MJ may raise testicular cancer risk
- Thread starter Thorn
- Start date
Thorn
Member
You know, that's similar to what I thought about all the negative info on smoking and cancer, etc., several years back. Then Scientific American published a special issue, as they do occasionally, addressing a single topic -- in this case it was immunology.
Immuno is not my field and such issues generally contain articles targeted toward people with some knowledge in the wider field (biology, e.g.) but who are not specialists. I expected to find the issue tremendously informing and it was.
In the latter half of the issue was found the inevitable article on smoking and cancer (snore, another preachy article ..., I thought.) Then I chastised myself for that ostrich-like reaction, and because of my respect for the publication, sat down and read the article. It explained not only how cigarette smoking could initiate carcinomas of specific types on its own, but also how the elements of cigarette smoke worked to suppress the immune system to permit other cancers to flourish. At that point I realized that I'd pushed my luck for long enough and, though not immediately, finally quit for good. It's been over 13 years and I'll never go back. Not even tempted.
For some reason, we seem to need personal verification for these warnings. I realized that although my Dad had not suffered any obvious effects of smoking (no cough, no lung cancer, etc.), he died of a rare form of adult leukemia that well could have been facilitated by his four packs a day.
The smoking/cancer link was not government propaganda and neither was this study about longterm marijuana use and increased risk of testicular cancer. Other effects have long been known about longterm and/or heavy MJ use; it would be irresponsible not to have those facts out there. If someone knows this and still elects to use, that is his/her decision, but at least it's an informed decision.
I did drug abuse research for several years. In addition to the scientific ethics always required in any investigation, it was doubly important for us, and always stressed by our mentors, that we be scrupulous about reporting our findings. The worst thing we could possibly have done would have been to damage our credibility by overemphasizing any negative effects (Reefer Madness comes to mind as the ultimate extreme!) in our results.
This is the information. It will lead to further study. If the risk is worth it to you, then it is, but at least you're informed.
Thorn
Member
I didn't know about that. Then again, with its tendency to increase hunger, could that just be a secondary effect of overeating?
Or is this seriously a side effect of the drug's effects.
Thorn
Member
Topper here's a heads-up. AMA represents physicians. Physicians are NOT scientists, nor are they educated to be scientists. I absolutely hate being asked to collaborate with a clinician; they don't have a clue about scientific method, statistics, or the right questions to ask. Anything you read from that organization has been distilled from scientific studies (and of course clinical observations) done by others.
This study is from the source. Cancer, as I've stated, is a highly respected scientific journal; the work in each article is peer reviewed. Work published there predates by some time, perhaps years, any publication by AMA of these findings.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
MD's practice a field of natural sciences. They also publish journals, conduct research, and so forth. They are scientists.
Thorn
Member
Topper, it's Thorn, not Thor. I had the name first and Brent came along, for some reason chose a pseudonym close to mine (certainly not realizing or for that matter caring that someone already had a similar name).
I am a neuroscientist by profession. I do brain research for a living. My postgraduate work was conducted in the laboratory of two of the leading researchers on the biological basis of addiction in North America, if not the world. I was fortunate to have had a truly outstanding education with them. If you want more information on this, then PM me.
The benefits of MJ in such conditions as the relief of pain from cancer have been reported, though still at the level of anecdotal evidence. I am prepared to accept those reports, however, as they come from several sources and appear to be entirely credible.
There are negative effects from most things we do. Longterm MJ use also has been shown, irrefutably, to have deleterious effects on memory. Recent studies also have shown that there are effects on the respiratory system -- hardly surprising with the smoke from something burning being breathed in, is it?
The study that I posted is the most recent finding. It was legitimately run. Again, as I said before, anyone who decides to use any food or drug or drink has the right to make that decision from an informed position. If the risk does not deter you from using the substance, then that is your decision.
This study did not say, "If you use MJ over X period of time then you WILL develop testicular cancer". It found that longterm MJ users ran an X percent greater likelihood of developing this cancer. The study was not funded to look at all the positive effects of MJ; it was funded to find a correlation between testicular cancer and MJ use. In order to attain that funding, the researchers would have been required to show the granting committee that there was sufficient evidence to pursue this line of investigation.
With all due respect, my dear, I am in a far better position to judge what is and is not a valid scientific study than you are likely to be.
Last edited:
Thorn
Member
I do wish you'd read my earlier posts on this topic; we wouldn't be having any conflict, believe me.
I applauded the bill in Canada to decriminalize the possession of MJ for personal use; don't know if it passed or not. Perhaps Said1 can tell us next time she logs on. I'd like to see the same here for many reasons. My reservations about that concern people driving under the influence, but presumably they already do. The nature of the mj high is different from alcohol, and in some ways is a little more scary. I'd like to see a means developed to determine if an individual has reached a level of intoxication consistent with impairment. Presently, we only measure metabolites, or the inactive byproducts of the drug, and those can remain present in the bloodstream for up to 30 days. So this tells us only that the person has taken the drug, but not when and not anything about potential present impairment.
I think that before we take anything, recreational or prescription, we have to be fully informed about its benefits and risks. If the risks are unacceptable then we don't go ahead.
That goes for prescription meds too. I recently refused to take something recommended by my physician for that very reason, but not until I'd fully researched all side effects and decided that the risks, for me, were not worth it. Personally, I don't take recreational drugs. That's a personal decision and has a lot, perhaps everything, to do with my not being willing to give up conscious control over myself. But that's how I feel for my own comfort, not necessarily for someone else's.
Because they are testing you for senile dementia. You just keep forgetting about it.
uscitizen
Villified User
Because they are testing you for senile dementia. You just keep forgetting about it.
I am not at the point where I only need one book yet
We need a hook setting emoticon.
Thorn
Member
I thought you knew that (my profession, I mean). I know far less about history and politics than I'd like to, and a site like this is a good place for opinions and sources. I just shudder thinking about the way that most history is taught, and find this more interesting.
Besides, there are several nice, interesting people on this board, folks whom I'd otherwise never have a chance to "meet".
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yeah, what is the deal with your reading comprehension? I see you do it all the time and fear for all those financial reports you've ever had to read over...
Thorn
Member
Excellent point; rather you said it than I. I did say, in effect, that to be judgmental in such matters would seriously damage my credibility as a scientist, and so I have to remain neutral on this issue.
BTW, if anyone else has brought this up I apologize. I just read that the sheriff where Michael Phelps' bong-smoking picture was taken has decided not to press charges. If I were Phelps, I'd really have to question who my friends are. Who took the picture in the first place, and then who made it public, and why? Surely this individual understood that the repercussions for Michael had the potential to be huge, and some were (lost endorsements, etc.). Some friend. I hope he's more careful in future whom he trusts.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
People are stupid. Especially where celebrities are concerned, and Phelps has just learned that the hard way. Hell, just turn the tube into Jerry Springer, Court shows, and reality tv; or get a job in public relations or customer service; or follow tabloid journalism and gossip columns - proof positive that people are stupid.