Archive for the ‘Veteran Care’ Category


The Empire Strikes Back: DEA Quietly Announces “Schedule I” Status For CBD Extracts To Comply With United Nations Demands… CBD Prohibition? Hemp Industry Disputes – Dec 16, 2016 – By Mike Adams

[Ric/Rex Says: “When Did WE Vote For The DEA To Comply With ANYTHING That Globalist Shill Committee EVER Has To Say About Things SOVEREIGN To “WE THE PEOPLE”

The DEA Best Start Remembering WHO Pays Their BILLS – Anyone Else Tired Of The DYSFUNCTIONAL THRALL OUR Government SEEMS To Be Held In THRALL BY The U.N. & Their OLIGARCH Controllers?  

But This Affects Me & MANY Others Directly. 

I Have 4 Weeks To Gather Enough Money To Lay In A Supply Of CBD OIL Before I Can No Longer Buy It[Until The DEA Is STOPPED! 

My E-Mail: IS Also My PayPal I.D.

Send What You Can For Me-But Also Make Sure Those YOU Care For Aren’t Cut Off From This Life-Changing, Or As It IS In MY Case, LIFE-SAVING MEDICINE!”] 

In case you didn’t notice, the war against human freedom is now in full force across the entire establishment:

Big Media, Big Pharma, Big Government, Big Banks and Big Agriculture are assaulting our bodies and minds by the hour, it seems.

The latest salvo in that war happened just a day ago, as the DEA quietly added all cannabinoids (including CBD) to its “Schedule I” classification of controlled substances in a new ruling that goes into effect on January 13, 2017. 

(Be sure to also read the hemp industry’s response below, which confirms “The sky is not falling…”)

ACTION ITEM: Sign our petition that asks the incoming Trump administration to legalize CBD supplements nationwide:

Via the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 240, published Wednesday, December 14, 2016, “Rules and Regulations” []:


Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1308

[Docket No. DEA–342]

RIN 1117–AB33

Establishment of a New Drug Code for Marihuana Extract

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.


The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

Section 1308.11 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(58) to read as
follows: § 1308.11    Schedule I.


(58) Marihuana Extract—(7350)

Meaning an extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis, other than the separated resin (whether crude or purified) obtained from the plant.

In effect, the DEA has, completely outside any act of Congress, created an entirely new “Schedule I” controlled substance it calls “Marihuana Extract” (note the spelling with an “h” rather than a “j”). This “Marihuana Extract” is, according to the DEA, any extract containing “one or more cannabinoids…”

CBD is, of course, a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. It’s just one of over a hundred cannabinoids found in hemp extracts, which also include CBD-A, CBG, CBC, CBN and so on.

Sign our petition at this link to ask the Trump administration to protect access to CBD products and keep the DEA’s hands off natural medicine from Cannabis. []

The sky is not falling! Hemp Industry Association responds…

From the Hemp Industry Association, here’s a thoughtful response on all this, which insists the DEA’s new classification is not a show-stopper []:

Yesterday the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a Final Rule on the coding of marijuana extracts.

Unfortunately some misleading media stories and social media postings lead quite a few people to panic at reports that CBD was being banned under this new rule.

The Sky is NOT Falling.

The Final Rule published by DEA did not change the legal status of CBD.

This can only be done by a scheduling action which has NOT occurred.

HIA has carefully reviewed this with our legal advisors and discussed it with industry experts.

While there are some differing opinions on the effect of the rule, there is general agreement that yesterday’s ruling did not change the status of CBD. Here are some important facts to know:

1. Cannabidiol is not listed on the federal schedule of controlled substances
2. Sec. 7606 of the Farm Bill defines hemp as distinct from marijuana and does not treat it as a controlled substance when grown under a compliant state program
3. Despite these facts, DEA has stated that CBD is a controlled substance previously
4. HIA strongly disagrees with the DEA position and is ready to take action to defend should DEA take any action to block the production, processing or sale of hemp under Sec. 7606
5. The Final Rule published on December 14th was not a scheduling action but rather an administrative action related to record keeping
6. The code assigned to “marihuana extract” in the rule is “Administration Controlled Substances Code Number” for the purposes of identification of substances on registration forms
7. The rule was originally published as a proposed rule in 2011 BEFORE the Farm Bill and didn’t mention CBD or hemp
8. DEA confirmed to a reporter from the Denver Post that this was an administrative action and did not change the status of CBD in federal law

So what does this all mean?

