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

a reply to: lakesidepark

A few random pot smokers suggesting foul play on ATS isn't ''debunking''.

The research is professional, it has been professionally peer reviewed, your opinion is not a professional opinion and it is certainly not peer reviewed.

How about you actually approach your issues about the research and write them down, read the article again and you would probably realise (just like your presumptuous error about ''injecting'' THC) that the information is there and it is an honest study that recognises any possible aspects of contention and addresses them.

If you still cannot comprehend the research, then you could take your written issues and ask the researchers, there is information on the Ombudsman on the link I provided.

Making spurious claims about the research being ''debunked'' is utter nonsense.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Where is the research study does it provide proof that the skunk cannabis CAUSED the psychotic break or if a person, already anxious and feeling off, self-medicated with skunk cannabis?

What you call de-bunking, is actually called questioning of the conclusions. You don't it? I am sure that most epidimiological researchers don't like it either but they brought this on themselves by pandering to activism science to gather research grants instead of sticking to scientific principles

We already went through "reefer madness" in the 50s and 60s, turns out there was no evidence for it then and I still see no evidence of it now.

Its epidimiology - its weakness is inherent in the soft science of observation.

Now - if they really wanted to do something - they should reach for a different methodology. They should consider doing a prospective study. You know - where they pick out about 5000 kids in South London, who are about 10 years old, and then follow them for the next 30 years or so to see who develops psychosis and who doesn't. And how many of the psychotic ones were first time users of skunk cannabis when the first pyschotic break happened.

Its a study. Its professional, its peer-reviewed but that is as far as it goes and its conclusions, while mildly interesting, are of little value. This study may provide the information needed to propose doing a prospective study and what might be gained by it.

But, at the end of the day, there is real world experience to be found. The fact is, that because of prohibition, cannabis has become increasingly popular. As noted in the study, approximately 63 % of the population of South London

mentalhealthpartnerships.com...

E v i d e n c e h i g h l i g h t s t h a t S o u t h E a s t L o n d o n h a s 5 5 . 8 % m o r e n e w c a s e s o f s c h i z o p h r e n i a a n d o t h e r p s y c h o s e s e a c h y e a r c o m p a r e d t o E n g l a n d a s a w h o l e ( 4 9 . 4 c a s e s p e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 p e r s o n s p e r y e a r i n S o u t h E a s t L o n d o n c o m p a r e d t o 3 1 . 7 c a s e s p e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 p e r s o n s p e r y e a r i n E n g l a n d ( K i r k b r i d e e t a l , 2 0 1 2

So this says that in 2013 - there was an incident rate of 49.4 / 100,000 for all of England but an incident rate of 55.8 % in South London. This is a difference of only 6.4 cases per 10000 more in South London every year.

T h e m o s t r e c e n t p o p u l a t i o n e s t i m a t e f o u n d t h a t t h e r e w e r e 4 2 7 , 6 0 0 1 5 - 3 4 y e a r o l d s i n t h e b o r o u g h s o f C r o y d o n , L a m b e t h , L e w i s h a m a n d S o u t h w a r k ( O N S , 2 0 1 2 ) . A s s u m i n g a n a n n u a l p s y c h o s i s i n c i d e n c e o f 8 0 p e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 - 3 4 y e a r o l d s , t h i s w o u l d m e a n a t o t a l o f 3 4 2 i n d i v i d u a l s a g e d 1 5 - 3 4 l i v i n g w o u l d b e e s t i m a t e d t o d e v e l o p p s y c h o s i s e a c h y e a r . T h e p r o p o r t i o n w h o r e c e i v e d t r e a t m e n t f r o m e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n p s y c h o s i s s e r v i c e s w a s 8 6 % ( 2 9 4 c a s e s ) ( C a m p i o n a n d C o s t a f r e d a , 2 0 1 2

So they estimate a total of 342 cases per year - your study says that skunk cannabis would be responsible for about 25 % or about 85.5 cases.

Now if you read the paper carefully - the incidence of psychosis in this particular area ranges from

1 0 0 / 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n L a m b e t h ( M a h m o o d e t a l , 2 0 0 6 ) . • 5 8 . 4 / 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n E a s t L o n d o n ( C o i d e t a l , 2 0 0 8 ) . • 6 0 - 6 5 / 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 a m o n g 1 6 - 3 4 y e a r o l d s ( C o i d e t a l , 2 0 0 8 ) . • 8 0 / 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 f o r 1 6 - 3 4 y e a r o l d s b a s e d o n p r e l i m i n a r y u n p u b l i s h e d d a t a ( p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h C r a i g M o r g a

The range is from 58.4 to 100 / 100,000 or 245.58 cases per year to 420 cases per year. This is a range of 178 cases in variability from year to year.

As expected, the results of your peer-reviewed, professional study are mathematically (statistically) significant but NOT clinically significant.

Like I said - mildly interesting but hardly definitive!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

BTW - south london is a poorer area of london. It would hardly be surprising if people suffering with psychosis and living off of benefits would end up congregating in that area. That would nicely explain the higher rate of psychosis in the area with or without skunk cannabis.

Further, with a difference of only 6 or so cases a year from the rest of London - the difference between South London and England as a whole is likely not clinically significant either.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The research is clinically significant.

The medical profession, the doctors, psychiatrists, nurses, mental health workers, the Professors and education providers, the GP's and those associated with treating in a medical capacity, the policy makers and governments, the law makers and those that run nations do listen to this very research, they base their very training, ethics, diagnostics, treatments, strategies, laws, policies and more on this research.

Here is an example. This will filter to the medical profession and their treatments, diagnostics, governments etc.

www.kcl.ac.uk...

Scientists have found that 24% of all new cases of psychosis are associated with the use of high potency ‘skunk-like’ cannabis. In addition, the risk of psychosis is three times higher for potent ‘skunk-like’ cannabis users and five times higher for those who use it every day, according to research from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN) at King’s College London, published today in Lancet Psychiatry.

The findings, based on a study of nearly 800 people aged 18-65 in South London, have major implications for prevention of cannabis-associated psychosis as well as developing new treatments.

“Compared with those who had never tried cannabis, users of high potency ‘skunk-like’ cannabis had a threefold increase in risk of psychosis,” said Dr Marta Di Forti from the IoPPN, King’s College London, and lead author on the research. “The risk to those who use every day was even higher; a fivefold increase compared to people who never use.
“The results show that psychosis risk in cannabis users depends on both the frequency of use and cannabis potency. The use of hash was not associated with increased risk of psychosis,” she added.

Sir Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatric Research at the IoPPN at King’s and senior researcher on the study stated: “It is now well known that use of cannabis increases the risk of psychosis. However, sceptics still claim that this is not an important cause of schizophrenia-like psychosis. This paper suggests that we could prevent almost one quarter of cases of psychosis if no-one smoked high potency cannabis. This could save young patients a lot of suffering and the NHS a lot of money.”

Something they do not do is asking for the interpretation of a professional research by pot smokers.

Therefore regardless of how many pot smokers don't like the research or it's findings, it influences them and others opinions of them.

Also, it is worth mentioning that those clinging to their fantasy ''debunking'' are also service users of such facilities as doctors, hospitals, nurses etc (doubtful they would refuse treatment based on the fact the medical profession utilises such research) and are subject to the laws that are influenced by such research.

Additionally, they might also need a reminder that drugs are sometimes sold by the unscrupulous as means of ''freedom'' when really they are a means of control, of tying minds to chemical addictions, of taking money from the gullible, they certainly aren't selling any sort of ''freedom''.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The research is clinically significant.

Not the research you posted. There were NO clinical tests. They asked a few questions, basically took a poll of those they interviewed and that's it.

No lab testing, no measure to confirm the most basic of principles for causation.

That fact that you agree with this research, without admitting it's inherent flaws, shows that you are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing. Blindly saying yes or no, based on your own personal opinion of what you see. As opposed to a detailed analysis.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it won't change that there are inherent flaws in that research. It's good they are researching it, but they need to do a better job if people are to take them seriously.

~Tenth

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I gave you a link and quotes from that link. YOU don't speak for anyone at all. If you seriously believe that the front line providers would even notice a variability of 6 cases per year when the natural variability is in the hundreds is absolutely absurd.

If someone waved a magic wand and removed all skunk canabis from the south london and all of england, no one would notice the supposed fall in the number of cases. The "epidemic" would not abate one whit!

Some anti wanted a headline, paid a few bucks for some research and tried to revive "reefer madness". They got their headline in the paper and that is all that is going to come out of this study!

As usual - a waste of tax dollars

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Actually - they did hair analysis and at least confirmed that the interviewer was not talking out of his hat.

