http://m.policymic.com/articles/87743/harvard-scientists-studied-the-brains-of-pot-smokers-and-the-results-don-t-look-good interesting read. says there is a correlation between light weed smokers and brain abmormalities resulting in us not feeling pleasure and reward feelings, not partaking in social interactions etc.. they also said even in light smokers they find nucleus accumbens and the amygdala changes in density, volume, and shape. i do not agree with the article in it stating that the study indicates brain abnormalities. i was hoping to get a response from the 'city to see if some more knowledgable blades can shed some light on if this article is a phony conclusion or genuine
20 people in marijuana group. Not sure how any conclusion at all can be reached from such a small and limited sample size
The amygdala gets affected only during the high, and perhaps a bit after. However, there has been no studies shown that it directly affects it permanently--enough to cause a brain abnormality. Just like how the hippocampus and other parts of the brain dealing with memory gets affected, it's only a short-term thing (I usually don't forget things, but the times that I do I remember them post-stone). I also really doubt Harvard scientists preformed this study, or at least non-students because they'd know that 20 is way too low to even be considered a research study. They can spew scientific terms and the term "study" all they want, but this is insufficient and amounts to nothing. Nowadays, I see nothing but "new study shows: Contradiction 1, Contradiction 2". It's hard to tell what's legit anymore because people have a bias and will find evidence supporting their side, and there is. I'm just jaded to studies, and also still a bit faded so don't mind me
Insufficient sample size and they never said lasting changes if I recall correctly I read it months ago. Obviously it affects your brain during the high.
Be a skeptic and use your brain. You can almost find "experts" in any community that believe their colleagues are all wrong and they have done the studies that show it. Not every study is accurate, in fact, many aren't. I'm not implying the results are wrong, but their results are too preliminary and their methodology is on shaky grounds.
I am not a statistician by any means (in fact I hate statistics), but I glanced briefly at the paper. If I were to put up a figure of any of their regression analyses and assert there to be a strong correlation on some project in my field of research, I would probably get laughed at but again I am not necessarily a qualified judge. Also, the control group had much less alcohol and cigarette consumption than the MJ group. This discrepancy is odd to me given they say in the Materials and Methods that MJ and control participants were matched on age, sex, handedness, race, and years of education. So why not alcohol and cigarette use? They also say that MJ users were not excluded if they used other drugs (unless other drugs were deemed to be "abused"). I get the feeling this is an example of a study that went into it with a conclusion already in mind. At the end of the day though these types of studies, in principle, should be encouraged. Much is yet to be learnt about the effects of cannabis on the brain.
Just living=Brain Damage Fuck it. Just about any other drug could do much more....even if it were true about MJ
cough cough.. http://io9.com/does-researching-casual-marijuana-use-cause-brain-abnor-1565519493 \n The result above shows this to be a lie. Volume did not significantly correlate with use. This is all very bad, but things get uglier the more one looks at the paper. In the tables reporting the p-values, the authors do something I have never seen before in a published paper. They report the uncorrected p-values, indicating those that are significant (prior to correction) in boldface, and then put an asterisk next to those that are significant after their (incomplete) correction. I realize my own use of boldface is controversial… but what they are doing is truly insane. The fact that they put an asterisk next to the values significant after correction indicates they are aware that multiple testing is required. So why bother boldfacing p-values that they know are not significant? The overall effect is an impression that more tests are significant that is actually the case. See for yourself in their Table 4: <span></span> The fact that there are multiple columns is also problematic. Separate tests were performed for smoking occasions per day, joints per occasion, joints per week and smoking days per week. These measures are highly correlated, but even so multiply testing them requires multiple test correction. The authors simply didn't perform it. They say "We did not correct for the number of drug use measures because these measures tend not be independent of each other". In other words, they multiplied the number of tests by four, and chose to not worry about that. Unbelievable. Then there is Table 5, where the authors did not report the p-values at all, only whether they were significant or not… without correction: <span></span> \t3. CORRELATION VS. CAUSATIONThis issue is one of the oldest in the book. There is even a wikipedia entry about it. Correlation does not imply causation. Yet despite the fact the every result in the paper is directed at testing for association, in the last sentence of the abstract they say "These data suggest that marijuana exposure, even in young recreational users, is associated with exposure-dependent alterations of the neural matrix of core reward structures and is consistent with animal studies of changes in dendritic arborization." At a minimum, such a result would require doing a longitudinal study. Breiter takes this language to an extreme in the press release accompanying the article. I repeat the statement he made that I quoted above where I boldface the causal claim: ""Some of these people only used marijuana to get high once or twice a week. People think a little recreational use shouldn't cause a problem, if someone is doing OK with work or school. Our data directly says this is not the case." I believe that scientists should be sanctioned for making public statements that directly contradict the content of their papers, as appears to be the case here. There is precedent for this. </blockquote> source funding bias bad 'science' ya...
hey dummie why did i create this thread? to figure out it was a phony study. so YOU shouldnt smoke weed, it makes you stupid bruh. read my Original Post before u make a dumbass statement Please keep the forum guidelines in mind before responding to a pointless post. It is better to report it, then to start name calling, etc. ICGreen
that is absolute bullshit, lol. If that were true, i wouldnt be feeling a tingle down my spine when music hits certain notes, i wouldnt shout and holler with joy when i catch a big fish, and i wouldnt feel proud when i draw something cool looking.
That's the psychosis kicking in watch out! All jokes aside... OP if that were true the gov would not own a very important patent outlining why cannabis is the best neuro protectant available.
Breathing the air on this planet nowadays is killing you with all the crap we've shot into our air.. At least with weed you get to be high Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
I'd rather get brain damage from smoking weed than drinking. On a serious note, this study is bullshit. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
I'm pretty sure I've seen retards display all those emotions. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum