Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review
Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review
< * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611623/abstract>
Summary
Background
Whether cannabis can cause psychotic or affective symptoms that persist
beyond transient intoxication is unclear. We systematically reviewed the
evidence pertaining to cannabis use and occurrence of psychotic or
affective mental health outcomes.
Methods
We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI
Proceedings, ZETOC, BIOSIS, LILACS, and MEDCARIB from their inception to
September, 2006, searched reference lists of studies selected for
inclusion, and contacted experts. Studies were included if longitudinal
and population based. 35 studies from 4804 references were included. Data
extraction and quality assessment were done independently and in
duplicate.
Findings
There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who
had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI
1·20?1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with
greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09,
1·54?2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more
clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal
thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for
these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to
address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial
confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes.
Interpretation
The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of
psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication
effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The
uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be
resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here.
However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young
people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a
psychotic illness later in life.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
< * w w w .thelancet . com /journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607611623/abstract>
Summary
Background
Whether cannabis can cause psychotic or affective symptoms that persist
beyond transient intoxication is unclear. We systematically reviewed the
evidence pertaining to cannabis use and occurrence of psychotic or
affective mental health outcomes.
Methods
We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Knowledge, ISI
Proceedings, ZETOC, BIOSIS, LILACS, and MEDCARIB from their inception to
September, 2006, searched reference lists of studies selected for
inclusion, and contacted experts. Studies were included if longitudinal
and population based. 35 studies from 4804 references were included. Data
extraction and quality assessment were done independently and in
duplicate.
Findings
There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who
had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI
1·20?1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with
greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09,
1·54?2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more
clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal
thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for
these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to
address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial
confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes.
Interpretation
The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of
psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication
effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The
uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be
resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here.
However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young
people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a
psychotic illness later in life.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
Phil Stovell wrote:
> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>
> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
I haven't read the Lancet review yet so I don't know how they analysed
the data.
The best explanation that I've seen for rates of psychosis remaining
stable whilst cannabis use has gone up is that it's the psychosis
causing the cannabis use, not the other way around. The fact that people
with sccizophrenia are far more likely to use drugs is backed up by
scientific evidence:
Use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco by people with schizophrenia: case control study
* bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/4/321
Possibly not available without subscription. Quote from the conclusions:
"Problem use of drugs and alcohol by people with schizophrenia is greater than in the general population, but absolute numbers are small."
Phil Stovell wrote:
> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>
> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
I haven't read the Lancet review yet so I don't know how they analysed
the data.
The best explanation that I've seen for rates of psychosis remaining
stable whilst cannabis use has gone up is that it's the psychosis
causing the cannabis use, not the other way around. The fact that people
with sccizophrenia are far more likely to use drugs is backed up by
scientific evidence:
Use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco by people with schizophrenia: case control study
* bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/4/321
Possibly not available without subscription. Quote from the conclusions:
"Problem use of drugs and alcohol by people with schizophrenia is greater than in the general population, but absolute numbers are small."
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:22:59 +0000, Ollie Clark wrote:
> The best explanation that I've seen for rates of psychosis remaining
> stable whilst cannabis use has gone up is that it's the psychosis causing
> the cannabis use, not the other way around. The fact that people with
> sccizophrenia are far more likely to use drugs is backed up by scientific
> evidence:
>
> Use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco by people with schizophrenia: case
> control study * bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/4/321
>
> Possibly not available without subscription. Quote from the conclusions:
>
> "Problem use of drugs and alcohol by people with schizophrenia is greater
> than in the general population, but absolute numbers are small."
We've discussed the excessive use of tobacco by psychotics here before.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:22:59 +0000, Ollie Clark wrote:
> The best explanation that I've seen for rates of psychosis remaining
> stable whilst cannabis use has gone up is that it's the psychosis causing
> the cannabis use, not the other way around. The fact that people with
> sccizophrenia are far more likely to use drugs is backed up by scientific
> evidence:
>
> Use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco by people with schizophrenia: case
> control study * bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/4/321
>
> Possibly not available without subscription. Quote from the conclusions:
>
> "Problem use of drugs and alcohol by people with schizophrenia is greater
> than in the general population, but absolute numbers are small."
