thoughts on these two studies?

[lwien]

What harms and slows down the eventual overall legalization of marijuana are:

Those that are sooooo anti-pot, that they will not only create negative reports and support those negative reports but promote those negative reports under the guise of "saving our society".

and

That that are soooo pro-pot, that they totally dismiss any reports that suggest that there are or may be negative consequences for using marijuana and they do so based solely on the fact that the reports are negative.

To me, one is just as bad as the other. No different really than the extreme right versus the extreme left in politics. I abhor them both. Well, maybe not abhor, but certainly feel sorry for, for they can only see the world in black and white and for them, shades of grey does not exist.

 

[Adobewan]

No different really than the extreme right versus the extreme left in politics. I abhor them both. Well, maybe not abhor, but ...

Abhor sounded right to me bro!

 

[HillaryClinton]

I always noticed that any extreme in life usually spells crazy.

 

[cheesee]

they make sense to me ,now they need to compare ppl stone and those who are drunk see which learns less lol

Zalesky et al.:

... Alcohol use (standard drinks/week), tobacco use (cigarettes/day), trait anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory) were included as nuisance regressors. Group membership (user/non-user) was the regressor of interest and was the only significant regressor for both networks (fimbria: P < 0.001; commissural: P < 0.001). Alcohol (fimbria: P = 0.9; commissural: P = 0.8), tobacco (fimbria: P = 0.7; commissural: P = 0.8), trait anxiety (fimbria: P = 0.1; commissural: P = 0.8) and depressive symptoms (fimbria: P = 0.8; commissural: P = 0.9) were not significant regressors.

In regards to this quote,

also if stoned i sure the results would be lower than not being stoned while taking a test while this doesn't mean their IQ dropped does mean they should not be taking a test if baked lol

I too would refer to Zalesky et al.:

... The cannabis users of this study were asked to abstain from cannabis for at least 12 h (median self-reported abstinence: 15 h).

I assume that these kinds of requests of abstinence are required in the case of drug use studies. However, this study only did neurobiological analyses rather than neuropsychological tests. For this, we must look to Meier et al. Some things I found interesting about this particular study:

Meier et al.:

... Study members who never used cannabis experienced a slight increase in IQ, whereas those who diagnosed with cannabis dependence at one, two, or three or more study waves experienced IQ declines of −0.11, −0.17, and −0.38 SD units, respectively. An IQ decline of −0.38 SD units corresponds to a loss of ∼6 IQ points, from 99.68 to 93.93. Results of analyses for persistent cannabis dependence and persistent regular cannabis use were similar (Table 1).

In other words, those who persistently used cannabis from the age that they started and have had multiple discrete periods of cannabis use and attempted abstention seemed to have an average decline in IQ of six points.

I would like to point out that it is certainly possible people know from "anecdotal evidence" the results from these papers not to be applicable to those specific cases. They seem to forget that statistical research seldom provides for either/or options. It remains possible that individual cases do not experience the mentioned effects of respectively diminishing white matter or a decrease in IQ. However, statistical research does point towards the fact that a very great majority does indeed experience decline in white matter or IQ. What I did find interesting though is that the IQ decrease is limited if cannabis dependance and/or cannabis use was only reported to have occured once. Chronic cannabis use that only starts at one point in time and is not interrupted by periods of attempted abstinence apparently does not lead to a decrease in IQ. This seems to point towards the fact that attempts to quit cannabis use lead to an increased decline in IQ, as though these users of cannabis were already experiencing some kind of psychopathological disorder, or would experience these regardless of cannabis use.

... Moreover, although fewer persistent cannabis users pursued education after high school (χ2 = 63.94, P < 0.0001), among the subset with a high-school education or less, persistent cannabis users experienced greater IQ decline (Table 4).

This means that those who did pursue education after high school did not experience as great a decline in IQ as those who did not pursue further education. This corresponds to a decrease of less than 1 IQ point! This reinforces my doubts that problematic use of cannabis is strongly related to pre-existing neurobiological or neuropsychological disorders. This can explain those cases that people on this forum seem to have experienced personally: people using cannabis that did not experience symptoms of significant mental deterioration. Without further research it is not possible to accurately determine whether or not a drop in IQ is caused by adolescent cannabis use or that this drop is caused by pre-existing factors that are not related to this use. One of these factors could be an increase in addictive tendencies caused by a neuropathological disorder. I would disagree with Meier et al. conclusion that "... by investigating the association between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological functioning prospectively, we ruled out premorbid neuropsychological deficit as an explanation of the link between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological impairment occurring after persistent use."

