Archive for the ‘Bad Science’ Category

Researchers recommend steps to curb gun violence, and politicians write legislature to ensure it.  But, the violence continues.  Why?  The same reason that we have an opioid crisis despite legislation banning drugs:  Legislation is not the answer!

Criminals have to comply with legislation for it to be effective, and by their very nature, they don’t.  So, only the law-abiding, who are not a problem to anyone, comply with the laws.  They get disarmed, the size of their magazines limited, the types of guns restricted, their backgrounds checked, their fingerprints records, their license fees demanded, and….they weren’t the problem in the first place.  But now, further disarmed, are easy targets for the criminals that laughed at the laws.

Does anyone really expect criminals to eschew higher capacity magazines?  To give up their illegal guns?  Of course not.  So, the gun violence problem remains, and may even increase as citizens are disarmed, calling politicians to create even more ineffective laws.  And the disarmament of the law-abiding continues, while the criminals’ power unilaterally increases.  What BULLSHIT!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190221130245.htm

AuntieBS

Advertisements

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190213172307.htm

This is a classic case of confusing correlation with causality.  While I have no doubt that the researchers found a correlation between cannabis use and depression, it is more likely that the depression was causal, rather than vice versa.  A student, struggling with school, due to low IQ or poor study habits, will often get depressed over it.  Some will self-medicate with intoxicants to help cope.  These researchers are trying to imply that the cannabis is causal, but that has not been established.

AuntieBS

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190211083204.htm

A seventy year old man, without cannabis experience, ate 90mg THC, or about 3-10 times the normal dosage, depending upon his body weight.  So, he got seriously buzzed and freaked out.  Panic attack!  It was THAT that caused tachycardia and likely constrictions in blood flow due to adrenaline and panic.  That’s all.  It’s disingenuous to declare the cannabis as causal, even though it indirectly may be.  The point is that cannabis does not cause cardiovascular problems, but panic attacks apparently do.  What if the guy saw something on television that freaked him out and caused a panic attack?  Would these “researchers” declare television to be dangerous to patients with cardiovascular disease?  Only if they had a hidden agenda.

Cannabis is generally relaxing, but blood pressure can be slightly raised while under its effects.  Research shows that cannabis is a vasodilator, if anything, so it should be beneficial to cardiovascular patients.  This paper implies otherwise, but did correctly state: “The patient’s cardiac event was likely triggered by unexpected strain on his body from anxiety and fearful hallucinations caused by the unusually large amount of THC he ingested. His sympathetic nervous system was stimulated, causing increased cardiac output with tachycardia, hypertension, and catecholamine (stress hormone) release. After the psychotropic effects of the drug wore off, and his hallucinations ended, his chest pain stopped.”  [emphasis mine]

So, this really has nothing to do with cannabis, but is about fear/panic, which could be caused by many different subjective experiences.  What if the man had eaten peanuts with dinner– would the researcher’s declare that he had a peanut allergy?  Remember– “correlation is not causality”.  Further, the paper talked about “…since the THC content of the substance had increased significantly from three percent to 12 percent.”  This meme is common to BULLSHIT papers which tout the “danger from increased potency cannabis”.  Increased potency simply means that less is needed.  Just as you don’t drink vodka by the pint, like you do beer, you don’t smoke an entire joint like people did 50 years ago.  One or two hits usually suffices, just like a shot of vodka, not a liter.  So, anytime the “increased potency” meme is used, it discredits the paper’s authors because it indicates either extreme naivete’ or an anti-cannabis agenda.

AuntieBS

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180905131826.htm

This paper wants us to believe that cannabis users suffer from more “noise” in the brain, similar to that found in heroin abusers and alcoholics.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  The researchers cannot qualify the “noise”, which may simply be increased creative thinking, under cannabis, which is different from alcohol or opiates.  Another way to paraphrase this is “cannabis users show more brain activity than non-users”.  At this point, it is anyone’s guess as to the details of that activity.

Cannabis often leads to “out of the box” thinking, melding disparate ideas into novel concepts.  The late Carl Sagan felt that this was a good thing, inspiring creativity and insight.

AuntieBS

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180723132251.htm

AuntieBS is not a neuroscientist, so to flat-out declare this to be bullshit is out of her league.  But, such “studies” should be viewed with a jaundiced eye, because there is so much negative pressure against cannabis from Big Pharma, so see its use as reducing their profits.

When you read reports of modern cannabis strains being more potent, be wary.  Instead of smoking entire joints, the modern cannabis user enjoys just a toke or two, akin to a shot or two of vodka vs a six pack of beer.  The cannabis ingestion level may be the same, but the tars and combustion byproducts is much less with stronger strains.  Having said that, there are no details as to the amount of cannabis given to the test mice, and how that would extrapolate to human use.  If a human got as wasted as they could possibly be and remain awake, there may not be much remembered.  But, the amount of intoxication under “normal” use, is much less and long-term memory is not affected.

So, I question the veracity of this assertion and remain unconvinced, though I cannot discount it 100%.  As with most things, moderation is a good concept.

AuntieBS

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180424160233.htm

I have long been an advocate of a direct test for coordination, judgment, and reaction time, instead of the current cannabis metabolite test being used in some areas to determine whether or not a driver is stoned.  The problem with this test is that cannabis metabolites can remain in a person’s blood for a month after usage has stopped, and is a very poor indicator of the driver’s state of mind.

Instead, a field-administered test of reaction time, judgment, and coordination could be a vastly better indicator of driver impairment and driving ability.  It can be administered with a laptop computer, as law-enforcement officers usually have in their cars, or by a custom device.  Not only would it detect impairment, irrespective of what intoxicant was used, but would also get aged or unhealthy drivers off the road.  It makes little difference whether a driver is impaired due to drug use or because of serious illnesses or age-related degeneration.

AuntieBS

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm

Who the hell are they to decide what’s safe or not?  Sure, if a gun is left where a child could get hold of it, that’s clearly unsafe.  But in an adult-only household, where a woman may have been raped, the gun readily available at her bedside is probably the safest thing she can do.

Imagine hearing a window break, or a door open, and footsteps in the house, particularly if you live in a high crime area.  You may not have time to put on your glasses, hope the battery is still good, and unlock your safe or find the key to unlock your trigger lock.  You may only have seconds to act.   Reaching for your bedside drawer where a loaded handgun is kept may save your life, and these armchair “scientists” say that’s not safe?  When it’s just you living there? When the ability to act quickly is a helluva lot safer than being the victim of a home invader.

This article is nothing more than Marxist sensationalism designed to sway public opinion against gun owners and is otherwise meaningless.  Had they considered who lives in the house (i.e., children), they type of neighborhood, past history, expected response time to a 911 call, and other factors, it might be valid, but as written, this is BULLSHIT.

Responsible gun ownership is certainly paramount, but that responsibility also includes where and how their gun is stored.  Many gun owners have been practicing safe and responsible gun handling and ownership for decades, and could WRITE the curriculum for a gun safety class, not to mention pass it blindfolded, but because they have not attended a class does not make them unsafe.  The bottom line is that responsible gun ownership should be up to the individual, and failures should be handled harshly, not mere slaps on the wrist.  Put the focus on where it should be:  RESPONSIBILITY, and leave the details to the person.

Remember:  When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Auntie BS