"Heavy Marijuana use shrinks brain parts"

[Enlitx]

You're arguing hypotheticals, what's scientific about that?

You mean besides the methods employed, statistical analysis, functional scanning, and transparency of data? Nothing scientific at all, it must be an evil plot from the DEA 8) . Just because the sample size isn't large doesen't mean its not scientific! If all science was perfect, we wouldn't need the universities anymore.

 

[Ernestrome]

You mean besides the methods employed, statistical analysis, functional scanning, and transparency of data? Nothing scientific at all, it must be an evil plot from the DEA 8) . Just because the sample size isn't large doesen't mean its not scientific! If all science was perfect, we wouldn't need the universities anymore.

If you took the time to read my posts, you would see that my points are broadly allied with yours. 8)

 

[Nickatina]

You're arguing hypotheticals, what's scientific about that?

They aren't hypotheticals, they are variables that weren't accounted for, and in a scientific study that cancels out the results.

 

[jesse_wg]

Could someone provide the reference for the research. I am having trouble finding it?

 

[Enlitx]

If you took the time to read my posts, you would see that my points are broadly allied with yours. 8)

Ya, I was reading some other posts and confused some points made here. My bad.

 

[jesse_wg]

They aren't hypotheticals, they are variables that weren't accounted for, and in a scientific study that cancels out the results.

I think I mentioned something earlier along the lines of only in a perfect world does perfect research exist. Certainly in all psychological/neuropsych studies it is virtually impossible to account for all confounding variables. These are dealt with as best they can, but unfortunately not everything can be controlled for. These variables that you mention weren't accounted for may definitely influence the results, but they don't just flat out cancel them out. This is why you'll find a section within scientific papers that address the limitations of the current research and areas that can be approved. Although I'm yet to read it, I'm fairly certain that the researchers themselves have noted the limitations inherent in their research. The main problem here is not the quality of the research, but the quality of some journalism that might choose to report it in a manner that doesn't reflect it's content accurately.

 

[Enlitx]

They aren't hypotheticals, they are variables that weren't accounted for, and in a scientific study that cancels out the results.

That is like saying evolution is incorrect because it didn't account for every single variable. That isn't how science works.

 

[Care]

You mean besides the methods employed, statistical analysis, functional scanning, and transparency of data?

You can use scientific methods all you like, but if the data you're getting is not an accurate representation of the population it doesnt count for anything. Having a good sample size of randomly picked subjects is just as crucial as your methods used when studying populations.

It is not uncommon for studies like this to be skewed one way or another, and its easy to see if you know what to look for.

I could do a study tommorow to find a relationship between eating rice and having black hair. If I went out and tested 15 asian subjects guess what, by your logic my study would show that eating rice causes you to have black hair even though the two factors are completly unrelated. I used scientific method, but my results were completly wrong because I didnt take outside factors into consideration. My test subjects were not an accurate representation of the population.

The government has been funding bad science to pull the wool over peoples eyes about drugs for decades, and it works. You can call me biased all you want because I smoke marijuana, and it may be true to an extent. But I know bullshit when I see it and this ladies and gentlemen is grade-A bullshit.

 

[psychedelicious]

I actually have taken a stats class (hated it, but passed it anyways) and one of the most important factors in inferential statistics is SAMPLE SIZE.

Say what you want about funding causing a lack of test subjects, but there is a direct correlation between the margin of error and a small sample size.

Especially in studies that can be interpreted as politically motivated like this one you have to be very picky about the details. It is very likely that the 15 people chosen were not even close to an accurate representation of the general pot smoking population. The 15 people could have been specificly chosen as geneticly likely to have smaller brain sizes than the control group, and we would never know. Its much much harder to pull this off when you have say....500 subjects.

Studies like this is EXACTLY how misinformation gets spread. They cut corners and rig the information to say what they want it to say.

yes, and while we know the subjects were not selected randomly, we do know that the researchers gave us their P-values, which were pretty low, indicating statistical significance. the calculation of P-values takes into account sample size; the smaller your sample size, the more drastic the results must be to get such a low P-value.

 

[Enlitx]

You can use scientific methods all you like, but if the data you're getting is not an accurate representation of the population it doesnt count for anything. Having a good sample size of randomly picked subjects is just as crucial as your methods used when studying populations.

It is not uncommon for studies like this to be skewed one way or another, and its easy to see if you know what to look for.

I could do a study tommorow to find a relationship between eating rice and having black hair. If I went out and tested 15 asian subjects guess what, by your logic my study would show that eating rice causes you to have black hair even though the two factors are completly unrelated. I used scientific method, but my results were completly wrong because I didnt take outside factors into consideration. My test subjects were not an accurate representation of the population.

The government has been funding bad science to pull the wool over peoples eyes about drugs for decades, and it works. You can call me biased all you want because I smoke marijuana, and it may be true to an extent. But I know bullshit when I see it and this ladies and gentlemen is grade-A bullshit.

Actually, I have a little more skill in the scientific field than what you are suggesting. I participated in an internship position at a medical center, and I have used some of the methods the researchers are using in this study. Trust me, if it was as simple to disprove as "black hair being caused by rice", it would have never been published in a journal.

The sample size may be a drawback of this study, but it certainly does not invalidate the results.

 

[Nickatina]

Trust me, if it was as simple to disprove as "black hair being caused by rice", it would have never been published in a journal.

The sample size may be a drawback of this study, but it certainly does not invalidate the results.

Well then this shows me that scientific "facts" are anything but. For these conclusions to be accepted as valid by a person familiar with the scientific process tells me I gotta stop believing any sentence that starts with "Studies show that ..." and do the research myself using the logic that is missing from studies like this one.

