Chronic Cannabis Use May Cause Brain Inflammation

By Hum
in Science News & Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

vcfan

Posted
Posted

 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.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

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"

Grand Master

compl3x

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

+Random Stranger Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

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!

Grand Master

vcfan

Posted
Posted

 

 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. 

Grand Master

compl3x

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

FloatingFatMan

Posted
Posted

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

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2, urges IT admins to prepare for release

      By xillibit · Posted

      I think there will be a 27H1 for actual users of 26H1 The 25h2 supports ARM too : Snapdragon X, Snapdragon X Plus and Snapdragon X Elite
    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote

      By LoneWolfSL · Posted

      Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Nothing kills CMF Phone 2 Pro's successor due to rising memory prices

      By Lamp0 · Posted

      It was always going to be nothing.
    • Windows 11 version 26H2 is now available for testing in the latest preview build

      By Captain_Eric · Posted

      Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds

      By hellowalkman · Posted

      The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!