Indigo.... do a search on MSNBC, there was an article earlier, today I think, that was putting forth new research indicating there were fewer ill effects on the lungs than previously believed. Kicker is it is government research that is saying so.

Legalize it, clean it up, TAX it. oh and give us a court acceptable test for driving under the influence.

@trust_verify

A Saliva test will detect Marijuana from about 5 minutes after use to several hours after use. With properly controlled detection threshholds (closing the window to say... 6 hours after use), this could be used as a DUI test.

Da Packed Ass. Who'd trust a guy with that name?

As my daddy always said, "Statistics don't lie, but people do." Meaning people are capable of twisting and distorting statistics and statistical facts to suit their own agendas. Must be why I don't put stock in any study on any subject, period.

trust_verify

A saliva test will do no good if I down a gallon of Coke and chew a pack of gum. Or simply gargle and swish a mouthful of Listerine for a couple of minutes.

The conclusions of the study are valid - just not with his data.

.

This guy must be related to Ram Das aka Rammed Ass. As for those who lied to outlaw cannabis, they are mostly dead. The one who falsely testified to congress in the first place is long gone. Those who manipulated statistics and bent the truth will only be exposed to those who do the research. Had people known that marijuana was hemp, prohibition would never have happened. Anheuser Busch is the number one corporate contributor to cannabis prohibition. Apparently drawing false conclusions from biased research on marijuana for several decades is perfectly acceptable. There have been so many involved in this misinformation campaign that it would be a true witchhunt to hold them acountable.

re: UnitedStates1776: "The conclusions of the study are valid - just not with his data."

100% correct. Or, to quote the "article":

"It wasn't immediately known Wednesday whether the irregularities in Das' research were significant enough to alter the conclusions, but the cardiovascular benefits of resveratrol have also been established in other researchers' work."

As of now, the bath water is being thrown out, not the baby. Whether Das' findings played a major part in other researchers' findings is yet to be determined -- the article give not other information.

Everyone, deep breath... OK? Since Das' falsified findings, others have got the same results. Let's, please, calmly wait.

A saliva test will do no good if I down a gallon of Coke and chew a pack of gum.

People thought the same thing about a BAC test. Mythbusters debunked that one.

So go ahead and chug a gallon of coke and chew a whole pack of gum. Your saliva will tell no lies. Just like gargling mouthwash wont fool a BAC test.

How come it took them so long to find out that the guy was falsifying info? I can't believe he did those tests all by himself and nobody noticed anything suspicious. Very strange.

The problem is going to be coming up with a reasonable test, Marijuana can be detected for a significant amount of time in most tests, and Saliva tests are actually no longer supported by most Government agencies due to lack of accuracy, currently it would basically have to be, if you smoke pot you don't drive.

Cheetah-822547, you made a racist comment, it is mean and nasty as well. We certainly din't like waht Dr. Dipak Das did. That was very wrong on his part and he should be punished for his misdeeds but we also feel you have a black hole in your heart and your comment was not necessary at all. You might be a Moslem we guess and we can't expect any better than that from a person like you! Shame on you!

Scientists unfortunately come up with tons of bogus data to support their claim in order to get more grant money flowing in.

As far as legalization for marijuana goes, it is amazing it isn't legal already given the fact that both alcohol and cigarettes are worse for your heath.

I don't know too many potheads that want to get behind a wheel of a car right after toking up, but I'm sure some do. I doubt its effects are as bad as boozing it up still.

Scubasteve58001

@trust_verify

A Saliva test will detect Marijuana from about 5 minutes after use to several hours after use. With properly controlled detection threshholds (closing the window to say... 6 hours after use), this could be used as a DUI test.

Although I would be willing to accept this with legalization I really don't think it's necessarry to criminalize marijuana DUI. But maybe it affects some worse than others so I would have no problem with it. Just keep your noses out of my own business when I'm at home.

Did he do climate research too?

Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, sow it everywhere." George Washington on pot (First President of the United States).

Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, sow it everywhere." George Washington on pot (First President of the United States).

@boris

The real issues here are things that have happened to research in the last 30-40 years.

1) "Incrementalism" is that current funding allows only that research which builds on existing research. This is an extremely conservative approach, but fails in two key areas --- it actually prevents breakthrough science, and when a field is steered in the wrong direction, it keeps researchers headed in the wrong direction for far too long. (An example is the steering of cancer research in the late 1960's from s "systemic" approach to a "cellular" approach. This wasted most money spent on cancer research from the "War on Cancer.")

2) The citation system has also evolved to the point that research is judged by the number of times it is cited by other researchers. But when something like this occurs, it casts doubt on every paper, every article, and every bit of research that cited any of Dr. Das' research. Just one bad apple like this can really screw an entire subfield.

