Is this propaganda?

[Siebter]

How to read random-effects meta-analysis → https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d549 (esp. „Use and interpretation of meta-analysis in practice“).

 

[kuzko]

Note that the article, while suggesting anticarciogenic properties of THC, doesn't make any assumptions about weed being smoked; „administering THC to mice with human tumors“ doesn't sound like a bong party to me. I will not deny these findings of course, but we should be carefully asking which scenarios they apply to.


That is not quite true. We know quite a lot about the harmful aspects of smoke in general. I'm not sure any type of actual smoke is considered as harmless.

I believe you asked specifically about cannabis smoking, of which there is no long term research other than self reporting ones. Obviously, any smoke is harmful. I guess I interpreted this discussion as a question of “Is all smoke equally harmful?” Or at least cannabis vs. tobacco. I’m just contributing opinions and theories to the discussion. There is no definitive answer yet. Obviously, different materials create different compounds when combusted. And more research needs to be done on how the chemical compounds in cannabis smoke affect the human respiratory system over time compared to tobacco smoke. As an extreme example, I don’t smoke anything, but if I had to I’d much rather smoke a cigarette than a car tire. Otherwise, I’m not sure I remember the original question, is it “is smoking anything harmful?” Absolutely. You’ll never catch me advocating for smoke.

 

[Siebter]

There is no definitive answer yet.

...well, actually...

Obviously, any smoke is harmful.

...that's all I was up to. Smoke, any smoke, is (very) harmful. That might not be an issue when having a J every other month, but most of us enjoy it more regularly.

And more research needs to be done on how the chemical compounds in cannabis smoke affect the human respiratory system over time compared to tobacco smoke.

I don't see why. We should look at harmful aspects – period, not compared to some other things like tobacco or car tires. Comparing smoking weed to vaporizing weed makes much more sense to me (which has been done a little bit here → https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456813/).

 

[kuzko]

...well, actually...



...that's all I was up to. Smoke, any smoke, is (very) harmful. That might not be an issue when having a J every other month, but most of us enjoy it more regularly.



I don't see why. We should look at harmful aspects – period, not compared to some other things like tobacco or car tires. Comparing smoking weed to vaporizing weed makes much more sense to me.

We should figure everything out. I’m an equal opportunity knowledge seeker.

 

[Siebter]

We should figure everything out.

Okay, I wholeheartly can agree on that. :-)

 

[Planck]

How to read random-effects meta-analysis → https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d549 (esp. „Use and interpretation of meta-analysis in practice“).

Thank you very much for the link, I'll read it this evening.

We should figure everything out. I’m an equal opportunity knowledge seeker.

@kuzko

 

[Baron23]

Could anyone give me a study or the like that actually investigates the *long term* risks of cannabis smoking? Because I don't know of any – keep in mind that certain diseases, including cancer, happen with long term usage, so short term studies can't make any assumptions about for example cancer risks from cannabis smoking. It's true, smoking cannabis will not lead to cancer and you might recover from its harmful effects after 30 days or whatever, but pretty much the same applies to cigarettes. One cigarette will not kill you and most likely after 30 days you will have fully recovered. But when we are talking about a daily usage over decades, things look a bit different.

Well, you are welcome to slog through these peer reviewed studies....do let us know what you find out!

https://www.google.com/search?clien...long+term+health+effects+of+smoking+marijuana

 

[CANtalk]

an overall significant increased risk /= marginally statistically significant association.

It makes sense to me .
Let me simply reverse your statement to demonstrate what was reported...
"[a] marginally statistically significant association = an overall significant increased risk." That's what they are saying and it makes sense. The opposite statement would have been equally plausible and logical, that
"[a] statistically insignificant association = an overall insignificant increased risk."

In my experience, it's typical scientific language around the discussion of how the researchers scoped their analysis of significance .

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Again: these are interesting facts for sure, but while they show in what ways tobacco smoke is harmful, it doesn't really say other smoke is harmless, does it?

Of course not: were they studying the effects of smoke in general, that they would generalize so?

I've heard that cannabis components can act anticarciogenic, but if it would reverse the harmful aspects of smoking fully, we'd probably know.

You might well imagine so, but consider: they were looking for *harm* not benefit; their research dollars did not want positive knowledge about the plant from their research. Much of what we now know about the endocannabinoid system, we know IN SPITE of research being buried and the search for harms went on. Given a system built around lies, why would you imagine positive, non-harmful research results would be *publicized* by that system?

