The "pharmacy diet" scam is simply out of control here in Australia. However, I first wish to remind readers of the basic reason those we pay for sound advice also leap to deceive us via such tacky plays on fear, guilt, anxiety. Greed. Money. Profit. If you happen to reside in the fine Southern continent of Australia you can witness a strange manifestation of consumer exploitation in every neighbourhood pharmacy.

This open letter to The Pharmacists of Australia from Australian Skeptics helps clarify what is simple, unadulterated consumer exploitation. At best it is [or rather was, given Aussie pharmacists well proven double standards] an unexpected qualification of legitimacy by mere association with medical science that in part motivated the drafting of such a letter.

Items advocating clearly dangerous and/or useless, 'new age', natural [so are lightening strikes], homeopathic, aromatherapeutic, magnetic stimulation, crystal energetic, pyramid power, detoxification remedies, ear candles, similar products or even practices claiming to enhance/maintain/repair/develop or augment in some way or another such vaguely described, yet "essential" bodily, mental or spiritual functions abound within Australian pharmacies. And they abound right next to recognised and proven treatments.

Indeed the placing of demonstrably non efficacious preparations, alongside products with genuine, documented validity deserves scorn in and of itself. The intuitive feeling of trust that accompanies the consumer associating product X with the decades of reliability of product Y in its familiar and comfortable packaging, is a powerful motivator. Minimal thinking and maximal "satisfaction". You may well have doubted the flushing of "negative energies" through unwilling sphincters as "essential care for the holistic You!" - if not actually impossible - until you saw the Betadine antiseptic ointment nearby.

Legitimacy by association? Isn't that a bit ambitious? Perhaps. Yet we know that human beings seeking advice or treatment trust - and decide to act upon - advice given by a person wearing a white coat. Correct for other variables and results frequently follow that white coat. We learn to expect valuable advice and respond accordingly.

At worst it is a coldly calculated grab for consumer dollars involving products the pharmacist him/herself mocks and derides because of the junk science involved. I have a friend who manages a pharmacy with the slogan: "Passion, People, Price" - or words to that effect. "I'm a skeptic too", he announced as I outlined the scam surrounding the Anti-snor "acupressure" ring. But, he went on snorting derisively, that it's not up to him to advise on "sympathy spending" [I think he meant 'retail therapy'] managing to admit in one breath that his "natural" products were junk but he was still kindly helping customers by allowing the subconscious human need to waste money.

He has a valid point: we can spend our money where we wish. Besides, franchise product choice is not his decision, nor is dissuading customers from spending likely to be a positive career move. Indeed the decision to limit or remove alternative junk from pharmacies won't come from ranks of staff. It will likely arise at a senior level when industry image matters more than profit. Then a "phasing out" period will follow accompanied by consumer information designed to paint the all-knowing pharmacist as a health professional without peer. Why? At some point the ipso facto professional image of the community pharmacy will begin to erode. Poor competition ensures we remain ignorant of varied approaches, and Pharmacy Guild tactics are ruthless if not brutal when it comes to holding onto their monopoly.

Remember the feverish drive by the Pharmacy Guild against supermarkets stocking pharmaceuticals? Seven out of ten items sold in supermarkets are cigarettes, lied one poster in my local pharmacy. Would you trust your health advice to sellers of dangerous products? Therein lies the irony. The angle chosen by pharmacists was concern for your health. We now know without a percentile point of doubt this too was a scam. Supermarkets are examined for price, cleanliness, product quality, claims on packaging, petrol docket value, plastic bag use and so on. Frequently these topics dominate TV, radio and print media. Pharmacists suffer no such intrusion and this is to our disadvantage.

Still, I value my pharmacist interlocutors advice, enjoy his critical wit and might label his greatest crime as not suffering fools gladly. Dastardly deeds for their own sake is not what I'm arguing. Intentionally harming, placing others at risk or promoting junk science as an end in itself is not the aim of pharmacists. Indeed it is the association between clinical skill and unproven remedies that concerns those of us who advocate understanding evidence over accepting claims. Recently, our morning chat was interrupted. He rolled his eyes dramatically because a scooter driving elderly lady required a bottle of cough syrup located near the dispensary. As said friend had decided Swine Flu was "a media rort" at best, Mrs. Scooter was lucky to be served at all. But I had to grin inwardly. The poor lady couldn't move without mowing down ranks of tacky, flimsy shelving. And what was on this shelving? Jelly beans, novelty desk clocks, gym socks, ear candles, antisnor rings, vitamins, vitamins, vitamins and ample detox kits. Bizarre. To think our pharmacies - aside from our hotels - are the final bastions of legal pre-toxing and now stand under assault from "healthy" scams that could harm you as easily as the Class A drugs kept in the dispensary safe.

