Cannabis doubles testicular cancer risk, says US study.

Discussion in 'Random Thoughts' started by spirit of the night, Feb 9, 2009.

  1. PsyGrunge

    PsyGrunge Full Fractal Force

    Messages:
    8,619
    Likes Received:
    30
    you've got the world at your fingertips.. why not research yourself?!
    i did, to get the link to the article!
     
  2. rollingalong

    rollingalong Banned

    Messages:
    33,587
    Likes Received:
    11,002
    my point too...thank you for putting it so eloquently my fellow one handed typer
     
  3. fitzy21

    fitzy21 Worst RT Mod EVAH!!!!

    Messages:
    39,007
    Likes Received:
    12
    meh.

    really not that interested
     
  4. TheGanjaKing

    TheGanjaKing Newbie

    Messages:
    25,953
    Likes Received:
    6
    i read the study on another board earlier today. I can't remember which one it was on, but i'm sure a quick google search would result in finding it
     
  5. nesta

    nesta Banned

    Messages:
    20,538
    Likes Received:
    9
    there are tons of non-us news sources with reports about this study. i cannot find an actual medical journal in which a study is published. what you linked to and described as a journal is simply an industry-specific periodical; a journal should have the actual written study.*

    further, from the description of the study, the evidence is flimsy, and it may simply be extremely coincidental.

    i won't dismiss it entirely offhand, but i will say i'm highly skeptical, and will remain so until i can first of all finally locate the study (which seems tough at the moment, i'll look into it more later perhaps) and see what it actually looks like, and further, until more studies indicate similar results.

    for now, i think it's pretty likely not worth worrying about. i think the media is jumping the gun. even if the researchers conclude there is a likelihood of cannabis use being a major risk factor, this may be faulty. poor research is conducted on a regular basis unintentionally.





    *
    this is a new publication, not a medical journal. it reports on what is found IN journals, and is geared towards medical professionals, but it is not a journal
     
  6. nesta

    nesta Banned

    Messages:
    20,538
    Likes Received:
    9
    i'd be interested, i'm having trouble finding it
     
  7. legal_rasta

    legal_rasta Member

    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why testicular cancer only? I call bullshit.
     
  8. TheGanjaKing

    TheGanjaKing Newbie

    Messages:
    25,953
    Likes Received:
    6
    the problem is, they were basing their entire study on the word of people, whether of not they used pot.

    they weren't tested, just said yes or no


    that in itself is enough to dismiss the entire study
     
  9. TheGanjaKing

    TheGanjaKing Newbie

    Messages:
    25,953
    Likes Received:
    6
    i can't find the one I read first thing this morning and every article I'm reading now says totally different things.


    I have to wonder now if there ever really was a study and this just isn't a convenient follow up by the PTB on the Phelps incident last week.

    a last ditch effort maybe?

    I don't know, i'll keep looking
     
  10. nesta

    nesta Banned

    Messages:
    20,538
    Likes Received:
    9
    yeah. this has to be taken into account, definitely.

    reminds me of a study done recently (i think u. of melbourne?) where the scientists concluded that "long term" "heavy use" of cannabis (10+ years of use, 5+ sessions daily) would lead to structural damage of the hippocampus and amygdala, with greater damage done to the hippocampus, as indicated by reduction in volume of said structures.


    then you look at the study itself...(Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008;65(6):694-701) and you'll notice that this claim was based on brain scans of a meager group of 15 males. thats it. 15 people were studied.

    and the media started going crazy "its proven! weed causes brain damage!!!"

    :rolleyes:
     
  11. TheGanjaKing

    TheGanjaKing Newbie

    Messages:
    25,953
    Likes Received:
    6
    this is a quote from the ABC article, the quote I read this morning was worded slightly differently (why, who knows) but its the same guy

    "We're reliant on them telling us what they did," Schwartz said. "We have to be a little skeptical of the accuracy of the reporting."
     
  12. bekyboo52

    bekyboo52 52~unknown~52

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    well if it is true then i hope it doesn't apply to ovaries lol
     
  13. TheGanjaKing

    TheGanjaKing Newbie

    Messages:
    25,953
    Likes Received:
    6
    well obviously it does, since they are a bitch's nuts....



    :rolleyes:
     
  14. dd3stp233

    dd3stp233 -=--=--=-

    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't see that this "study" has any scientific basis in fact. They asked 369 men with testicular cancer and compared it to 979 men without the disease and asked them if they smoked pot. A higher number of the ones with the cancer smoked. So they jump to the conclusion that marijuana must have caused it, without any known, proven, theorized and even hypothesised mode of causation. That's not science, that's statistics and with a sample size that small, poor statistics.
     
  15. Kinky Ramona

    Kinky Ramona Back by popular demand!

    Messages:
    20,452
    Likes Received:
    203
    These days everything gives you cancer. You might as well enjoy whatever is giving it to you.
     
  16. TheGanjaKing

    TheGanjaKing Newbie

    Messages:
    25,953
    Likes Received:
    6
    this is basically the entire study, yes.
     
  17. nesta

    nesta Banned

    Messages:
    20,538
    Likes Received:
    9
    no, their is a theorized means of it, but its only loosely conceived.

    they say an endogenous cannabinoid (i'm guessing anandamide, as it's discovery a mere few years ago was heralded as the first known endogenous substance to work in cannabinoid receptors, and since then i haven't heard of any others) is present in and around the testes, and helps to prevent the risk of testicular cancer. the theory is that chronic abuse of marijuana somehow disrupts production of/efficacy of the endogenous substance, thereby increasing risk of cancer. this is what i've gathered from articles i've read.

    there is good evidence that cannabinoids have some cancer-fighting/preventing properties. there is also knowledge of anandamide being present in the entire body in some level.

    there also is solid evidence that using drugs similar in structure to some endogenous neurotransmitters will alter or disrupt the production of or use of the endogenous substances, if i'm not mistaken.

    this does not quite add up, imo, but i'm far less informed about it than people qualified to do research in this area of study. it seems to me very shaky ground to stand on in terms of reaching a conclusion such as is presented in these news articles.

    i think this is an idea worth looking into, of course, but there MUST be extensive research done on this before i'll worry about whether smoking pot will give me cancer of the nut.
     
  18. TheGanjaKing

    TheGanjaKing Newbie

    Messages:
    25,953
    Likes Received:
    6
    and even if they DO prove without a doubt some sort of connection,


    Testicular cancer has one of the highest cure rates of all cancers: in excess of 90 percent; essentially 100 percent if it has not metastasized. Even for the relatively few cases in which malignant cancer has spread widely, chemotherapy offers a cure rate of at least 85 percent today. Not all lumps on the testicles are tumors, and not all tumors are malignant; there are many other conditions such as epididymal cysts, appendix testis (hydatid of Morgagni), and so on which may be painful but are non-cancerous.



    so I'm not gonna be even giving it another though
     
  19. dd3stp233

    dd3stp233 -=--=--=-

    Messages:
    2,052
    Likes Received:
    3

    A possible increase in risk of cancer is not the same as actually causing it.
     
  20. nesta

    nesta Banned

    Messages:
    20,538
    Likes Received:
    9
    no its not, which i stated, though perhaps it was differently worded.

    however, you stated that there was no means of causation, even in theory. i was simply countering that from what i read, there was a loosely theorized means of causation, but a means had been proposed regardless.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice