Bullshit Science

[McCamy Taylor]

I. Association is Not Causality

This headline caught my eye in the DU’s Latest section:

Cannibis smokers have a seven-fold schizophrenia risk. Harper government devotes funds to studying the link between marijuana use and mental illness.

http://www.thestar.com/mindmood/mentalhealth/article/682905

The article goes on to quote a self proclaimed expert:

"Science has shown that cannabis may actually trigger the onset of psychosis and may also intensify the symptoms for those who already have a psychotic illness," Smith said in announcing the grant.

We see this kind of bullshit news reporting of science all the time. Someone notices that people with X also have Y. If you are in the business of studying/selling/stamping out X, then you proclaim (via the lay press) that “X causes Y!”. If, on the other hand, you want to sell/study/ban Y, then it is clearly a case of “Y causes X!’.

The problem with the Canadian government’s anti pot pr is obvious. How do we know that schizophrenics do not choose to light up more often? Many lack jobs, social support networks, friends. Drugs are one the ways that people living on the edge self medicate. To proclaim that marijuana causes schizophrenia is a bit like saying “Wearing big shoes makes people tall.” If I studied height and compared it to shoe size, I would find a correlation. But that does not mean that you can buy a pair of size 13 shoes and grow to be six foot four.

“Association is not causality” is the term used to remind us that just because two things seem to go hand in hand, that does not mean that one of them causes the other. They could both be caused by a third factor that has not been identified yet. For instance, in the early days of AIDS, when the virus had not been discovered, homophobes could look at statistics of AIDS incidence among gays and declare “Gay sex causes AIDS! God is punishing the sinners!” By the same logic, they could later proclaim “New Orleans was struck by Katrina, and New Orleans has lots of gay folks. Therefore, hurricanes strike where gays and lesbians live.”

II. Science Does Not Have to Be “Fair and Balanced.”

You see this one whenever a scientific finding or study might cost some business some money. For instance, global warming. There is a huge body of evidence that confirms climate change which has occurred as we have become dependent upon fossil fuels. However, fossil fuels are Big Business. Therefore, supposedly responsible journalists will seek an opposing point of view when they write about the topic. They find their “Counterpoint” in bogus scientific institutes which are funded by industry. If you look hard enough, you can find doctors who will tell you that soft drinks are weight loss aids, sugared cereals make your kids smarter, ozone reduces infant mortality---hey, industrialized countries have better health care and more smog, so smog must improve the public health (see I. above), right?

This kind of scientific bullshitting is based upon the premise that any time a bit of news which might inconvenience someone is printed, the someone should have a chance to rebut it. Now, if your newspaper prints a story about how Politician X is a Godless Communist, then that is an opinion piece, and Politician X is probably entitled to his say. But, when you report on a scientific study or finding, if you do it in a responsible, unbiased way, you are not obligated to print an opposing opinion. Research is supposed to take into account all the possible confounding factors----the things which could interfere with the study and taint the results---which means that it does its own Point/Counterpoint.

A word of caution. Even scientific journals do not always screen what they print. Or, they may include a piece with a title that is deliberately misleading to the public, like a recent article which proclaimed that aspirin did not prevent as many heart attacks as previously supposed---without mentioning in the title that the study was done in Japan, where people have diets and lifestyles very different from our own. So, if you think the results sound fishy, go read the article yourself. Do not rely upon some Associated Press reporter to do it for you.

III. Jack the Ripper Was a Case Study, Not a Trend

There is a tremendous body of literature---some nonfiction, some fiction---about the British serial killer, Jack the Ripper. If you count up the number of pages spent discussing him versus the number of pages written about any other figure out of Edwardian England, you might decide that Edwardians tended to be mass murderers. This shows how the mind can amplify some particularly memorable event or story, transforming it from an isolated incident to a much larger reality.

Beware of journalists who write about a scientific topic (such as a controversial medical issue) by beginning or closing their piece with an anecdote about one person. I recently wrote a journal about the Associate Press reporter, Marilynn Marchione

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/412

who likes to include vignettes about 1) how wonderful a patent medication or treatment was for one particular individual or 2) how dangerous an alternative (i.e. non patent) medication or treatment was for one particular individual . It does not matter how factual the statistical information which follows is. If you “show” a reader something, it seems more “real” than something he is “told.” This is the meaning behind the old adage for writers “show, don’t tell.” Fiction writers have the task of making the unreal seem real. They do this by providing names, descriptions, dialogue, emotions. Journalists can do the same thing. So, for example, take a hypothetical story about how Drug Company Best Seller X has just been shown to be no more useful than water in a big, reputable study. If the piece concludes with a poignant tale about a young mother who took Drug Company Best Seller X and therefore she was alive to see her child’s piano recital---you will walk away with the impression that Drug Company Best Seller X is some pretty good shit.

IV. Extra Credit: The Only Good Study is a Double Blinded Prospective Study

This is not necessarily true, but I am trying to make a point. Some forms of research provide more valuable information than others. For instance, if you want to find evidence to suggest that X leads to Y, you do not sit down with a bunch of people who have Y and ask them "Did you ever X?" Because the chances are, people who are sick or have other problems will have spent a lot of time reflecting upon things that might have caused their problems. So, they may have better recall than some one else. Or, they may answer more honestly than someone else. Or, as in the case of schizophrenics, their underlying health problem may have caused them to do Y.

That kind of study is called a "retrospective" study, and there is a place for it. Sometimes, for ethical reasons, this is the only type of study that is possible, say when you want to learn about the natural history of an untreated disease. Remember Tuskegee, the prospective study in which Black men with syphilis were not treated. That study was unethical. A retrospective study of the health problems suffered by people before the invention of penicillin would have been ethical.

A "prospective" study is one in which you take a bunch of people/subjects which are all pretty much the same and give them two or more different treatments. Since the only thing different about the two groups is the treatment, you can make a good guess that any differences in the outcome of the two groups will be caused by your treatment. Prospective studies are best when they are "double blinded". i.e. the researchers do not know who is getting what treatment and the subjects do not know either. That way no one is inclined to see good results (where they do not exist) because they just know that X is better than Y. Some things, like surgical procedures, are hard to double blind. Some subjects will attempt to find out if they are getting treatment (as opposed to placebo), and if they discover they are on placebo, they drop out. This happened a lot in the early days of AIDS drug research. Some prospective studies have to be stopped early, for ethical reasons, if it becomes clear that the people getting X are doing much better than the people getting Y. Prospective studies tend to take a long time and consume a lot of money, too. This is why all the plant remedies remain "unproven" in this country.

It is important to look at who the subjects are. Japanese men who do not respond to aspirin may have diets high in natural anti-oxidants, fish oil, tea, soy and other things which we do not get in the U.S. A study done on men may not be relevant for women or children. A good study will discuss whether or not its findings are applicable to other groups. However, news reports are not likely to go into this kind of depth. So, when in doubt, read the original paper. Beware of "studies" which have such a small number of subjects that the researchers draw conclusions "which are not statistically significant." If you roll a die three times, you might get six each time. That does not mean the die only rolls sixes, i.e. if you roll it one hundred times, you will get six every time. The same thing applies to research. If someone rushes something to print claiming "Drug X cured more people than drug Y", but the outcomes between the two groups is only slightly different, maybe there is really no difference. Studies become more significant with a larger number of subjects and a smaller number of different factors (or treatments).

Remember, the almighty dollar rules this country and our news media. Lots of what passes for "science" is just snake oil.

[stuball111]

1. Don't get too wound up...

Consider the source, the SSC which is some private thing, and Harper... the P.M. who is seriously lacking in gray matter himself.

[kristopher]

2. You'll need to repost this about every 3 days...

Good explanation, it might actually help cure some small bit of the ignorance floating around out there.

[elocs]

3. Here at DU though, anthing that supports pot use is instantly applauded and approved

while anything negative is dismissed out of hand as being bullshit. I can see the commercials now: "Got Pot?"

[obliviously]

4. Pot public enemy number one

don't we have more important things to worry about?

[DCKit]

5. Off Topic Much? Just had to get your digs in, eh? Still have your "War on Drugs" decoder ring?

I hope you at least rec'd the OP for the sane discussion of scientific theory.

It's really not all about you.

[orleans]

6. they had decoder rings? (k&r btw) n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Who knew Nancy Reagan was a DUer?

[elocs]

50. Right, who knew that my 17 year old daughter has schizophrenia triggered by pot use?

It's no joke to me and although marijuana did not "cause" her schizophrenia it is widely recognized that it can trigger schizophrenia. Marijuana is not milk or orange juice, it is a mind altering drug and its use has dire consequences for some people who never suspect it when they start to use it.

I hope that nobody here needs to experience the tragedy of schizophrenia and how once a person has it they have it for life. Like diabetes it can be managed, but it has no cure.

I wonder what part of being a Democrat or being a DUer requires one to support the legalization and blank check use of marijuana without any thought for its negative consequences, not that many here at DU believe it has any negative consequences.

[Forkboy]

54. "Widely recognized"? Links to these many studies?

I hope that nobody here needs to experience the tragedy of schizophrenia and how once a person has it they have it for life.

I grew up with a father who paranoid schizophrenic/bi polar. He would have hallucinations, paranoid delusions, and once dreamt of killing my mother and chopping her up into little pieces. He never once smoked pot.

[elocs]

59. Yes, I can provide links, but they will each and every one be dismissed here.

You don't even have to check any of them out, just save the time and call them all bullshit right off the bat. The most important consequence of marijuana use and its connection with schizophrenia is its use by those under 21 whose brains are still developing, but even that point would never be conceded here. People always defend the use of their personal drug of choice as being harmless.

Oh, this link is from schizophrenia.com, a site that helps people with schizophrenia and their families and friends. Feel free to dismiss them also.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/cannabis.marijuana.schizophrenia.html#support

[GillesDeleuze]

81. these are just anecdotes and links to anti-drug studies nt

[elocs]

84. Sorry to burst your little world, but there have been actual studies for years

about marijuana use and it's connection with the onset of schizophrenia. It is easier though to simply dismiss anything that does not agree with your point of view and call it all bullshit. That is what is routinely done here.

[GillesDeleuze]

101. BULLSHIT

You are making the same mistake the OP says you will.

Good luck with your studies. some day, hopefully a science class is in your future.

[Greyhound]

65. So we should ban all substances that pose any risk to less than 1% of the population? n/t

[elocs]

66. Please point out to me where I ever said "ban"? You can't, can you? n/t

[Greyhound]

71. In that case what is your point?

The benefits of both pot and hemp far outweigh any of the exceptional hazards for an infinitesimal portion of the population.

[elocs]

75. 2.4 million American adults have schizophrenia. Is that an infinitesimal portion of the population?

Interesting that you can so easily dismiss so many people. The point is that marijuana use is not all sweetness and light, and those of us who have loved ones whose lives have been devastated by schizophrenia triggered by marijuana use know that pain. Frankly I think the greatest benefit for most here concerning marijuana is its use as a recreational drug and so they find it impossible to concede any negative findings about it.

There are 2 main things that can get you in trouble here at DU:

1. Being critical of anything concerning Dennis Kucinich.
2. Saying anything negative about pot.

People are defensive of their gods.

[FarrenH]

76. elocs, do you support prohibition

of alcohol and tobacco? Both are quantifiably more risky and more harmful than pot. Do you support prohibition of pot? I'm not denying pot has risks, but as others have, I think, pointed out, so do many things. Including many things that you can discover when its too late. Peanut allergies are extraordinarily common and can prove fatal, as can an allergy to basil.