Nonetheless the recreational use of cannabis by adolescents should be strictly avoided as "adolescent-onset users showed greater IQ decline than adult-onset cannabis users ... In fact, adult-onset cannabis users did not appear to experience IQ decline as a function of persistent cannabis use." It seems as though many problems in mental deterioration can be averted by simply postponing the age of use. I therefore agree with their conclusion that:

... Prevention and policy efforts should focus on delivering to the public the message that cannabis use during adolescence can have harmful effects on neuropsychological functioning, delaying the onset of cannabis use at least until adulthood, and encouraging cessation of cannabis use particularly for those who began using cannabis in adolescence.

(By the way, this is my first post here. Hey guys!)

 

[Magic9]

The reason there is such a "knee-jerk" fuck you to these studies is clear. We've been fed lies since as long as I've been alive.
So lets check them out. The main "article" was garbage, so we'll stick to the studies. I can't go too deep as I've got some time issues.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/135/7/2245.full The first one mentioned

Our results suggest that long-term cannabis use is hazardous to white matter in the developing brain. Given the association between cannabis-related harms and age of onset of regular use, delaying use may minimize such harmful effects.

It may be true. They used 59 heavy cannabis users and 33 controls. The users were asked (not observed) to abstain for 12 hrs. before MRI. They observed some reduction in white matter.

The sample size is very small. Too small for me to fully appreciate the findings. Also not very controlled. The (Aus.) study is affiliated with a treatment center and a childrens research center. At least one has established anti-cannabis views (http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person24697).

National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Project Grant 459111) gave them just under $500K for this study. Probably not fans.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full Second one, saying users can/will lose upto 8 IQ points. Done in NZ and partly funded by our own NIDA.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/15/new-research-questions-marijuanas-impact-in-lowering-iq/
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/11/4251
http://www.scilogs.com/sifting_the_evidence/perspective-on-cannabis-dependence-and-iq/

In the end, these studies just call for legalization. They just might not realize it. Children should not use recreational cannabis and nobody should be SMOKING it.


These are both older "studies" that have already been discussed numerous times. Why the need to discuss them here at this time from a new member? Welcome to FC.

 

[herbivore21]

I'm going to address the above post later, but there are a number of issues with the assumptions therein. First of all, the NHMRC funds almost all research into health in Australia IME. If they didn't fund it and it's health research, it's probably corporate funded - that's where issues of bias really come into play!

You cannot compare scientific government bodies in the US with scientific government bodies in Australia. Australia has a history of a much more active involvement of the government in the public interest surrounding the accurate representation and good-faith execution of science. The ARC and NHMRC respectively fund the majority of research in Australia. The grants processes are very fair and are not at all contingent on the findings of the given research. In fact, you do not even need to say anything about the findings until the completion of the report in a lot of cases. There would be no way for the NHMRC to find out that scientists were going to publish something positive about cannabis and cut funding. The grant model precludes this. By the time the report is done, the researchers have already gotten all their research money lol. It sure as hell ain't coming back!

Also, all adolescent health researchers and developmental psych researchers will be liable to have a dim view of cannabis for developing minds (ie children) because the best current data supports the claim that on average, weed and adolescents do not mix. This is NOT A BIAS. The relatively small body of literature on this topic does suggest that most psychadelics, no matter how relatively harmless in adults; appear to be detrimental in earlier development.

Health science is about erring on the side of caution guys. In health science we don't say 'we're not fully concluded on whether adolescent cannabis use necessarily causes certain issues in development. However, current incomplete evidence suggest it does; but what the hell, it could use more support so go ahead and give your kids all the pot they want!'. It is more like: "the evidence is incomplete, but the best studies we have right now do suggest that you should not be using cannabis (or most different drugs really) during adolescence."

