-
Cannabis associated with reduced infant mortality
Storm Crow for Salem-News.com
Surprising connections between “Failure-to-Thrive” and Cannabinoids.
Image from a story about the Use Of Non-Psychoactive Cannabinoids In The Treatment Of Neurodegenerative Diseases from Science Daily(NORTHERN CALIFORNIA) – Years ago, a friend of mine, a good Christian lady, had a child with “failure to thrive”. She had CPS all over her, looking for even the tiniest trace of child neglect. They found none. The child was well cared for, but she just didn’t seem that interested in eating. Her bottles often went half finished.
I believe that those bottles of formula, given from birth, were major part of the problem. Our bodies make chemicals called “endocannabinoids” that are closely related to THC and cannabidiol (CBD). Endocannabinoids control many bodily functions and are excreted into breast milk. When lactating female rabbits were injected with CBD, a non-psychoactive, plant-derived cannabinoid, there was “a significant accumulation of the drug in milk.” [1]
Endocannabinoids are also detected in human and cow’s milk, with the highest levels occurring the day after giving birth. This healthy dose of naturally-occurring endocannabinoids stimulates the suckling reflex in newborn mammals, including humans[2].
When newborn mice are given a chemical to block the effect between endocannabinoids and their CB receptors, the mice simply don’t know how to eat. Yet, if the blocking agent is mixed with an equivalent amount of THC, the mice eat and grow normally[3].
…
“No drugs at birth” deaths……. 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births
“Cocaine positive” deaths…….17.7 deaths per 1000 live births
“Opiate positive” deaths…….18.4 deaths per 1000 live births
“Cannabis positive” deaths…. 8.9 deaths per 1000 live births [5]
…
[1] Mammary excretion of cannabidiol in rabbits after intravenous administration – ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
[2] Born with the munchies – newscientist.com/
…
-
Some information about Marijuana
Study says marijuana no gateway drug
10 Pot Studies Government Wished it Had Never Funded
The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States
Study finds marijuana use leads to brain development in rats
Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
NY Times F.D.A. Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana
Researchers surprised to find no link between marijuana, lung cancer
The Nose Knows: The Odor of Marijuana and Probable Cause
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
THC (marijuana) helps cure cancer says Harvard study
Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn’t Damage Brain
On Role Models and their Bongs
Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer
VIDEO Cannabis Cures Cancer – “Run From The Cure” The Rick Simpson Story
New Study: Marijuana Does Not Cause Psychosis, Lung Damage, or Skin Cancer
Cannabis extract shrinks brain tumours
Marijuana May Stall Brain Tumor Growth
MARIJUANA AND HEMP the Untold Story
Stoned drivers are safe drivers
Chemicals in Marijuana May Fight MRSA
Illegal Hemp? The facts Don’t Support the Propaganda
What does a pot smoker look like?
Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco
TRENDS AND PATTERNS IN CANNABIS USE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States
American College of Physicians Speaks Out for Medical Marijuana
The 5 Greatest Things Ever Accomplished While High
San Francisco-based medical cannabis collective
Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk
Study clears cannabis of schizophrenia rap
Cannabis less harmful than drinking, smoking: report
Who Supports Marijuana Legalization? Support rising; varies most by age and gender
Marijuana Smoking Doesn’t Kill
Marijuana May Stimulate Brain Cell Growth
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
UNDERSTANDING YOUR HIGH -The Effects Of Marijuana On Consciousness
Against the drug war but not sure what to do about it?
Fibromyalgia and Medical Marijuana
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
THC cuts lung cancer growth, spread
Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer
Evaluating the drug use “gateway” theory using cross-national data
-
An unsurprisingly disingenuous look at “marijuana”
As many of my readers know, I like to pull a lot of breaking science news from Eurekalert. One particular article today has drawn my attention, and I’d like to point out to the very disingenuous manner in which it was presented to the lay audience, who may lack the time, educational background, or simply a healthy amount of skepticism to see the spin.
Entitled “Cannabis and Adolescence,” the press release from Eurekalert is as follows:
Montreal, December 17, 2009 – Canadian teenagers are among the largest consumers of cannabis worldwide. The damaging effects of this illicit drug on young brains are worse than originally thought, according to new research by Dr. Gabriella Gobbi, a psychiatric researcher from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. The new study, published in Neurobiology of Disease, suggests that daily consumption of cannabis in teens can cause depression and anxiety, and have an irreversible long-term effect on the brain. [...]
“Teenagers who are exposed to cannabis have decreased serotonin transmission, which leads to mood disorders, as well as increased norepinephrine transmission, which leads to greater long-term susceptibility to stress,” Dr. Gobbi stated. [...]
It is also the first study to demonstrate that cannabis consumption causes more serious damage during adolescence than adulthood.
Fair enough. Cannabis effects some neurotransmitters and stuff, and affects the development of the brain. It sounds plausible…
…except the actual study was neither performed on humans nor even involved any actual compounds present in marijuana.
This study (actual pubmed link) used adolescent rats and a compound known as WIN 55,212-2. WIN 55,212-2 is known to both be stronger in its affinity for CB1 receptors than marijuana, and beside that structurally quite different.
Mentioned in the actual paper, but not in the “press release” was that the study did not find that exposure to WIN55,212-2 influenced anxiety-related behaviors, at least not in all of the assays. The elevated plus maze test results did not show an increase in basal level anxiety. In other words, the adolescent exposure to this highly-cb1-agonizing drug did not effect the rats propensity to visit an “open arm” at all. Nor was chronic, daily exposure to WIN 55,212-2 found to effect the rats behavior in the open field test. Both of these tests are considered extremely important in assessing a rats propensity towards anxiety/depressive-like behavior.
The rats did show a reduced tendency to feed in new environments after high exposure to the marijuana-analogue, in a task known as the novelty suppressed feeding task.
However, what about DOSING?
Grabbed from the always helpful reddit commentary:
Lets take a look at the dosage.”the adolescent exposure group received for 20 days once-a-day i.p. injections of a low dose (0.2 mg/kg) or a high dose (1 mg/kg) of WIN55,212-2 or the vehicle.” Lets take an average human weighing 80kg. And an average rat weighing .5kg2mg dose to a human, divided by 80kg is .025 mg/kg the LOW dose to the rat was .1mg/kg intravenous injection. that’s 4 times the human oral ingestion to get high. the high dose was .5 mg/kg thats 20 times the human oral ingestion to get high.Injection should be using A LOT less than an oral ingestion, correct?
Something seems off with the dosages, but I’m not a scientist. Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?
No, sir, the dosing does sound a wee bit high to correlate too strongly to adolescent smoking.
Now, to be fair:
Animal model systems are an essential component to research, as are chemical analogues, and inferences can be made using these. The fact that these techniques were used doesn’t in and of itself invalidate the underlying premise that habitual use of any drug can change human behavior. Nor should data be completely be disregarded simply because one aspect lacks in robustness, but given the actual content of the paper I’ve got to wonder — did the P.R. department even read the paper before typing up their blurb? At what point does over-simplification become deception and misdirection?
Add qbit.cc as a friend on facebook
NoScript extension






