We've discussed the excessive use of tobacco by psychotics here before.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.27.14.37.06.525371@stovell.org.uk...
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:22:59 +0000, Ollie Clark wrote:
>
>> The best explanation that I've seen for rates of psychosis remaining
>> stable whilst cannabis use has gone up is that it's the psychosis causing
>> the cannabis use, not the other way around. The fact that people with
>> sccizophrenia are far more likely to use drugs is backed up by scientific
>> evidence:
>>
>> Use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco by people with schizophrenia: case
>> control study * bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/4/321
>>
>> Possibly not available without subscription. Quote from the conclusions:
>>
>> "Problem use of drugs and alcohol by people with schizophrenia is
>> greater
>> than in the general population, but absolute numbers are small."
>
> We've discussed the excessive use of tobacco by psychotics here before.
>
Stop trying to cloud the issue, it's Cannabis what done it guv. Drug war
psychosis is the real drug problem.
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.27.14.37.06.525371@stovell.org.uk...
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:22:59 +0000, Ollie Clark wrote:
>
>> The best explanation that I've seen for rates of psychosis remaining
>> stable whilst cannabis use has gone up is that it's the psychosis causing
>> the cannabis use, not the other way around. The fact that people with
>> sccizophrenia are far more likely to use drugs is backed up by scientific
>> evidence:
>>
>> Use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco by people with schizophrenia: case
>> control study * bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/4/321
>>
>> Possibly not available without subscription. Quote from the conclusions:
>>
>> "Problem use of drugs and alcohol by people with schizophrenia is
>> greater
>> than in the general population, but absolute numbers are small."
>
> We've discussed the excessive use of tobacco by psychotics here before.
>
Stop trying to cloud the issue, it's Cannabis what done it guv. Drug war
psychosis is the real drug problem.
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:22:59 +0000, Ollie Clark wrote:
>
>> The best explanation that I've seen for rates of psychosis remaining
>> stable whilst cannabis use has gone up is that it's the psychosis causing
>> the cannabis use, not the other way around. The fact that people with
>> sccizophrenia are far more likely to use drugs is backed up by scientific
>> evidence:
>>
>> Use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco by people with schizophrenia: case
>> control study * bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/4/321
>>
>> Possibly not available without subscription. Quote from the conclusions:
>>
>> "Problem use of drugs and alcohol by people with schizophrenia is greater
>> than in the general population, but absolute numbers are small."
>
> We've discussed the excessive use of tobacco by psychotics here before.
Strange isn't it?
A few more schizophrenics than non-schizophrenics use cannabis and
tobacco so cannabis must cause schizophrenia.
Two thirds of schizophrenics use tobacco so schizophrenia must cause
tobacco use.
Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:22:59 +0000, Ollie Clark wrote:
>
>> The best explanation that I've seen for rates of psychosis remaining
>> stable whilst cannabis use has gone up is that it's the psychosis causing
>> the cannabis use, not the other way around. The fact that people with
>> sccizophrenia are far more likely to use drugs is backed up by scientific
>> evidence:
>>
>> Use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco by people with schizophrenia: case
>> control study * bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/4/321
>>
>> Possibly not available without subscription. Quote from the conclusions:
>>
>> "Problem use of drugs and alcohol by people with schizophrenia is greater
>> than in the general population, but absolute numbers are small."
>
> We've discussed the excessive use of tobacco by psychotics here before.
Strange isn't it?
A few more schizophrenics than non-schizophrenics use cannabis and
tobacco so cannabis must cause schizophrenia.
Two thirds of schizophrenics use tobacco so schizophrenia must cause
tobacco use.
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>
> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk of
developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
people in reality.
You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
against 946.
The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>
> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk of
developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
people in reality.
You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
against 946.
The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
"Mark Whiteley" <mark.whiteley53@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
news:7ipqi.2815$rr5.1943@newsfe1-win.ntli . net ...