In this episode Firesnake examines what appear to be quite useless diet plans, on offer at major pharmacy chains. Of particular note is the pushing of poorly monitored and expensive dietary supplements onto children, the lack of training or skill required by staff and incredibly, the arrogant response by Tony Ferguson - a rogue Pharmacist only too well known for his "independent" money making scams over the years. Tony runs "Weightloss and Wellness Centres". He also pushes his programmes from Terry White Chemists.

Recently Australian consumer magazine Choice reviewed Pharmacy Diet Plans. The Courier Mail described Choice as "slamming" such plans. Briefly Choice concluded:

• Pharmacy diet plans may help to shed extra kilos quickly, but most fail to deal effectively with the complex broader issues around weight loss.
• CHOICE cannot recommend these programs until consultants improve their training and move beyond the “one-size-fits-all” approach.

Tony Ferguson seized the opportunity. Guessing that media outlets are as fed up - no pun intended - as the rest of us with self styled gurus, Ferguson used his own web site to "reply" then within weeks launched a new TV advertising campaign bursting with positive "testimonials".

600,000 People Can't be Wrong but Choice Magazine can't get it right with weight loss investigation!

Tony Ferguson

"One of Australia's leading consumer comparison magazines, Choice Magazine, has got it wrong! "says weight loss authority and pharmacist Tony Ferguson.

Renowned for helping Australians make accurate and informed decisions, Choice have unfortunately made a mistake with their review of the weight loss industry including Australia's pharmacy supported weight loss leader , the Tony Ferguson Weightloss Program. In addition the magazine did not review the entire program , only half of it despite being invited to do so.

Ferguson explains that: "They also ignored the psychological aspects of weight loss in their review. The leading authorities in treating obesity around the world acknowledge that being overweight is much more than a product of eating too much and exercising too little. That is an outdated method of losing weight which has failed Australians for almost two generations now."

Ferguson is using old evasion tricks here. Firstly, he introduces variables that have nothing to do with the aims of diet programs, thus pleads unfair. Next he uses some Peacock terminology - "The leading authorities in treating obesity around the world...", basically sound like they agree with Tony although it's irrelevant and conveniently unreferenced.

You may read Tonys full reply here. Keep in mind the panel of experts assembled by Choice described Fergusons latest scam and Ultra Lite as "disgraceful and irresponsible". Given these physiologically brutal approaches aim to maximise ketosis [see below] and no warning is forthcoming one must agree.

Choice magazine does have an entry on healthy eating for those interested. Here's how Choice introduced their programme review:

Our findings confirm these diet plans, if followed closely, will certainly shed the kilos in record time, but are they safe and are customers properly assessed and monitored by the pharmacies? Do these fast-track diet plans address the real issues at the root of the weight problem? And is it the pharmacies themselves who end up profiting the most?

CHOICE investigation

To anonymously assess these programs CHOICE sent three overweight people to a selection of pharmacies offering seven different diet programs, and asked a panel of experts to assess our findings.

All the pharmacy plans involve a weekly visit to your pharmacy consultant and a diet that restricts carbohydrates to some extent. All except Ultra Lite use meal replacements to keep your intake in check. The basics of each program are shown in the table.

Programs we looked at:

• AlphaSlim Pharmacy Weight Loss
• Betty Baxter Complete Weight Management
• Dr. Tim’s Success
• Kate Morgan Weight Loss
• MediTrim
• Tony Ferguson Weight Loss
• Ultra Lite Weight Management
• Xndo Weight Control System

Choice also looked at Meal replacements, standard of replacement, consultant training and ongoing training, claims surrounding weight loss and client suitability - eg; one does not have to be overweight or an adult in programmes other than Dr. Tims Success. This certainly raises serious questions over body image and possible self abuse with such low levels of supervision. Considering the pressure on teens and even children today to conform to the perfect body type, Fergusons plea of "psychological aspects" sounds like a cruel game of mockery. To think a perfectly healthy teen can be supplementing healthy eating with "replacement shakes" on advice from a barely trained part-time consultant is at best careless opportunism on the part of these programmes.

The Choice report looks closely at nutritional value, the upsell of diet pills, flaxseed oil, fiber supplements, vitamins, minerals an so on. In the case of Betty Baxter fiber was so low, constipation is likely. Xndo slap you in the face with $1.60 per drink [called a serve] which is much the same as buying any other commercial drink.

There is ample advice within the Choice report. The decision to appoint independent nutritionists is welcomed and it appears pharmacy diets fail us in almost every manner possible. In fact the highly predictable findings of cheap and tacky equipment and dusty storage areas or corners labelled "consultancy areas", fits nicely with the dollar focus of Australian Pharmacists in general.

Choice also explain the concept of ketosis, which is the default side effect of starving yourself of proper nutrients. We award Tony Ferguson a CPDCT - Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought score of 7.0 out of 10. Well done Tony.

Choice explained:

Some organs of your body, such as the brain and red blood cells, need glucose for energy, and if you don’t eat enough carbohydrates to supply them, your body will break down protein – from your muscles if you’re not eating enough protein – as an energy source for these organs.

What are the benefits? Quick initial weight loss (mainly due to fluid loss) may increase your motivation. Some people claim the fluid loss also reduces feelings of bloating. Ketosis can also help make you feel less hungry.

And the downsides? Some undesirable side-effects are mild dehydration, poor athletic performance, nausea, bad breath, risk of blood pressure problems, an increased risk of osteoporosis and muscle and blood vessel damage. It may also make concentrating on mental tasks more difficult.

CHOICE verdict

These programs are of obvious financial benefit to the pharmacies, and a constant stream of short-term clients will shift a lot of product off the shelves. Will you lose weight? If you follow them closely, yes. Will the pharmacy setting provide you with your own highly skilled weight-loss advisor? Our experts think not.

Considering the inadequate training of consultants, little ability to tailor programs and deal with individual circumstances and habits, as well as the lack of close, qualified supervision, CHOICE does not recommend these programs. The current regulations and voluntary codes of practice covering weight-loss programs are insufficient. CHOICE wants to see a national accreditation system, including minimum standards for training, covering all programs, consultants and leaders who counsel people on losing weight.

It's with genuine effort I find myself holding back from simply abusing the window dressing that is the "pharmacy industry" here in Australia. The truth is, it would do little good and one cannot excuse legislators or ignore the hopeless policies bound in red tape. Presently, Pharmacy Guild members worship at the alter of the dollar and whilst able to promote sound health and science, have clearly chosen to promote a culture of "lock-n-load" profiteering that suits existing Guild restrictions on proprietorship numbers.

There's a huge, growing, aging, drug dependent market out there. Australias pharmacists long ago decided to limit premises to the precious few who play by the rules and rule by the pay. Woo-woo, junk science and reckless dieting by dollar may well be here to stay.

So, how can we limit or prevent junk science and 'new age' rubbish from basking in the integrity of white coated pharmacists? Get medications into supermarkets as fast as is sensibly possible. Faced with competition pharmacists will have fewer choices than placing marketing above medication efficacy hence consumer health.

All relevant articles are here.

Gags,
59 min. 23.5MB

In the second part of this finger wag at junk science journalism, we take a closer look at the reports one has to look for. It's the Lancet meta-analysis on cannabis use and the onset of psychosis whatdunnit, and responses to moral panic vary. Transforms press release,Cannabis health risks should not lead to knee jerk policy making, is a measured and sensible statement. The futile reclassification of cannabis so beloved by drug free warriors, advised against by scientists and utterly ignored by pot smokers is seen for the rhetoric it is.

Articles include two similar abuses of data on pulmonary function. It really wasn't all that hard to find. Steve Rolles of Transform had one last bullet in the chamber post Lancet assassination, and kindly popped things into context. His focus was an article in Thorax. But it's a tough call. It's even harder to not sound pro anarchy on your way to sew death and pestilence when the topic is inhaled combustible materials.

Consider: we now know second hand tobacco smoke is not a class A carcinogen. It's complicated, but in simple terms this claim resulted from models predicting SHS was, well, as it is not. The EPA finding was overturned, then due to jurisdictional technicalities, underturned to its original throne. Here's a piece on the initial "moral intimidation" from last century. It includes;

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk. Indeed, a view that is, in EPA Administrator Carol Browner's words, "widely accepted" is not the same as scientific proof. However one feels about the personal hazards of smoking, this ruling is a victory for science and against what Judge Robert Bork has called "authoritarian regulation propelled by moral intimidation."