Also, IQ is a tenuous psychological construct. IME those psychological researchers whose existing body of work does not rely on the construct validity of IQ (ie: me) are pretty quick to recognize this. Remember, I am not saying the use of IQ is not more or less internally consistent, I am saying the issue is that it is an accurate measure of intelligence, which itself is not even a thing that can be measured. It is an example of the scientism (dogmatic approach to science, rather than one based on critical thinking).

Finally, Australian states can be extremely draconian when it comes to drug use. Tight controls on studies relating to individual drug use are FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to express the frustrations of all my colleagues exploring these areas. Any tight controls related to regulating the intake of drugs during or prior to the study can be considered de facto inducement to commit an offence and university ethics departments would have major quandaries about this. I do not endorse this kind of legal view and its many variants, but it remains that ethics departments at universities (IE: Where 99.99999% of credible drug research is carried out) are NOT GOING TO TAKE RISKS WITH THIS STUFF. They are public institutions with public liability insurance to pay etc.

I have several close friends and colleagues on university ethics committees. They don't take risks. They can't afford the insurance premiums lol.

Make no mistake, this area of research is most fraught because of especially international laws, not researcher bias or dodgy funding arrangements. Australian researchers IME are mostly cannabis users themselves, and very few I have met have a chip on their shoulder in this regard Man, my professional body's national conference last year was awash with reefer!

Avoid the paranoia towards scientists guys, chances are they are just like you! The difference is that no matter how much we may also love the herb, we have to report the data as we see it and act according to it. Evidence based health is too important to sully just because we get riled up at the idea that kids might not be best to have weed.

Seriously, I love weed, I think most adults in the world would be fine to have it. But is it so difficult to imagine that giving weed to kids, on the basis of the smaller amount of evidence we do have, is not the sharpest idea that a given individual might come up with?

Everyone needs to stop the weed partisanship, all it does is keep us in the dark.

Apologies if my writing is a bit cumbersome, I just woke up lol.

 

[Magic9]

I'm going to address the above post later

That's my post. Feel free to address, but I think you covered most of it. Here in the US, our govt. likes to play funding games and spread misinformation. I'm glad that it is less prevalent in Aus.

Both those studies have major flaws. The reason for those flaws are less important to me than the actual flaws themselves.

But is it so difficult to imagine that giving weed to kids, on the basis of the smaller amount of evidence we do have, is not the sharpest idea that a given individual might come up with?

No and nobody here (or anywhere?) is advocating "giving weed to kids".

Everyone needs to stop the weed partisanship, all it does is keep us in the dark.

100% agreed. We need full scale controlled testing and let the results speak for themselves. Many on the pro-cannabis side agree with this. We're just waiting, in the year 2014, for it to be done.

 

[herbivore21]

That's my post. Feel free to address, but I think you covered most of it. Here in the US, our govt. likes to play funding games and spread misinformation. I'm glad that it is less prevalent in Aus.

Both those studies have major flaws. The reason for those flaws are less important to me than the actual flaws themselves.



No and nobody here (or anywhere?) is advocating "giving weed to kids".



100% agreed. We need full scale controlled testing and let the results speak for themselves. Many on the pro-cannabis side agree with this. We're just waiting, in the year 2014, for it to be done.

Unfortunately, we need to specifically and deliberately withdraw our respective nations from the UN conventions on psychotropic substances to get the research data we so sorely need here! Noone seems prepared to do it in either of our governments right now.

The reason I said that clearly noone would think giving cannabis to kids is a good idea is because these studies themselves are very clear in being focused on weed and development. This is not specifically about adults! I know you never suggested to hand a kid baby's first bong lol.

However, I don't understand why these studies get people riled up for this reason - the Aussie study in particular is concerned with effects on children. Also, the authors concluded that early cannabis use has a correlation with negative outcomes later in life. That doesn't mean that one causes the other, but until we understand the relationship between cannabis and kids better, scientists err on the side of caution (because we are dealing with health, as well as kids here lol) and suggest that we not give our kids that breakfast doobie, and here we are up in arms about conspiracies of dodgy funding arrangements!

