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 a day ago | parent [-]

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 21 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> 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 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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