UK - Cannabis linked to testicular cancer

[enquirewithin]

Scientists find heavy use of marijuana can double risk of tumours among men.

The soaring rate of testicular cancer in the UK and other Western countries is linked today to the increased popularity of cannabis. Testicular cancer has more than doubled over the past 30 years and its rise parallels that of the use of cannabis, Britain's most popular illegal drug.


Researchers in the US have found that men who regularly smoke cannabis have a 70 per cent increased risk of testicular cancer. The risk was highest – twice that of those who never used the drug – in those who smoked it at least once a week or had a long history of use, beginning in adolescence.

The study is based on findings from 369 men with testicular cancer who were questioned about their history of cannabis use. The results were compared with 979 men who did not have cancer. Cannabis was linked with testicular cancer independently of smoking, drinking and family history.


Experts from Cancer Research UK said it was the first time a link had been suggested and the size of the study was small. More than three million people smoke cannabis and only a tiny proportion develop the cancer.

The results, published today in the journal Cancer, showed a link between cannabis use and one type of testicular cancer, called nonseminoma, which is aggressive, tends to strike younger men and accounts for 40 per cent of testicular cancer.

Stephen Schwartz, an epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle, Washington, who led the research, said: "Our study is not the first to suggest that some aspect of a man's lifestyle or environment is a risk factor for testicular cancer but it is the first that has looked at marijuana use."

There were 2,109 cases of testicular cancer in Britain in 2005 and 78 deaths. In 1975 there were 850 cases. Unlike other cancers, it is most common in young men with a peak incidence between the ages of 20 and 40.

The more common, slower growing type, called seminoma, was not linked with cannabis use, even though both types have been growing by 3 to 6 per cent a year since the 1950s in the US, UK and other developed countries.

Although testicular cancer is normally curable when caught early, some patients are not diagnosed until the disease is advanced. Undescended testes in childhood and a family history of the disease are known to increase the risk.

The disease is thought to begin in the womb when germ cells in the foetus (those that will eventually make sperm in the adult) fail to develop properly. Exposure to male hormones in adolescence is thought to trigger development of cancer in the affected cells. Chronic cannabis use is known to reduce sperm quality and increase impotence, which are linked with testicular cancer.

The testes have receptors for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, and the male reproductive system is known to naturally produce a cannabinoid-like chemical that is thought to protect against the disease.

The researchers speculate that cannabis may interfere with this anti-tumour effect, increasing the risk of the cancer developing.

Janet Daling, a member of the research team, said: "It has been suggested that puberty is a window of opportunity during which lifestyle or environmental factors can increase the risk of testicular cancer. This is consistent with the study's findings that the elevated risk of nonseminoma-type testicular cancer in particular was associated with marijuana use prior to age 18."

By Jeremy Laurance, Health editor

Monday, 9 February 2009

[Nature Boy]

Seems rather inconculsive considering the small scale of the test. More sociology than science I would think. This quote is interesting:

"Chronic cannabis use is known to reduce sperm quality and increase impotence, which are linked with testicular cancer."

Where's their source on this? How is it "known"? Known like an old wive's tale or known like a verifiable fact I ask.

The problem with a lot of cannabis studies related to cancer is that they often stump and contradict themselves. This is the problem with these sociological style tests that come up with loose correlations without any clinical conditions being imposed. Of course such a thing could never be directly demonstratable but even the numbers they seek aren't that convincing. The study in question here is dubious to say the least and propagandistic to a degree. A true discovery here would involve indisputable numbers, majorities.

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

This quote is interesting:

"Chronic cannabis use is known to reduce sperm quality and increase impotence, which are linked with testicular cancer."

Where's their source on this? How is it "known"? Known like an old wive's tale or known like a verifiable fact I ask.

I agree. It's a spurious correlation. And one can never draw inferences or determine causality with spurious correlations.

However, it does remind me of something I read before involving 'old' sperm and prostrate cancer. It was found that men who did not ejaculate often (1-2 a week I think) were at higher risk of developing prostrate cancer. They speculated that it was due to a build up of 'old' sperm that needed to be flushed out of the system. I can try to find the source for this if anyone is interested.

[cannabis-sam]

More rediculous crap, being spouted. Never trust newspaper science. Infact never trust the papers. Personally I'll read the medical journals and the full studies, done by non biast experts to get my information. Not some scaremongering journalist trying to sell a paper by feeding the masses with the sort of crap they want to hear.

maybe we will all end up in the funny farm with our testicles amputated!

Man that sentance made me laugh my arse off

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

More rediculous crap, being spouted. Never trust newspaper science. Infact never trust the papers.

