Marijuana may raise testicular cancer risk: study

[onehandle]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Marijuana use may increase the risk of developing testicular cancer, in particular a more aggressive form of the disease, according to a U.S. study published on Monday.

The study of 369 Seattle-area men ages 18 to 44 with testicular cancer and 979 men in the same age bracket without the disease found that current marijuana users were 70 percent more likely to develop it compared to nonusers.

The risk appeared to be highest among men who had reported smoking marijuana for at least 10 years, used it more than once a week or started using it before age 18, the researchers wrote in the journal Cancer.

Stephen Schwartz of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, one of the researchers, said the study was the first to explore marijuana's possible association with testicular cancer.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090209/hl_nm/us_cancer_marijuana

[BlooInBloo]

1. (cough)BULLSHIT(cough)

Know how I know it's bullshit? Because there isn't that much testicular cancer out there, to account for the number of people who tried pot before they were 18.

Amazing how a drug seems to be aware of the American legal age of majority, too.

[dbackjon]

70. Why is it automatically bullshit?

There are lots of chemicals in pot - stands to reason that some could cause cancer.

Chemicals in tobacco (naturally occuring) cause cancer - why should smoking another plant be different?

[HuckleB]

85. Because blind-faith seems to be a natural human condition.

Other studies show benefits to marijuana. Something tells that the posters who claim "BS" in regard to this study don't jump to the same conclusion for those studies.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Bollocks." - X-Commander AWOL & Michael Phelps

[elocs]

3. Since this was posted here last night and earlier today it is not Latest Breaking News.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5011772

[bemildred]

4. Correlation is not causation.

This story is full or weasel words like "may" and "70% more likely" an "appeared to be highest" and "possible".

Suppose there are 300,000,000 US-ians, and half of them are men. Then 8000/150,000,000 == .000053, and a 70% increase in risk == 1.70 * .000053 == .000091 or 9 in 100,000 as opposed to 5 in 100,000. This "study" offers no real account of how dosage might affect those miniscule numbers either, if one finds 8 per 100,000 instead of 9 per 100,000, can one make inferences from that based on the mean dosage of the two groups? I think not.

[liberalmike27]

10. Qualifiers may be a better way to put it rather than Weasel Words

And I used to smoke the hell out of some weed, and gave it up about ten years ago, but I think it's ridiculous to think that it doesn't have some negative effects.

I can be honest with myself, and still think the drug wars are the most ridiculous thing ever. Smoke the weed if you like, but understand that it is taking a toll on you. If you drink alcohol daily, it has a pretty bad effect too.

[bemildred]

13. With fake "science" like this "weasel words" is the appropriate term.

It would be easy enough to do long-term, large-sample studies on the overall effect of pot consumption on morbidity, which would produce results that would have some scientific merit, but instead we get cheap-to-do horseshit like this. I am not making any assertions that drugs don't affect your health, so I won't try to defend that notion.

I would like someone to do "good" studies of the comparative risks of pot versus all the drugs that are prescribed for daily use by our health care system for depression, blood pressure, allergies, etc. I would wager that pot would come off really well against most of them for overall long term effect on ones health and quality of life.

And frankly, anybody that does not account for dosage in a meaningful way when talking about drugs is "blowing smoke". In talking about the proper or improper use of any drug, dosage is everything.

[Zhade]

54. It's not ridiculous when there's NO EVIDENCE it causes harm.

Meanwhile, actual science has proven it's beneficial.

I'll take scientific fact and my doctors' advice over your ignorance, thanks.

[No Elephants]

26. People who try to write accurately use words like "may." Anything else would be

bs if you are talking about one study. Obviously, one study is not definitive. If they did not use words like "may" and "appears," it would be wrong of them. Those words are not a reason to either accept or dismiss the study.

[bemildred]

47. Please see post #13.

It is certainly true that this study is meaningless, and they do well not to pretend otherwise.

[Gormy Cuss]

28. Those aren't "weasel words" They're consistent with the way preliminary data should be described.

The study author's quote makes it clear that this is a first look.

BTW, the same researcher found no evidence of a link between pot smoking and oral cancers in a 2004 study.

