Category Archives: Just Crazy

Revici’s Patents

I must be truthful with you. Dr Emanuel Revici’s textbook is damned hard to read, and it’s even harder to  keep yourself oriented to what he’s talking about at any particular moment… At least it was and is for me.

Making it even more difficult is the fact that you MUST have his corrections sheet or you will NEVER get his diagnostic tables to work out right – and as far as I know, my site is the only place other than the book I scanned it out of, that you will find a copy.

But, his U.S. Patents are extremely clear and concise. It is as if he left his recipes for anyone smart enough to track them down and use them. And the explanations of some of his theories are much easier to keep track of in his patents.

Because there seems to be a lot of interest in Dr Revici among those who visit this site, I’m going to upload copies of some of his patents – with my annotations on them – so that you who are interested can see if it makes more sense that way…..

You can find them here:

ReviciNewAnnotations

TSEL Patent

SECOL Patent

BS Patent

Tung Oil Deficient

Neoplastic Symptoms Patent

AntiNeoplastic Form Patent

 

You can find a copy of the errata sheet for his book here..

ReviciErrata

 

As always, I’ve done my best to interpret Dr Revici’s patents… but I am not Dr Revici, and I don’t guarantee that I got it right… Hopefully, you will find the information helpful.

 

 

 

How In The Heck Can You Say That About Burzynski? My God, There Aren’t Any Studies.

Hello, Matt… We simply have to stop meeting like this…

Nothing personal, but I sure wish you’d stop making me do more and more advertising for Burzynski.

For those who haven’t been reading all the Burzynski posts and comments, I’ve posted Matt’s response to a previous post at the end of this article. You should read it. I post it out of respect for his perspective, and as an illustration of the paradigm that we are all educated into. In fairness to him, I will tell you that I had incorporated a previous comment of his into the article he is now commenting on. I couldn’t help it.. he represents the mainstream paradigm so well, and I was in a particularly intolerant mood.

If he’s who I think he is, he appears to be a Post-Doc Fellow who is working on HIV virus research at a university in the western United States.

(Post-Doc is short for Postdoctoral, and it is supposed to translate to non-post-docs as I’m mucho smarto…. Fellow means he’s working almost for free and at the mercy of whomever is funding him for as long as it takes to get smart enough to work on his own. Anyway, that’s the way us Pharmacists translate it. You know how it is – They’re smart, we’re smarter…. typical occupational bias.)

A large percentage of his work appears to be funded in part by the NIH (National Institute of Health). I’ve read a couple of his papers. He and the team he works with are actually pretty sharp.

Anyway, I’ve thought about his posting for a few days, wanting to find a way to make this conversation educational for ‘our’ readers.

So, I will answer your questions, Matt, but I’m sure you and I are simply going to have agree to disagree.

First, though, I’d like to say that I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out why in the world a Post-Doc Fellow working on HIV research would have any interest in reading, studying and debating Dr Burzynski’s papers and therapeutic claims. I did not come up with an answer. The Post-Docs I know are way too busy to mess around with anything other than their research. I remain puzzled. Maybe it’s because of the NIH connection, or a personal tragedy during which a friend or family member got taken advantage of by a huckster claiming to have a cure for cancer. If you are who I think you are I suspect the NIH connection is the most likely motivator, or maybe you’re just a really astute and curious person. But it really doesn’t matter.

In your questions to me you repeatedly reference peer reviewed work, as if the world stops working if a gathering of equally indoctrinated individuals having the power to approve or disapprove a work is ordained by God. I understand the importance of good solid peer reviewed works. But, I don’t interpret the lack of it the same way you do.

You see, I’m probably about twice your age – and over this long life I’ve done a lot of things. One of them was to work as the personal product engineer and troubleshooter for the President of a semiconductor company that manufactured many state-of-the-art integrated circuits that were believed to be technically impossible. All the experts said they could not work. But, I assure you, they shipped to the world in great quantity. The applications included cardiac pacemakers, devices sent into space in satellites, devices used to track submarines, devices used in the phased array radars of state of the art warplanes, and numerous other appications.

I never ceased to be amused when the President of the company would quietly slip out of the conference room when the customers’ ‘experts’ would start explaining the technical reasons the parts wouldn’t work or couldn’t be relied upon to perform as specified. I asked him what was going on the first time I saw him do this. His reply still rings in my mind. He told me that they did not want to learn from him, only to lecture, and that his time was too valuable to waste it sitting in a room with a bunch of overpaid people who had advanced degrees and knew nothing about true discovery.