 

[paranoidalien]

I feel like this has more to do with the lifestyle such use induces. However it's up to the user to live this way

 

[spacefacethebassace]

I think the important lesson to be learned from this study is simply that heavy drug use is not good for one's health. Which we all should know anyways.

 

[Care]

Trust me, if it was as simple to disprove as "black hair being caused by rice", it would have never been published in a journal.

The first line of the article is

"The researchers acknowledged that the study did not prove it was the marijuana and not some other factor that triggered these brain differences."

The first thing they do is write a disclaimer saying that it wasn’t conclusive. They're doing this because all this study is doing is illustrating a correlation between these 15 supposed "randomly" selected people who smoke pot and have smaller brain parts. They aren’t doing any fancy, incomprehensibly complex science. They are drawing conclusions based on their observations.

This study doesn’t "prove" anything. It shows a correlation between two things that may or may not be related. Coorelation does not equal causation.

So when you boil it all down this study is saying there is the possibility of the 15 subjects having been affected by marijuana use in this way. And when you look at the sample size (which is a much much more important factor than you give it credit) it says little, if anything, of the human population in general.

I'm not saying that you should 100% ignore their findings, however using this study to say "a scientific study found that marijuana use shrinks brain parts" is misleading to say the least.

 

[Enlitx]

Well then this shows me that scientific "facts" are anything but. For these conclusions to be accepted as valid by a person familiar with the scientific process tells me I gotta stop believing any sentence that starts with "Studies show that ..." and do the research myself using the logic that is missing from studies like this one.

Lol, when did anyone claim these were facts? There is rarely a study that conclusively proves anything. During my internship, every Friday morning the cardiovascular department would convene for a journal club. We would spend an entire hour ripping apart the latest relevant journal article. No publication is perfect, it is just funny how stoners on bluelight exploit this fact and cling to the hope that every study like this is completely wrong. Marijuana is not good for the brain, just deal with it.

 

[Enlitx]

The first line of the article is

"The researchers acknowledged that the study did not prove it was the marijuana and not some other factor that triggered these brain differences."

The first thing they do is write a disclaimer saying that it wasn’t conclusive. They're doing this because all this study is doing is illustrating a correlation between these 15 supposed "randomly" selected people who smoke pot and have smaller brain parts. They aren’t doing any fancy, incomprehensibly complex science. They are drawing conclusions based on their observations.

This study doesn’t "prove" anything. It shows a correlation between two things that may or may not be related. Coorelation does not equal causation.

So when you boil it all down this study is saying there is the possibility of the 15 subjects having been affected by marijuana use in this way. And when you look at the sample size (which is a much much more important factor than you give it credit) it says little, if anything, of the human population in general.

I'm not saying that you should 100% ignore their findings, however using this study to say "a scientific study found that marijuana use shrinks brain parts" is misleading to say the least.

As I have stated, rare is the study that conclusively proves anything. All I am saying is that this suggests that marijuana does decrease the size of certain brain structures.

 

[IntergalacticMagic]

"These were people who were essentially stoned all day every day for 20 years," Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Bruce Mirken said by e-mail. "This study says nothing about moderate or occasional users, who are the vast majority -- and the (study) even acknowledges this."

Whats so unbelievable about that? This study is fine. Its simply saying its unhealthy to be high 24/7. Duh?

 

[Lady Codone]

I find it hard to believe that these effects could be contributed to marijuana use alone. You mean to tell me that these subjects never drank alcohol, ingested first or second-hand cigarette smoke, took herbal supplements tainted with heavy metals, ate improper diets off of lead-glazed dishes, had mercury amalgam fillings in their mouths, had pre-existing genetic disposal to mental illness, etc. etc.?

Human subjects, no matter how large the population in the study, usually have too many other variables going on to attribute certain effects to a given cause. You really can have no "control" in this study because you're not putting these people in a room, observing them 24 hours a day, administering precise doses of marijuana, and making sure they all live similar lifestyles OUTSIDE of pot (diet, sleep patterns, etc.). Also, 20 years is a long fucking time. Who's to say that brain shrinkage doesn't occur naturally to some degree as we age? (I'm about 90% sure I've read that it DOES).

Anyway, not discrediting the study because weed is my DOC: it's not. I don't doubt it affects the brain, I just doubt its effects on brain size and the ability to measure it over time with so many other possible variables, especially in a group this small. I've never heard of such a small population being used in a study before! 85 patients is considered insignificant by some standards for testing new medications, but FIFTEEN?

Exposure to heavy metals like lead and mercury that we all get EVERYDAY (some more than others through vaccines containing Thimerosal, mercury fillings, lead-containing jewelry/dishes/toys/paint, fish consumption, occupational exposure, etc.) is known to cause significant changes in the way the brain functions, as well as changing electrical impulses within the brain; it's even been linked to some of the more horrific neurologic conditions that are on the rise today: Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, MS, Autism...Who's to say it wasn't this type of exposure causing the changes seen in the study? That's only ONE example of possible brain-damaging exposure. There are many more that I'm sure weren't accounted for in this study.

 

[wArEhOuSePuNk]

So , that explains my recent X-rays...

 

[jess1234]

SF I Am

San Francisco I Am has a great video on whether illegal cannabis clubs are really hurting medical marijuana patients with California Attorney General's recent crackdown down on medical cannabis clubs.

You can check out the video here:


http://www.sanfranciscoiam.com/videos/0faa12024b6c


San Francisco Iam also has a lot of other interesting video journalism bringing us stuff that the mainstream media isn’t.