>
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
>> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
>> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with
>> the
>> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>>
>> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
>> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>
> Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02
> of
That should read 100/ 4,000,000
> people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>
> I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
> understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk
> of developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general
> population, thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small
> number of people in reality.
>
> You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
> against 946.
>
> The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look
> huge.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>>
>
>
"Mark Whiteley" <mark.whiteley53@ntlworld . com > wrote in message
news:7ipqi.2815$rr5.1943@newsfe1-win.ntli . net ...
>
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
>> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
>> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with
>> the
>> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>>
>> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
>> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>
> Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02
> of
That should read 100/ 4,000,000
> people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>
> I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
> understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk
> of developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general
> population, thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small
> number of people in reality.
>
> You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
> against 946.
>
> The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look
> huge.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
>>
>
>
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
On 27 jul, 18:44, "Mark Whiteley" <mark.whitele...@ntlworld . com >
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell" <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
> > works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
> > real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>
> > There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
> > as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>
> Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
> people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>
> I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
> understand what the 200% number relates to??
In a worst case scenario, if people use a lot of bud, the chances of
psychosis are increased to 200% (so that's a 2x increase). Compare
that to a 20x increase in the risk of developing lungcancer for heavy
tobacco smokers.
> It seems to me that the risk of
> developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
> thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
> people in reality.
>
> You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
> against 946.
>
> The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
On 27 jul, 18:44, "Mark Whiteley" <mark.whitele...@ntlworld . com >
wrote:
> "Phil Stovell" <p...@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
> > works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
> > real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>
> > There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
> > as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>
> Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
> people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>
> I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
> understand what the 200% number relates to??
In a worst case scenario, if people use a lot of bud, the chances of
psychosis are increased to 200% (so that's a 2x increase). Compare
that to a 20x increase in the risk of developing lungcancer for heavy
tobacco smokers.
> It seems to me that the risk of
> developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
> thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
> people in reality.
>
> You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
> against 946.
>
> The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
>> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
>> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
>> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>>
>> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
>> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>
> Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
> people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>
> I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
> understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk of
> developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
> thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
> people in reality.
AIUI, the risk is increased by that much. For light use the risk is 1.4
times and for heavy use the risk is doubled. In other words for very
heavy users, the slight risk of any psychotic outcome is doubled.
> You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
> against 946.
>
> The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
200% increase and 2 times increase are the same thing. The newspapers
have gone with headlines like:
"Cannabis causes 200% increase in psychosis risk"
which sounds terrible but all it means is the small risk of psychotic
outcomes is doubled in heavy cannabis users. They get away with it
because people are numerically illiterate.
Mark Whiteley wrote:
>
> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
>> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
>> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
>> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>>
>> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
>> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>
> Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
> people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>
> I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
> understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk of
> developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
> thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
> people in reality.
AIUI, the risk is increased by that much. For light use the risk is 1.4
times and for heavy use the risk is doubled. In other words for very
heavy users, the slight risk of any psychotic outcome is doubled.
> You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
> against 946.
>
> The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
200% increase and 2 times increase are the same thing. The newspapers
have gone with headlines like:
"Cannabis causes 200% increase in psychosis risk"
which sounds terrible but all it means is the small risk of psychotic
outcomes is doubled in heavy cannabis users. They get away with it
because people are numerically illiterate.
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
"Ollie Clark" <usenet@ollieclark . com > wrote in message
news:slrnfakntb.ugc.usenet@greedy.ardman.demon.co.uk...
> Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
>>> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
>>> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with
>>> the
>>> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>>>
>>> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
>>> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>>
>> Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02
>> of
>> people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>>
>> I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
>> understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk
>> of
>> developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general
>> population,
>> thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
>> people in reality.
>
> AIUI, the risk is increased by that much. For light use the risk is 1.4
> times and for heavy use the risk is doubled. In other words for very
> heavy users, the slight risk of any psychotic outcome is doubled.
>
>> You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
>> against 946.
>>
>> The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look
>> huge.
>
> 200% increase and 2 times increase are the same thing. The newspapers
> have gone with headlines like:
>
> "Cannabis causes 200% increase in psychosis risk"
>
> which sounds terrible but all it means is the small risk of psychotic
> outcomes is doubled in heavy cannabis users. They get away with it
> because people are numerically illiterate.
Hopefully those not able to figure it out will at least try and find out for
certain. IMHO that's unlikely to happen and yet another myth about cannabis
is formed. I only knew that it was wrong because of my interest in the
subject, and even though my maths isn't strong, it has to add up to the end
result whatever equation is used. IE 946 cases. Many don't follow it at all
and rely on the media to give a true account of things. The way it would be
in ideal world but very rarely happens in reality.
This seems to be targeted towards that. Tell people that there is a mental
health epidemic and then follow it up with cannabis use makes you 200% more
likely of developing psychosis. Propaganda and spin of the worst kind.
People naturally assume it means thousands of case not less than 1000.
5 years ago i would have said no way people would have the knowledge to see
through this but now I'm not so sure. Guess I'm just growing cynical.
However it is not obvious and they portray this as though it's all a done
and proven thing. Somebody else pointed out that it says in the paper the
link remains unproven but that bit is nicely glossed over.
I only hope people see how accurate things are about topics they are
interested in, they should be able to extrapolate that the media is likely
as incorrect about cannabis as it is about things they know about.
Banning the local will be the last thing this tyrannical government would
get away with before there was revolts in the streets, after all cigs are
next for the chopping block. They are even talking about revoking 24 hr
drink license.
People seem all to ready to accept what they are told by the government,
you'd have think they got the message with WMD lies. I'm not for anarchy but
this is becoming too totalitarian for my likeing.
The fact that the main parties conspire to give us no choice in the cannabis
issue is a classic example of democracy failing. The only good thing is we
can still debate it !! Those who disagree in other countries disappear. So
give thanks :-).
"Ollie Clark" <usenet@ollieclark . com > wrote in message
news:slrnfakntb.ugc.usenet@greedy.ardman.demon.co.uk...
> Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>
>> "Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.07.27.12.24.21.478806@stovell.org.uk...
>>> It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
>>> works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with
>>> the
>>> real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>>>
>>> There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
>>> as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>>
>> Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02
>> of
>> people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>>
>> I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
>> understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk
>> of
>> developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general
>> population,
>> thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
>> people in reality.
>
> AIUI, the risk is increased by that much. For light use the risk is 1.4
> times and for heavy use the risk is doubled. In other words for very
> heavy users, the slight risk of any psychotic outcome is doubled.
>
>> You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
>> against 946.
>>
>> The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look
>> huge.
>
> 200% increase and 2 times increase are the same thing. The newspapers
> have gone with headlines like:
>
> "Cannabis causes 200% increase in psychosis risk"
>
> which sounds terrible but all it means is the small risk of psychotic
> outcomes is doubled in heavy cannabis users. They get away with it
> because people are numerically illiterate.
Hopefully those not able to figure it out will at least try and find out for
certain. IMHO that's unlikely to happen and yet another myth about cannabis
is formed. I only knew that it was wrong because of my interest in the
subject, and even though my maths isn't strong, it has to add up to the end
result whatever equation is used. IE 946 cases. Many don't follow it at all
and rely on the media to give a true account of things. The way it would be
in ideal world but very rarely happens in reality.
This seems to be targeted towards that. Tell people that there is a mental
health epidemic and then follow it up with cannabis use makes you 200% more
likely of developing psychosis. Propaganda and spin of the worst kind.
People naturally assume it means thousands of case not less than 1000.
5 years ago i would have said no way people would have the knowledge to see
through this but now I'm not so sure. Guess I'm just growing cynical.
However it is not obvious and they portray this as though it's all a done
and proven thing. Somebody else pointed out that it says in the paper the
link remains unproven but that bit is nicely glossed over.
I only hope people see how accurate things are about topics they are
interested in, they should be able to extrapolate that the media is likely
as incorrect about cannabis as it is about things they know about.
Banning the local will be the last thing this tyrannical government would
get away with before there was revolts in the streets, after all cigs are
next for the chopping block. They are even talking about revoking 24 hr
drink license.
