Colorodo Doctors suspect Marajuana in cause of death of 11 month old - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]Two poison control doctors claim to have documented the first known case of death by marijuana overdose, sparking a medical debate over what killed an 11-month-old baby in Colorado two years ago. The case report was published in the journal Clinical Practice and Cases in Emergency Medicine and is co-authored by a pair of doctors at the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, which is housed at Denver Health. The doctors behind the case report, Doctors Thomas Nappe and Christopher Hoyte, worked on the baby’s care as part of their duties at the regional poison control center. They claim that damage to the child’s heart muscle, which was listed as the boy’s cause of death, was brought on by ingesting marijuana. This is the first news story in which either of the doctors publicly discussed the case that was published in a medical journal in March of this year. “The only thing that we found was marijuana. High concentrations of marijuana in his blood. And that’s the only thing we found,” Hoyte said. “The kid never really got better. And just one thing led to another and the kid ended up with a heart stopped. And the kid stopped breathing and died.” The case report makes what amounts to a very bold statement in the scientific world, “As of this writing, this is the first reported pediatric death associated with cannabis exposure.” If correct, the phenomenon Dr. Hoyte claims to have documented would remain the only time a marijuana overdose is known to have caused a human death. Other doctors are deeply skeptical of the strong language used in the report. “That statement is too much. It’s too much as far as I’m concerned,” said Dr. Noah Kaufman, an emergency medicine specialist based in Northern Colorado. “Because that is saying confidently that this is the first case. ‘We’ve got one!’ And I still disagree with that.” It’s widely accepted as fact that marijuana overdoses are not fatal. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration fact sheet on pot says simply that “no death from overdose of marijuana has been reported” and the National Institutes of Health says there is “insufficient evidence” to link THC overdose to fatalities. The claim that an overdose death happened in Colorado has the potential to change the way people think about the steady march toward marijuana legalization in the US.[/quote] Way more in the article itself with insight into the study case published. Highly recommend glancing at it since I can't fit it all. [url]http://www.9news.com/news/health/colorado-doctors-claim-first-marijuana-overdose-death/491760125[/url] [url]http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/report-from-colorado-doctors-finds-possibility-of-first-death-attributed-to-marijuana[/url] Also just freaking terrible whoever let this child ingest so much marijuana to begin with.

So... Basically parents not keeping their shit up high and locked is what killed a kid? Same shit happens with opiates, tyelenol, and less-harmful stuff. You are putting adult doses of drugs into a small body, it will never end well.

Waaaay more people die on a daily basis on shit that's already legal and yet this is guaranteed to get more attention

People will use this in marijuana debates now and it’s going to be so annoying.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52894954]Waaaay more people die on a daily basis on shit that's already legal and yet this is guaranteed to get more attention[/QUOTE] I worry about the same thing with self-driving cars. One day, a fully autonomous car will kill somebody. On that day, tons of people will call for bans for self-driving cars, without realizing that human drivers, even today, are statistically much less safe. One vs hundreds of thousands. This happening for marijuana was an inevitability.

11 months? Dude ingesting anything of this magnitude could kill the kid, I doubt an overdose is applicable

A tragedy, but it annoys me that tudd posts this shit. You can also drink yourself to death, with both water and alcohol. [sp]I wonder if he has some kind of phone notification whenever a story supporting his agenda appears? [/sp] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Spoilter Tag misuse + this isn't a tudd thread AGAIN" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

Very misleading title. Of course an 11-month old wouldn't be able to handle that much of the substance without serious health risks. Still absolutely horrible this happened and the parent should be in deep shit for this, but this could have honestly happened with most other drugs/medication in high doses.