------------------

And BTW, Washington actually advocated and had passed (over a fierce protest by Jefferson) a law that required every farmer with more than one acre in cultivation to plant hemp. This was because in the world of the late 1700's and early 1800's rope-making was a major industry in this country and cheap American rope was killing that industry in Europe. Washington's familiarity with hemp was confined to rope, paper, and oil. The type of hemp that was produced at the time had virtually no THC.

Enjoy, Rob. Just hope you are not drinking alone.

I'll check in when the " Crown Royal " results are published :)

Rob, it is important to point out that many other labs have shown the health benefits of resveretrol using a wide variety of techniques. One rotten lab doesn't invalidate the whole body of data regarding resveretrol. This is why it is important for many labs to research the same topic. So go ahead and pop that cork!

Oh- and for the cynics who claim that all researchers bias their findings for financial reasons, this is absolute baloney. The vast majority of scientists want to learn what is REALLY true and take great pride in making sure that their results are valid and can be repeated by others.

I,m aware of pseudo singers lip sinking. Gwad! Now a pseudo researcher caught lab sinking.

Keep drinking those reds. The French live longer than we do and they drink lots of it.

Plus, those little stinkers smoke!

Our wines have too much sulfites in it unlike most European wines along with a much higher rate of population obesity. While red wines may have health benefits, excessive sulfites can be a problem for many.

Jose... eh just not worth arguing with you.

yes, U cannot argue with me because I am a cyclist who suffered a heart attack with low cholesterol and a year later ended with an unnecessary bypass, confirmed by the director of Oschner Cardiology Center. YES, U R darn right, don't even think about arguing with me about cholesterol. In addition, a co worker had a heart attack 9 month ago and her cholesterol was 146, again, don't argue with me.

That's an interesting concept. My cousin's mother-in-law never had a total cholesterol test level under 300. She never took medication to lower her cholesterol and died. The poor dear was only 108 years old. Obviously, that isn't the whole answer.

My husband's doctor wants my husband to be on cholesterol lowering medication. His total level is high, but it is the "good" cholesterol that is driving the numbers. Why would he be stupid enough to waste his money on Lipitor? We suspect the doctors get a kickback - Oh, no, really?

for more information about the FDA letter sent to Bristol Myers Squibb for false and misleading material related to statin pravachol see:

and to trust_verify, did I mention who I work for?

jose,

read jean's answer. She makes an excellent point. Cholesterol isn't the whole answer.

For example, you could die in a car accident while wearing your seatbelt--that doesn't mean your seatbelt is not protective. Just that there are many aspects of a car crash that demand protection, and that is why we use multiple tools to protect the passengers (air bags, crumple zones, etc)

But i do disagree with jean on drs getting kickbacks. Thats nuts and paranoid. Plus lipitor is generic--who would pay a kickback for a generic med?

Lipitor is a brand name drug and will always be. It has been barley 45 days since they lost their patent so generics are only now starting to come to market. The generic drug is atorvastatin... they never have nice names like brand name.

Not sure the Dr would get a kickback but it is very strange that some will prescribe very expensive brand name drugs when you have insurance and cheap generics if you do not.

you are being very nitpicky. You know what I meant. I just don't like throwing around drug names like atorvastatin or rosuvastatin because then people don't know what Im talking about. Its much easier to say "generic lipitor" Or I can say lipitor is available in generic form as atorvastatin. Happy now?

Generics are NOT just coming to market now. IN fact, the first week generic lipitor was available, sales of lipitor fell by 50%

http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-20/business/30534606_1_lipitor-generic-versions-generic-competition

You do realize that any data relating to the risk associated with cholesterol or anything else are essentially just risk levels associated with a large sample size - it is not indicative of a single person and what will happen to them - rather it is "playing the odds" - and you lost - sorry about that but yes, even athletes with excellent diets and excellent lab results can still get heart attacks, cancer, strokes, etc...

Its just their odds are less than a real fat person who has no exercise and smokes - which of course is no guarantee that the fat person won't live to 80 years old without serious health issues.

Don't know about the Bud comment, but your second point is right on. Who IS policing the experts? Right, again, re their bloated athletic budgets.

Personally, I drink what I want when I want, health benefits or not. I don't need an excuse to have a glass of wine!

Thumbs up if if you think jroliver isn't talking about money when he says "bucks"!

Plenty of people are policing the experts. How do you think this guy got caught? Every thing is reviewed by multiple people in a very rigorous manner. While it may be hard to catch a cheater like this right away, the truth will most likely come out eventually. Its hard to fabricate data and completely get away with it because there are always multiple people out there trying to do the same thing you are. If they see something completely different or just slightly different, then the issue gets raised. While conflicting results are normal in science and can occur without one side just making things up, it does provide a check on everyone's work.