People seem all to ready to accept what they are told by the government,
you'd have think they got the message with WMD lies. I'm not for anarchy but
this is becoming too totalitarian for my likeing.
The fact that the main parties conspire to give us no choice in the cannabis
issue is a classic example of democracy failing. The only good thing is we
can still debate it !! Those who disagree in other countries disappear. So
give thanks :-).
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental
Ollie Clark wrote:
> Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote...
>>
>>>It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
>>>works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
>>>real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>>>
>>>There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
>>>as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>>
>>Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
>>people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>>
>>I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
>>understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk of
>>developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
>>thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
>>people in reality.
>
>
> AIUI, the risk is increased by that much. For light use the risk is 1.4
> times and for heavy use the risk is doubled. In other words for very
> heavy users, the slight risk of any psychotic outcome is doubled.
>
>
>>You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
>>against 946.
>>
>>The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
...
There is a more fundamental problem with all such studies. Remember
that they are looking at correlations. A correlation does not in itself
imply cause and effect. If you do a sufficiently sophisticated
statistical (multivariate) analysis that accounts for all possible
confounding factors, you can presumably identify independent
relationships. The problem is that it is often difficult to identify
all the possible confounding factors.
It's the same basic argument that associates drugs (including alcohol)
with crime. But of course people who habitually engage in criminal
behavior generally have personalities that gravitate toward a number of
activities, including drug use, smoking, sexual promiscuity, etc., etc.
The point is that the drug use and other activities are a result of
the underlying personality disorder. One does not generally cause
another in itself--drugs do not themselves cause the criminal activity
any more than smoking does.
Similarly there may well be some unknown underlying factor(s) associated
with both psychosis and marijuana use in this population.
Ollie Clark wrote:
> Mark Whiteley wrote:
>>"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote...
>>
>>>It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
>>>works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
>>>real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
>>>
>>>There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
>>>as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
>>
>>Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
>>people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
>>
>>I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
>>understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk of
>>developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
>>thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
>>people in reality.
>
>
> AIUI, the risk is increased by that much. For light use the risk is 1.4
> times and for heavy use the risk is doubled. In other words for very
> heavy users, the slight risk of any psychotic outcome is doubled.
>
>
>>You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
>>against 946.
>>
>>The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
...
There is a more fundamental problem with all such studies. Remember
that they are looking at correlations. A correlation does not in itself
imply cause and effect. If you do a sufficiently sophisticated
statistical (multivariate) analysis that accounts for all possible
confounding factors, you can presumably identify independent
relationships. The problem is that it is often difficult to identify
all the possible confounding factors.
It's the same basic argument that associates drugs (including alcohol)
with crime. But of course people who habitually engage in criminal
behavior generally have personalities that gravitate toward a number of
activities, including drug use, smoking, sexual promiscuity, etc., etc.
The point is that the drug use and other activities are a result of
the underlying personality disorder. One does not generally cause
another in itself--drugs do not themselves cause the criminal activity
any more than smoking does.
Similarly there may well be some unknown underlying factor(s) associated
with both psychosis and marijuana use in this population.
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:41:13 -0400,"Dr. Zarkov", wrote
> Ollie Clark wrote:
> > Mark Whiteley wrote:
> >>"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote...
> >>
> >>>It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
> >>>works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
> >>>real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
> >>>
> >>>There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
> >>>as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
> >>
> >>Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
> >>people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
> >>
> >>I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
> >>understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk of
> >>developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
> >>thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
> >>people in reality.
> >
> >
> > AIUI, the risk is increased by that much. For light use the risk is 1.4
> > times and for heavy use the risk is doubled. In other words for very
> > heavy users, the slight risk of any psychotic outcome is doubled.
> >
> >
> >>You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
> >>against 946.
> >>
> >>The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
> ...
>
>
> There is a more fundamental problem with all such studies. Remember
> that they are looking at correlations. A correlation does not in itself
> imply cause and effect. If you do a sufficiently sophisticated
> statistical (multivariate) analysis that accounts for all possible
> confounding factors, you can presumably identify independent
> relationships. The problem is that it is often difficult to identify
> all the possible confounding factors.
