No one wants to touch this one?:smile:
Well....I had Testicular Cancer and I've only smoked weed once in my life 7 years ago. For some reason I don't think that was the reason I got it. All of the research I've read states that TC is pretty much completely random. There isn't even any genetic predisposition to TC like there is with other Cancers.
Scientific studies are funny in that who ever is paying for the reasearch tends to get results that they were looking for in the first place. :skeptical:
Do the "global warming" studies that predicted doom and gloom ring a bell.
It's likely that heavy marijuana users may also be engaging in other potentially high risk behavior. Or it could be what they eat when they get the munchies. I go back to day one of statistics 101, correlation does not equal causation.
I smoked some grass when I was at ISU 40 years ago, but when I graduated and got a good job I quit and haven't smoked since (I wasn't going to risk my job). But I have no doubt that if the pharmaceutical industry could control the production and sale of marijuana it would soon be legal. It's downright cruel that medical marijuana isn't legal, especially for chemo patients. From my personal experience as well as observation, excessive alcohol use causes far more individual and social problems than marijuana, and to make criminals out of occasional marijuana users is not only unjust but causes the taxpayers unnecessary billions. I'm certainly aware that excessive marijuana use can ruin lives just like alcohol, but it's crazy to make a criminal out of one and not the other.
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
The press is notoriously poor at analyzing experimental results. Thus, you have daily stories about some ridiculous health concern based on one questionable study. Moreover, they rarely seek out studies. More often, they just pick among the study results that are presented to them by interested parties.
Also, I am less concerned about the validity of a study funded by industry or interest group if the research is done by a reputable institution (in some cases, including the institution itself.) Most of those studies are legitimate. What happens more often is that studies that do not support the funding institution's objectives are not reported, or at least not reported to the press. Many are only available upon request or in scientific journals.
I have no opinion or information about the study cited in this thread, but I am always skeptical when I read a report in the popular press.
First off, one study doesn't mean much. How many times have we heard that coffee or eggs are good or bad for you.
Second, often times the media is responsible for blowing these things out of proportion. I am in grad school doing cancer research and I presented some data about glucose metabolism in cancer cells at a national meeting last year. Our PR dept wrote up a press release and a local paper picked it up. It also got submitted to some international news outlets and people RAN WILD with it, drawing conclusions that were no way supported by the original data. Also, since nobody in the press actually saw our presentation, it was (and still is, we haven't published yet) impossible for anyone to see the data.
The media (not mainstream) saw the words "sugar" and "cancer" in our release and went nuts claiming things like how eating sugar will cause cancer. Completely and utterly bogus conclusions. This is why it is wise to wait for further studies to come out before drawing any real conclusions.
Whoa. That's a bummer, man. Smokin' weed might cause...wait...what was I sayin'? Dude, pass the Doritos.
People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.