I am constantly reminded of the importance of reading critically and not giving too much importance to headlines. In the context of the discussion of "what we know" to be true, I offer this to support my contention that a sizable amount of the information we base our opinions and beliefs upon these days can easily be called into question.

Take, for example, the recent headline that marijuana can lead to psychosis. While I don't dispute that use of any medicine may have side effects, we should have become inured to the seemingly endless litany of the potentially harmful use of almost any drug or ingested substance. A critical reading of this article illuminates why it received headlines and who stood to profit from its "scare" value.

First, the propaganda.

"Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous. The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent."

Then the caveat.

The researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis. There could be something else about marijuana users, "like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses," Zammit said. The overall risk remains very low.

Then, the real truth. (The study isn't conclusive at all.)

Scientists cannot rule out that pre-existing conditions could have led to both marijuana use and later psychoses, Dr. Wilson Compton, a senior scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in Washington said.

Finally, the most interesting information.

Two of the authors of the study were invited experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Cannabis Review in 2005 (and were probably compensated handsomely for their participation).

Several authors reported being paid to attend drug company-sponsored meetings related to marijuana, and one received consulting fees from companies that make antipsychotic medications … (Ahhh, pharmaceutical reps – and we consider these to be unbiased scientists?)

Even the scientist who led the effort to discover the human genetic code has written extensively about the landslide of corruption in the scientific industry, paid by corporate drug pushers to influence public opinion.

I'm not sure that the interests of William Randolph Hearst are not being represented. He was the man responsible for getting marijuana declared a dangerous drug to precipitate its being made illegal to eliminate the rapidly burgeoning commercial hemp industry from effectively capsizing his timber industry profits. To wipe out the vast and cheap multitude of hemp products threatening his empire, he initiated the attack by focusing on the accepted medical use of marijuana at the time and generated the brainwashing of generations to its dangers.

Certainly the pharmaceutical companies consider medical marijuana a threat to their profits, and the misuse of science for commercial gain is increasing exponentially.

As I said at the beginning, I'm not questioning the findings so much as why the study was conducted at all. Who stood to gain financially – that's always the first question to ask. Perhaps a study is in order to determine whether or not people who hate their jobs are at increased risk of psychosis, or whether people stressed by being unable to meet healthcare bills or day to day economic realities might be more apt to suffer psychosis.

I haven't seen these studies. Why not? Because it isn't really about protecting the public – it's about influencing public opinion for economic gain. Read critically, the fine print often unintentionally reverses the impact of the lead line.

James BlueWolf lives in Nice.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Details

Written by: James BlueWolf

Published: 05 August 2007