Clearly the mere existence of risk is not grounds for prohibition, because to reason so leads to a reductio ad absurdum situation in which a potentially enormous number of common foodstuffs, extreme sports, sexual practices and so on are prohibited, and we are all living in a puritanical state. The only way to make a coherent argument is to either argue for such a state, or use an objective measure of risk and harm according to best contemporary knowledge. Such a measure exists in the form of the harm matrix I mentioned in the other thread, which compares physical harm, social harm and dependency of substances, evaluated by risk and effect, and places pot below both alcohol and tobacco. Hence my question.

Do you support prohibition? Do you drink at all?

[elocs]

83. Please point out to me in any of my posts where I say anything about a ban

or prohibition. Just because people support the legalization of marijuana should not preclude their ability to admit that there is a negative side of its use for some people. It is a mind altering drug. As well as other drugs it is a trigger for people who have a predisposition toward schizophrenia, but evidently people need to deny even that in order to justify their use of marijuana or its legalization.

I do not drink alcohol and by and large in this country the use of marijuana is already illegal. Were it legal I believe the age for its use should be the same as for alcohol--21, for by that time the brains of most young people have already matured and the impact of marijuana use and its negative impact should be diminished.

[FarrenH]

87. I asked a question, and it wasn't rhetorical

clearly you thought it was.

I happen to agree with you about negative effects, hence the discussion about harm ratings. Where I disagree with you is that a high age limit is a good response. In fact countries with higher age limits on alcohol consumption tend to have higher rates of alcoholism. And increasing the incidence of alcoholism is definitely not more favourable than protecting the adolescent brain from statistically small risks.

I understand that as a parent who wants their child to live a rich and full life one would obviously want to maximise their chances, but I think there is faulty reasoning employed in determining what does, in fact, maximise their chances, in light of the statistical evidence available.

In fact the evidence from progressive and less restrictive societies like the Netherlands suggests that maximising liberty, when coupled with effective education (this latter part is essential and I do think without it a more restrictive approach is sensible) diminishes irresponsible behaviour far more than more restrictive measures like high age limits do. The Netherlands, a country where adolescents can buy and consume beer at the age of 16 and have sex with parental consent at 13, has among the lowest number of teenage preganancies, the lowest number of hard drug addicts, the lowest number of alcoholics and so on in the world.

Its also important to distinguish between psychoactive substances that have lasting physical effects on the brain and substances that don't. Notwithstanding the evidence for a pot-scizophrenia link, which is psychological in nature, there is no evidence or suggestion at all that pot causes any damage to the brain, in the form of damage to or physical alteration of neurons, damage to supporting tissue etc etc. The effects are entirely transient. I have this on the authority of a book in my hand on physical brain health by the head of the American Neurological Association. Substances like alcohol, on the other hand, do have well-known long-term physiological effects.

This is a very important distinction and speaks directly to your concerns about psychoactive drugs and developing brains. In late adolescence, the brain is mostly fully developed in any event, but there really is no scientific basis for the idea that smoking a joint at 16 or smoking pot at 30 are going to have different outcomes in terms of physiological development of the brain. It might make a student lazier, say, and affect their later ability to get into college, with whatever consequences that implies. But this is a psychological effect that is contingent on culture and education. It will not result in a physiological state in later life that would be distinct from someone who only smokes pot in later life. And this is a comprehensively studied area.

[Greyhound]

96. Yes, .08% of the population is an is insignificant percentage. That does not mean that those 2.4

millions are themselves insignificant, nor does it mean that they should be written off in any way. However, crippling the the ability of the remaining 99.2% to accommodate them is insane at best.

According to MedicineNet, 1.3% of the population (3,900,000 Americans) are allergic to nuts, exposure to which can cause dramatic reactions up to and including death. Do we, or should we, ban peanuts, cashews, almonds, pecans, walnuts, etc. because it could be fatal for them to be exposed to them, or is it incumbent upon those that have this vulnerability to ensure that they are not exposed?

Cannabis Sativa is very nearly a panacea for the overwhelming majority of the population. There is a thread in GD today that repeats a partial list of the diseases and maladies alleviated by this plant. Is it your position that we should all be denied relief from the torments of all these ailments because your daughter has a rare condition that excludes her from using it?

I'm sorry that your family is afflicted with this, but don't deny tens of millions of others relief from their own torment so that she, or you, don't feel left out.

There is nothing negative about pot, excluding rare circumstances such as yours and the fact that it would eat into some major corporate profits, and Dennis Kucinich has and is right about far more issues and cares more about real people than the established leadership of the Democratic Party. That does not elevate him or that to the level of religious delusion.

Step back and get a grip.

[GillesDeleuze]

80. you are simply wrong

a genetic mutation that causes tertiary folding in outer brain protein structures caused, and triggered, your daughters schizophrenia.

surely, drugs can elevate symptoms, but THC is not a causal mechanism in any sense. THC has no effect on protein folding. Only DNA does.

[elocs]

85. Sorry, I'm not wrong simply because you say I am.

I have a direct interest in finding the truth about this and I have seen studies that support my point of view. Marijuana does not cause schizophrenia, but it does trigger it in some individuals. I have also seen firsthand evidence of it with my daughter.

[H2O Man]

98. Yep.

The issues concerning the use of any substance, including pot and alcohol, includes what are known as "risk factors." Some are a combination of internal and external; as parents, we try to educate our children about these. For example, we would not want our children to be riding around in an automobile "partying" ... for there are numerous risk factors: being arrested, and/or getting in an accident being obvious external risks. So, even if we might try to discourage "partying," we should still always be willing to provide "safe" transportation should a teen/young adult find themself without one.

An internal risk would be genetics. If there are numerous people with addiction-related issues in the family tree -- treated or untreated -- then a parent should let their children know that there is a higher risk of substance abuse problems for everyone in the family.

