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your language is insulting. I am fully capable of deciding for myself what I think of that nefarious poison called cannabis that is already sending more young people into intractable psychosis than any other chemical substance of abuse.

Pharmaceutical companies make money. They also design the drugs with which I occasionally manage to save a life. That doesn't make me complicit in anything unethical that these companies may do (which I do not deny). You would do best to withdraw your remarks. JFW | T@lk 12:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok so cannabis is a "nefarious poison" with no deaths attributed as primary cause while the real antipsychotic poisons have caused schools to be shot up taking innocent lives. Cannabis a "nefarious poison", what drivel you can deliver. "I am fully capable of deciding for myself", that much is clearly untrue from your statements. "...intractable psychosis" is fraud. Any cases of young people having trouble from use is clearly caused by an irresponsible, profiteering prohibition putting real medicine, that is clearly not for everyone, on the street where they can get it; a prohibition that you support by your illogical statements that only show the agenda from which you cannot extract yourself for the ego payoff of righteousness (being right at all cost to anyone and everyone). "In order to find truth, one must be willing to be wrong" I don't see that happening in your case. Utterly irresponsible statements on your part are far more offensive to reality that anything I could come up with. Whenever you get insulted, it is because of the truth contained therein that applies to you, otherwise no insult would be felt or recognized. This as been a pleasure, thank you. Alphaquad 13:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fraud

By admitting his true opinion, "I am fully capable of deciding for myself what I think of that nefarious poison called cannabis…", JFW has provided the evidence of motive for the fraud of his actions and denial of my claims about him, "I dispute your assertion that I am guilty of "conspiracy, bias, malicious action against sick people and ignoring evidence" JFW.

This JFW has provided the evidence of motive to ignore Wikipedia guidelines, that of providing "material (is) attributable to a reliable published source" and Federation Proceedings is in fact attributable to a reliable published source.

JFW has only invented excuses to conceal the truth contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and his admitted opinion clearly shows bias and conspiracy to withhold fact from which people would benefit.

Its been an easy skeet shoot where all the clay ducks were launched in line with direction of aim. Both JFW and User:Colin have done nothing but invent excuses to avoid reality and conceal the truth contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.

Our discussions were not limited to this page. See Talk:Seizure#The_WikiStandard Talk:Seizure#Let_The_Readers_Decide and other pages.

"I have removed the "Federation Proceedings" section from the article". User:Colin "The above trial did not involve "traditional treatment". User:Colin later apologizes for that statement as "I misinterpreted …" and "Apologies." User:Colin

In response to the claim that my statements are a personal attack, I reply:

My statements are my opinion of what you are intentionally or naïvely doing. The evidence of motive suggests it is intentional. A personal attack is when someone is forced to take poisons you support and demand are the only treatment in existence. That is a personal attack on everyone that does harm and personal injury. In preventing the dissemination of real information, you attack AND harm thousands and deserve any response of words that comes your way as a result.

These facts make them liable for the harm generated as a result of their biased actions. Alphaquad 12:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are again making personal attacks. Attributing my edits to bias or ignorance is a personal attack. I've been careful not to attack you personally. I will not respond to your posts any further. I have asked administrators to explain to you why your present contributions are not acceptable.[1] JFW | T@lk 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly respect and listen to administrators. But you Sir have only shown the invention of reason to discard my edits, (except for the first edit containing original thought, which I understand now) and a personal agenda due to preconceived notions. I will of course retract anything as directed by the administrators for the sake of the public and this great media.

Will you listen to me? I'm an administrator. I will take your posting on WP:ANI as a retraction of your personal attacks.[2] You are certainly not the first to accuse me of being a puppet for the industry just because I defend the mainstream medical point-of-view. I find it insulting when people do that; just because I disagree with your viewpoints am I to be accused of "conspiracy, bias, malicious action against sick people and ignoring evidence"? Yes, I have bad vibes about cannabis, having seen its effects on some young people.

Forget the "invention of reason" - that is a very convenient way of brushing aside rather legitimate concerns by Colin and myself with your edits. There are serious problems. Insisting on calling prochlorperazine a pesticide in the intro is a serious problem. Things are a lot more clear-cut with warfarin, the most widely used medical anticoagulant, which is widely recognised to also be used as a rat poison. I would not object to adding, at the bottom of the prochlorperazine article, a small section called "History"; in this section you could explain the development of that drug. We're not an activism site. We're an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I must insist that defending mainstream medical point-of-view is only harming others due to the deadly drugs in use and the clear fact that real medicine is illegal to create an elevated level of patients and therefore increased profit; patients that got sick in the first place for the lack of real medicine. Whether the cause is naïveté or intent, it is still despicable to me. Alphaquad 06:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your very notions of "deadly drugs" are disputed. I know of a couple of drugs that kill. Prochlorperazine is not one of them. I find it regrettable that you seem to perceive the whole practice of medicine to be unethical. Most doctors do not harm patients for profit. I wish you'd assume some good faith. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credits

Thank you for your patience and help with writing. You have been instrumental in its creation. It certainly could have been written far worse. Alphaquad 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have thought and thought some more on your immensely helpful effort. I agree that words such as ignorance and bias makes too-strongly worded comments and I will endeavor to improve. I am sincerely grateful for the benefit you have provided. Alphaquad 06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait A Minute

"Yes, I have bad vibes about cannabis, having seen its effects on some young people"

OK, slow down and absorb the meaning without any belief blocking it out. You seem far too energetic to perceive the meaning of what you read, allowing the belief of your opposition to color and prejudge the piece. You are no doubt aware of this phenomenon.

