• Do NOT click on any vaporpedia.com links. The domain has been compromised and will attempt to infect your system. See https://fuckcombustion.com/threads/warning-vaporpedia-com-has-been-compromised.54960/.

Liver disfunction and cannabis

wiggles

Well-Known Member
Hello everyone.
My family has a history of liver disfunction. I'm sadly not sure if it is related to the way that they abuse their bodies (most of my family members are well over 350lbs, have diabetes, and eat ridiculous amounts of food with no exercise). I eat pretty well, and exercise regularly, both running and cycling. I also am the only member of my family that regularly imbibes any amount of alcohol (2 drinks/day, 2days/week max), which should help my liver a bit.

However, has there been any research into the long term impact of cannabis on the human liver? Or even lab animal studies? While I am fairly confident that most of the problems come from lifestyle and not genetics, I still have a little spectre of concern that I can't 100% shake.
 

killick

But I like it!
Your family sounds like parts of mine. I had a bunch of untelaye health problems last year, and the final one was being diagnosed w type 2 diabetes. Any test result over 7 means you are in the club, and I scored 7.1. Since then I've lost a bunch of weight (for other reasons) and am in great shape all things considered. Off to the doc today to see about getting off meds. Wish me luck!

PS - Google cannabis and diabetes - loss of great info out there. Is it true? We can hope :)
 
killick,
  • Like
Reactions: BossBrew

BossBrew

Metalhead
My sister has liver cirrhosis caused by Autoimmune Hepatitis and her primary Hepatologist recommended she use cannabis for her pain. She is unable to take any pain medications because they are processed by the liver so her only option is cannabis. Her doctor only recommended that she either ingest the cannabis orally or vaporize it. She recently quit smoking so I gave her my Arizer Solo and she has been using it daily for months now with great results. Her primary physician also recommended she try cannabis last year but she waited to hear from the liver specialist before getting her doctors recommendation for MMJ.

I wouldn't worry about cannabis damaging the liver in any capacity.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
TruthOnPot.com – Previous studies suggest a harmful effect of marijuana use on the liver, but new research out of McGill University proves otherwise.



Published last week in Clinical Infectious Diseases, the study found no link between marijuana use and progress of liver disease in 690 patients with hepatitis C – a virus that infects the liver.

Instead, the findings showed an opposite effect. Patients tended to use more cannabis as symptoms got worse.

Patients have also reported using marijuana for symptom relief in previous studies, which led the Canadian researchers to conclude:
“Patients use more marijuana to relieve symptoms as liver disease progresses.”

This was from 2013.
 

wiggles

Well-Known Member
TruthOnPot.com – Previous studies suggest a harmful effect of marijuana use on the liver, but new research out of McGill University proves otherwise.



Published last week in Clinical Infectious Diseases, the study found no link between marijuana use and progress of liver disease in 690 patients with hepatitis C – a virus that infects the liver.

Instead, the findings showed an opposite effect. Patients tended to use more cannabis as symptoms got worse.

Patients have also reported using marijuana for symptom relief in previous studies, which led the Canadian researchers to conclude:
“Patients use more marijuana to relieve symptoms as liver disease progresses.”

This was from 2013.

I hate to do this, but it's important to remember how science works. No single study proves anything - on its own it is a statistical anomaly in either direction it goes. If there are 10 studies showing a link, and 1 study showing no link, the bulk of evidence still shows that there is a link. If there are 10 studies showing a link and 100 studies showing no link, the bulk of evidence shows there is no link. Science works hand-in-hand with the law of large numbers to eventually get a really good idea of where the truth lies, but it requires tons of studies to be done to know for sure.

So, it sounds like we need more studies to be done to see which side of the ballpark reality is on.
 

MoltenTiger

Well-Known Member
I hate to do this, but it's important to remember how science works. No single study proves anything - on its own it is a statistical anomaly in either direction it goes. If there are 10 studies showing a link, and 1 study showing no link, the bulk of evidence still shows that there is a link. If there are 10 studies showing a link and 100 studies showing no link, the bulk of evidence shows there is no link. Science works hand-in-hand with the law of large numbers to eventually get a really good idea of where the truth lies, but it requires tons of studies to be done to know for sure.

So, it sounds like we need more studies to be done to see which side of the ballpark reality is on.

I also hate to do this, but what you say isn't strictly true.
A study is probably conducted in an effort to prove something. Or at the very least to expose correlation without dictating causation. So the conclusion of the case study includes what claims can ultimately be made (and to what level of accuracy, often the goal is to prove something), and the study itself offers examples of why and how that's the case. Science isn't about how many ways you can give examples, it's about finding the best one possible. Therefore if more scientific evidence exists in one study, then it is deemed more worthy of interest, and the more people that know about it without any conflict of idea, the more worthy it becomes until it is eventually adopted as fact. Then it can be used in examples for studies of other things. It's not about numbers per se, it's about documented reasoning. Therefore the only thing that matters is the quality of the science, and that's where you have problems due to the political nature of "marijuana".
So yes, more studies please, actual unbiased and professional studies. It's the most important reason laws should be lifted, we have a right to know - or as people on here should say, everyone else needs to learn!

A bit more OT:
I've used this stuff heavily, if I was doing any other med (or substance) at the same rate, I would be gravely ill. Everything has repercussion but on the whole a lot of people have shown it's quite safe.
A problem with addiction is it can blind the response to change, I don't think this applies so much with cannabis, but I think it does with tobacco. I've definitely been addicted to the action of smoking (mixed cones) but never to a cannabis high, it's always been a bonus. Maybe that's just me.
I would say, from what I've seen and what I've experienced, that if you eat, sleep and exercise regularly, vaping and even smoking, would have minimal effect on health. Although they make it harder to keep the balance and easily absorb more and more time. The habit slowly becomes more and more unhealthy as doses increase, and eventually less and less satisfying.
If you find the right balance, health won't need to be worried about, and that's kind of the ideal of medication. Supplementing those that need it, allowing them to live with this freedom. The meds we have on shelves today aren't about that so much, and alternative therapy would be recommended in a lot of cases, not all, by doctors if the relation is personal and not based off commission.
There won't be a good answer to what long term cannabis use does to any part of us for a long time, but in the mean time, look at the people who are on it; they look like a result of their lifestyle. When weed is a massive part of that, they're usually super chill and look like a smoker. Not bad. Some people can't handle the brain alteration and they go crazy. These people are not daily smokers, they might have been for 6 or 12 months, but they shouldn't have been and they knew. If you use it and it's working for you, the only reason to stop is negative social stigma. Don't let it get to you, people also rave about how safe it is, try it out for a year and you'll know if that's true for you. It will be, but only to a certain level and whether you can manage that.
 

DOOM

Well-Known Member
Do you have Alpha 1 or Hemochromatosis that runs in your family? Or are you referring to simple fatty liver?

I have a friend of mines who lost his dad and two uncles to liver cirrhosis, but they were heavy heavy drinkers. I know majority of heavy drinkers do not have to worry about cirrhosis, but those unlucky ones have a genetic predisposition to it, if they drink, more than the regular heavy drinker.

But as far as smoking goes, it looks like there in increased chance only if u have hepatitis. "Morris Sherman, MD and Josep M. Llovet, MD clarify that smoking by itself does not cause liver cancer, but that it dramatically increases the risk, especially for people who have other risk factors, such as hepatitis B or C virus." http://www.cancer.org/...but that's liver cancer.

But I'm interested too to see how MJ effects liver. But then again liver is a strong organ and if u find out cause u can easily reverse damage or stop it from progressing. I even wonder too if edibles will screw up liver function numbers as well.
 
DOOM,
Top Bottom