Increased risk/association between marijuana usage and testicular cancer?

[noobvaperct]

I don't even know how or why this popped up when I was looking up the BENEFITS of weed, but it the same damn article listed cons/potential cons and at the top of the list was an association/increased risk of testicular cancer. Me being the paranoid person I am did not want to read this. I'm unsure if I'm able to post links but I can link the studies, but just wanted to know your thoughts on the matter. We obviously want to enjoy ourselves but we also want to be healthy so we are able to enjoy ourselves, can we all agree here?

Again, let me know but I can link the studies if anyone cares. I wish I didn't stumble upon this shit, but here we are.

 

[Siebter]

A link would be nice, I don't think it would be an issue.

 

[GoldenBud]

Cannabis use and incidence of testicular cancer: a 42-year follow-up of Swedish men between 1970 and 2011

Given current drug-policy reforms to decriminalize or legalize cannabis in numerous countries worldwide, it is critically important to understand the potential impacts of cannabis use on the development of cancer. The current study aims to assess the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

smoking cannabis releases free radicals, molecules which are very reactive, which can increase the risk of cancer. vaporizing releases much less free radicals, and a research about vaporizing cannabis leading to a cancer of any kind is still not found, yet.

 

[noobvaperct]

Cannabis use and incidence of testicular cancer: a 42-year follow-up of Swedish men between 1970 and 2011

Given current drug-policy reforms to decriminalize or legalize cannabis in numerous countries worldwide, it is critically important to understand the potential impacts of cannabis use on the development of cancer. The current study aims to assess the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

smoking cannabis releases free radicals, molecules which are very reactive, which can increase the risk of cancer. vaporizing releases much less free radicals, and a research about vaporizing cannabis leading to a cancer of any kind is still not found, yet.

So we are dancing with the devil you say.

 

[Grass Yes]

So we are dancing with the devil you say.

No. Free radicals are weird and not always bad. When functioning properly free radicals help fight off pathogens. Similarly you can have too many antioxidants.

Also where is your link about ball cancer?

 

[GoldenBud]

So we are dancing with the devil you say.

any organic herb that people smoke releases enough free radicals that if that somebody is doing it for years it will harm the body in some way... it's very reactive. vaporizing occurs without any chemical reaction, the temperature of vaporization is much lower, and less risky.

just stick to vaporization and not smoking

 

[Shit Snacks]

you can have too many antioxidants

Damn should I be drinking less pomegranate juice?? Can't stop won't stop, boo oxidants

 

[noobvaperct]

No. Free radicals are weird and not always bad. When functioning properly free radicals help fight off pathogens. Similarly you can have too many antioxidants.

Also where is your link about ball cancer?

Cannabis use and incidence of testicular cancer: a 42-year follow-up of Swedish men between 1970 and 2011

Given current drug-policy reforms to decriminalize or legalize cannabis in numerous countries worldwide, it is critically important to understand the potential impacts of cannabis use on the development of cancer. The current study aims to assess the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cannabis exposure and risk of testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aetiology of testicular cancer remains elusive. In this manuscript, we review the evidence regarding the association between cannabis use and testicular cancer development.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we reviewed literature published ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Association of marijuana use and the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors - PubMed

An association was observed between marijuana use and the occurrence of nonseminoma TGCTs. Additional studies of TGCTs will be needed to test this hypothesis, including molecular analyses of cannabinoid receptors and endocannabinoid signaling, which may provide clues regarding the biologic...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Population-based case-control study of recreational drug use and testis cancer risk confirms an association between marijuana use and nonseminoma risk - PubMed

A specific association was observed between marijuana use and the risk of nonseminoma and mixed tumors. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of a negative association between cocaine use and TGCT risk. The current results warrant mechanistic studies of marijuana's effect on the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[oddjobold]

This is a load of balls

 

[GoldenBud]

Given current drug-policy reforms to decriminalize or legalize cannabis in numerous countries worldwide, it is critically important to understand the potential impacts of cannabis use on the development of cancer. The current study aims to assess the ...

it's about smokers, your first link
smoking also releases the product CO which is also very dangerous and it binds the hemoglobin ever faster than oxygen

 

[noobvaperct]

any organic herb that people smoke releases enough free radicals that if that somebody is doing it for years it will harm the body in some way... it's very reactive. vaporizing occurs without any chemical reaction, the temperature of vaporization is much lower, and less risky.

just stick to vaporization and not smoking

So you're saying it's quite literally the act of combustion is what does it? How has no one else studied vaporizing? How long have vapes been around? Just curious here is all. I want us all to be healthy and to continue enjoying our precious herb.

