BringBackOrton

See again, you misunderstand how it works. EVERY medication has a benefit and a risk. Doing nothing has a benefit and a risk. I have that conversation with EVERY patient. The potential harms from opiates are known. The potential harms from cannabis are not well-studied. The dosing, phamarcokinetics, tolerance, therapeutic index, we have NONE of it for marijuana compared to opioids. It is not my call to make a judgment on which potential harm is worse. That's the patient's job. I just give them the facts. And the facts are, I am not licensed to prescribe cannabis, and I would not be comfortable doing so without more rigorous data. They are more than welcome to seek out medical marijuana if they want, but I believe its important to educate them on the lack of data. Most folks get their marijuana info from charlatans, not medical personnel. Were those patients studied? I think you overestimate how many chronic marijuana users there are. Also, marijuana is MUCH more potent today than the 60s-70s. Those studies should not be forbidden. You are advocating a return to Wild West medicine. Prescribing based on anecdotal evidence is BAD medicine. I have seen hundreds of people say they feel better on BS supplements that haven't been proved to do anything. The potential harm with that stuff is most likely negligible. But if you think I'm gonna prescribe that crap every day, stuff that has no proven benefit, unknown risk, and a cost attached to it, you're wrong. That's not how it works. Prescribing stuff without rigorous study is how we get thalidomide. You just really believe in thalidomide because a bunch of people have told you it works. That's your argument.

Agreed. However, his bias makes his commentary on the practice of medicine ignorant and hypocritical, at best.

"You know though, maybe you are a doctor. You seem pretty concerned with covering your ass." This is why you're a joke, Bob. It has nothing to do with covering your ass. It has everything to do with not wanting to hurt people. Did you know 20 years ago, opioids were considered mostly harmless? And the medical community handed them out, sometimes recklessly, because hey, they helped pain and there weren't any serious problems or side effects. You're doing the same thing with pot. You don't care about potentially hurting people. Now that's why you aren't a medical professional, but you might be a sociopath if you don't care about potential harm. It's kind of important. You know, "first do no harm." "Everybody want to be a doctor but nobody want to read no heavy ass books," am I right, Bob? I could've sourced those studies, but a quick Google search would've brought them all up, so why bother? You've proven to be a sociopath who doesn't care about potential harm, so I doubt you'd read them. "With increased cannabis usage we should see a spike in schizophrenia, but we do not see that. " Over how long a period of time? I linked prospective studies of 20 year duration. We are supposed to see an increase in the short time its been legal in Colorado? "Let me ask you, can you point to US double blinded trials that proved that the medical claims regarding cannabis were false? " We don't treat patients with things that haven't been proven to work with unknown side effects, Mengele. You are just as bad as the pharmaceutical companies who you claim to hate. You are pushing a drug without proven benefit with no regard for harmful side effects.

Let's talk Cannabis and adaptation, okay Bobbo? "Adolescent cannabis use is strongly associated with lower educational attainment and increased use of other drugs" "Cannabis acutely impairs a variety of neuropsychological functions in a dose-dependent manner, especially attention, concentration, episodic memory, and associative learning" "A systematic review and meta-analysis of 69 cross-sectional studies of adolescents and young adults (2152 cannabis users and 6575 comparison participants) showed a small overall effect size for reduced cognitive functioning in frequent cannabis users" "A linear regression analysis that excluded current cannabis users and controlled for age, use of tobacco, alcohol, and other illegal drugs, and baseline cognitive function found cumulative lifetime cannabis use significantly associated with impaired verbal memory, but not with processing speed or executive function." "A national registry study that identified 1492 patients who received a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis in the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register between 1994 and 2014 and followed them through August 2014 found a 41.2 percent (95% CI 36.6-46.2) conversion rate to schizophrenia, with 50 percent of men converting within 2.0 years and 50 percent of women within 4.4 years. The hazard ratio for conversion to schizophrenia, compared with matched comparison subjects without a history of substance-induced psychosis, was 101.7 (95% CI 74.1-139.7)." "There is substantial evidence that chronic cannabis use, especially during adolescence, is associated with later development of schizophrenia." "A systematic review of 35 longitudinal studies found an increased risk of psychosis for those who ever used cannabis compared with those who did not (adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.65). There was a significant dose-response relationship, with a twofold increase in risk among those who used cannabis most frequently (odds ratio 2.09, 95% CI 1.54-2.84). The review adjusted for several known confounding factors and excluded cohorts with identified mental illness or substance use problems at baseline." "A prospective longitudinal study of 6534 individuals born in northern Finland in 1986 and evaluated at age 15 to 16 years and again at age 30 years found an increased risk of psychosis for those who used cannabis at least five times by age 15 to 16 years, compared with those who had never used. The analysis adjusted for several known confounding factors (eg, prodromal psychosis symptoms at baseline, parental psychosis, frequent alcohol use, daily tobacco smoking) and excluded individuals with a psychosis diagnosis at first evaluation." "Most, but not all, prospective longitudinal studies have found that cannabis use or cannabis use disorder is associated with subsequent development of depression or bipolar disorder." "2014 meta-analysis of 14 prospective longitudinal studies that controlled for depression at baseline found that heavy cannabis users had a 1.62 odds ratio (95% CI 1.21-2.16) for developing clinically diagnosed major depression or depressive symptoms, compared with light or nonusers" "A meta-analysis of two studies of individuals with bipolar disorder found cannabis use associated with a threefold increased risk (odds ratio = 2.97, 95% CI 1.80-4.90) for new onset of manic symptoms" And that's not even touching the autonomic stuff. I have 3 more pages of data to bash you over the head with. Tell me to get out of the line of work again @Bob in Mich. There's a reason I went to school, and you link Youtube videos from LeafyGreen.net.

