Most cannabis research is wrong

Most cannabis research is wrong. A bold statement. So what does it mean? In 2005, Stanford University professor John Ioannidis published Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

In it, he argued that most published research is erroneous due to a combination of factors such as small sample sizes, insufficient adjustment for multiple comparisons, and conflicts of interest.

The paper caused an uproar in the scientific community. While some have criticized Ioannidis for oversimplifying the problem, most agree that there is a replication crisis in the scientific literature. For example, a study might find that cannabis increases the risk of heart attacks. But if no other cannabis research can replicate its findings, does the study tell us anything authentic or valid?

The replication crisis does not only affect sociology, medicine or psychology. It is also affecting cannabis studies. This leads to an uncomfortable conclusion: most cannabis research is wrong.

Most cannabis research is wrong

Is Most Cannabis Research Wrong? The replication crisis has led to calls for more transparency and rigor in the cannabis research process. But ultimately the only way out is to evaluate studies according to their replication rate.

Can cannabis use in adolescents lead to psychosis or an increased risk of developing schizophrenia? Are Cannabis Users Less Likely to Abuse Opioid-Based Painkillers? Does cannabis make you a more compassionate person? Can it lead to poor cardiovascular health? Does cannabis affect your ability to drive?

Some studies affirm this, others deny it. Prohibitionists and public health busybodies like to cite studies showing the negative properties of cannabis. Cannabis advocates like to mention the positive studies.

But most cannabis research is wrong, whether it confirms your bias or not.

10 reasons why most cannabis research is wrong

The replication crisis has impacted studies on cannabis in a number of ways, including:

1. Missing replication: Many studies on cannabis have been criticized for their inability to be replicated. This calls into question the validity of their results.
2. Lack of standardization: There is a lack of standardization in the way cannabis is used and administered in studies (not to mention the strains used, their specific cannabinoid content, etc.). This makes it impossible to compare the results of different studies.
3. Small sample sizes: Many studies on cannabis have small sample sizes, which can lead to unreliable results.
4. Missing control groups: Some studies on cannabis lacked appropriate control groups. This makes it difficult to determine the specific effects of cannabis.
5. Uncontrolled Variables: Many studies on cannabis have not considered other factors that could affect results, such as tobacco use or poor diet. Sometimes researchers don’t even consider the underlying medical conditions.
6. Limited generalizability: Some researchers are conducting studies on cannabis in specific populations, e.g. B. Patients with a specific medical condition, which may limit the generalizability of the results to the general population.
7. Publication bias: Researchers tend to publish positive or negative results as inconclusive results. This leads to an over-representation of “findings” in the literature.
8. funding distortion: Studies funded by industry players such as pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the study is more likely to produce positive results than studies funded from other sources. This ultimately leads to a bias in the literature.
9. Lack of transparency: Some studies on cannabis have been criticized for a lack of transparency in their methods and results. This makes it difficult to assess the robustness of their results.
10. Prevalence of observational studies: There is a high prevalence of observational studies in cannabis research, which are prone to bias and confusion. They are less powerful than RCTs (randomized controlled trials) in determining causality.

This over-reliance on observational studies means most cannabis research is wrong. Just as funding bias leads to slogans like “Follow the Science,” which ultimately means “Follow the Money.”

“Studies Say” is the modern equivalent of “The Scriptures Say…”

We are not here to bash anyone’s spiritual beliefs. If you find comfort in the Scriptures, good luck. But if you try to argue that your interpretation of the Scriptures describes a reality that we must all follow, we’re going to have a problem.

Likewise, we will not challenge anyone who uses cannabis research studies to navigate the world. You may be vegan and enjoy reading studies that support the benefits of this lifestyle.

But once you start arguing with others that the vegan lifestyle is the only way to live, and you support those opinions by citing “studies,” then it’s time to step back and reevaluate.

Both “scriptures” and “studies” express authority or provide evidence for a particular belief or claim.

Scriptures refer to religious texts or teachings that are considered sacred or authoritative by those who follow that belief.

Studies, on the other hand, refer to scientific research results. These are said to be based on empirical evidence and subjected to rigorous testing, verification and testing Reproduce.

The failure of much modern research, including cannabis research, to replicate findings is no small matter. Because of this, most cannabis research is wrong.

If you read: “Randomized controlled trials evaluating the therapeutic use and safety of marijuana are lacking, but a growing body of evidence suggests that marijuana use may be associated with adverse cardiovascular risks.”

You can roll your eyes. There is no “growing evidence” because without RCTs there is no evidence. Without replication, you only have one opinion.