Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 384 posts

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#361

Post by Maursault »

asveikau wrote: post #338
Maursault wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can not win an argument promoting false facts. Far less than one percent of the population will suffer a psychotic episode, between 0.25% and 0.64%. If being told what to do is intolerable to you, then stop telling others what to do. You are not in charge, nor are those with your false beliefs.

You seem confused here. I never told you what to do. Not once. I've said it explicitly several times and you appear not to be reading. Nor have I given you any false information. I said single digit percentages for psychotic disorders. About 4% of the population has bipolar (bipolar I can involve psychosis) and about 1% has schizophrenia.

> Single digit percentages of all humans have a psychotic disorder.

This is false, and that was what I meant. BPD is not a psychotic disorder, even if psychotic episodes are possible, they are rare. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder, but at a rate of 0.45%, not 1%.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#362

Post by Maursault »

hellohowareu wrote: post #346
Maursault wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the criticism boils down to "you aren't doing what we tell you to do," or "I don't approve what you do with your body," then, oh, no, when directed towards women by men this is nothing less than misogyny, and denying it doesn't cut the mustard. Leave women alone, and then we'll know you're not a misogynist. Otherwise, the descriptor fits.

Saying something is real, does not make that thing real. You are not the gatekeeper of what is and is not "misogyny". Leave women alone? Are women somehow ordained with a shield against any criticism? No one can ever criticize a woman-- following that logic... women are always correct? That sounds authoritarian to me. Definition of authoritarian 1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority 2 : of, r…

The issue is no one has any place scrutinizing or judging another because it is hypocritical. That is the wisdom behind Matthew's 7th chapter. If you are perfect and make no mistakes, only then you can judge without hypocrisy. People do what they want, and they live with and are responsible for their decisions. Scrutiny from the peanut gallery doesn't enter into it. Mind yourself, and no one else, but if your compulsion and distaste gets the better of you regarding any behavior whatsoever of pregnant women, be prepared to be labelled, justly or not.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#363

Post by asveikau »

Maursault wrote: post #361
asveikau wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem confused here. I never told you what to do. Not once. I've said it explicitly several times and you appear not to be reading. Nor have I given you any false information. I said single digit percentages for psychotic disorders. About 4% of the population has bipolar (bipolar I can involve psychosis) and about 1% has schizophrenia.

> Single digit percentages of all humans have a psychotic disorder. This is false, and that was what I meant. BPD is not a psychotic disorder, even if psychotic episodes are possible, they are rare. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder, but at a rate of 0.45%, not 1%.

Psychotic episodes with bipolar are not rare.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#364

Post by Maursault »

diab0lic wrote: post #341
Maursault wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a straw man argument. You have introduced alcohol to set up your straw man so that you can attack it. As such, your argument is fallacious, and would be no different if you had used bleach instead of alcohol. Neither bleach nor alcohol is cannabis.

Let me be very clear, I am not disagreeing with your point. Nor am I agreeing. I’m simply stating that your conclusion does not follow for the form of your argument, and providing an alternative example.

Now you are being evasive, and your example is still a straw man.

The form of my argument is that it is significant that there are not massive amounts of psychosis historically correlated to cannabis use, like we should have seen if this study is valid, and we really would have noticed. You're suggesting no one noticed alcohol was bad, either, but this is false. In fact, alcohol has been widely recognized as being destructive since it first became popular. That no one did any studies on the effect on fetuses until the 1970's is incidental, as anyone should have been able to guess this correctly without a formal clinical study.

Regardless of alcohol being a poor replacement for cannabis in example or metaphor, it is still a straw man argument.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#365

Post by jdougan »

dylan604 wrote: post #264
itsoktocry wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However some of the conversations on the use of cannabis recently have changed from “it’s a drug, but it isn’t that bad” to “it is completely harmless”. Or even worse, "it's nothing but beneficial!". And yes, I'm a semi-regular "user"

>Or even worse, "it's nothing but beneficial!" This is something I've seen too. There are people that are pro-medical cannabis because of it's miraculous uses to the point of only using different forms of cannabis in lieu of any other medication. While I believe there's some things cannabis is great for, but I'm not convinced it's that magical. Since we've been prevented from studying it properly because of bullshit…

Yeah, this should have been studied 30 years ago.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#366

Post by Maursault »

asveikau wrote: post #363
Maursault wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Single digit percentages of all humans have a psychotic disorder. This is false, and that was what I meant. BPD is not a psychotic disorder, even if psychotic episodes are possible, they are rare. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder, but at a rate of 0.45%, not 1%.

