Weak link found between smoking pot, testicular cancer

[flashmasterfong]

Teenagers who smoke pot regularly may slightly increase their risk of developing the most aggressive type of testicular cancer compared with nonsmokers, according to a new study.

In Monday's online issue of the journal Cancer, epidemiologist Janet Daling and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle interviewed 370 men aged 18 to 44 with testicular cancer about their history of marijuana use, and compared them with nearly 1,000 randomly selected healthy control subjects.

After accounting for other factors such as smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol and family history, using marijuana at least regularly or starting in adolescence was considered a significant risk factor for nonseminoma — a fast-growing testicular cancer that tends to strike between ages 20 and 35

The rare type of cancer is diagnosed in about 800 men in Canada every year, and accounts for about 40 per cent of all cases of testicular cancer.

"The risk was more than doubled if you were a frequent smoker of marijuana," Daling said.

It seemed to be particularly important if pot was smoked before the age of 18, the researchers found.

Among the cancer group, about 73 per cent said they had smoked pot at some point compared with 68 per cent in the other group.

The study does not prove that smoking marijuana causes cancer, and relied on self-reports of marijuana use.

But Daling said it's intriguing given that the incidence of testicular cancer has climbed in tandem with increasing use of marijuana since the 1950s.

Even if further research also points to an association, the risk would be small, said Dr. David Bell, a urologist with Capital Health in Halifax.

"This is a very rare malignancy, seen in about one per 100,000 men per year," said Bell. "One has to really question the significance of this."

The researchers did not find a link between marijuana and the more common form of testicular cancer.

It's unclear what causes testicular cancer, but marijuana is known to have some hormonal effects within the body, Bell said.

Until further research clarifies marijuana's effect, Daling advised that young men not smoke it, saying they are taking a chance on their future health.

The findings aren't worrying for Joel, a 17-year-old who has been smoking pot for more than two years.

"I don't think just 'cause they put another study out that I'll change my habits or how much I smoke cannabis."

Joel said that the relaxation he gains from smoking pot is too beneficial to give up.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Hutchinson Center.

Just found this, heard it on the radio as well. Looks like they'll stop at nothing to try to get up to stop smoking.

 

[ophiuchus]

i think this is horseshit because the national institue for drug abuse helped sponsor the tests.(therefore) the answers wouldn't be released (or would be swayed) until it looked good for them.

research independent studies and see what you find

**edit

 

[JustinNed]

I heard this on talk radio the other day and I was just thinking to myself, "Well who can conduct those studies? Not qualified scientists, since it's all Government guarded."

 

[GOD]

"interviewed 370 men aged 18 to 44 with testicular cancer about their history of marijuana use, and compared them with nearly 1,000 randomly selected healthy control subjects."

It says the men were interviewd about their cannabis use . If that is so it means that the study wasnt neutral . They should have been interviewed about everything that they had ever done and everywhere they had ever been . Maybe many of them lived near main roads , air routes or factorys pumping poisonous smoke into the atmosphere .



"Among the cancer group, about 73 per cent said they had smoked pot at some point compared with 68 per cent in the other group."

Thats statistical dog shit . Firstly 73 % of 370 isnt comparable with 68 % of 1000 . To have even the slightest relevance they would have had to have only asked 370 healthy men as well . That wouldnt have been relevant because the groupss are to small . Secondly the difference between 68 % and 73 % isnt statisticaly relevant . Thirdly they would have to have compaired the number of people in the whole population who smoked cannabis and didnt get that sort of cancer to the number of people who smoked cannabis and got that sort of cancer .



"But Daling said it's intriguing given that the incidence of testicular cancer has climbed in tandem with increasing use of marijuana since the 1950s."

So has the population . So has polution . So has radiation in particles in the air .


That is not astudy its the work of paid sharlatans .

 

[st.bot.32]

so if i smoke pot, i might have a 1 in 100,000 chance? complete statistical bullshit indeed. nevermind all the major studies, much larger than this one that have shown no correlation between pot and cancer

and the nice thing is a lot of people are seeing through this. at least at public sites i've seen.

 

[ophiuchus]

i was gonna explain some of that GOD, but i figured it stood out, good job highlighting though, you have a knack for wording things.

me? ill smoke to prevent cancer!

 

[????????]

ah it's so nice to have a working bullshit radar. i've heard about this "study" from friends but now that i actually read about it it's actually quite funny. they need to try harder than this.

 

[Mr.Smith]

99.99% of statistics are made-up

 

[spice]

Let's smoke one.
:weedman:



If those governmental motherfuckers were HALF as interested in reporting positive implications as they were THIN, WEAK shit like this


they might be credible.


Let's smoke two.

 

[????????]

randomized test?

placebos?

double-blind (neither patients nor doctors know when is placebo and when is the good stuff)?

large numbers of people (370 people is a frickin cinema)?

NO.

goddammit is this all they have got? hey, we need more negative data on marijuana, let's just get some random non-smoking people, compare them with smokers and see what shit we can correlate.

i don't know whether to feel good because we can see through their bull or to feel sad to the fact that they think we are so stupid to actually swallow this shit. it's like those chain-mail nigerian scams, you dismiss it as spam but, by sheer of large numbers, for every x people there is at least one clever guy out there that bites the bait and gets sucked.

 

[im1badpup]

i dont understand the report, or rather i cant comprehend how theyve drawn the conclusions?
or is that "maybe and might" kind of answer another way of saying "inconclusive"
maybe they want more money for another study... and might not want to upset the sponsors, (them words again maybe, might)
for something what effects one per hundred thousand, how could such a small study bear any relevence?
im confused.

 

[st.bot.32]

Let's smoke one.
:weedman:

 

[significationof?!?]

Attacks on masculinity (sperm count, fertility...) and threat of cancer are two of the main weapons of anti-marijuana propaganda. I didn't think they'd be stupid enough to combine the two in such a retard way.

 

[toogoodforyou]

God thanks for your dissection

 

[Synith]

Heh.

I'll just toke another hit from my pipe.

Screw government propaganda, I'm smoking my herb.