Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Specialist_Mouse_418 t1_j9viogs wrote

They pulled numbers from the NIH and used the AHA as a point of reference. The article also states that it's up for review this week.

4

pegothejerk t1_j9vo8r2 wrote

Good sources for data are critical, but even more important is good methodology in extracting information from that data. Are those people using marijuana because they’re already sick and therefore the sample pool automatically has a higher incidence of heart issues? That’s why studies and review are important, so seasoned researchers can say “well, you haven’t taken samples from people who have had no reason to be entered into a database, let’s collect seasoned marijuana users who haven’t been entered into these systems and compare”

20

[deleted] t1_j9vq1xp wrote

[deleted]

−5

pegothejerk t1_j9vtju2 wrote

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.

6

Art-Zuron t1_j9vtrbc wrote

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.

2