Cannabis chemicals 'cut heart attack risk'

[Leg]

take that all u krazy bitches that tell me pot sucks and alcohol has been proven healthy to the heart!

hell yes LSD is next

then i will truly know my heart will be in good shape well into my old age

 

[gloggawogga]

why didnt the mice experience this same "stress response"

Because they don't have to worry about getting busted, failing drugs tests, etc...

 

[MDApleeze]

its called a vaporizer. GET ONE NOW.

 

[BilZ0r]

^ I think the mice did exhibit it, thats why 10mg/kg didn't help them.

I know at least a few people with coronory artery disease. They tell them its OK to drink coffee (moderately) if they want and an excersise program (approached moderately) is one of the most important lifestyle changes one can make to combat the disease and is strongly recommended. There is no strong evidence moderate caffeine use increases a persons risk of heart disease or heart attack. With heavy use, however, the evidence is more convincing.

Yes, it would seem I am out of date with research, though I can still find papers which pop up that show that coffee is bad for people with developed plaques. (and of course I didn't mean moderate excersise).


...Oh yeah and

Translation: business and anti-drug establishment interests, the same interests you seem to represent.

I didn't know I represented any interests, especially anti-drug ones.

 

[tambourine-man]

Seems I'm not the onlyone who noticed...

Of course...pot is only good for you when distributed in some patented form by a profit making pharmecuetical company...

Oh come on... use some common sense. Sure, there's a pharmaceutical and financial agenda to this, but the study is only stating a fairly obvious fact.

1. In order to recieve the anti-atherosclerosis benefits via spliff/vapouriser, you'd have to smoke a fair amount.

2. Smoking that amount of shit (with all the by-products) is likely to have the opposite or deleterious effect.

Pretty fucking obvious.

 

[gloggawogga]

Sorry, I don't think its pretty obvious. You are assuming what the effects of this "stress response", which some poeple don't seem to have as much as others, would be. And you and the writer are forgetting that pot can be eaten, not smoked.

I didn't know I represented any interests, especially anti-drug ones.

I wasn't the one in the other thread who suggested you were trying to get a job for NIDA.

 

[HotRails]

its called a vaporizer. GET ONE NOW.

Im pulling on one as I type this. Delicious.

 

[BilZ0r]

NIDA pays well, you get lots of funding, they treat their employees well, and their labs have more freedom than most "independent" research institutions.

In all honesty, it's not that I take offense, but it kinda gets to me, when people assume that research funded by pharmaceutical companies, or reasearch at all, is biased by a private agenda. I work in a lab, where some research is funded by pharmaceutical companies. I can tell you without a single doubt in my mind that our results are not swayed by their agenda. We are extra-vigalent against bias. We resent them, if anything, because they censor our publications (though not add anything). They pay us before our research is done, so we don't care whether they like the results or not. I strongly doubt that more than one or two labs in the world alter their results to tell an untrue story, just to please financial backers.

 

[gloggawogga]

^^^

All humans are biased. If you can't see your biases thats your weakness. I made a case for cultural bias very clear in the "psychotic symptoms" thread, and you refused to even address it.

In regards to this thread, the bias is clear. Look again at the second sentence:

But scientists warn that simply smoking cannabis does not offer the same benefit and may actually damage the heart.

Change the 'does' to 'may', and I am fine with it. But they have no studies of this effect of pot on the heart in humans to show that its 'does' and not 'may'. They are making a biased assumption.

 

[BilZ0r]

Well the authors of the article cited are biased, I'm not sure if the original article does say that... but I definatly get your point in regards to that quotation.

 

[gloggawogga]

The author is biased because he's human. I am biased, you are biased, everyone is biased. Its a fact. There is no question as to whether people are biased. The question is whether people let their biases interfere with their judgement and rational thought processes.

In this particular case, the author wrote "scientists warn". Now you don't know whether the author got that from the published study, whether he interviewed the scientists, whether he consulted some other scientists, or whether he is actually misquoting someone. But to prematurely put the blame on the author is wrong untill you know more. Somewhere along the line somebody's bias interfered with their judgement. We don't know where.

 

[BilZ0r]

ahhh... scientists warn, I think the author is refering to an accompanying letter in that Issue of Nature By Michael Roth. No where in the original research article do the authors coment on smoking cannabis.

The letter:

The findings by Steffens et al. are striking, but they should not be taken to mean that smoking marijuana is beneficial for the heart. The dose-response curve to THC in this study was very narrow and U-shaped, with higher and lower concentrations failing to produce protective effects. It would be difficult to achieve such specific concentrations in the blood by smoking marijuana. Also, no studies have been performed in humans to evaluate the effects of THC on atherosclerosis. As the authors note, the ApoE-/- mice develop extremely high levels of serum lipids, and THC, which is very fat-soluble, is likely to be stored at high local concentrations within atherosclerotic lesions7. Whether this local storage occurs, and whether the same effect will occur in human atherosclerotic lesions, remains to be determined.

Finally, THC binds to and activates CB1 and CB2 receptors with similar affinity. Marijuana smoking, acting through its effect on CB1 receptors in the brain, increases the pulse rate, produces an acute rise in blood pressure and then results in sudden falls in blood pressure upon standing or walking (Fig. 1). These effects lower the exercise threshold for angina, and are an independent risk factor for heart attack and stroke8, 9. When inhaled, marijuana smoke also increases the concentration of carboxy-haemoglobin in the blood, impairing oxygen delivery. Ultimately, to take advantage of the positive effects reported by Steffens et al. will probably mean developing cannabinoids that target CB2 receptors, rather than using marijuana or oral THC as medicines.