United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: For the First Time Ever, Cannabis Oil Will Be Used in a Hospital — To Save a 2-Month Old Baby Girl
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/2- ... -hospital/#H7PwVFWLPH3IOvME.99
Published: Feb 12, 2016
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2016-02-13 12:12:36 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1728
Comments: 34
Aurora, CO — In December, Nicole and Ernie Nunez brought their beautiful baby girl, Amylea, into the world. However, when they brought her home, things quickly took a turn for the worst. “About a day after we went home from delivery is when she had her first seizure,” Nicole said. “She has a rare form of epilepsy. They don’t know exactly the type.” For the past two months, the Nunez family has been desperately trying to treat their daughter’s condition. Doctors in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the family is from, were unable to find a cause and unable to treat young Amylea. So, the family has fled to Colorado. Nicole stays at the hospital in Aurora while Ernie drives back and forth to take care of the couple’s other children and to work. At the Children’s Hospital in Aurora, doctors continued the drug cocktail in an attempt to stop the horrible seizures, but these medications are not without side-effects. “The medication she’s on is hard for her liver, and so we’re trying to do something different that’s not so bad on her body,” Ernie said, explaining why the couple has decided to use cannabis oil. When the family heard about the seemingly miraculous effects of the cannabis oil known as Charlotte’s Web, they became hopeful and set out to get it for their daughter. Charlotte’s Web is a strain of cannabis named after a young girl, Charlotte Figi, whose life it quite literally saved. Charlotte had her first seizure when she was three months old. Over the next few months, she had frequent seizures lasting two to four hours, and she was hospitalized repeatedly. But her parents found a strain of cannabis that turned their daughter’s suffering completely around. Since then, countless other children have had their lives saved by this amazing plant. “I sat for a good three weeks fighting with the doctors and trying to talk them into giving me the okay,” Nicole said. “I’ve been working with the case study team and the neurology team here at children’s and I’m hopeful this will work.” This week, doctors finally agreed to let the cannabis oil into the hospital to treat Amylea. “For us to get the approval for us to administer it while she in the NICU while she’s a patient…it’s kind of like a miracle,” Nicole said. “Because they were completely against it saying, ‘No you can’t do it, you have to wait until she’s an out-patient.” Even though the doctors gave the approval to treat Amylea with the oil, they won’t administer it to her, so the family has done it themselves. Amylea has only had a handful of doses, but her parents say the nurses have already noticed a positive change. According to the family, Amylea is the first and youngest patient to ever receive cannabis oil as a treatment in a hospital. The significance of cannabis oil being used to treat an infant in a hospital should not be overlooked. What this move effectively illustrates is that cannabis is a viable medical option, and its current classification by the federal government as a Schedule 1 drug is as absurd as it is immoral. The Free Thought Project recently reported on the findings of a study that showed cannabis oil to be a highly effective treatment for intractable epilepsy. Of 261 patients given CBD treatment, 45% experienced a significant reduction in seizure frequency, and 9% were seizure-free at three months. Some children continued to experience benefits after the trial ended, even one year after. When the same amazing plant that has cured cancer, saved the lives of epileptic children, and treated countless others, is being used in a hospital in one state, while being the cause for kidnapping and imprisonment by police in another state, something must be done. Those who continue to lock people in cages for possessing this plant would be wise to refuse further orders to do so. If police wish to be on the right side of history, they should not wait for legislation to tell them to stop kidnapping and caging people for a plant, they should simply stop doing it. When ‘just doing your job’ violates the rights of non-violent, peaceful people, some of who only want to save the lives of their children, it’s time to question the validity of that job. A GoFundMe has been set up in Amylea’s name. Please show them some support by donating or sharing this article. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Great story! There's no such thing as an evil plant.
Used in a hospital, but NOT used by a hospital. The hospital was paid $500,000 to conduct an observational study of, among other things, children given dope by their parents.
The posters here who get their "facts" from watching "Reefer Madness" believe otherwise. Why Is Marijuana Banned? The Real Reasons Are Worse Than You Think In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much In return, the hospital promises to present an unbiased report on their findings.
Or an angry plant. Or a jealous plant. But there are dangerous plants.
The paranoia against Cannabis can accurately be described as based on a religion of sorts. Fact is, prohibitionists zeal against it is just that, as though the plant was created by Satan instead of God. It *IS* considered evil.
I can imagine your response will be the same when the findings come back sayin that the cannabis oil was effective. Basically you'll stomp your feet and whine that the studies were flawed. You're a one-trick pony paulsen. You and Roscoe would let your own kids die rather than treat them with cannabis. A couple of sick fucks you two are. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Marijuana is not one of them. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much It's an observational study.
