U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2018, 11:30 AM
 
1,092 posts, read 917,298 times
Reputation: 1663

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
While the article is from the UK it quotes an American doctor in Colorado:

"“After marijuana was legalized in Colorado, we had a doubling in the number of cases of cyclic vomiting syndrome we saw,” many probably related to marijuana use, said Dr Cecilia J Sorensen, an emergency room doctor at University of Colorado Hospital at the Anschutz medical campus in Aurora, who has studied the syndrome."

Either there is a problem or there is no problem. There is enough material and names to at least check the findings. You cannot dismiss everything because it came from the UK or Australia.

There are other red flags on cannabis use like this older article: https://www.yahoo.com/news/stroke-he...143600325.html.

Of course you can question the studies and articles. Like has been pointed out; vested interest could be behind some of those studies. It would be foolish to dismiss all negative information without doing the research. By the way; I did look to see if the doctor I just quoted was real and found this: https://profiles.ucdenver.edu/display/6809017.
Here is the problem with people with an agenda, and DR's do have agendas just like other people, she said there was a doubling of cyclic vomiting cases. What does this actually mean? She really is saying nothing while making it sound really significant. For example, if there were 3 cases before cannabis was legalized annually, and now there are 6 cases annually, that would be a doubling, but not significant. However, if there were 600 cases annually before legalization, but now there are 1200 annually that would be significant. People with an agenda, on both sides of an issue, like to use percentages instead of actual numbers because it makes an activity sound more dramatic if you can say incidences doubled or tripled, but without the real numbers, such pronouncements are worthless.

Also, there have been plenty of articles about this malady, and the majority agree that it is a rare issue that occurs in heavy users, is not fatal, and symptoms are immediately relieved by taking a hot shower and avoiding the use of cannabis.

If you do any research of UK and Australian GOVERNMENT positions on cannabis you will find a lot of dubious claims and outright falsehoods, just as you will on US government sites. So I discount them pretty heavily. Even this DR in CO said the incidents were PROBABLY related to cannabis use - meaning she doesn't know that for a fact, she is simply ASSUMING that it is. She may have "studied" the syndrome, but not in a scientific way.

A link between cannabis and a medical condition does not prove causality. Makes a good headline on the "horrors" of cannabis use, but nothing more. Prohibitionist researchers also say that since cannabis raises your blood pressure (initially) that it could be linked to heart attacks in addition to stroke, but no causality has been shown that this is in fact true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2018, 11:54 AM
bg7
 
7,698 posts, read 7,633,154 times
Reputation: 14991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaconowner View Post
Here is the problem with people with an agenda, and DR's do have agendas just like other people, she said there was a doubling of cyclic vomiting cases. What does this actually mean? She really is saying nothing while making it sound really significant. For example, if there were 3 cases before cannabis was legalized annually, and now there are 6 cases annually, that would be a doubling, but not significant. However, if there were 600 cases annually before legalization, but now there are 1200 annually that would be significant. People with an agenda, on both sides of an issue, like to use percentages instead of actual numbers because it makes an activity sound more dramatic if you can say incidences doubled or tripled, but without the real numbers, such pronouncements are worthless.

Also, there have been plenty of articles about this malady, and the majority agree that it is a rare issue that occurs in heavy users, is not fatal, and symptoms are immediately relieved by taking a hot shower and avoiding the use of cannabis.

If you do any research of UK and Australian GOVERNMENT positions on cannabis you will find a lot of dubious claims and outright falsehoods, just as you will on US government sites. So I discount them pretty heavily. Even this DR in CO said the incidents were PROBABLY related to cannabis use - meaning she doesn't know that for a fact, she is simply ASSUMING that it is. She may have "studied" the syndrome, but not in a scientific way.

A link between cannabis and a medical condition does not prove causality. Makes a good headline on the "horrors" of cannabis use, but nothing more. Prohibitionist researchers also say that since cannabis raises your blood pressure (initially) that it could be linked to heart attacks in addition to stroke, but no causality has been shown that this is in fact true.


Most researchers are... researchers. Because their findings don't fit what a dogmatic pro-marijuana, or a dogmatic climate change denying, or a GMO-hysteria public wants to already believe - doesn't make them prohibitionist. The published results are they for everyone to see and try to reproduce. No, one study doesn't make an indisputable conclusion. You need a bunch of studies and then preferably meta-analysis. But so what.


Of course cannabis, which has dozens of bioactive chemicals in it, indisputably has side effects. Whether the side effects one personally experiences outweigh the benefits one is taking it for is obviously a personal decision.


Epidemiological studies will start to show what the issues are (which of course they would now there is more data and ability to study) as will more papers showing benefits of cannabis or individual components of cannabis.


Proof of causality can be held to such a standard that it can never be proved, even, for example, tobacco and lung cancer if you insist on causality being literally shown in a specific way, but epidemiological and meta-analyses are sufficient for people not being deliberately obtuse. Most lung researchers acknowledge issues with bronchitis, sometime bullous lung diseases, inflammatory effects(both pro and anti in different parts of the airways), and know for a fact, of the commonality of certain substances in combusted marijuana and tobacco smoke.


It comes down to an individual weighing it up for themselves. And, given the multitude of issues with any organic combustion products, people should also weigh up for themselves the highly likely disadvantages of smoking as opposed to, eg, vaping. And of course, the level of use. Chronic recreational vs limited medicinal.


One might think you're getting paranoid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2018, 04:57 PM
 
26,890 posts, read 38,142,724 times
Reputation: 34834
In case some don't know.

Quote:
The FDA has approved a few drugs made from synthetic cannabinoids, including Insys Therapeutics Inc.’s Syndros for loss of appetite in people with AIDS and nausea caused by chemotherapy.
From:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...from-fda-staff
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2018, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,141 posts, read 10,574,410 times
Reputation: 9305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaconowner View Post
Here is the problem with people with an agenda, and DR's do have agendas just like other people, she said there was a doubling of cyclic vomiting cases. What does this actually mean? She really is saying nothing while making it sound really significant. For example, if there were 3 cases before cannabis was legalized annually, and now there are 6 cases annually, that would be a doubling, but not significant. However, if there were 600 cases annually before legalization, but now there are 1200 annually that would be significant. People with an agenda, on both sides of an issue, like to use percentages instead of actual numbers because it makes an activity sound more dramatic if you can say incidences doubled or tripled, but without the real numbers, such pronouncements are worthless.

Also, there have been plenty of articles about this malady, and the majority agree that it is a rare issue that occurs in heavy users, is not fatal, and symptoms are immediately relieved by taking a hot shower and avoiding the use of cannabis.

If you do any research of UK and Australian GOVERNMENT positions on cannabis you will find a lot of dubious claims and outright falsehoods, just as you will on US government sites. So I discount them pretty heavily. Even this DR in CO said the incidents were PROBABLY related to cannabis use - meaning she doesn't know that for a fact, she is simply ASSUMING that it is. She may have "studied" the syndrome, but not in a scientific way.

A link between cannabis and a medical condition does not prove causality. Makes a good headline on the "horrors" of cannabis use, but nothing more. Prohibitionist researchers also say that since cannabis raises your blood pressure (initially) that it could be linked to heart attacks in addition to stroke, but no causality has been shown that this is in fact true.
If you followed the thread about Dr. Cecilia J. Sorensen you will see that she has a publication coming out on June first of this year about the subject. After her publication is available; then you can verify her numbers or add your links to prove differently.

First you attacked the source of the article: "One of the reasons I don't trust articles, studies, and research from the UK (and Australia) is that they have politicized cannabis research, just like the United States, and their governments bias has ALWAYS been negative." Then, when I pointed out that the article used information from a doctor in Colorado; you attack the accuracy. To me it sounds as if you are not really interested in the truth - you are only interested in what works for you. But that is my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2018, 09:21 PM
 
26,890 posts, read 38,142,724 times
Reputation: 34834
Attack, attack, attack. You are consistently single-minded. As soon as anyone disagrees with your stance you attack whatever they say.

Then you accuse them of attacking you.

Pot/kettle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 12:00 AM
 
26,890 posts, read 38,142,724 times
Reputation: 34834
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/healt...effects-study/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,141 posts, read 10,574,410 times
Reputation: 9305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
First, it is an attack when you cite no examples or studies to contradict the information.

Now, according to that link: "The researchers found that, overall, the cognitive functioning of frequent marijuana users was reduced by one-third of a standard deviation compared with non-frequent marijuana users -- a relatively small effect size, according to Scott." The link also goes on to state: "......appeared to return to normal after about 72 hours of marijuana abstinence.......". At the same time it points out that how many participated in the study: "....the new research combined data from 69 previous studies, resulting in a comparison of 2,152 frequent marijuana users with 6,575 non-users. Participants ranged in age from 10 to 50, with an average age of 21."

In the video, that accompanies the text, the article goes on to state that the author knows a 3 year old epileptic girl that went from 300 seizures to only 2 a month when taking marijuana.

Here is my problem with that article: First it is about a study of participants that range from 10 to 50 years old and it gives no breakdown how many were younger than 21 or over 21. In the video it talks about the health benefits to a 3 year old with no data to back up the damage done her young mind. It is an upbeat video that almost reassures young users of no problems; other than their cognitive function is reduced by one third for up to 72 hours! Just what every parent wants; a child that only uses two thirds of their brains for three days after they use pot! The tone of the article sounded like it encouraged our young to partake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 09:29 AM
 
26,890 posts, read 38,142,724 times
Reputation: 34834
lol Attack!

I only posted that link so others had access to the information. I wasn't trying to extol the virtues of marijuana usage by children. Just making information available to others.

You, on the other hand, immediately went on the attack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,141 posts, read 10,574,410 times
Reputation: 9305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
lol Attack!

I only posted that link so others had access to the information. I wasn't trying to extol the virtues of marijuana usage by children. Just making information available to others.

You, on the other hand, immediately went on the attack.
NO! I just read and listened to your link! Which is more than many do to links that claim there are problems with marijuana.

That CNN article sounded and read like it was in favor of children using drugs. If you are not in favor of them using drugs; why did you post it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 11:09 AM
 
26,890 posts, read 38,142,724 times
Reputation: 34834
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
NO! I just read and listened to your link! Which is more than many do to links that claim there are problems with marijuana.

That CNN article sounded and read like it was in favor of children using drugs. If you are not in favor of them using drugs; why did you post it?
Let's try this again since your reading comprehension seems rather weak.

Quote:
I only posted that link so others had access to the information. I wasn't trying to extol the virtues of marijuana usage by children. Just making information available to others.
You see what I wrote there? It's the same thing I wrote in my previous post. All the information is there in only three sentences. Of course you have to actually read what I wrote and take the time to comprehend what it means.

Try keeping up will you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top