You don't know what you're talking about, per usual. "Willing to adapt?" To what new double blinded trial? What diseases is marijuana FDA approved as first line treatment, again? Oh actually, let me fill you in Bobby. There's a new diagnosis coming down the pipeline. Cannabis use disorder. Uh oh!

All they want to do is smoke it, and then not feel guilty because it might "cure a disease."

Jerry Hughes did not blow up like AB did either. I think Kirby's point is HoF potential guys might have just been good players if they were stuck in bad situations. Just like good player potential guys might have been busts if they were stuck in bad situations. AB on a bad team might have just carved out a solid career. Randy Moss on a bad team might have been a good WR. But they would never be nobodies. Jerry Hughes on a bad team would be a nobody.

Apples to oranges. How many career sacks does AB have?

If you think I will allow jokes of that nature go without rebuke, you have another thing coming.

No.

Ass backwards. No way anyone touches him for more than a mid level 1 year deal. Especially with this latest instability. Richie played himself, and the Bills.

Huge mistake. How do you play hardball with Boldin, then do this with Richie? Bizarro. I get that he played well here, but this is too much.

Right. And the great debate is "Who watches the watchers?" As above. The capacity for oversight in a situation like this is virtually zero. There's an alternate reality where dossiers are released to the public in 2068 about the 2016 election and who President Clinton planted in the opponents' race. And no one cares.

That's what folks say today. After 2015 and 2016, Watkins and Woods sucked, Goodwin sucked, Hogan wouldn't make another roster, Clay sucked, McCoy was washed up, and Tyrod needed more weapons that suited his playstyle. And his OL with 3 Pro Bowlers was crappy too. Oh and Roman/Lynn had a badly run offense, Tyrod needs a West Coast offense to succeed. LOL. The Tyrod flip flopping was always fun to watch.

Yeah. If Josh Allen has the same stats as Stafford in 2028, the Bills officially crushed it.

But you're not talking about the '15 team, but cherry picking games over two seasons. If Landry misses a game because of a boo-boo, I guess Tyrod only putting up 16 TD's over the year will be excused because he didn't have his full complement of WR's for every snap!

230 TD's matters quite a bit.

Who did? The Browns? You need to be clearer, I thought you were referencing my numbers. TT is lucky to go to a team where the bar is so low. All he has to be is 31st in points scored and he's a success ?.

Lolwut. Tyrod averages .5 TO's per game, which, if he started the whole season, would be 8. They'll score more by not turning it over, but contrast that with 3 and outs and Tyrod taking 50 sacks. I doubt TT breaks ~23 TD's.

Is that true? How do you know? I've watched a lot of QB's throw a pick or two in the 1st Q and then rattle off 3-4 TD"s passes the rest of the game.

Turnovers and scoring are the difference between winners and losers. QB's with 34 TD's and 14 INT's >>>>>>> QB's with 17 TD's and 7 INT's.

See, I disagree. I think Tyrod is one of the most forgettable QB's we ever had because he was boring. His style of play, his unwillingness to take chances, it lulled me to sleep 95% of the game. He was not effective, even with his arms and legs. He was below league average in total TD's among QB's in his best season with possibly the best offensive personnel in Bills history, and by his last year, ranked 26th, barely edging out Jacoby Brissett who was traded and didn't play a full season. He had 3 less TD's than Deshaun Watson and Watson torn his ACL week 7. That's so freaking bad.

Only heartless NRA murderers ask for specifics about legislation! The answer is Gun Control (TM)!

Yeah, he's gotten nothing done. Idiot.

Hey baskin, are you willing to die for your right to speak out against King George? Is everybody blind and stupid?