It’s the fault of women like this. Isn’t this disgusting??!! One of these rug rats is hers, the other is not. And she feeds them wherever the fuck she wants.
Later in life her son will become a retarded copfuk obsessed with boobies cuz his future was predetermined by his mom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNDlf6hA6TY&feature=player_detailpage
The title was crafted to determine if the word “tits” results in a large number of page clicks. Admin, please monitor the stats.
SSS, in a post – “Party On, Garth” – he authored is ecstatic that, “researchers at Northwestern University have analyzed the relationship between casual use of marijuana and brain changes”. This new scientific study, soon to be published in the Journal of Neuroscience will probably replace his Viagra prescription. OK, the following two quotes are from the brilliant mind of SSS (emphasis, his)
——————————————————— –
“The article was about MEDICAL RESEARCH ON CASUAL MARIJUANA SMOKING.”
“I’m sick of hearing and reading this endless shit that smoking weed is harmless. It isn’t, particularly for young, developing minds.”
——————————————————— –
SSS isn’t the only idiot to be duped into believing the latest and greatest scientific study. A few months ago I went ape-shit when I read that Fish Oil actually CAUSES heart attacks …. until a poster pointed out the biased source of that study.
Even scientists fucken lie to us, are highly biased, and can be bought off for 30 shekels of silver (see anthropogenic climate change). So, my eyes now glaze over and my brain shuts down when someone tries to sway me to their point of view by referencing a “scientific study”. Don’t you feel the same way?
Also, it is often annoyingly used … as in SSS’s thread … as a way to shut down discussion, and thinking; “Hey, I have a scientific study, so just shut your pie hole!!” Then the other person posts their own scientific-study links — or, if your name is flash, you’ll copy and paste the whole damn thing. Thus, it devolves quickly into a my-expert-has-a-bigger-dick-than-your-expert raging debate. For example, experts have said the following;
—- “Eggs linked to diabetes”
—- “Eggs improve glucose control”
—- “Processed meats linked to cancer”
—- “Hot Dogs may prevent cancer”
It’s all point-counterpoint contradictory bullshit.
The video below is 46 minutes long, virtually guaranteeing that not one of your curs will watch it. That’s too bad. The guy is quite humorous. His presentation is very informative and presented in a most interesting manner. Give it a shot. Start at the 2 minute mark and watch a couple minutes … it might just “hook” you. And, if you watch the whole thing you will know more about nutrition science and how studies work than 99% of people out there.
Here are the basics.
1) CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
It is critical to recognize the difference between the two types of studies: observational studies and intervention studies.
2) OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES:
In an observational study, there is no intervention or treatment. The researchers OBSERVE the subjects over a period of time and gather data about them. Observational studies use mathematical methods to crunch the data and find out whether a certain trait or behavior is associated with a particular outcome. These studies can show, for example, that A (drinking) and B (depression) are associated, but they can NOT (!!!) prove that A caused B.
3) CLINICAL TRIALS or INTERVENTION STUDIES:
In clinical trials, there are two or more groups that receive a different type of treatment. Often there is a group that receives no treatment at all (called the control group). The gold standard of such studies is the Randomized Controlled Trial, which randomizes subjects into two or more groups where for example, one group eats a low-carb diet and the other a low-fat diet. These sorts of studies ARE capable of demonstrating causation, e.g. that A caused B. It is common that something that has been “proven” in an observational study turns out to be completely wrong when tested in a clinical trial. Clinical Trials are always better than Observational Studies.
4) SO …. WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
Clinical studies tend to be complex, lengthy, and expensive. Most headlines you see media whores “reporting” are based on observational studies and the reporters make it seem like these studies prove something.
For example, the Nurses Health Study, one of the largest epidemiological studies ever conducted, showed that women who took hormones after menopause had a lower risk of heart disease. However, when randomized controlled trials were conducted, it turned out that the hormone drugs actually increased their risk of heart disease. So, how many women got heart attacks due to people buying into this observational study that turned out to be wrong?
Most everyone knows about the study which “proved” that saturated fat is associated with cardiovascular disease. That too, was an observational study. The accompanying false headlines gave rise to the incredibly damaging low-fat, high-carb, high-sugar dogma that probably played a significant part in the ongoing obesity and diabetes epidemic.
Scientists like to fudge numbers. When absolute-change (subtraction) isn’t very impressive they will resort to relative-change (division). Example. Lipitor studies were done on men already at-risk for heart disease. After TEN years 2 out of 100 men in the Lipitor group suffered a heart attack … the placebo group numbered 3.05 out of 100 men. So, the absolute-change is just ONE heart attack for every hundred men. That sounds pretty shitty!! But, wait! Let’s apply the magic of division and calculate the relative change. For the math challenged ……. (smaller number / bigger number), then subtract that by 1 to get the relative-change as a decimal. Soooo ….. (2 / 3.05 = 0.64) – 1 = .36
WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are the results of the study a lie? Not necessarily. But, it does lead virtually everyone into believing that more than one-third of men taking Lipitor will reduce their chance of a heart attack …….. when the goddamn fact of the matter is that the REAL number is 1 in 100. Deceptive sons of bitches!!!
How many deaths have been caused by the failed nutritional policy of the last few decades based on observational studies AND misleading clinical studies that turned out to be wrong …. millions? And, still counting.
There’s actually a LOT more info in that video. But, I’m not going to spoon feed you the whole thing. Check it out yourself.
.
BACK TO SSS AND THE STUDY WHICH GIVES HIM A WOODY
Emphasis are mine.
1)- The article says —— “For their most recent study, Breiter and his team analyzed a VERY SMALL SAMPLE of patients …” A sample size that small is completely worthless bullshit. Even the gooberment knows this;
“A study on a small sample is quite tempting for obvious reasons, but it is a waste of time and money as the result will be invariably inconclusive.” ——– http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993974/
2)- The article says —– “This study is JUST A BEGINNING pilot study ….. brain changes ASSOCIATED WITH casual marijuana use in young adults …….. the interaction of marijuana with brain development COULD BE a significant problem ….. this study SUGGESTS that even light to moderate recreational marijuana use CAN CAUSE changes in brain anatomy” ———– Summary: They’re just getting started and they really can’t say jack-shit about anything whatsoever in a conclusive manner. They use one weasel-word after another, something the video addresses.
3)- Always a KEY question; WHO funded the research? In this case it was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. Bwaahahaha! In other words, the same type of quasi-governmental fuckwads who in the 1950’s made that hilarious move, “Reefer Madness”, which provided “proof” that teenagers who smoke marijuana will kill their parents with axes.
4)- Lastly, the most damning evidence of all comes from Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse which helped fund the study! …. …. “Larger studies are needed to explore whether casual to moderate marijuana use really does cause anatomical brain changes, and IF so, whether that leads to any impairment. THE CURRENT WORK DOESN’T DETERMINE WHETHER CASUAL TO MODERATE MARIJUANA USE IS HARMFUL TO THE BRAIN.” LMFAO
I know you folks aren’t dummies, but let me emphasize the above quote. SSS comes here to gloat about a study that supposedly links marijuana use to brain damage …. but the Director of the organization who actually funded the study basically says the study proves ….. NOTHING!! Game. Set. Match
CONCLUSION:
When it comes to marijuana, SSS is full of shit. He tries to feed you all shit-sandwiches. But, as you can clearly see, I have utterly destroyed both his argument and credibility. You can thank me and/or adore me for setting the record straight as soon as you can.
================================
For you A.D.D. types here are two shorter videos. It is NOT directly related to the topic. It is related in that they are done by the same person, Tom Naughton. These are two short clips from a movie he produced, “Fat Head”.
BIG FAT LIES
WHY YOU GOT FAT
Thank you for reading.
.
Oh … I don’t want to be accused of False Advertising. So, for you perverts, here’s your Fake Titty picture;
