Skunk Like Marihuana Leads to Brain dead hippies! Says the yellow press.

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Good grief...I just realized it was see4, not Buck.
You people and your avatar games...:lol:
OG Kush helps with the illusion, too.
I should have realized something was up when the giant sig pics were missing.
You see? Brain damage, kids...
This is your brain. This is your brain vapourized by plasma. This is toast with a sunny-side up egg on top.
Any questions?
Pizza AND fries?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Good grief...I just realized it was see4, not Buck.
You people and your avatar games...:lol:
OG Kush helps with the illusion, too.
I should have realized something was up when the giant sig pics were missing.
You see? Brain damage, kids...
This is your brain. This is your brain vapourized by plasma. This is toast with a sunny-side up egg on top.
Any questions?
 

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.

"Which you claim was trying to convince of us the validity of that study." -- Is an incoherent thought, please try to rephrase whatever it is you trying to say. -- But before you do, let me attempt to respond to what it is I think you are trying to say. -- I'm not trying to convince anyone that the studies are valid [or not], I am merely pointing out the absurdity of the articles and their respective headlines as it was written.

"It appeared your opinion/criticism of them had something to do with the article you linked." -- To whom are you referring and to what article? I post two articles, if you are specifically referring to the Forbes article, then I was referring to the author, its editor and the medium for which it was presented, being Forbes [online].

OK, I'll try to be clearer for you. My apologies.

1. You seemed to take issue with a particular Forbes article about a study done in London about pot, to wit:

Seriously, who are these people trying to convince?
Can we agree that you are claiming that "these people" is Forbes, the ones you claim are right wing propogandists? And that you wonder who Forbes is trying to convince? If we can agree on that, please continue reading. If you don't agree, then there's no point for you to read any further.

2. Next, you provide a link to the Forbes article about the study done in London about pot:

Can we agree the link/article you cite is the one you claim is by Forbes, and upon which you base your 1st sentence I quoted above? If not, there's no point for you to read any further.

3. Further, can we agree the link/article you cite in support of your position, in fact, points out the obvious flaws with the study - like you and anyone with 1/2 a brain noticed? Thereby making the article, on its face, fair and balanced. From the article you find offensive as right wing propaganda:

"Of course, cause and effect cannot be illustrated with a study like this. By definition, the only type of connection here is a correlation, since the researchers did not assign people to smoke pot or abstain during a set period of time. But the “dose-dependent” relationship between pot and white matter changes in the brain could suggest that the one causes the other, though more research is need to understand how the relationship originates. It could theoretically be the other way round: that people who naturally had white matter damage to begin with are more likely to smoke pot as a way to self-medicate, and the worse the damage, the more active the pot smoking."

4. Finally, you finish your post ranting about, presumably, the very article you linked in your post:

Typical right wing propaganda, yellow press, bullshit.
Can we agree you are saying Forbes, through that article you linked, is engaging in right wing propaganda? If not, well, again, there's no point to continue.

All I'm suggesting now after reading your responses is that you have such a political bias, that you see and claim "right wing propaganda" where it doesn't exist. As in the article you cited as evidence of right wing propaganda, which couldn't be further from the truth. I was only commenting on that one post.

Make sense?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
OK, I'll try to be clearer for you. My apologies.

1. You seemed to take issue with a particular Forbes article about a study done in London about pot, to wit:



Can we agree that you are claiming that "these people" is Forbes, the ones you claim are right wing propogandists? And that you wonder who Forbes is trying to convince? If we can agree on that, please continue reading. If you don't agree, then there's no point for you to read any further.

2. Next, you provide a link to the Forbes article about the study done in London about pot:



Can we agree the link/article you cite is the one you claim is by Forbes, and upon which you base your 1st sentence I quoted above? If not, there's no point for you to read any further.

