to start, this is a meta analysis of 54 studies. not a great start
second:
54 trials were identified for inclusion (2477 participants; 1713 [69%] males, 764 [31%] females; median age 33·3 years [IQR 28·1–38·05; ethnicity data not available). 24 (44%) of these trials had a high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low. [emphasis added]
so, this is a huge red flag already. when almost half of the studies are categorized as “high bias” and have a low certainty of evidence, that’s pretty bad.
There was some evidence that cannabinoids can reduce symptoms of cannabis use disorder, insomnia, tic or Tourette’s syndrome, and autism spectrum disorder, but the quality of this evidence was generally low. Cannabinoids were associated with a greater risk of any adverse events but not of serious adverse events. Overall, there is a crucial need for more high-quality research. Given the scarcity of evidence, the routine use of cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and SUDs is currently rarely justified.
so, the conclusions of this meta analysis is that many of the studies they reviewed were unreliable, biased crap and that they can’t really draw much of any conclusions from them as little reliable evidence was contained within except for the evidence that more, newer high-quality studies are obviously needed.
lol
thanks for the link to the study, though. it was very amusing
Yeah, a rando on Lemmy will know better that scientists publishing at The Lancet. You must be a true genius. I’m getting flashbacks to antivaxxers during the pandemic who presented exact same deluded image of their own capacity to know and understand every single area of science.
to start, this is a meta analysis of 54 studies. not a great start
second:
so, this is a huge red flag already. when almost half of the studies are categorized as “high bias” and have a low certainty of evidence, that’s pretty bad.
so, the conclusions of this meta analysis is that many of the studies they reviewed were unreliable, biased crap and that they can’t really draw much of any conclusions from them as little reliable evidence was contained within except for the evidence that more, newer high-quality studies are obviously needed.
lol
thanks for the link to the study, though. it was very amusing
Yeah, a rando on Lemmy will know better that scientists publishing at The Lancet. You must be a true genius. I’m getting flashbacks to antivaxxers during the pandemic who presented exact same deluded image of their own capacity to know and understand every single area of science.
I’m not claiming to know better than anyone-- they said that, lol.
read it for yourself!
I’m not a psychiatrist or a psychiatry researcher. Are you?
I can read
But you can’t understand.
I repeated (and even directly quoted) the conclusions from the study you linked. I’m not the one who has a trouble understanding anything here.
You are deluded, sorry. Antivaxxer behaviour that I don’t have a reason to deal with. I’ll ignore you now, you can respond however you like.
What are you even talking about? This study has nothing to do with vaccines. And you’re accusing me of delusions and not understanding?
lmao