Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. Any kind of discrimination is will not be tolerated.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com - News and information about Europe.
- !usa@midwest.social - News and information about United States of America.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
There were six studies included on anxiety with a total participant count of ~350... What a pathetic attempt of a review
Only 123 participants for PTSD and ONE study included
The data is shit. That's not their fault and it's mentioned on page 1 of the paper.
It is their fault when they literally draw the conclusion cannabis does nothing for these conditions when they don't have the data required to make that conclusion
This is how meta analyses work:
you look at available research, aggregate over it, draw conclusions. It is not unusual that such meta studies even point out that more research is needed.
In fact, it is often helpful to get this 'more research' funded.
The issue is this is bit a HUGE meta study. The results are being presented disingenuously.
Yeah, doesn't get as many clicks as "medium-small" meta study does it.
Then it needs to say more research needed instead of making the misleading claim there's no effect
No significant effect does not mean no effect, very crucial difference. It means that the effect wasn't statistically significant, i.e. <5% chance of being random.
No, they don't do that.
They say that based on the available data, cannabis is not shown to be effective as an only form of treatment, and recommend more studies be done because the vast majority of the studies that exist are very poor.
The reporting on the paper is not the paper.
They claim no significant effects for anxiety and PTSD when they could have said there was insufficient data. It's misleading. They DO do that.
No significant effect means no statistically significant effect here. The authors never claim an effect doesn't exist.