However the basic premise of this study is very iffy. South London has a higher rate of psychosis (perhaps but could be natural variability or as I previously pointed, its simply because people with exisiting psychosis gather in certain neighbourhoods) AND that South London has more skunk cannabis than elsewhere in England (perhaps or just maybe there is a greater police presence in South London and more people are getting caught). Its not like the police have lock on supply and demand here.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

BTW - I am not debunking the study. I am sure its quite real and quite honest as far as it goes. I am seriously questioning the conclusions and the clinical significance of the findings.

You don't need a degree and you don't have to work in the field to have common sense and be able to think for yourself.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well I'm glad they did that basic test to confirm the presence of the compound in their blood. Still though, it's not a study so much as it is a poll.

And considering the variance of strains and their potency, from one plant to another, without having done any comparative analysis of the product itself, there's not much to go on.

As somebody who works in this industry and who has been growing for medical patients for a number of years, the variance between even the same strain, in different plants is enough for me to call into question the validity of this research.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

There is a natural range of variability in all aspects of this "study" to render the conclusions questionable.

However it is interesting that they seem to have identified a chemical in cannabis that appears to be naturally protective of psychosis. This would be a nice direction for bench scientists to study. Some new medicines might come out of it.

Of course that merely means that Big Pharma wants a lock on the cannabis supply so that they can be the only ones that provide that medicine. God forbid that a medical marijuana supplier should breed a strain that is naturally high in that chemical

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Perhaps you do not understand that the research is clinically significant and will be utilised by the medical industry, governments and lawmakers.

Clinical significance in some terms refers to the research of treatments, however this research refers to diagnostics, causation and effect.

www.thelancet.com...

daily users (p=0·001; figure 2).
Based on the estimated adjusted OR for daily cannabis
use (3·04, 95% CI 1·91–7·76), we calculated that, if we
assumed causality, 19·3% (13·1–27·0) of psychotic
disorders in the study population were attributable to
exposure to daily cannabis use. The PAF of psychotic
disorders in the study population that were attributable to
high potency cannabis use was 24·0% (17·4–30·6) and the

PAF for the two exposures combined, skunk use every day,
was 16·0% (14·0–20·3; table 4).

If causality is assumed, this finding suggests that skunk alone was responsible for
the largest proportion of new cases (24%) of psychotic
disorder in the study population, an effect driven by its
high prevalence among patients with first-episode
psychosis who used cannabis (218 [53%] of 410 patients).

The patients were diagnosed as suffering psychosis, causation was established.

en.wikipedia.org...

In medicine and psychology, clinical significance is the practical importance of a treatment effect - whether it has a real genuine, palpable, noticeable effect on daily life.[1]

In broad usage, the "practical clinical significance" answers the question, how effective is the intervention or treatment, or how much change does the treatment cause? In terms of testing clinical treatments, practical significance optimally yields quantified information about the importance of a finding, using metrics such as effect size, number needed to treat (NNT), and preventive fraction. Practical significance may also convey semi-quantitative, comparative, or feasibility assessments of utility.

Hageman-Arrindell[edit]
The Hageman-Arrindell[15] calculation of clinical significance involves indices of group change and of individual change. The reliability of change indicates whether a patient has improved, stayed the same, or deteriorated. A second index, the clinical significance of change, indicates four categories similar to those used by Jacobson-Truax: deteriorated, not reliably changed, improved but not recovered, and recovered.

Specific usage[edit]
In contrast, when used as a technical term within psychology and psychotherapy, clinical significance yields information on whether a treatment was effective enough to change a patient’s diagnostic label. In terms of clinical treatment studies, clinical significance answers the question "Is a treatment effective enough to cause the patient to be normal [with respect to the diagnostic criteria in question]?"

For example, a treatment might significantly change depressive symptoms (statistical significance), the change could be a large decrease in depressive symptoms (practical significance- effect size), and 40% of the patients no longer met the diagnostic criteria for depression (clinical significance). It is very possible to have a treatment that yields a significant difference and medium or large effect sizes, but does not move a patient from dysfunctional to functional.

Within psychology and psychotherapy, clinical significance was first proposed by Jacobson, Follette, and Revenstorf [8] as a way to answer the question, is a therapy or treatment effective enough such that a client does not meet the criteria for a diagnosis? Jacobson and Truax later defined clinical significance as “the extent to which therapy moves someone outside the range of the dysfunctional population or within the range of the functional population.”[9] They proposed two components of this index of change: the status of a patient or client after therapy has been completed, and “how much change has occurred during the course of therapy.” [9]

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

There was an element of those diagnosed as psychotic that refused to participate in the study that might have been statistically more inclined to the use of skunk cannabis and the results would have been higher than 25%.

