134
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
134 points (95.3% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
3261 readers
448 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why read the article when the title will suffice?
... that's my point. The study they released doesn't differentiate even though the researchers acknowledge that fact. Although I have no scientific basis to back my assumption, it seems fairly intuitive that smoking cannabis would pose a higher risk of cancer than not smoking it. The study, as presented in the article, makes it sound like simply consuming cannabis in any manner increases that risk.
It's not like the asked all these people in a custom designed study, and intentionally left out the consumption method. The study isn't "making it sound" like anything, they're pointing at a statistic.
Edit: it's insurance data not medical data
So, since they admit most the participants smoke it, they're not studying the impact of "marijuana use" they're studying the impact of "smoking marijuana".
Yes, he literally admits it's likely mostly the impact of "smoking marijuana", because that's what most people that fit the "canabis disorder" description seemingly do. Sadly, the study doesn't have the data if they smoke it or ate it, because it's insurance data not medical data. It would be more disingenuous to make the claim this is studying smokers. Any sane person reading this data isn't trying to draw conclusions that aren't there.