A combination of the internal/external is found in how families socialize. Is there heavy drinking in the home? At family reunions? Or, is there a cultural predisposition towards moderation? I like to use the example of Rocky Marciano, the great heavyweight champion. His family had the Italian tradition of a glass of wine with the evening meal. But they didn't have two glasses, or more.

Regarding pot: as you note, it does not "cause" schizophrenia, but it can trigger episodes in the population who is at risk. Other things that can trigger an initial or repeated episode include things such as the death of a family member, or the break-up of a romance. Recognizing these as "risk factors" does not mean that one is trying to "outlaw" or "ban" pot (or death, or romance) as a few people mistakenly are saying.

I worked in the mental health field for decades. Part of my experience involved working with those diagnosed as "MICA," or mentally ill, chemical abusers. As a general rule, people with a serious and persistent mental illness should avoid "partying." And, as you note, it isn't simply the treatment providers who recognize the associated risks; it is also the family members who see first-hand what the results of risk-taking behaviors are.

(On edit: I believe that pot should be legal.)

[GillesDeleuze]

100. care to show in your "research"

How marijuana causes protein to misfold?

The molecular neurophysiology is not on your side.

[pattmarty]

25. That's bullshit and you know it. I am very much pro-pot and.................

............I would believe a REAL study done by a known and respected entity, whether it proves or disproves anything about marijuana use. I may not like it, but I would respect and believe it as most liberals here would. That was precisely the point on that post, it was some weird backwater group and there was NO study yet, only unsubstantiated OPINIONS by the "theys". Last I looked there were over 300 responses to the post and the majority read the linked article and saw the "study" wasn't even started yet. If you look at ALL the RESPONSIBLE research done about marijuana in the last 100 yrs you will see NOTHING to say it has ANY bad effects. Matter of fact other than the "high" part science has been finding actual positive medical effects.

[hughee99]

31. It's not just Pot...

I 100% agree that association is not causality, and agree with the OP's points, but you can look at any number of topics and find the same thing anywhere (no matter what your political leanings are). Some people will believe a study that tells them what they want to hear without question, but dismiss a study that doesn't as "junk science". And sometimes both studies may use suspect scientific methods.

[Johonny]

38. pretty much

[rd_kent]

45. Here at DU, anything that supports the LEGAL CHOICE TO USE POT is instantly

applauded and approved. Stories like this one seem only serve to keep pot users as criminals. Most thinking folks can see that pot is no more (actauly much less) dangerous that booze, and stories like this one perpetuate the myth that pot is this bad bad thing that the government must protect adults from.

[Uncle Joe]

53. I would bet peanuts have killed more people than pot., but you don't

see Peter Pan or Jiffy people in prison splitting their families up, their property isn't confiscated, their doors aren't busted in by the police searching for jars of creamy or extra crunchy.

[rd_kent]

68. There has never been a single case of pot killing someone, ever!

[Uncle Joe]

70. That's what I thought, but peanuts have killed people. n/t

[rd_kent]

72. I was agreeing with you.

There are SOOOO many things more dangerous than pot, yet we still need to be "protected" from it.

[Forkboy]

52. Nice post, Bill Bennett.

[csziggy]

7. K&R

[Mythsaje]

8. One must remember that we've been innundated with such 'scientific' nonsense for decades

regarding the drug and its alleged effects. Everything from impotence to amotivational syndrome, the vast majority of which were easily countered in the minds of those they were attempting to fool by simple personal experience or observation. It's hard to believe pot makes one stupid when one has known plenty of intelligent users. It's hard to believe that pot makes people lazy when one knows plenty of people who work hard and would rather smoke a joint after a hard day than slug down a beer. It's hard to believe it makes one impotent when one is surrounded by ones own kids.

Skepticism on this subject is just a normal and healthy response to decades of deliberately crafted bullshit. It's not hard, given the motivation, to perform a scientific study that proves just about anything one sets out to prove. It's especially interesting that something like this comes out at a time when so much other research suggests that cannabis can help with a whole host of other ailments. It's almost a necessity to point to something, anything, negative given how much it might be able to help with so many illnesses from cancer to Alzheimers. There's an awful lot of money wrapped up in the war on marijuana and legalization or decriminalization would cost a lot of people a lot of money.

Considering how many people in the United States, for example, admit to using the drug regularly, it begs the question why schizophrenia isn't more wide-spread if this is indeed the case. When reading something like this, every pothead in the world is going to think "do I know any schizophrenics?" And if the answer is "no," they are most likely to conclude "yet another bullshit scientific 'study' much like all the ones that have come before."

Smoking pot doesn't make one stupid or gullible. In fact, from what I've noticed, all but the most brain-dead stoners tend to have quite well developed bullshit detectors.

Given government's history with this sort of thing, the most reasonable response IS "oh, bullshit." It has, after all, been the general trend for as long as any of us can remember. Most people would be far likely to buy it if it were sponsored by a government with no political axe to grind. Somehow I get the feeling that's not going to happen.

[pattmarty]

27. How about the "scientific research" in the 70's about it causing "man tits"??

Talk about scare tactics, that's why many won't believe shit anymore about marijuana.

[The Straight Story]

9. same with studies on second hand smoke

;)

[ThomCat]

10. Thank you for posting this.

I hope you are willing to repost this periodically. A lot of people here seem to have never taken basic science courses, or else didn't do well or don't remember them, and could really use this refresher ever now and again.

:)

[ImOnlySleeping]

77. Here's the way to disprove the causation.

The number of marijuana users has doubled over the last 10 years (in Canada at least), the number of people with schizophrenia has not.

[daedalus_dude]

11. Good. Only that pot DOES trigger schizophrenia.

Seen it happen a few times.