If I overdose on the typical mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and so on would that 'change the way people think about air'? If I overdose on natural endorphins will that make people 'rethink whether they should allow themselves to feel happy'? The human body can only tolerate so much of any one thing. You can overdose on [I]anything[/I]. There is no such thing as 'something you can physically not overdose on' that I am aware of - there are only things that require stupendous effort and resources to overdose on to do so. Marijuana is one of those things and it's ridiculous that it gets politicized as a horrible thing simply because people seek justifications for 'why it's a Schedule 1 drug because it's a schedule 1 drug so it's scary because it's a Schedule 1 drug'. If I pump myself full of air I collect from the atmosphere until I die that doesn't mean air 'is suddenly more dangerous than we knew'. It just means I'm an idiot who thought 'breathing air is harmless' meant air was literally harmless no matter how much of it you breathe at any one time.

So this brings the death ratio to 1/all of recorded US medical history?

The article even states that so far, there's nothing definitive that states that the boy's death was caused by marijuana over-dose, even stating that myocarditis can sometimes have non-observable causes.

[QUOTE=Firetornado;52894994]A tragedy, but it annoys me that tudd posts this shit. You can also drink yourself to death, with both water and alcohol. [sp]I wonder if he has some kind of phone notification whenever a story supporting his agenda appears? [/sp][/QUOTE] probably just gets it from pol [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Off-Topic" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[quote]Based on the blood levels of THC metabolite they found, the doctors estimate that consumption took place 2-6 days before death.[/quote] I thought this was a very interesting point. Also something to note is that the child died from myocarditis that they presume is linked to the THC ingestion. myocarditis is caused by an infection, allergic response or otherwise unknown reason, it'd be interesting to know if there is a link there especially since the death occurred some time after ingestion.

[QUOTE=KingKombat;52894956]People will use this in marijuana debates now and it’s going to be so annoying.[/QUOTE] Comparatively, weed is more deadly to children than alcohol and tabacco, in specific forms. A pot brownie or other edibles is far more palatable, and potent, than a budweiser or a Marlboro red. A toddler will probably have a tough time lighting a cigarette, and theyre not likely to eat an entire pack. Nor are they likely to down enough beer or liquor to get alcohol poisoning. Obviously this isn't an arguement to ban edibles or weed all together. But like flavored cigarettes, its important to tightly regulate certain forms of these drugs so theyre not desirable to children. It also helps if parents aren't huge pieces of shit who leave weed where kids can get it.

I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the stuff the kid ate had some bad bacteria or virus or whatever in it, causing an acute infection the kid's immune system wasn't ready for, whose symptoms were masked by the THC, which resulted in their death. [quote]Obviously this isn't an arguement to ban edibles or weed all together.[/quote] Shouldn't be an argument to ban edibles or weed [I]whatsoever[/I]. This was just neglect. If the kid had gotten themselves into a massive pile of sugar and died of hyperglycemic shock (via ketoacidosis) we wouldn't be calling for the ban of sugar because 'but it's harmless' even though it's [I]incredibly[/I] desirable to children and entirely unregulated. Edit: Also, this is disingenuous. [quote]Comparatively, weed is more deadly to children than alcohol and tabacco, in specific forms. A pot brownie or other edibles is far more palatable, and potent, than a budweiser or a Marlboro red.[/quote] Comparatively, weed is far less deadly to children than alcohol and tobacco in specific forms. A pot brownie or other edibles can be less palatable, and [I]far[/I] less potent, than a bottle of Everclear or a 21mg Nicotine Patch (the equivalent of 23-30 cigarettes a day). I see your 'specific forms' and raise you other specific forms of those two things that are far more common than pot brownies in american households and far far far more deadly to an infant. Are either of those 'tightly regulated'? No. You can buy that nicotine patch at any walmart; no prescription required. You can buy a bottle of Everclear with any valid ID; no restrictions except by county - and those broadly apply to all alcohol where such restrictions are enforced. Despite infant deaths from both (and calls for tighter restrictions) those drugs were in worse places to start with and still aren't scheduled drugs.

You can kill an infant by feeding them honey. So yeah, weed would do it to. This is just hype.

[QUOTE=Firetornado;52894994]A tragedy, but it annoys me that tudd posts this shit. You can also drink yourself to death, with both water and alcohol. [sp]I wonder if he has some kind of phone notification whenever a story supporting his agenda appears? [/sp][/QUOTE] Kind of off topic but Google most likely does actually keep note of articles he visits and supply stuff tailored to him, and when big stories come out that interest him most likely does notify him. At least that's what happens to me, I just find it kind of funny how we pretend not to live in echo Chambers.