I would also tell you that I was best known for fixing problems others couldn’t fix, and implementing applications that others had failed to get to work repeatedly. The key to my success was very simple. I didn’t listen to the people who had failed when they told me why they had failed. I followed the evidence I gathered myself, and figured out why what I had observed had happened later – and I learned to quietly leave the room when the ‘experts’ and intellectual purists started explaining why things weren’t working. Hell, if they knew what they were talking about I wouldn’t have had a job.

This is the approach I have taken on this website. I am not interested in intellectual debates that consume time and achieve no forward motion. Cancer patients do not have time to screw around. The fact is that few are cured.  My objective is to provide them options that I believe have some reasonable probability of extending their lives.

As an engineer I knew that getting 95% of the products I was responsible for to work and ship to the customer was the minimum standard for keeping my job. Lower yields told the world I didn’t know what I was talking about.

Well, if you look at cancer patients as the products we’re supposed to be shipping the fact is that we can’t even claim a 5% long term success rate.

So, I tell you without reservation that we don’t know what the f…k we’re doing when it comes to conventional cancer treatments.

You asked me what the relevence of my reference to the article that showed that chemotherapy only added something like 1.4% to the long term survival of cancer patients. Well, it is – for all practical purposes – illegal to treat cancer using anything but chemotherapy and radiation in all 50 of the states that comprise the United States of America. I repeat, we don’t know what we’re doing.

Matt, I work in a hospital that treats many cancer patients. We only use conventional treatments, but I assure no costs are spared.. our patients get access to the most cutting edge treatment regimens that exist in America. But, unfortunately, no one gets well unless their cancers are discovered when they are small enough to be cut out.

I know you might not believe this. I really don’t care if you do or not. I am the one who watches them die every week, not you, and I don’t know any way to convey what I see happening every day to someone who resides in an academic environment.

You asked me what treatment alternatives patients might consider incorporating into their treatment plans to increase their survival rates. Are you blind? Take a look at the directory for this site. It’s a listing of multiple treatment options that have evidence that supports possible usefulness.

I do not guarantee they will work, and I do not encourage trying them without physician involvement and support. But I guarantee you that I  would try them if I had cancer. I strongly believe that for many cancers you have as good a chance with these alternatives as you do with conventional treatments.

So, it really comes down to this… I am busy trying to get info that I have critically evaluated to people who might be able to use it. I do not care why the information about these options has not been checked out and/or formal studies haven’t been performed, and I do not believe people should wait to die without trying something different just because no one has funded a clinical trial that meets the standards we normally expect from approved medications.

People will have to decide for themselves whether I know what I’m talking about or not. If they want to try other options I have provided the detail they and their physicians need. If not, that is their choice.

In the meantime, I’m going to quietly slip out of the room. I have work to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I believe the exchange typifies the difference in perspective between those who are willing to critically analyze and search out data and those who support the mainstream approach.”

Steve, please tell me what I’m failing to analyze critically; what peer-reviewed paper I have failed to read? Aside from Burzynski’s 2006 Pediatric Drugs paper which, I will say again, uses questionable methods and a very small cohort, what evidence of efficacy has he presented? Where is this evidence?

Despite your claim to be “a very skeptical pharmacist”, you seem not to see that data is only as good as the method used to collect and analyze it: If you omit drug failures from a clinical trial, you will always get a positive result. If you use a small patient cohort, even the most impressive rate of improvement may not be statistically significant. If you don’t use a placebo group, you can’t say how many people would have improved without therapy. Method is the most important and persuasive argument for any claim.

“conventional therapies [do not work] if not augmented by non-traditional concepts”

Please provide a reference for this statement and what, exactly you mean by “non-traditional concepts”.

You say that “…the reviewers hid behind the fact that they didn’t like the way Dr Burzynski structured his trials and quantified his data.”

As I understand this, you would propose that the data collection and analysis method has nothing to do with what the outcome. Put another way, the data quality and means of subsequent analysis has no influence on the results of that analysis. Is that correct?

