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 04-19-2018, 12:36 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
15,820 posts, read 4,937,494 times
Reputation: 48075

Advertisements

It needs to be pointed out that three standard deviations is NOT the same as one-third. It is a statistical term measuring how much a numerical value varies from the mean in that study, and it is actually a very small number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2018, 01:04 PM
 
1,092 posts, read 917,910 times
Reputation: 1663
Default I wish that were true, but it's obviously not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bg7 View Post
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.
No, I'm not getting paranoid, but I do get annoyed with people missing the obvious...

Unfortunately, researchers are not just researchers, they are people, and they respond to incentives like where their paycheck is coming from. If you want to know if you are reading a good unbiased study, find out who is funding it. It's a fact that the DEA, and other government agencies that funded studies in the US, are bias toward keeping cannabis a schedule one drug with no medical use, despite the fact that the US government itself has a patent on cannabis extracts as a neuro-protectant and that Marinol, a synthetic version of THC is available by prescription in the US to relieve nausea and stimulate appetite.

It's also a fact that US government studies that did not tow the line of, "cannabis is bad for you", were suppressed, and other studies that might have shown cannabis in a positive light were not funded, or as results came in were defunded because they didn't fit the governments dogma on cannabis. This includes the findings of the Marijuana Study Task Force that was formed under the Nixon administration that was not followed by Nixon because it said that cannabis was a relatively harmless substance, and should not be on the drug schedule AT ALL.

But if you want to believe that researchers are just researchers, and whatever they come up with are just facts, well, the tobacco industry, that you mentioned claimed that the "researchers" employed by them showed in their unbiased research (for years) that smoking does not cause cancer, but I'm not buying it.

The rest of your reasoned and logical post, I have no beef with, and I'm glad you pointed out the benefits of vaping, which is far better health-wise than smoking.

I am not against bad news coming out about the effects of cannabis use, I welcome that because we all need to know the truth in order to make our own best decisions. But the unending decades of negativity of the prohibitionists and government propaganda has no place in that discussion.

If you want to see unbiased medical and recreational research on cannabis, check out research being done in these countries:

Israel
Spain
Canada - but watch for who is funding it
Czech Republic
Uruguay - just setting up their research, so scarce at this point, but no government restrictions on such research
Netherlands - again, watch out who is funding. The Cities are fairly liberal, but the Federal government is often very anti-cannabis because of the problem of tourists being disruptive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 01:16 PM
 
1,092 posts, read 917,910 times
Reputation: 1663
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
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.
First paragraph - my comment - I'm looking forward to reading it.

Second paragraph - I attacked, if you will, the source of the article because I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, I've been reading UK propaganda on cannabis for many years. It's not like I have NO BASIS with which to view anything from them with skepticism.

I did not attack the "accuracy" of the Dr's information, I am suspect of the method of presentation, because it's actually non-specific as to how significant a doubling of instances really is, as I explained in my previous comment.

I am absolutely interested in the truth, but the truth usually involves actual numbers alongside the percentage increases or decreases, so you can see the truth, and not just focus on the sensational assertion that incidences doubled - and that is therefore very bad, without any context in which to make that assessment.

The people on this thread, including the OP, are asking for the facts because their health may depend on what they decide to do. it is a disservice to the OP and others here to cite percentages of a known, if rare, issue without the context of the actual numbers of cases associated with those percentages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,167 posts, read 10,585,610 times
Reputation: 9332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaconowner View Post
First paragraph - my comment - I'm looking forward to reading it.

Second paragraph - I attacked, if you will, the source of the article because I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, I've been reading UK propaganda on cannabis for many years. It's not like I have NO BASIS with which to view anything from them with skepticism.

I did not attack the "accuracy" of the Dr's information, I am suspect of the method of presentation, because it's actually non-specific as to how significant a doubling of instances really is, as I explained in my previous comment.

I am absolutely interested in the truth, but the truth usually involves actual numbers alongside the percentage increases or decreases, so you can see the truth, and not just focus on the sensational assertion that incidences doubled - and that is therefore very bad, without any context in which to make that assessment.

