Report: Marijuana causes brain damage

If you have to buy the report...it isn't legit.

nice find though...

As a side note, the Dr Seals is just in a 'fellowship' with the university...no reputation, no credentials...well, other then his anti pot stuff...

 

I think theres a huge amount of bias present in this thread. I'm not as quick to dismiss this, but I would like to see this study evaluated and reviewed before I draw legitimate conclusions.

 

Interesting that this comes out before the ASA v DEA court hearing...

 

Thanks for the link.

Did you guys read the last sentence?

Translation, "cannabis should be for adults only".

 

Lol no ones gonna point out they only compoared 59 smokers to 33 "healthy" people. Seems like a very small test group. And i would think any self-respecting scientist would want to have a larger amount of subjects before they go on making these claims. Since when do scientifical studies use odd numbers like that 59:33?? I smell propaganda

 

It's amusing to read anti-cannabis articles, specifically the U.S. government's study during the 1970's, where they deprived monkeys of air through the use of unrealistic amounts of smoke, then stated that cannabis kills you. You can OD on every drug in our medicine cabinets, except cannabis. Ignorance against cannabis, shown in the article here, is no benefit to our society and people. Their study is warped and twisted, and should just be ignored.

 

From the very first sentence this report stinks.

Cannabis use typically begins during adolescence and early adulthood, a period when cannabinoid receptors are still abundant in white matter pathways across the brain.

Reality: Young people haven't been polluted as long as older people by the disgusting food choices pushed on US citizens. Omega 3 deficiency leads to fewer and deformed cb receptors manufactured by the body, so the longer you eat the US diet, the worse off your cb receptors become.

PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Mood Disorders

I couldn't get much farther than the opener. Disgusting that this is passed off as science.

 

Study was in Australia...not sure if that has any effect on what you said though

 

If a study that was just as under-evaluated and unreviewed came out regarding the health benefits of cannabis, everyone would jump on it like a dog at a bone. The fact that most people in this thread are picking it apart for potential flaws just because it doesn't agree with their views is amusing to me. Yes, it isn't exactly credible, but cannabis science is very young, and dismissing anti-cannabis studies like this while elevating pro-cannabis studies of the same caliber to godliness is, in my opinion, pure folly.

 

Have to agree with you on this one. I'm going to wait until other medical professionals (i.e. reputable people a hell of a lot smarter than me) to state their opinions before I fully form my own.

EDIT: I would like to think that Oxford University Press wouldn't risk tarnishing their reputation as one of the top Universities in the world

 

Any ways you guys can send hate male to the "journalist "

 

Rupert Murdoch is a modern day William Randolph Hearst.

I wrote one of the researchers an email:
"

Your irresponsible "research" and conclusions on long term cannabis use ​

is now being splattered all over the place as so called "proof" that cannabis causes brain damage. If you do not want yourself and your team ​

to basically be ridiculed and shamed by real scientists I highly suggest that you make a statement clarifying that your "study" does not actually prove anything one way or the other. Junk science just to get grants is a terrible way to make a name for yourself. "
​

This is her response:

"Thank you for your comments. I did not issue the media release, I did not make the comments that are cited there, and I have no control over how the media portray or blow out of proportion and sensationalise the results of our very carefully controlled and analysed research. if you have ever heard me speak about our findings, and if you read the actual paper that we published, you might find yourself far less hostile to our scientific efforts.

regards Nadia ____
Nadia Solowij, PhD Associate Professor & ARC Future Fellow School of Psychology University of Wollongong Wollongong NSW 2522 AUSTRALIA Tel. +61 2 4221 3732 Fax. +61 2 4221 4163

Email: nadia@uow.edu.au Schizophrenia Research Institute Affiliated Scientist Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute Affiliate

 

Yeah I hear ya. But as it relates to cb receptors, I don't think it matters where you live as much as the prevailing diet where you live. I know in the US, it's worse than probably anywhere else, and our cancer rates reflect it.

For you living outside the US, that would be US influenced diet. Do you blokes down under have McDonalds? Without even looking... I'd bet that you do.
Check the dollar menu for nutrition.

Now all you McD lovers... yeah I know they have healthier choices these days, but you see the disparity in their pricing. The cheaper, more affordable, is the worst nutrition.

We in the US really get hammered with advertising. LOL how many of you older heads can recite word for word, "Two all beef patties, special sauce....", I think you know the rest, even after 25+ years.

Just check out omega 3 content on any cheap and widely available foods.

Another big plus of a healthier diet (proper omegas) is more and better formed cb receptors, giving you more mileage from your cannabis.

