GaryPinC

Championship! Yes!!!!

First off, your link doesn't work. Here's the actual link: http://www.amjmed.co...e/S0002-9343(13)00200-3/pdf Edit: This isn't working either. Go to AJM and search Murray A. Mittleman Here's a CDC link with incidence of type 2 diagnosis by age: http://www.cdc.gov/d...cs/age/fig1.htm I included the CDC link as a general relation of age related changes to body physiology -The AJM study has 4600 particpation, 579 of which are current users which is only 12.2% of your study population to base your conclusions. -45% of current users are under age 30, 60% of them also smoke tobacco, 77-78% of never or past users are over age 30 12% and 28% respectively smoke tobacco. Refer to cdc graph. -Never used it is more racially mixed (~56% white) than past or current users (70-77% white). -Currently using group is 66% male, 34 female. Other 2 groups are closer to 50/50. -Directly from the paper page 586: Because people with diabetes mellitus may alter their marijuana use habits, we also performed a sensitivity analysis excluding participants with diabetes mellitus. Hmmm. Not a huge percent of the study population but I do wonder if they also excluded diabetes participants from the "never used" group. Trust me, don't assume they did. Seems to me they could have addressed this in the survey! Certainly very convenient to exclude diabetes patients with their higher numbers from the much smaller "currently using" group. -Non users have never smoked it, past users smoked from once in their life to not within the past 30 days, and current users at least once in the past 30 days. So someone who smoked it once as a teenager and is now 59 is lumped in with someone who smoked regularly for years but gave it up 30 days ago. Not a good way to classify this group. Sorry Bob, not the smelliest study I have seen but right up there. Physicians are required to have a certain # of research publications as part of their training and quite a few of them choose to pore over vast libraries of collected study data hoping to ferret out statistically significant correlations which may or may not be a false positive. Doesn't matter to them as long as it gets published. There's a good chance that happened here, And yes, it happens in prestigious journals like AJM all the time. Personally, I don't put much weight in these results. Your second reference with the pretty picture and orphan receptor has no relevance to the marijuana discussion from what I can see. Did I miss something about it?

Thanks much for discussing. Sorry to hear that you have this affliction and am glad the marijuana helps. As I mentioned, the legalizations should help push the research, hopefully it also helps prescibing physicians step up and discuss their experiences with patients also.

As a contrast, it's amazing the agitation I experience until I silence Tom. Who really likes listening to a mewing, anorexic weasel anyways? Does that qualify as a medical benefit of pot?

Interesting. So does smoking marijuana help with your sleep? Ah, thanks for clarifying. As a researcher, I have to caution you about trying to say why someone reacted a certain way to marijuana. The strain balance may have been fine, the person may have just been unusually sensitive to THC and/or insensitive to CBD. Hard to say exactly why. Human physiology is amazingly complicated, I spent years working on appetite supression/obesity. What a quagmire of overlapping biological processes! I think the more people who benefit medically from marijuana separate themselves from the recreational users the better. I too have seen a number of users who seem to use the medical angle to justify their recreational addiction and that's really harmful to advancing the medical benefits. People who never used it before finding medical relief are/would be especially powerful advocates. At this point with all the legalization the research should really take off. But I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you. As someone who has never smoked pot and probably never will, has witnessed friends drag their lives into a tailspin with it, and have known even more people with a profound psychological addiction to it, I also recognize that it is a mild, low toxicity drug that may have some real medical benefits. Intelligent discussions with people who have first-hand experience that I do not are always valuable. Thanks!

Bob, Happy to oblige. I understand your frustration and it's part of the reason I'm not a frequent poster. Your point about losing therapeutic effect from isolating components is an excellent one. A significant part of my background was working with small pharmas in drug discovery and I would say as a general mentality managements want the one miracle drug for a cure but it didn't take me long to realize that barring someone suffering from a specific molecular deficit (say leptin resulting in obesity -which is common in mice but not humans!) most diseases and disorders will need to be treated with a combination of compounds. Problem is, beyond breaking a mentality, no one wants to deal with the additional regulatory hurdles needed to gain approval; it's hard enough to get a single novel compound approved by the FDA! And now you have multiple sets of side effects and metabolic break down components! One way around it is to pair with an existing approved compound and that has been happening with more frequency. But I'm out of drug discovery so my current knowledge of the field is a little more spotty. But it still is worthwhile to isolate individual components from cannabis so they may be studied and quantified (elucidate pharmacology). As far as claiming better effects of marijuana over marinol, I would have to see the study design. Critical would be that the participants would never have used marijuana before and that there's an arm that first tried marinol for an appropriate time before trying marijuana. This would account for the physical and psychological addiction to marijuana. What state legislatures are trying to ban CBD and what's their justification? Sounds like it's non-addictive and non-psychoactive.