 

[Grass Yes]

Yeah, two of these a p-hacked all to hell and not useful. At the population level, this looks to be insignificant minor difference that I think could also be seen with some other correlation. I see nothing in these studies that worries me.

Having seen you on FC for a while, I can see you have a lot of health fears. I would recommend talking to a professional about these anxieties rather than googling.

 

[GoldenBud]

yeah man as long as you vaporize it's pretty much safe, there isn't a chemical reaction occuring while you vaporize weed, no CO, almost without free radicals i assume, no by-products, it's much safer than smoking, can't say it's 100% healthy because our lungs is supposed to carry inorganic gas, AIR, but... it's much safer than smoking

 

[noobvaperct]

Yeah, two of these a p-hacked all to hell and not useful. At the population level, this looks to be insignificant minor difference that I think could also be seen with some other correlation. I see nothing in these studies that worries me.

Having seen you on FC for a while, I can see you have a lot of health fears. I would recommend talking to a professional about these anxieties rather than googling.

What does p-hacked mean?

 

[Siebter]

What does p-hacked mean?

Data dredging - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[darbarikanada]

maybe I have too much faith in the media, but I'm pretty sure the minute a (reputable) researcher comes up with strong evidence of any serious negative health effect from cannabis (and said evidence has been replicated by others, i.e. multiple studies), it'll be front-page news.

 

[noobvaperct]

Data dredging - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But isn't the point of any study to look and report on the findings or a correlation of sorts? Studies start out with what they want to dive deep into and you only focus on that controlled group, no?

 

[GoldenBud]

maybe I have too much faith in the media, but I'm pretty sure the minute a (reputable) researcher comes up with strong evidence of any serious negative health effect from cannabis (and said evidence has been replicated by others, i.e. multiple studies), it'll be front-page news.

but then many people would think that the biggest medicine manufacturers may invented this research

 

[Grass Yes]

But isn't the point of any study to look and report on the findings or a correlation of sorts? Studies start out with what they want to dive deep into and you only focus on that controlled group, no?

No this is hacking the data to find a conclusion. You could probably pick another common activity and find a correlation. It's a real problem in research now. And to be clear the p-hacked data was not collected to answer this question, it was combed through looking for a result of any kind.

I am not sure how familiar you are with statistics, but it couldn't hurt to send some time learning about it. That Wikipedia article is a great description of this problem though.

 

[GoldenBud]

And to be clear the p-hacked data was not collected to answer this question, it was combed through looking for a result of any kind

which ones are p-hacking? would like to see the details so i can detect such things in the future

 

[noobvaperct]

I definitely will. It’s just sad when you can’t take math and science seriously… I really do appreciate your input, you seem to know what you’re talking about.

 

[Grass Yes]

I definitely will. It’s just sad when you can’t take math and science seriously… I really do appreciate your input, you seem to know what you’re talking about.

I was specifically looking at the meta-analysis and the Swedish study, but all four look like they are just examing data after the fact rather than using experimental methods. And all are based on self-reported use, which has consistently been shown to be flawed, moreso with drug and weight related surveys.

 

[noobvaperct]

I was specifically looking at the meta-analysis and the Swedish study, but all four look like they are just examing data after the fact rather than using experimental methods. And all are based on self-reported use, which has consistently been shown to be flawed, moreso with drug and weight related surveys.

I know I’m asking a lot of you here, but how can you honestly tell? Playing devils advocate is a healthy part of discourse, I’m not disagreeing with you. Super appreciative of your time and effort.

 

[Siebter]

It’s just sad when you can’t take math and science seriously…

Oh you absolutely can. Just know that there is bad science and manipulative presentation of data that are used to support some kind of agenda and learn how to spot it. That might take some time to learn, but is crucial when you want to understand current research.

 

[Grass Yes]

I know I’m asking a lot of you here, but how can you honestly tell? Playing devils advocate is a healthy part of discourse, I’m not disagreeing with you. Super appreciative of your time and effort.

My rule is when someone is playing devil's advocate they have to name the devil. Who are you advocating for? These researchers? The link between testicular cancer and cannabis? Running statistical analysis until a "significant" correlation leaps out?

Anyway to answer your direct question, look at their methods and the analysis. Specifically don't take any study at face value that reaches conclusions outside of the parameters of the experiment that collected that data.