We believe the DEA rule on “marihuana extracts” was not directed at hemp derived CBD products and has been in the works for 5 years.

We also believe there is no imminent change in DEA policy regarding hemp derived CBD products.

For now, we want to urge everyone to calm down and continue with your businesses.

We also hope that in future, reporters will take the time to get the facts before posting misleading stories about hemp and CBD.

DEA Is Obedient To United Nations Globalists 

[Ric/Rex Adds: This MUST The End For The DEA-It Is Must Be Abolished And Replaced By An Entity Loyal To It’s Oaths To The ConstitutionNOT TO Globalist Political CABALS!]

This was all done, says the DEA, to comply with “Under international drug control treaties administered by the United Nations.”

According to the registry entry, the DEA needed to create a new Schedule I classification for CBD in order to “better account for these materials in accordance with treaty obligations.”

In other words, the DEA is claiming they are beholden to globalist treaties as the reason they need to criminalize CBD as a Schedule I Controlled Substance.

The move is described as an effort to “bring the US into compliance with international drug-control treaties,” reports

Such action is an admission that the federal government is really just an obedient lapdog of the United Nations. []

That same article confirms that the DEA considers CBD to be a Schedule I substance that’s illegal to possess:

In the DEA comment on the entry, Rosenberg directly addressed the question:

What if it’s only cannabidiol (CBD) and no other cannabinoids?

The agency’s response: “For practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids.

However, if it were possible to produce from the cannabis plant an extract that contained only CBD and no other cannabinoids, such an extract would fall within the new drug code” and therefore remain federally illegal.

In other words:

The DEA is confident that it can find enough traces of other cannabinoids in your CBD oil to arrest and prosecute.

And if they can’t, they still have the option of arresting and prosecuting based on the CBD oil itself.

By this same definition, grocery store-bought hemp seeds would also be illegal to possess, by the way, because even hemp seeds contain trace amounts of CBD.

Big Pharma Behind The Scenes

The DEA’s new ruling openly admits it was strongly influenced by Big Pharma, which asked the DEA to classify all cannabinoids as Schedule I drugs, not just CBD or any other isolated compound.

From the Federal Register:

Another comment from a pharmaceutical firm currently involved in cannabinoid research and product development praised DEA’s efforts to establish a new drug code for marihuana extracts as a means to more accurately reflect the activities of scientific research and provide more consistent adherence to the requirements of the Single Convention.

However, the comment expressed concerns that the proposed definition for the new drug code (i.e. ‘‘meaning extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols’’) is too narrow.

The comment suggested that the broader term ‘‘cannabinoids’’ be substituted for ‘‘cannabinols and cannabidiols.’’

The comment pointed out that other constituents of the marihuana plant may have therapeutic potential.

The comment further clarified that the broader term ‘‘cannabinoid’’ includes both cannabinol-type compounds and annabidiol-type compounds, as well as cannabichromene-type compounds, cannabigerol-type compounds, and other categories of compounds.

Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment Currently Protects CBD Consumers In 28 states… But It Could Vanish In April, 2017

Even under the DEA’s new Schedule I dictate, consumers of CBD products will enjoy state-level protections in at least 28 states thanks to the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, passed in 2014.

That law essentially prohibits federal DEA agents from going after CBD consumers in states where medical marijuana is already legal.

That amendment, however, must be renewed every year.

It was just renewed a week ago, on December 9, 2016, “as part of the continuing House resolution known as HR 2028, which funds the federal government through April 28, 2017,” reports Leafly.

“When that resolution expires next April, so does the protections afforded by Rohrabacher-Farr. Unless it’s renewed once again.”

What this means is that CBD protections for consumers in 28 states will likely expire in April of 2017.





The Industry Plans To Fight The Absurd DEA Classification With Lawsuits And Petitions

The CBD industry, naturally, is planning on waging a fierce battle to keep CBD products legal in all 50 states.

Via Leafly:

Robert Hoban, a Colorado cannabis attorney and adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver, raised the notion that the rule itself may not be lawful.

“This action is beyond the DEA’s authority,” Hoban told Leafly in an interview late this afternoon.

“The DEA can only carry out the law, they cannot create it. Here they’re purporting to create an entirely new category called ‘marijuana extracts,’ and by doing so wrest control over all cannabinoids. They want to call all cannabinoids illegal. But they don’t have the authority to do that.”

