alt Hacker NewsIt 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.
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.