Dude, it's your junk! Pot linked to testicular cancer

[seabeyond]

Scientists at the University of Southern California say they've detected a link between recreational marijuana use and a greater chance among males in their early teens through their mid-30s of contracting a particularly dangerous form of testicular cancer -- non-seminoma tumors, according to a small study published today online in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society. "The group that is at risk for developing these tumors is overwhelmingly young men. They should be looking and paying attention to changes in their testicles anyway," said Victoria Cortessis, one of the study's authors and an assistant professor of preventive medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC in Los Angeles.

*

Cortessis and her colleagues analyzed the self-reported recreational drug use of 163 young men who had been diagnosed with testicular cancer. Among those patients who acknowledged indulging in pot, just over half (51 percent) told medical researchers they puffed or ingested cannabis more than once per week.

The team then compared the illegal drug histories of those 163 afflicted men with the lifestyle habits of 292 healthy men of the same age and ethnicity. Inside the data, they saw that men who had used marijuana recreationally were twice as likely to develop mixed-germ-cell tumors, including the deadlier non-seminona tumors. (The 292 unaffected men were "sampled" from the same neighborhoods in which the ill men had lived at the time of their diagnoses, Cortessis said.)

"These tumors usually occur in younger men and carry a somewhat worse prognosis" than other types of testicular cancer, the study reported. Moreover, the USC findings confirmed two previous reports in CANCER of an apparent link between marijuana use and cancer of the testicles, the researchers noted.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/48969102?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews#.UE9d57KPWPU

_________________

just a heads up. this is the nasty prostate cancer. we have it in my family and my husbands family. the men in my life take it seriously.

i wouldnt stop smoking pot necessarily. but, i would want to be aware.

edit... i was corrected. it is testicular cancer. i guess i switched cause prostate is scary in our family. anyway... not prostate cancer

[begin_within]

1. I hate the term "junk."

To me it's not junk.

Prostate cancer and testicular cancer are not the same thing.

But thanks for the heads up. I'm glad I don't smoke any more.

[seabeyond]

2. oh, you know, i thought i had read prostate. maybe cause it is a big deal in my family

i just transferred it to that. thank you. i will make the correction.

ya, i think junk is a bad one, too. for your reasoning. like package better than junk, if we were to choose. i learned a long time ago, not to edit title. it is what they create. though, i am not opposed to griping about it.

thanks for the correction.

[waddirum]

17. I'd call it "Junk Science"

Here we have another study relying on self-reporting of habits by existing cancer patients. Not a study showing a direct link between the behavior and the morbidity..

Correlation vs. Causation

[loyalsister]

30. Unfortunately

That's the only methodology available when dealing with an illegal substance. I'm not a fan of anecdotal evidence, but there is often enough to justify further questioning.

I'll reserve judgement until they begin to see such correlations with other cancers.

[nebenaube]

3. This probably has more do with who they slept with then how much weed they smoked... n/t

[jp11]

4. I wish these studies were more clear on whether the users smoked it or

ingested it.

It seems to me from the few studies I've seen eating marijuana is safer than smoking it but it isn't always easy to see the difference when these studies don't make that distinction.

[seabeyond]

5. i never consumed it. figured i would not get the same high. and didnt want the added calories of

brownies, lol. one of the many reasons i liked pot (stopped a while ago), was cause it was calorie free and didnt have the munchie issue

[Aerows]

6. Okay...

Half did, but half didn't. Is it just me, or does it get anymore inconclusive than that?

[randome]

9. You put smoke into your body, bad things are going to happen.

That seems axiomatic to me.

[hobbit709]

7. My little brother had testicular cancer and never smoked pot.

I've been smoking pot since I was 16, so has my other brother and about 80% of the people I know. Not a one has had cancer of any kind.

[seabeyond]

8. ya. everyone in my family smoke cigs and none of us died of cancer, either.

ya know.

i wonder with cancer if some are prone, and something kicks it.

[loyalsister]

34. That is similar to the stress diathesis model of depression

The idea is that a person is born with a vulnerability and a threshold of stress will act as a trigger. I think this also applies to illnesses with genetic origins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diathesis%E2%80%93stress_model

[hifiguy]

10. I smoked weed like a fiend from 16 to my early twenties

and regularly until my early 30s. Just took it up again because booze has far worse effects. One splats, rather than bouncing back, from hangovers once one hits a certain age. No problems here and it was great for relieving social anxiety, which has been a lifelong issue for me.

[seabeyond]

12. i would take pot over booze any day.

in all ways.

i have a line of hard core alcoholics in my family. couldnt pay me to live that.

i just do not see pot as a big deal in life. i see it as a plus, as long as it is not interfering. and that is not about addiction, just habit so that is another plus.

[hifiguy]

22. Yup. A few puffs on the weekend is

far easier on the mind and body than liquor. A nice glass of a good IPA with the puffs is just fine, though.

[Life Long Dem]

29. "One splats, rather than bouncing back,"

Hear that.