Thanks for the links, sounds like a company that is doing good research and the review paper looks interesting so I will dig through later. A couple perspective things I wanted to offer. All compounds have side effects, whether man-made or natural. Pharmaceutical products have at least been rigorously studied with their doses and side effects quantified. GWpharm has an interesting paragraph: Of the cannabinoids listed above, only two cannabinoids have to date been well characterized – THC and CBD. Both THC and CBD have important pharmacology: THC has analgesic, anti-spasmodic, anti-tremor, anti-inflammatory, appetite stimulant and anti-emetic properties, whilst CBD has anti-inflammatory, anti-convulsant, anti-psychotic, anti-oxidant, neuroprotective and immunomodulatory effects. CBD is not intoxicating and indeed it has been postulated that the presence of CBD in cannabis may alleviate some of the potentially unwanted side-effects of THC. There is currently limited scientific information on the pharmacology and toxicology of the other cannabinoids. Cannabinoids are believed to be effective in suppressing muscle spasticity, spasms, bladder dysfunction and pain symptoms of MS. This is IMO the great thing about what pharmaceutical science will do. They are isolating all the possible products from cannabis, will study, quantify and develop what products they can with effective doses, therapeutic windows, and side effects. Each product will be of consistent dose and quantity. In the near future, recreational users' argument that smoking marijuana has medical value will be rendered moot by the facts that dosage is too variable and side effects are probably higher than proper medical care and prescription. Plus, assuming the current legalization trend results in increased use, this will make smoking side effects more apparent and better quantified. At some point I expect there will be a healthy discussion on making marijuana smoking illegal again. As far as the review paper and all the possible therapeutic uses of cannabis products, I would only say that it reminds me of the stem cell discussion back in the 2000 election. Some or many of these targets will not pan out. On a side note, after the democrats made such a stink about funding embryonic stem cell research, isn't induced (adult) pluripotent stem cell research fascinating? If Bush had not taken the high profile moral stand against embryonic research, I wonder if science would have put the needed effort to develop alternative technologies like iPS?

The charging buffalo really pops out on the white helmet, which is why I like it the best. No to the red! Preference is probably based on what you grew up seeing. The Bills sucked in the red helmets too before Polian came along.

I do agree with you, you do realize the wiki link, while discussing the much greater picture in this debate, has it's own slant? WRT the perks in the field, it's not a tiny minority. I'm sorry, you really don't understand the world of academic research. There's not a lot of money in science and any funded PI being able to go out and give talks (beyond presenting at scientific meetings) is an important component to getting their name out there, collaborative efforts, and extra income. WRT Mann, I don't think he anticipated as much criticism as he deservedly got, so it's irrelevant to his actions. But I do think he enjoys the attention. But you do realize his "wins" mean there is still a temperature rise, though not as great as he originally published, the guy replaced tree ring temperature data with satellite temperature data conveniently at the exact point where the tree ring data diverged (stayed static or showed cooling) from the satellite data and never mentioned it in his publication? This is shady science at it's best. There were assumptions and parameters that either sides in this debate can manipulate to their convenience. Who's right? Well, why discuss because everything's "settled"? That polarizes mentalities and only inflames things. When I have time I'll dig more into the wiki links. No worries, sarcasm is difficult to pick up over the internet but you're probably the best at it I've seen. I read this thread because there can be some great references here but I really don't have the time or desire to engage in pissing matches.

No, true scientists are the same as everyone else. They have to eat and provide for themselves and their family, and when the money's short their way of dealing with it depends on their character which is no different from anyone else. Which is why attention-seeking scientists are hard to take seriously.

