Hanlon's razor is a principle or rule of thumb that states "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
I do find that useful !
It is a difficult area of study, largely because pain and in particular chronic pain is such a subjective issue and pharmacology is as objective as possible.
Cannabis does not have the potent analgesic qualities of opiods or the anti-iinfammatory properties of (non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs(NSAIDS) which makes it more difficult to quantify results but it does not have as serious adverse effects or potential for overdose.
As a chronic pain patient I know that my quality of life is not only measured by a pain scale but a variety of factors many of which are impacted by the adverse effects of opiods and NSAIDS. The report seems to acknowledge this but the focus is on quantifiable pain studies rather than quality of life which would include a more holistic assessment of patient outcomes.
As I've stated previously, for me canna is not a painkiller like an opiate, but it takes my mind away from that constant reminder of agony and this allows me to function (somewhat). Sure I can dose myself up on opiates till I can't stand upright but the side effects of doing so are simply nasty. And that mind fog of high dose opiates is just yuck.
I'm a moderator for a bunch of online health forums and I'm often saying
"A common theory in science is A+B=C but when it comes to neurology A+B=C is way too simple. I am NOT 'A', my situation is NOT 'B', and the result certainly is NOT 'C'.
The Dr's (or scientists) don't like this, they like fixed quantities. For me it's more a case of A+B-CxD/E√F... and every one of them is variable everyday."
As for their pain scale, @#%&#*@&%#, they 'try' to make everything fit within their scale and at times I far exceed that scale. Post surgery I had a nursey ask my scale out of 10. I said '15' "Ohh, it can't be that bad.." she said. "Well, you lay on the floor and I'll boot you in the side of the head, then you can tell me" I retorted. She was offended, but nowhere near as offended as I was. I was not going to call her stupid directly, but she got the message.
It's my view that if someone receives a benefit then that's the end of the conversation, they should have access to it. The medicos want to quantify it all for their own statistics, but their statistics are of no benefit to me.