Pathology and laboratory medicine

pathology, laboratory medicine, clinical pathology laboratories, pathology definition, clinical pathology, pathology laboratory, pathology report, human pathology, lab medicine

Pot changes brain patterns 1 month after use, researchers find

This article says marijuana changes your brain patterns, even more
than one month after you use it. It’s based on a Yale study.
Anti-marijuana advocates are probably going to be happy about this,
since it comes after a string of other studies suggesting there are no
long-term effects…

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/040818_cannabisfrm.htm

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (5)

5 Responses to “Pot changes brain patterns 1 month after use, researchers find”

  1. admin says:

    jek…@aol.com (Jupiter) wrote:
    >This article says marijuana changes your brain patterns, even more
    >than one month after you use it. It’s based on a Yale study.
    >Anti-marijuana advocates are probably going to be happy about this,
    >since it comes after a string of other studies suggesting there are no
    >long-term effects…

    >http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/040818_cannabisfrm.htm

    More marijuana trash science.

    The sample size was trivially small, and since marijuana is an illegal drug,
    the controls were virtually non-existent.  Presumably they had to take
    these kids at their word that they actually had smoked pot, _and_ had quit
    smoking it.  There were also no controls on how much, how often, how
    powerful, and other drugs the subjects might have been using.

    Further, THC clears very slowly from the body, so it might well be expected
    for residual effects to last a month.  The study didn’t bother asking the
    question of whether the effects lingered beyond the point where THC had
    cleared from the body.

  2. admin says:

    Carey Gregory <tiredofspam…@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:289cj0lj36afftpcgs65svb973nhst9msb@4ax.com:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > jek…@aol.com (Jupiter) wrote:

    >>This article says marijuana changes your brain patterns, even more
    >>than one month after you use it. It’s based on a Yale study.
    >>Anti-marijuana advocates are probably going to be happy about this,
    >>since it comes after a string of other studies suggesting there are no
    >>long-term effects…

    >>http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/040818_cannabisfrm.htm

    > More marijuana trash science.

    > The sample size was trivially small, and since marijuana is an illegal
    > drug, the controls were virtually non-existent.  Presumably they had
    > to take these kids at their word that they actually had smoked pot,
    > _and_ had quit smoking it.  There were also no controls on how much,
    > how often, how powerful, and other drugs the subjects might have been
    > using.

    > Further, THC clears very slowly from the body, so it might well be
    > expected for residual effects to last a month.  The study didn’t
    > bother asking the question of whether the effects lingered beyond the
    > point where THC had cleared from the body.

    That is a sad way to talk about that study man. The authors themselves
    say that it is only a polit study. I don’t see why cannabis being illegal
    hampers the gathering of controls, I could see it hampering the
    collection of the the active group.

    You obviouly haven’t even read the whole study, because if you had, you
    would see that they did urine tests to make sure that only two of the
    active group have positive urine cannabinoids samples, and no other drugs
    indicating that they haven’t used cannabis for over a month usually.

    Also, sample size isn’t really that important so long as the correct
    statistical tests are used to make conclusions about statistical
    significance, which they did.

  3. admin says:

    BilZ0r <Bil…@TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote:
    >That is a sad way to talk about that study man. The authors themselves
    >say that it is only a polit study. I don’t see why cannabis being illegal
    >hampers the gathering of controls, I could see it hampering the
    >collection of the the active group.

    >You obviouly haven’t even read the whole study, because if you had, you
    >would see that they did urine tests to make sure that only two of the
    >active group have positive urine cannabinoids samples, and no other drugs
    >indicating that they haven’t used cannabis for over a month usually.

    >Also, sample size isn’t really that important so long as the correct
    >statistical tests are used to make conclusions about statistical
    >significance, which they did.

    Ummm… this is all tongue-in-cheek, right?

  4. admin says:

    Carey Gregory <tiredofspam…@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:tglej05kcq760mb2ulm9vrbthfrkff5ics@4ax.com:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > BilZ0r <Bil…@TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote:

    >>That is a sad way to talk about that study man. The authors themselves
    >>say that it is only a polit study. I don’t see why cannabis being
    >>illegal hampers the gathering of controls, I could see it hampering
    >>the collection of the the active group.

    >>You obviouly haven’t even read the whole study, because if you had,
    >>you would see that they did urine tests to make sure that only two of
    >>the active group have positive urine cannabinoids samples, and no
    >>other drugs indicating that they haven’t used cannabis for over a
    >>month usually.

    >>Also, sample size isn’t really that important so long as the correct
    >>statistical tests are used to make conclusions about statistical
    >>significance, which they did.

    > Ummm… this is all tongue-in-cheek, right?

    Not at all.

  5. admin says:

    "Leonard Martin" <lmart…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

    news:lmarti49-7FCEED.20444221092004@bignews.bellsouth.net…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > In article <Xns955991F3D7E6FBilZ0rhotmail…@202.20.93.13>,
    >  BilZ0r <Bil…@TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote:

    > >Carey Gregory <tiredofspam…@comcast.net> wrote in
    > >news:tglej05kcq760mb2ulm9vrbthfrkff5ics@4ax.com:

    > >> BilZ0r <Bil…@TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote:

    > >>>That is a sad way to talk about that study man. The authors themselves
    > >>>say that it is only a polit study. I don’t see why cannabis being
    > >>>illegal hampers the gathering of controls, I could see it hampering
    > >>>the collection of the the active group.

    > >>>You obviouly haven’t even read the whole study, because if you had,
    > >>>you would see that they did urine tests to make sure that only two of
    > >>>the active group have positive urine cannabinoids samples, and no
    > >>>other drugs indicating that they haven’t used cannabis for over a
    > >>>month usually.

    > >>>Also, sample size isn’t really that important so long as the correct
    > >>>statistical tests are used to make conclusions about statistical
    > >>>significance, which they did.

    > >> Ummm… this is all tongue-in-cheek, right?

    > >Not at all.

    > I bet those brain pattern changes for for the better.

    No, they are not. Blood flow the frontal cortices is reduced by circa 10%
    but typically will return to previous values at some point, hopefully … .
    In any event it is somewhat spurious to state that brain patterns change
    because of pot, it is a meaningless statement because lots of things change
    brain patterns. They change all the time, that what brains do.

    John.

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Leonard

    > —
    > "Everything that rises must converge"
    > –Flannery O’Connor