Not even the supposedly 'liberal' ones - remember a year or two ago when the Independent did that big cover piece saying, basically, "We're sorry we once supported decriminalising cannabis, turns out it really is 25 times stronger than it used to be, so don't smoke it or you'll catch schizophrenia"? Gah. Bunch of wankers. I hate the Indie.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by Jasim

However, it does remind me of something I read before involving 'old' sperm and prostrate cancer. It was found that men who did not ejaculate often (1-2 a week I think) were at higher risk of developing prostrate cancer. They speculated that it was due to a build up of 'old' sperm that needed to be flushed out of the system. I can try to find the source for this if anyone is interested.

I don't think that has to do with 'old' sperm as such. It's probably more down to natural stagnation and degradation. From an evolutionary perspective, it isn't normal for men not to have an orgasm for a prolonged period of time. Of course society changes this. Some people may not resort to masturbation for lack of a sexual partner as they might not be into that. Religious celibacy or guilt also plays a massive role. Most health forums (fora) are littered with posts from Born Again Christians concerned about their sexual health due to the stigmas attached to deriving pleasure from sexual activity.

[Routemaster Flash]

I think there are certain enzymes involved in making seminal fluid that need trace elements like zinc and selenium - so it makes sense that if chemically similar but perhaps harmful heavy elements* are going to accumulate anywhere in the body, it's going to be in the prostate. So getting rid of seminal fluid regularly reduces the risk of harmful exposure to these elements.

Single men, do your duty: wanking is good for you!


*for instance, cadmium and mercury are in the same group, or chemical 'family', as zinc

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by Routemaster Flash

I think there are certain enzymes involved in making seminal fluid that need trace elements like zinc and selenium - so it makes sense that if chemically similar but perhaps harmful heavy elements* are going to accumulate anywhere in the body, it's going to be in the prostate.

That's interesting. I know this is getting off topic, but I would like to see a source on this.

Any speculation on a possible mechanism of marijuana involvement?

[enquirewithin]

The sample is tiny and there are no causal links, as usual. Note:

More than three million people smoke cannabis and only a tiny proportion develop the cancer.

The way the article misuses the statistics in a similar way that the articles about skunk made a link with schizophrenia. It suits the government, with Brown's idiotic reclassification of cannabis, to have articles like this printed. You would tempted to say it's all b***cks. Then gain, maybe we will all end up in the funny farm with our testicles amputated!

[Routemaster Flash]

I was about to post this story myself but saw that someone had already done so...

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

The sample is tiny and there are no causal links, as usual.

Hmm, well it was the better part of 400 men, that's not a huge sample, but I don't know if I'd call it 'tiny' either. It's tempting to want to rubbish the whole thing, but just because governments often talk a load of shit about the drug (and many others) that doesn't mean any given suspected health hazard is necessarily untrue. Also bear in mind the findings were published by a cancer research institute, which is presumably government-funded but not actually part of government itself.

[Potter]

Marijuana Use May Significantly Increase Risk of Testicular Cancer

Tuesday February 10, 2009 (1604 PST)

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the U.S., with 95 million Americans age 12 and older having used the drug at least once, and three out of every four illegal drugs users reporting its use within the previous 30 days. Most users perceive marijuana as a natural herb thereby believing it to be harmless.

In truth, the habitual use of marijuana has been proven to cause concentration and thinking problems, deficits in mathematical skills and verbal expression, as well as selective impairments in memory retrieval processes. It can also lead to increased anxiety, panic attacks, depression, and other mental health problems. The long-term consequences of using marijuana include poor academic performance, poor job performance, cognitive deficits, and even lung damage.

New U.S. research has now added to the ever-growing list of dangers associated with the use of marijuana. The new study has shown that people who frequently use marijuana may be at more than double the risk of developing testicular cancer.

The study included 369 men from the Seattle-Puget Sound area who had been diagnosed with testicular cancer as well as 979 men without the disease. The study participants ranged in age from 18 to 44. Each participant was asked about his history of marijuana use. The findings revealed that current marijuana users were 70 percent more likely to develop a testicular malignancy than nonusers.

The risk was shown to be highest among those who had used marijuana for at 10 years or longer or began their usage before age 18 as well as those currently using it more than once a week. In addition, the study results suggested that a specific type of testicular cancer known as nonseminoma was linked to the drug’s use. Nonseminoma is a fast-progressing testicular malignancy that accounts for approximately 40 percent of all testicular cancer cases and most often develops in people between the ages of 20 and 35. The results of the analysis were published in the journal Cancer.

Research group member Stephen Schwartz, an epidemiologist and member of the Public Health Sciences Division at the Seattle`s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center said, “Our study is not the first to suggest that some aspect of a man`s lifestyle or environment is a risk factor for testicular cancer, but it is the first that has looked at marijuana use.”

