Replies

I clicked through to the AP story the guy quotes and then to the actual JAMA abstract. That says:

Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.46 [95% CI, −0.80 to −0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, −0.36 [95% CI, −0.69 to −0.05]; 7 trials).

I don't know, that looks pretty good to me. I don't know what all the numbers mean, though. Anybody who does: it say there was a "a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response" and an "average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale." But the conclusion says "There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting..." How does "greater average number" turn into low-quality evidence, while "average reduction" turns into moderate-quality evidence?

So JAMA would give up $400.000 from every person that gets cancer for there doctors. And drug company's would give up billions from drugs and treatments. Please look up the work being done in Israel with the full range of cannabinoids like CBD. The only smoke and mirrors is this B.S. story.

They're trying to describe research results in half a dozen words or less - and probably not always doing the best possible job of it. The key is in those confidence intervals ("CI") for the odds ratios: if the interval excludes the value 1, then there's a less than 5% chance that the observed improvement was due to blind luck.