A study found that cannabis and its compounds may help people who have COVID-19 or might get it. Cannabis can make the virus less strong, reduce stress in our body, and help with some of the problems that happen after we get sick. The researchers think that more studies are needed to know how well cannabis can really help against COVID-19. Read from source...

- The headline is misleading and sensationalized, as it implies that cannabis has been proven to be effective against COVID-19, which is not the case. The study only explored the potential of cannabinoids, not their actual efficacy or safety in humans. A more accurate headline would be something like "Cannabinoids: A Promising Area Of Research For COVID-19 Treatment And Prevention".
- The article is poorly structured and lacks clarity. It jumps from discussing the early-stage benefits of cannabinoids to the post-infection promise, without explaining how the researchers conducted their experiments or what kind of evidence they have to support their claims. A better structure would be to separate the study's findings into different sections, and provide more details on the methods and results.
- The article relies heavily on secondary sources, such as Marijuana Moment, which may not be reliable or credible. It also does not cite any primary sources, such as the original study or the journal it was published in. This makes it hard for readers to verify the information or check the accuracy of the claims. A better practice would be to provide direct links to the original source and quote the relevant parts.
- The article uses vague and ambiguous terms, such as "alleviate", "potential allies", "suggest", "cautious approach". These words do not convey a clear or precise meaning, and may imply different interpretations for different readers. A better choice would be to use more specific and scientific language, such as "reduce", "demonstrated", "showed", "limited".
- The article contains emotional appeals and personal opinions, such as "potential role for cannabis in limiting the ‘susceptibility and severity’ of the virus" or "there is a gap in research addressing therapeutics for the early and post-infectious phases". These statements are not supported by evidence or logic, and may influence the reader's emotions or beliefs. A better approach would be to stick to factual and objective information, and avoid expressing personal views or preferences.