Pot-Smokers Harm Gums; Other Physical Effects Slight

[Alphabob]

If you read the article, it states that they tested for 12 negative health outcomes. Cannabis had one and tobacco seven; however, the effect on periodontal health was much smaller with cannabis. After their controls, the additional loss of attachment was 0.10 mm for cannabis compared to 0.37 with tobacco.  

 

They also state that it is possible their controls are biased, because the vast majority of people who smoked cannabis also smoked tobacco. The problem is, even if cannabis is associated with periodontal disease, there is no proof that it causes periodontal disease. The paper never said it caused periodontal disease, the media did that. There are a hundred explanations for this that do not blame cannabis, but there is also the chance that cannabis does cause it.

[Alphabob]

There’s nothing wrong with publishing evidence of something if the research is legit. As the famous physicist Richard Feynman once said, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. By that I mean scientists have a certain ideology they follow and this can end up biasing their research even if they are trying to do legit work; it happens more often than most think. The ignorance could be biased controls, not searching for the influence of other factors or other explanations, ect. There are much worse abuses of science out there.

 

But they did the research on a set of data and found these results. If they wanted to bias the research, they would conclude more than a minor association with gum lines receding. They could have said that cannabis causes gum disease like these news outlets are doing, or that it caused more serious health problems. News outlets are habitual offenders in reporting science incorrectly and it's not just with cannabis.

 

So yea, if they sent press releases out stating their research shows cannabis causes gum disease then I would be against these researchers. However, if a journalist decided to draw their own conclusion of 'proof' and this spread to other outlets, then I can’t have anything against the researchers. This is just how science works; there will be follow-up studies with other data sets and new authors as access to doing research increases over time and the evidence of an association will either be verified or refuted.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Alphabob

[t-pain]

right. every one of these studies cannot prove an association. let alone a causation.

 

so if they cant prove anything, whats the point and money going to?

 

and this is by a dr who worked for NIDA. NIDA bias.

 

also this isnt scientific research ,its statistics.

[zachw]

right. every one of these studies cannot prove an association. let alone a causation.

 

so if they cant prove anything, whats the point and money going to?

 

and this is by a dr who worked for NIDA. NIDA bias.

 

also this isnt scientific research ,its statistics.

 

Don't understand that last statement since it implies that scientific research somehow is separate from statistics where in fact it is a critical tool for almost all  scientific research. 

 

If you are trying to analyze data, you are doing statistics.

[t-pain]

Don't understand that last statement since it implies that scientific research somehow is separate from statistics where in fact it is a critical tool for almost all  scientific research. 

 

If you are trying to analyze data, you are doing statistics.

statistics is math, not science.

 

i know scientists use math, but that does not make math into science.

 

cheers!

 

maybe i'm being too pedantic.

 

i'll try to explain but i doubt anyone will understand my crazy logic.

 

 

heres what they went looking for:

Question Is persistent cannabis use for up to 20 years associated

with physical health problems ( periodontal health,lung function,

systemic inflammation , and metabolic health ) in early mid life?

see, thats not the scientific method. its one part of scientific method , but only the statistics part.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

 

 

this study was just a statistical analysis. there was no hypothesis. and they skipped the observation part. by merely observing cannabis smokers, you will not come to the hypothesis that cannabis smoking causes poor gum health.

 

if they observed the last bunch of lung function and metabolic studies done on marijuana, they would have found no lung function problems and even a reduction in metabolic problems (marijuana regulates metabolism).

 

and they would have observed very easily that marijuana is an anti inflammatory!

[imiubu]

Why don't these 'scientists' use thier skills to research the benefits of cannabis instead of wasting time and energy (and $$ of course) 

to try to find negatives?

Sigh.

 

These peeps need new jobs... or find different funding maybe.

[Wild Bill]

so if they cant prove anything, whats the point and money going to?

 

The point is the researchers get a lot of money. If you know how to go about getting research grants you'll never have to work for a living. Here's my current fave government study.

 

The Dept of Defense spent $170k on a study about why walking with coffee makes it spill

 

Do you know why coffee spills when you walk while holding a cup of it? Do you care?

America's Department of Defense does. According to a recent report from U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) allocated a $172,283 grant to fund a study conducted in 2012 at University of California at Santa Barbara that investigated why coffee spills while you walk.

 

Yes, really. 

 

DARPA is the agency that commissions advanced research on behalf of the Department of Defense. In other words, sloshing coffee was deemed a matter of national security. 

 

The study

Researchers set out to systematically explore the conditions under which coffee spills, "for various walking speeds and initial liquid levels in the cup," the study, which was published by the American Physical Society, noted.

   

By using an image analysis program that evaluated coffee levels when walking participants were actively paying attention to their coffee cups compared to not paying attention to the coffee, researchers found that "uneven steps or small jerks of the cup" can amplify "the natural oscillations of coffee into a full-blown spill," the APS reported. 

 

The conclusion

Actively focusing on not spilling coffee or putting a lid on your coffee while walking is your best bet for avoiding spills. Spread the good word, everyone.

 

And get this — researchers even earned an award for the study. Mechanical engineering professor Rouslan Krechetnikov was bestowed the 2012 Ig Nobel Prize, which honors research that "makes people laugh and then think," the College of Engineering at USC Santa Barbara reported. 

 

A whopping $170,000 to help people laugh and think? Giggles are priceless, and for everything else there's the Department of Defense's deep pockets.

[Alphabob]

Maybe DARPAs servant robots were spilling too much coffee on their circuits, so they needed to teach them how to carry a cup.

 

For real though, statistics are used in hypothesis testing, and forming/testing hypothesis are major parts of the scientific method. There are fields of science where statistics is the only thing that matters, for example in quantum mechanics (which we wouldn’t have computers without). That doesn’t mean statistics or the scientific method are impossible to abuse. It happens all the time. In fact, I would say science has become significantly more biased since the late 1900’s. The ‘golden age’ of science was between 1880’s and 1960’s. Now I see a lot of pseudo or junk science being portrayed as fact.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Alphabob