Hacker News Reader

Comment by bregma | Hacker News Reader

Do you really think a publication from a place with a URL 'drugabuse.gov' is going to be a reliable source of unbiased information?

View on HN

Which of their cited sources are wrong?

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/mari...

Specifically, these peer reviewed science articles:

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22831980

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26886046

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551

All of them are either wrong or irrelevant because none of them factor in weed helping.

Citing a source doesn't make your message unbiased.

There is a saying "even the devil can quote scripture."

And then even the devil gets pointed out how they used the scripture wrong. The point being that the data itself is addressed, rather than just ad hom'ing the devil.

It's a division of the NIH and the article cites a peer-reviewed paper in Biological Psychiatry, so yes, I do think that this is a reliable source of unbiased information. The original study carefully describes its methodology (which is as sound as any neuroscience paper I've read), and was done in London, so you can't argue that the researchers are biased by American government attitudes toward drugs:

http://www.mypsychiatrist.london/sites/default/files/publica...

Every country, city, and government has a bias and an attitude toward drugs, including London. I hope you're not suggesting (perhaps you improperly worded your comment) that the US government is biased toward drugs but English government is not biased at all and is completely neutral scientifically. If that's what you meant, I think it's specious.

The UK govt has a strong track record of ignoring scientifically literate advice on drug risks

Every person has a bias towards or against anything they choose to take a position on.

I'm saying that the biases of the U.S. government, UK NIH, King's College London, and Palermo University, Italy (the other sponsor of the researchers) are likely to be largely uncorrelated when it comes to drugs. The U.K. does not have the U.S's history of criminalizing specific drugs (marijuana, heroin) simply because they are used by marginalized groups while legalizing others (nicotine, alcohol, caffeine) because they have powerful corporate interests backing them. They undoubtedly have other biases, but in a study of the genetic effects of THC on psychosis those are less likely to be relevant.

One way to minimize the effects of bias, despite its ubiquity, is to seek out multiple independent POVs. Each one of them is individually biased, but when you average them together you get something approximating the truth.

> ...was done in London, so you can't argue that the researchers are biased by American government attitudes toward drugs

Ah, my naive little cultural hegemonist. Sounds like you've live all your life in America. Have a Coke, turn on some Hip Hop, and watch your Mickey Mouse.

If you want to nitpick on the source, this is another source with a full publication:

> Variation at the rs2494732 locus of the AKT1 gene predicted acute psychotic response to cannabis along with dependence on the drug and baseline schizotypal symptoms.

Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4872423/

Thanks for this specific info! If anyone reading this has done 23andMe, your ATK1 / rs2494732 genotype is available on there (search for those terms, it comes right up).

I have magnitude 1.5 on the rs2494732 variation. Love the herb.

It's a peer reviewed study published in The Journal of Neuroscience.

If you take issue with the study, state why - don't ignorantly reject the results because you think the scientist's employer's name sounds biased.

> s going to be a reliable source of unbiased information

Kinda like https://www.ready.gov/ for disasters... yes!

Have you checked the math on the statistical analysis?

Really grasping for straws here

The way to contest evidence is to show that either: the statistical analysis has an error in the math, or that there is an issue with the scientific process used to obtain those results.

They're not self-published.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com