>
> It's the same basic argument that associates drugs (including alcohol)
> with crime. But of course people who habitually engage in criminal
> behavior generally have personalities that gravitate toward a number of
> activities, including drug use, smoking, sexual promiscuity, etc., etc.
> The point is that the drug use and other activities are a result of
> the underlying personality disorder. One does not generally cause
> another in itself--drugs do not themselves cause the criminal activity
> any more than smoking does.
That is called a risk taking personality that indulges in those
behaviors along with people who ride motorcycles, fly experimental
aircraft and who long ago crawled out of the sea and attempted to
live on the land, later on standing up and walking however poorly
on two legs to better see the lay of the land.
I don't think it is in any way a personality disorder though
it frequently leads to problems as a consequence but then so does
living within the mental and physical limitation of the head.
Eating too much and breeding too often, driving too far to
get to work and not getting enough exercise are the most common
things seen among the herd/
>
> Similarly there may well be some unknown underlying factor(s) associated
> with both psychosis and marijuana use in this population.
Well of course they would have to be crazy to use illegal drugs
would they not? Think about the legal consequences and you will see
that they must be mad(or risk takers).
later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)
--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:41:13 -0400,"Dr. Zarkov", wrote
> Ollie Clark wrote:
> > Mark Whiteley wrote:
> >>"Phil Stovell" <phil@stovell.org.uk> wrote...
> >>
> >>>It's interesting to note that scientists have calculated the effect. It
> >>>works out as 800 people getting ill, which agrees remarkably well with the
> >>>real figure of 946. If only string theory could make such predictions.
> >>>
> >>>There's still the problem, however, of psychosis rates remaining stable,
> >>>as pointed out by one of the Lancet authors. That needs to be explained.
> >>
> >>Out of 4 million users 946 get ill, that's 4,000,000 /100 * 946..... 0.02 of
> >>people, surely acceptable when compared with other substances.
> >>
> >>I don't think I'm following the maths correctly though. I don't really
> >>understand what the 200% number relates to?? It seems to me that the risk of
> >>developing psychosis is exceptionally small even in the general population,
> >>thus 200% sounds a lot but it is still only a very very small number of
> >>people in reality.
> >
> >
> > AIUI, the risk is increased by that much. For light use the risk is 1.4
> > times and for heavy use the risk is doubled. In other words for very
> > heavy users, the slight risk of any psychotic outcome is doubled.
> >
> >
> >>You've checked the maths Phil and your saying it works out to 800 people
> >>against 946.
> >>
> >>The authors have choosen a number which appears to make the risk look huge.
> ...
>
>
> There is a more fundamental problem with all such studies. Remember
> that they are looking at correlations. A correlation does not in itself
> imply cause and effect. If you do a sufficiently sophisticated
> statistical (multivariate) analysis that accounts for all possible
> confounding factors, you can presumably identify independent
> relationships. The problem is that it is often difficult to identify
> all the possible confounding factors.
>
> It's the same basic argument that associates drugs (including alcohol)
> with crime. But of course people who habitually engage in criminal
> behavior generally have personalities that gravitate toward a number of
> activities, including drug use, smoking, sexual promiscuity, etc., etc.
> The point is that the drug use and other activities are a result of
> the underlying personality disorder. One does not generally cause
> another in itself--drugs do not themselves cause the criminal activity
> any more than smoking does.
That is called a risk taking personality that indulges in those
behaviors along with people who ride motorcycles, fly experimental
aircraft and who long ago crawled out of the sea and attempted to
live on the land, later on standing up and walking however poorly
on two legs to better see the lay of the land.
I don't think it is in any way a personality disorder though
it frequently leads to problems as a consequence but then so does
living within the mental and physical limitation of the head.
Eating too much and breeding too often, driving too far to
get to work and not getting enough exercise are the most common
things seen among the herd/
>
> Similarly there may well be some unknown underlying factor(s) associated
> with both psychosis and marijuana use in this population.
