It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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
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
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.”
The research is clinically significant.
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).
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.
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.
The Hageman-Arrindell 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.
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  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.” 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.” 
originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
A few random pot smokers suggesting foul play on ATS isn't ''debunking''.
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
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%.
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
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