[bemildred]

48. Please see post #13.

It is certainly true that this study is meaningless, and they do well not to pretend otherwise. If it helps any, I expect that the 2004 study is meaningless too.

[Gormy Cuss]

60. On what evidence do you base that conclusion?

I haven't seen a methodology report -- have you? Do you have a personal or professional experience that tells you this researcher ( http://myprofile.cos.com/sschwart ) is blowing smoke?

There's always the possibility that a study done with even the best professional standards has no meaningful outcome. Preliminary studies without an experimental design are not likely to have any big whoop-di-doo conclusions -- rather their outcomes are at best suggestive of further research areas.

[bemildred]

62. Please see posts #4 and #13.

It is a small sample, studying a rare condition, in a very complex system (human biology), based on hearsay evidence (So, how much pot have you smoked?), producing small differences in small numbers. Unavoidable errors in reporting, measurement, and computation are more than enough to make it piffle.

Edit: just because you collect some data and compute some statistics, that doesn't mean that they mean anything at all. These numbers mean nothing at all, but the "scientist" wants that next grant, so he perjures himself to get it.

[Gormy Cuss]

63. I've seen your posts.

Nothing in them supports that the researcher is perjuring himself nor that he is underplaying reporting error, et cetera.

[bemildred]

64. So, umm, on what evidence do you base that conclusion? nt

[Gormy Cuss]

82. see posts #4, # 13, and others

by bemildred.

[bemildred]

83. Very well, he's a straight-up guy who admits that his study means nothing,

and that much better studies need to be done if they are someday to mean something "definitive".

[dbackjon]

71. Stick your head in the sand

neener neener neener - I can hear you. no way does pot have ANY harmful side effects

[bemildred]

74. Brilliant argument. nt

[daggahead]

73. It doesn't matter if there is no real science behind this "study."

The fact is, the headline is in the public minds now.

The meme "Marijuana may raise testicular cancer risk: study" has been propagated. My local news presented it almost like they do with their "Breaking News" crap.

We could propagate the meme "Fact: Marijuana scientists find no harmful effects" and the CNM (corporate news media) would ignore it.

[bemildred]

75. True. nt

[glitch]

38. Indeed. And even if it were, look at the munchies for the real culprit.

God knows what they are eating. :scared:

[raystorm7]

5. How convenient... I smell pure BullShit!

[bemildred]

6. Smoking pot hundreds of times safer than smoking tobacco!!!!! nt

[Donnachaidh]

42. oh yeah, a burning substance going into your lungs causes damage, period.

:eyes: :rofl: :eyes:

[Beam Me Up]

43. Vaporizers have been invented.

C.f.: http://www.gotvape.com/

There are many ways of ingesting THC without smoke inhalation.

[bemildred]

49. But not as bad as tobacco!!!!! nt

[Le Taz Hot]

7. "according to US study"

right away makes it bullshit.

[Rebubula]

8. Pffft...

...that is Nuts.

/I'll be here all week...try the Mountain Oysters

[Imagevision]

59. Big tobacco without lobby-jocks can't deal if weed became legal...

[HillbillyBob]

9. Ya right couldn't be all the other crap in the air and water from mtsb

to mercury/heavy metals or genie food unleashed on us by corpse amerikkka.

[lazer47]

11. JEEBUS,, now my balls are going to fall off??? What's next??

[Wizard777]

18. I've been smoking it for over half a century. My balls are fine.

[placton]

19. But, of course,

NEXT year they will - rofl - I have only been smoking for 40 years! Any bullshit study on MJ gets big headlines. This is in the same league with "public service" commercials about how "cool kids don't smoke." Let's all do nothing but serve our corporate masters!

[Psephos]

31. lol - I think this one is a little hard to pin on "our corporate masters"

but hold that in reserve should the day come we finally wise up and decriminalize mj

[tridim]

36. If they do, at that point you can finally use your marijuana induced man-boobs.

Remember that was the last bullshit scare tactic the drug warriors used. I have to assume it's still in effect since the propaganda apparently isn't letting up at all.