If you were concerned for young people, the following applies.

In states with medical-cannabis teen use has been reported to decline. The young reasoning is that if this is for sick people, that would mean I am sick – an easy connection for young reasoning. That has been the consensus-accepted deduction for decline.

If you want it off the street for the safety of young people, warring it off has been shown impossible for a profit motive that only returns it to the street. Therefore it NEEDS to be available to adults who, at very least, need it for wellness as case after case shows such results. And controlling those who want it has been completely futile for 70 years – a waste of effort and resource. America is great at wasting resource.

Many other harmful additives have been reported in street cannabis. It is perhaps PCP or the like, and not the cannabis that may have harmed the ones you've reported seeing. Regulation can solve this problem.

Concerned for young people? Then medical cannabis is giant leap forward for the wellness of the public and for the seriously ill alike. If you are (present tense) as intelligent as you seem to be, this would be a short, logical step for your reasoning.

Now I would first suggest the resistance to taking another viewpoint is that admitting (to yourself) you may have taken the wrong viewpoint would be disastrous to your sense of many things. But it would be easy to do if the first step were taken, "no one is perfect and I don’t have to be perfect, I am fallible but will take such as opportunity to better myself for benefit of those around me as well as myself".

Illogical resistance to taking another viewpoint is a short step for my reasoning since I have seen you grasp at illogical straws to validate your opposition and you really aren’t that unintelligent.

Example: MPP is not a reliable source for a report of state laws in existence? What would be the gain in falsifying a report that can be verified with some ease? Falsifying such would be self-defeating by producing discredit.

I would suggest puppetry if you block out all of this and still oppose the 60% of America in favor of ending the profiteering madness of prohibition. I suggest the remaining 40% to be brainwashed from propaganda and resistance to change for the aforementioned reason, OR just evil to their profiteering core, which has been suggested true of 30%. So we have only 10% to educate, as 30% will be forever stonewalled for being completely uncaring except for personal gain at any cost.

IF you want it illegal for industry profit or just trying salvage credibility for the poison wielding medical profession, it would mean puppetry of the most fiendish type, which cannot be ruled out at this point. You can only take the alternative viewpoint showing you are not this puppet given the former honest logic. Just like Bush will never prove he is not a warmongering agent of Mammon until he takes the opposite stance of admitting pentagon involvement for the purpose of mid-east plunder. Hell, they were interviewed in 1999 and spoke of this attack before it happened as a benefit to "America", but we know they meant the industry and therefore their selves at the top, through stock ownership (how much is Cheny worth now?) and misappropriation of taxpayer funds.

Alphaquad 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to present solid arguments and evidence, not try to change the way I think. You make some presumptions about my thought processes, and again engage in personal attacks ("puppet of the the most fiendish type" etc). You're being rather tiresome. JFW | T@lk 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because the sentence begins with the all-important "IF". I have italicized to increase notability and added text for clarity. I suggest you not worry about things IF they do not apply to you. Or do they? I have provided solid evidence that you and others have literally jumped through hoops to invent reason for its exclusion; such as demanding published reports on illegal research. How can that be explained? I really don't think it is obtuse or dense mentality and only leaves that which you vigorously call personal attacks. Explaining reality is not a personal attack and you consistently perceive it that way as if it's just too close for comfort. You're being extremely tiresome but it has been beneficial at the same.

Thanks for keeping up. It has been a great exercise in word choice. As for trying to change the way you think, I am far more concerned about those able to see reality because they are not drowning in the sea of mental and academic spiritual poverty. The 10% left to be educated has far better chances than the stonewalled 30%. Oh, what's that? I believe it's the sound of the balance tipping in favor of responsibility, free will and choice, as control-trips spiral into oblivion. Alphaquad 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of this is already becoming a circular argument. Wikipedia can only reproduce verifiable content, yet you are suggesting that there is research but that it cannot be accessed because it is illegal. How can you expect us to lend any credence to these claims? That is not a "control trip" - that is being editors of an encyclopedia with high standards. There is no balance that needs tipping; Wikipedia is already firmly in the business of responsibility, free will and choice - provided said material meets the most basic content guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia lends credence to claims in illegitimate trials because such trials are approved by a corrupt government agency. This should seriously be rethought on the part of Wikipedia. The control-trip is recycled and reproduced by adherence to fraudulent profiteering standards if not just created by your efforts. I have given a published trial and cited its source. The idea that it's just not good enough is a perpetuation of disinformation for reasons in question or by some unbreakable standard that is not serving the dissemination of real information. To not rethink the content guidelines for the illegitimacy of current required source would be irresponsible. The balance of which I write is a worldwide consensus scale. Alphaquad 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You stated, "You are certainly not the first to accuse me of being a puppet for the industry ..."; such valuable information. To suggest "... just because I defend the mainstream medical point-of-view" is a defensive coloration of the black and white, and of the obvious choosing to omit this particular verifiable cited trial on the basis of your opinion, "I am fully capable of deciding for myself what I think of that nefarious poison called cannabis". Please quote the guideline that insists we have to defend (or adhere to) the mainstream medical point-of-view, a point-of-view that can be demonstrated as dangerous to patients BTW. Without such, it becomes a fact of your choice. Alphaquad 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been explained by Alteripse on WP:CLINMED that the trial in question is insufficient evidence that cannabis is a good anticonvulsant. All the other research is clearly not available in a form that an encyclopedia can source in a reliable fashion. This has been made clear in various ways.

