Dan - TGA medical files

[Matabele]

A new review came out last year from Australian authors at U Syd. The reference is:

Rey JM. Martin A. Krabman P. Is the party over? Cannabis and juvenile psychiatric disorder: the past 10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 43(10):1194-205, 2004 Oct. ABSTRACT:

OBJECTIVE: To critically review cannabis research during the past 10 years in relation to rates of use, behavioral problems, and mental disorders in
young people.

METHOD: Studies published in English between 1994 and 2004 were identified through systematic searches of literature databases. The
material was selectively reviewed focusing on child and adolescent data.

RESULTS: In the 27 years between 1976 and 2002, approximately half of all
12th graders had been exposed to cannabis in the United States. There is growing evidence that early and regular marijuana use is associated with
later increases in depression, suicidal behavior, and psychotic illness and may bring forward the onset of schizophrenia. Most of the recent data
reject the view that marijuana is used to self-medicate psychotic or depressive symptoms. Research on treatment is very limited.

CONCLUSIONS:
Research on the mental health effects of cannabis has increased dramatically. Although doubts still remain about the role of cannabis in the
causation of juvenile psychiatric disorder, the weight of the evidence points in the direction of early and regular cannabis use having substantial
negative effects on psychosocial functioning and psychopathology. [References: 119]

 

[Dan]

do you really need me to pick out the holes in that?

"Studies published in English between 1994 and 2004 were identified through systematic searches of literature databases."

It is based on 3rd hand information and does not attempt proper study itself. Considering the data from these studies, none of which is really mentioned in here (for all we know they may have only selected studies that found a link or believed there was a link).

See what I am getting at!
You should!

 

[Dan]

perhaps they would have. But you have to remember there are no major corporations behind the promotoion of marijuana, so a comparison between tobacco companies and Pot is pretty much unfounded

 

[Matabele]

Erm, this is a summation of all surveys provided by the Australian statutory body responsible for investigating such things.

They have no vested interests.

 

[Dan]

Erm, this is a summation of all surveys provided by the Australian statutory body responsible for investigating such things.

They have no vested interests.

That isnt what is stated in the "method" you are familiar with university studies aren't you?

 

[Matabele]

[quote author=Matabele]
Erm, this is a summation of all surveys provided by the Australian statutory body responsible for investigating such things.

They have no vested interests.

That isnt what is stated in the "method" you are familiar with university studies aren't you?
[/quote] We're not discussing the opinion of a snotty nosed wannabe Masters student.

This is a summation provided by a PhD in Bio Chemistry and expert in the area. Weight of evidence is a very interesting statement for it suggests that if these were scales, they'd be tipped my way.

Carry on.

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]
[quote author=Matabele]
Erm, this is a summation of all surveys provided by the Australian statutory body responsible for investigating such things.

They have no vested interests.

That isnt what is stated in the "method" you are familiar with university studies aren't you?
[/quote] We're not discussing the opinion of a snotty nosed wannabe Masters student.

This is a summation provided by a PhD in Bio Chemistry and expert in the area. Weight of evidence is a very interesting statement for it suggests that if these were scales, they'd be tipped my way.

Carry on.

[/quote]


A summation based on SOME texts written in English. This is far from conlcusive. Do we know what texts? No, then how can this be conclusive proof?

 

[Matabele]

You're playing semantics Dan. I know it and you know it.

 

[Dan]

You're playing semantics Dan. I know it and you know it.

No i am not, it is a very very relevant question.

For all we know they could have taken all of the studies that leant towards a link between cannibis use and mental illness and only drawn their conclusion on those.

They may have had a percentae of 60-40 we dont know and it is very very relevant, using certain texts will obviously only lead you to the conclusion that the majority of the selected works lean toward. You know it and i know it

 

[Matabele]

What you and I know is that this is a government database summary of ALL research.

Am I speaking French or something?

 

[Dan]

no but you must be reading in it!

Read your own original post it states the method as

"METHOD: Studies published in English between 1994 and 2004 were identified through systematic searches of literature databases. The
material was selectively reviewed focusing on child and adolescent data. "

 

[byso]

Dan, what qualifications do you have in the area. Surely not a PhD and acces to the latest research (and google dont qualify).

 

[Matabele]

as I said Dan - you are playing literary semantics as opposed to taking a rational approach to the statement.

 

[Dan]

Dan, what qualifications do you have in the area. Surely not a PhD and acces to the latest research (and google dont qualify).

Byso, do you want to go down this path again.

Argue the point my dear lad.

my qualification in this are equal to Matas and yours.

The research is flawed and that is my point. For it to be correct research it needs to state the studies it used, needs to have an equal mix of studies concluding either side and above all needs no pre-disposition in the area.

 

[Dan]

as I said Dan - you are playing literary semantics as opposed to taking a rational approach to the statement.

read response to byso above

 

[Matabele]

Your position is flawed:

Are you accusing the TGA of sloppy research when I provide a summation from them?

Would you care to put that on record so they could consider a defamation case?

 

[Dan]

No I am not accusing them of sloppy research, and that would not be defamtion anyway!

What i am saying is the evidence you have presented is flawed.

If you can provide me with a list of the texts studied we can draw a better conclusion, however as it stands....my position has not changed.

Why try to drag it down that path matas, playing games again today huh?

 

[ManlyBacker]

I agree with Dan 100%. The statement as given is a complete load of unusable rubbish. "Growing evidence" is not any form of substantiation. I believe they have to list a sample, as a minimum, of the papers they reviewed to give any credence to the statement.

"Most of the recent data reject the view that marijuana is used to self-medicate psychotic or depressive symptoms." Errm, this is way too profound and is a water muddier in the context of thought or argument. My guess is that 99% of use is unrelated to medical self-medication so this tells us nothing.

This should be filed in the round bin until anything concrete is presented.

 

[Dan]

thanks MB.

I am not pro marihuana or anything but am simply arguing the facts and as they stand this is way too loose of an argument

 

[Matabele]

That applies both ways.

Interesting that PhDs in the area and the Australian body responsible for medical research are tipping that "weight of evidence" is falling the way of durg use being one of (admittedly many) triggers for depression and psychosis.

I'm sure the good doctors and scientists would be taking great delight in the nonsense evasion being thrown up by our resident 24 year old IT expert without a letter to his name.

I'm pretty sure most of our readers are doing likewise.