Judging from the disparate media headlines, last week’s meta-analysis of cannabinoid research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) contained something for everyone.
Here’s a sampling of the mainstream media’s seemingly schizophrenic coverage:
Toledo Blade: Studies support marijuana’s role for medical needs
Los Angeles Times: Most uses of medical marijuana wouldn’t pass FDA review, study finds
So what was the review’s actual takeaway message in regard to the efficacy, or lack thereof, of medical marijuana? That’s hard to say because its authors said little at all about cannabis.
Of the 79 total randomized controlled trials (involving nearly 6,500 total participants) reviewed by the authors, only two explicitly assessed the safety and efficacy of whole-plant cannabis. By contrast, most of the trials reviewed evaluated the oral administration of a synthetic cannabinoids such as dronabinol (synthetic THC) and nabilone (a synthetic THC derivative that mimics THC).
Read More: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/why-media-all-over-place-when-it-comes-talking-about-scientific-discoveries-tied-medical?akid=13253.222865.9SKGYS&rd=1&src=newsletter1038524&t=1