I understand the limitations of these studies, as the researchers themselves (in the Australian study particularly) do pretty well to identify. Noone with any understanding of the topic or science in general claims this body of literature to be conclusive; just enough evidence for a reasonable person to think that weed, whilst seemingly pretty benign in many adult cases, is not best for those of us who are earlier on in development - until we get firmer evidence to clarify just how careful we should be of this.

Still, I heartily agree with everyone here that the news article was complete rubbish. That is the same with 99% of media coverage of science news. Never send a journalist out to report science

Also not at all picking on you my friend, I understand that the situation is very different in the US. Thankfully, it is not the same everywhere though

 

[Magic9]

However, I don't understand why these studies get people riled up for this reason

That is the same with 99% of media coverage of science news. Never send a journalist out to report science

The study isn't the issue so much. It is that it gets touted as proof of something by our media and others. The article with the two studies we are discussing is a prime example of this.

here we are up in arms about conspiracies of dodgy funding arrangements!

I know this was intended in jest, but here, dodgy funding arrangements are just the way it is. This article from just last week sums up our problem in a nutshell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/congress-marijuana-research_n_5481172.html

 

[herbivore21]

Agreed my friend, the media are the problem in this case

Also I am definitely aware of the issues in the US with the relationship between government, the big end of town and researchers. I thank baby jesus every day that we don't have the same stuff vis-a-vis government and research going on here (although the relationship between business and research here is similarly murky sometimes).

 

[lwien]

Just an FYI as this kinda pertains to what is being discussed here. I posted up the following over at GC in this thread: http://forum.grasscity.com/vaporizers/1313543-im-leaving-guys.html.

I wonder if they'll delete it.

Edit: Figures. They just deleted it. Here is the post:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've really been active here for a long time (see post count and join date) and I sincerely hope that I've helped a few in their search for a good vaporizer but my conscious has finally had enough.

Over at FC, one of their rules is the following, "This forum is for mature adults only. We don’t want to hear about you needing to hide things from your parents."

There's a good reason for this. There have been some really qualified and peer reviewed studies that show that use of marijuana by young kids whose brains are still developing, causes not only loss of IQ, but structural abnormalities in gray matter volume, density and shape and that this can happen with minimal use of just once a week The studies have gone on to say that these changes in the brain are not observed in adults who began their marijuana use as adults.

Now even if you don't agree with these studies, it is only common sense that drugs that alter ones sense of reality is not a good thing for young kids to ingest be it marijuana, alcohol or any mind altering substance but yet, Grass City seems to not have an issue with this.

Just stating in ones rules that a site is for adults only is not good enough for we know that there is no way in hell that one can really monitor that, but a site CAN monitor posts and threads and act accordingly when the see that young kids are obvioulsy active here, but GC refuses to do this.

I reported the following two threads:
http://forum.grassci...-act-sober.html
 "My mom came home early today while I was super stoned and I had to run to my room. My eyes were so red and I didn't know if my room still smelled like weed or not but I'm pretty sure it didn't because she didn't say anything. I just need tips on how to act natural and how to get rid of red eyes. I may or may not be able to get eyes drops anytime soon."

http://forum.grassci...dpipes-etc.html

and informed the mods of the same things that I have posted above, but I have not heard back from them, and these threads are still active in the "medical toking tools" section of GC.

Now on one hand, I guess I can understand GC's stand on this being that this forum is supported by their retail sales and I would imagine that kids contribute quite a bit to those sales but for me, my presence here is all about giving out advice on vaporizers and I find it now just about impossible to be active here on a site that, by their lack of action, encourages young kids to use by giving them a place to discuss how they can hide that use from their parents.

Now I don't know how long GC will allow THIS thread to stay up, but deleting this thread while allowing the others that I mentioned above to remain active would just be making a bad situation worse.

So I bid adieu here but will remain very active over at FC, a site who REALLY tries to be a site for adults and REALLY tries to eliminate the kids from access. If posts, like the two I mentioned above, showed up there, they would immediately be taken down.

Anyway, I hope that my past presence here has been valuable to some but I gotta leave. It just doesn't feel right contributing here any longer due to the above circumstances.
Laters...........
----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[lwien]

Just got finished talking with one of the mods at GC. Apparently, my actions have spurred their mods and admin staff to talk with the owner in regards to changing up their rules to basically what we have here in regards to this issue.