[glitch]

39. ROFL! You guys and your sticky outy bits. nt

[Voice for Peace]

12. I wonder if they have done a study on twinkies and cancer.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Wow, ONE STUDY of 369 pot smokers without controlling for concomitant variables is now SCIENCE?!?

QUESTION: Were these researchers "high" when they wrote these flimsy findings? Perhaps the pseudo-scientific journalists also "dropped acid" by recklessly promoting ONE SMALL SAMPLE STUDY as suggested scientific fact?

[crikkett]

23. 1200 in Seattle is an awfully small sample.

[orbitalman]

15. Hey, don't make fun ...

this is how I grew hair on my breast.

[nebenaube]

16. people who publish bullshit as science should lose their credentials!

Show me 50 million cases of testicular cancer in the US, then find similiar distributions in Canada and the Netherlands and I might consider some validity to this finding...

[Proletariatprincess]

17. American Scientific studies cannot be trusted.

And that is especially true of studies about cannabis.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. The article does include some caveats:

Stephen Schwartz of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, one of the researchers, said the study was the first to explore marijuana's possible association with testicular cancer.

"This is the first study to look at this question, and by itself is not definitive. And there's a lot more research that would have to be done in order to be more confident that marijuana use really is important in a man's risk of developing testicular cancer," Schwartz said in a telephone interview.

Sometimes it's "flawed" studies like this (the methodology isn't throughly described, so can't be throughly debunked) that raise questions that lead to further, more soundly scientific studies to prove/disprove links/risks/causes of cancer and other diseases.

Some posters are reacting just like the tobacco companies did when the initial, limited correlational studies emerged showing a connection between smoking and lung/heart disease...

Also remember how many scoffed (at the encouragement of the drug companies) when a link was established between smoking, birth control pill use, and breast cancer?

To accept even the *possibility* that marijuana smoking could be harmful would be to question the choice of smoking it; of course, many activities involve risk, and sometimes the benefits outweigh the risks (at least in the mind of the user).

[No Elephants]

27. The reaction to early tobacco/cancer studies occurred to me as well. I smoked

pot only once , but I smoked tobacco for years. And I have been paying dearly for that for the last 12 years.



We have no choice but to breathe, drink water and eat. Once you lose your health over a costly habit, though, you wish like anything that you had it to do over. But, you never can.

Even using a vaporizer is a dumb risk, but at least it's is better than smoking. (Or so it would seem.)

[onehandle]

21. Why trust "science?" And "studies?" And "research?"

Eight years of Bush ignoring intelligence and certain subjects spark the same behavior around here.

DU cracks me up.

[Stuckinthebush]

22. I was thinking the same thing

Kind of funny, no?

[glitch]

40. Putting quotes around those words is very appropriate in this case.

Good for you.

[Zhade]

55. Because it's bullshit "science" pushed by the arrogantly misinformed.

NT!

[onehandle]

69. Relax and take a drag.

You're sounding arrogantly misinformed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. This again?

They tried this scare tactic in the early 90's, to very little success.

[here_is_to_hope]

25. Man, I was kidding when I said

I would give my left nut to get some weed!

[Bake]

29. Burning one kind of leaf and inhaling the smoke is BAD for you

But burning another kind of leaf and inhaling the smoke is GOOD for you.

Right? Did I get that right?

:rofl:

Bake

[Psephos]

32. smoke of any variety is not friendly to moist pink lungs

but that doesn't stop those who smoke from claiming otherwise

personally, if I was an mj user, I'd be chowing on brownies :)

[Zhade]

56. Fail. Pot smoke is a bronchial dilator.

Try educating yourself instead of proudly wallowing in your ignorance.

[Psephos]

61. lol - as if bronchodilation is something healthy that provides magical protection from free radicals

you do know what free radicals are, don't you?

while we're discussing the merits of inhaling smoke from burning organic matter, might as well ask if you know what the Maillard reaction is, too, and discern whether you know how many carcinogens, aromatics and arenes have been identified in mj smoke...

I'll stick with brownies

;-)

[Zhade]

67. Considering that it used to be prescribed to asthmatics will no ill effects, you continue to fail.

NT!

