cannabis woes

(Axel of the North!) said:

i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
idea:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)

still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
"alive".

but here's some other interesting information:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524865.700

as for low-oxygen environments.. hypoxia or whatever it is called..i
wonder if piracetam could help with this? anyone out there "know"?
anyone with experience with both of these mind alterants?

i suppose i should feel lucky i'm not psychotic. or... am i?
--
"The brightly shining mind is never absent but is
colored by the thoughts and emotions that people
put upon it. If you were to see the luminous
freedom of this mind, you would cultivate it
before any other, keeping it free from all
attachments."

-Anguttara Nikaya

Maybe you could just cut way back on smoking dope and start practicing
what you write in your sig.

Nah, that'd be too simple and sensible, right?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:16:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Axel of the North!)

Quoted message said:

i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
idea:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)

still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
"alive".

but here's some other interesting information:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975

It's nonsensical. Note that the article starts with a single fact,
the blood flow, and from there the "scientist" DREAMS UP reasons that
it might be this that or the other thing that's harmful. The single
fact, that blood flow increases, could also be "dreamed" to be
evidence for increased abilities in MJ users, perhaps for increased
artistic abilities, or for decreased incidence of migraines, or
whatever the dreamers particular axe to grind is.

Over 20 years ago I had to write a "research paper" for a college
class. My research was on the DOCUMENTED harm, if any was to be
found, for MJ use. After an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as the
college library allowed, this was before the Internet) I discovered
that there was not a single meaningful study that showed any concrete
harm from MJ use. And that was in spite of the millions the gvt had
poured into trying to find something. Since that time all that's ever
been found is that the smoke is harmful, even more so then cigarettes,
but those who bring this up almost always fail to adjust for the fact
that people who smoke cigs usually smoke FAR more cigs then MJ users
smoke joints. And they found decreased motility of sperm, not that
that's ever stopped a MJ user from getting someone pregnant. There is
some indication that it's detrimental to a child's development process
but even that's somewhat questionable because they base it on children
who have problems and who go to counselors and shrinks. Well duh,
kind of a self-selecting data pool. I'm not advocating kids, or
anyone else, use it, but I get sick to death of the constant anti-MJ
propaganda from the gvt and their grant-sucking "scientists". Despite
the almost total lack of harmful effects of MJ despite decades of gvt
attempts to find some, there have been several POSITIVE findings from
MJ use as a medical drug, glaucoma, cancer pain, etc even though the
gvt refuses to admit anyone gets help from MJ.

Quoted message said:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524865.700

as for low-oxygen environments.. hypoxia or whatever it is called..i
wonder if piracetam could help with this? anyone out there "know"?
anyone with experience with both of these mind alterants?

i suppose i should feel lucky i'm not psychotic. or... am i?

JMW said:

(Axel of the North!) said:

i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
idea:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)

still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
"alive".

but here's some other interesting information:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524865.700

as for low-oxygen environments.. hypoxia or whatever it is called..i
wonder if piracetam could help with this? anyone out there "know"?
anyone with experience with both of these mind alterants?

i suppose i should feel lucky i'm not psychotic. or... am i?
--
"The brightly shining mind is never absent but is
colored by the thoughts and emotions that people
put upon it. If you were to see the luminous
freedom of this mind, you would cultivate it
before any other, keeping it free from all
attachments."

-Anguttara Nikaya

Maybe you could just cut way back on smoking dope and start practicing
what you write in your sig.

Nah, that'd be too simple and sensible, right?

He certainly appears to be taking *some* mind-bending substance to
excess, which is a shame as his contributions were once of the highest
calibre and brilliantly funny!! <sigh>

Have a great weekend John - you know I will!! ;o)

TFIF!!

"Ashton Crusher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:16:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Axel of the North!)

Quoted message said:

i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
idea:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)

still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
"alive".

but here's some other interesting information:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975

It's nonsensical. Note that the article starts with a single fact,
the blood flow, and from there the "scientist" DREAMS UP reasons that
it might be this that or the other thing that's harmful. The single
fact, that blood flow increases, could also be "dreamed" to be
evidence for increased abilities in MJ users, perhaps for increased
artistic abilities, or for decreased incidence of migraines, or
whatever the dreamers particular axe to grind is.

Over 20 years ago I had to write a "research paper" for a college
class. My research was on the DOCUMENTED harm, if any was to be
found, for MJ use. After an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as the
college library allowed, this was before the Internet) I discovered
that there was not a single meaningful study that showed any concrete
harm from MJ use.