Exactly, thanks. All these guys are less than open with their data and methodologies, claiming it's too complex for non-climate scientists to understand. BS. Any scientist who reads and tries to utilize research papers smells the corners these guys cut so they can claim "settled" science. No real scientist calls things "settled". Things are accepted until evidence arises to challenge it. Any respectable scientist is just the opposite of these guys, they want their work open and critiqued so they can have new angles to explore and test.

The motivation is securing grant money to keep your job, prestige, and lab going. Prestige gets you speaking engagements which brings in more money. Sadly governments don't fund for good science that proves something doesn't work, they fund positive results. The ego of scientists get in the way when they form a hypothesis and need it proven to keep the grant $ coming. I don't trust anything Michael Mann does. The fact that he is willing to snipe Pat Sajak's twitter declaration says everything about him as a scientist. I haven't delved into every link of this source and it's not my expertise so I can't say how much of the assertions are true but read it, especially towards the bottom. I've done research in drug discovery and currently cardiology and I've seen scientists manipulate their data akin to what is asserted here about Mann: http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick totally true what they say about the peer review process also. The peer review doesn't delve into the raw data, it simply looks for holes and inconsistencies in what the paper is trying to assert. Labs fall into conflicting hypotheses and theories then people choose sides. If you happen to be on the opposite side of a reviewer you will get a bad review. If you're not on the right side of some cliques you won't get your work published in certain journals no matter how good it is. Don't get me wrong, there are many upstanding high-character scientists but there are also many who are willing to tweak data because they're convinced the answer they seek is in there but there's too much noise.

Great points, and I definitely agree with you about his performance against OSU. Hack definitely had his ups and downs as a freshman. I guess my bias is that it's unfair to call Guiton second best in the conference since he didn't play enough though he certainly excelled when given the opportunity. No official word that he is a Bills free agent only a Columbus station claiming he was invited to Buffalo to tryout. Hope we do bring him in though. Thanks for the info.

Thanks for discussing Guiton, buckeye fans. Really impressed with his tapes though not enough of him under duress. But definitely a great pickup for the Bills, love how he throws to hit his guy in stride. He has a slower throwing motion but so did Bernie Kosar. Bernie was successful because of how cerebral he was of the game. Wouldn't be surprised to see Tuel gone. Oh, not sure "most" analysts would say the Buckeyes had the 2 best QBs in the big 10. Mr. Hackenburg out at Penn State is pretty good too.

I agree, and to add to what you're saying I look at Watkins' highlights as a man who is driven to be the best. He appears to be relentless in the small amount of film I've seen of him. I caught Polian commenting on ESPN about the trade saying he had concerns because the Bills could have simply picked up Beckham at 9 and not given up all the picks. I do believe Whaley mortgaged the future because he believes Watkins has the elite talent and drive to be the best. Which in my mind is the proper way to build a winner.

Having experienced a miscarriage in my life (and seeing the sonogram) I just can't imagine why any decent human being would cherish a memento of this event?

One of my favorite experiences was working for an oil company's pipeline maintenance gang on my summers off from college. We were out in Western PA at an oil tank farm (depot) and our group set up an overhead aluminum canopy in 3 days to cover the fueling pumps for the semis. Roughly similar to what you might find at any gas station. Well the local union saw that and forced their way onto the job site. Made us dismantle it because it wasn't our job to set it up so of course we did it wrong. It was over 3 weeks before those union experts got it set up again.

Great, thanks! I saw Article 7.1 but hadn't been able to pinpoint those definitions. 'preciate it. It still seems to me from what I did read is that while the Bills could talk to Owners about moving the team after the lease expires, if word got out or if the public knew the potential owners would take the team away that could do economic harm while the talks were ongoing and could be basis for county/state to go to court. I'd be curious to know your opinion on that?

Did you find the section in the general lease agreement about the Bills terminating the lease in year 7? Specifically are there any conditions to this or solely at their discretion? I couldn't find the section skimming through and this is much more your area than mine. Thanks for your help! Some other facets of the non-relocate agreement that seem significant to me: Section 3 b) Bills can't even talk to potential relocation buyer unless relocation will take place after termination of lease or the Bills are already in arbitration over terminating the lease. But county/state can order injuction if they have evidence these discussions cause economic harm before the end of the lease. Section 4: Transfer of franchise: Bills will put a lein on the franchise that new owners must abide by all lease and non-relocation terms. Section 5: Liquidated damages: Both Bills and county/state acknowledge that actual damages are difficult to assess and forcing Bills to play in the Ralph or not being allowed to play elsewhere are the most effective measure. State/county must also try to seek damage relief in court before using $400 mil fund Section 8: Miscellaneous: "(ii) Each Party hereby agrees that all actions or proceedings arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement shall be litigated only in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County, or the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Each Party expressly submits and consents in advance to such jurisdiction and waives any claim that Erie County, New York or the Western District of New York is an inconvenient forum or an improper forum based on improper venue." So no change of venue for disputes either. Things have been stacked to favor the team staying here.

Don't forget about the state appointed committee also. If any of these organizations feel the Bills are even talking to a ownership group indicating a possibility of a move they can file an injuction/take court action. The groups can also name their appropriate compensation/remedy for these actions and if the groups or court fail to remedy this then the $400 million kicks in. The team has to play their games at the Ralph through the terms of the lease unless all these groups, with the NFL and potential new owner(s), can agree on an alternative course of action. That's what I get from reading sections 2 and 3.

Biggest thing to me that is being minimized is the fact that Erie County and the publicly appointed Stadium commission have to sign off on any transfer of ownership. Also the NFL, of course. But, these two public entities can block the sale of the team. Bills are still allowed to play one regular season game in Toronto or alternate location and one preseason game every other year. Also if the NFL selects them for an alternate location game. Other than if the stadium has a physical problem prohibiting full seating or playing of a game, every other game HAS to be played at the Ralph. Mr. Wilson did the area a huge favor with this. I think the cheaper buy-out provision in year seven is meant for if the team wants to relocate out of Erie County but within Western NY and Erie County refuses to sign off on it.

This was probably 15 years ago but 5 of us were out at a bar in the burbs there and when 4 am rolled by and we wanted another round the bartender said LCB guys never check up on a place at 4 am and we could keep drinking till we're done (5:30). Good times!

Say what??!!?? Look at his forearms in the photo. They should be perpendicular to the bar and his have a slight inward angle but not much. It's probably his normal grip considering he's 5'9". If his hands were where the spotter's are then we could talk close grip.

That Miami game breaking the streak in 1980 cemented things in for me. Not that I would have ever given up on the Bills, but as a kid (I was 10) they sucked so consistently that decade I definitely had times I doubted whether I wanted to endure a lifetime of that! Our house in West Seneca abutted US 219 and I was in the backyard helping my dad scrape the loose paint off our detached downspouts so we could repaint. I remember everything. Mostly sunny day, my dad had rigged up a sandblaster (SOB stuck me with the wire brush!) and to protect himself had donned a heavy green plastic rain parka, welding goggles, and ventilator mask making him look amazingly like an illegitimate Tusken raider/Jawa love child. But that's my dad. I remember the old silver radio in the grass, trying to keep that AM station coming in and struggling to hear over the sand blaster. Just following the game while working, slowly realizing Buffalo wasn't going away like normal, interrupting my dad but he was sure they'd blow it, then just stopping work in the fourth listening to Fergy bringing them back and the defense hanging on by seemingly the skin of their teeth. Jumping around the yard like a nut after it was over, listening to the scene afterwards and finally hitting the TV watching them pass the goal post up the stadium. What an amazing feeling from that game and season. The traffic jam on 219 lasted at least twice as long as usual. The minute people got stopped they were out of their cars dancing and celebrating with each other it took 'em a while to realize the road had cleared in front of them. Nobody cared, what a fantastic reward after the previous decade! Go Bills!

The thing about what Ralph did with the lease is that if it's apparent the new owners will move the team to Toronto, then I would think ticket sales would fall through the floor until 2019. Maybe lack of attendance would allow breaking the lease early and paying the 400 million but that would still take years to resolve. I know if a Toronto group takes them over the team is dead to me unless they announce plans for a new stadium in WNY.