Although experts remain uncertain as to the causes of testicular cancer, known risk factors include a family history of the disease, undescended testes and abnormal testicular development. The link between marijuana use and the disease may be attributed to a disruption of the effects of a chemical that is naturally produced by the male reproductive system believed to have a protective effect against cancer.

Approximately 8,000 men within the U.S. are diagnosed with testicular cancer annually. According to the American Cancer Society, The disease has a five-year survival rate of about 96 percent as it usually responds well to treatment. However, some patients are not diagnosed until the disease is in its advanced stages. Performing regular testicular self-examinations can help to insure successful treatment by identifying growths that are still in the early stages.

End.

Source

So shall we start picking this apart?

"Approximately 8,000 men within the U.S. are diagnosed with testicular cancer annually." Let's say there are, what? 100 million pot smokers (roughly 42% of 306 million). Assuming that ALL of the 8,000 got testicular cancer because they were potheads, that's a chance of 1 in 12,500 that you'll get cancer. Fair odds. As the article doesn't say how many of the 369 men were potheads, we've got to figure the odds are even longer than that. What kind of weird math did they use to come up with the 70% more likely figure?

only 40% of the 8,000 in nonseminoma cancer, so stretch the odds out even further. In short, it remains very long odds regardless. Fudgy math doesn't make it any more likely.

[Milk man]

So shall we start picking this apart?

"Approximately 8,000 men within the U.S. are diagnosed with testicular cancer annually." Let's say there are, what? 100 million pot smokers (roughly 42% of 306 million). Assuming that ALL of the 8,000 got testicular cancer because they were potheads, that's a chance of 1 in 12,500 that you'll get cancer. Fair odds. As the article doesn't say how many of the 369 men were potheads, we've got to figure the odds are even longer than that. What kind of weird math did they use to come up with the 70% more likely figure?

only 40% of the 8,000 in nonseminoma cancer, so stretch the odds out even further. In short, it remains very long odds regardless. Fudgy math doesn't make it any more likely.

There are a few mistakes here.... woman can't get testicular cancer and unless you are assuming that nearly every male smokes pot, then 42% of the US population is a bit high. Maybe 25% of the male population but the odds are still quite high that nothing will happen.

Odds of being killed sometime in the next year in any sort of transportation accident: 77 to 1

Swim thinks pot is quite safe...

[enquirewithin]

How Safe Are Your 'Nads?

The March 15 issue of Cancer will include a study suggesting that marijuana use might increase the risk of testicular cancer. The journal released the study, "Association of Marijuana Use and the Incidence of Testicular Germ Cell Tumors," by Janet Daling, et al, to the media Feb. 9.

"Marijuana Testicular Cancer Link" was the BBC News streamer. Could you devise a headline better suited to dissuade young men from smoking? The BBC story ended with a perspective-restoring comment from Henry Scowcroft, Cancer Research UK: "As the researchers themselves point out, this is the first inkling that there is any association between chronic marijuana use and testicular cancer. But the researchers only interviewed a relatively small number of men [369]. So before we can reach any firm conclusions about whether this is a cause-and-effect relationship, rather than a statistical blip, the result needs to be replicated in a much larger study."

C Notes asked California cannabis clinicians if they were seeing an inordinate number of testicular cancer patients. First to respond was Terrill Brown, MD, of Fresno: "2,750 patients, one only with history of testicular CA, smoked after diagnosis, with very rare recreational exposure before mid-20's diagnosis."

This from Robert Sullivan, MD, of Carmichael: "I've seen a few patients among the 5-6,000 new patients over the past five years with a history of testicular cancer (usually already treated), but have not kept records according to diagnosis. Anecdotally, I've observed nothing to rouse my suspicion of a causal relationship. Naturally, formal research needs to be done here."

Dr. Sullivan notes that "given the Drug War propaganda about the adverse effect of cannabis on sperm count, it might be good to allay fears by mentioning that the observed drop is not statistically (or functionally) significant."

And this from Jeffrey Hergenrather, MD, of Sebastopol, " Though I'm skeptical of the design, it raises questions that should be studied. As usual 'bad' news about cannabis travels much better than the good... In my recent run through my stats I found four testicular cancer patients out of 126 malignancies in a patient population of 1700.

http://counterpunch.com/gardner02112009.html

[Greenport]

Originally Posted by Norml.org

Media Hysterics About Supposed Cancer Link Nothing New
Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:30:45 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

It must have been a slow news day.
According to Google News, more than 750 media outlets — that’s 7-5-0, folks — have now weighed in on this week’s pot scare story du jour: “Smoking marijuana causes testicular cancer.”
So is there any truth behind the provocative headline? Some, but hardly enough to justify the media’s feeding frenzy.
Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research in Seattle matched 369 men with of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) with 979 healthy controls. Here’s what they found.
Men who self-reported having “ever used” marijuana had no statistically significant risk of testicular cancer compared to healthy controls who never used pot.
Men who reported currently using marijuana at least once per week, and who had started smoking pot prior to age 18, had an elevated risk compared to controls of contracting a type of testicular cancer known as nonseminoma.
Sounds scary, huh? Well here’s the catch.
According to the federal government, millions of people smoke marijuana regularly. By contrast, diagnoses of nonseminoma, which typically affects males between the ages of 15 and 34, are extremely rare.
How rare?
Nonseminomas account for fewer than one half of one percent of all cancers among American men.
Further undermining the study’s hypothesis is this: Since the 1970s, the percentage of American males smoking pot has climbed dramatically. By contrast, incidences of nonseminoma have risen only nominally during this same time period.
Of course, this is hardly the first time the mainstream media has jumped ugly on cannabis. Around this same time last year, news outlets from Reuters to Fox News declared that marijuana posed a greater cancer risk than cigarettes. Only problem was that the study they were reporting on actually demonstrated the opposite.
So why does the mainstream media continue to get the story wrong when it comes to pot? Good question. You can read my abbreviated answer here. And while you’re on NORML’s site, get the skinny on what the scientific literature really has to say about any potential links between marijuana and cancer here, here, and here.

As such NORML seems to disagree, however unfortunately (and this is coming from someone who supports the decriminalization effort) it almost seems like they were just trying to disprove it with not enough emphasis on whether it does or not.

Personally I don't know if it does or not, but it wouldn't surprise me to see that it has some role in the cancer. This is a case which is more media-based and less statistically based. There needs to be a proper study done before anyone can claim that it does or doesn't, and why, before the media starts throwing everything out of proportion like it is doing.

[enquirewithin]

The media has such a poor record in all areas that the default reaction of a thinking person would be to reject such a story. Those who believe in media 'balance' and related myths can consult FAIR (for the US) or the Media Lens (for the UK).

[Pickpoke]

this is like saying people that drink milk have a higher percentage of getting osteoperosis than people who don't drink it..

its all bs in my opinion. they're just trying to make up stories!

[nate81]

This study is being spread around quite thoroughly in such a short time. I've been seeing it pop up around the web and many people hear this study and conclude that if they smoke marijuana then they are going to get cancer. Just like people think if they eat too much sugar they will get fat. Or if I live by an electrical relay station then I will get cancer. If I sunbathe then I'll get skin cancer. If I have unprotected sex I'll get an STD or pregnant. All those things are true, sort of. Actually it's more accurate to say I'll-increase-my-chances-of rather than I'll-get. It's just a poor understanding of what these studies are actually saying.

Testicular cancer is a 6.2 in 100,000 chance (for a white american, number came from some cancer website I found). Increase that by the 70% and you are left with a 10.5 in 100,000 chance to develop testicular cancer. That's 0.000105%. Any idea what the risk is for developing cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol? 15% That's 1,428 times more!!

I'd like someone to get me a huge collection of all the so-called cannabis-is-dangerous studies and put them in a pile on a table for me. I'd not say a word, but get on the table, squat, and take a dump on the pile. Light it on fire and throw a year's worth of hair clippings into the mix before turning and walking out the door.

[Jasim]

Originally Posted by Pickpoke

this is like saying people that drink milk have a higher percentage of getting osteoperosis than people who don't drink it..

And people who go to the dentist are more likely to get cavities...It's true.

Originally Posted by nate81

I'd like someone to get me a huge collection of all the so-called cannabis-is-dangerous studies and put them in a pile on a table for me. I'd not say a word, but get on the table, squat, and take a dump on the pile. Light it on fire and throw a year's worth of hair clippings into the mix before turning and walking out the door.

Burning hair smell really bad.


Two problems here.

1: These studies can never prove cause and effect relationships, all they can do is point out correlations, which may be completely spurious.

2: The media is not a reliable source. I've seen instances where one newspaper will use another newspaper as their primary source! Unfortunately, there are a couple of instances I could cite where a statistic has become a well known 'fact' even among the scientific community and when you trace it back to it's origins, it actually was first published in a newspaper as an unreliable source from something someone said off-hand in an interview.

One excellent example is the Kitty Genovese case study, which solely created and supported the whole concept of 'by-stander effect'. Now we know that the original source was a newspaper that straight out lied about the circumstances and took it way out of context.