The CBD industry, in fact, has been looking for an opportunity to challenge the DEA in court, and it looks like that time has arrived.

SIGN OUR PETITION at this link, asking the Trump administration to protect consumers’ access to CBD products:

Consumers in many states may have just 30 days to acquire CBD products before sales are halted by many companies.

One large CBD extract producer told Natural News, “We’ve been advised by our attorney to halt CBD sales outside our home state in 30 days.”

That company plans to announce to its customers that they have 30 days to purchase their products, after which they plan to pull all sales except for inside their home state.

Other CBD producers are poised to fight the DEA regulation with federal lawsuits. With the DEA’s enforcement of its cannabis regulations up in the air — and with lawsuits from private industry on the horizon — 2017 looks to be a year of unexpected twists and turns for hemp extract producers and consumers.

Natural News will continue to cover the news on all this, including publishing on

My personal analysis, by the way, is that the DEA’s ruling will not stand for long. 

It will be either narrowed through clarification or rescinded.

But you never know for sure, especially when the DEA wants to wage a large power grab just in time for the new incoming administration which may be rather hostile to medical marijuana.


New Patent-Free MRSA Treatment Method And Petition For The NIH & DOD To Conduct Research On My Super-Bug Treatment Method.

I am requesting that the National Institutes of Health and Department of Defense conduct scientific research on my patent-free MRSA superbug treatment method.

Watch This Video:

Matthew Mcpherson Dublin, OH

More Deadly Than Most Realize

Last year 700,000 people died from this flesh eating disease. I have treated my last three MRSA infections with my combination treatment.

What Is MRSA?

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a type of staph that is resistant to certain antibiotics.

These antibiotics include methicillin and other [narrow-spectrum B-lactamase-resistant penicillin antibiotics] such as cloxacillin, dicloxacillin, oxacillin, and nafcillin, as well as a closely related class of drugs known as cephalosporins (e.g., cephalexin).

Overuse of antibiotics and the use of more powerful drugs than necessary for less serious infections may be some of the causes of the development of MRSA.

Approximately 1-2% of people carry MRSA on their skin or in their nose.

Infections caused by MRSA, for the most part, are not different from any other staph infection, although some strains of MRSA may be more aggressive than regular staph.

The diagnosis of a MRSA infection requires laboratory testing.

Laboratory testing can also be important since MRSA’s antibiotic resistance may make it more difficult to manage; testing can guide treatment.

The diagnosis of a MRSA infection requires laboratory testing.

Your doctor might recommend laboratory testing of a wound that looks infected and is not healing properly in order to confirm whether it is caused by MRSA and to determine which antibiotics might be useful in treating it.

Did you know MRSA kills more Americans each year than AIDS?

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) is a type of staph bacteria that is resistant to many antibiotics so is sometimes called a “superbug”.

In the community, most MRSA infections are skin infections that are minor (like a pimple, bump or boil) and can be treated with antibiotics.

However, it can quickly turn into deep, painful abscesses that require surgical draining.

Sometimes the bacteria remain confined to the skin, but they can also penetrate into the body, causing potentially life-threatening infections in bones, joints, surgical wounds, the bloodstream, heart valves and lungs. 

The vast majority of serious infections are linked to health care exposure like hospitals and nursing homes.

A few years ago the CDC and The Journal of the American Medical Association reported MRSA is killing more Americans each year than AIDS.


That year there were nearly 19,000 MRSA deaths while roughly 16,000 people in the U.S. died from AIDS.

I’m Not A Vet-How Does This Affect Me?

A USA TODAY investigation shows MRSA bacteria, once confined to hospitals, are emerging in communities to strike an increasing number of children, as well as schools, prisons, even NFL locker rooms.

Though hospitals have cut infection rates, MRSA cases among children are rising.

Most cases in communities go untracked, so government estimates undercount the threat.

MRSA can strike when the flu hits, with deadly results.

USA Today Reports: “Dangerous MRSA Bacteria To Expand Into Communities…”

Eric Allen went to bed March 1, thinking he had a light flu.

By the time he staggered into the hospital in London, Ky., the next day, he was coughing up bits of lung tissue. Within hours, organs failing, he was in a coma.

Tests showed that Allen, 39, had a ravaging pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant bacteria once confined to hospitals and other health care facilities.