The people on this thread, including the OP, are asking for the facts because their health may depend on what they decide to do. it is a disservice to the OP and others here to cite percentages of a known, if rare, issue without the context of the actual numbers of cases associated with those percentages.
I did source the article; you had to follow the tracks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...&term=28382464.

The OP's article cited good and bad effects from marijuana. It did not say all was good or all was bad. By promoting it too much you can adversely affect some people. Let everybody read and make up their own minds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 05:38 PM
 
26,911 posts, read 38,161,464 times
Reputation: 34854
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
I did source the article; you had to follow the tracks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...&term=28382464.

The OP's article cited good and bad effects from marijuana. It did not say all was good or all was bad. By promoting it too much you can adversely affect some people. Let everybody read and make up their own minds.
This sounds like a reasonable approach. Unfortunately you aren't following your own advice. You don't seem to be able to anyone to make up their own minds. Anytime someone expresses a positive opinion you attack. Every time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,167 posts, read 10,585,610 times
Reputation: 9332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
This sounds like a reasonable approach. Unfortunately you aren't following your own advice. You don't seem to be able to anyone to make up their own minds. Anytime someone expresses a positive opinion you attack. Every time.
Here is our CDC's take on marijuana: https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects.htm. There are still plenty of problems and, apparently, many suffer the consequences.

Here is another good article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...uana/10386699/. Marijuana is responsible for many trips to the emergency room. Hopefully the doctor in the Colorado emergency room will explain or go into detail why this happens?

As far as who is attacking who; you have to just review all the pages in this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2018, 01:08 AM
 
Location: Mid-Atlantic
22,719 posts, read 21,779,470 times
Reputation: 27774
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
Here is our CDC's take on marijuana: https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects.htm. There are still plenty of problems and, apparently, many suffer the consequences.

Here is another good article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...uana/10386699/. Marijuana is responsible for many trips to the emergency room. Hopefully the doctor in the Colorado emergency room will explain or go into detail why this happens?

As far as who is attacking who; you have to just review all the pages in this thread.
Alcohol is much worse. Meth? Have you ever seen that? It's scary--in a passive sort of way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2018, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,167 posts, read 10,585,610 times
Reputation: 9332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerania View Post
Alcohol is much worse. Meth? Have you ever seen that? It's scary--in a passive sort of way.
I know there are worse things; but we are not discussing worse drugs. We are discussing a drug that has some beneficial effects and some detrimental effects. It is not a wonder drug for everybody and, if you don't need drugs, there is no reason to take these drugs. You are better off without them. On the other hand, if you have a condition that marijuana can help; then go ahead and use it (providing it is legal and you don't get yourself in trouble).

I just want people to be informed. I don't want people telling other people: "Alcohol is much worse. Meth?" because pot also has problems and two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone of the heavy users I have known did not stop at just pot; they would smoke, drink and still use pot or other drugs. They also went to early graves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2018, 10:36 AM
bg7
 
7,698 posts, read 7,638,577 times
Reputation: 14991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaconowner View Post
No, I'm not getting paranoid, but I do get annoyed with people missing the obvious...

Unfortunately, researchers are not just researchers, they are people, and they respond to incentives like where their paycheck is coming from. If you want to know if you are reading a good unbiased study, find out who is funding it. It's a fact that the DEA, and other government agencies that funded studies in the US, are bias toward keeping cannabis a schedule one drug with no medical use, despite the fact that the US government itself has a patent on cannabis extracts as a neuro-protectant and that Marinol, a synthetic version of THC is available by prescription in the US to relieve nausea and stimulate appetite.

It's also a fact that US government studies that did not tow the line of, "cannabis is bad for you", were suppressed, and other studies that might have shown cannabis in a positive light were not funded, or as results came in were defunded because they didn't fit the governments dogma on cannabis. This includes the findings of the Marijuana Study Task Force that was formed under the Nixon administration that was not followed by Nixon because it said that cannabis was a relatively harmless substance, and should not be on the drug schedule AT ALL.