3. Further, can we agree the link/article you cite in support of your position, in fact, points out the obvious flaws with the study - like you and anyone with 1/2 a brain noticed? Thereby making the article, on its face, fair and balanced. From the article you find offensive as right wing propaganda:

"Of course, cause and effect cannot be illustrated with a study like this. By definition, the only type of connection here is a correlation, since the researchers did not assign people to smoke pot or abstain during a set period of time. But the “dose-dependent” relationship between pot and white matter changes in the brain could suggest that the one causes the other, though more research is need to understand how the relationship originates. It could theoretically be the other way round: that people who naturally had white matter damage to begin with are more likely to smoke pot as a way to self-medicate, and the worse the damage, the more active the pot smoking."

4. Finally, you finish your post ranting about, presumably, the very article you linked in your post:



Can we agree you are saying Forbes, through that article you linked, is engaging in right wing propaganda? If not, well, again, there's no point to continue.

All I'm suggesting now after reading your responses is that you have such a political bias, that you see and claim "right wing propaganda" where it doesn't exist. As in the article you cited as evidence of right wing propaganda, which couldn't be further from the truth. I was only commenting on that one post.

Make sense?
By point two I'd forgotten the bit at the start, damn marihuana making my brain all mush and shit.
 

see4

Well-Known Member
Make sense?
It does make sense. And Forbes is a right wing propaganda machine, however where we disagree is the minute detail of the article. Where you are focusing on the author and much of the substance, I focus on the clever editorial work of both the article itself and its capturing headline. Furthermore I am highlighting the fact that Forbes and some random right wing religious based website seem to be the only sources of this [mis]information. As noted by the following first three hits when searching for "skunk marijuana kills brain cells"

upload_2015-11-29_18-19-35.png

The Guardian, like Forbes, is undoubtably right wing, and these recent slew of [opinion] articles is most definitely propaganda.

Do you see it differently? Do you suggest that Forbes is not in fact right wing?
 

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
It does make sense. And Forbes is a right wing propaganda machine, however where we disagree is the minute detail of the article. Where you are focusing on the author and much of the substance, I focus on the clever editorial work of both the article itself and its capturing headline. Furthermore I am highlighting the fact that Forbes and some random right wing religious based website seem to be the only sources of this [mis]information. As noted by the following first three hits when searching for "skunk marijuana kills brain cells"

View attachment 3553891

The Guardian, like Forbes, is undoubtably right wing, and these recent slew of [opinion] articles is most definitely propaganda.

Do you see it differently? Do you suggest that Forbes is not in fact right wing?
Hey, I'm busy watching football with my girlfriend at a brewery right now. I'll get back to you, and address your comments.
 

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
It does make sense. And Forbes is a right wing propaganda machine, however where we disagree is the minute detail of the article. Where you are focusing on the author and much of the substance, I focus on the clever editorial work of both the article itself and its capturing headline. Furthermore I am highlighting the fact that Forbes and some random right wing religious based website seem to be the only sources of this [mis]information. As noted by the following first three hits when searching for "skunk marijuana kills brain cells"

View attachment 3553891

The Guardian, like Forbes, is undoubtably right wing, and these recent slew of [opinion] articles is most definitely propaganda.

Do you see it differently? Do you suggest that Forbes is not in fact right wing?
I don't read Forbes, nor have any idea who the author is. But you are correct by saying I focus on "much of the substance" of the article. That is what the article is judged on, and how it should be judged.

It appears you didn't read the article and simply assumed that because it was from Forbes, it was ipso facto right wing propaganda. But it wasn't.

What, specifically, is the "clever editorial work" you are referring to? This is the first time you brought that up.

And, what do you find offensive about the "capturing headline"?

All Forbes did was report on the study. As did many many other media outlets. Reporting on a flawed study cannot be attributed to the ones doing the reporting. Especially when the reporting was unbiased, and actually critical of the study, as the Forbes article was. They accurately reported the findings of the study, and pointed out the flaws with that study. Explain how that makes it right wing propaganda.