[Kitty Herder]

15. You've seen it happen a few times?

Where do you spend your time that you come across so many schizophrenic pot-smokers? I don't know any schizophrenics personally, let alone a few. I don't even know that many dedicated pot-heads and none of the ones I do know show any signs of schizophrenia.

[daedalus_dude]

19. Let's just say I know quite many pot-heads.

But to be fair, out of those that did develop schizophrenia I know only one case that didn't involve other drugs such as speed and ecstasy.

But I also know a few that didn't have a fully grown schizophrenic episode, but only some temporary
paranoia while under the influence of pot only.

Generally, THC can have a similar affect like amphetamines on the dopamine levels in the body in some cases. High dopamine levels then lead to hallucinations and schizophrenia.

The probability for this to happen to a single pot-head is less then 10% though IIRC. It depends on the individual metabolism. Some people can smoke pot all their life and never develop such symptoms.

[tekisui]

20. "...lead to hallucinations and schizophrenia". It's called getting super stoned.

That could be the smoker's desired effect. It isn't permanent nor is it common. And it takes a lot of high quality bud to get that stoned.

[EOTE]

21. I really suggest you read the OP again.

By your own words: "But to be fair, out of those that did develop schizophrenia I know only one case that didn't involve other drugs such as speed and ecstasy." So, you say that you know of one pot user who didn't use other drugs like speed and ecstasy who eventually went on to develop schizophrenia and you're convinced from that that pot leads to a user to develop schizophrenia? Brilliant scientific research you've done there, friend.

[daedalus_dude]

22. Let's assume a person smokes pot.

And this person develops mild hallucinations and paranoia, which wear off after a few hours. Now lets assume this person smokes pot repeatedly. Then this person gets to the point where the symptoms don't wear off, even after hours or days are weeks, like a spring that was "overstretched". I've seen this happen. This person was treated with dopamine blockers and eventually cured, but to this day, if this person as much as takes a single hit of pot, this person will have a setback into a state of hallucination that will take days to wear off.

I've seen it happen. Also a few psychologists that I know have confirmed that this is not an uncommon sight in mental institutions.

Face it, pot only, without other drugs involved, can and does cause this. Not in every person nearly, but in some. I cannot link to some large scale scientific studies, only tell you what I have seen and heard.

[EOTE]

29. Until you can link to large scale scientific studies, I'll go by my own anecdotal evidence.

I've been around dozens of pot smokers for a good 15 years now. And while I've certainly seen some paranoia (hell, I've experienced a lot of it myself), I've never seen anyone experience anything close to a schizophrenic episode. And the bulk of these folks are heavy, daily smokers.

[daedalus_dude]

33. Well, let's assume the probability of a heavy pot smoker to go schizo lies at 10 percent.

If you know six heavy pot smokers there is still about a 53 percent chance that none of them will exhibit symptoms.

The probability of going schizo may be lower. Say five percent. Then, if you know thirteen heavy pot smokers, you still have about a 51% chance that you will not meet a schizo.

In other words, even if you know quite a few heavy pot smokers, it is still very likely that you will not encounter someone for whom it causes problems.

I know one, out of a group of about fifteen people who had problems from smoking pot only. With those numbers, that is not an unlikely outcome.

[EOTE]

36. When I said dozens, I literally means DOZENS.

As in, more than 24. I'd say more than 40 overall. My high school friends, college friends, my work friends, my cousins and uncles and many of their friends. Never experienced anything more than your run of the mill paranoia. I'm not saying that there aren't people who smoke pot and then have schizophrenic episodes, but I think it's likely they were predisposed to schizophrenia to begin with. And again, I know the evidence I'm presenting is all anecdotal, but so is yours. Until I see a respected scientific study that links pot use to schizophrenia, I really have very little reason to believe that link exists.

[pattmarty]

46. Hey "dude", why don't you and your "assuming" go back to worldnut daily.

[FarrenH]

103. The only link

suggested by any research is between people with an existing condition who smoke pot. Since the incidence of schizophrenia is between .5 and 1% in most populations (lets call it .75 globally), if we liberally estimate the number of people who have their existing condition triggered by pot at 50% that would be 0.375% or around 4 out of every 1000 people if you know 100 pot smokers your chances of meeting even one such person is low. Your numbers are out of whack and given that the evidence is extremely tenuous, my figure of 50% of that .75% is already pretty unrealistic. Its probably less than 1 out of 1000

I've known pot smokers my entire life and never met one. Either you're an extreme outlier, or you've misunderstood the evidence you've encountered. Or you're in an atypically dysfunctional group maybe (since there's a link between creative genius and schizophrenia, this isn't necessarily an insult - maybe you hang around with a lot of artists and the incidence is really higher).

ETA: I have been in a ward of mentally ill people (some real, some faking) as a conscript in the army. They diagnosed me with prodromal schizophrenia because other conscripts in my platoon complained about my "wierd" habits, like sitting up late meditating in lotus position instead of sleeping when we had early inspection (these were deeply conservative farm boys - they couldn't sleep because they thought I was doing something "satanic"). This was in extremely conservative Apartheid South Africa when the psychological profession (especially in govt employment) had a lot of fundy Christians in it who might diagnose you as mentally ill if you were a kid who adopted Eastern Mysticism after being raised in a Christian home. I did _not_ have schizophrenia. That diagnoses was based on me telling the psychologist assigned to me that I coped with boredom in our platoon bungelow by _imagining_ a ball bouncing around, and following its trajectory in my minds eye, along with answering some questions about my spiritual beliefs.

In any event I listened to the tales of a lot of truly mentally ill people during my time in that ward, many of whom were drug users. And to the last one they put just about anything they could get their hands on into their bodies. Rat poison, insect spray, "malpitte" (mad seeds - a local plant with an effect akin to PCP), you name it. I wouldn't characterise a single one of them as simply being a "pot user". Hence deeep scepticism when I hear claims about a person's pot use being a clear cause of an episode.