[QUOTE=Hilton;52895148]Kind of off topic but Google most likely does actually keep note of articles he visits and supply stuff tailored to him, and when big stories come out that interest him most likely does notify him. At least that's what happens to me, I just find it kind of funny how we pretend not to live in echo Chambers.[/QUOTE] We don't. Tudd does.

Oh hey you fed a baby rediculous amounts of something and it died. Guess we should outlaw any chemicals now too.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52895153]We don't. Tudd does.[/QUOTE] You say that but seriously if you receive news notifications from Google ever, notice how tailored it is to what you view. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Off-Topic" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

Is it too late to edit the title to specify the age of the child? Seems kind of important. Reading the title made me think of someone past the age of 10

[QUOTE=Hilton;52895160]You say that but seriously if you receive news notifications from Google ever, notice how tailored it is to what you view.[/QUOTE] You say that but seriously I don't get all my news from Google or /pol/ (in fact about 0% of my news consumption is directly from Google or /pol/). Notice how if you get your information from a variety of sources you're not in an echo chamber. Edit: But please, since you seem to be implying 'you just don't [I]think[/I] you're in an echo chamber', prove how I am.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52895038]I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the stuff the kid ate had some bad bacteria or virus or whatever in it, causing an acute infection the kid's immune system wasn't ready for, whose symptoms were masked by the THC, which resulted in their death. Shouldn't be an argument to ban edibles or weed [I]whatsoever[/I]. This was just neglect. If the kid had gotten themselves into a massive pile of sugar and died of hyperglycemic shock (via ketoacidosis) we wouldn't be calling for the ban of sugar because 'but it's harmless' even though it's [I]incredibly[/I] desirable to children and entirely unregulated. Edit: Also, this is disingenuous. Comparatively, weed is far less deadly to children than alcohol and tobacco in specific forms. A pot brownie or other edibles can be less palatable, and [I]far[/I] less potent, than a bottle of Everclear or a 21mg Nicotine Patch (the equivalent of 23-30 cigarettes a day). I see your 'specific forms' and raise you other specific forms of those two things that are far more common than pot brownies in american households and far far far more deadly to an infant. Are either of those 'tightly regulated'? No. You can buy that nicotine patch at any walmart; no prescription required. You can buy a bottle of Everclear with any valid ID; no restrictions except by county - and those broadly apply to all alcohol where such restrictions are enforced. Despite infant deaths from both (and calls for tighter restrictions) those drugs were in worse places to start with and still aren't scheduled drugs.[/QUOTE] Do I need to tell you why a child wouldn't be interested in a bottle of everclear lol. Do I also need to tell you a kid probably wouldn't be interested in nicotine patches, or know what to do with them? A better argument is nicorrette gum or pixie sticks. Are you seriously making the argument that a pot brownie is less palatable than a bottle of everclear? Get real man. Obviously edibles are more interesting to children than any form of alcohol or tobacco/nicotine. But again, this isn't an argument for banning any form of weed. Just an argument that maybe edibles need to be scrutinized like flavored cigarettes were. Drugs that are interesting to children, like flavored cigarettes are outright banned in the US, which is drastic, but maybe we should do a little more to make sure pot is undesirable to kids?

Of note is the fact the parent hasn't come forward to explain the exposure and the most detail you can get out of the paper is "Additional history disclosed an unstable motel-living situation and parental admission of drug possession, including cannabis." Besides that, the paper goes on a diatribe about informing people on the dangers of cannabis and having edibles marked as containing cannabis and keeping them out of reach of children, which is pretty much already accounted for. Kids shoot themselves with guns kept out of safes and drink detergent because it's brightly colored, and that doesn't make people call for a ban on either The article is from Colorado, where cannabis/marijuana edibles must be sold in packaging that's child-resistant, opaque, and explicity "not designed to appeal to children", and it's been like that for years. That's for legal pot, obviously. If the kid got into the parents' illegal stash he bought off a street dealer and kept in a box or a ziploc bag, well, that's another matter entirely, and arguably a worse situation.

