My point is they may have missed something a seasoned researched would have issue with in peer review, it happened thousands of times a day. They might have accounted for everything they though of, but didn’t consider marijuana might have compounded effects with some other illness or medications, or that marijuana being smoked raises risk of effects short term but after months of abstinence the risk disappears (this is the finding of several recent studies). That’s why peer review is critical, to catch things imperfect but smart people might miss for the trees.

I think the point they were making was that the data will likely be biased towards those that are already ill, and even taking that into account may not actually provide an accurate representation of reality.

[removed]