Posted on 06/20/2021 4:45:12 PM PDT by Right Wing Vegan
I notice you provided neither a link nor an exact quotation. I don’t think I ought to hold my breath waiting, either ...
Subscribe at www.thelancet.com. I don’t have a subscription. My lady friend at that time showed me the article on her laptop last year when it was published. Believe it was early in the year. Surprised a weed tripper doesn’t know about it. All the potheads with their effeminate and demonic profile pics were screeching and lisping against it in anti-pot page posts on Facebook.
Pot is not a hallucinogen. Booze cause the dts. Marijuana has medicinal uses. Alcohol doesn’t. Give it up Harry.
I was right - no link, no quote.
What they mean by “psychosis” is “psychotic symptoms, such as paranoia and hallucinations” not raging lunacy (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30074-2/fulltext).
Finally, although this study investigated the acute effects of THC, the magnitude and consistency of effects across symptom domains add to the evidence implicating the endocannabinoid system and cannabis use in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.
From which you conclude what? “Add to the evidence implicating” is a quite indirect statement.
“As Hindley and colleagues have clearly demonstrated, there are at least transient psychiatric symptoms associated with even relatively low doses of THC. Of course, this result should not be extrapolated as meaning that single doses of THC will eventually lead to schizophrenia or other severe disorders.” - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30093-6/fulltext
And back to the words of those MD, MBBS, PhD, MRCPsych, etc. credentialed folks in London and Yale who actually did the study:
Finally, although this study investigated the acute effects of THC, the magnitude and consistency of effects across symptom domains add to the evidence implicating the endocannabinoid system and cannabis use in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.
You think that is "indirect" but indirect evidence can be powerful, like DNA evidence in a rape case. And powerful the evidence is here. The study happened to focus on acute wacko psychotic effects, but recognized such effects were so profound that only an idiot writer in Denmark with no psychiatric background trying to do damage control for pot, or a US hallucinogen sucker (or sympathizer) striving to do the same in a forum, would deny the obvious likelihood of chronic illness developing as a result.
It's comparable to saying "We only studied the acute effects of cracking someone's knee with a framing hammer, but the acute damage was so extensive it does add to the evidence that framing hammer strikes to one's knee produce long-term damage as well."
“those uncredentialed writers in Denmark.”
ROTFL!
Carsten Hjorthøj
Affiliations
Copenhagen Research Center for Mental Health – CORE, Mental Health Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Christine Merrild Posselt
Affiliations
Copenhagen Research Center for Mental Health – CORE, Mental Health Center Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
“the obvious likelihood of chronic illness developing as a result.”
Possibility, sure. “Likelihood”? Only to those whose minds are already made up - the authors made no such claim.
Carsten Hjorthøj
University of Copenhagen · Psychiatric Center Copenhagen
· Ph.D., MSc.
- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carsten-Hjorthoj
he magnitude and consistency of effects across symptom domains add to the evidence implicating the endocannabinoid system and cannabis use in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.
Just makes a mess to throw in nonparticipating sources.
They neither use the words "possibility" nor "likelihood".
But the "magnitude and consistency of effects" adding to the evidence "implicating endocannabinoid system and cannabis use in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders" are words stronger than a mere passive possibility. If my own prejudices influence my reading, so do yours when you wish to downplay how strong this likelihood or "possibility" is.
When “participating” authors go beyond the acute symptoms they studied, “participation” becomes moot. The commenter is clearly correct in saying one can’t directly extrapolate from acute to chronic symptoms.
“Christine Merrild Posselt, PhD”- https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927207
Their rationale was explained. The commenter was unnecessary, other than to support the position of hermetically dichotomizing acute and future induction where the authors of the study did not.
“hermetically dichotomizing acute and future induction”
Straw man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.