I urge all who read this to check your own diet for omega balance. I did just that less than 3 years ago and have modified my diet for health reasons. Results? I have dropped 70 pounds without really trying or going hungry. My borderline type 2 diabetes disappeared. My immune system is a fucking beast (my Dr.'s words). My bad cholesterol has dropped back into the normal range, so he can stop trying to get me to take those damn pills, finally. (I refused cholesterol meds)
Other interesting effects I have noticed are my joints function much better, I feel younger, and I can't even buy a fucking infection these days.

2 years ago I gashed my foot on a rusty screen door, and was amazed at the lack of soreness during the healing process. It had been years since my last tetanus shot and I was worried about infection, naturally. To my surprise, I experienced neither infection nor soreness. I can only attribute that to an immune system that was properly armed to kill. I chalk it up to, drum roll.... hemp seeds. I eat em every morning. If you don't have hemp in your diet, you are missing out on the very best nutrition out there. But, it's up to the individual to take responsibility for his/her own body. Get informed. Do some reading on your own rather than take the word of some guy on an internet forum .

 

Murdoch has ties with Phillip Morris.

Murdoch's ties to Big Tobacco | rabble.ca

 

I don't think "Christine Hsu" is a real person. Just a fake name used to publish propaganda pieces for Murdoch.

 

Haha I semi-agree with ur post but that bolded part is straight ignorant...not sure if u were kidding

 

Okay so I haven't posted here before but the paper sparked my interest. I just finished reading it and i'm going to try and hammer out a few of the details.

Regarding the sample size, yes 59 vs. 33 isn't huge, however considering they were using diffusion weighted MRI (which I have been told is quite costly and time consuming) I would say the sample is reasonable provided they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a relationship between the brains of heavy users that isn't present in non-users.
[http://imgur.com/OQZH3] - a table of information about the sample.

Note: "The cannabis users of this study were asked to abstain from cannabis for at least 12 h (median self-reported abstinence:15 h)" That is to say, the experimenters have no way of making sure someone stayed abstinent. Interpret that however you want to.

Regarding the actual results: They didn't find any brain-wide connectivity disturbances between users vs. non-users, however they did find localized differences in two key areas of the brain associated with memory and memory traces.
1. In the network of axons associated with the fimbria of the hippocampus (thought to be important for the consolidation of memories) there was an 84% reduction in 'streamlines' of users compared to non-users. According to the paper a streamline effectively represents the trajectory of a particular fibre bundle.
2. In the commissural fibres starting from the splenium of the corpus callosum and extending to the precuneus (also implicated in memory) there was found to be an 88% reduction in users compared to non-users.

Note: I majored in neuroscience at uni and while I can interpret the results of the finding I cannot claim to know how valid or accurate difussion weighted MRI is in this case or how well 'streamlines' actually represent absolute bundles of axons, as i've had minimal exposure to diffusion weighted MRI. I'm hoping someone more familiar with this can comment on it.

Here is a direct quote from the discussion section regarding this that makes nothing any clearer:
"The size of the connectivity differences in per cent terms was substantial, with an 84% reduction in streamline count in the fimbria and an 88% reduction in the commissural pathways extending to the precuneus. This should not be interpreted as evidence for a substantial reduction in the absolute number of axonal fibres comprising these structures, since a streamline is not tantamount to an individual axon. The precise microstructural underpinnings of an altered streamline count are not well understood, hence the reason for using the more interpretable measures of radial and axial diffusivity in the correlational analysis. Nevertheless, the substantial differences suggest these results are robust and reproducible."


It should be noted that while the paper doesn't attempt to demonize cannabis, what it claims to show is that considering white matter (axonal projections/connections) isn't consolidated in the brain until someone is about 20 years old, the younger someone starts (heavily and consistently) using, the more likely they are to impair the normal development of regions of white matter that are densely populated with cannabanoid receptors. [http://imgur.com/CL8rK] - Here's a schematic of their hypothesis.

After some research it appears the grant for the study was given by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia in the order of $497,250 (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/grants/rounds/projects/ACFEF.pdf) search for 459111 the project grant number.

It's unclear to what extent, but the following bodies are associated in the study:
1. Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, The University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Melbourne, 3053, Australia
2. School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, 2522, Australia
3. Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Eastern Health and Monash University, Melbourne, 3065, Australia
4. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02129, USA
5. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, 3052, Australia

 

Sounds like another great reason to legalize.

"The Children"

 

re-do this study and make it so the control group cant smoke for 6 months, not 12 hours.....than I will believe it.