Here's the Washington Post news story, followed by a link to a Washington Times commentary piece by science author Michael Fumento....

Still, I can live with that. I may even quietly gaze intently at coffee shop menus, partaking of the delectable aroma of brewed coffee, the caress of warm carbon producing air and rejoicing at the nicotine junkies shivering on the footpath. I suppose for men, the cold helps reboot the vitality of sperm the nicotine kills. For women well, they just go old and wrinkly at breakneck speed. And that would drive anyone to smoke I guess.

But seriously. My point is, right, wrong or ahead of its time, banning smoking has an extensive list of positives. From not smelling like an ashtray to making an addiction hard work there are reasons not to overturn the underturn. Besides, no amount of junk science can change what we do know about passive smoking and increased risk of cancer. Perhaps much of the impetus driving moral panic over cannabis induced psychosis is akin to smoking cigarettes in public or private. And if there's one thing we absorbed like good little citizens, it's to fear the gasping wheeze of inhaled smoke. Accepting cannabis smoking may reduce lung cancer risk is counterintuitive. Forgetting the role tobacco plays when mixed with cannabis has made a mess of topics from addiction, to cancer to respiratory function.

There's a few paragraphs spelling things out at Transform:

It seems the source of this incorrect extrapolation is here. Another more strongly worded piece on another study, from that colourful time is headed, Outrageous anti-pot lies: media uses disgraceful cancer scare tactics. The author is Paul Armentano. I respect Pauls right to be angry. For one, he's translated very difficult findings on cannabinoid behaviour across multiple disciplines, many times. Secondly the fact this junk went to press before the study was published renders the human rights and public health aim something of a joke. Reuters, Fox and even - oh, my! - Australias ABC got it very wrong.

On the cannabis induced psychosis factoid ABCs Health Reporter, Norman Swan notes it may not be as safe as the sixties generation made out. Even Norman chose to be politically correct claiming "any use" is related to increased risk, quoting both 40% and "a quadrupling" of risk. What he left out is how useless such a huge variation is or what the most likely risk actually is. In fact, although I give Norman the final say as promised, his insouciant tripe about some imaginary "60s generation" is beyond frustrating, and indicative of the ABCs right wing leaning.

Alcohol increases this risk by 800% for men, 300% for women according to one study. A plethora of others also support alcohols far more durable link to psychosis than cannabis. Despite Australian drinking levels and our teen binge drinking saturating daily discourse, Norman breathes not a word. Indeed, what would he say? Blame the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's.... 2000's generation/s?

A handy piece of useful data would be alcohol doesn't discriminate - it's shrinks the brain. Cannabis does discriminate, with positive correlation to a smaller hippocampus and amygdala, raising major concern as to the integrity of memory, short term memory, memory of emotional conduct. The amygdala also connects to areas responsible for the regulation of dopamine and one is far more tempted to respect these documented realities than gross generalisations.

Dr. Swan ignored Marjorie Wallace of SANE UK, who wins moral panic medals by the bucket load, but has the decency to remind readers that only 10% of human beings are at any risk of psychological injury. He omitted entirely the reality that 800 cases out of 6.2 million smokers is 0.00125%. He failed to explain why psychosis levels have dropped to around 2% and schizophrenia to 1%. There is absolutely no correlation with cannabis use globally or in any single country: in short, where's the epidemic? He omitted that 40% is a piddling change anyway, with 300-400% considered worthy of publishing a paper.

Sadly, the medicinal potential that's well known and under assault from the morally pure, also missed being referenced. Don't underestimate the illogical voodoo of the drug free proponents, dear reader. It makes sense, particularly when other modalities have failed and deserves respect. Illicit drug abuse is emotional, especially if you've had a personal experience. But insisting medicinal cannabis "sends the wrong message" if someone living with severe cerebral palsy uses it to control bladder/bowel when asleep, is brutally deceptive. Or, as Drug Free proponents now insist, it's "legalisation by stealth". Dr. Swan ignored Australias national stance on managing cannabis related harm and our focus on human rights.

