> Evidence from randomized clinical trials does not support the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most conditions for which it is promoted, such as acute pain and insomnia.
In this context, "does not support" means "the evidence is of low quality", not "the evidence says it probably doesn't work". Per the quotations in my other comment here, the paper and its references conclude that the best available RCT evidence is favorable to cannabis for those conditions. They're just not impressed with the statistical power and methodological rigor of those studies.
It's unfortunately common to report that situation of favorable but low-quality evidence as "does not support", despite the confusion that invariably results. This confusion has been noted for literally decades, for example in
>I'm sad to see it repeated here, and I hope we can avoid propagating it further.
Science educators have been fighting the scientific theory vs vernacular theory fight for decades without much progress, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I think at some point, the scientific community needs to accept that many of the formal and precise ways they are taught to write in order to avoid ambiguity, have the exact opposite effect on everybody else. Unless we adjust the terminology so that the scientific and casual definitions more closely align, we're just going up have to keep explaining.
Studio Ghibli doesn’t want the style “amplified”. That brings them no benefit, it’s only detrimental, and they’ve made that abundantly clear.
They are one of the best, most popular and influential animation studios ever. That you had never heard of them suggests you have little to no interest in animation, which is perfectly fine but also means you’re not their target audience.
It can be both. You can enjoy family time, and still be happy with alone time. I love getting up at 5 am, when everyone is still asleep and the house is still quiet. But I also love spending time with the family once everyone's day starts. Both are possible.
wanting time away from your loved ones doesn't seem the least bit weird to me.
Like sure you love your wife and kids, but being with them every second of every day is probably too much for most sane people. Especially if you have hobbies that demand a lot of focus time.
If you’re interested to read something on that topic I highly recommend the essay "That's About the Size of It" by Isaac Asimov (in his book "View from a Height").
He argues that human perception of animal size is skewed because humans use themselves as a benchmark.
He takes a logarithmic approach to illustrate where humans actually fit within the overall scale of the animal kingdom. We are way larger than we think we are!
>so a lot of the profit still ends up outside of the country.
I have no idea how you come up with that corollary. All big traditional consultancies are partnerships and any profit is distributed among the partners. If a country (e.g. Germany) makes a loss, then profits from other countries will flow into the country to make up for this.
I think that’s the key message do the paper.
reply