I think we both know why Deckard would give dope to kids.
Yes there are. There are plenty of plant generated substances that can hurt and kill. There are dangerous chemicals, dangerous tools, dangerous habits, dangerous machines dangerous places, dangerous situations, jobs, etc. The list goes on and on. You can kill yourself by drinking gasoline, but gasoline isn't illegal. Freedom comes with responsibility. Since US laws have deprived us of responsibility, it also deprives us of freedom.
So marijuana is safe?
It is less dangerous than alcohol. At least in terms of behavioural effects.
Well then, how about if I meet you halfway? First let's reinstitute personal responsibility, then we can add more freedoms. That certainly makes more sense than extending all these new freedoms to people who are not used to accepting the the consequences of their behavior. So, before we legalize any drug, let's pass a law saying that anyone who uses any currently illegal drug is not eligible for any free government service -- health care, food stamps, treatment programs, welfare, housing, etc. This way, when we legalize a drug, people know a a ahead of time that they will be personally responsible for their actions.
So is alcohol the new standard? Anything less dangerous should be legal?
And it has nothing to do with their well-being.
If there was a chemical compound in gasoline which helped to minimize seizures in children, would you give gasoline to children?
There are state laws against the sale, offer, or delivery of gasoline as an inhalant for purposes of intoxication. Same with model airplane glue.
So, before we legalize any drug, let's pass a law saying that anyone who uses any currently illegal drug is not eligible for any free government service -- health care, food stamps, treatment programs, welfare, housing, etc. This way, when we legalize a drug, people know a a ahead of time that they will be personally responsible for their actions. What you are articulating is the libertarian philosophy. I think it's perfectly ideal.
You first asked if marijuana was safe. Not more safe or less safe. Just safe. As though everything is either safe or dangerous. One or the other, no in-between. And now you switch to a varied measure of danger. But certainly, if alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, and alcohol is legal, then one cannot argue marijuana should be illegal because it's dangerous.
No, but I might give it to you. That is, I'd hand you a glass of it, and if you decided to drink it down, then that's not my call. (I'm assuming you are not a child). To your point, no, I would not go out on the street and start handing out cups of gasoline to kids, as your question somewhat implies. Such kids are the responsibility of their own parents, and I'd do nothing to interfere in their care. And of course it goes without saying that this is hypothetical because drinking gasoline is obviously not good for the intestinal tract. If, however, I had a child I was responsible for who was ill with some kind of terminal condition, and I found some chemical that after due research I decided had a reasonable chance of saving that life and returning that child to normal and there were no other options aside from watching the child die, I likely would administer it, and it wouldn't matter where the chemical came from. And I sure as hell wouldn't want some bureaucrat or armchair warrior, who shares none of my responsibility to that child telling me that I was not allowed to save that child's life.
I don't doubt it. This falls under the deprivation of responsibility, common in the land of the free, just discussed. Notice it's not the act of selling that is illegal, but the intent of the person who does the selling while he sells it. In essence, this is a thought crime. Two people doing the exact same sale, but one commits a crime and the other does not, simply because of what he has in mind. It's a thought crime.
And ridiculous. There is no way our society is going to pass any law making people accept personal responsibility for their actions. I wish we would, but we won't. Which means that if we start legalizing drugs and people start abusing those drugs, the rest of us will end up paying for their care. So why would I vote to legalize drugs and increase my taxes?
Because numbnuts said marijuana was not dangerous. Not more dangerous or less dangerous. Just not dangerous. It seemed logical to then ask if marijuana wasn't dangerous, does that mean that it's safe? "But certainly, if alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, and alcohol is legal, then one cannot argue marijuana should be illegal because it's dangerous." You're assuming that these substances are banned based on some "danger" scale. They're not. If they were, you'd have a point.
That's my point. Isolate, purify and concentrate the chemical compound that is found -- by studies and trials -- to be effective and administer that chemical compound. GW Pharmaceuticals has two cannabinoid products -- Sativex for multiple sclerosis treatment and Epidiolex for treatment of epilepsy.
Well, a libertarian at heart. Glad to see it. (Seriously). But it's only ridiculous if you choose to see it that way. Marijuana legalization is NOT ridiculous. Though you are not exactly helping the cause any by championing draconian laws at every opportunity. Do you know what happened when speed limit signs went up in Montana on highways that previously had no speed limit (during day)? Traffic fatalities increased. Adding regulatory signs in cities causes accidents to go UP. Why? Because the existence of more regulation gives a false sense of security to people meaning they start acting less cautiously. With fewer regulations, people take more responsibility meaning less harm is incurred. I would expect the same with drug laws. Because keeping drugs illegal mean you'll pay more taxes for incarceration of druggies? You do realize the land of the free has he highest incarceration rate of any country on the planet? And like you said, first ban public services to people who bring about their own demise. Then legalize drugs. What's wrong with that?