Finally, unless one is falling into opinion, it helps to quote scientists - not select tabloid junk. Ergo, thank-you Leslie Iverson:

Then I realised many people wrongly - or too easily - accept that the mysterious "pro-cannabis lobby" insist on their right to push cannabis and claim it's a "natural herb". What is being missed is that prohibitionists sprouting junk science should really fear the pro-evidence mindset which traditionally responds to "natural this-n-that" arguments by throwing them off natural cliffs, or dropping them into natural oceans. Sure, some of these wankers exist. They also reject vaccinating their children because it's not natural, starve someone elses growing body of protein and iron in the quest for vague vegan virtues and spend thousands on "natural" rubbish like homeopathy, MMS, placebo acupuncture, natural medicine and detoxification scams.

Unfortunately the vote grabbing waste of time, money, print, airtime, interviews and ultimately lives surrounding the reclassification of cannabis in the UK went ahead. If there's any positive side to this it's that only panic merchants who stand to gain politically are now revealed. Despite the ACMD scientists warning against it, the decision went ahead. This launched "drug free" devotees like Jo Baxter of Drug Free Australia [who dismisses education department guidelines] and Chair Craig Thompson to demand the same, whilst lying like champions about cannabis. Suffice it to say, support for right wing rhetoric is well met with fact based objection.

1. Scientists attack plan to upgrade cannabis.
2. Lords must stop plan to reclassify cannabis.
3. Cannabis laws being toughened to appease public.
4. Experts dismiss case for cannabis reclassification.
5. No smoke without fear - cannabis and psychosis.

It takes only a short time to discover the UK government failed its public, and did so amidst calls for legalisation, all round easing of penalties and the steadily growing cries for mature policy changes. There simply is no 'pro-drug' lobby. In the ideology struggle it's war mongering, scare tactics and punitive responses, versus respect for science, human rights and harm reduction.

The question one might ask Australias ABC is when do we hear of all facts pertaining to a failed war on drugs, regularly and fairly? Who shall expose the true cost of successive governments failing to accept reality, lest power be lost. 

Articles of relevance here.

Gags,
23 MB, 58 min,58

Welcome to a two part look at sloppy science reporting from Australias "premier flagship science programme"; Catalyst. In part one, we examine the falsehood and hype to spring from - of all things - a meta-analysis on cannabis use and psychosis, published in the Lancet in 2007.

In part two, we look at media responses that never made it into the mainstream moral panic presses where it was claimed one off cannabis use increased risk of psychosis by 40%. To make it worse, the moral panic button of increasing the drug classification severity of cannabis had been pushed progressively by UK politicians. The UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised against bending to rhetorical vote herding, citing lack of evidence to justify raising the classification of cannabis. That is their job, after all.

However, the UK public were... well, off their faces on hysteria. It was the Skyhook of illicit drug nightmare, the boogey plant, the alien intelligence... the "addictive killer skunk" whatdunnit. This was later explored by David Blunkett, former Home Secretary who said laws were being "toughened to appease the public". A public I might add that had been subject to tabloid insults on this topic for years. Remember The Independents "apology" of March 2007?

Back in 2008 Dr. Jonica Newby of ABC Catalyst chose to report on the Lancet article as if it really was the "final verdict" she very, very stupidly - for any scientist - promised. In Marijuana Madness Catalyst made a fair hash of the meaning of data - how we interpret science - around cannabis and psychosis. Their confidence was hatched on the back of this media hype in the UK and a growing chorus of old familiar panic merchants here.

Before we move on, I'd like to remind readers I object to naught but bad science, fear greatly that we shall fail heavy cannabis abusers due to false convictions born of bigotry, and in the process condemn thousands to a life of limited choices, social dependence, fruitless coercion/diversion/hospitalisation and prolonged marginalisation. Finally, it is the overstating of an already well known problem by our conservative guardians that has chilling consequences.

Even more final is that evidence rebukes in totality much of the contemporary promotion of panic. Bible propheteers and Young Earth Creationists, Drug Free Australia, recently published a range of fallacious conclusions drawn from a collation of junk science, biased science and obscure findings headed with the eye popping but intellectually repugnant title; "Cannabis - suicide, schizophrenia and other ill effects". Like all topics humans find suitable to the "evangelistic" approach, such biased and blinkered nonsense may well be cathartic for the anal retentive Thought Police amongst us. However to the professional it is evidence only that matters. And as cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid therapy continues to improve the lives of those fighting debilitating disease, it is no surprise to learn DFA have picked up their discriminating against our vulnerable.