Psychotic episodes with bipolar are not rare.

It is estimated only about 5-10% of everyone in the world will ever experience a psychotic episode in their lifetime. If 4% are bipolar, then only 0.2%-0.4% of those will ever experience a psychotic episode, making it quite rare. Among bipolar patients, the real danger is depression, as they will all experience that. But if they do experience a psychotic episode, it is usually the first indicator of BPD, leading to diagnosis, education, and treatment.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#367

Post by nl »

Maursault wrote: post #366
asveikau wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychotic episodes with bipolar are not rare.

It is estimated only about 5-10% of everyone in the world will ever experience a psychotic episode in their lifetime. If 4% are bipolar, then only 0.2%-0.4% of those will ever experience a psychotic episode, making it quite rare. Among bipolar patients, the real danger is depression, as they will all experience that. But if they do experience a psychotic episode, it is usually the first indicator of BPD, leading to d…

Psychotic symptoms occur at a higher rate in people with BPD than in the general population.

> What are psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder?

> Psychotic symptoms are sometimes found in people with bipolar disorder, particularly in the manic phase of the illness.. [snip] ..

> Moderate quality evidence suggests the prevalence of visual hallucinations in people with affective psychosis is around 15%, and the prevalence of auditory hallucinations is around 28% [snip. These rates] are higher than general population rates (7%).

https://library.neura.edu.au/bipolar-disorder/signs-and-symp...

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#368

Post by [deleted] »

heavyset_go wrote: post #287
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting point. Do you have any of your preferred research papers handy? I went searching just now out of curiosity and did find this one [1] which indeed affirms what you're saying. Personally, I reach for ghee when I want a neutral oil (e.g., for cooking scrambled eggs). And, like you, I reach for some fancy EVOO for everything else. I have to confess my approach to get here was a lot less scientific though…

I actually have them saved in my personal wiki, when I'm on my home network I'll bring it up and post the citations I've collected here.

[deleted]

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#369

Post by heavyset_go »

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote: post #204
heavyset_go wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago, I did some reading on PubMed to figure out what fats are best to cook with. Came to the conclusion that extra virgin olive oil, which papers use the acronym "EVOO" for, is best for frying, whether that's pan or deep frying, and cooking in general. It's high in monounsaturated fats and studies found that various compounds in EVOO prevent the formation of free radicals, volatile organic compounds, alde…

Very interesting point. Do you have any of your preferred research papers handy? I went searching just now out of curiosity and did find this one [1] which indeed affirms what you're saying. Personally, I reach for ghee when I want a neutral oil (e.g., for cooking scrambled eggs). And, like you, I reach for some fancy EVOO for everything else. I have to confess my approach to get here was a lot less scientific though…

Here's what I was able to find from my notes:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12090031

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15291498/

https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e363

Pretty sure they're all on SciHub.

Here's some about heat, frying and other methods of cooking when it comes to creating mutagenic compounds:

https://www.marksdailyapple.com/safe-cooking-temperatures/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29911312

https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/chemic...

Last one is about acrylamide, which I believe there is little evidence to believe it's harmful (it's been a while since I've actually looked at studies on it), but I assume the conditions that produce it also end up producing compounds that can be harmful.

Re: Prenatal cannabis exposure associated with mental disorders in children

#370

Post by serverholic »

seizethegdgap wrote: post #358
serverholic wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not going to stop using accurate language just because it makes you feel bad. They are a cult. It’s a group of people who fervently worship an ideology filled with hatred, falsehoods, manipulation and deception. They even have original sin, and excommunication. All under the guise of protecting oppressed people. However if they actually cared about the causes they claim, then they would try to make their ideas as…

Which ideas are hard for normal people to digest?

I swear I see a new bit of insanity every day.

But for starters how about the idea that a trans-man doesn’t just identify as a man, but is a man. In other words, embracing delusion and denying biology.

Or how about girls feeling uncomfortable in their own bathrooms and locker rooms because a biological male is allowed in their safe space?

Or how about the stuff that’s just plain silly. Like this recent Men’s Health article where a straight man is told that his preference for a real vagina is actually a vulva fetish and that he’s actually bisexual since “technically” a woman and a trans-man can both have vulvas.

https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a41018711/sexplain-it-v...

I could honestly go on and on and on.

Post reply on HN