Deeper Cannabis Science?

From “Study: Epileptic Patients Report Subjective Benefits from Cannabis” (The Daily Chronic):

Patients with epilepsy frequently experiment with cannabis and most report experiencing subjective benefits following their use of the substance, according to data published online ahead of print in the journal Epilepsy & Behavior.

Did the study (and do any studies these days) factor in strain differential (e.g. Blue Dream by a specific growing process versus Granddaddy Purple by a similar process, and so on)?

Given the enormous diversity of possible cannabis effects (even just psychologically) due to the large combination of significant compounds, it is scientifically insufficient to generically state that cannabis (or even simply THC and/or CBD) sometimes works in any health case.

The scientific method demands the rigorous inclusion of all pertinent factors, and that certainly includes strain differential (nonetheless intake method differential and precise intake amount), which seems to still be missing in all of these studies.

For the sake of cannabis understanding and scientific integrity, it is time to take cannabis science to a sufficiently deep level of precision.

If the absence of strain differential is still due to drug prohibition addiction (ironically demonstrably the real drug epidemic), then the need for a mature public intervention continues to be paramount due to the major relief that cannabis apparently supplies (e.g. brilliantly helping someone very close to me deal with Alzheimer’s disease — but only with the right strains) on so many fronts.

My prediction is a stronger focus upon specific strain signatures (and not just basic compounds) will yield at least higher percentages of positive results in any given area of medical benefit.