In later life several members of my family became entangled with mentally ill people. Two of my aunts on different sides of the family married mentally ill men, both of whom had several episodes. One killed himself and the other is currently in a sanitarium. I vividly recall an episode that was described to me where one of them got up and rushed out the door in the middle of the conversation. He was later found dead and, IIRC the autopsy revealed pot and alcohol use before he drove off the bridge. But the consumption happened _after_ the episode began. Subsequently I've learned that people do, often, self-medicate, and someone may use drugs _because_ they're having an episode, which of course leads to later interpretations that the episode was cause by the drug.

[GillesDeleuze]

40. considering most evidence suggests

schizophrenia is the result of a misshapen protein on the outer of the brain, THC would fail at being a 'trigger.'

THC has little to no effect on amino acids or protein.

[EOTE]

60. You'll get no arguments from me. NT

[druidity33]

78. thanks

for the anecdotal "evidence"...

:eyes:

[Rebubula]

26. So...

...you are a trained Psychiatrist?

Unless you are...that is simply a ridiculous statement. Even if you are...still pretty lame.

[pattmarty]

28. Yeah, okay, "dude". Ha, ha, ha, ha............................

[pattmarty]

41. BUT, did you REALLY, REALLY see it happen, or maybe just thought you did????

[Forkboy]

56. LOL...I bet you have.

[Greyhound]

63. Oh well then, that clears it all up. The dude says it is so.

:crazy:

[walldude]

74. Seen it happen a few times? I call bullshit.

I've been smoking for 35 years. I've smoked with thousands of people in those years. I have never seen or even heard of anyone getting schizophrenia from smoking weed until DU yesterday.
After all the years of lies about pot and years of Reefer Madness give me one good reason I should buy this current bullshit besides "I've seen it happen and I know a lot of pot heads".

[fascisthunter]

90. sure you have

[opihimoimoi]

12. Mercy Mercy..its in the BIBLE even...POT is Cool with GOD....

http://www.equalrights4all.org/religious/bible.htm

[andym]

13. By your reasoning, the hypothesis can not be ethically tested by the only "good" means

Your main points are all true:
1) association is not causality
2) retrospective case studies are more prone to confounding factors than prospective studies
3) double-blind prospective studies are the gold standard in medical research
4) it is unethical to run a prospective study if it causes harm to the participants

The hypothesis is Cannabis smoking increases the risk of schizophrenia.

If the hypothesis is not true, it would be fine to run the double-blind prospective study.

However, if it is true, then the participants who were at risk of developing schizophrenia due to cannabis smoking would be harmed as they would develop schizophrenia when they otherwise would not.

There is some chance that the hypothesis is true.

Therefore, one could never ethically run the double-blind prospective study to test this hypothesis.

Therefore, the best one can do is run a retrospective study and hope to minimize the confounding factors.

But you argue that retrospective studies are basically worthless, therefore according to your reasoning the hypothesis can not be proven or disproven.

Actually, there is a partial way out of this. If potential molecular mechanisms for the hypothesis can be developed, perhaps in animal models, then retrospective studies can include testing biochemical parameters which could lend weight to or help disprove the hypothesis.

[Robb]

34. Everyone should read this post.

Thank you. :hi:

[Dreamer Tatum]

57. Seconded.

Nothing in the world like clear thinking.

[Celebration]

67. Thanks for a sane reply n/t

[MilesColtrane]

79. I recommend this post.

[old mark]

14. Problems arise when "science" is used for a sales tool. I remember

in the '50's when cigarette ads featured testimonials from doctors and scientists stating that Chesterfields, for example, were better for you than competitive brands.
With the state of the "news" media today, it's rare we EVER get exposed to reality, but we sure as hell get tons of spin.

mark

[zbdent]

16. you don't want to get between nicotine addicts and THEIR smokes ...

I mean, they have a whole industry in place to keep their addiction a "RIGHT" ...

[moriah]

17. Remember.... there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

18. 100% of people with cancer...

Drank water! Avoid drinking anything with water in it!!!

[TZ]

24. As a scientist can I say alot of people here lack objectivity

I for one have seen multiple studies on the effect of cannibis..It has some very good uses, but its not a cure all. There are UNDENIABLY side effects and on some people bad effects...And everytime a study good or bad is posted on that, its immediately jumped on here as "bad science". Sorry, but like ANY DRUG, it has its limits and liabilities and too many people can't or won't see that.

Its the same with any science here that is politically unpopular with Democrats. I constantly see crap/junk science about vaccines, drugs, cancer, and other issues being pushed here. Anyone who doesn't realize there is a scientific double standard here is fooling themselves.
Good science according to DU: Global warming, evolution, homopathic remedies, parapsychic research, anything that makes pot look good.
Bad science according to DU: Vaccines, western med, anything done in the biopharmaceutical industry, anything that debunks old wives tales about ESP, UFO's, anything negatory about pot.
How would I know? I'm a biologist with 12 years in the industry who has worked at NIH. I know junk studies when I see them. And I would say that there is MORE junk science posted and accepted here than legitimate studies, which often go largely ignored.


Remeber observer bias and partiship exist here and elsewhere. And alot of what passes for "science" on DU IS snake oil of the worst sort.

[GillesDeleuze]

44. its even worse on Alternet and Huffpo

People push their new age religious reike shit when they probably can't tell you how to test a hypothesis!

[Dreamer Tatum]

55. Great post. People seem to like science only when they agree with it.

Myself, I'm amused at the legions of people who think sticking a burning weed between your lips and inhaling hot smoke into your lungs couldn't possibly be bad for you in any way.


But I'm HYSTERICAL with laughter over the "YEAH, BUT CORRELATION DOESN'T IMPLY CAUSALITY" posts, when we overwhelmingly rejected that same claim when it was advanced by the tobacco industry.