I'm really happy that they're taking this shit seriously. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Adobewan]

Just got finished talking with one of the mods at GC. Apparently, my actions have spurred their mods and admin staff to talk with the owner in regards to changing up their rules to basically what we have here in regards to this issue...

@lwien
Bravo brother! Way to fight the good fight and congratulations on making a difference!!

 

[Magic9]

There's a good reason for this. There have been some really qualified and peer reviewed studies that show that use of marijuana by young kids whose brains are still developing, causes not only loss of IQ, but structural abnormalities in gray matter volume, density and shape and that this can happen with minimal use of just once a week The studies have gone on to say that these changes in the brain are not observed in adults who began their marijuana use as adults.

I'd like to see these "really qualified" and "peer reviewed" studies you are referring to here. If it is the two mentioned in this thread, I feel you may have done a disservice by touting small, studies with some very real limitations as "proof" of something.

 

[herbivore21]

Scientists dont use the word 'proof' unless it is to clarify that scientists dont use the word 'proof'. The word itself contains problematic assumptions about epistemology.

also congrats lwien. I agree that a site selling herb supplies should not be allowing children to congregate on their board. Only because this is unethical business practice. You cant abide making a buck from kids taking drugs!

Still, i whole heartedly support a services specifically for young people to congregate and access/share harm minimization info. I was smoking pot as a very young child, got into amphetamines when i was 13. Kids are gonna do drugs (some of us anyway). We need to make sure they have access to the best information in order to minimize the risks involved.

this could be moderated by a qualified child psychologist and would be an invaluable resource!

 

[Magic9]

That's why I used quotation marks.


Edit* @herbivore21 Since you have more knowledge about this than probably anyone, can I/we pick your brain a little?

 

[lwien]

Ok, so for those of you that may be interested in this on-going situation over at GC, I just got a PM from their Admin. I won't post up the whole PM as I don't want to "totally" destroy what PM is supposed to mean, but here is an excerpt from it:
----------------------------
"Doin (name of one of the mods) let me know about your concerns and I thought we had already had it set that when parents are brought up that we axed the threads. I think maybe we had some miscommunication.

We are going to revamp the rules and add that rule to them (the same rule that I mentioned to them that we have here at FC) because I have an issue with kids, even if they are over 18, putting their parents at risk with their actions."
---------------------------

So.................major kudo's to GC for correcting a bad situation.

Felt that I needed to post this up to kinda close the curtain on this.

It's kinda nice to know that one CAN make a difference.

 

[Adobewan]

...So.................major kudo's to GC for correcting a bad situation...

To you as well lwien!

 

[herbivore21]

That's why I used quotation marks.


Edit* @herbivore21 Since you have more knowledge about this than probably anyone, can I/we pick your brain a little?

You guys certainly are most welcome

 

[Magic9]

Thank you very much @herbivore21. Since you are in the field, it's hard to pass up the opportunity. Before I geek out though, I'd like to get these two studies taken care of first. I do not want to beat a dead horse, but for anyone searching the topic in the future (kids and parents especially), I'd like them to have the truth. I'll address the IQ study first if that is ok.

As a researcher, would you say the (NIDA supported) IQ study has been "discredited"?


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1215678110
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/marijuana-study-teens-pot-iq-drop-flawed_n_2473936.html
"Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said observational studies of people like the Duke work can't definitively demonstrate that marijuana cause irreversible effects on the brain. In an email, she said Rogeberg's paper "looks sound" but doesn't prove that his alternative explanation is correct."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...-could-have-zero-effect-on-iq-1431876/?no-ist


Ignoring the flaws in IQ and any issues with methodology, I see a study that I agree with Dr. Volkow on. It could be cannabis or it could not be cannabis.

 

[herbivore21]

My friend, logic demands that we in fact approach this in the reverse of how you request. Dr. Volkow's credibility is irrelevant, as it is an appeal to authority (an informal fallacy of logic, in simple language; an illogical argument). We must first and foremost consider the arguments of the papers on their merits. This necessitates that we consider the methodology and IQ. I have explained why both are very problematic concepts. This brings up the question (however it does NOT beg the question lol, students of critical thinking will get this dad joke) - does the study test what it purports to test? Are we finding out that students are less smart quantitatively speaking when exposed to the ganja during youth?

