4 ms·

Much like your original comment and despite having zero knowledge of the subject, you are arrogantly stringing together random words in an attempt to belittle p

• Mo3 4y ago
  > belittle people for being "stupid or naive." CHS is not rare, nor does it require extreme dosage. It affects approximately 7% of smokers. Allow me to quote directly from the article linked to by you, > Patients between the ages of 18-49 years who reported smoking marijuana at least 20 days per month. Among 2127 patients approached for participation, 155 met inclusion criteria as smoking 20 or more days per month. Among those surveyed, 32.9% (95% CI, 25.5-40.3%) met our criteria for having experienced CHS This puts the initial prevalence at around 2.3%, not 7%, but the dataset is also very small. Also, the dataset is likely biased because it consists of patients already presenting to the ER. There is no further mention as to why they presented to the emergency room either. > Patients were classified as experiencing a phenomenon consistent with CHS if they reported smoking marijuana at least 20 days per month and also rated 'hot showers' as five or more on the ten-point symptom relief method Likert scale for nausea and vomiting. These conditions are very broad and symptoms of CHS match closely the symptoms of regular overdose, and most of the relief methods are also directly applicable to regular overdoses. I would be extremely surprised if the actual prevalence is any higher than 0.5-1% of consumers, and in any case this has pretty much only proven my point now. I may have little knowledge on some rare edge-case condition, but at least I know how statistics work. For whatever it's worth, the prevalence of CHS seems to be lower than the prevalence of allergic reactions to alcohol.......
  • bryans 4y ago
    You're now making inflammatory claims about how you understand statistics better than NYU scientists and professors. Yet, all you've actually done is invent some numbers in your head and call them statistics, while also redefining bias. You even conveniently left out the rest of the researchers' quote which shows your premise is utter nonsense: "If this is extractable to the general population, approximately 2.75 million (2.13-3.38 million) Americans may suffer annually from a phenomenon similar to CHS." There are approximately 35,000,000 regular smokers. 2.75m / 35m is 7.8%. > Also, the dataset is likely biased because it consists of patients already presenting to the ER. That's not how bias works. In fact, you're introducing your own concocted bias, because you've limited the dataset to the ER visits and not the population. Your 2.3% number only represents the number of undiagnosed vomiting cases that could be attributed to CHS, which has no relevance to the number of smokers who experience vomiting. You don't have any understanding of statistics. > These conditions are very broad and symptoms of CHS match closely the symptoms of regular overdose, and most of the relief methods are also directly applicable to regular overdoses. You're now suggesting that these situations aren't actually marjiuana-related at all, but instead some other drug overdose that the ER staff totally missed. So, not only do you purport to understand statistics better than everyone else, but your medical expertise apparently surpasses that of ER doctors. Your trolling is outrageous.
    • Mo3 4y ago
      My friend, I am trusting academia, but I also know how flawed it can be. If anyone has a bias right now, it seems to be you and the bias is towards always trusting academic research without thinking for yourself. > "If this is extractable to the general population, approximately 2.75 million (2.13-3.38 million) Americans may suffer annually from a phenomenon similar to CHS." Well, it is most definitely not extractable, that's why they also wrote "if". The dataset is abysmally small, biased and the filters/conditions applied not nearly strict or valid enough to come to these conclusions. They are also, at exactly this point, completely contradicting their own research and rationale, as well as your claims: > 2127 patients approached for participation, 155 met inclusion criteria as smoking 20 or more days per month. 2127 patients that are already in the ER, for various possible reasons. Invalid dataset. > 155 met inclusion criteria as smoking 20 or more days per month. Among those surveyed, 32.9% (95% CI, 25.5-40.3%) met our criteria for having experienced CHS This would mean, by their and/or your logic: - that out of a "general population" dataset, 7% smoke >= 20 days a month, which on a side note absolutely conflicts with other statistics on weed consumption - even if that was the case, there is absolutely no way to infer from ER patients back to the general population - even if that was a valid line of thinking, it would imply that: Out of 35 million cannabis smokers, there are 23 million that smoke weed more than 20 days a month (right..), and since they claim that 33% of them seem to have experienced CHS, this would imply that around 7.5 million of 35 million smokers have potentially experienced CHS. You know what that is? 21% of all cannabis consumers. I don't think so. Their logic is flawed. ER patients are not a neutral slice of the population. You have absolutely no way of inferring back to the general population without knowing how and how much the dataset is skewed. This also shows very clearly that even if the dataset is at least somewhat valid, their pre-selection and applied conditions are absolutely bogus and not suitable. > In fact, you're introducing your own concocted bias, because you've limited the dataset to the ER visits and not the population. The dataset IS limited to a group of patients in the ER, you knucklehead. That's what was used to generate the dataset in the first place. A subset of people they found in an ER. Exclusively. That's a bias that almost certainly invalidates the whole calculation. You also have no way of inferring back to the population from it. > You're now suggesting that these situations aren't actually marjiuana-related at all, but instead some other drug overdose that the ER staff totally missed. Because I wrote "overdose", and not "THC overdose" or "cannabis overdose"? Sorry man, but.. if anyone is trolling here, it must be you.