I absolutely love how the title suggests a million things more than the study itself. Nothing in the study even could demonstrate any actual therapeutic effects

I absolutely love how the title suggests a million things more than the study itself. Nothing in the study even could demonstrate any actual therapeutic effects. Even if the study were one hundred percent well done[0][1] and described a real link between wound healing and Cannabis, it's relevance to the question of any actual benefits in actual human is almost zero. At best it is an extremely weak signal. Of course nobody would care about the study if it was somewhat truthfully reported about. Please look at Figure 1 and tell me what they are doing. Are they doing what I think they are doing, are they actually doing the statistical test on the whole sample? Without any controls? Doing NOTHING obviously increases \beta-Gal activity, so of course even a treatment which does NOTHING has a positive effect. Are they actually ignoring that? Are they literally just running random data through a statistics program and get excited because they get out p < 0.0001, because their Null hypothesis isn't "no difference", but "nothing changed", which is obviously ridiculous. Please tell me I am totally wrong.[1] [0] "All anti-aging drugs were dissolved in DMSO and then dissolved in the media before being applied (n = 3 for each condition) for 2 h daily for 5 days." - from section 2.3 in the paper in question. Yes n = 3[2]. [1] I highly recommend reading: https://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_Mindless_2004.pdf https://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_Mindless_2004.pd... [2] Granted, this isn't as bad as it sound, since they try to measure differences of groups of samples.