Trouble is, they haven't. There simply hasn't been enough study of pot.
Since the govt classified it as a schedule 1 or 2 or whatever drug,
researchers have to bend over and jump through so many hoops, that it is not
worth it to do the studies.

--

Dr. Dickie
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream."
-- Wallace Stevens

I guess the moron is so stoned, it was too much trouble to cut n paste
the article, leaving us to only read a few paragraphs without
"subscribing".

Ashton Crusher said:

(Axel of the North!) said:

i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
idea:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)

still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
"alive".

but here's some other interesting information:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975

It's nonsensical. Note that the article starts with a single fact,
the blood flow, and from there the "scientist" DREAMS UP reasons that
it might be this that or the other thing that's harmful. The single
fact, that blood flow increases, could also be "dreamed" to be
evidence for increased abilities in MJ users, perhaps for increased
artistic abilities, or for decreased incidence of migraines, or
whatever the dreamers particular axe to grind is.

Over 20 years ago I had to write a "research paper" for a college
class. My research was on the DOCUMENTED harm, if any was to be
found, for MJ use. After an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as the
college library allowed, this was before the Internet) I discovered
that there was not a single meaningful study that showed any concrete
harm from MJ use.

I would trust the "scientist" in quotes above a lot more than someone
who just wrote a college "research paper" (in quotes).

There is much more to research experience than to pillage through a
bunch of publications, and the opinion of an expert matters.

I like succinct Kafka's Parables and Paradoxes quote: "Leopards break
into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the sacrificial
pitchers; this is repeated over and over again; finally it can be
calculated in advance, and it becomes part of the ceremony."

Scientist in a sense is the one who is noticing the relations so that
predictions can be made and chances "calculated in advance". I haven't
seen anyone trained in epidemiology so naive as to not keep in mind
confounding factors that would also be obvious to you.

The integrity, scientific truth, and reputation matters more to a
scientist than funds. It simply shows your ignorance that you call
them 'grant-sucking "scientists"'. So that you know, NIH scientists
(link above) rarely write any grants, as it is an organization
conducting "high risk, high impact" research. This paradigm allows
investigators (people that are carefully selected through
international search) to wander in directions of their interest
without necessity to follow currently popular paths with easily
obtained money.

DZ said:

Ashton Crusher said:

(Axel of the North!) said:

i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
idea:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)

still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
"alive".

but here's some other interesting information:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975

It's nonsensical. Note that the article starts with a single fact,
the blood flow, and from there the "scientist" DREAMS UP reasons that
it might be this that or the other thing that's harmful. The single
fact, that blood flow increases, could also be "dreamed" to be
evidence for increased abilities in MJ users, perhaps for increased
artistic abilities, or for decreased incidence of migraines, or
whatever the dreamers particular axe to grind is.

Over 20 years ago I had to write a "research paper" for a college
class. My research was on the DOCUMENTED harm, if any was to be
found, for MJ use. After an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as the
college library allowed, this was before the Internet) I discovered
that there was not a single meaningful study that showed any concrete
harm from MJ use.

I would trust the "scientist" in quotes above a lot more than someone
who just wrote a college "research paper" (in quotes).

There is much more to research experience than to pillage through a
bunch of publications, and the opinion of an expert matters.

I like succinct Kafka's Parables and Paradoxes quote: "Leopards break
into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the sacrificial
pitchers; this is repeated over and over again; finally it can be
calculated in advance, and it becomes part of the ceremony."

Scientist in a sense is the one who is noticing the relations so that
predictions can be made and chances "calculated in advance". I haven't
seen anyone trained in epidemiology so naive as to not keep in mind
confounding factors that would also be obvious to you.

The integrity, scientific truth, and reputation matters more to a
scientist than funds. It simply shows your ignorance that you call
them 'grant-sucking "scientists"'. So that you know, NIH scientists
(link above) rarely write any grants, as it is an organization
conducting "high risk, high impact" research. This paradigm allows
investigators (people that are carefully selected through
international search) to wander in directions of their interest
without necessity to follow currently popular paths with easily
obtained money.

Excellent points.

However, your comments about the integrity of NIH scientists could be
subjected to claims of bias. 😉

Still, it would pale in comparison to the bias of those smoke dope
regularly, vehemently denying that their regular use is an addiction,
and vigorously contesting any possibility that long-term use might be
harmful.