Well of course they would have to be crazy to use illegal drugs
would they not? Think about the legal consequences and you will see
that they must be mad(or risk takers).
later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)
--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:05:53 +0100, Phil Stovell wrote:
> There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who
> had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI
> 1·20?1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect,
> with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09,
> 1·54?2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more
> clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression,
> suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately.
> Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts
> were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A
> substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and
> affective outcomes.
It must have got stronger. Super skunk increases psychosis risk by 41%,
Daily Mail Sensemilla more than doubles it.
"Frequent cannabis use more than doubles the risk of developing psychotic
illnesses such as schizophrenia, according to the most rigorous analysis
of the evidence to date."
< * health.theledger . com /article/20070809/HEALTHNEWS/4912/-1/RSS2&source=RSS>
This will then be quoted by another paper with an agenda as "nearly
triples" and so we go on.
The tabloids have amplified a methodologically suspect concern into a
major public health panic.
* w w w .bmj . com /cgi/content/full/309/6957/789
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Registered Linux user #451770
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:05:53 +0100, Phil Stovell wrote:
> There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who
> had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI
> 1·20?1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect,
> with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09,
> 1·54?2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more
> clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression,
> suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately.
> Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts
> were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A
> substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and
> affective outcomes.
It must have got stronger. Super skunk increases psychosis risk by 41%,
Daily Mail Sensemilla more than doubles it.
"Frequent cannabis use more than doubles the risk of developing psychotic
illnesses such as schizophrenia, according to the most rigorous analysis
of the evidence to date."
< * health.theledger . com /article/20070809/HEALTHNEWS/4912/-1/RSS2&source=RSS>
This will then be quoted by another paper with an agenda as "nearly
triples" and so we go on.
The tabloids have amplified a methodologically suspect concern into a
major public health panic.
* w w w .bmj . com /cgi/content/full/309/6957/789
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Registered Linux user #451770
Re: Lancet: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic rev
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and
over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the
propaganda." George Bush 2005
Why ARE PHARMACY / DRUG COMPANIES SO INTERESTED IN PROVING CANNABIS
IS BAD FOR YOU?
WHY ARE THEY SPENDING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WITH THESE RIGGED
STUDIES AND ADVERTISING IT?
CANNABIS CURES CANCER / A BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY FOR THEM
CANNABIS CURES ALZHEIMERS , AGAIN BIG MONEY. CANNABIS IS THE BEST
TREATMENT FOR MANY AILMENTS , FROM GLAUCOMA TO NEUROPATHY.
THE RISK OF PSYCHOSIS IS VERY SMALL. WHY AREN'T THEY WORKING TO
OUTLAW ALCOHOL. BECAUSE PROHIBITION CAUSES CRIME AND DOES NOT WORK.
THESE "SCIENTIST" ARE JUST THE PAID PRIEST PEDDLING THE RELIGION OF
DRUG COMPANIES TO SELL DRUGS AND OPPRESS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
FREEDOM. EVEN IF THIS POPPYCOCK WERE TRUE. IT IS TYRANNY AND
FASCISM. 5-10 thousand people have to die from one of their
concoctions before they pull it from the market.
"Let no man think we can deny civil liberty to others and retain it
for ourselves" It is religous oppression. it is the sole cause of
soil errosion in places like banglidesh leading to the death and
suffering of millions. IT is destroying the earth for our children.
These "scientinst" are no different than hitlers scientist. May they
watch their loved ones suffer and die horribly at the hand of their
chemotherapy knowing cannabis could have saved them.
THEY WANT TO OUTLAW THE PLANT AND THEN SYNTHESIZE IT IN A LAB AND SELL
IT TO YOU AND MAKE BILLIONS INSTEAD OF ALLOWING FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
FOR YOU TO GROW IT YOURSELF.
THE DRUG WAR IS PSYCHOTIC. MARIJUANA / CANNABIS PROHIBITION IS THE
BEHIND OIL WARS SUCH AS IRAQ. IT WAS OUTLAWED TO DUPONT AND JP MORGAN
COULD SELL OIL AS GAS. FIRST CARS WERE MEANT TO RUN ON EHTANOL FROM
CANNABIS. A MAJOR CROP AT THE TIME.