Based on solely rational thinking here, I can see this study being true. I am saying this because the science that has gone into creating stronger strains has done just that. It is not based on a regulated amount of THC in the strains. I could compare it to alcohol in general by saying that if I drank something that was much higher proof every day, I would likely have more issues with my liver and whatnot. I know people that smoke skunk daily and have no issues, actually I have never met anyone personally that did from smoking high THC content skunk.

I would say that anything done not in moderation will eventually cause issues.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth


A few random pot smokers suggesting foul play on ATS isn't ''debunking''.

Get off your high horse and stop stereotyping everyone who dares question your opinion.

Not all of us questioning the research are pot smokers. Instead of addressing people's concerns, you just dismiss them as potheads and idiots. You're being childish.

It's amazing that you keep falling back on "well this research was done by scientists and stuff so you potheads can't question it." All of the studies done in the 50's and 60's that said Cigarettes do not cause cancer were done by scientists. Scientists will often present a study that confirms whatever bias was presented at the beginning of the study, usually that bias is provided by the people who fund the study.

There are MANY cases of corporations and other groups with an agenda finding like-minded scientists to conduct a study. Research results can be bought and paid for so your constant assertion that "this is a scientific study so it's gospel" is complete hogwash.

Several posters have indicated the problems with the study but you ignore them as though they're just a bunch of morons who are angry that someone is attacking pot.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks


Of course that merely means that Big Pharma wants a lock on the cannabis supply so that they can be the only ones that provide that medicine. God forbid that a medical marijuana supplier should breed a strain that is naturally high in that chemical

This is exactly what's happening. The biggest blockers of legalization have been the pharmaceutical companies because they would lose too much business if people were able to grow their own remedies under a sun lamp.

If big pharma can show that marijuana isn't safe in the hands of home-growers, they'll make a case that they should control the supply. They stand to make mountains of money if they have control over the distribution of legal marijuana.

a reply to: Answer

I was called all sorts of names by certain posters that were most certainly presenting themselves as ignorant (told facts, didn't read them) and defending pot smoking regardless of the fact that the research is about specifics, and behaved like ''random pot heads''. They were effectively labelling themselves.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

There was an element of those diagnosed as psychotic that refused to participate in the study that might have been statistically more inclined to the use of skunk cannabis and the results would have been higher than 25%.

Those that DIDNT participate in the study are irrelevant to anything.
They may have been axe murderers, they may have been future inventors. Who knows?
We could speculate about irrelevant things until the cows come home.
They MAY not have used cannabis at all, ever.
Oh the joys of speculation. The whole study is speculation, and as such has no basis in reality until RESEARCH is done on a much larger test group.

Heres a fact, if cannabis was legalised then all the people that lost years of their lives rotting away in prison due to crazy 3 strike rules might still have a life. The damage done by prohibition is far more damaging to lives and families than any side effect of cannabis.
I have lost 2 jobs and spent a night in Oxford Street police station as a result of my recreational use of cannabis. It has never stopped me from doing it, and it never will. I will stop when Im good and ready to stop, and honestly I dont think that is too far away either.

I thought you were interested in facts, so why the sudden switch to speculation?

a reply to: Answer

Just because Pharma might be unscrupulous (another matter), isn't an excuse for not publishing valid research into the causes of psychosis and the effects of various forms of cannabis.

Psychiatry is a major area of research, drugs as causation cannot be overlooked in research.

www.thelancet.com...

Funding UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health,
SLaM and the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, Psychiatry Research Trust, Maudsley Charity Research
Fund, and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Program grant (agreement No. HEALTH-F2-2009-241909
[Project EU-GEI]).

Role of the funding source

All funders contributed to data collection by providing
the salaries of the research workers collecting the data.
The funders of the study had no role in study design,
data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
All authors had full access to all the data in the study and
had final responsibility for the decision to submit for
publication.

a reply to: OneManArmy

It isn't speculation, it was mentioned in the article and relevant to the stats.

a reply to: tothetenthpower
Same here, I work in the Federaly authorized end, now that it can be done we do welcome research that is fair, proper and objective. Different research indicates different results/conclusions..anyone can pick a study that suits their view.
I agree as well there are so many strains with differing properties, then you have the phenotypes of those strains..what is Skunk now anyway compared to the orig 30 yrs ago?..the orig has been x bred out of exsistence I think. Most skunks these days are associated x'ed with sativa's with higher cbd, the indica's are more thc heavy.