[Psephos]

68. yawn...come back with one answer, just one answer, to one of my points

btw, you know, they used to prescribe menthol cigarettes for "stimulating the T-Zone," too

:smoke: lol

[Zhade]

57. dupe

(and you've been duped by anti-pot lies)

[Beam Me Up]

44. See post #43 up thread.

[Xicano]

30. Here's a simple question for these two cancer researchers:

Where's the bodies? Show us autopsy results of deceased persons who's deaths was caused by marijuana? You can talk out your ass all day long but until you show some real world observations corroborating your claims, your "research" don't mean shit especially when real world observations contradict your claims.

Secondly, who's paying you and how much are you being paid to try and discredit marijuana? I smell a rat here. Am I the only one who thinks that this research study's timing is a little bit coincidental with the latest DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries? In other words is the government through this press release and these latest raids signaling that it has no intentions with backing off persecuting marijuana smokers, medical or otherwise?

I hate to say it, but, after 42yrs of seeing how the government operates I'd be willing to bet that's what this article is about.



:smoke:

[Beam Me Up]

45. Don't use YOUR drugs! Your drugs can be home grown in gardens and

we can't make any money off of them!! That's why they're illegal!! Use OUR drugs!!! Our drugs are made of chemicals in laboratories. Mostly we don't know WHAT short and or long term effects they "MAY HAVE" on your body because we don't really give a fuck. However, we CAN patent them and make TONS of money off of them by convincing you that you NEED them to stay alive and healthy. We spend lots of money lobbying the DEA to make SURE of that. OK!

SO don't use your drugs, use OUR drugs!

Got that?

Better living through Chemistry!

[lurky]

33. What kind of pesticides do pot growers use?

A lot of pesticides mimic human sex hormones, and I suspect they could mess with your glands, etc. Pot farming isn't exactly regulated for safety, and I highly doubt they use organic methods, for the most part.

I don't know if the study is valid or not, but if so, the explanation is probably more complicated than the inevitable "See? Drugs are universally bad" message people will take from it.

[here_is_to_hope]

34. You are right that pot grows are not regulated

but the growers and buyers I know insist on organic methods.
I mean, I think they might, can't say for sure because I really don't know any growers or users...:)

edited for...uh...French Toast!

[tridim]

37. It depends, everyone I know who has grown cannabis didn't use any peticides...

Or chemical fertilizers for that matter. That's why GYO is a GOOD thing.

Who knows what's in the commercial crap.

[krabigirl]

35. BS. But oh well, I'm female so it doesn't apply :)

[glitch]

41. Don't wait up for a study on ovaries though, not quite the same fear factor. nt

[intheflow]

46. Funny how only US studies find these deadly connections to weed.

And yet there never seems to be any money to actually study pot itself. Ergo, I take this study with a grain of salt.

[sarcasmo]

50. Did Nancy Raygun put the money up for this study?

[jmowreader]

51. It was probably funded by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America

Which, as we know, is bankrolled largely by two companies: one makes cigarettes, the other makes beer.

[DCKit]

52. I would postulate that ingesting the perfect dosage of weed leads to immortality.

But we'll never find out without extensive testing.

[Zhade]

53. To reiterate: UTTER BULLSHIT. Correlation is not causation.

This is just more anti-pot propaganda -- real science has shown that it SHRINKS TUMORS.

[Imagevision]

58. And yet not one single person has ever been reported dying from pot use or

od-ing...!

[GeorgeGist]

65. Poorly designed study ...

the authors did not evaluate the participants on smoking tobacco, or marijuana use by means other than smoking.

on edit: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121685776/abstract

[bemildred]

66. Well, I have heard that cancer patients sometimes do smoke pot for medical reasons.

One hopes they "controlled" for that too.

[dbackjon]

72. Jeez - with the anti-science idiocy on this thread

I thought I had stumbled on FR.

[onehandle]

81. Yeah. I thought the anti-science age was over.

But when it is critical on certain subjects...

Out comes the "educated" outrage.

[bemildred]

76. Smoking Marijuana May Increase Cancer Risk

Article date: 2000/01/18
A study by researchers from the University of California at Los Angeles, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, and Arizona Cancer Center has linked smoking marijuana with an increased risk of head and neck cancers.