Allen hadn’t been near a doctor or a hospital.

Same with the next victim, a 54-year-old man, who came in days later and died within hours.

And the victim after that, a 28-year-old woman, dead on arrival.

The doctors were alarmed.

“What really bothered me was the rapidity of their deterioration, a matter of hours,” says Muhammad Iqbal, a pulmonologist who chairs the infection control committee at Saint Joseph-London hospital.

“We were worried that something was spreading across the community.”

Indeed, a deadly form of MRSA had sprung from nowhere, picking off otherwise healthy people.

The cases thrust Iqbal and his colleagues to the front lines of modern medicine”s struggle against antibiotic resistant bacteria – perhaps the nation’s most daunting public health threat.

No drug-defying bug has proved more persistent than MRSA, none has caused more frustration and none has spread more widely.

In recent years, new MRSA strains have emerged to strike in community settings, reaching far beyond hospitals to infect schoolchildren, soldiers, prison inmates, even NFL players.

A USA TODAY examination finds that MRSA infections, particularly outside of health care facilities, are much more common than government statistics suggest.

They sicken hundreds of thousands of Americans each year in various ways, from minor skin boils to deadly pneumonia, claiming upward of 20,000 lives.

The inability to detect or track cases is confounding efforts by public health officials to develop prevention strategies and keep the bacteria from threatening vast new swaths of the population.

Not many of us have heard a lot about this, nor grasp how potentially dangerous the spread AND evolving tenacity of MRSA could be. Many of the “Successful” Antibiotics are losing potency while making MRSA more dangerous.

Superbug, Super-Fast Evolution – April 2008:

Fascination with tiny microbes bearing long, difficult-to-pronounce names is often reserved for biology classrooms — unless of course the bug in question threatens human health. 

MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) now contributes to more US deaths than does HIV, and as its threat level has risen, so has the attention lavished on it by the media.

At this point, almost any move the bug makes is likely to show up in your local paper.

Last month saw reporting on studies of hospital screening for MRSA (which came up with conflicting results), stories on MRSA outbreaks (involving both real and false alarms), and media flurries over the finding that humans and their pets can share the infection with one another.

Why is this bug so frightening?

The answer is an evolutionary one.

Where’s the evolution?

MRSA is resistant not only to the antibiotic methicillin, but also to whole other suites of our drugs, making it very difficult to treat and, occasionally, deadly.

Modern strains of MRSA did not, however, show up out of the blue.

In the early 1940s, when penicillin was first used to treat bacterial infections, penicillin-resistant strains of S. aureus were unknown — but by the 1950s, they were common in hospitals.

Methicillin was introduced in 1961 to treat these resistant strains, and within one year, doctors had encountered methicillin-resistant S. aureus. 

Today, we have strains of MRSA that simultaneously resist a laundry list of different antibiotics, including vancomycin — often considered our last line of antibacterial defense.

How did S. aureus morph from a minor skin infection to a terror?

When the media report on MRSA and other drug resistant pathogens, they often say that such pathogens have recently “emerged” — that they’ve “developed” resistance or “learned” to evade our drugs.

In fact, it’s more accurate to say that these bugs have evolved resistance.

It’s particularly ironic that newspapers might shy away from describing bacterial evolution as such because, when it comes to evolution, bacteria have most of the rest of us beat.

Bacteria are great evolvers for many reasons.

For example, their short generation times and large population sizes boost the rate at which they can evolve. In addition, one quirk of bacterial genetics is particularly salient to the evolution of antibiotic resistance: horizontal transfer.

Evolution with vertical transmission.

In most familiar organisms, new gene variants arise in a population through random mutation — that is, one individual experiences a genetic mutation and if that mutation ups the individual’s ability to survive and reproduce, it is favored by natural selection.

Mutant gene variants are passed from parent to offspring, and advantageous mutations spread through future generations in that way.

Over time, additional beneficial mutations that build on the first may occur and begin to spread in the population, allowing more complex traits to evolve as mutations accumulate.

This standard picture of evolution is at work in all organisms — whether they are humans that eventually evolve the ability to digest milk or a plant species that adapts to the presence of heavy metals in its environment.

The same mechanism also works on bacteria. In fact, biologists have observed the MRSA strain infecting a single patient evolving through random mutation and selection.

The patient was being treated with vancomycin, and slowly, over the course of a few months and 35 separate mutations, the bacteria evolved into a vancomycin-resistant MRSA strain.