DZ said:

Ashton Crusher said:

(Axel of the North!) said:

i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
idea:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)

still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
"alive".

but here's some other interesting information:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975

It's nonsensical. Note that the article starts with a single fact,
the blood flow, and from there the "scientist" DREAMS UP reasons that
it might be this that or the other thing that's harmful. The single
fact, that blood flow increases, could also be "dreamed" to be
evidence for increased abilities in MJ users, perhaps for increased
artistic abilities, or for decreased incidence of migraines, or
whatever the dreamers particular axe to grind is.

Over 20 years ago I had to write a "research paper" for a college
class. My research was on the DOCUMENTED harm, if any was to be
found, for MJ use. After an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as the
college library allowed, this was before the Internet) I discovered
that there was not a single meaningful study that showed any concrete
harm from MJ use.

I would trust the "scientist" in quotes above a lot more than someone
who just wrote a college "research paper" (in quotes).

Did you READ the reference article? The alleged scientist didn't
study ANYTHING but the blood flow. Every other single claim is
nothing but speculation with ZERO basis in fact. You don't need to
believe a single thing I found in my old research paper to understand
that this "Scientist" is talking out of his/her ass.

Quoted message said:

There is much more to research experience than to pillage through a
bunch of publications, and the opinion of an expert matters.

I like succinct Kafka's Parables and Paradoxes quote: "Leopards break
into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the sacrificial
pitchers; this is repeated over and over again; finally it can be
calculated in advance, and it becomes part of the ceremony."

Scientist in a sense is the one who is noticing the relations so that
predictions can be made and chances "calculated in advance". I haven't
seen anyone trained in epidemiology so naive as to not keep in mind
confounding factors that would also be obvious to you.

The integrity, scientific truth, and reputation matters more to a
scientist than funds. It simply shows your ignorance that you call
them 'grant-sucking "scientists"'. So that you know, NIH scientists
(link above) rarely write any grants, as it is an organization
conducting "high risk, high impact" research. This paradigm allows
investigators (people that are carefully selected through
international search) to wander in directions of their interest
without necessity to follow currently popular paths with easily
obtained money.

Ashton Crusher said:

DZ said:

Ashton Crusher said:

[email hidden] (Axel of the North!) wrote:
>i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
>(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
>infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
>consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
>idea:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)
>
>still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
>parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
>themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
>stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
>"alive".
>
>but here's some other interesting information:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975

It's nonsensical. Note that the article starts with a single fact,
the blood flow, and from there the "scientist" DREAMS UP reasons that
it might be this that or the other thing that's harmful. The single
fact, that blood flow increases, could also be "dreamed" to be
evidence for increased abilities in MJ users, perhaps for increased
artistic abilities, or for decreased incidence of migraines, or
whatever the dreamers particular axe to grind is.

Over 20 years ago I had to write a "research paper" for a college
class. My research was on the DOCUMENTED harm, if any was to be
found, for MJ use. After an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as the
college library allowed, this was before the Internet) I discovered
that there was not a single meaningful study that showed any concrete
harm from MJ use.

I would trust the "scientist" in quotes above a lot more than someone
who just wrote a college "research paper" (in quotes).

Did you READ the reference article? The alleged scientist didn't
study ANYTHING but the blood flow. Every other single claim is
nothing but speculation with ZERO basis in fact. You don't need to
believe a single thing I found in my old research paper to understand
that this "Scientist" is talking out of his/her ass.

Yes, I've read the Neurology paper, and more. That scientist
co-authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed publications on brain physiology,
biochemistry and addiction in best Neuro journals with the citation
rate that undoubtedly qualifies him as top 0.01% researcher (that's
Triple Nine Society for scientists so to say). Try that for "alleged"
"scientist".

As a matter of fact, instead of slandering people you know nothing
about, try to produce one REAL publication that is cited by anyone
just a single time.

That's the reason I said:

Quoted message said:

There is much more to research experience than to pillage through a
bunch of publications, and the opinion of an expert matters.

DZ

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I like succinct Kafka's Parables and Paradoxes quote: "Leopards break
into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the sacrificial
pitchers; this is repeated over and over again; finally it can be
calculated in advance, and it becomes part of the ceremony."

Scientist in a sense is the one who is noticing the relations so that
predictions can be made and chances "calculated in advance". I haven't
seen anyone trained in epidemiology so naive as to not keep in mind
confounding factors that would also be obvious to you.

The integrity, scientific truth, and reputation matters more to a
scientist than funds. It simply shows your ignorance that you call
them 'grant-sucking "scientists"'. So that you know, NIH scientists
(link above) rarely write any grants, as it is an organization
conducting "high risk, high impact" research. This paradigm allows
investigators (people that are carefully selected through
international search) to wander in directions of their interest
without necessity to follow currently popular paths with easily
obtained money.

