39 posts in this topic

 I never said 100% match. that's a straw man. If you want to see why mice and rats are used you can go and study it for yourself. I sure as hell don't get paid to educate you and I am not going to sit here and write up why mice and rats are used and why they are appropriate when you will probably not even bother to read it anyway. Go use google.

 

So you can prove that the entire scientific community which as been using mice and rats for decades have been wrong this whole time?

 

you are misunderstanding what I mean,read below.

 

What field do you work in again? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion would I be willing to be money on the fact it isn't a scientific one?

 

i work in tech, but I worked in the dietary supplement industry while completing my degree. ive probably read a million studies in my day.  

 

 

 

vcfan demands others offer proof of their claims, makes claim of proof, doesn't offer it. :s

 

I don't disagree. The tobacco industry used to hire scientists to dispute claims about cancer. The climate change denialists hire scientists of obfuscate the reality of man-made climate change. But all of this has nothing to do with the fact you can't prove this study or this group has any ulterior motive nor does it have anything to do with your assertion that the testing method is flawed because it uses mice.

 

Try to stay on the point you're defending.

 

 

you know the first part doesn't need proof. its not something you have to go far and wide to get. if you haven't been living under a rock you would have heard and seen such examples already. it takes a few seconds to get your proof. asking for proof for something a little obscure is totally different.

 

And I just think youre missing my point entirely. nobody is disputing why mice are used for testing. I said this study means nothing in that because it hasn't been tested on humans,it may or may not apply to us, NOT because its a waste of time for testing or scientific purposes. I never said such a thing,and this is what you're accusing me of,which isn't true. I just said we don't match up 100% to these animals we are testing,so test results shouldn't be taken as truth until we test on ourselves.

 

People are going to read this and to them it will become a fact that will get spread around. I don't even smoke marijuana so its not like im using illogical points to defend something I like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still better than anything else that could be considered a drug. Again people the key to life is moderation. 

Exactly. Too much of anything is bad for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even sex ? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even sex ? :p

If you do it enough to get a road rash, yup ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to start a Teflon thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Even sex ? :p

Yes. I know from experience too. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should try getting out more often. Steve Jobs, Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Branson, ect. all bright pot smoking people. 

 

 

 

Like everything else in life, moderation is key.

 

Pot smokers is not the same as "tried pot a few times in school"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pot smokers is not the same as "tried pot a few times in school"

 

I am fairly sure Carl Sagan was a recreational pot smoker. I cannot speak for the rest.

 

 

 

you know the first part doesn't need proof. its not something you have to go far and wide to get. if you haven't been living under a rock you would have heard and seen such examples already. it takes a few seconds to get your proof. asking for proof for something a little obscure is totally different.

 

 

 You said "animals testing means absolutely nothing". That is absolutely false. I then invited you to do and read why animals are used for testing. If you did you would see why your "absolutely nothing" statement was false.

 

 

nobody is disputing why mice are used for testing.

 

You said "Animal testing means absolutely nothing". If you think it means nothing than you obviously think testing on animals has no benefit. This is demonstrably false. You then said "if you believe mice and humans match 100% gene expression patterns then you are out to lunch" - a claim I never made - but one which made it seem as if you beleiuved because we don't match identically no results from an animal study is valid. Again, false.

 

 

I said this study means nothing in that because it hasn't been tested on humans,it may or may not apply to us, NOT because its a waste of time for testing or scientific purposes. I never said such a thing,and this is what you're accusing me of,which isn't true. I just said we don't match up 100% to these animals we are testing,so test results shouldn't be taken as truth until we test on ourselves.

 

People are going to read this and to them it will become a fact that will get spread around. I don't even smoke marijuana so its not like im using illogical points to defend something I like.

 

 

The kind of testing they would be doing on mice wouldn't be ethical to do on humans. They're exposing them to lots of the active ingredient of the drug then administering other drugs to counter the effect. After the experiment they no doubt dissect the animals and study them. In this case they would study the brain of the animal.

