Gene could help identify psychosis risk in cannabis users

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why? Because the study didn't talk about pills and you wanted to? I'm just sticking to the info in the study; I don't know how you can call my intellectual honesty into question for doing that.

I don't call your intellectual honesty into question, I point out a logical flaw in your response.

The scientific method is about observing and reproducing occurrences to draw conclusions instead of accepting what others say, not repeating what others say and feel self glorified by proxy.

a reply to: wisvol

Logical flaw? Where is there a logical flaw? Scientists set out to test cannibus to help identify what causes the elevated risk in psychosis in it. They identify a possible link in a gene within some people. Then you bring up some point about pills. YOU are being the illogical one here. Pills and the pharmaceutical industry have nothing to do with this study.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Logical flaw? Where is there a logical flaw?

I'm going to assume you really don't see it:

The study had nothing to do with pills, so commenting on them would be intellectually dishonest.

Both your words, the second one being a comment about pills.

a reply to: wisvol

I still don't see the logical flaw. You brought up the pill argument and start accusing me of being illogical and intellectually dishonest because I'm not talking about them, so you are going to need to explain yourself more thoroughly. Because at this point I'm 75% convinced you are just trying to troll me with off topic nonsense and deflections. If you continue with these limited information posts I'll bump it up to 100% and just start ignoring you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I still don't see the logical flaw.

OK, you still don't.

Therefore your claims to scientific accuracy are really worth something.

Thanks for ignoring me, that'll save some time and effort.

And good luck.

a reply to: wisvol

Of course I don't, because you've failed to explain it every time you post. You just quote my words then are like, "well see it?" No I don't. If I had seen it by now I would have addressed it or explained what I meant. What I do see is you being overly off topic though.

This is an interesting study. I'd like to read the actual article, or paper, if it's available.

I found this particular statement from the article:

As part of the study, researchers gained permission from the Home Office to analyse the cannabis samples for their make-up and strength. Samples were dropped off at a police station and analysed by the forensic science service.

That's funny. I don't know how those things work in the UK. However in the US, the results of the forensic science service would be something to the effect: "Yep, it's weed alright."

If I understand this article correctly, they were testing the "realtime" effect of Cannabis on their test subjects. Apparently their data was accurate enough to determine there was a link to the specific AKT1 polymorphism earlier identified with psychosis, presumably the same one associate with Cannabis-induced psychosis.

The problem I have with that analysis is that there are vastly different responses induced by different strains of the drug. And those varied responses are most likely related not only to different concentrations of THC, but also to the presence and concentrations of its constituent cannabinoids.

I applaud the fact that there is finally some real research being done on Cannabis. However, if the researchers are not taking into consideration the variegation of the species, then their analyses are at best inaccurate.

Good find!

-dex

originally posted by: Krazysh0tNow I'm pretty sure the study isn't saying that if you have this gene, you ABSOLUTELY will have a psychotic breakdown by using cannabis, just that your chances are elevated.

They are saying you can develop psychosis without this gene, or you can have this gene and not get it, it's just a common link found in many who develop psychosis.