Testicular Cancer Risk Linked To Marijuana Smoking

[HuckleB]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/138372.php

"A new US study suggests there is a link between marijuana use and elevated risk of the most aggressive form of testicular cancer, with frequent and long term users having the highest risk.

The study was the work of researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, and other centres in the US and is published early online in the journal Cancer.

The study results show that being a marijuana smoker at the time of diagnosis was linked to a 70 per cent higher risk of testicular cancer. For men who smoked marijuana at least once a week or who had been smoking it since their teens, the risk was about double that of a man who had never smoked it.

The results also showed that the link with marijuana use might only be with the most aggressive, fast growing form of testicular cancer, nonseminoma. This type of cancer usually develops in younger men between the age of 20 and 35, and accounts for approximately 40 per cent of all cases of testicular cancer.

..."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/138372.php


I found this interesting. However, I refuse to make any comment, pro or con. No way am I going down that road at DU.

[msongs]

1. 100% of cancer patients breathe. is breathing a cause of cancer? nt

[Mike 03]

4. Not quite. If you think about your statement for even two seconds, you'll realize it makes

no sense.

But I get your point.

[HuckleB]

7. Are you saying that science is a pointless enterprise?

[cbc5g]

8. That's a stretch

This isn't science, this is propaganda and scare-mongering. They went into the study biased and had a conclusion before even starting. It was government funded as well which set off alarms in my head. When it comes to government funding illegal drug studies, well, they always seem to find what they want to find, don't they?

[HuckleB]

9. Uh huh.

They went into the study with a hypothesis, yes. That is how research is done. And, sorry, but I don't know any cancer researchers who see their job as producing propaganda against marijuana use. Their end goal is to prevent and cure cancer. Thus, I think your statement that this isn't science is the propaganda and the scare mongering. I have no desire to get into this, but you are offering no evidence that shows this study to be biased. If it is, perhaps you should sue the research journal that peer-reviewed the study, as well as the researchers.

And if this research is propaganda, then what is this?

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Study Finds No Link Between Marijuana Use And Lung Cancer
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

Or are these somehow science, because they don't show anything negative about marijuana?

[cbc5g]

Heh the study didn't even ask the participants if they used tobacco or alcohol

This is an incredibly flawed study and if you actually look at it, it even says that it is inconclusive and more studies need to be done. But that didn't stop them from publishing it and saying otherwise, did it? They tested, what, umm 0.000000000001% of the population and you are really defending its nonconclusions?

And they also used unconfirmed data. Can you not see what this 'study' actually is all about?

See my post below for more if you are interested.

[HuckleB]

11. Sorry, but I was into the whole NORML scene 20 years ago.

After reading too many inconsistencies, I realized that they had too many blinders on. You are asking people to take a non-scientific advocacy group's "take" on this research over the peer-review process of the journal Cancer. I can't do that.

[cbc5g]

15. You attack the messenger and not the message

Because what they are saying is right. Marijuana smoking has gone up substantially since the 70's yet cases of cancer that the study refers to has increased only slightly. We saw correlation with tobacco smoking and cancer easily, so why not with marijuana? And why use such a small sample size, say the study is inconclusive, use unconfirmed data and not ask about tobacco or alcohol usage and yet they publish it? You cannot tell me this study isn't flawed. A flawed study is an affront to science and a non independent study is going to be hard to believe.

[HuckleB]

16. Wrong.

I'm not the one who attacked the messenger. You did in your first responses.

NORML was discredited with me a long time ago. And, what you are offering is a typical popular "critique" of a scientific study. If you actually read the study, you'll find that such "critiques" don't hold water. Read the study all the way through, then get back to me.

Sound fair?

[cbc5g]

20. That's exactly something somebody would say if they haven't read the study themselves

I attacked the message AND the messenger. You only attacked NORML without providing any reasoning. That study wasn't independent and it was flawed. End of story. You should really post independent studies if you want to raise the awareness about the harm marijuana causes people and society. But sadly, you are going to be hard pressed to find one.

[HuckleB]

22. Well, you haven't shown us a lick of proof to back up your claims.

And now you're attacking me, personally, which is just ludicrous.

Further, if you had read the article I posted, you would see why the argument you are repeating doesn't wash.

I'm done responding to the religious tonight.

[nebenaube]

28. No their end-goal is to preserve their funding... n/t

[HuckleB]

33. Thanks for the pointless cliche.

Any other mindless attacks that you want to make?

[alexandria]

24. Welcome to the real world..

Weed good cigs bad.

[Mike 03]

2. The only thing that amazes me is that this is news. There are two very recent

comprehensive cancer epidemiology textbooks that consider this old news.

Well, maybe it's good to keep repeating these studies until there's no question. We had to do that with cigarettes... It took them thirty years, at least.

[HuckleB]

5. I don't follow cancer research very closely.

But, yes, repeating studies is definitely a necessary part of science, IMO.

[cbc5g]

3. Nothing new...also catch the timing for this study, does it make sense?

They are scared that their war on marijuana users and their propaganda that marijuana users won't go anywhere in life is going...up in smoke. The Phelps controversy, the Obama brother being caught controversy, the continued raids despite Obama being president...these are all things that are making people less likely to support our draconian drug war and so the government needs to scare the public..this is a government funded study by the way.

Also check out the norml.org article

http://blog.norml.org/2009/02/10/media-hysterics-about-supposed-cancer-link-nothing-new/


It must have been a slow news day.

According to Google News, more than 750 media outlets — that’s 7-5-0, folks — have now weighed in on this week’s pot scare story du jour: “Smoking marijuana causes testicular cancer.”

So is there any truth behind the provocative headline? Some, but hardly enough to justify the media’s feeding frenzy.

Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research in Seattle matched 369 men with of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) with 979 healthy controls. Here’s what they found.

Men who self-reported having “ever used” marijuana had no statistically significant risk of testicular cancer compared to healthy controls who never used pot.

Men who reported currently using marijuana at least once per week, and who had started smoking pot prior to age 18, had an elevated risk compared to controls of contracting a type of testicular cancer known as nonseminoma.

Sounds scary, huh? Well here’s the catch.

According to the federal government, millions of people smoke marijuana regularly. By contrast, diagnoses of nonseminoma, which typically affects males between the ages of 15 and 34, are extremely rare.

How rare?

Nonseminomas account for fewer than one half of one percent of all cancers among American men.

Further undermining the study’s hypothesis is this: Since the 1970s, the percentage of American males smoking pot has climbed dramatically. By contrast, incidences of nonseminoma have risen only nominally during this same time period.

Of course, this is hardly the first time the mainstream media has jumped ugly on cannabis. Around this same time last year, news outlets from Reuters to Fox News declared that marijuana posed a greater cancer risk than cigarettes. Only problem was that the study they were reporting on actually demonstrated the opposite.

So why does the mainstream media continue to get the story wrong when it comes to pot? Good question. You can read my abbreviated answer here. And while you’re on NORML’s site, get the skinny on what the scientific literature really has to say about any potential links between marijuana and cancer here, here, and here.

[Not Me]

6. Oh crap

I'm fucked.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. I read some time back that testicular cancer was directly related to steroid use...

which surprised me because so many sports stars are willing to trade their life in exchange for lots of millions.

[HuckleB]

12. I thought I'd read that, too.

But apparently not.

"But no published study links steroids use with testicular cancer in humans or laboratory animals."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/milloy092006.htm

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. I noticed in looking through the Internet.....

That the first hits that come up when doing searches on testicular cancer or any cancer and steroids, are bodybuilding sites. Medical sites don't come up. It takes quite an effort to pull up medical sites related to steroids.

I then found out that there's a movement trying to get steroids decriminalized. Very odd but interesting.

There must be a lot of money being made in the steroid industry. How does one get steroids, anyway? Does one pick them up after hanging around a gym long enough? Word of mouth?

[HuckleB]

26. You got me.

It's probably a lot like you guessed, or you connect with the right contact to the right "doctor."

The things we'll do to ourselves to feel better about ourselves can certainly be astounding.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. It's totally amazing isn't it? We have an acquaintance at work who was taking steroids.....

and one day he nearly passed out - they took him to the ER and had to admit him. His BP was dangerously high, so high that they admitted him to the ICU. Horrible thing.

[Ernesto]

13. Heck, I can hardly get my bra on as it is.......

But I already fathered all the kids that I planned on, so I guess I'll be OK.

[glowing]

14. This study coincided nicely with the story coming out about the swimmer kid.

I think because most people just don't give a shit.. I'm more worried about his kidney's and liver if he's drinking like a fish than a bong hit..

[HuckleB]

18. Yeah, I'm sure the journal rushed this study through when they read about Phelps.

:eyes:

Do you know how long this stuff takes to get to print?

[glowing]

31. No, I'm sure they had the study.. they just released it to coincide with the kid.

I know it takes a while... I'm sure we'll have another one the next time someone else high and famous is caught with a bong... refer madness.. LOL

[HuckleB]

34. Got paranoia?

You have no understanding of scientific journals.

[elocs]

17. As time moves at DU, this is old, old news. n/t

[HuckleB]

19. You're not the first poster to make this claim.

Yet, the study claims that it is not a follow-up study. Can you please explain why you say this is old news?

[elocs]

30. It's old news when it was posted here last Monday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3729912

Marijuana may raise testicular cancer risk: study

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Marijuana use may increase the risk of developing testicular cancer, in particular a more aggressive form of the disease, according to a U.S. study published on Monday.

The study of 369 Seattle-area men ages 18 to 44 with testicular cancer and 979 men in the same age bracket without the disease found that current marijuana users were 70 percent more likely to develop it compared to nonusers.

The risk appeared to be highest among men who had reported smoking marijuana for at least 10 years, used it more than once a week or started using it before age 18, the researchers wrote in the journal Cancer.

Stephen Schwartz of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, one of the researchers, said the study was the first to explore marijuana's possible association with testicular cancer.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090209/hl_nm/us_cancer_mar...

[HuckleB]

32. Some of us don't spend every day online.

I find your response to be as pointless as I noted, in the first place. Second, the link I offered is much more detailed, and makes it more appropriate for the health forum.

[elocs]

35. The fact that it is an old story here at DU is a fact and not pointless.

In fact the story had been posted more than once and had faded away only to be brought up again like none of us had heard it before. As it says when you post an original thread: "Good Citizens Look for Duplicates" Actually, it's your rationalization for your posting that is pointless. The good news for me is that I won't be able to even see anymore of your posts.

[HuckleB]

36. You really don't have a clue.

Try thinking for once. That means read what others post, and think.

Pitiful.

[kestrel91316]

21. My most recent and now ex-BF survived a bout with testicular cancer in

his mid-20s. He NEVER smoked pot.

[HuckleB]

23. I don't think the study claims that marijuana causes all testicular cancers.

I'm glad your BF survived. The mid-20s is a very common time for testicular cancer.

[silverojo]

29. Not surprising

Anybody with a functioning brain knows that the human body wasn't meant to inhale large amounts of ANY kind of smoke.

But for some reason, stupid people insist on overriding their body's natural urge to cough this putrid shit out of their lungs, because they want to appear "cool".

Fucking morons always looking for stupid ways to get "high", because they're too boring to enjoy the wonders of living.