Rendered at 11:12:47 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
My_Name 23 minutes ago [-]
This paper seems to lack rigour. It starts with a premise then does not look at anything that might prove or disprove that premise. Hospital applications were not screened for cannabis use, only Colorado legalised but they used data from the whole western region, most importantly Medicaid also started at the same time as legalisation, do they investigate whether the availability of medical care prompted people to get medical treatment for their existing heart condition? They don't check whether the rise in cannabis use after legalisation was large enough to produce increases of this size across the whole population. An increase larger than the additional users would point to some other cause...
There is a whole website of similar spurious correlations (https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations). Will they now bring out a paper stating that Nicolas Cage films cause death by drowning? How about Solar power generation in Belize causing Fire inspectors in Florida, which both saw a very highly correlated jump in 2018?
mrob 51 minutes ago [-]
The important question now is finding out if it's the cannabinoids or the smoke inhalation. This study doesn't attempt to distinguish the two.
dr_dshiv 32 minutes ago [-]
In the way the study is designed, it could also be the non-using spouses having to pick up more work. Or the loss of motivation (and regular aerobic activity) by the users.
GordonS 42 minutes ago [-]
Without accounting for route of administration, this paper seems pretty worthless... almost deliberately so?
There is a whole website of similar spurious correlations (https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations). Will they now bring out a paper stating that Nicolas Cage films cause death by drowning? How about Solar power generation in Belize causing Fire inspectors in Florida, which both saw a very highly correlated jump in 2018?