Their study, published in the December 1999 issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, is not the first to link marijuana to such cancers. Earlier research has shown marijuana cigarettes contain more tar and higher levels of certain cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco cigarettes. DNA mutations have been found in respiratory system cells of marijuana users and several case reports have found an unexpectedly high number of marijuana users among patients with cancers of the head and neck region, including the mouth, tongue, throat, and larynx.

This study, however, is the first to systematically compare head and neck cancer risk among marijuana users and non-users. The study looked at the relationship between marijuana use and head and neck cancers in 173 patients diagnosed with those diseases who were compared with 176 cancer-free patients.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Smoking_Marijuana_May_Increase_Cancer_Risk.asp

[bemildred]

77. Sri Lankan Ministry Wants 4,000 Kg Of Marijuana

A Sri Lankan ministry wants to go against the country's own laws and harvest 4,000 kilograms of marijuana a year.

The Ministry of Indigenous Medicine wants to be excepted from laws making cannabis illegal on the island and harvest a crop to use in traditional Ayurvedic medical preparations.

Ayurveda is a traditional practice using herbs and natural remedies. Ayurveda practitioners outnumber western trained doctors in Sri Lanka.

Asoka Malimage, spokesperson for the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine said: "At the moment are getting some stocks from the courts of law, from illegal stocks raided by police."

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=189191

[bemildred]

78. Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests.

While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.

---

“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

[bemildred]

79. Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk

Presumptions regarding cannabis use as a risk factor for the development of certain types of cancer, particularly lung cancer, warrant critical examination. Epidemiologic studies over the past several decades have established causation between alcohol consumption and cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, colon and rectum, among others. Tobacco use, particularly cigarette smoking, has also been determined to cause similar upper aerodigestive tract (UAT) cancers, as well as cancers of the pancreas, kidneys and bladder, and is implicated with cancers of the stomach and liver, among others.

To date, similar epidemiologic and/or clinical studies on the use of cannabis and cancer are few and not definitive. However, the public and policy-makers should interpret the ambiguity of these results with caution – neither construing them at this time as an endorsement of cannabis’ safety nor as an indictment of its potential health hazards.

---

Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, including greater concentrations of certain aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzopyrene, prompting fears that chronic marijuana inhalation may be a risk factor for tobacco-use related cancers. However, marijuana smoke also contains cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), which are non-carcinogenic and demonstrate anti-cancer properties in vivo and in vitro. By contrast, nicotine promotes the development of cancer cells and their blood supply. In addition, cannabinoids stimulate other biological activities and responses that may mitigate the carcinogenic effects of smoke, such as down-regulating the inflammatory arm of the immune system that is responsible for producing potentially carcinogenic free radicals (unstable atoms that are believed to accelerate the progression of cancer).

Cannabis smoke – unlike tobacco smoke – has not been definitively linked to cancer in humans, including those cancers associated with tobacco use. However, certain cellular abnormalities in the lungs have been identified more frequently in long-term smokers of cannabis compared to non-smokers. Chronic exposure to cannabis smoke has also been associated with the development of pre-cancerous changes in bronchial and epithelium cells in similar rates to tobacco smokers. Cellular abnormalities were most present in individuals who smoked both tobacco and marijuana, implying that cannabis and tobacco smoke may have an additive adverse effect on airway tissue. The results suggest that long-term exposure to cannabis smoke, particularly when combined with tobacco smoking, is capable of damaging the bronchial system in ways that could one day lead to respiratory cancers. However, to date, no epidemiologic studies of cannabis-only smokers have yet to reveal such a finding. Larger, better-controlled studies are warranted.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891

[Renew Deal]

80. The parade of angry pothead messages is funny and expected.

Whoever thinks inhaling smoke is not harful to people's health is an idiot.

[Dave From Canada]

84. I totally agree. Inhaling smoke, whatever smoke it is, isn't good for your lungs. It's science.

[Lagomorph]

86. I gave up all that stuff..

alcohol, pot, etc...

Taking life (the good and the bad) straight up is the best rush there is.