Blog

The Top 200 Cannabis-Related Studies Published in 2025

Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on marijuana and its components have been published in the first seven months of 2025, marking a surge in new research. In this article, we break down the 200 most important of these studies.

These studies cover a wide spectrum of conditions, from autoimmune disorders and mental health issues to gastrointestinal diseases and metabolic dysfunction. In addition, researchers are increasingly turning their attention to cannabinoids beyond THC and CBD, such as CBG, THCV, and CBC. Many studies also focus on novel delivery systems—like oral dissolvable films, skin patches, and advanced emulsions—while investigating how marijuana may affect pain regulation, sleep quality, immune response, and emotional health.

What follows is a detailed roundup of more than 200 marijuana-related studies released so far this year.

Keep reading

Medical Marijuana ‘Significantly’ Decreases Use Of Opioids By Chronic Pain Patients, New Study Finds

A new study is offering more evidence that marijuana can serve as an effective substitute for opioids in pain management treatment.

Researchers in Australia at Murdoch University and the Perth Pain Management Centre set out to investigate how the integration of cannabinoids into treatment for people with chronic non-cancer pain would impact opioid use.

The study, published in the journal Pain Management on Monday, determined that “co-prescription of cannabinoids may enable patients to reduce their opioid consumption prescribed for chronic benign pain.”

To assess the relationship between cannabis and opioids in treatment, researchers followed two cohorts of patients over the course of a year: One group of 102 patients at a pain clinic who were already taking opioids and were co-prescribed cannabis and another group of 53 patients at a different clinic who were only receiving opioids, without marijuana.

At the baseline, the median patient was taking about 40 mg of opioids per day. After a year, the group that received a median dose of medical cannabis containing 15 mg delta-9 THC and 15 mg of CBD “significantly” decreased their opioid dose to 2.7 mg per day. The opioid-only cohort after one year was taking a median 42.3 mg per day.

“The introduction of cannabinoids can produce useful reductions in opioid consumption in real-world settings, with additional benefits for disability and insomnia,” the study authors said. “However, this treatment is tolerated by only a subgroup of patients.”

Among the cohort that incorporated cannabis into their treatment regiment, “opioid consumption decreased significantly after both 6 and 12 months.”

“Physical activity and sleep also improved. These findings indicate that medicinal cannabis can help patients to reduce their opioid consumption and improve their physical activity and sleep,” the study concluded.

The findings are also consistent with a growing body of scientific literature exploring the association between cannabis and opioid use.

For example, a study published earlier this year in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review found that, among drug users who experience chronic pain, daily cannabis use was linked to a higher likelihood of quitting the use of opioids—especially among men.

A study published late last year also found that legalizing medical cannabis appeared to significantly reduce monetary payments from opioid manufacturers to doctors who specialize in pain, with authors finding “evidence that this decrease is due to medical marijuana becoming available as a substitute” for prescription painkillers.

Keep reading

House GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik Demands AG Pam Bondi Launch a Full Investigation into Standard Chartered Bank’s Terrorist Financing and Letitia James’ Role in the Explosive Scandal

House GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) has called on U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to open a full-blown federal investigation into Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) and to scrutinize New York Attorney General Letitia James’ complicity in a billion-dollar terrorist financing scandal.

House Republican Chairwoman Elise Stefanik’s urgent letter to Bondi comes on the heels of a bombshell Gateway Pundit report into the Standard Chartered Bank sanctions evasion case, now before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

That case uncovered at least $9.6 billion in illegal payments by the bank to Iranian and Hezbollah entities—payments that directly violate U.S. Treasury sanctions and undermine national security.

These transactions were allegedly concealed from mandatory disclosures under a deferred prosecution agreement overseen by the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington, D.C.

Even more disturbing, the case implicates New York Attorney General Letitia James and the Federal Reserve for ignoring these billions in illicit transactions and failing to enforce sanctions already designated by the Treasury Department.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported:

At least $9.6 billion of specifically identified illicit payments were made by SCB from its NYC branch to OFAC and known terrorist names. The $9.6 billion was found in internal trade reports turned over by bank whistleblowers and represents the first batch from SCB Dubai office that cleared through SCB NYC. There are estimated over $100 billion more of illegal payments that are more recent and from SCB China where it has 53 mainland branches that facilitate dollar trade payments for oil and war-making materials.

These payments were hidden by SCB from required disclosure in its ongoing Deferred Prosecution Agreement now under the jurisdiction of DCUSA Pirro and SDNY Clayton where both were briefed on SCB after their appointments. There are career blockers at each jurisdiction.

Keep reading

Report: “1 In 7 Scientific Papers is Fake, Suggests Study That Author Calls ‘Wildly Nonsystematic’”

In 2009, a now highly-cited study found an average of around 2% of scientists admit to have falsified, fabricated, or modified data at least once in their career. 

