Before I get into this, I want to address the idea of doctors getting kickbacks. It's flat out wrong. I've got family who are physicians, dentists, and a dietitian. Not one of them has ever received anything other than free samples from a pharmaceutical company. One of the doctors (a cousin) used to work as a sales rep. for a pharmaceutical company. They don't get kickbacks, and they are not on pharmaceutical payrolls. There are plenty of unethical doctors, but that doesn't extrapolate to all of them getting kickbacks.
I read ALL OF IT
did you?
I admit Im a little hazy on some of the medical terminology
. however I can certainly get clarification straight from a physician on anything you would like to challenge.
Hehheh, well, having been brought up by a physician and a dietitian, both with their Master's, I know enough about most of the med terminology to not have to do much more than look it up to confirm or deny my understanding of a term. My dad's medical books were the first books I read when I was a toddler (and yes, according to the family, I could say those words). Boy, I have never forgotten the section on hermaphrodism!
By the way, knock off this uber-aggressive stance you're taking with me for asking you questions, too, please. I swear, I feel like I'm debating with one of my sisters...
YES I read it
. 5 times
and YEP
Im dismissing it COMPLETELY! Did YOU read it? Not once is there is a discussion of how many people the good Doctor observed
.nothing about her control group (other then suggested). There is NOTHING clinically documented to support her findings
. other then her words in an interview! If I had posted such an incomplete article I would have been FRIED here!
Alright, you just demonstrated that you read the first article and did nothing more. Otherwise, you would know how many subjects the good doctor had in her studies.
You would also know a hell of a lot more about how this study was conducted, and you would have, at the very least, found many more interviews with Dr. Dreher. You would also know that this was more an anthropologically conducted study, no controls, just go and live within the community in order to learn what can't be learned by traditional methods. Now, why don't you know that?
Until we know more
why would we, as a community, not be open to the possibility that its bad for a fetus? We support the use of mj for adults
but not for people under 18
. so why would we advocate its use without caution to pregnant mothers?
Alright, this is getting fucking annoying. WHO the hell is saying that it can be used with no caution or cares??? How did you get from "It's probably not good, but it's also probably not terribly bad, either" to "Yeah, man, smoke it to your head!"? How did you get there?
I read what FDD linked to
. Did you? That article contains NO data other then quoted statements
. Hell the article doesnt even detail anything about how it was conducted other then these are her findings
..WTF???? If I posted an article like that
without hard HUMAN TISSUE SLIDES
. You all would have a field day calling me on it!
Yes, I read the article. Then I did more searching. I have yet to find the actual study. The doctor says that she had one hell of a time getting it published.
FDD seems to be the messiah
.if he posts a link
well then it must be the gospel!!!! I have news for you all
I respect him as much as you all
but when I see BULLSHIT with no FACTUAL data to back it up
. Im going to CALL IT!
Calm down for fuck's sakes. You're choosing to see what you choose to see, exactly what you're accusing others of doing. I've been trying to find the actual study, because I
know it exists. Today, I try a uni library if I have time and the gumption. Of course, this would be a library that no one else would have access to unless they happen to belong or have paid for the privilege.
As to the whole inflammatory comments statement
.well I certainly didnt mean to come off that way
. and quite frankly I dont see where I did. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster????
Hardly, you're the one who started up with saying that smoking while pregnant was
exactly like forcing a baby to smoke. Don't tell me you forgot you said that. Here we go, c'mon Florida, I
know you're much sharper than that.
I guess the question is: would you take a hit of mj and then blow it in an infants face (in the same fashion used to get pets high)? If the answer is no, then I'd say smoking mj while pregnant is essentially the same thing.
Who said that, again? First page, and it wasn't the first time.
LOL
a bit melodramatic dont you think???
Absolutely no more melodramatic than your imagery.
I'm curious, why are you coming off so angry about this? You found one study that showed slides from these aborted fetuses, and ok, it shows differences in the brain. That same brain that is still yet rather very poorly understood and documented itself.
Even that study and all the others cited start off with stating that effects of mj use are poorly understood.
Since you're playing this game, you should know how difficult it is for the layperson to access published works, or how to search for them. I bet most people don't know that you have to pay to have access to these sites, libraries, and catalogs. Big fucking bucks, too.
I will reiterate, since you've blown right past my point, no one is saying that pregnant women should smoke, or smoke to their heads, or to throw all caution to the wind. Those are your extrapolations.
We're saying that it may not be as harmful as most would assume out of hand. We're saying that, in light of the fact that studies showing anything that may paint mj in a better light are stifled, and often not published. I'm sure you understand that almost everything hinges on publication, right?
I'm going to make this point once, and once only. In a lot of your posts you come off as very angry. I don't think I'm the only one who sees this. If your intention is to convey passion, then you've accomplished that. However, you're putting out more than just that passion, you come off as angry, lecturing, and frankly, rather belittling towards others. That's the real reason you'd get fried over posting anything inaccurate. It's why you get fried as often as you do. I am not criticizing, I am making an observation based purely upon my own observations of your interactions with others, now to include myself, simply because we don't hold exactly the same stance on this subject. I am assuming this is not your intention.
There. now I KNOW I'm debating with one of my sisters.