I just did a Google search too. Here's some of the outlets that reported on the London study:

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/11/30/high-potency-marijuana-brain-damage/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/study-finds-high-potency-marijuana-increasing-cases-of-psychosis/article/450726
http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-skunk-cannabis-highly-potent-marijuana-could-damage-white-matter-brain-363276
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113411044/marijuana-holder-title-112915/
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/27/smoking-high-strength-cannabis-skunk-may-damage-nerves-brain
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2015/11/27/Study-High-potency-marijuana-linked-with-neural-damage/1671448657013/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/303279.php
http://www.dailydot.com/geek/weed-damaging-corpus-callosum-study/
http://www.delhidailynews.com/news/Study-links-high-potency-marijuana-with-neural-damage-1448714662/
http://sport.bt.com/news/science-news/skunk-can-seriously-damage-some-of-the-vital-nerve-fibres-in-the-brain-11364021651171
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/nov/30/just-in-time-20151130/
http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/national/14107207._Skunk_weed__cannabis__significantly_damages_vital_nerve_fibres_in_brain_/
http://www.canindia.com/high-potency-cannabis-kills-white-matter-in-brain/

If you want to verify that search, type in "high potency marijuana brain damage" in Google news.

Those are just the ones on the first page of that Google search. All right wing propagandists? Do you see what's different about the headlines of all of those media headlines compared to the Forbes article headline? All of those outlets simply cite the flawed findings in their headline - as fact. Forbes is the only one that turns it into a question in their headline, and then answers that question in their article! They basically call bullshit on the study.

I don't know, nor care if Forbes is, in general, right wing propaganda. I'm only concerned with this thread you started about the London pot study and the media reporting of it as right wing propaganda. That's what's at issue here. Nothing else.

I mentioned it earlier - but it appears you have such a bias that you can't acknowledge the facts. You are being intentionally dishonest about what the Forbes article states. That's something Fox News would do, right? It just seems you would be more credible in your criticism of the "right wing propaganda" if you got it right.
 

see4

Well-Known Member
What's common of all these, including Forbes? None actually cite the actual study. They continually refer to a published journal in psychological medicine, but I've yet to find. Admittedly I've only searched for about 15 minutes or so, I may spend another ten minutes searching for it. What gets me about the "detail" you seem to be so concerned about is it's not actual detail. They [all] toss around terms like cerebrum and tetrahydrocannabinol and other words beyond the average 7th grade reading level, but then they simply refer to the agent in the study as skunk or high potency marijuana, without providing detail. Anyone who knows anything about strains and their lineage knows the skunk lineage, albeit potent, is not the most potent. And we can assume that when we discuss potency we were refer to THC, but which? THCa, THCv, or is it CBD that's the culprit? Why come out with a dramatic [damaging] study, and give the readers facts like, "skunk" and "high potency"?

So let me ask you, what exactly are you after when wasting your energy on proving something to me? Are you agreeing with the "study"? If so, can you please provide empirical evidence to the fact? What is different about skunk weed as compared to say any other hybrid or sativa dominant strain? Is it sativa in particular? If so, why not provide that information? And why not link the actual entry in journal of psychological medicine?

See where I'm going with this now?
 

see4

Well-Known Member
I mentioned it earlier - but it appears you have such a bias that you can't acknowledge the facts. You are being intentionally dishonest about what the Forbes article states. That's something Fox News would do, right? It just seems you would be more credible in your criticism of the "right wing propaganda" if you got it right.
Not just Forbes, anyone who publishes [shit] without supporting it with facts.

As of now, Paola Dazzan has yet to release the "findings", only just commenting on them. Kings College has not released the study. Yet all the media outlets that seem to have some stake in this [mis]information are repeating the same dishonest horseshit.

If it is so conclusive, why not just release the study? Why tell us that its published in the Journal of Psychological Medicine, and nobody is able to locate it?


but it appears you have such a bias that you can't acknowledge the facts.
What facts? Show them to me.
 

see4

Well-Known Member
@pabloesqobar - When you do a little deeper dive into who [fabricated] this study, you will see that Paola Dazzan has published or co-published 9 articles in the Journal of P. Medicine. Interestingly you will find that her studies are focused on psychosis and schizophrenia, and not in fact focused on marijuana.

So there's that.