If so, that makes no sense. I know that, in my own work, I could show a false positive, negative or neutral result, depending on how ethically flexible I am in analyzing the data. And, if I am selective about the data I collect, well I could support or refute any hypothesis I want.

Regarding the Barton et al.: I’m not sure why that’s relevant. A lot of Burzynski supporters seem to use a common straw man argument: If you’re don’t support antineoplaston chemotherapy, you must support standard chemotherapy. I find this a bit troubling because I only wish to discuss antineoplastons and evidence of their efficacy. Straw man arguments assume a false pretense – that I must necessarily approve of B simply because I express my disapproval of A.

I’m going to go out on a limb here an say that a big reason you think that Burzynski’s antineoplastons work because you FEEL he is an ethical doctor, but that’s not evidence, that’s a feeling.

I’m willing to accept that you support Burzynski because you felt he gave you good care – I cannot argue with that, and no one should. Cancer is horrible and it ruins lives. Anyone who has gone through the illness and the treatment, win or to lose, is a hero in my book, and should be allowed to pursue whatever treatment they like. But saying that unproven drugs work is a different argument entirely. There just isn’t any evidence.

Flu Season Again – And The Never Ending Flu Shot Debate Continues

I do not disagree with the usefulness of influenza vaccination – especially in vulnerable populations and for healthcare providers.

I do disagree with getting ‘flu shots’. Strongly.

Flu shots provide very limited protection when viruses have changed slightly – and that’s basically what the influenza viruses do for a living.

They also give short term protection that blocks the formation of long term immunity to strains that might become much more dangerous with a very slight mutation that your immune system would accomodate if it had been exposed to and reacted to the entire virus.

So, I suggest getting FluMist – the nasal vaccine – instead of the shot.

If I can’t get a dose of FluMist I intend to get the flu instead of getting the shot.. That’s how strongly I feel about the future immunity issue.

And, as you listen to those endless public service announcements about the Flu Season and getting protected with a shot, I would like you to ask yourself if those who are paying for those advertisements really care about you, or making sure the vaccine manufacturers stay in business.

Anyway, that’s my two cents worth.

You can read more about my opinion at – Flu Shots – Set Up For Pandemic Death? Try FluMist™ Instead.

For those who are concerned about the toxicity of the various flu vaccines I’m going to provide a link to this web page. 

http://preventdisease.com/news/11/101111_Flu-Vaccine-Ingredients-As-Lethal-As-Ever-Dont-Risk-Your-Health.shtml

The only comment I will make, as I really haven’t had a chance to think about the data provided, is that how much of something is the important consideration. Some of the ingredients listed don’t cause me a lot of concern for adults. However, it is my opinion that there are some things that probably should never be given to people – especially children and pregnant women.

Remember, I’m a pharmacist – not a physician – and crazy as a loon. Talk it over with your Doc. Then make an informed decision. Pharmacists Pharmacist and Physicians Physician.

Take care.

 

Emanuel Revici’s Book – ‘Research in Physiopathology As Basis of Guided Chemotherapy – With Special Application To Cancer’

This book was written by Dr Revici to explain his theories and to show results of his cancer treatments. It’s difficult to find a copy, although there is an online copy available that you can read.

You can read the online version here:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?seq=5&id=mdp.39015003770982&page=root&view=image&size=100&orient=0

Or, you can read and download the book by clicking the file links below. These files are pdfs of the book organized by chapter.

If I were you I’d definately save copies of these files so that you will always have access to them.

Dr Revici was quite controversial! Many people from a broad spectrum of backgrounds thought he was a genius. Influential elements of the mainstream medical community portrayed him as a quack and worked very hard to destroy him.

I present this info without comment beyond the fact that I’m trying to understand his work, and the pdf files were manually generated so that I could more easily access and read them.

Warning, it’s a very big book.

EmanuelReviciPart1, ERChapter1, ERChapter2, ERChapter3, ERChapter4, ERChapter5, ERChapter6, ERChapter7, ERChapter8, ERChapter9, ERChapter10, ERChapter11, ERChapter12, ERChapter13, ERChapter14, ERChapter15, ERChapter16, Notes1, Notes2, Notes3, Notes4, ReviciErrata

Again, I’m crazy. But I find Dr Revici’s story and theories quite compelling and interesting.

Is Acetaminophen Causing Our Autism Epidemic?

I read an interesting journal article some time ago, and I thought you might be interested in the theories it presents.