Fifteen years on, a new analysis tried to quantify how much science is fake – but the real number may remain elusive, some observers said. 

The analysis, published before peer review on the Open Science Framework on September 24, found one in seven scientific papers may be at least partly fake. The author, James Heathers, a long-standing scientific sleuth, arrived at that figure by averaging data from 12 existing studies — collectively containing a sample of around 75,000 studies — that estimate the volume of problematic scientific output. 

“I have been reading for years and still continue to read this 2% figure which is ubiquitous,” Heathers, an affiliated researcher in psychology at Linnaeus University in Vaxjo, Sweden, said. “The only minor problem with it is that it’s 20 years out of date,” he added, noting that the last dataset that went into the 2009 study was from 2005. 

So Heathers tried to come up with a more up-to-date estimate of scholarly literature containing signs of irregularities. “A lot has changed in 20 years,” he said. “It’s been a persistent irritant to me for a period of years now to see this figure cited over and over and over again.”

Past studies predominantly focussed on asking researchers directly if they had engaged in dishonest research practices, Heathers said, “which I think is a very bad approach to being able to do this.” But he noted that it was probably the only method available to use when the research was conducted. 

“I think it’s pretty naive to ask people who are faking research whether or not they’ll honestly answer the question that they were dishonest previously,” Heathers said. 

Heathers’ study pulls data from 12 different analyses from  the social sciences, medicine, biology, and other fields of research. All those studies have one thing in common: The authors of each used various online tools to estimate the amount of fakery taking place in a set of papers. 

Keep reading

USCIS Director Joe Edlow Says Biden Plan was ‘Mass Amnesty’ to ‘Change Demographics’ of America

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow tells Breitbart News in an exclusive interview that former President Joe Biden’s “long-term plan” for immigration policy was a “mass amnesty” for illegal aliens in the hopes of drastically shifting the nation’s demographics, likely in favor of Democrat political power.

Most recently, as Breitbart News reported, President Donald Trump’s administration has started ending a so-called “quiet amnesty” loophole called administrative closure, whereby immigration courts were instructed to dismiss deportation cases or close deportation cases for illegal aliens rather than adjudicating their asylum claims, used by the Biden administration.

The Trump administration is now reopening those closed cases to adjudicate whether such illegal aliens ought to be in the U.S.

In an exclusive interview, Edlow said the federal government must return “to limiting administrative closure.”

“It was a Jeff Sessions-certified opinion in Castro-Tum, that really made the case for why administrative closure should be limited,” Edlow said. “[Former Attorney General Merrick] Garland came in and stripped that away as quickly as possible to use it as a major basis, and I think we’ve seen that happen time and time again.”

“If you look at how the courts were being administered, how ICE was being kind of cut off at the knees, in terms of their role in the immigration court … it was pretty clear to me that the only interest was to either close cases where there was no eligibility, or get cases granted as quickly as possible,” he continued.

Keep reading

The Most Insidious Trick Of AI Language Models

Here is your perfect prescription for poor writing and analytics: let “artificial intelligence” do your work for you. I’ve learned this from real experience.

For a while, I enjoyed letting AI take a look at my content prior to publication. It seemed valuable for facts and feedback.

Plus I enjoyed all the personal flattery it gave me, I admit. The engine was always complimentary.

When I would catch AI in an error, the engine would apologize. That made me feel smart. So I had this seeming friend who clearly liked me and was humble enough to defer to my expertise.

I’m not sure if it is getting worse or if I’m onto the racket but I’m no longer impressed. For simple math or historical dates or sequencing news events, it can be a thing of value, though it is always a good idea to double-check. It cannot write compelling much less creative content. It generates dull, formulaic filler.

More recently, I’ve been asking how my content could be improved. The results are revealing. It removes all edge, all judgment, all genuine expertise, and replaces my language with flaccid conventionalities and banalities. It nuances everything I write into the ramblings of a social-studies student looking for a good grade.

The problem is that AI absorbs and spits back conventional wisdom gleaned from every source, which makes its judgments no better than someone wholly uninformed on particulars but rather gains opinions from the mood of the moment. It has no capacity to judge good quality over bad so it puts it all into a melange of blather, distinguished only because it looks and feels like English.

Any writer who thinks this is a good way to pawn off content on unsuspecting readers or teachers is headed for disaster. I shudder to imagine a future in which AI is training the population how to think. It is the opposite of thinking. It is regurgitating conventionalities without any serious reflection on the social or historical context. It is literally mindless.

People who spend hours arguing on AI often believe that they are making a contribution, training the engine to be better. It’s simply not true. The reverse is the case. AI is training you to think more like it thinks, which is not at all.