 

[ClearBlueLou]

It makes sense to me .
Let me simply reverse your statement to demonstrate what was reported...
"[a] marginally statistically significant association = an overall significant increased risk." That's what they are saying and it makes sense. The opposite statement would have been equally plausible and logical, that
"[a] statistically insignificant association = an overall insignificant increased risk."

In my experience, it's typical scientific language around the discussion of how the researchers scoped their analysis of significance .

I think it was the “/=“ that threw it.

As I understand him, he is saying that an only marginally significant association would rule out a significant increase in risk. “Statistically significant” frequently means “barely out of the noise”, as in this case.

 

[CANtalk]

I think it was the “/=“ that threw it.

As I understand him, he is saying that an only marginally significant association would rule out a significant increase in risk. “Statistically significant” frequently means “barely out of the noise”, as in this case.

It doesn't make sense put that way to me ... an insignificant association would "also" rule out a significant increase in risk, negating that interpretation.

"Barely out of the noise" is a broad simplification; it's still a significant correlation based on well defined well known and well accepted scientific standards (pretty high confidence standards and intervals). I simply see the word "marginally" as added descriptive text to the statement. It's accurate but doesn't override the other information in any big way.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

It doesn't make sense put that way to me ... an insignificant association would "also" rule out a significant increase in risk, negating that interpretation.

"Barely out of the noise" is a broad simplification; it's still a significant correlation based on well defined well known and well accepted scientific standards (pretty high confidence standards and intervals). I simply see the word "marginally" as added descriptive text to the statement. It's accurate but doesn't override the other information in any big way.

So now we’re splitting hairs over the distinction between insignificant and marginally significant?
To what productive result? Are you arguing that this “marginally significant increase” in potential risk is significant *enough* to be a tracked factor? Why downplay the *significance* of the word “marginally”, didn’t they mean it?

 

[CANtalk]

So now we’re splitting hairs over the distinction between insignificant and marginally significant?
To what productive result? Are you arguing that this “marginally significant increase” in potential risk is significant *enough* to be a tracked factor? Why downplay the *significance* of the word “marginally”, didn’t they mean it?

Again, it's not splitting hairs, the scientific analysis met the 95% confidence interval commonly applied to statistical analyses and epidemiological assessments. The results were simply characterized / acknowledged / described as meeting the threshold "marginally" in lieu of "robustly". It's shades of grey after what's a commonly accepted benchmark and standard in assessments / statistics. Good science should be descriptive.

 

[Siebter]

You might well imagine so, but consider: they were looking for *harm* not benefit; their research dollars did not want positive knowledge about the plant from their research. Much of what we now know about the endocannabinoid system, we know IN SPITE of research being buried and the search for harms went on. Given a system built around lies, why would you imagine positive, non-harmful research results would be *publicized* by that system?

You digress from the topic – this is indeed not about the wonderful benefits that cannabis provides (which in fact is researched thoroughly across the globe and not only by corrupt scientists in the u.s. of a.) but about the harmful effects that smoking *any plant matter* provides. That doesn't take away from those benefits at all, but we should find out how to use them properly; apparently smoking is a rather bad way to go, not because cannabis is bad, but because smoking is bad.

 

[narrowsparrow]

A lot to digest here... I figure if it were damaging my lungs, I would know by now. I've been using a bowl a day for the last seven years. My lungs are feeling no ill effects. I've smoked recreationally since college, but not daily except for a couple of years in the 70's. However, I would really like to see research on how cannabis reacts with other drugs. I have two auto-immune diseases for which there is some research (likely a neurological dysfunciton) but as yet no marker; i.e., no simple blood test. So the meds only treat symptoms, not the cause. I have been on these meds for 30 years, and and adding cannabis to very low-dose benzos, SSRI's, etc. is quite worrisome to me. But the cannabis keeps my blood pressure down (cannot tolerate any class of BP meds) and is helpful with pain and depression.Who wouldn't be depressed after being a shut-in for the last 33 years??

I lost a good friend to COPD, so I know first-hand the horrors of cigarettes. Over 500 ingredients, and the government protects Big Tobacco by letting them keep the ingredients secret. Anecdotally, I would have to say that cannabis is way less destructive than tobacco in any form. The thing is, cannabis is loaded with chemicals, too. Unless you can find organic...

 

[Siebter]

I figure if it were damaging my lungs, I would know by now. I've been using a bowl a day for the last seven years. My lungs are feeling no ill effects.

When smoking cigs, it often takes a few decades until lung cancer happens.