The article was titled ‘Did Acetaminophen Provoke The Autism Epidemic?’, and it was written by Peter Good. This article was published in Volume 14, November 4, 2009 of the Alternative Medicine Review, and you can read a copy of it at this web link. 

http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/14/4/364.pdf

I don’t know much about Peter Good, but the article appears to be a coherent presentation of data presented by other researchers in some interesting study reports, and it left me pondering the implications and asking myself ‘What if they’re right?’

I think you’ll think the same way after reading it.

To summarize the author’s points –

– The increase in autism that we’re seeing seems to correlate with the timing of the generation of the belief that aspirin causes Reye’s Syndrome and a dramatic increase in acetaminophen use in infants and children.

– It further seems that the occurence of autism has shifted to what would best match a model that has non-hereditary damage occuring after childbirth.

– It has been observed that acetaminophen interferes with the processing of several toxins, and that autistic children appear to have impaired abilities relatve to processing and eliminating these same toxins.

– The link of aspirin to Reye’s Syndrome may not be as strong as currently believed.

I don’t know what the truth is, but to be on the safe side I’m recommending something other than acetaminophen from now on when people ask what I’d use for an infant or child.

Remember, I’m crazy… and just a pharmacist. Check with your Docs and Primary Care Providers for their recommendations. I’m pretty sure they’re not in love with acetaminophen, either.

Coffee Enemas…. Crazy? Maybe Not.

As we study and learn, it is often humbling to have to admit that we have discarded an idea that we were certain could not be true – only to later come to believe that it might be possible.

This is the case for the possibility that coffee enemas might be useful in cancer treatment regimens.

I know… you’re now convinced that I’ve lost all my marbles.

I assure you, I have not.

A year and a half ago a friend gave me a book that was written by a woman who had achieved breast cancer remission, and who believed with all her heart and soul that coffee enemas were important to her therapy.

I thanked her with a smile, briefly thumbed through its pages, and took it home.

When my wife asked me what I thought of it I told her I thought it was one of the craziest things I’d heard in a long time – a crazy alternative medicine waste of time and energy that had no chance of helping cancer patients.

I was, you see, a very well ‘trained’ pharmacist who quickly rejected ideas that were not in synchronization with the medical status quo.

Anyway, she read the book – and I didn’t read any more than I already had.

But I’ve become a more thoughtful person as time has passed and as I’ve studied the writings of numerous persons who have been famous for non-traditional, non-allopathic or alternative medicine cancer treatments.

So, let’s assume for a minute that we are trying to deliver a medicine instead of an anti-cancer regimen targeted at irritating the gastrointestinal tract or simply delivering caffeine to stimulate bile duct opening or liver immune response.

Perhaps it’s unfair to exclude caffeine from the classification of a medication. So, we’ll include it.

Anyway, let’s also assume that this medication that we’re going to try to deliver is damaged by the acidity that it would encounter as it passed through the stomach – or that it gets destroyed by the liver when it’s absorbed from the intestines and moved through the liver to ultimately reach circulation in the blood system.

If you were to ask a pharmacist how to deliver this medication he would tell you you could deliver it rectally in an enema. In fact, if you weren’t certain what chemical you were trying to deliver – and therefore had to deliver large volumes of the solution to ensure the drug got to the patient’s system in large enough quantites – she/he would undoubtedly tell you that the rectal route would be the preferred route.

The intestines present a huge surface area through which medications can be absorbed.

Add irritation that causes the intestinal tissues to be inflammed and you will often achieve absorbtion of medicinal agents that aren’t normally absorbed very well.

This gets us around the stomach acid problem, but what about liver matabolism issues.

Well, there is only one GI tract location where you can deliver medications without their being immediately metabolized by the liver. That spot is where we place rectal suppositories.

So, I’m going on record as believing that it is possible that coffee enemas may be delivering substances that are found in coffee beans to a cancer patient’s systemic circulation in the most efficient manner. This is not what the folk who recommend them usually claim, but it is my belief.

Or, it could be that the various explanations proposed by Dr Max Gerson and others are correct.

Regardless, the bottom line remains the same. You simply cannot discount the possibility that Coffee Enemas may have positive effects in cancer patients’ treatment regimens.

I know, this is an absolutely crazy statement… but I believe it most accurately reflects the facts as they are known at this time.

