I think this is silly and poor reporting and science. http://health.msn.com/health-topics/...9646>1=31036
Printable View
I think this is silly and poor reporting and science. http://health.msn.com/health-topics/...9646>1=31036
O ya you didn't know about this they figured this out in the 1920's they made a movie about it called reefer madness they also found out it makes black men want to rape white women! There is also documented cases of it making teenage girls melt into couches!
I cant remember how many times pot has made me want to rape white women..its a scientific fact
"It is the third most widely used addictive substance after tobacco and alcohol, the study authors noted."
I was going to shame you guys for putting something down just because it disagrees with what you think, until I read that. Weed is addictive like cheeseburgers are addictive. That study was probably a witch hunt. They even threw in the line at the end; "Weed is bad, but alcohol is JUST DANDY!" I hate to suggest that any study is loaded, especially one I haven't seen the data for, but that does look fishy.
In a study of 6 randomly chosen handicapped people, it was shown that pot can cause paralysis if smoked every third day, starting on a Tuesday, in 1.76 gram increments, out of a rice paper. Also, if you die while smoking pot, studies show that it is possible it is because of the pot
Which would explain spontaneous combustion lol it's all because of weed!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Evans
Yea, I would like to know if they took a random sample, or took a random sample of people with psychosis and asked them if they smoked weed. If they did, that study doesn't prove jack shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Evans
Can someone say propaganda?
I didn't get all the way through the original paper yet (it's a bitch. Meta-analyses have a lot of math... :) ) but I'll say this: The science is pretty good, but this article is pretty bad at covering it. Which is often true of news articles about research. The only real conclusion that comes from the paper is that *IF* you are already predisposed to psychosis *AND* you smoke weed *AT A YOUNG AGE* you will develop that psychosis on average about 2-3 years earlier than you would have otherwise. That's not the same as "Weed causes psychosis." The only population studied were those who developed psychosis. This didn't compare the rate of psychosis in weed-smokers vs. non-smokers as compared to the general population. In short, if you are already at high risk for schizophrenia and you are in your teens, you should probably lay off the weed; at least until you're older.
There are real problems with the way research is written about in the media. Unless you've had some real training (and a LOT of practice -- everything gets better with reps!) it's not at all obvious how to go about critiquing scientific literature. I have yet to see a news article that includes a proper discussion of methods of critique. We don't even teach critical thinking until college and even then only in fits and starts. This article didn't do a very good job of explaining the methods and results of the paper (how many people here have heard of a meta-analysis before this article much less attempted to critique one?). They largely read the authors' discussion and added in a few tidbits of their own.
It's frustrating because both really good science and some really questionable crap are written about by the same media outlets and are either so "dumbed down" or oversimplified that the only critique most people are able to give is: "That's bullshit." It does a disservice to the people -- like so many you'll find on this forum -- who ARE interested in the topic and actually have the mental wherewithal to READ research. It also does a HUGE disservice to the people who are actually doing very good research. The good stuff gets thrown in with the not-so-good and it all reads the same. It doesn't matter how much fillet mignon you mix with dog shit; it's still gonna taste like dog shit if you lump it all together.
If I can get a non-subscriber link to the original article, I'll post it.
Hell I feel better.
@Jason Hyatt - Thanks for the clarification. Makes WAY more sense. I believe that. It's the same as the studies that show that if you are predisposed to or have latent schizophrenia, mushrooms can activate it. Really, the truth to get out of it is that anything psychoactive can push an unstable mind over the edge.
Meta-analysis can never follow the rules of hard science, for example being double-blind, controlled, or proposing a way to falsify the theory in question. It is only a statistical examination of scientific studies, not an actual scientific study, itself.
A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics. Robert Slavin has argued that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice he calls 'best evidence meta-analysis'. Other meta-analysts would include weaker studies, and add a study-level predictor variable that reflects the methodological quality of the studies to examine the effect of study quality on the effect size.
I have actually seen this first hand. Although weed wasn't the only drug used, dude def went into deep psychosis. I think we were like 16.