[dropkickpa]

97. Would rec this reply if I could

:toast:

[LuckyLib]

30. As I replied in an earlier post about this, This shit is what happens when folks don't know

how to read, report on, or interpret research.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[slackmaster]

35. Excellent - K&R

:kick:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

37. So many great pieces by you

if I had a spare coin I'd buy you a Star!

[Piewhacket]

39. You get it. Well done.

[Analyticalist]

42. Post hoc ergo proptor hoc

The logical fallacy of associating temporal sequence with causation....the latin term loosely translated means after the fact and therefore caused by it.

It is one of the classic logical fallacies.

[LeftHander]

43. I got so loaded one time I swore I was two people....nt

[stray cat]

47. Assoication is the best that can be done sometimes -beats ignorant opinions

at least. however you have to be smart enough and open enough to facts to evaluate the study scientifically and your opinions objectively.

[D23MIURG23]

48. Its not always bad to make an inference based on a statistical correlation.

Such correlations are often the basis of hypotheses that are investigated more thoroughly to useful ends. The issue is that without additional lines of evidence and really diligent exclusion of variables such conclusions are highly questionable.

Double blind study design is also not uniformly essential, but for certain questions (Drug toxicity and efficacy etc.) it is considered indispensable and standard practice. Generally though, you will find it more in health sciences than anywhere else.

The real problem here, as you allude to, is the way the media tends to handle the business of scientific reporting. They tend to over hype studies that will produce interest regardless of the strength and acceptance level of the study (see "cellphones cause brain tumors", "cannabis causes schizophrenia" etc.) while misrepresenting levels of controversy surrounding well established ideas (see "evolution", "global warming"). Other times they allow voices weigh in on scientific topics who have no business discussing anything more complicated than basic addition and subtraction (see "Jenny McCarthy"). Personally I blame the never ending quest for ratings. Science is in the category of things many people consider dry, so the impulse is to "sex it up" with various bits of controversy, celebrities, and other things that Americans like, which in the end tend to undermine the quality of the information presented.

[question everything]

49. And yet, do not discount the placebo effect

and non traditional medicine.

We tend to forget that people got sick and then well, that people did live long life before modern medicine.

The placebo effect is quite powerful and if someone claims that consuming bat shit from Albania has relieved his arthritis pain, as long as that concoction was not lased with arsenic, I am not going to argue with him.

Our bodies are not divided into distinct compartments. All our systems interact with each other, even though it was convenient to separate them in the early stages of developing modern medicine. Alternative medicine may not have an "active ingredient" that the FDA and most physicians like so much, but it has several ingredients that interact gently with our bodies, instead of nuking us with powerful drugs.

And if someone chooses to use alternative medicine instead of going through the agony of toxic drugs - let him do so.

[Uncle Joe]

51. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, McCamy Taylor.

[Wednesdays]

58. A little pit nick

If I remember correctly, Jack the Ripper's spree was ca. 1888-1893. King Edward didn't gain the throne until Queen Victoria's death in 1901...so, we're talking Victorian, not Edwardian.

[wolfgangmo]

61. Good article

Aside from the fact that Steven Harpers biggest ambition in life is to be a permanent wart on any dick belonging to the Bush (crime) Family, this study is not conclusinve and is, as you state, bad science reporting. Is there another kind in the MSM?

That aside, I would also like to add this to your comment on double blind studies. I wish they would do them on chemo.

Flame away.

[ismnotwasm]

62. Look, I love science

But I agree, certain "studies" are framed in such a way as to make it look like causality. Many gender studies for example. In fact, probably all of them.

The marijuana/schizophrenia 'connection' reminds me of certain gender studies. Personally, I believe that if a proper study were even able to be constructed, we'd find that these people were self medicating. Why does one smoke pot, or even drink a beer, in the first place? Not because we have schizophrenia, but to unwind, relax, enjoy the moment, whatever. Why would some kid, who's started to fell a little hinky do it, on top of all the adolescence crap? Same reasons.

I have a friend who has a very gentle form of bi-polar disease whose son--a very bright man, very high IQ--developed schiz-affective disorder after going to a kind of school for the gifted in Germany. He also started smoking pot that year, he was 17 or 18 I believe. Now what factor is a study going to look at? Intelligence? The trip to Germany? He young age? His mother or fathers genetic history? The fact that he's is bi-racial? Or that his dad is a MD? Or, the fact that he started smoking pot?

In any decent study, he'd be eliminated from consideration with all his co-factors. I'm willing to bet a buck or two that he filled out some questionnaire about onset of symptoms and marijuana use at some point that got put into some data base for a study, and viola! Even his mother, who should know better, blamed the pot.

Bullshit science indeed

[wolfgangmo]

64. good post and an opportunity to flame

Aside from the fact that Steven Harpers biggest ambition in life is to be a permanent wart on any dick belonging to the Bush (crime) Family, this study is not conclusinve and is, as you state, bad science reporting. Is there another kind in the MSM?

That aside, I would also like to add this to your comment on double blind studies. I wish they would do them on chemo.

Flame away.

[McCamy Taylor]

69. If your goal is to reduce the cases of schizophrenia (as oppossed to trashing pot)

research into ways to prevent maternal infection with influenza seems to be a fertile area for study. Here is a link about the association.

http://biotechfiles.com/2009/05/schizophrenia-and-influenza-infection/

When I see articles like the "pot causes schizophrenia" one in which some government is prepared to throw millions at researchers in hopes that they will come up with some reason to justify their current policies, I have to ask myself "Wouldn't the same millions be better spent trying to vaccinate all women planning pregnancy against flu?"

