• TronBronson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    You’re going to have to point out where I was incorrect, they claim they used a model to exclude bias, but also included studies from the period of time. Is there something I need to look at directly. It reads just like any other cannabis study out there.

    Here’s how we debate things when we can rub to brain cells together. From the article.

    “There was insufficient data for ADHD, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and tobacco use disorder. Cannabinoids were associated with a greater risk of all-cause adverse events compared with placebo, but no higher odds of serious adverse events or study withdrawal. This Article systematically evaluates the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids for some of the most common indications that they are used to treat, providing clarity during a time of expanding clinical use. Sleep issues, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression are some of the leading indications that cannabinoids are used to treat, yet there were only four randomised controlled trials for sleep issues, three for post-traumatic stress disorder, and none for depression that examined cannabinoid efficacy.”

      • TronBronson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        You never engaged with me in the first place you just had some sassy one liners. Did I read the study? Yes fuck wit I read all the studies included in the meta analysis 20 years ago. I’m aware of the conclusions drawn by the old studies and their sources of funding: you couldn’t pull a valid scientific critique out of your fucking ass if it was leaking. Maybe stop commenting. It’s easier than blocking all the people that are going to be irate with your idiocy…