[charles_f]

Beyond the semantics, this is what the meta analysis(1) actually says in the abstract

> There were insufficient data to meta-analyse studies of ADHD, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and tobacco use disorder. There was an absence of RCT evidence for the treatment of depression. Meta-analysis revealed higher odds of all-cause adverse events (OR 1·75, 95% CI 1·25 to 2·46) among those using cannabis versus control group

The paper says there's no evidence of effectiveness in treatment, and evidence of harm.

1: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...

[zug_zug]

It sounds to me like you didn't understand the paper at all, or are worse willfully misrepresenting.

The paper says "insufficient data" for helpfulness for most positive categories (but leans more positive than negative just doesn't reach 95% confidence), but also insufficient data on most negative categories. It finds 5 conditions it's helpful for, and 3 it hurts for.

[charles_f]

I'm directly quoting the portion of the abstract related to anxiety and depression, tell me how that's misrepresenting?

> There was an absence of RCT evidence for the treatment of depression.

> Meta-analysis revealed higher odds of all-cause adverse events (OR 1·75, 95% CI 1·25 to 2·46) among those using cannabis versus control group

And my point was that the paper talks about absence of data about efficacy on treatment so arguing on helping vs. curing in interpreting it is moot.

[zug_zug]

> I'm directly quoting the portion of the abstract related to anxiety and depression, tell me how that's misrepresenting?

No you aren't

You said "The paper says there's no evidence of effectiveness in treatment, and evidence of harm." which is a completely inaccurate summary.

[blackqueeriroh]

The abstract is not the full study. This is why people should have training in research methods before saying they know how to understand research papers