Using Medical Marihuana While Pregnant

[treehugger]

Yes, i can see you took the time to click thru and READ something outside your frozen mindset - lol

[Northern Lab]

The conclusion in the study done on humans as opposed to mice and rabbits included:

 

Conclusion. We conclude that prenatal drug exposure in infants, although associated with a high perinatal morbidity, is not associated with an overall increase in their mortality rate or incidence of SIDS during the first 2 years of life.

 

So even the babies that tested positive for cocaine did not have an overall higher mortality rate than the non drug babies. Makes you wonder, right? Well let's analyze it. The sample populaton was mothers who received little to no prenatal care. Usually that indicates lower educated mothers and/or low or no income mothers. The babies that tested positive for drugs would have likely had immediate state intervention. That, over the course of the 2 years of the study, would have improved outcomes. The babies that did not test positive for drugs would not have had the same intervention. Therefore, it is likely that all they had for care was the mothers with low education and who had little to no prenatal care.

 

The study didn't control for state intervention. Therefore, this data cannot be extrapolated to the broader population. In other words you cannot say, based on this study, that babies born with drugs in their systems have no higher mortality rate over their first 2 years than babies born to the general population. This study has very very limited application.

 

You raise a good point that state intervention could have improved outcomes for cocaine and opiate babies. State intervention was also likely involved in every cannabis baby, which could also improve outcomes in the same manner, so I think the conclusion can be drawn that there is no significant effect of cannabis on infant mortality, at the least, don't you agree?

[Restorium2]

Yes, i can see you took the time to click thru and READ something outside your frozen mindset - lol

Go do some push ups, increase your mind power, and reduce your man boobs. Excess fat makes you have more Estrogen. Then you can get past bad studies done with bad motives. Please don't post studies, done with pure THC, as fact. There's enough miss information out there, no need to perpetuate it.

[CaveatLector]

You raise a good point that state intervention could have improved outcomes for cocaine and opiate babies. State intervention was also likely involved in every cannabis baby, which could also improve outcomes in the same manner, so I think the conclusion can be drawn that there is no significant effect of cannabis on infant mortality, at the least, don't you agree?

That study is inconclusive and has no application to the general population. If you conclude, based on that study, that cannabis doesn't impact infant mortality then you also have to conclude that cocaine has no significant impact. The fact is the stats are comparing drug baby outcomes to outcomes of babies looked after by mothers whom received little to no prenatal care(the control group). Neither of those groups are the general population. When you have the state telling you how to raise your child and checking up on you then you are likely to have a healthier baby than the low-income, low-education mother. The fact is too many variables were not conrolled for.

 

In addition, this was not a study that looked at possible long-term affects. It is said that those who drink caffeine while pregnant are more likely to have an ADHD child once the child is 5 or 6. We have no long term studies and no good short term studies.

 

Again, I am not saying mj use while pregnant negatively affects a baby. What I am saying is that we don't know. We can guess, sure. But we don't know.

[Northern Lab]

That study is inconclusive and has no application to the general population. If you conclude, based on that study, that cannabis doesn't impact infant mortality then you also have to conclude that cocaine has no significant impact. The fact is the stats are comparing drug baby outcomes to outcomes of babies looked after by mothers whom received little to no prenatal care(the control group). Neither of those groups are the general population. When you have the state telling you how to raise your child and checking up on you then you are likely to have a healthier baby than the low-income, low-education mother. The fact is too many variables were not conrolled for.

 

That's not exactly correct, according to the abstract:

 

Objective. To determine the mortality rate, during the first 2 years of life, in infants who were exposed to cocaine, opiate, or cannabinoid during gestation.

Methods. For a period of 11 months, a large group of infants were enrolled and screened at birth for exposure to cocaine, opiate, or cannabinoid by meconium analysis. Death outcome, within the first 2 years after birth, was determined in this group of infants using the death registry of the Michigan Department of Public Health.