Now, don’t go out there and start blindly pumping your intestines full of coffee! Seriously, you could hurt yourself or a loved one.

I propose you should check out the advice of the experts in this area.

I’d take a look at the book titled ‘The Gerson Therapy: The Proven Nutritional Program for Cancer and Other Illnesses’ and the series of videos that start with this one http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8384134159042346609  to get info relative to how the enemas are supposed to be given to keep the patient safe.

I have no connection with the Gerson program. I make no money if you buy the book or look at the video. I’ve provided this information because I believe it might be useful for you or a loved one.

Remember, talk to your physician before you try coffee enemas or any other ‘medication’ regimen. I’m a Pharmacist – not a Physician, and obviously looney as can be. I’m just telling you what I’ve come to believe, not recommending the use of coffee enemas… But, I will point out that this therapy seems to be integrated into an awful lot of the non-traditional protocols that people swear saved their lives….

Is It Possible That Aspirin, NSAIDS and COX2 Inhibitors Can Be Used To Treat Cancers?

The scientific journals are full of articles discussing the use of NSAIDs, COX2 Inhibitors, and Aspirin to kill cancer cells in the lab. There are also many articles talking about the use of these agents for cancer chemoprevention and for people who already have cancer. In fact, several are already cleared by the FDA as treatment options for cancer chemoprevention and for use with traditional treatment regimens.

However, the general consensus of all the journal articles is that these agents aren’t actually useful as cancer treatment and/or suppression agents because you can’t safely get their concentrations high enough in the blood.

I do not believe this is true. In fact, although I am uncertain of the reliability of being able to safely impact tumors that reside on the brain side of the blood-brain barrier, I strongly believe that you can achieve sufficient plasma concentrations.

Although a knowledgeable physician/pharmacist team is needed – it is probable that most patients can safely achieve blood concentrations that should be adequate to impact the growth of several different cancer types.

I explain this belief in the excerpt pasted below. It’s from the protocol you can find at this link: http://thatcrazypharmacist.com/?p=452

NF-Kappa B is one of the pathways that this protocol targets. Many NSAIDs are capable of impacting this pathway, and of inhibiting cancer cell growth and/or inducing apoptosis. But, translation of this property to humans is challenging because it is difficult to safely achieve free plasma concentrations that are sufficient to elicit the desired effect because of drug metabolism, associated toxicities, and plasma protein binding.

Salicylate based NSAIDs (aspirin and salsalate) are pharmacokinetically unique in that their metabolism and plasma protein binding is saturable – thus enabling the generation of significant free plasma levels. It is known that the levels that are safely achievable are sufficient to impact NF-Kappa B as the result of studies into their ability to shut down cellular crosstalk from the NF-Kappa B pathway to insulin receptors.1-7, 63-64

The selective-COX2-inhibitor celecoxib also appears to be capable of impacting NF-Kappa B, but it shares the metabolism and protein binding limitations the NSAIDs have. However, it is capable of impacting this pathway at much lower concentrations than the NSAIDs do. It appears probable that this is the basis for its ability to impact colorectal adenomas and adenomatous polyps at twice daily 400 mG doses.13, 15, 21 Despite an impressive body of evidence supporting its ability to impact cancer growth and propagation it was not chosen as the primary agent for NF- Kappa B impact because of its questionable status relative to cardiovascular events and physicians’ reluctance to use it because of those questions.

Remember – you must ALWAYS have a physician’s support to try these ideas. I’m just a pharmacist – not a physician, and I’m providing information for you to review and discuss with your physician.

More Low Dose Naltrexone Info – For Kristal

We’ve talked about Low Dose Naltrexone and its possible usefulness for cancer prevention or treatment.

http://thatcrazypharmacist.com/?p=497 and http://thatcrazypharmacist.com/?p=446 

But, we haven’t really talked very much about its use for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases – e.g. ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), Parkinsons, Crohns Disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis, etc….

And, there are some who think it might be useful for the treatment of autism.

Additionally, there are several sites that have put a lot of work into trying to get the word out about the usefulness of this medication protocol.

As I’ve continued to research this topic I’ve run across several that I think would be good places for people to look for more information.

