NY Times: ”Researchers don’t know why heat soothes the syndrome, known as C.H.S., nor why certain chronic marijuana users develop it and others don’t.“
Let's read that again: "why certain do ... and others don't".
Now, a sentence containing numbers from Gotham Gal:
Gotham Gal: “Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is what a lot of the article focused on. Reporters surveyed 200 physicians who have different specialties and found almost 600 people who suffer from this syndrome. 600 people spread throughout 200 physicians? I mean seriously. Thirty-five million people use cannabis daily in the United States.”
Certain do. Others don't.
Later in the NY Times article we get this selection-bias + self-reporting bias gem:
“A 2018 survey of emergency department patients at Bellevue Hospital in New York found that among 18- to 49-year-olds who disclosed consuming cannabis at least 20 times a month, one-third met criteria for the syndrome.”
Pot or not, what are the odds of ER patients reporting symptoms meeting critera of "nausea, vomiting, and pain"?
Followed immediately by extrapolating to everyone:
“Based on those rates, the researchers estimate that today about six million near-daily marijuana users in the United States could have symptoms of C.H.S.”
They could. Certain do. Others don't.
And then one last amazing couplet about our 600 person sample:
“600 people with C.H.S. who responded to the Times survey said ...”
“Many of the respondents, who are in a Facebook support group, said...”
Oh. These do. Others don't.
I was left confused with exactly what the author disagrees with in the Times article (other than the overall conclusion: "weed is bad").