Results. A total of 2964 infants was studied. At birth, 44% of the infants tested positive for drugs: 30.5% positive for cocaine, 20.2% for opiate, and 11.4% for cannabinoids. Compared to the drug negative group, a significantly higher percentage (P < .05) of the drug positive infants had lower weight and smaller head circumference and length at birth and a higher percent of their mothers were single, multigravid, multiparous, and had little to no prenatal care. Within the first 2 years of life, 44 infants died: 26 were drug negative (15.7 deaths per 1000 live births) and 18 were drug positive (13.7 deaths per 1000 live births). The mortality rate among cocaine, opiate, or cannabinoid positive infants were 17.7, 18.4, and 8.9 per 1000 live births, respectively. Among infants with birth weight ≤2500 g, infants who were positive for both cocaine and morphine had a higher mortality rate (odds ratio = 5.9, confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 24) than drug negative infants. Eleven infants died from the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); 58% were positive for drugs, predominantly cocaine. The odds ratio for SIDS among drug positive infants was 1.5 (CI = 0.46 to 5.01) and 1.9 (CI = 0.58 to 6.2) among cocaine positive infants.

Conclusion. We conclude that prenatal drug exposure in infants, although associated with a high perinatal morbidity, is not associated with an overall increase in their mortality rate or incidence of SIDS during the first 2 years of life. However, a significantly higher mortality rate was observed among low birth weight infants (≤2500 g) who were positive for both cocaine and opiate.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Northern Lab

[CaveatLector]

What isn't correct? I read the study not the abstract.

[Northern Lab]

What isn't correct? I read the study not the abstract.

 

If you have access to the entire study, please post it for the rest of us to read.

 

I bolded what I thought were miscrepancies in your statement of fact and what was written in the abstract.

[CaveatLector]

If you have access to the entire study, please post it for the rest of us to read.

 

I bolded what I thought were miscrepancies in your statement of fact and what was written in the abstract.

I only have a hard copy and it will take some doing to digitize it but I'll try to do that later tonight.

 

Infant mortality rate in 1996 (the year of this study) was 7.3/1000. The rate in this study was about twice that number even when you factor out the drug babies. Therefore, clearly this was an "at risk" population to begin with. In other words, they didn't compare drug baby outcomes to normal or average mother outcomes. There was some other unaccounted-for risk. That's the point...

 

In the end what they were saying is that use of cocaine during pregnancy posed no significant risk as opposed to no illicit drugs. Those numbers don't jibe. They didn't compare pure drug babies to average babies. They compared drug babies with state intervention with at-risk babies. There was no pure control group.

[Northern Lab]

I only have a hard copy and it will take some doing to digitize it but I'll try to do that later tonight.

 

Infant mortality rate in 1996 (the year of this study) was 7.3/1000. The rate in this study was about twice that number even when you factor out the drug babies. Therefore, clearly this was an "at risk" population to begin with. In other words, they didn't compare drug baby outcomes to normal or average mother outcomes. There was some other unaccounted-for risk. That's the point...

 

In the end what they were saying is that use of cocaine during pregnancy posed no significant risk as opposed to no illicit drugs. Those numbers don't jibe. They didn't compare pure drug babies to average babies. They compared drug babies with state intervention with at-risk babies. There was no pure control group.

 

I'd be very interested to read the entire study. If/when you do get it digitized, please post it.

 

For a moment, let's take your assertion at face value that the drug babies are only being compared to non-drug at risk babies. Now, considering that most, if not all, of the drug babies were the subject of state intervention and that likely skewed the mortality rates down, and that a "higher percentage of the drug babies' mothers... were single, multigravid, multiparous, and had little to no prenatal care" compared to the the non drug babies/mothers, I think the cannabis only babies statistic is significant when compared to the rest of the study group.

 

A study that looks at cannabis mothers and non cannabis mothers that received excellent, average, and poor prenatal care would be more definitive, for sure, but I don't think the stats cited in this study can just be dismissed out of hand.

[CaveatLector]

A study that looks at cannabis mothers and non cannabis mothers that received excellent, average, and poor prenatal care would be more definitive, for sure, but I don't think the stats cited in this study can just be dismissed out of hand.

 

I'm not dismissing them I'm simply stating that some are trying to draw conclusions from it that are not valid. I would point out that the marijuana babies had a higher infant mortality rate in that study than the average infant mortality rate for the year the study came out. But even that doesn't matter because the study doesn't apply since it failed to control for post partum care. Mainly what that study tried to do is analyze statistics by comparing 2 groups. It needs true parameters and controls to yield a valid outcome.

[MightyMightyMezz]

The science is suppressed; few studies exist. Considering this fact at some point we have to use common sense and think "There are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of Cannabis-using expecting mothers. If there are babies who are negatively impacted I think we would have heard about it."

[CaveatLector]

The science is suppressed; few studies exist. Considering this fact at some point we have to use common sense and think "There are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of Cannabis-using expecting mothers. If there are babies who are negatively impacted I think we would have heard about it."

If the studies are lacking how can you hear about it? There need to be studies that cover not only mortality rate but develpmental issues, long term issues, etc., etc. And the old, "I think we would've heard about it," isn't evidence of good or bad. It isn't evidence.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Cannabis sativa with its unparalleled breadth of medical applications should have thousands and thousands of studies, maybe millions by now. By disallowing unbiased research the federal government has brutally repressed science and human health. It's only common sense that this has to be reckoned with here. We have to be able to see where the system fails. Science as an ideal has unlimited potential for increasing knowledge but the modern institution known as "Science" falls far short in this case or is kept on a hella short leash.

 

Do we agree there is basically a ban on research on Cannabis sativa on human beings in the USA or at least that it is very, very difficult to get permission to do medical research with plant material in the US? Speaking of which, I would like to see doctors who perhaps are patients do studies on MI patients as a way to correct this problem.

Edited May 15, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[Dr. Bob]

The conclusion in the study done on humans as opposed to mice and rabbits included:

 

Conclusion. We conclude that prenatal drug exposure in infants, although associated with a high perinatal morbidity, is not associated with an overall increase in their mortality rate or incidence of SIDS during the first 2 years of life.

 

So even the babies that tested positive for cocaine did not have an overall higher mortality rate than the non drug babies. Makes you wonder, right? Well let's analyze it. The sample populaton was mothers who received little to no prenatal care. Usually that indicates lower educated mothers and/or low or no income mothers. The babies that tested positive for drugs would have likely had immediate state intervention. That, over the course of the 2 years of the study, would have improved outcomes. The babies that did not test positive for drugs would not have had the same intervention. Therefore, it is likely that all they had for care was the mothers with low education and who had little to no prenatal care.

 

The study didn't control for state intervention. Therefore, this data cannot be extrapolated to the broader population. In other words you cannot say, based on this study, that babies born with drugs in their systems have no higher mortality rate over their first 2 years than babies born to the general population. This study has very very limited application.

 

Hence the statement it moves the bar, it doesn't eliminate it.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

Hence the statement it moves the bar, it doesn't eliminate it.

 

Dr. Bob

 

So how many hours of cannabinoid neonatal therapy are required to get a medical degree?

 

I bet zero ..

 

But you get a document that says you are an expert.

[Dr. Bob]

So how many hours of cannabinoid neonatal therapy are required to get a medical degree?

 

I bet zero ..

 

But you get a document that says you are an expert.

 

yep, you questioning my credentials? Shall we compare PB?

[AKenewell]

So how many hours of cannabinoid neonatal therapy are required to get a medical degree?

 

I bet zero ..

 

But you get a document that says you are an expert.

 

Do you have any idea what Medical School is like? Yes he has a document..it's called a degree he earned it with years of school and studies. And all Dr's are required to do rotations in every field of medicine..it's called residency!! Pb I am about tired of your bs...I would like you to post only accurate information from here on out..no more of your mad science! AK

 

Edit..and you argued the marinol point for way to long against me (and btw I have a medical degree as well although I am no Dr.)Dr. Bob and my husband who agreed with Dr. Bob who is also a Dr...yes another degree/document holder..you are just not qualified to give some of the advice you give..which is often WRONG.

[peanutbutter]

Do you have any idea what Medical School is like? Yes he has a document..it's called a degree he earned it with years of school and studies. And all Dr's are required to do rotations in every field of medicine..it's called residency!! Pb I am about tired of your bs...I would like you to post only accurate information from here on out..no more of your mad science! AK

 

Edit..and you argued the marinol point for way to long against me (and btw I have a medical degree as well although I am no Dr.)Dr. Bob and my husband who agreed with Dr. Bob who is also a Dr...yes another degree/document holder..you are just not qualified to give some of the advice you give..which is often WRONG.

 

Then here are the facts.

 

Two doctors with zero formal training and a forced circumstance where they are UNABLE to observe. Forced into darkness by regulation.

 

Both form a conclusion without searching published data. About cannabis. Which they have zero formal information about.

 

On the topic of cannabis medicine, your document tends to make you prove you know something when you don't.

 

The conclusion arrived at based on zero information, was that until further notice, cannabis is bad for a fetus.

Never mind that there were medical studies already published.

 

You published your conclusion based on little to nothing, in spite of already published data.

 

You were compelled by that degree ..

[AKenewell]

Then here are the facts.

 

Two doctors with zero formal training and a forced circumstance where they are UNABLE to observe. Forced into darkness by regulation.

 

Both form a conclusion without searching published data. About cannabis. Which they have zero formal information about.

 

On the topic of cannabis medicine, your document tends to make you prove you know something when you don't.

 

The conclusion arrived at based on zero information, was that until further notice, cannabis is bad for a fetus.

Never mind that there were medical studies already published.

 

You published your conclusion based on little to nothing, in spite of already published data.

 

You were compelled by that degree ..

 

The only thing I have said in this thread is NO medication unless absolutely neccasary should be used for pregnancy. My point to you is STOP trying to pass along information that you DO NOT know to be accurate...not just here in this thread but in general.You are challenging people with medical degree's constantly? I am growing tired of following you around and correcting you.I am also tired of your NEED to get the last word! I think other's here share that same feeling. So please I'm asking nicely..post accurate information from here on out. No need for a reply..let's just end it here. AK

[peanutbutter]

And what prompted this display of certified ignorance by several professionals at once?

 

The opportunity to discredit me ..

 

All agreed together based on bad, biased science. Really no science at all.

[Timmahh]

Not sure if this has been posted, but I found this interesting. I'd be especially interested in hearing Dr. Bob's take on it

 

 

 

Oops, forgot the link: http://www.salem-new...-infants-sc.php

 

Thank you for affirming my Info NL. This is the study I was referring to... though not the only one.

 

The Neat thing is they NEVER (in the study) make light of the fact Children born with Cannabis Only in their System, had almost 1/2 the death rate of a child born to a mother with 100% normal values for a human.

 

 

You people need to EDUCATE yourself by doing your Own Research. Otherwise you are just going on hear say. Yes even you Dr. Bob.

 

And btw, your comment after my last reply shows the depth of your rational, which is quite low atm in my personal opinion.

 

and the proof is because you instead of doing some of your Career work, instead choose to attack me for a off comment, but chose to stand mute on my initial statement. Nice attempt to deter attention from the truth bearer but you missed again. Perhaps you can talk to Callton about the 2 CG 10 patient thing some more instead.

 

 

 

 

Ya PB, I agree. It is Amazing the lengths some will go to, just to AVOID the truth... Or more to the point, how the truth will reduce their monetary gains would be more to the point.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Timmahh

[MightyMightyMezz]

Do you have any idea what Medical School is like?

 

From what I saw working every day with students and educators in med school there is a bizarre self-censorship when it comes to Cannabis sativa. They do not talk about it unless they are lying or throwing around unsubstantiated assumptions. They don't study nutrition or excercise. What is wrong with this picture?

[AKenewell]

From what I saw working every day with students and educators in med school there is a bizarre self-censorship when it comes to Cannabis sativa. They do not talk about it unless they are lying or throwing around unsubstantiated assumptions. They don't study nutrition or excercise. What is wrong with this picture?

 

Times are changing Mezz.

[Timmahh]

Its called "HEALTH MAINTENANCE" Mighty.

heavy emphasis on the MAINTENANCE. ie to Maintain is to Continually pour money into and expect Zero improvements expect to keep it going until it is ready to be replaced.

[peanutbutter]

I am growing tired of following you around and correcting you.I am also tired of your NEED to get the last word! I think other's here share that same feeling. So please I'm asking nicely..post accurate information from here on out. No need for a reply..let's just end it here. AK

 

You and your fellow stalkers need to get your information right.

 

After you do research on the topic, then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

 

Simply having a degree does not make someone correct about every detail.

And not having one does not eliminate the possibility that I've read a few studies ON THE TOPIC.

 

I'm insulted that folks would attempt to pull that here.