Marijuana/testicular cancer link...

[Dr Mordrid]

I'll try to get a link to the paper itself, but the story is just breaking....

(Reuters) Marijuana link to testicular cancer

Marijuana use may increase the risk of developing testicular cancer, in particular a more aggressive form of the disease, according to a US study published yesterday.

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

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.

[Gurm]

Can we get a control from a region where marijuana/THC use is NOT linked to illegal behavior?

I'd like to see the same study done in Holland... and would value the results more.

[Gurm]

To clarify, it's impossible to separate drug use from OTHER destructive behaviors in this country, which frustrates attempts to construct valid studies. If a substance is banned, forcing any user to break the law in order to use it, your entire pool of candidates are felons. Just as Kinsey's study - while providing interesting information - was not scientifically and statistically valid, neither is this one I suspect.

[Dr Mordrid]

And Holland doesn't have co-destructive behaviors?

'cmon.....

[Gurm]

You can't sample criminals and expect it to be a good sampling.

[Brian Ellis]

You can't sample criminals and expect it to be a good sampling.

So all statistics on crime are invalid? Allow me to let you into a little secret: criminals and honest people are exactly the same when it comes to being used as a cohort based on what they tell the interviewer. They will say a mixture of truth, what is least embarrassing and what they think the interviewer wants to hear. Furthermore, it also depends on how each question is worded and the intonations the interviewer puts into a question.

Just consider the following question:
Did you, as a kid, ever steal a dime or more from either of your parents?

[KRSESQ]

I've been looking at testicular cancer rates, trying to find stats on risk factors. It's known that sexual abstinence increases testicular cancer risk, although by how much I cannot determine.

Testicular cancer is relatively rare in the US. According to one source, 5500 cases last year out of an adult male population of what? 100,000,000? If my math is correct (and it probably isn't) that works out to 5.5 cases per 100,000.

If you accept the stat of 10,000,000 marijuana users in the US, and (somewhat arbitrarily) assume that two-thirds of those are male, that makes 'prox' 7,000,000 individuals whose risk for testicular cancer increases from .005% to .0085%.

(anyone feel free to correct my math as needed.)

But I have not corrected for the difference between nonseminoma, which accounts for 40% of testicular cancers and attacks primarily young men, and seminoma, the more common and less aggressive form. No link was seen between marijuana and seminoma.

This doesn't alter the fact that there are a multitude of far worse cancer risk factors out there, not to mention that there are millions of things that could kill you an hour from now. If I were a concerned individual this would be WAY, WAY down low on my list of things to worry about.

Kevin

[KRSESQ]

Besides which, a single study of 369 men with 1000 controls in a single urban area with an arguably unique culture doth not a research protocol make. If this had involved any substance other than marijuana (except meth, obviously), this wouldn't even have rated a press release .

Kevin

[Claymonkey]

increases from .005% to .0085%.
Kevin

Aren't these number statistically insignificant? ESPECIALLY if the control groups are as small as you said.... Even if you take the person's background out of the equation (and why would you?) I'd think any statistician without a political agenda would laugh in your face with numbers this small. At best they would look at it, cock there head, and decide MAYBE this is grounds for further study.

[KRSESQ]

Don't be too quick to take my numbers at face value. There's a very good reason I'm not a statistician!

But yes, I suspect you're right. These are VERY small segments of the population we're talking about, and VERY small increases in overall risk.

Kevin