Quoted message said:

I guess the moron is so stoned, it was too much trouble to cut n paste
the article, leaving us to only read a few paragraphs without
"subscribing".

wake up, POS. i've got a subscription and don't want to get in
trouble. who knows if they are monitoring this very newsgroup, even...
right now?! they're everywhere! AHHHHHH!!!
--
"The brightly shining mind is never absent but is
colored by the thoughts and emotions that people
put upon it. If you were to see the luminous
freedom of this mind, you would cultivate it
before any other, keeping it free from all
attachments."

-Anguttara Nikaya

DZ said:

Ashton Crusher said:

DZ said:

Ashton Crusher <[email hidden]> wrote:
> [email hidden] (Axel of the North!) wrote:
>>i remember once i said i wouldn't disagree with taking a young adult
>>(adolescent) into a nature setting and getting stoned with them, very
>>infrequently (if not once or twice a year), to experience the altered
>>consciousness of cannabis. but now i guess that's not such a good
>>idea:
>>
>>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18524921.300 (teaser)
>>
>>still, i don't know about once or twice in a few years, between
>>parents and children who have a respectful relationship with
>>themselves and each other, the kind of people who aren't seeking
>>stimulation through drugs and dangerous living in order to feel
>>"alive".
>>
>>but here's some other interesting information:
>>
>>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6975
>
> It's nonsensical. Note that the article starts with a single fact,
> the blood flow, and from there the "scientist" DREAMS UP reasons that
> it might be this that or the other thing that's harmful. The single
> fact, that blood flow increases, could also be "dreamed" to be
> evidence for increased abilities in MJ users, perhaps for increased
> artistic abilities, or for decreased incidence of migraines, or
> whatever the dreamers particular axe to grind is.
>
> Over 20 years ago I had to write a "research paper" for a college
> class. My research was on the DOCUMENTED harm, if any was to be
> found, for MJ use. After an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as the
> college library allowed, this was before the Internet) I discovered
> that there was not a single meaningful study that showed any concrete
> harm from MJ use.

I would trust the "scientist" in quotes above a lot more than someone
who just wrote a college "research paper" (in quotes).

Did you READ the reference article? The alleged scientist didn't
study ANYTHING but the blood flow. Every other single claim is
nothing but speculation with ZERO basis in fact. You don't need to
believe a single thing I found in my old research paper to understand
that this "Scientist" is talking out of his/her ass.

Yes, I've read the Neurology paper, and more. That scientist
co-authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed publications on brain physiology,
biochemistry and addiction in best Neuro journals with the citation
rate that undoubtedly qualifies him as top 0.01% researcher (that's
Triple Nine Society for scientists so to say). Try that for "alleged"
"scientist".

Then it's even more telling that the best they could come up with was
pure speculation on what the "blood flow change" might mean. It
tells me that in spite of ALL that other work, they could not point to
a single past research effort that would support their UNSUPPORTED
conjectures.

Quoted message said:

As a matter of fact, instead of slandering people you know nothing
about, try to produce one REAL publication that is cited by anyone
just a single time.

That's the reason I said:

Quoted message said:

There is much more to research experience than to pillage through a
bunch of publications, and the opinion of an expert matters.

DZ

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I like succinct Kafka's Parables and Paradoxes quote: "Leopards break
into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the sacrificial
pitchers; this is repeated over and over again; finally it can be
calculated in advance, and it becomes part of the ceremony."

Scientist in a sense is the one who is noticing the relations so that
predictions can be made and chances "calculated in advance". I haven't
seen anyone trained in epidemiology so naive as to not keep in mind
confounding factors that would also be obvious to you.

The integrity, scientific truth, and reputation matters more to a
scientist than funds. It simply shows your ignorance that you call
them 'grant-sucking "scientists"'. So that you know, NIH scientists
(link above) rarely write any grants, as it is an organization
conducting "high risk, high impact" research. This paradigm allows
investigators (people that are carefully selected through
international search) to wander in directions of their interest
without necessity to follow currently popular paths with easily
obtained money.

Ashton Crusher said:

DZ said:

That scientist co-authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed publications on
brain physiology, biochemistry and addiction in best Neuro journals
with the citation rate that undoubtedly qualifies him as top 0.01%
researcher (that's Triple Nine Society for scientists so to
say). Try that for "alleged" "scientist".

