It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top European Research facility: Super strong cannabis caused 1/4 new psychosis cases

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I could see there being an interaction between psychiatric medications and marijuana... one person I know says that the doctor warned her that taking Lamictol and smoking would give her panic attacks. I know that the anti-depressants I take increase the potency of alcohol.

The gut feeling I have is that smoking "skunk" every day, which is very potent stuff, could cause someone to lose their mind... now this probably isn't going to be violent, but painful for the user for sure.

However, I do see the legitimate flaws in the study and I agree with Tenth about there being benefits to marijuana use.




posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Pimpish

Let's see....

Currently legal psychotropic drugs have a plethora of side affects including suicidal thoughts and tendencies. And a hell of a lot of people have acted on those thoughts.

vs.

A plant that "may" lead to a slight (and yes 5% is slight) increase in psychosis.

Of which the psychological community would be happy to prescribe a drug that could make you kill yourself or others.

And this study was from the pharmaceutical industry.

Anyone else see the conflict of interest here?



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: flice

The ''graphics'' I posted on the thread are from the research, there are also direct screens of the journals.

The research does account for age etc if you actually read them you would realise that, they are professional and hence adjusted where applicable.

There are LOTS of studies on this from many lands, I posted just a few, there are plenty more with the same conclusions and confirmation.
edit on 17-2-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: flice

The studies account for alcohol etc, they are professional studies rather than the opinion of some random guys.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

theabsolutetruth

Very early in this post, it was pointed out to you that the method of deliver was injection instead of inhalation of the smoke.

Obviously, changing the normal route of delivery changes many many things.

What are you looking for here - everything that is said, you have a comeback and essentially you seem very displeased. Essentially, you seem to be arguing based solely on "appeal to authority". Unfortunately, authority in this case in nothing more than epidimiology. Epidimiology can show an association only.

Whether the association has been proved is questionable given the change in the normal route of delivery.

But regardless, as has been pointed out multiple times, there is no means of knowing in which direction the association progresses. Do the study results seem to suggest that there is an association between the normal use of cannabis and a psychotic break OR do the study results suggest that people who are about to experience a psychotic break seek cannabis as a form of self-medication (as they do with tobacco?)

Does the study provide evidence that if cannabis is avoided before the age of 15, the risk of a psychotic break can be reduced?

Its just epidimiology - it provides proof of nothing and may be used to direct hard science research only.

Because of the decades long abuse of epidimiology to support activism on various subjects, it has become a highly questionable soft science and appeal to authority is irrelevant here.

So what exactly is the response you are seeking?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

And how exactly do they "account for alcohol"?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I suggest you stop looking for an argument. This is ATS and neither I nor anyone needs to give any ''purpose'' for posting threads, do you ask that every time you comment on threads or it just those you do not agree to the research of?

I posted valid research that I think should be known as it is important research.

Go and actually read the research as it is obvious you didn't do so properly or at all.




edit on 17-2-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: flice

The studies account for alcohol etc, they are professional studies rather than the opinion of some random guys.


If it wasnt for the "opinions of random guys" this website would not exist for you to post on.

Opinions are forged by facts and evidence and life experience.
There is a funny quirk with humanity, we are all unique individuals and no two lifetimes are the same.
As a result of this gift of individuality and different life experience we all have different opinions, no two people agree on everything. As a result we have a thing called debate among hopefully intelligent individuals who can share their ideas and opinions with the "community" so the "community" can try to find meeting point between the many positions and points of view. To reach a consensus. Its called discussion and sharing of ideas and experiences for the common good of all.
The sharing of knowledge is what separates man from beast. Politics and "democracy" and civilisation is ultimately built on the foundation of shared wisdom and knowledge.

I would have thought that you would at least attempt to defend the study, being as you stand by it and are actively publicizing it. I thought you would at least get involved in debate, and not just attack and ignore those that disagree with the obvious flaws of the study or the way the results have been interpreted by the MSM.

So please, if you could whenever you are ready, get involved with the debate that you yourself have started.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

And again I ask - what response are you looking for

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
C4 Newsreader John Snow tried skunk as part of a televised experiment. Clearly it affects people as the research proves.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


He said: "I knew within five minutes, or so, of taking the first two balloons, that I had taken skunk. What was happening to me outstripped anything I have ever experienced."

In highly potent ‘skunk’, the level of the active ingredient Tetrahydrocannabiol is around 15pc. In milder strains of ‘Hash’ it is closer to 5pc. Hash also contains cannabidiol (CBD), which can act as an antidote to some of THC’s worst effects. Converselt skunk has virtually no CBD.

Mr Snow said: "By the time I was completely stoned I felt utterly bereft. I felt as if my soul had been wrenched from my body. There was no one in my world. I felt I had lost all control and had only the vaguest awareness of who I was and what on earth I was doing. I cascaded into a very, very, dark place, the darkest mental place I have ever been.

"I was frightened, paranoid, and felt physically and mentally wrapped in a dense blanket of fog. I lost all sense that I was being filmed by Channel 4."

The study was run by Professor Val Curran at London's University College Hospital.

Mr Snow added: "The terror in me kept rising, my panic chasing hard behind. When you see the film, you can here this distant voice wailing “I can’t stay in here…let me out!”

"I’ve worked in war zones but I’ve never been as overwhelmingly frightened as I was right then – and as I emerge from the scanner you see me blearily sitting up and hugging young Dr Rebecca for my dear life, as if she was my mother.

"It took me four hours to come down. Just toward the end I felt a sense of euphoria and expressed it by drawing a pastoral scene on an old box that was lying around in the lab. I drew trees, a fence, a river, and a couple of people – perhaps the very people, trees, and water, that I had felt so deprived of whilst stoned."

"I would never do it again. I can fully believe this week’s figures that tell us that 25 per cent of all psychosis treated in Britain is associated with smoking skunk."




Related Articles
Super strong cannabis responsible for quarter of new psychosis cases 15 Feb 2015
'Little difference between skunk cannabis and heroin', says judge 07 Mar 2014
Holland to ban sale of 'skunk' marijuana in coffee shops 20 Nov 2012
Cannabis use 'shrinks and rewires' the brain 10 Nov 2014
Cannabis can be highly addictive, major study finds 07 Oct 2014
Even casual use of cannabis alters brain, warn scientists 16 Apr 2014



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

BTW - I have read sufficient studies to question whether or not the results are clinically significant.

Is my response supposed to be - oh my god - absolute truth - you are so clever to have read the paper and brought this to our attention....

Its a study based on epidimiology with an odd delivery system with results that may be mathematically significant but may not be clinically significant. Because epidimiology cannot identify the cause of multi-factoral diseases, its interesting but beyond that, nothing!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And by the way - the study is limited and its results are wrongly presented in the press. Cannabis is NOT associated with 25 % of all psychotic breaks in the population. It was associated with 25 % of psychotic breaks in this study which is a very small sample.

Epidimiology study results often do not translate to the whole population.

You still have not addressed the intravenous route of delivery instead of inhalation

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I posted the research as I have said more than a few times on this thread to you, because I chose to, because it is important, it wasn't for a ''response'' so stop looking for arguments just because you can't face the facts and don't like the results of the research.

Even those that do post for a ''response'' do not need to tell you about it so you can take off your ''presumed moderator control freak hat'' as it is all in your imagination. You are not an ATS invigilator /moderator so back off.

Don't bother asking me again, you aren't worth replying to.

Stop wasting my time.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I posted the research, it clearly says exactly as it described about the specific study.

The IoPP research used those that had used cannabis, it wasn't giving them any, in any form.

All the other research has confirmed the same.

You can try arguing it all you want but it is futile, professional research is exactly that professional, whereas your opinion is just that, uninformed and unprofessional.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
C4 Newsreader John Snow tried skunk as part of a televised experiment. Clearly it affects people as the research proves.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


He said: "I knew within five minutes, or so, of taking the first two balloons, that I had taken skunk. What was happening to me outstripped anything I have ever experienced."

In highly potent ‘skunk’, the level of the active ingredient Tetrahydrocannabiol is around 15pc. In milder strains of ‘Hash’ it is closer to 5pc. Hash also contains cannabidiol (CBD), which can act as an antidote to some of THC’s worst effects. Converselt skunk has virtually no CBD.

Mr Snow said: "By the time I was completely stoned I felt utterly bereft. I felt as if my soul had been wrenched from my body. There was no one in my world. I felt I had lost all control and had only the vaguest awareness of who I was and what on earth I was doing. I cascaded into a very, very, dark place, the darkest mental place I have ever been.

"I was frightened, paranoid, and felt physically and mentally wrapped in a dense blanket of fog. I lost all sense that I was being filmed by Channel 4."

The study was run by Professor Val Curran at London's University College Hospital.

Mr Snow added: "The terror in me kept rising, my panic chasing hard behind. When you see the film, you can here this distant voice wailing “I can’t stay in here…let me out!”

"I’ve worked in war zones but I’ve never been as overwhelmingly frightened as I was right then – and as I emerge from the scanner you see me blearily sitting up and hugging young Dr Rebecca for my dear life, as if she was my mother.


"It took me four hours to come down. Just toward the end I felt a sense of euphoria and expressed it by drawing a pastoral scene on an old box that was lying around in the lab. I drew trees, a fence, a river, and a couple of people – perhaps the very people, trees, and water, that I had felt so deprived of whilst stoned."

"I would never do it again. I can fully believe this week’s figures that tell us that 25 per cent of all psychosis treated in Britain is associated with smoking skunk."


LMAO!!!!

This is evidence of what exactly? A load of bollocks?

