New ABC Report just linked Marijuana to Testicular Cancer

[zerozero]

wait wait wait

they took X number of men who already had cancer
and Y number of men who didn't

and then asked if they smoked? I'm pretty sure there's a mathematical problem here

what you should do is take X healthy people who smoke, Y similar healthy people who don't and find out if there's a skew in who is more likely to get cancer

 

[daze23]

wait wait wait

they took X number of men who already had cancer
and X number of men who didn't

and then asked if they smoked? I'm pretty sure there's a mathematical problem here

what you should do is take X healthy people who smoke and find out who develops cancer

no, the latter wouldn't prove anything as they could have got the cancer otherwise. you need controls

all the study shows is a correlation. it doesn't claim to prove any sort of causal relationship

 

[zerozero]

no, the latter wouldn't prove anything as they could have got the cancer otherwise. you need controls

all the study shows is a correlation. it doesn't claim to prove any sort of causal relationship

yeah I just overlooked that, I updated my post

 

[Tom]

hope this isn't true

 

[daze23]

yeah I just overlooked that, I updated my post

preferably they would do it like that other study Swagmar linked to

The study population consisted of 64,855 examinees in the Kaiser Permanente multiphasic health checkup in San Francisco and Oakland (California, United States), between 1979-85, aged 15 to 49 years, who completed self-administered questionnaires about smoking habits, including marijuana use. Follow-up for cancer incidence was conducted through 1993 (mean length 8.6 years).

but that takes a long time, and it still has holes in it. it's hard to use 'controls' with humans, because it basically means greatly restricting people for years, and most people ain't having that

 

[Fillerguy]

huh? it happened

it took like 14 years, but if that's what it takes to get accurate results, so be it

Any scientific study worth its muster needs to have a LARGE sample size in order to really hold any weight in the scientific arean. Survey made with a few hundres people are essentially worthless from a scientific perspective.

be honest, how practical is this?

I didnt ask if it were possible. I didnt asked if another study was necessary. I asked how practical is a private scientific study on Marijuana's negative effects on what is effectively, a small town. I didnt even go into how flawed self administered tests are, let alone those taken with a 8 year gap.

he purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the relationship of marijuana use to cancer incidence. The study population consisted of 64,855 examinees in the Kaiser Permanente multiphasic health checkup in San Francisco and Oakland (California, United States), between 1979-85, aged 15 to 49 years, who completed self-administered questionnaires about smoking habits, including marijuana use. Follow-up for cancer incidence was conducted through 1993 (mean length 8.6 years).

 

[Serious]

wait wait wait

they took X number of men who already had cancer
and Y number of men who didn't

and then asked if they smoked? I'm pretty sure there's a mathematical problem here

what you should do is take X healthy people who smoke, Y similar healthy people who don't and find out if there's a skew in who is more likely to get cancer

But no I considered this study inconclusive last night, when they said they asked people, and then only sampled a rather small number of males. There's just way too many holes in this study. It should have never been publicly released. Especially, when the Ph. D. scholars at Coli State, can depict the stats.

preferably they would do it like that other study Swagmar linked to


but that takes a long time, and it still has holes in it. it's hard to use 'controls' with humans, because it basically means greatly restricting people for years, and most people ain't having that

Then people complain when researchers experiment on mice.

It's a no situation

 

[zerozero]

Jay-Z American Music Awards 2009 Men LIe Women Lie Numbers Dont HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Laughing at 50 Cent - YouTube


But no I considered this study inconclusive last night, when they said they asked people, and then only sampled a rather small number of males. There's just way too many holes in this study. It should have never been publicly released. Especially, when the Ph. D. scholars at Coli State, can depict the stats.

What are you talking about? The sample size can be ok, but you can't take two populations of people, ask them about something and then decide it means something about the variances between them. That's like saying I'm brown and you're black cause we eat different foods.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

be honest, how practical is this?

I posted the study that used 60,000 people, they didn't just survey 300 people and conclude marijuana causes testicular cancer

Also people who have a disease like cancer are much more forthcoming and open about their drug use

 

[Serious]

What are you talking about? The sample size can be ok, but you can't take two populations of people, ask them about something and then decide it means something about the variances between them. That's like saying I'm brown and you're black cause we eat different foods.

My bad, I'm trying say, that problem lies within, asking individuals whether or not, they used MJ in the past. In a larger sample size, you'll notice a certain pattern or trend in the results. But using the honor system, on a survey analysis, leaves room for complication. Who's to say some males who use MJ frequently, didn't lie and say they were healthy, yet showed significantly lower signs of testicular cancer.

It could happen

 

[daze23]

I didnt even go into how flawed self administered tests are, let alone those taken with a 8 year gap.

it's something that should be accounted for in the margin of error

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

but... people smoke weed to treat cancer