BTW, there is a reason that conservative governments want to keep widely used and relatively benign/cheap drugs like pot illegal. The government likes to have as many ways to make criminals of people as possible. That way, folks who do relatively normal things like smoke a joint after work (instead of chugging a six pack) will have a vulnerability which will make them hesitate to bring the attention of the authorities to themselves. That means that they will not become vocal critics of the government. The whole Martha Stewart fiasco, in which she was actually convicted of defrauding her own stockholders but the public was told she went to jail for listening to a tip from her stock broker is pretty much the same thing. When you have wiretapped the calls/emails of all your political enemies and when you can tell them "You got a tip from your stockbroker. You know you can go to jail for that" your political enemies tend to keep their mouths shut.

Making certain sex acts between consensual adults crimes serves the same purpose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Actually there might be a link... that said, before you get your knickers in a bunch

the war on drugs has failed.

Oh and we know we do have quite the legally available junk in the form of corn syrup and what corps do to our food. Again there is a link between that junk and obesity.

Trust me, if Pot was something they could make money on... instead of the war on drugs. this research would be supressed.

Go ahead, call me cynical

Oh and as to food tie to our current crisis, there are now double blind studies... but that science is not something you will hear on the MSM, or read on the papers...

But as to the link... yes it is possible. Very much so. After all any drug. legal or not, can have interesting effects in the human body and those that affect the neuro chemistry can really be interesting. But I'd like to see all them double blind studies, oh and didn't pot help with things like oh... cataracts? (yes, yes it does kiddies).

[Gabi Hayes]

88. don't tell that to my current ahole congressman, and the most likely candidate to replace

Roland Burris, Mark Kirk:


Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) Monday introduced a bill that would dramatically increase prison sentences for marijuana trafficking offenses if the pot in question had THC levels over 15%. Warning Monday that "kush super-marijuana" had invaded the Chicago suburbs, Kirk is calling for prison sentences of up to 25 years for trafficking even small quantities of the kind bud.

Mark KirkUnder current federal law, the manufacture, distribution, import and export, and possession with intent to distribute fewer than 50 kilograms or 50 plants is punishable by up to five years in federal prison, a $250,000 individual fine and $1 million group fine. Kirk's bill, the High-Potency Marijuana Sentencing Enhancement Act (HR 2828) increases the maximum fines for high-potency pot to $1 million for an individual and $5 million for a group, as well as increasing the maximum prison sentence five-fold. A second offense would double the fines and increase the maximum sentence to 35 years.

In a press release announcing the bill, Kirk warned of "zombie-like" pot smokers stumbling around the Chicago suburbs. "According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 25 million individuals age 12 and older used marijuana in 2007 -- significantly more than any other drug," he said. "That's why Kush and other high-potency marijuana strains are so worrying. Local law enforcement reports that Kush users are 'zombie-like' because of the extreme THC levels. Drug dealers know they can make as much money selling Kush as cocaine but without the heavier sentences that accompany crack and cocaine trafficking. Higher fines and longer sentences aren't the total solution to our nation's drug problem. But our laws should keep pace with advances in the strength and cash-value of high-THC marijuana. If you can make as much money selling pot as cocaine, you should face the same penalties."

Rep. Kirk appears to have swallowed the assumption that higher-potency marijuana is somehow more harmful than lower-potency pot, an old bromide dating back to former drug czar John Walters' "it's not your father's marijuana." But marijuana users say they adjust dosages to achieve the desired effect by smoking smaller amounts of more potent varieties. A user might smoke an entire blunt of low-potency Mexican brick weed, but only a couple of tokes of more potent pot, just as an alcohol user might chug down a 40-ounce bottle of malt liquor, but only a few ounces of more potent distilled spirits.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/590/mark_kirk_marijuana_bill_kush_25_years

this was discussed here at the time he introduced the bill, if anyone cares to DU google

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. Um, what study?

This news story doesn't actually reference anything that's been peer-reviewed.

[Odin2005]

86. There are anti-science morons on both the Left and the Right.

The ignorance about science here on DU is horrifying. Vaccine Woo. New Age Woo. Alternative Medicine Woo. It's all crap.

[Matt 6_5]

91. Not to mention detonated buildings, chemtrails, etc. More Woo than

any Canton in China.


:D
:rofl:

[Odin2005]

92. The ignorance is astounding.

The "Twoofers" constantly claim that it couldn't have been the planes that caused the WTC towers to fall because it didn;t get hot enought to melt the steel, The idiots forgot to learn that hot steel, even if not yet molten, is much weaker than cold steel.

[Matt 6_5]

94. It's a pretty sure bet none of them have ever been a blacksmith.

:shrug:

:D

[alarimer]

89. Science reporting is generally terrible.

And people believe all kinds of weird shit, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Too many people are too credulous. They believe the Huffington Post, for Christ's sake, which prints the worst kind of woo-woo nonsense I have ever seen in a mainstream website.

This speaks not only to the sorry state of science journalist but also the lack of critical thinking skills in otherwise smart people. Our education system and extreme religiosity (as a society) are responsible for that.

[Odin2005]

93. HuffPo has Deepak Chopra as a columnist. THAT should tell you something.

"Quantum Healing" my ass!

[caseymoz]

95. That was not a science article, that was a Canadian commenting on the science.

As such, the article was very incomplete. At most, it should have prompted people to look at what studies he could have possibly been talking about.

And yes, therefore the reporting was bad-- lazy. Basically, it wasn't reporting but stenography. That doesn't mean that readers shouldn't have done some searches of scientific sites for what he mae have been referring.

[gtar100]

99. This is a great read on use of statistics. Makes information gathering

seem like walking through a mine field. Some very common sense advise here on open-minded skepticism. I hope it sticks.

[RagAss]

102. "My friends, Today we are all schizophrenics"......n/t

[mentalslavery]

104. Spurious association-connector is age

experimentation with drugs and onset of mental health issues are within the same general age range. If anything, pot might have a calming effect. Pot does not make a person paranoid, nervous, etc.-drug laws do.