Just as a clarification for anyone who's curious, I don't think dispensaries here are legally allowed to give you anything that's not in some kind of child-proof container. This really does seem like a terrible case of parental neglect.

[quote=Cyke Lon Bee]Do I need to tell you why a child wouldn't be interested in a bottle of everclear lol. [/quote] Do I need to tell you why a child tastes literally everything and that Everclear is tasteless? [quote]Do I also need to tell you a kid probably wouldn't be interested in nicotine patches, or know what to do with them?[/quote] Do I also need to tell you that the kid doesn't need to know what they are to accidentally apply them to themselves? Note how I've stated that kids have already died from these products? Yeah, that's happened many times in both categories. That's many times more than this solitary (as of yet still unconfirmed) cannabis death. [quote]Obviously edibles are more interesting to children than any form of alcohol or tobacco/nicotine.[/quote] So is sugar and honey. Both have killed. [quote]Just an argument that maybe edibles need to be scrutinized like flavored cigarettes were.[/quote] Scrutinized like sugar and honey? Both far more deadly by the number of cases shown and the chemicals and risk factors at work in either? [quote] maybe we should do a little more to make sure pot is undesirable to kids?[/quote] Maybe we should do a little more to make sure sugar and honey are undesirable to kids. Oh wait, you can't. Rather, I should say 'you won't because those aren't drugs because nobody's told me they're drugs unlike the horrifying Cannabis that is [I]worse than morphine[/I] according to its scheduling'.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52895156]Oh hey you fed a baby rediculous amounts of something and it died. Guess we should outlaw any chemicals now too.[/QUOTE] Literally nobody is making that argument.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52895164]You say that but seriously I don't get all my news from Google or /pol/ (in fact about 0% of my news consumption is directly from Google or /pol/). Notice how if you get your information from a variety of sources you're not in an echo chamber. Edit: But please, since you seem to be implying 'you just don't [I]think[/I] you're in an echo chamber', prove how I am.[/QUOTE] You seem to be getting super hostile over just the implication of the possibility that your experience on the internet is tailored based on how you use it. Google suggests and provides similar sources/biases based on your own biases, that is how it works. Simply thinking a variety of sources would change that is incorrect, because you still only view things you are interested in, from sources that you personally trust, and Google will base news on that. It's not some kind of purposeful echo chamber like how you see Tudd, but it is input based on what you output, which is partially an echo chamber whether you like it or not.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52895192]Do I need to tell you why a child tastes literally everything and that Everclear is tasteless? Do I also need to tell you that the kid doesn't need to know what they are to accidentally apply them to themselves? Note how I've stated that kids have already died from these products? Yeah, that's happened many times in both categories. That's many times more than this solitary (as of yet still unconfirmed) cannabis death. So is sugar and honey. Both have killed. Scrutinized like sugar and honey? Both far more deadly by the number of cases shown and the chemicals and risk factors at work in either? Maybe we should do a little more to make sure sugar and honey are undesirable to kids. Oh wait, you can't.[/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, have you ever tried everclear? Its not tasteless, it tastes like ethanol dood. The smell alone is enough to disuade adults, let alone children. I get it you vehemently have to defend weed no matter what, but can you really not understand the logic of "hey maybe lets not make pot brownies look delicious to kids". The same was done with flavored cigarettes and other drugs "directed" at kids. Why treat weed any differently?

Emphasis on the word "claim". They have no evidence that it was the marijuana itself, just saying that they supposedly ruled out every other vector and are corroborating with a prior study that shows that tainted marijuana, or marijuana used with other drugs, could cause myoperiacarditis. There is still absolutely zero evidence of THC from cannabis causing overdose deaths. [editline]15th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52895198]Literally nobody is making that argument.[/QUOTE] You would have to be beyond naive to assume that this isn't going to be used to push an anti-cannabis agenda.