So, here are some other links that I think are valuable sources of information.

http://www.ldners.org/

http://www.ldnnow.co.uk/ 

http://www.ldnscience.org/

http://www.ldnaware.org/

http://www.ldnresearchtrust.org/ 

http://glasgowldn2009.com/

The glasgowldn2009.com link is a very good place to go to see video presentations by health care providers and patients who have actually been using LDN for their diseases. It’s extremely well done.. and a site I think all who are asking questions about LDN should visit.

I also think the ldnscience.org site is a good source of information that isn’t as easily or obviously available on the other sites.

But, all the links have information that I think is valuable – or I wouldn’t be listing them here.

There are several books on the market that talk about Low Dose Naltrexone. I’ve only read a couple of them so far. The one that I think is particularly well done is ‘The Promise of Low Dose NaltrexoneTherapy’.

You can buy it online at any of the major bookstores. It’s a little pricey,  but actually worth what they’re asking for it.

If you’re cash strapped you can find an online version of it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/42236118/The-Promise-Of-Low-Dose-Naltrexone-Therapy-ISBN-0786437154 .

But, if you can afford it I recommend buying it as a reference to show to your Physician, friends and family members… and to support the efforts of those who put so much effort into writing it.

OK, that’s all for now.. have to get to work.

Again, remember that I’m a Pharmacist… NOT a physician. We all have our areas of expertise. I’m providing information that you can take to your Physician to discuss and decide whether it is right for you. I believe in what I’m posting, but I also strongly believe in the fact that Pharmacists Pharmacist, Doctors Doctor, and Patients MUST help their Physicians understand the things that they aren’t aware of.

Ancient Spices – Would YOU Wage A War For Something That Only Smelled Or Tasted Good?

From time to time my fellow pharmacists have to listen to me mull over ideas that are bouncing around in my mind in response to data I review.

Although I’ve talked to them about this topic quite awhile ago, I revisited it last night as we discussed the post I wrote recently about the use of Boswellia serrata (indian frankincense) to treat brain tumors. http://thatcrazypharmacist.com/?p=481

Ths gist of my thoughts are summarized in this question:

If a substance’s only value was that it smelled or tasted good would it have 1. historically been more expensive than gold? 2. been incorporated into legends across multiple societies and religions as a gift to their most important religious and hero personages? 3. generated a demand that supported entire industries and elaborate distribution systems? or 4. caused multi-year wars?

You get my point?

Cinnamon, Pepper, Frankincense, Myrrh, Cloves…. I’m sure you can name more than I can think of off the top of my head, and with only one exception – salt – these spices were not critical to preserving foods.

In fact, if you dig through the materials published by the experts on the forgotten physicians and healers across the world and across all cultures, you will find that these agents were actually deriving their value from their usefulness as medicinal agents.

Frankincense has demonstrated capabilities for treating arthritis, asthma, and other inflammatory maladies for centuries. It is now also being seriously looked at by researchers as a therapy for some cancers.

Myrrh has also been used historically for the treatment of tumors and other maladies, and is more often as not a component of any herbal mixture that contains frankinsence. In fact, in at least one animal based study it has been reported to be as effective as a chemotherapy drug for the treatment of cancer.

And, interestingly enough, it is possible that a component of many spices – and a major component of extracts of marijuana – is also a powerful anti-inflammatory agent that might have utility for the treatment of inflammatory conditions.

That substance is B-Caryophyllene, and it’s been shown to be a non-psychoactive cannabinoid receptor stimulator.

Found in high levels in cinnamon, pepper, cloves, many other spices and marijuana,  it is commonly used today as a food additive and spice. In fact, you can buy it in quantities larger than you would ever need if you really want to.

In animal studies it worked to strongly reduce inflammation at low concentrations, but not at high concentrations.  You can find a copy of the journal article detailing the study’s results here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/23/0803601105.abstract .

I think this is interesting, as the major sources most people would encounter would always deliver low doses at the levels of ingestion that peoples’ cullinary practices would allow.

Is it possible that we’ve adapted our needs to what mother nature would normally deliver?

Even more interestingly, I suspect that B-Caryophyllene plays a very significant role in the medical utility of marijuana extracts.

So, maybe the ancients knew by observation what naturally occuring substances could be used to keep us healthy and cure our ills?

It’s something to think about, don’t you think?

Please pass the pepper.

Remember, I’m not a Physician – just a crazy pharmacist. You need to talk this information over with your physician.