Then it's even more telling that the best they could come up with was
pure speculation on what the "blood flow change" might mean. It
tells me that in spite of ALL that other work, they could not point to
a single past research effort that would support their UNSUPPORTED
conjectures.

The focus and findings of the Neurology paper are well defined. No
speculations there. The study found that in comparison to control
subjects, marijuana users show

1) Elevated systolic and mean blood flow velocity in the MCA and ACA
(middle and left anterior cerebral arteries).
2) Higher PI values (measure of cerebrovascular resistance) in both
the MCA and ACA.
3) No significant improvements in systolic velocity during a month of
monitored abstinence.
4) Improvement in PI values only for the light and moderate marijuana
users during the month of monitored abstinence.

If you thought www.newscientist.com should present you with the
comprehensive overview of all other marijuana effects on health in a
science news review, then you're confused.

DZ

DZ said:

Ashton Crusher said:

DZ said:

That scientist co-authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed publications on
brain physiology, biochemistry and addiction in best Neuro journals
with the citation rate that undoubtedly qualifies him as top 0.01%
researcher (that's Triple Nine Society for scientists so to
say). Try that for "alleged" "scientist".

Then it's even more telling that the best they could come up with was
pure speculation on what the "blood flow change" might mean. It
tells me that in spite of ALL that other work, they could not point to
a single past research effort that would support their UNSUPPORTED
conjectures.

The focus and findings of the Neurology paper are well defined. No
speculations there. The study found that in comparison to control
subjects, marijuana users show

1) Elevated systolic and mean blood flow velocity in the MCA and ACA
(middle and left anterior cerebral arteries).
2) Higher PI values (measure of cerebrovascular resistance) in both
the MCA and ACA.
3) No significant improvements in systolic velocity during a month of
monitored abstinence.
4) Improvement in PI values only for the light and moderate marijuana
users during the month of monitored abstinence.

That's no fair, Dmitri. You're using big words.

Quoted message said:

If you thought www.newscientist.com should present you with the
comprehensive overview of all other marijuana effects on health in a
science news review, then you're confused.

Well, all the articles he read in High Times were pretty
comprehensive.

DZ said:

Ashton Crusher said:

DZ said:

That scientist co-authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed publications on
brain physiology, biochemistry and addiction in best Neuro journals
with the citation rate that undoubtedly qualifies him as top 0.01%
researcher (that's Triple Nine Society for scientists so to
say). Try that for "alleged" "scientist".

Then it's even more telling that the best they could come up with was
pure speculation on what the "blood flow change" might mean. It
tells me that in spite of ALL that other work, they could not point to
a single past research effort that would support their UNSUPPORTED
conjectures.

The focus and findings of the Neurology paper are well defined. No
speculations there. The study found that in comparison to control
subjects, marijuana users show

1) Elevated systolic and mean blood flow velocity in the MCA and ACA
(middle and left anterior cerebral arteries).
2) Higher PI values (measure of cerebrovascular resistance) in both
the MCA and ACA.
3) No significant improvements in systolic velocity during a month of
monitored abstinence.
4) Improvement in PI values only for the light and moderate marijuana
users during the month of monitored abstinence.

If you thought www.newscientist.com should present you with the
comprehensive overview of all other marijuana effects on health in a
science news review, then you're confused.

DZ

You still are weaseling. They stated in THAT article how these
results maybe, might, could, possible, sort of, who knows but lets say
it anyways mean this that and the other thing and they presented ZERO
basis for all their conjecturing. That's hardly the mark of good
science. It's what I'd expect from the kind of schlock [censored] that
appears in Psychology today and other similar rags that will print
just about anything.

JMW said:

DZ said:

Ashton Crusher said:

DZ wrote:
> That scientist co-authored nearly 200 peer-reviewed publications on
> brain physiology, biochemistry and addiction in best Neuro journals
> with the citation rate that undoubtedly qualifies him as top 0.01%
> researcher (that's Triple Nine Society for scientists so to
> say). Try that for "alleged" "scientist".

Then it's even more telling that the best they could come up with was
pure speculation on what the "blood flow change" might mean. It
tells me that in spite of ALL that other work, they could not point to
a single past research effort that would support their UNSUPPORTED
conjectures.

The focus and findings of the Neurology paper are well defined. No
speculations there. The study found that in comparison to control
subjects, marijuana users show

1) Elevated systolic and mean blood flow velocity in the MCA and ACA
(middle and left anterior cerebral arteries).
2) Higher PI values (measure of cerebrovascular resistance) in both
the MCA and ACA.
3) No significant improvements in systolic velocity during a month of
monitored abstinence.
4) Improvement in PI values only for the light and moderate marijuana
users during the month of monitored abstinence.