And while some may argue that these are just other scientists protecting their own, the reality is that if there is a conflict of interest, it works the other way. These people are all competing for the same grant money and the same glory of discovery. You aren't going to let it slide if someone is cheating.

UDunnoBro

Thumbs up! Not for the "buck" theory, but for your comment in general - very clever take. LOL!

24 hours in a day, 24 beer in a case. Coincidence.........I think not!

indisputably bad, that is.

Whiskey is good for you, just drink quality like Gentleman Jack Daniel or Jameson.

Have Gentleman Jack and Jameson become quality whiskeys? I must have missed that memo.

You are more brainwashed than a Jim Jones follower. :p

The reason there were few Jonestown jokes is that the punchline was too long

You couldn't be more wrong. Most researchers are not trying to sell anything and have no economic incentive to lie. Quite the contrary, since making up data gets you fired. Also, you get a lot more attention if your results are UNexpected. And by the way, the government funds much of the research in this country. As a researcher, I know that the government does not "push" researchers towards a particular result. Nor do private funding agencies, such as American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, etc. If the goal is to improve health, you need to know what is TRUE, not what is popular.

I would go as far as to say the ones that dole out the money also control the reports that are made in the study. We hear what they want us to hear. If a profit can be made all the better.

If it is the best interest of the financial supporter to cover-up some minor detail it will be covered up. Just like the great "grass" lie that has lead to the imprisonment of thousands and the build up of our great "police state."

Just keep believing, stay in line, and trust us; we know what is best for you.

Still working- Wrong again. The government has NO control over what is published. Nor do most private funding agencies. Pharmaceutical companies SOMETIMES have control over what is published, and they do sometimes suppress negative data. This is why it's important to have the government and non-profit organizations funding research! If drug companies were the major source of research funds, we'd be in trouble! Fortunately, they aren't.

How sad that you have so much faith in the government. I have seen too many half-truths and cover-ups. We are only told the parts we are meant to hear. the rest never comes to light or is suppressed for about fifty years...as in that national security fifty-year closed files law they have.

still working,

I think its sad that you are this paranoid. Its not that I have so much faith in the government when it comes to research. But I DO know that they are not biased, and as individual scientists, and NOT the govt is conducting the research, i dont see a problem

Its not like politicians are the ones in the labs. They just write the checks so the real smart people helico can go about their business

Too many half-truths or incorrect information here as it relates to government funding of health related research. Some facts:

• Researchers DO compete for federal research dollars
• Applications for these funds are strictly controlled and other scientists, not eligble for certain fund categories, are hired by the feds to review the applications - most are done remotely - you fill out a form after reading the application - at times the groups of reviewers are convened with travel paid and a VERY small honorarium paid for their service - more effective as they can argue out the ratings of applications with the feds moderating the groups convened
• The feds DO control what is published as in they approve any and all reporting that is published. Do they alter it or refuse to publish certain reporting? This is doubtful as the feds need to show something for the money they've spent.
• There IS a financial incentive in that part of the scoring gives prefernce to applicants who have successfully brought products developed from the research to market. While the goal is to discover new things that help promote health, they do no good if they are not developed and marketed where the public has access, so............... this one is fairly new and the average person with an opinion would rarely know this :-)
• The researcher gets to patent the discovery and own it

Opinion - the article says they received an anonymous tip 3 years + ago. Most probably the tipster worked with/for/at the lab in some capacity and did not want to jeopardize their job. The feds do review the results of the research but often lack the skill to judge the quality of the report concentrating more on timing, deadlines, and are the objectives met from a 30K foot view.

I'm not saying 'all' scientists working full time for the feds are unknowledgeable, but having also worked for government, till I couldn't stand the lack of effort anymore, I can verify those people do exist :-) and they are the ones judging the quality and honesty of the final output.

However, some projects are funded in stages, where again peer review as above is performed before further funding is approved. So there the quality/completeness/presence of good output should be reliably vetted.

Dave summarized the process very well and his description is accurate all except for the statement that the "Feds do control what is published". Actually my wife was one of those "Feds" that convened the review panels for competitive review of grants and contracts and I had government grants as part of my research career. The "Feds" do not control publication of results FYI and the support of the Federal government has to be acknowledged but definitely not approved in my personal experience in publishing government funded research....at least grant supported research.

Dave- you may know government, but you don't know research. Grant reviewers are picked from the cream of the crop, not the bottom of the barrel and are very knowledgeable about the research they are reviewing. Review panels that don't meet in person often do live chats to discuss proposals. The feds absolutely DO NOT control publications. "The feds" have never had any input into or control over any of my publications. Additionally, data must be reviewed by other non-government scientists before it can be published in a "real" journal. "Research" that just shows up on someone's website without being peer-reviewed may be pseudoscience nonsense (which is why you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet!) If a researcher publishes nothing, he/she is unlikely to get another grant; however, it is the grant reviewers- not the feds- who judge whether funding has resulted in quality data. And grant reviewers don't care whether publications support or refute other investigators. They also don't care whether the reasearch leads to a patent or directly impacts human health. As long as the data are solid and the research is contributing to the understanding of how things work, it's all good. Furthermore, researchers see very little personal benefit from the grants they get. Getting a $5 million dollar grant may or may not result in a modest increase to a researchers modest salary (we are NOT the 1%). The grant money allows a researcher to hire lab workers and pay for equipment and supplies. It also benefits the university, since they get a cut. Researchers are in it for the love of truth and discovery- not for money.