But if you want to believe that researchers are just researchers, and whatever they come up with are just facts, well, the tobacco industry, that you mentioned claimed that the "researchers" employed by them showed in their unbiased research (for years) that smoking does not cause cancer, but I'm not buying it.

The rest of your reasoned and logical post, I have no beef with, and I'm glad you pointed out the benefits of vaping, which is far better health-wise than smoking.

I am not against bad news coming out about the effects of cannabis use, I welcome that because we all need to know the truth in order to make our own best decisions. But the unending decades of negativity of the prohibitionists and government propaganda has no place in that discussion.

If you want to see unbiased medical and recreational research on cannabis, check out research being done in these countries:

Israel
Spain
Canada - but watch for who is funding it
Czech Republic
Uruguay - just setting up their research, so scarce at this point, but no government restrictions on such research
Netherlands - again, watch out who is funding. The Cities are fairly liberal, but the Federal government is often very anti-cannabis because of the problem of tourists being disruptive.

You still seem clueless about this. There are more US-based published research papers showing measurable benefits of various individual, or entourage effect, cannabis components than any of those country-based publications. Get on PubMed. This 2018 not 1960. And those showing the (inevitable) undesired consequences too. Yes, you are coming across as paranoid - and someone susceptible to confirmation bias. Funding with NIH grants leads to conclusions all the time that are "inconsistent" with "government policy." You try to analogize with tobacco industry funding - when their research output is basically miniscule - and nowadays all conflicts of interest, grant funding and research funding is also published. Its just naÔve to label this country's output or that country's output (not even always in peer-reviewed journals) as somehow having more veracity than that coming form US research labs. What's more, most research is paid for by the biopharma/pharma industry - where they are trying to find a provable therapeutic effect or by universities - and most university-published research on THC and terpenes in the past decade is dominated by positive biological effects. Epidemiological data shows what it shows - its usually meta-analyses where the data is present for anyone to look at and has already been researched and "paid for" well prior to the meta-analyses being done (and usually by someone else).




That's why results are published, along with the subjects used, the conditions, the methods and the materials used to obtain them - all of it anyone can go reproduce or disprove.


You are confusing propagandist's claims and PR with the actual demonstrable research. Two different things. Just because you don't like a result doesn't make it invalid and biased - same with climate research, GMOs. You're putting dogma before falsifiable fact. I know its ironic we are talking about paranoia, but really.


You also mention patents - not only have US patents been issued on medical uses for marijuana or components thereof, or new strains, the US Government, through its agency the Patent Office, continue to be issued this very day - all based on data obtained in the US. (And subsequently published in the patents).




The current scientific consensus - based on what anyone can access in the published data - is clearly in weight of medical advantages from marijuana and its components, a huge amount of that research is US research. The shoot-down-anything-negative nonsensers notwithstanding. It contains tens of bioactive chemicals, and will therefore have side effects, that is indisputable. Rubbishing them simply because they are inconvenient or don't fit the narrative is what's fraudulent.

Last edited by bg7; 04-20-2018 at 10:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2018, 10:52 AM
bg7
 
7,698 posts, read 7,638,577 times
Reputation: 14991
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
I know there are worse things; but we are not discussing worse drugs. We are discussing a drug that has some beneficial effects and some detrimental effects. It is not a wonder drug for everybody and, if you don't need drugs, there is no reason to take these drugs. You are better off without them. On the other hand, if you have a condition that marijuana can help; then go ahead and use it (providing it is legal and you don't get yourself in trouble).

I just want people to be informed. I don't want people telling other people: "Alcohol is much worse. Meth?" because pot also has problems and two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone of the heavy users I have known did not stop at just pot; they would smoke, drink and still use pot or other drugs. They also went to early graves.
Meth has no societal or medicinal benefits whatsoever. Marijuana clear does have medicinal benefits (and problems - just like all medicines, i.e. just like all bioactive chemicals). Its not simply a comparison of two wrongs.
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