Top European Research facility: Super strong cannabis caused 1/4 new psychosis cases

Using the term "Skunk" in a peer reviewed study?

This in itself leads me to doubt the reports.

Peace

I live in Vancouver, arguably at times the pot capital of the world..the best and strongest has been the norm here for decades..literally. Im curious as to why not a single person I know is schizophrenic..to my knowledge(knew a kid in high school is it)I know a great many long time users 20-30 yrs. I welcome more info and that is needed as long as it represents some truth I can identify with. I would be interested in the mechanics of why no body I know suffers?

It is a well known fact in psychiatry that people who have a biological vulnerability to schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder can have their first episode due to drugs, alcohol, or a stressful event. Unless the alcohol and stress were also part of a double-blind study, this particular research is deliberately designed to prove the hypothesis that strong weed causes psychosis. Therefore it is flawed.

I'm willing to bet that, with a little digging, we could find out who funded this study, as most of them need more funding than what a college can provide.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I respect your antipot stance. But I see this study as more of an attempt by the pharmaceutical companies
to try and discredit MJ so they can keep pushing their expensive medications. Who financed this study?

a reply to: jude11

It's not even a peer reviewed study.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Who was it peer reviewed by?

Where is the Peer Review manuscript for this study?

Are you going to ignore the rest of my points?

~Tenth

a reply to: olaru12

This project has been carried out with the support of: 1. The GAP (Genetic and Psychosis) and PUMP study teams, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London; 2. The South London and Maudsley (SLaM) NHS Foundation Trust; 3. Funding was provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, SLaM and the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London; The Psychiatry Research Trust, the Maudsley Charity Research Fund and by the European Community's Seventh Framework Program under grant agreement No. HEALTH-F2-2009-241909 (Project EUGEI).

www.kcl.ac.uk...

a reply to: olaru12

Do not presume any ''stance'' from me.

The research is valid, but there are those refuting it, without any rationale apart from they don't want to believe it.

Don't even try straw man arguments, seriously I am way above that sort of baiting.

This thread is about THIS research and the questions you asked are all clear on the report and opening post.

a reply to: snowspirit

I have never in my life, seen more than 2 people have a bad experience.

I have seen dozens have it and had them myself too.

Most people's paranoia comes from worrying if other people know that you're high. Once that stigma of "doing something illegal" is gone, so is the paranoia.

It`s legal in my country and this still happened...

Having a friend in your house saying he goes to a shrink, thinks they are after him for a murder he didn`t commit and at the same time is rolling a joint, you tell him, "hey buddy, it`s time to quit"...which he luckily did and I still have him as a friend.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The research is valid, but there are those refuting it, without any rationale apart from they don't want to believe it.

Please show me where I have not shown any rational?

I have posted, 3 times, issues I have with this specific study and you have NO answers for me.

I'm sorry, but just because we've found problems in your source, doesn't make us the bad people. You should find better sources in order to make your claims.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

How about you go ask The Lancet about their peer review team and if they publish the reports, also how about you go look for the information that is there on the research journal and furthermore, if you don't agree to it's validity, to contact them and advise them of your uneducated opinion.

a reply to: jude11

It is called that in the UK, it is also for the purpose of differentiation. Read the graph, it mentions ''hash'' and ''skunk'' those are different forms of cannabis.

Maybe one reason the psych industry (and make no mistake, it's a massive industry) tries to undermine cannabis legalization is that the substance makes people saner, "weeds" them off some of the worse psychoactive drugs, and by pointing the finger at a common plant can muddy up the water of criticism of their own profession and highly toxic substances pushed on patients by its professionals.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: snowspirit

I have never in my life, seen more than 2 people have a bad experience.

I have seen dozens have it and had them myself too.

Most people's paranoia comes from worrying if other people know that you're high. Once that stigma of "doing something illegal" is gone, so is the paranoia.

It`s legal in my country and this still happened...

Having a friend in your house saying he goes to a shrink, thinks they are after him for a murder he didn`t commit and at the same time is rolling a joint, you tell him, "hey buddy, it`s time to quit"...which he luckily did and I still have him as a friend.

he goes to a shrink

What other meds was your friend on then?

Most people who see a shrink are medicated often by the use of 2 or more medications.....

It's foolish to put the blame on MJ, while ignoring other drugs isn't it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jude11

It's not even a peer reviewed study.

Of that I'm very sure.

The OP mentions that it is and that's what I'm questioning.

Peace

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

How about you go ask The Lancet about their peer review team and if they publish the reports,

Why would I do that? You're the one claiming this study is peer reviewed. You're the one claiming all our reasons for it not being a valid study are wrong.

to contact them and advise them of your uneducated opinion.

So now it's name calling eh? That's refreshing. But I suppose that's what happens when you lose an argument.

My opinion seems more educated than yours, since all you've done is stick your fingers in your ears and yell ' NO NO NO NO NO NO NO I'M NOT LISTENING". I work in this industry, I've worked with scientists who do these studies.

Please don't attack those who know more about this than you do, learn and then refute.



~Tenth

This thread, just to clarify, as the majority of comments seem blinkered to the facts, is about this SPECIFIC research, it isn't about cannabis in general or the legalisation of.

It isn't about attacking me for posting research, nor does it mention my opinion of cannabis as a generalisation.

So, back off from the personal attacks.

Back off from the ''but alcohol'' etc posts.

Back off from calling it ''unprofessional'', it is research from a very respected international research facility.

Furthermore, if you don't agree to it's findings, how about you go tell them about it as I am totally uninterested in your opinion.

a reply to: seeker1963

He wasn`t on any when he became it, he got them because of his psychosis but I told him it was rubbish to take them when he kept smoking cannabis...so he quit with both and become well again very soon without the help of anything after that.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I posted professional research, you are doing the 'fingers in your ears name calling', and to be honest as a moderator you should be behaving far better.

The information as I said previously is clearly stated in the research paper, which I view as valid research.

If your opinion is not believing it, I suggest you go tell THEM instead of harassing me.

a reply to: jude11

The Lancet has it's own peer review team as it is a professionally respected journal.