Marijuana may cause testicular cancer

This should not even be news - it is not a result that we can trust - but the media have manipulated it to serve their purposes.
For me, I am constantly thinking about the PR marijuana gets, and so this definitely feels like a blow.
However, the Michael Phelps story seems to be helping the pro-legalization side, since millions of closed-minded people are being exposed to many people's viewpoints on marijuana, and a considerable portion of what they hear sounds like marijuana just may be a bit different than cocaine or heroin. :\
In a related thread about how we can win the "war on drugs" (http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=417507), we have discussed marijuana's public image, and how to change it. Preliminary results or results based on too few subjects may be used to hurt the plant's image, but the Michael Phelps thing is helping at least as much, I'd say.
 
trainwreckmolly said:
This sample size is entirely too small. The U.S. population is 300,000,000 with 8,000 testicular cancer patients a year. Taking out the females from the population, making it 150,000,000 means that .005% of the male population is diagnosed each year. A 70% increase would still only be .0085% of the male population being diagnosed each year. I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that there is any type of serious link between the two.
Click to expand...

STFU! WTF has the base rate got to do with the sample size moron???????? 70% increase is 70% no matter what the base rate. Jesus. The amount of little bitches here who've obviously never picked up a stats book in their lives bitching about sample sizes when THEY DON'T KNOW SHIT> Pisses me the FUCK OFF!
 
lol, this was done in seattle. i'll bet it's the fuckin starbucks giving everyone nut cancer
 
ranunky said:
STFU! WTF has the base rate got to do with the sample size moron???????? 70% increase is 70% no matter what the base rate. Jesus. The amount of little bitches here who've obviously never picked up a stats book in their lives bitching about sample sizes when THEY DON'T KNOW SHIT> Pisses me the FUCK OFF!
Click to expand...

Damn, this post surprised me.
I thought that this was supposed to be a discussion about the study that suggested a possible link between marijuana and testicular cancer.
But Ranunky just wants to use a chance to put people down.
Even though s/he was right about this point, there are many nicer ways to say it.
I think that Ranunky must feel very bad about him/herself as a human being, and so s/he derives what little self-esteem s/he has by insulting faceless people on the internet.
So sad.
And look at the vocabulary s/he used - so many nasty words.
And look at the incredible anger s/he displays, just because someone didn't understand something!

S/he may know something about statistics, but s/he has a deep ignorance of compassion, as well as low self-esteem.
I would rather know nothing about stats, personally.

It seems like s/he must be suffering greatly to generate such deep anger in response to a simple mistake.
I feel sorry for him/her.
 
Well, ranunky, you say sample size has nothing to do with it? They studied men only from Seattle. What if they only studied men from Muskogee, Oklahoma? You still think sample size doesn't matter?

I'll bet in Jamaica, most men with ball cancer have smoked pot. How about India? And I'll bet the percentage of American cancer patients who have drank alcohol is much higher than the percentage of Iranian cancer patients who have.

You might know something about statistics, but you don't know dick about sociology.
 
I don't think that ranuky was saying that sample size was not an issue.
S/he was saying, I believe, that trmolly's argument was invalid, since the fact that only a miniscule percentage of men get testicular cancer doesn't mean that there is no effect from marijuana.
S/he was right about this, if I understand correctly.
Doesn't mean the s/he is a loving person, however.

Stats geniuses - please weigh in on this, since my knowledge is limited.
 
ranunky said:
STFU! WTF has the base rate got to do with the sample size moron???????? 70% increase is 70% no matter what the base rate. Jesus. The amount of little bitches here who've obviously never picked up a stats book in their lives bitching about sample sizes when THEY DON'T KNOW SHIT> Pisses me the FUCK OFF!
Click to expand...

um i think what he was trying to say was:

p1=x/n ---> p2=x*.70/n, where p is the proportion, x is the number of positives (what you term 'base rate'), and n being the sample size. in case you havent noticed, the 'base rate' is terribly important, given that sample size is the only other variable in the equation, lol. Actually, his stats work is spot on. lets keep the retarded flaming to a minimum. good day, sir.

p.s. Ballllllllllinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
 
plutoniumboss said:
Well, ranunky, you say sample size has nothing to do with it? They studied men only from Seattle. What if they only studied men from Muskogee, Oklahoma? You still think sample size doesn't matter?

I'll bet in Jamaica, most men with ball cancer have smoked pot. How about India? And I'll bet the percentage of American cancer patients who have drank alcohol is much higher than the percentage of Iranian cancer patients who have.

You might know something about statistics, but you don't know dick about sociology.
Click to expand...

while i realize this is a thread about pot, i couldnt resist. sorry.

there is a difference between sample bias and sample size. sample size does matter, just not in the way you are suggesting.
 
My english teacher brought this up, I said this to him "Well what am I going to do with my stash now?", anyway it sounds like a bunch of anti pot propeganda to me.

"This (pictue of joint) may be handed this by the friendly stranger it contains the killer drug "marihuana" A powerful narcotic in which lurks DEATH! MURDER! INSANITY!!"
-Posters in my school
 
Great article find Phrozen! I know a few who felt that study was cooked/botched information to begin with in an attempt to get the public to look away from THC's cancer preventing& destroying properties.
 
Apparently excessive masturbation and promiscuity may cause testicular cancer also.

Along with a million other things. Can't get all hung up on each one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top