That's no fair, Dmitri. You're using big words.

Use Google and www.dictionary.com John, you'll soon be understanding
and keeping up, and you know I will always help if you get stuck!! ;o)

Have a great weekend old friend - you know I will!! ;o)

Ashton Crusher said:

DZ said:

The focus and findings of the Neurology paper are well defined. No
speculations there. The study found that in comparison to control
subjects, marijuana users show

1) Elevated systolic and mean blood flow velocity in the MCA and ACA
(middle and left anterior cerebral arteries).
2) Higher PI values (measure of cerebrovascular resistance) in both
the MCA and ACA.
3) No significant improvements in systolic velocity during a month of
monitored abstinence.
4) Improvement in PI values only for the light and moderate marijuana
users during the month of monitored abstinence.

If you thought www.newscientist.com should present you with the
comprehensive overview of all other marijuana effects on health in a
science news review, then you're confused.

You still are weaseling. They stated in THAT article how these
results maybe, might, could, possible, sort of, who knows but lets say
it anyways mean this that and the other thing and they presented ZERO
basis for all their conjecturing. That's hardly the mark of good
science. It's what I'd expect from the kind of schlock [censored] that
appears in Psychology today and other similar rags that will print
just about anything.

What do you know about journals' policy on publications? Have you ever
published a paper or served as a reviewer? Excuse me if I doubt that
you have any idea which journals would publish "just about
anything". Why don't you concentrate on the 4 points above. They are
the findings of their Neurology (2005) 64:488-493 paper. You asked if
I read it - so it would be fair to assume you did too, right?

Charles said:

David said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

>these are the regulars, MFW fiends. the british sod is not the only
>reason why the Old Timer core of our precious MFW has fragmented and
>departed.

Far out man, and yeah, er.... like that!

Have a great weekend Axel - you know I am!! ;o)

The British Sod

Charles, when you have a moment, could you translate what Axel said here?

It's a throw back to the 60's and Woodstock, which if you remember you
were never there!!

I was very young and having the time of my life; I had all my teen
years in the 60's - and university too. I have some of the happiest
memories!!

Have a great weekend David - I am!! ;o)

David - would you please translate what Charles is gibbering about in
the above?

Quite frankly, I'm getting pretty close to seriously considering to
killfile his British ass even if to take this opportunity before the
government ban on killfiles kicks in.

DZ

"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Charles said:

David said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >these are the regulars, MFW fiends. the british sod is not the only
> >reason why the Old Timer core of our precious MFW has fragmented and
> >departed.
>
> Far out man, and yeah, er.... like that!
>
> Have a great weekend Axel - you know I am!! ;o)
>
> The British Sod

Charles, when you have a moment, could you translate what Axel said

here?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's a throw back to the 60's and Woodstock, which if you remember you
were never there!!

I was very young and having the time of my life; I had all my teen
years in the 60's - and university too. I have some of the happiest
memories!!

Have a great weekend David - I am!! ;o)

David - would you please translate what Charles is gibbering about in
the above?

Quite frankly, I'm getting pretty close to seriously considering to
killfile his British ass even if to take this opportunity before the
government ban on killfiles kicks in.

DZ

Ha ha! I've spent the last 1/2 hour trying to figure it out - I"m running
out of translators - maybe the alleged killfile is the only solution

DZ said:

Charles said:

David said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >these are the regulars, MFW fiends. the british sod is not the only
> >reason why the Old Timer core of our precious MFW has fragmented and
> >departed.
>
> Far out man, and yeah, er.... like that!
>
> Have a great weekend Axel - you know I am!! ;o)
>
> The British Sod

Charles, when you have a moment, could you translate what Axel said here?

It's a throw back to the 60's and Woodstock, which if you remember you
were never there!!

I was very young and having the time of my life; I had all my teen
years in the 60's - and university too. I have some of the happiest
memories!!

Have a great weekend David - I am!! ;o)

David - would you please translate what Charles is gibbering about in
the above?

Quite frankly, I'm getting pretty close to seriously considering to
killfile his British ass even if to take this opportunity before the
government ban on killfiles kicks in.

Much more of your Bolshie silliness Dmitri and it's back in the
"alleged bozo bin" for you matey!! ;o)

Have a great weekend - you know I will!! ;o)