This Four Corners article references activity in the UK in late 2001. Despite Australian researchers favouring a cautious approach the facts have been distorted by drug-free proponents. Simply put, 'medicinal cannabis is a covert attempt to legalise cannabis by the back door'. No research, no pilot studies, no bipartisan discourse. A fact sheet here helps place things in context. The NSW cancer council have cautious information here. Ample information may be accessed here at the Medical Cannabis Information Service. In July 2003 Catalyst reported on the issue of medicinal cannabis.

The facts have been distorted quite successfully by the 'drug-free' moral guardians, many of whom stand to benefit financially and politically should we follow their pseudo-science beyond Creationism, miracle cures and adherence to scripture. Suffice it to say, evolution is not the only discipline under threat. Science in general is seen as an evil in dissonance to Gods word.

The Mental Health Council of Australia published Where there's smoke... cannabis and mental health, in 2006. It stressed the paucity of conclusive data. They concluded in part;

This is not the same as a conclusive "no, cannabis does not cause psychotic illness". Likewise, it isn't conclusive - or a "final verdict" the other way either. Indeed, reading the 1894 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, one is reminded of similar observations heard today. Even when minuscule differences are found, such as a 0.00125% increased risk for cannabis smokers - as the Lancet reported, the Daily Mail screamed, "Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%". Then Fox, then the NHS, then the BBC.... viral panic over simply absurd fabrications. See below for clairification.

As with media worthy meta-analyses this was presented as "new data" here in Australia, and across the globe. However a meta-analysis can only "find" what it analyses. In this case cannabis and psychosis association. The Lancet published their don't miss it media blurb, Cannabis use and risk of psychosis in later life on Friday, July 27th, 2007. See page one of thirteen,

We can confirm of course the authors own summary. Or if you check page four of thirteen you'll find the original text of the Lancets meta-analysis paper entitled, Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review.

Whether cannabis can cause psychotic or affective symptoms that persist beyond transient intoxication is unclear. We systematically reviewed the evidence pertaining to cannabis use and occurrence of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.

The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here. However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.

So, however impressive the data we cannot ignore the language. "We conclude there's now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life". This is a long way from claiming as did Jonica, "the data's in".... "final verdict".... "couldn't find psychosis because we'd been looking in the wrong places...". Compare this hypothetical statement as representative of a "final verdict":

World health authorities, acting upon conclusive data, replicated across the globe, have taken proactive measures to inform all adolescents, their parents, schools... that the use of cannabis will result in a serious case of intractable schizophrenia at a later period in life.

My point is semantic trickery. Observe: "Now there's sufficient [not lots, an abundance or irrefutable] evidence to warn [not act to stop/prevent] ... could [not will, or will if...] increase their risk" [not certainly raise by Y percent], is pretty tame. Apart from young adults laughing in the face of risk it sure isn't saying X Will Be The Case. In fact causality is not ever shown. What else is at play here?

In Will one joint really make you schizoid?, Maia Szalavitz makes a calm, rational case;

Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws.

What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study need to ask?  First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot,though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this.

So what are we really missing? It's true the crudely labelled "COMT gene" got a mention. The caper here is reasonably basic. Catechol-O-Methyl Transferase is an enzyme that catalyses neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine... in fact the catecholamines. In managing the 'building blocks' and blueprint of dopamine, this enzyme must be specific. Humans with a polymorphism [different gene] switch one amino acid in building the enzyme. How do people develop this enzyme? They inherit two recessive gene copies from their parents. Why don't their parents have problems? They [almost exclusively, unless carrying two recessive copies] have a regular gene which is dominant. Upon conception it's the two recessives that make the grade in certain people.

The imperfect blueprint [gene] leads to a subtle difference at the molecular level, issues with psychosis, executive functioning and some subtle neurocognitive effects. Despite the carry on, cannabis ingestion is not certainly going to lead to psychosis. The COMT variant also relates to "being alive" and "length of time being alive" as compounding the onset of psychosis. My guess is if you're alive - indeed the longer you're alive - the greater the chance of smoking cannabis. No, I'm not dismissing it in a frivolous manner, but will not ignore simply existing with the COMT polymorphism is itself a fast-track to psychosis. So, how?