[HopeHoops]

11. Shit. No WONDER my nuts hurt.

[seabeyond]

13. ya. that is the reason

[librechik]

14. once again I ask: were any of the subjects also smoking tobacco?

or breathing air pollution? Or drinking alcohol?

I never get good answers on that notion.

And there are many studies to suggest pot shrinks tumors or eliminates them in other cancers.

[KurtNYC]

26. In this study the heaviest users of pot showed no increase in risk

They seem to make no effort to explain THAT.

[librechik]

37. also, they did the test backwards--they found men w testicular cancer

then asked them if and how much they smoked and for how long. Anecdotal testimony is not the best scientific method.

The proper way to do a study is to start with healthy marijuana smokers (with matching non-smoking control group) then see if they develop diseases and which ones. You'd have to make certain MJ was the only thing they consumed.

That test has never been done, and I can understand why.

[KurtNYC]

38. in a sense the better study HAS been done

the rate of pot use in the general population went up and the rate of testicular cancer did not

[librechik]

40. yes--the whole scare campaign about pot is dishonest and divisive.

we need less nonsense and more compassion

[librechik]

15. page not found--how old is this link?

[seabeyond]

16. dunno.... just read it on pulse today. nt

[redqueen]

18. Try this one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48969102/ns/health-mens_health/

[DiverDave]

19. OH BS

The amount of pot I smoked, mine should have rotted off.

Another waste of research money.

[redqueen]

20. Yep.

It reminded me of this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021307575

Desperate attempt to water down expectations?

[DefenseLawyer]

21. The testicular cancer cuts down on the urge to play jazz and rape white women, so it's a trade-off

Sadly, I don't think reefer madness will ever lose it's appeal.

[KurtNYC]

23. Junk study -- Junk math

Their method was to take men who had testicular cancer already and then ask them if they smoked pot. Then they compared their stat (51%) not with the general population, but with a group who they define as "healthy."

Wouldn't the proper design of such a study follow the medical history of 300 men from age 12 to age 35 and then aggregate data on cancer, pot use, etc.

This seems like a stacked deck. They compared guys with cancers to guys without cancer and found that the guys with cancer were more likely to...guess what...get cancer.

[former9thward]

25. I guess scientists at the University of Southern California School of Medicine

desperately need your help. They just don't know how to do studies.

Moreover, the USC findings confirmed two previous reports in CANCER of an apparent link between marijuana use and cancer of the testicles, the researchers noted. I guess other scientists don't know what they are doing either.

[KurtNYC]

33. The Disney Channel called. They want their sarcasm back.

Flawed design
Small sample size
No explanation of the results which include that the heaviest users showed NO increase in risk OR that cocaine use cut the risk by half (!?)

It turns out they had “a lower risk of getting the more severe kind of testicular cancer. Forty-three percent of those with the condition had used cocaine, compared to 44 percent of the healthy men. When researchers adjusted their statistics so they wouldn’t be influenced by various factors, however, they found that cocaine could have a protective effect.

“The study suggested several ways that the drug may reduce the risk of testicular cancer, such as killing cells in the testicles. Cortessis cautioned in a statement, however, that cocaine could make men infertile.

“As for marijuana, Cortessis said it’s plausible that a component of pot known as THC causes the severe type of testicular cancer in some men.

“Marijuana researcher Dr. Donald Abrams questioned the findings. The rates of testicular cancer in California didn’t increase in the 1960s and 1970s when pot use went up, said Abrams, chief of hematology-oncology at San Francisco General Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at the University of California-San Francisco.

http://isun.blogs.mydesert.com/2012/09/10/say-what-marijuana-can-double-risk-of-cancer-cocaine-can-reduce-it/

This study repeated the flawed methods of the earlier 2 studies -- Other medical studies, such as the Harvard Nurse study, do not use this backward looking designs and they aggregate data from tens of thousands of participants.

Here is good design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study

[former9thward]

35. I guess we could throw studies at each other all day.

That would be pretty pointless and says something about the science involved. All I know is that marijuana is as close to a God as anything on DU. It solves all problems, creates none and no critical thinking will be tolerated on the subject.

[KurtNYC]

36. This IS critical thinking -- why no uptick in nad cancer during the 1960s and 1970s when pot soared?

There is the biggest sample size and the clearest increase in the alleged stimulus.

And why the bell shape on pot use vs. testicular cancer in this study?

[Viking12]

24. Noooooooo!

[qb]

27. I view stories like this as more "Reefer Madness"

until they're backed up by more significant research.

[Ganja Ninja]

28. So let me get this straight.

They took 163 men with cancer who admitted using pot and compared them to 292 healthy people and concluded that pot was the culprit.

Did they try comparing 163 men with cancer that didn't use pot to 292 healthy people that use pot?

I guess then you could conclude pot prevented cancer.

[ananda]

31. Bullpucky!

I don't believe pot causes cancer, period.

I DO believe that too much of anything is bad for you.

[kestrel91316]

32. I thought this link was DISproved years ago......

[retread]

39. If there is a link, shouldn't there be a rise in percentage of early teen to late 30's males with

testicular cancer about the same time pot smoking increased in the same population during '60's and '70's?