Hey, if you want people to talk about quality just call your whiskey scotch. I have also heard that drinking a beer a day is good for your blood pressure.

I don't need Folgers' dollars to tell me coffee is good for me. I drink two cups daily. Never start my day without it. (And for everyone who is thinking that I spend $5/cup in store, think again. I brew my own. Buy the coffee beans wholesale and grind them up myself. The best coffee in town is in my (home)office.

The Buddha said the middle way is best.

und das is gut.

Ripple is flavored colored water with sugar and alcohol. Drink enough of it for too long and the mummy effect take place.

Another sadly brainwashed person.

That'd be you my al gore brown nosing friend ..

Sandy good thing you didn't try to confuse Somedude with any facts after all he knows he's right and no facts will convince him otherwise.

Just like this study doesn't invalidate the ALL the other studies about the benifits of red wine the warming deniers will pull one or two studies or mention one or two bad apples (Mann) out of thier you know what just to justify thier mindset.

somedude- So you think that thousands of independent-minded, competitive researchers in dozens of countries and with a variety of political beliefs have entered into some kind of conspiracy to make up data? And you think Al Gore has anything to do with creating or interpreting data? You're a bit reality-challenged.

Yes , Yes I do . It's all about forming global govt .The warming is issue is just one of their tools .You govt brown nosers are the ones in denial .

some dud has fox on while at the computer. Hopelessly brainwashed.

You beat me to it. Follow the money. Hey a GulfstreamV just flew over my house. Hi Mr. Gore!

Boy the ignorant and brainwashed are coming out like cockroaches after the light is turned off.

Ah, those greedy, lying research scientists. Obviously, if *one* has ever lied or falsified research data, then they ALL must be lying! Unlike, say, those saintly rich people --er, JOB CREATORS-- and corporations --er, corporate PERSONS-- who are always honest and have the public's best interest at heart!

Thank God for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Otherwise, perceptive rugged individualists such as ourselves would be constantly hoodwinked by those evil scheming scientists and their hoaxes. I wonder what Rush will expose as a hoax tomorrow? My money's on the "theory" of gravity!

One scientist's research on resveratrol is faulty, therefore the thousands of scientists who have found proof of climate change must be wrong. Makes sense to me!

Actually, I suspected the climate change doubters would be all over this article like white on rice when I saw the headline. Their nonsense didn't show up until further down the comments than I expected. Congratulations on your self control.

I was watching Nat Geo channel yesterday. The Sun is in an active period due to peak in 2013, they said. What more need be said?

The local weathermen cannot get tomorrows temp right...but our scientists can tell us what is going to happen in the sun, and how it will be acting next year?

We spend trillions to look for water on distant planets when we need to clean up our nests right here. We investigate the origins of the universe and cannot stop the ignorance, bigotry, and crimes of religions and governments.

The earth has cooled before. It has heated up before thousands of times! It will continue to change on its own schedule and hopefully flush this current parasite very soon. Take it with a grain of salt.

We need to just let the opinions of other provide us all with entertainment and a good laugh at man's stupidity. Mine will make you laugh or feel offended...and who really cares...except you?

I'm a tad confused, thought this article had to do with the benefits of wine, not 'whine.' (Just joking.)

The gravitational effect of the sun is slowly but surely bringing our planet's orbit closer to it causing a warmer climate and slowing our rotational speed ever so lightly over time.

The solution to this is to find another Earth like planet and hopefully be able to migrate there. Otherwise, it's eventually end of game. (sarc)

Maybe North Korea for your retirement?

Perhaps Blamo would consider Somalia for *his* retirement. It's a perfect regulation-free Ayn Rand meritocracy unencumbered by taxes, concerns for its poorest citizens, or a pesky central government. Why, thousands of Somalian "entrepeneurs" are plying the ocean as we speak!

Say what?

sorry, they don't have red wine in Somalia. The water is too polluted with too many floating bodies.

"The right slant or spin" ain't science! It's humans doing what they do most---manipulating their surroundings for personal gain. Only verified scientific conclusions can be trusted, because they aren't the creation of someone's greed or belief!

wasnt the guy who wrote the fraudulent autism-vaccine link paper a british physician from a socialist medical system?

Hahaha..so much for your theory...