Pencils are dangerous. They can take out an eye. Prohibition?
What's wrong is that the first part will never happen. "Because keeping drugs illegal mean you'll pay more taxes for incarceration of druggies?" We are not putting drug users in prison. We are putting drug dealers and drug traffickers in prison. So if we were to legalize the use of marijuana, nothing would change in our prisons.
Mens rea. Read a book.
Stop mansplaining. You'll trigger them.
This kind of sums up what prohibitionists think of Marijuana.
Typical of the kind of movies you watch?
Time Bandits is far more intellectually stimulating that Fox News. Wouldn't you agree?
He must be a stock holder in a drug company (legal drug pushers) that don't want the competition of an alternative treatment.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: Pinguinite (#1)
There's no such thing as an evil plant.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#4. To: Roscoe (#2)
"The hospital was paid $500,000 to conduct an observational study of, among other things, children given dope by their parents."
#5. To: Pinguinite (#1)
"There's no such thing as an evil plant."
#6. To: Deckard (#3)
The posters here who get their "facts" from watching "Reefer Madness" believe otherwise.
#7. To: misterwhite (#4)
In return, the hospital promises to present an unbiased report on their findings.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#8. To: misterwhite (#5)
But there are dangerous plants.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#9. To: Deckard (#7)
when the findings come back sayin that the cannabis oil was effective.
#10. To: misterwhite (#4)
#11. To: misterwhite (#5)
But there are dangerous plants.
#12. To: Deckard (#8)
But there are dangerous plants.
Marijuana is not one of them.
#13. To: Deckard (#8)
Marijuana is not one of them.
#14. To: Pinguinite (#11)
(Edited)
"Freedom comes with responsibility. Since US laws have deprived us us of r us us of responsibility, it also deprives us of freedom."
#15. To: Pinguinite (#13)
"It is less dangerous than alcohol."
#16. To: Roscoe (#10)
"I think we both know why Deckard would give dope to kids."
#17. To: Pinguinite (#11)
"You can kill yourself by drinking gasoline"
#18. To: Pinguinite (#11)
#19. To: misterwhite (#14)
First let's reinstitute personal responsibility, then we can add more freedoms. That certainly makes more sense than extending all these new freedoms to people who are not used to accepting the the consequences of their behavior.
#20. To: misterwhite (#15)
So is alcohol the new standard? Anything less dangerous should be legal?
#21. To: misterwhite (#17)
If there was a chemical compound in gasoline which helped to minimize seizures in children, would you give gasoline to children?
#22. To: Roscoe (#18)
There are state laws against the sale, offer, or delivery of gasoline as an inhalant for purposes of intoxication. Same with model airplane glue.
#23. To: Pinguinite (#19)
What you are articulating is the libertarian philosophy.
I think it's perfectly ideal.
#24. To: Pinguinite (#20)
"You first asked if marijuana was safe. Not more safe or less safe. Just safe."
#25. To: Pinguinite (#21)
"If, however, I had a child I was responsible for who was ill with some kind of terminal condition, and I found some chemical that after due research I decided had a reasonable chance of saving that life and returning that child to normal and there were no other options aside from watching the child die, I likely would administer it, and it wouldn't matter where the chemical came from."
#26. To: misterwhite (#23)
(Edited)
And ridiculous. There is no way our society is going to pass any law making people accept personal responsibility for their actions. I wish we would, but we won't.
Which means that if we start legalizing drugs and people start abusing those drugs, the rest of us will end up paying for their care. So why would I vote to legalize drugs and increase my taxes?
#27. To: misterwhite (#24)
Because numbnuts said marijuana was not dangerous. Not more dangerous or less dangerous. Just not dangerous.
#28. To: Pinguinite (#26)
"And like you said, first ban public services to people who bring about their own demise. Then legalize drugs. What's wrong with that?"
#29. To: Pinguinite (#22)
It's a thought crime.
#30. To: misterwhite (#28)
We are not putting drug users in prison.
#31. To: Deckard (#30)
#32. To: Pinguinite (#31)
#33. To: misterwhite (#32)
Typical of the kind of movies you watch?
#34. To: Pinguinite (#33)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]