9 comments

[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 25.0 ms ] thread
I loved reading this thank u! Very interesting. I wonder how many other stuff exists that would help you decipher between good and bad content specially these days. Edit: grammar
It's also clickbait in that a question suggests something is unresolved, needing reader input to help with an answer. This exploits the general wish people have to help with unresolved things. Not sure if the wikipedia article mentions this I glanced briefly.
But these articles aren’t made to take ur input, they’re there for you to read when they ask a question. many of them you can’t even comment on it.
The law is limited to yes-no question. If the answer is yes, then the headline would be like "weed causes strokes".

  “ The adage led into a humorous attempt at a liar paradox by a 1988 paper, written by physicist Boris Kayser under the pseudonym "Boris Peon", which …”
Tangent … how exactly did one publish under a pseudonym in a peer-reviewed system? Is that still possible today?
Most peer-review procedures I know of are actually double blind, so the reviewers do not know the author and vice versa. Only in the final publishing step do you add a name, should be easy enough to use a pseudonym.
When being assessed for MMJ, my cardiac arrythmias were taken into account. I'm very prone to cardiac arrythmia (Brugada Syndrome), and THC _is_ causally associated with cardiac arrythmia. It's generally a problem with either naive users or heroic doses though. In turn, cardiac arrythmias in general increase the risk of stroke. Due to my general propensity for death, my medical team looked long and hard at this.

There seems to be little or no evidence of long-term cannabis usage increasing cardiac mortality beyond that of smoking (inhaling particulates and random aromatics). The improvement in my sleeping (yeah, I know, rem sleep blah blah, I get more than 2 hours sleep at a time now) reduces my cardiac risk along with the health benefits of being generally less stressed.