MedicalXpress reports that links between schizophrenia and cannabis may not be solely due to a causal relationship.
Genes that increase the risk of developing schizophrenia may also increase the likelihood of using cannabis, according to a new study led by King's College London, published today in Molecular Psychiatry.
The researchers found that people genetically pre-disposed to schizophrenia were more likely to use cannabis, and use it in greater quantities than those who did not possess schizophrenia risk genes.
Power says: "We know that cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia. Our study certainly does not rule this out, but it suggests that there is likely to be an association in the other direction as well that a pre-disposition to schizophrenia also increases your likelihood of cannabis use."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:01PM
Its a good example of the difference between a hard science and a soft science.
In chemistry, its not good enough to stop at "I mixed this chlorine with this random alkane and coindidentally later found something entire different in the test tube. Well, all done, on to the next research topic". You gotta come up with all kinds of theories about quantum mechanics and UV radiation and free radicals and ...
Or in CS/IT doing some reverse engineering its not good enough to stop at "Oh look memory in hex 0x87 0x4F 0x21 and after running you get 0x70 what an amazing coincidence well on to the next experiment". No you gotta come up with all kinds of theories about how 0x87 is an opcode for addition and carry propagation implies which bit is MSB/LSB blah blah blah.
But in the soft sciences it seems enough to say "some people are crazy, some people smoke weed, there seems to be some overlap in the venn diagram where an unusual number of people are crazy while simultaneously smoking weed. Well all done here, lets study something new" I suppose if they came up with a theoretical model of whats happening in the heads consisting of falsifiable predictions, then by definition it wouldn't be a soft science anymore, anyway.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:12PM
> Well all done here, lets study something new
"Hard" or "soft" it doesn't matter, science is all about small incremental increases in knowledge based on discrete tests. The article itself talked about numerous tests done by a variety of researchers that are all refining our understanding of the area. The problem here is your limited understanding of science masquerading as sanctimonious insight.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday June 26 2014, @12:08AM
Its because its being paid for by the feds (and their friends in the for profit prison industry) so as long as the answer is something they want to hear? Actual science need not apply. This is also why i look at both sides of AGW with a HUGE mountain of salt, when you are talking about billions of dollars trading hands you have all the reason in the world to introduce bias into the system to support your agenda.
But I predict we are gonna be seeing a LOT more propaganda for things they can use to imprison subjects, complete with lots of fake science to back it up, as the once mighty US empire collapses under the weight of its debts and decades of failed leadership and oligarchy. The for profit prison system is one of the few profit making ventures, gotta keep the economy rolling!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by SlimmPickens on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:21PM
from new zealand where they have a lot of pot smokers because the natives don't tolerate alcohol well blaming the link to schizophrenia on two broken enzymess http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/001559.html [schizophrenia.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:20PM
What are the chances that people with schizophrenia (even in the early stages and yet to be diagnosed) self medicate with cannabis to address some of the (early) symptoms?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Theophrastus on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:12PM
That possibility is even included in the summary.
This study is a prime example of the valid, but now hackneyed, maxim: correlation is not causation.
This study reveals nothing about the causal relation. But just irresponsibly shooting from the hip, (and knowing a bit about cannabinoid chemistry from my work in the eeevil bigpharma industry), i'd say your assertion, (that folks with mental problems are seeking relief by self medication), is the likely dominate relation.
(Score: 2, Funny) by present_arms on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:01PM
I'll smoke a spliff and have a word with myself.
http://trinity.mypclinuxos.com/
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:10PM
It's just me, myself, and I...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 26 2014, @07:45AM
Let me get my gast on. And I will try to be couth and gruntled. So, not hard enough science, eh? Do we detect scientific erectile dysphunction? Or the Global Warming "consider the source (more explicitly: follow the money!)? OK the prison-industrial complex argument could pull some weight. But the main lesson here, people, and I do mean "people" (+4 Kylie on Serenity Ref!!), is that causation does not equal correlation! Just because a bunch of X's are prone to Y, that does not mean that a bunch of X's are prone to Y because they are prone to Y!! It is just a causation! Not a correlation, and correlation does not imply causation; so by the law of double dutch inversion, causation does not imply correlation. (Do not judge too quickly: this argument would make sense if you were stoned, and so it is valid. )