Did you know that kids that are arrested for weed possession are forced to attend drug addiction clinics or face fines?
This pushes the figures up and creates false correlation statistics.
Weed is NOT addictive. People think they are addicted but they are not. After a couple of days the desires for more go away. Its hardly cold turkey.

I dont even know why I continue to address you in this thread, you are not interested in what anyone else has to say, its just opinion.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

From the study - interpretation




In the present larger sample analysis, we replicated our previous report and showed that the highest probability to suffer a psychotic disorder is in those who are daily users of high potency cannabis.


So how many people in south london use high potency cannabis everyday - I suspect that the answer is not that many.

This study is likely not clinically significant.

It adds something to the body of evidence but without hard science to back it up - Its nothing but a scare tactic by the media. Since the results were already known from previous studies, I have a hard time trying to come up with a reason why they repeated it and can only think that it was to influence the political process and scare the populace.

Ho hum - just another misuse of epidimiology by researchers looking to pay their mortgage.

That is my opinion. I am entitled to it. Please don't bother to reply as you are obviously not interested in your own debate.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I have better things to do than arguing on ATS.

The research speaks for itself, it is professional, peer reviewed and valid.

Anyone that doesn't comprehend it or agree to it's conclusions should contact them directly.

Please direct any comments about the research to the researchers as I have more important things to do.

Thanks to those that actually read the research and contributed constructively to the thread.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I posted the research as I have said more than a few times on this thread to you, because I chose to, because it is important, it wasn't for a ''response'' so stop looking for arguments just because you can't face the facts and don't like the results of the research.

Even those that do post for a ''response'' do not need to tell you about it so you can take off your ''presumed moderator control freak hat'' as it is all in your imagination. You are not an ATS invigilator /moderator so back off.

Don't bother asking me again, you aren't worth replying to.

Stop wasting my time.


Im getting quite sick and tired of the way you brush everyone off as "Not worth your replying to".
Who exactly do you think you are?
You're too high and mighty to answer valid questions, you are blatantly rude and disrespectful to people that have taken the time to get involved in your thread, you accuse people of making assumptions in the same post as making assumptions about "presumed moderator control freak hats".

Im starting to dislike you, and that would be a first on ATS. I have never really disliked anybody on here before.
I find your arrogance extremely frustrating, you need to get out of your ivory tower.
Im starting to think any reasonable debate with you is impossible. Your hypocrisy is either extreme ignorance or extreme arrogance.
I thought the mission statement was deny ignorance, and then Im accused of personal attacks.
Im attacking your lack of personal involvement in this thread, or the ignorant nature of what you have contributed so far.
If that makes me the bad guy, then damn. How did we get here?
edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmTue, 17 Feb 2015 15:35:24 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
It's a Moot point.

I believe it, it's just not fair, only a small percentage 1-2% of people are prone to such things and honestly my whole life I could tell who they are just by knowing them, I wont debate the validity of the study it would like claiming a small number of people don't just drop dead from eating peanuts, my point however is... we don't ban Peanuts

You can pin these people out, they have a very weak threshold of differentiating "Fantasy" from "reality" their own imaginations get the best of them in daily life, they need a lot of order and rules to function in the first place, subjective things just aren't their "cup of tea" in life even in regards to sex they have to avoid things like porn because the desire leads to "taking action" these people run the gamut from being "borderline" all the way to schizophrenic...

and yeah "some people" shouldn't smoke weed... ever

But what about me? I should never have a cocktail because "some people" can't digest alcohol and cat the fool? I should never have peanuts because "some people" could die, I should never smoke weed because a small percentage enhance already existing mental illness...

I mean come on... Your genetic lottery is your own, we can't live in a helmet wearing, gluten free, fun-less society...

The stuff really benefits ME and Millions of people, this is WHY we are being forced to pay for Obama care in many ways, go test yourself judge what makes you sick for yourself and leave everyone else out of it, a run on your genome is under 100 bucks these days, if your really dysfunctional in most cases medicine is free (on the rest of our dimes now I might add)

Know thyself... don't make everyone else miserable...

Proof that weed isn't for everyone, point taken but then again... So What? I have a friend who can't ride a bike at 32 either, what does that have to do with my ability to ride a bike or anyone else's?

Responsibility is part of life and there is a legal system to enforce peoples actions, at least that is what it's supposed to do not be a nanny system, it's not "hard" to know if something feels like crap "for you" or makes you "sick" or "behave" in socially screwed up ways that harm others "you" shouldn't do or consume that thing, it's not asking "a lot" of people

"If I can't do it nobody else can" isn't an exercise of freedom it's a person being a whinny brat because life dealt them a blow in every single instance it is offered, it's our duty as part of the human race to tend to our problems not to take them out on others...



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth

Anyone that doesn't comprehend it or agree to it's conclusions should contact them directly.


It seems to be you that doesnt comprehend it and are misrepresenting it.
Any pointing out of the error is misconstrued as personal attacks not worthy of a response.
Go figure. Ignorance at its finest.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join