It is the medical mainstream point-of-view (and governments, law enforcement, mental health professionals, international organisations) that cannabis is not good. I'm aware of your agenda, so I will not try to advance more arguments. But please understand that just because you believe something, it needs to be in Wikipedia against all odds. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual Poverty

If I mention the CB1 and CB2 receptors and their cannabinoid agonists present in nature, I would expect the presence of these agonists to be passed off as coincidence from a cesspool of academia that denies intelligent design out of an egomania that supports evolution for the reward of the implied no consequences for one's actions, when with an microgram of intuition one might notice that cannabinoids work best in concert rendering the use of isolated molecules archaic since CBN, CBD and THC are produced independently and are not precursors, as if it were intended that all three (more than that) be present, basically killing any notion of coincidence and suggesting purpose and design.

I have been so argumentative for the obvious squelching of research in favor of governmental prohibition, nothing more than profiteering and ignorance that has been going on for nearly a century.

When there is a true paradox of conflicting thought, the power is always in the middle. It is only limited thought that must file all ideas and concepts into black or white boxes of right and wrong. However this is not a true paradox.

1.5 million dollar case in point:

Northwestern University law and philosophy professor has been rewarded 1.5 million, which exceeds the amount given to Nobel Prize winners. Charles Taylor has sought to change the conversation about cultural conflict, saying it cannot be solved by economic or political analysis alone. "Such clashes often spring from hungers and poverty of the human spirit" he says.

If you are one of the evolution-is-the-only-right-answer nuts we've lost you back when sliced bread was invented. The 1.5 million from the John Templeton Foundation awards cutting-edge research in science and spirituality and progress in the marriage of the two.

His works spans a number of topics, including legal ethics that I see as practically non-existent, multiculturalism and secularization (religion and spirituality equivalency being a difficult stretch of the imagination), but he is best known for critiquing the spiritual poverty of academia.

"We don’t understand what is going on until we understand that we are spiritual beings" and that there is consciousness greater than our own, becoming fully realized of intelligent design.

Jumping into the future of cannabinoid research and therapy, I suggest any failure will be due to limited notions of isolation and use of a single homolog; ignorance of synergism, which wordnet poorly defines as the working together of two things, when the number is generally closer to five or seven and even twelve. The suffering of the sick and dying and the evolution out of mental poverty cannot wait for research and the time involved in development. Higher consciousness knew of these needs and cannabis was given.

Notice I mention evolution within a spiritual and intelligent design context. Again it is not either or, it's both. Limited black and white box rigidity is killing us. Belief in scarcity combined with thoughtlessness, carelessness and this rigidity is a deadly combination. But it is more than that also. Future arrival of thoughtlessness, carelessness and rigidity will tip the balance. It will be hell for anyone that cannot escape the selfishness and need to control others by domination and they will experience extreme domination the likes of which has not yet been seen. To go into further detail would manifest the meaning of, 'you can't handle the truth'.

We need answers now, not when mental and academic spiritual poverty has abated.

Alphaquad 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cannabinoids are very fashionable. No conspiracy there. I presume you've heard of rimonabant? JFW | T@lk 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have, having studied the structures of medicine vs poison for years. It is a chlorinated molecule with abundant nitrogen atoms dangerously placed. This is NOT a cannabinoid but a cannabinoid receptor ANTagonist. No structural relationship exists.

Press reports and independent studies suggest that side effects occur stronger and more commonly than shown by the manufacturer in his clinical studies; just more adverse reaction fraud of illegitimate trials. Reports of severe depression are frequent. Which is great for selling more antidepressant poisons.

The reported development of previously clinically silent multiple sclerosis in one patient taking Rimonabant suggests that any patients with an underlying neurological condition should not take Rimonabant, given the neuroprotective role of the cannabinoid system in many experimental paradigms of neurological disease.

Do you read this great encyclopedia or not fathom the worded meaning? Alphaquad 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you could assess a substance's toxicity from looking at the placement of the atoms, you ought to offer your services to the pharmacological industry! They'd only be too happy to have a cheap, straightforward screen that will eliminate toxic compounds early in the pipeline.

Of course I meant aprepitant. But as that's full of fluorine atoms it's probably a massive poison from your perspective.

"Do you read this great encyclopedia?" Do I really need to answer that question?

I'm not sure if further discussions are helpful. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)