Evolution with horizontal transfer.

So bacteria acquire genetic variation through random mutation, but, unlike humans or oak trees, they also regularly get new gene variants through the process of horizontal transfer — that is, they can pass DNA back and forth to one another directly.

For example, bacterial genes can be incorporated into small self-replicating circles of DNA called plasmids, which can be “injected” into other bacteria.

The receiving bacterium may even incorporate some of the new DNA from the plasmid into its own genome and pass those genetic sequences on to its descendants.

Importantly, bacteria do not have to be closely related to share DNA. Horizontal transfer can occur across even distantly related species — which would be a bit like you picking up the family pet and winding up with a few cat genes in your genome.

In terms of evolution, this means that bacteria do not have to rely on random mutation to produce a beneficial gene variant.

One species might pick up an advantageous gene from another species, and the process of natural selection could begin to act right away, spreading the new variant through future generations.


Mr McPhersons Protocol has already had limited but successful testing, but needs the full support of Government Health and Military Health Research Facilities to enable it’s deployment into the Military Fields of Operation, where the MRSA Statistics are even higher, as well as into the American Health system, as all of our “Plan B’s” are losing ground.

The MRSA foundation, a California based medicial non-profit organization, covered my story and hosted my video on their website. I am giving away idea patent and compensation free.

About Matthew McPherson:

My name is Matthew R. McPherson.

I am a United States Veteran who invented a method to treat my reoccurring MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) infections.

In the Navy I worked on phased array radar and mainframe computer systems which control the AEGIS Tomahawk cruise missile system.

Jonas Salk gave the world his polio vaccine patent-free, and I am doing the same with my MRSA treatment.

Currently I have treated two MRSA infections with my method without antibiotics.

It works by combining 1000 watt full spectrum light, alternating hot and cold air, staphaseptic mixed with Epson salt.

There is peer reviewed science why each of these ideas work.

Combining multiple peer review methods and the use of  a blue spectrum hydroponics bulb is my idea.

In the past I have had over 15 MRSA infections and have been  hospitalized in three of them.

I am not sure where I contracted my first MRSA infection.

My MRSA research was motivated by saving my life from my frequent reoccurring MRSA that was slowly killing me.

I had the puss head cultured at the VA medicial center and it came back as MRSA.

I treated it with only one session of my new light setup and no drugs of any kind.

I live in Ohio.

I have a neighbor friend who is a retired microbiologist.

He believes the idea is sound.

My medical record clearly supports the effectiveness of the MRSA treatment method.

From this point forward I am devoting my life to getting new treatments of MRSA through the FDA.

My doctor friend say it can’t be done but never underestimate the fight of this Veteran.

I am taking my treatment directly to the people through my YouTube video and future tours.

Read more about it

Primary literature:

Chambers, H. F. (2001). The changing epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus? Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(2):178-182.

Enright, M. C., Robinson, D. A., Randle, G., Feil, E. J., Grundmann, H., and Spratt, B. G. (2002). The evolutionary history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(11):7687-7692.

Ferber, D. (2003). Triple-threat microbe gained powers from another bug. Science 302(5650):1488.

Herold, B. C., Immergluck, L. C., Maranan, M. C., Lauderdale, D. S., Gaskin, R. E., Boyle-Vavra, S., Leitch, C.D, and Daum, R. S. (1998). Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in children with no identified predisposing risk. Journal of the American Medical Association 279(8):593-598.

Hiramatsu, K., Cui, L., Kuroda, M., and Ito, T. (2001). The emergence and evolution of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Trends in Microbiology 9(10):486-493.

Mwangi, M. M., Wu, S. W., Zhou, Y., Sieradzki, K., de Lencastre, H., Richardson, P., Bruce, D., Rubin, E., Myers, E., Siggia, E. D., and Tomasz, A. (2007). Tracking the in vivo evolution of multidrug resistance in Staphylococcus aureus by whole-genome sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(22):9451-9456.

Weigel, L. M., Clewell, D. B., Gill, S. R., Clark, N. C., McDougal, L. K., Flannagan, S. E., Kolonay, J. F., Shetty, J., Killgore, G. E., and Tenover, F. C. (2003). Genetic analysis of a high-level vancomycin-resistant isolate of Staphylococcus aureus. Science 302(5650):1569-1571

Sign Matthew’s Petition: