Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Peter Reynolds

Recent activity

Comments (4)

  • Comment on: Cannabis use in pregnancy linked to low birthweight

    Peter Reynolds's comment 6 April, 2016 2:22 pm

    Let's hope that nurses have the ability to read this research with a critical eye.

    This study is purely data collection, based on databases and other studies. While a good, wide source of data has been used, it states quite accurately in the limitations of the study, "Many cannabis users are often tobacco or alcohol users; hence, determining a cannabis-only effect (excluding the presence of tobacco and alcohol) was currently not possible, as most studies did not exclude participants with polysubstance use." when we know quite categorically that both tobacco and alcohol have been proven to give the issues in this study. It cannot state ''cannabis causes 'x''' it can merely point to issues that require further, accurate study. Smoking cannabis with tobacco has always been a health risk but is often the only way people know or find effective. A study showing the use of medibles during pregnancy may have a different outcome.

    Also, cannabis has been shown to have absolutely remarkable properties for treating hyperemesis gravidarum. Inability to hold down food or absorb nutrition is far more risky.

    Links to evidence/studies here:
    http://tokinwoman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/please-let-princess-kate-smoke-pot.html

  • Comment on: Smoking cannabis 'increases stroke risk'

    Peter Reynolds's comment 7 February, 2013 3:35 pm

    Professor Alan Barber, lead investigator for the study, said "All but one of the stroke patients who were cannabis users also used tobacco regularly". Tobacco is a proven cause of stroke. This study is fundamentally flawed.

    Prof. Barber's claim that "We believe it is the cannabis and not the tobacco." is disgraceful, unscientific and provides an insight into the true motivation of those conducting this type of 'research'. It isn't genuine scientific research, it's an attempt to produce propaganda to support prohibitionist policies.

    There is far more peer reviewed evidence to show that cannabis is neuroprotective against stroke, brain trauma and neurodegenerative disease

  • Comment on: Psychosis 'linked to cannabis use'

    Peter Reynolds's comment 10 March, 2011 7:52 am

    It's worth looking closely at this study because very quickly the incredibly weak nature of its conclusions become clear.

    It’s not about clinically diagnosed psychosis at all. It’s about what may be just one trivial thought or mental confusion in the space of 10 years. The authors call it "subclinical expression of psychosis in the general population...that is, expression of psychosis below the level required for a clinical diagnosis." Astonishingly, that's enough for a "positive".

    Once you delve behind the headlines, phrases like “might under certain circumstances” start to appear and then you realise how meaningless the study’s conclusions are.

    Something else that nearly all the reports of this study have missed out is the authors statement that "The evidence on cannabis and psychosis has influenced the decision in the UK to retain criminal penalties for cannabis use, despite evidence that removing such penalties has little or no detectable effect on rates of use. An informed cannabis policy should be based not only on the harms caused by cannabis use, but also on the harms caused by social policies that attempt to discourage its use, such as criminal penalties for possession and use."

    Putting Cannabis "Research" Into Perspective. See here:

    http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/putting-cannabis-research-into-perspective

  • Comment on: More evidence on cannabis psychosis

    Peter Reynolds's comment 10 March, 2011 7:49 am

    It's worth looking closely at this study because very quickly the incredibly weak nature of its conclusions become clear.

    It’s not about clinically diagnosed psychosis at all. It’s about what may be just one trivial thought or mental confusion in the space of 10 years. The authors call it "subclinical expression of psychosis in the general population...that is, expression of psychosis below the level required for a clinical diagnosis." Astonishingly, that's enough for a "positive".

    Once you delve behind the headlines, phrases like “might under certain circumstances” start to appear and then you realise how meaningless the study’s conclusions are.

    Something else that nearly all the reports of this study have missed out is the authors statement that "The evidence on cannabis and psychosis has influenced the decision in the UK to retain criminal penalties for cannabis use, despite evidence that removing such penalties has little or no detectable effect on rates of use. An informed cannabis policy should be based not only on the harms caused by cannabis use, but also on the harms caused by social policies that attempt to discourage its use, such as criminal penalties for possession and use."

    Putting Cannabis "Research" Into Perspective. See here: http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/putting-cannabis-research-into-perspective