Considering why and how AI initially intrigued me, I’m realizing that its superpower is not its astonishing recall and capacity to generate answers and prose in any context instantly. No, its true power is something else, something inauspicious and thereby more insidious. Its draw is that AI takes you seriously, flatters your intelligence, validates your sense of things, and affirms your dignity.

Keep reading

Misinformation Scholarship Exposed As Liberal Activist Grift

A funny thing happened when the NY Times reported a month back that Elon Musk’s exit from DC politics had been facilitated by a group of activists targeting his electric car company after he abandoned Democrats, helped fund Trump’s election, and then ran DOGE.

In short, Musk supports zero Democratic Party politicians and none of their priorities.

Enter Democratic activists who protested against the company run by the party’s main boogey man—protests that sometimes veered into violence and started at the impetus of sociology professor Joan Donovan.

The problem with Times story is what the Times journalist doesn’t tell us, namely the function professor Joan Donovan has served at the New York Times and other legacy news. Labeling Donovan a “sociology professor at Boston University,” skips over this purported academic’s role as a central character in the Time’s fake narrative that America is awash in “disinformation” that can only be fixed by legacy media and professors, like Joan Donovan—a misinformation authority who allegedly publishes objective scholarship with neutral, verified facts and reliable truths.

“Dr. Donovan leads the field in examining internet and technology studies, online extremism, media manipulation, and disinformation campaigns,” explains one news site. “She conducts research, develops methods, and facilitates workshops for journalists, policy makers, technologists, and civil society organizations on how to detect, document, and debunk media manipulation campaigns.”

In reality, the entire arena of disinformation studies has been exposed as a jobs program for liberal activists who dress up in academic garb, to provide quotes to the Times when they run articles claiming anything not published in the New York Times might be disinformation.

Keep reading

NPR’s Langfitt: Some D.C. Residents Told Me They Stopped Reporting Crime Because Much of It’s ‘Unpunished’

On Wednesday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” NPR National Correspondent Frank Langfitt stated that in the Congress Heights area of D.C. some of the people he spoke to told him “crime is worse than the statistics show,” because some “have given up reporting to police because they feel a lot of crimes go unpunished.”

Langfitt stated that in the U Street area, people he spoke to “said crime didn’t seem that bad to them.”

Langfitt further stated that after talking to people in the U Street area, “I went across the Anacostia River to Congress Heights. This is among the poorest areas of the city, vast majority of the population is black. And, also, the D.C. Police say this is part of an area with among the highest crime — violent crime rates in the city. But unlike U Street, people in Congress Heights said crime is a really big problem there, shootings, robbery, burglaries. In fact, some say crime is worse than the statistics show, because, many say, have given up reporting to police because they feel a lot of crimes go unpunished.”

He added that “there was a general sense that any greater armed presence would be a good thing” but people in Congress Heights were skeptical that any federal agents would be in their neighborhood because many there view the dispatching of federal agents as just about style, and people said that it would be better to increase federal funding to hire more police.

Keep reading

Fraud Hunters: Sniffing Out Bogus Science

Molecular biologist Mike Rossner, who has committed his life to following the science, now finds himself playing an unexpected if urgent role – exposing the fraud of his fellow scientists. 

Rossner is part of a network of experts that sniff out researchers who intentionally or recklessly fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize evidence. Rossner, a consultant specializing in identifying manipulated and duplicated images in journal papers – a telltale sign of deceit – has been dismayed by his findings at U.S. research centers. Scientists often have deleted the data underlying the images, making misconduct harder to prove and casting doubt on the validity of the research. 

“Science is about finding the truth, and an inaccurate representation of what was actually observed means that you are not representing the truth,” said Rossner, a former managing editor of The Journal of Cell Biology. “This is harmful to the progress of science and to our society that depends on it.”

In recent years, research misconduct has tainted the country’s most venerable universities, including Harvard and Johns Hopkins. To date, more than 20 Nobel Prize winners have had papers retracted by the journals that published them, a move often associated with misconduct, according to Retraction Watch. The watchdog group says that retractions worldwide increased fivefold in the last decade.

That a profession with noble intentions finds itself beset by a surprisingly high incidence of not just honest errors but fraud – estimated at about 1% to 2% of all research papers – is a complicated story. Experts say it reflects a breakdown in ethics by scientists under intense pressure to frequently publish to keep their jobs. This problem was highlighted by a recent article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about the growth of clandestine “paper mills,” which exploit the “publish or perish” culture of research. The operators of mills produce low-quality and fake papers – giving authorship to scientists at a price – that are published in “predatory journals” without peer review, fueling the growth of retractions and fraud.

The problem runs deeper. Lax oversight at some universities and research centers, which are required by federal agencies to police themselves and yet depend on the grants that published research brings in, allows wrongdoing to go unchecked. 

Keep reading