> Evidence from randomized clinical trials does not support the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most conditions for which it is promoted, such as acute pain and insomnia.

I think that’s the key message do the paper.

▲

tripletao 14 hours ago | parent [-]

In this context, "does not support" means "the evidence is of low quality", not "the evidence says it probably doesn't work". Per the quotations in my other comment here, the paper and its references conclude that the best available RCT evidence is favorable to cannabis for those conditions. They're just not impressed with the statistical power and methodological rigor of those studies.

It's unfortunately common to report that situation of favorable but low-quality evidence as "does not support", despite the confusion that invariably results. This confusion has been noted for literally decades, for example in

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC351831/

I'm sad to see it repeated here, and I hope we can avoid propagating it further.

	▲	bragr 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>I'm sad to see it repeated here, and I hope we can avoid propagating it further. Science educators have been fighting the scientific theory vs vernacular theory fight for decades without much progress, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I think at some point, the scientific community needs to accept that many of the formal and precise ways they are taught to write in order to avoid ambiguity, have the exact opposite effect on everybody else. Unless we adjust the terminology so that the scientific and casual definitions more closely align, we're just going up have to keep explaining.