No. We are finding that IQ (purported to be a measure of intelligence/smartness/whatever elitists call themselves) is reduced in tests using the samples described in the test. Basically, when you cut through the guff; the researchers are using tenuous concepts here and trying to measure something they can't even yet define cohesively and clearly (in this case, IQ and intelligence respectively). Basically, measurements of this kind are not useful tools in science. We need to measure THINGS (not reified, inadequately defined concepts).

This particular paper represents a necessarily premature pursuit by overlooking whether in fact IQ has any relevance when considering debilitating cognitive effects on individuals in research. However, this is a problem widespread in psychological and medical research.

I can't re-read and go over these studies just now, but I hope this helps for a start

Remember guys - science isn't politics. Who you like is irrelevant, it is only the content of the article and the strength of it's data/argument/explanation which is relevant.

 

[Magic9]

Basically, when you cut through the guff; the researchers are using tenuous concepts here and trying to measure something they can't even yet define cohesively and clearly (in this case, IQ and intelligence respectively). Basically, measurements of this kind are not useful tools in science. We need to measure THINGS (not reified, inadequately defined concepts).

I just wanted your opinion, as a researcher, of how much weight you give to this paper that has been discredited by peers, and also widely cited as evidence. It seems you do not add much weight to it.

Remember guys - science isn't politics. Who you like is irrelevant, it is only the content of the article and the strength of it's data/argument/explanation which is relevant.

"Who you like is irrelevant.." You lost me there. If that is in reference to me quoting NIDA head Dr. Nora Volkow, who lauded this study when it first came out, then had to concede that it might be completely wrong, you missed the humor in agreeing with one of our drug czars.

Science isn't politics. This study is wrong because what they attribute the IQ drop to (cannabis) can actually be due to socioeconomic factors. That's not, like, my opinion or how I feel. That is what the data says.

So we can all agree this study is shit and adds no real value?

 

[herbivore21]

oops, sorry what i meant by who you like is that the person who said something is not relevant in questions of science, it is all about the argument and the evidence

yup we are agreed that that study is a turd lol, scientific equivalent of here, kids who smoke pot do worse in tests we designed but do not understand what it is the test measures, if anything at all... So pot is bad!

doesn't work does it? Hehe not suggesting that anyone did this, only providing general information. I would rather everyone understand this stuff so these things are easily understood by my fellow non-scientist vapists

 

[Magic9]

oops, sorry what i meant by who you like is that the person who said something is not relevant in questions of science, it is all about the argument and the evidence

yup we are agreed that that study is a turd lol, scientific equivalent of here, kids who smoke pot do worse in tests we designed but do not understand what it is the test measures, if anything at all... So pot is bad!

doesn't work does it? Hehe not suggesting that anyone did this, only providing general information. I would rather everyone understand this stuff so these things are easily understood by my fellow non-scientist vapists

So we both agree this study is shit. For different reasons, but same result. Scientific equivalent of correlation does not imply causation.

I like making things easily understood so my brain doesn't hurt. Also, it helps to keep things concise and to the point on the internets.

 

[Magic9]

Since there isn't really much more to say about the IQ study, I'd like to let that piece of junk science die the death it deserves and move on to the next one.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/06/04/brain.aws136.full

Link for anyone interested. It is a good read and has opened some avenues I'm excited to explore with my mad scientist friend @herbivore21. Before I bombard him with questions (mostly my own speculation and curiosity) this study has raised, I'd like to establish something first (for any stumblers).

Quoted from the study for reference;

"Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and brain connectivity mapping techniques were performed in 59 cannabis users with longstanding histories of heavy use and 33 matched controls. Axonal connectivity was found to be impaired in the right fimbria of the hippocampus (fornix), splenium of the corpus callosum and commissural fibres."
-
"The effect of long-term cannabis use on functional brain connectivity and network topology remains an important avenue to pursue."



If we/anyone takes their DATA, and their assertion, at face value, we are left with a very small study that is inconclusive. -(My words, not quoted)

If there is any disagreement about this study being small and inconclusive, I would like to clear that up before I do any speculation on this study.


Edit* For clarity