In article ,
Janet Baraclough wrote:

While it is POSSIBLE that such a thing can happen, I am thoroughly
disinclined to believe ANY anti-cannabis story dreamt up by either
the political or the medical establishment.

Tobacco smokers used not to believe the rumour their habit could cause
lung and circulatory disease.

That is a rare case of an officially sanctioned item of propaganda
(which it was) turning out to be more-or-less correct. It was and
is overstated, of course, and is currently being used to divert
attention away from other causes of those problems.

Unfortunately it isn't a story, Nick. I've met many people it's
happened to, all of whom have been medically diagnosed and forcibly
admitted to hospital; and heard their own accounts, and their families'
accounts. It's been recognised for at least a decade in mental health
circles by professionals, patients, support and pressure groups.

As I said, I neither believe nor disbelieve the claim. However, as
the organisations making the claim have been desperately searching
for evidence to justify their anti-cannabis crusade for about a
century now, and have produced many cockamamie claims in that time,
I am disinclined to trust them now.

Medical professionals and pressure groups are one of the few sorts
of people that are WORSE than politicians in their use of spin. The
issue is not whether such symptoms have been observed, but whether
cannabis use is THE cause, A cause, caused by the same factor, or
merely a coincidence.


Do you remember me being flamed for doubting the line that the use
of high-factor "sunscreens" as a protection against skin cancer?
Well, a couple of decades on, the evidence is now supporting what
I said against what the medical dogma said and (to a great extent)
still says is the correct approach.

I could give you dozens of other examples, some of which were earlier,
some comparable in time, and some where I believe the real situation
has yet to become clear but where the medical establishment "knows"
what the conclusion will be.

One of the things about being a statistician is that you should
learn to distinguish between conclusions that are derivable from
the data, ones that are the most likely consequence of the data
and ones that are merely compatible with the data. Medical training
(still) teaches the acceptance of "received wisdom" as primary,
which is one of the reasons some of the eminent, medically qualified
researchers I know regard a medical degree as HARMFUL in a researcher.
And in a Minister of Health or Chief Medical Officer!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.