CANNABIS GROWS NEURONS ~ ALL THINGS EQUAL POT SMOKERS HAVE MORE
BRAINS.
* cannabisnews . com /news/21/thread21194.shtml
POT SMOKING PROTECTS FROM CANCER.
* w w w .earthtimes.org/articles/show/53700.html
"Some explanations of a crime are not explanations: they're part of
the crime.": Olavo de Cavarlho
It is part of the moral tragedy with which we are dealing that words
Like "democracy," "freedom," "rights," "justice," which have so often
inspired heroism and have led men to give their lives for things which
make life worthwhile, can also become a trap, the means of destroying
the very things men desire to uphold. Sir Norman Angell (1874 - 1967),
1956.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and
over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the
propaganda." George Bush 2005
Why ARE PHARMACY / DRUG COMPANIES SO INTERESTED IN PROVING CANNABIS
IS BAD FOR YOU?
WHY ARE THEY SPENDING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WITH THESE RIGGED
STUDIES AND ADVERTISING IT?
CANNABIS CURES CANCER / A BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY FOR THEM
CANNABIS CURES ALZHEIMERS , AGAIN BIG MONEY. CANNABIS IS THE BEST
TREATMENT FOR MANY AILMENTS , FROM GLAUCOMA TO NEUROPATHY.
THE RISK OF PSYCHOSIS IS VERY SMALL. WHY AREN'T THEY WORKING TO
OUTLAW ALCOHOL. BECAUSE PROHIBITION CAUSES CRIME AND DOES NOT WORK.
THESE "SCIENTIST" ARE JUST THE PAID PRIEST PEDDLING THE RELIGION OF
DRUG COMPANIES TO SELL DRUGS AND OPPRESS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND
FREEDOM. EVEN IF THIS POPPYCOCK WERE TRUE. IT IS TYRANNY AND
FASCISM. 5-10 thousand people have to die from one of their
concoctions before they pull it from the market.
"Let no man think we can deny civil liberty to others and retain it
for ourselves" It is religous oppression. it is the sole cause of
soil errosion in places like banglidesh leading to the death and
suffering of millions. IT is destroying the earth for our children.
These "scientinst" are no different than hitlers scientist. May they
watch their loved ones suffer and die horribly at the hand of their
chemotherapy knowing cannabis could have saved them.
THEY WANT TO OUTLAW THE PLANT AND THEN SYNTHESIZE IT IN A LAB AND SELL
IT TO YOU AND MAKE BILLIONS INSTEAD OF ALLOWING FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
FOR YOU TO GROW IT YOURSELF.
THE DRUG WAR IS PSYCHOTIC. MARIJUANA / CANNABIS PROHIBITION IS THE
BEHIND OIL WARS SUCH AS IRAQ. IT WAS OUTLAWED TO DUPONT AND JP MORGAN
COULD SELL OIL AS GAS. FIRST CARS WERE MEANT TO RUN ON EHTANOL FROM
CANNABIS. A MAJOR CROP AT THE TIME.
CANNABIS GROWS NEURONS ~ ALL THINGS EQUAL POT SMOKERS HAVE MORE
BRAINS.
* cannabisnews . com /news/21/thread21194.shtml
POT SMOKING PROTECTS FROM CANCER.
* w w w .earthtimes.org/articles/show/53700.html
"Some explanations of a crime are not explanations: they're part of
the crime.": Olavo de Cavarlho
It is part of the moral tragedy with which we are dealing that words
Like "democracy," "freedom," "rights," "justice," which have so often
inspired heroism and have led men to give their lives for things which
make life worthwhile, can also become a trap, the means of destroying
the very things men desire to uphold. Sir Norman Angell (1874 - 1967),
1956.
Next: Lancet: Editorial: Rehashing the evidence on psychosis and cannabis
Previous: DISCOUNT PRICE FOR CIGARETTES mel