So, my point(s) still stand. Forbes is right wing garbage, and the headline of the article leads readers to believe the study is this profound research piece that shows us through empirical evidence emphatically that "high potency" marijuana will kill us all and all marijuana users are either black or just crazy with reefer madness. In either case, drugs are baaad, mmkay!!
 

see4

Well-Known Member
You owe me $68.34 for wasting 27 minutes of my life dealing with this, when you could have just agreed and went on about your day.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
What's common of all these, including Forbes? None actually cite the actual study. They continually refer to a published journal in psychological medicine, but I've yet to find. Admittedly I've only searched for about 15 minutes or so, I may spend another ten minutes searching for it. What gets me about the "detail" you seem to be so concerned about is it's not actual detail. They [all] toss around terms like cerebrum and tetrahydrocannabinol and other words beyond the average 7th grade reading level, but then they simply refer to the agent in the study as skunk or high potency marijuana, without providing detail. Anyone who knows anything about strains and their lineage knows the skunk lineage, albeit potent, is not the most potent. And we can assume that when we discuss potency we were refer to THC, but which? THCa, THCv, or is it CBD that's the culprit? Why come out with a dramatic [damaging] study, and give the readers facts like, "skunk" and "high potency"?

So let me ask you, what exactly are you after when wasting your energy on proving something to me? Are you agreeing with the "study"? If so, can you please provide empirical evidence to the fact? What is different about skunk weed as compared to say any other hybrid or sativa dominant strain? Is it sativa in particular? If so, why not provide that information? And why not link the actual entry in journal of psychological medicine?

See where I'm going with this now?
I read a study where they made a monkey breathe 90% marijuana smoke through a breathing mask.

They concluded from that the marijuana is dangerous, harms the brain and can kill...

I wouldn't bother looking too hard for the study you mentioned, published studied are apparently alot easier to publish for some people.

ESPECIALLY a psychology study, they're total quackery. Real scientists look down on psychologists with utter disdain.
 

see4

Well-Known Member
I read a study where they made a monkey breathe 90% marijuana smoke through a breathing mask.

They concluded from that the marijuana is dangerous, harms the brain and can kill...

I wouldn't bother looking too hard for the study you mentioned, published studied are apparently alot easier to publish for some people.

ESPECIALLY a psychology study, they're total quackery. Real scientists look down on psychologists with utter disdain.
I wanted to see if @pabloesqobar would go down this path, trying to cite other "studies" like "High potency marihuana kills white matter" -- I mean like maaan, its some high grade shit right there, that skunk has like 13% THC in it, but like in the 70's and stuff, maaan, it was like 3% THC, so I mean like, maaan, its totally bad for your brain and stuff maaan... Please.

And the point being here folks, newspapers, online or otherwise, who perpetuate this bullshit, are in my mind, right wing propaganda yellow press whores. My point still stands. Thanks and have a nice day. *throws down the microphone and walks off stage
 

Moldy

Well-Known Member
I wanted to see if @pabloesqobar would go down this path, trying to cite other "studies" like "High potency marihuana kills white matter" -- I mean like maaan, its some high grade shit right there, that skunk has like 13% THC in it, but like in the 70's and stuff, maaan, it was like 3% THC, so I mean like, maaan, its totally bad for your brain and stuff maaan... Please.

And the point being here folks, newspapers, online or otherwise, who perpetuate this bullshit, are in my mind, right wing propaganda yellow press whores. My point still stands. Thanks and have a nice day. *throws down the microphone and walks off stage
This bullshit has been going down in England for years. Remember professor Nutt and all that shit? I would not waste your time.
 

see4

Well-Known Member
This bullshit has been going down in England for years. Remember professor Nutt and all that shit? I would not waste your time.
Oh I know, but it's always fun to see people like @pabloesqobar try to defend bullshit. No matter how intelligently condescending he appears to be, it's still bullshit in the end.
 

see4

Well-Known Member
Good grief...I just realized it was see4, not Buck.
You people and your avatar games...:lol:
OG Kush helps with the illusion, too.
I should have realized something was up when the giant sig pics were missing.
You see? Brain damage, kids...
This is your brain. This is your brain vapourized by plasma. This is toast with a sunny-side up egg on top.
Any questions?
Don't you know? We are the same person. Speaking of which, where's TBoneJack? or whatever his name was.
 
Top