Sunday, December 8, 2019

Comments by whattheflock

Showing 1 of 1 comments.

  • This rebuttal is nothing but a bias attack on a legitimate study. All the problems she brought up can be compared to every single other longitudinal study as well. She is arguing that the size of the sample used is too small, but compares it to cross sectional studies which can support a larger sample size. Trying to get a longitudinal study with the sample size she suggested of 10,000 participants would be close to impossible. She comments on how the outcomes were self reporting. Even the questionnaires she mentioned that diagnose mental health disorders are practically self reporting. Sorry we can’t stick someone with a needle, measure their shoe size and declare someone 100% addicted to Cannabis, or even that it is detrimental to their overall health. self reporting is the best we got right now. Also “Marijuana potency was far lower (1980’s to 1990’s) during the period of marijuana consumption of this population. This conceivably affects outcomes and consequences.” Source please; or is that your own personal opinion?

    Now this rebuttal does bring up some good ideas and we shouldn’t attack this person just for having a different idea. We can take her ideas to heart, and use them to prove her wrong. With the next study there should be medical evals from doctors, a control group, and a larger sample. Haters gonna Hate