 

Mice are used because their genetics and biology are very close to humans and we can easily replicate conditions that effect us in mice and then conduct tests on them. If you read the title it says "may cause brain inflammation" -- because of our shared genes and biology something that has an effect on mice may effect us in the same way -- No one is being asked to take this as wholesale truth. If people on the internet or the idiot mainstream media misinterpret the findings and spread nonsense, which I entirely agree with you that they sometimes do, it has no bearing on the validity of the study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on the country, there will be a different number of pot smokers.    I have seen people who make $1000000+  smoke pot on regular basis.

Entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors, etc.   Extremely bright people.    

 

 

It can dumb you down, true, but everyone is affected.  I have also seen tons of people overdo it and loose all the motivation and act dumb, but those people were not much motivated and/or smart in the first place!

 

comparing to the damage alcohol does, weed is much safer.  yet a lot of smart successful people drink!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 You said "animals testing means absolutely nothing". That is absolutely false. I then invited you to do and read why animals are used for testing. If you did you would see why your "absolutely nothing" statement was false.

 

 

You said "Animal testing means absolutely nothing". If you think it means nothing than you obviously think testing on animals has no benefit. This is demonstrably false. You then said "if you believe mice and humans match 100% gene expression patterns then you are out to lunch" - a claim I never made - but one which made it seem as if you beleiuved because we don't match identically no results from an animal study is valid. Again, false.

 

 

The kind of testing they would be doing on mice wouldn't be ethical to do on humans. They're exposing them to lots of the active ingredient of the drug then administering other drugs to counter the effect. After the experiment they no doubt dissect the animals and study them. In this case they would study the brain of the animal.

 

Mice are used because their genetics and biology are very close to humans and we can easily replicate conditions that effect us in mice and then conduct tests on them. If you read the title it says "may cause brain inflammation" -- because of our shared genes and biology something that has an effect on mice may effect us in the same way -- No one is being asked to take this as wholesale truth. If people on the internet or the idiot mainstream media misinterpret the findings and spread nonsense, which I entirely agree with you that they sometimes do, it has no bearing on the validity of the study.

 

I explained what I meant. it means nothing as in, this isn't tested and proven to happen to humans,as things in the past that worked on animals didn't translate to humans. I agreed that they can gain insight testing on animals, but it still doesn't give us definitie answers because these animals are not humans,and there are differences in how some of their cells function. I do realize no one is asked to take this as a wholesale truth, but how many times have you read articles in magazines and online about how scientists cured cancer, or HIV, or diabetes?  that's my beef, not the actual testing on animals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I explained what I meant. it means nothing as in, this isn't tested and proven to happen to humans,as things in the past that worked on animals didn't translate to humans. I agreed that they can gain insight testing on animals, but it still doesn't give us definitie answers because these animals are not humans,and there are differences in how some of their cells function. I do realize no one is asked to take this as a wholesale truth, but how many times have you read articles in magazines and online about how scientists cured cancer, or HIV, or diabetes?  that's my beef, not the actual testing on animals. 

 

Actually never. I have seen articles about shrinking tumors and increasing resistance but I have never read articles saying "Scientists cure cancer in rats".

 

Even if they do exist that would be magazines exaggerating breakthroughs to sell magazines or sites creating click-bait for page views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arnold Schwarzenegger..all bright pot smoking people. 

Do tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually never. I have seen articles about shrinking tumors and increasing resistance but I have never read articles saying "Scientists cure cancer in rats".

 

Even if they do exist that would be magazines exaggerating breakthroughs to sell magazines or sites creating click-bait for page views.

 

Oh it happens, but only in tabloids.  And tbh, if someone believes anything they read in a tabloid, they probably ARE whacked out on something causing them brain inflammation! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comparing to the damage alcohol does, weed is much safer.  yet a lot of smart successful people drink!

 

My thoughts exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.