Well, the gene 'blueprint' that builds the Catechol-O-Methyl Transferase enzyme isn't written perfectly in the polymorphism form. In fact it uses the amino acid called valine where it should use methionine. It can still break down dopamine but at four times the rate, leaving the dopaminergic synapses less stimulated. It is this lower or shorter sustained neurodynamic effect in the post synaptic neuron that is associated with cognitive deficits. In the true fashion of neurokinetics and the resultant neurodynamic effect, note here it is less dopamine - not more - that is the problem.

In all "cannabis and psychosis" ranting we are told it is excessive dopamine that is the cause. Then there's the truly concerning fact that we seek to increase with medication, dopamine levels in Parkinsons patients. We give them COMT inhibitors. These drugs "save" dopamine building blocks like Levodopa from being broken down by the COMT enzyme and in all these years, not one episode of induced psychosis has been recorded in these populations. Still, the blinkered view of trouble makers like Cohen - who admits colleagues scream abuse at him - knows no bounds. This - IMHO - may lead to insouciant assumption or generalisations that colour our willingness to be open minded. Viz a viz:

Could it be a case of ill people smoking cannabis to obtain the antipsychotic, CBD, as medicine? Could it be the role of THC in mimicking anandamide - the "bliss molecule"? What of the relationship then of reduced anandamide in psychotically ill humans and the provision of "analogue anandamide" [THC] and anti psychotic CBD only found in cannabis? Despite the junk science behind so called studies into cannabis potency, could it be the documented fact that hydroponic cannabis has an imbalance in the THC/CBD ratio, favouring THC? Could it be ratios of many cannabinoids that mimic endocannabinoids, more than a single molecules concentration at play here?

Surely, we must have an epidemic if as Newby claims, we "haven't been looking in the right places". It turns out Jonica Newby of ABCs Catalyst programme was misleading viewers. The "right place" was actually psychotic patients. My, what a surprise.

And what did we find? This is not a dismissal, but a clarification. According to the Lancet itself the "dose response correction" makes this rather special science. According to reported data, the UKs 6.2 million cannabis smokers presented 800 schizophrenics who would not be thusly afflicted if they never smoked cannabis.

Ergo; 0.00125% of cannabis smokers make up Jonica Newbys "final verdict". Or perhaps cannabis smokers should know that 99.99875% of them will not develop schizophrenia.

In part two we delve deeper into the facts and the reporting of the opposite conclusions.

Related articles here.

Gags,
24 MB. 01.09.18

The madness of reefer madness reaches fever pitch. This episode we hear how Harry J. Anslinger gets a clever idea from the "machine gun ban" to devise a truly ridiculous mode of licencing cannabis. This ensures he is able to convince Congress to pass the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

To secure a licence, one must have cannabis in hand. To have done so, is to breach licencing conditions and be charged with illegal possession. Once a criminal, further thoughts of obtaining a licence are pointless. Penalties involve a maximum sentence of five years jail and a $2,000 fine. The first offender arrested is sentenced to four years and a $1,000 fine for possession.

One of illicit drug laws earlist skeptics and defender of secular values and human rights, Dr. William Woodward of the American Medical Association testifies to the USA Congress that no evidence exists to support Anslingers outrageous claims of the "dirty, dangerous" drug he has described. Indeed, the "Assassin of Youth" [marijuana]. Dr. Woodward is considered a sheer party pooper, abused and dismissed out of hand. Incredibly thanks to John Howards predetermined agenda and Drug Free Australia, Australians witnessed the same in 2007 when the Chair of a Parliamentary Inquiry, Bronwyn Bishop, slandered internationally renowned researchers as "immoral drug industry elites".

The mayor of New York comissions a "blue ribbon" study to examine Anslingers claims of evidence only to find also, none exists. The cannabis used and examined came from Anslinger himself. This leads to a suppression of scientific research on medicinal cannabis and cannabis abuse that remains until today.

The law is overturned, for obvious reasons, in the late 1960s thanks to Timothy Leary tuning in before he dropped out. Cannabis is then outlawed in 1970, having "no medical purpose". We pick up where we left off in part one, listening to David Musto of Yale University recount discussions with Anslinger over his feelings of hopelessness and ultimately successful planning.

Finally we touch on the issue of cannabis induced psychosis and supporting evidence - the topic of the next episode.

More articles of interest are in the ever growing pile here.

Gags,
26MB, 58min, 57