You're grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to move the goalposts.
Smoking weed makes you stupid, get over it
I'm really not. I haven't moved any goal posts.
Did you read this, in your study? Or just the ccn talking points?
"Limitations
Some limitations of this study are noteworthy. First, parents or caregivers retrospectively reported on cannabis use during pregnancy that occurred approximately 10 years earlier, which may have resulted in biased reporting and misclassification.
71 For example, retrospective report of substance use during pregnancy 14 years earlier has been found to be more common than antenatal report and more strongly correlated with child outcomes (eg, measured birth weight and behavioral problems).
71 Although these findings may indicate greater accuracy during retrospective recall, they could also reflect recall bias related to children contemporaneously experiencing problems. However, ABCD Study prevalence estimates of self-reported prenatal cannabis use align with toxicology-based prevalence estimates from national data sets collected during the years these children were born.
72
Second, although the ABCD Study is, to our knowledge, the largest integrative study of child health and substance use and among the largest studies of prenatal exposure and child outcomes (the number of exposed children exceeded entire samples from other studies),
21 there was a proportionally small number of participants who were exposed to cannabis prenatally, thereby reducing power. Third, THC concentration differs between fetuses whose mothers use cannabis once per month compared with once per day.
15 There are limited or no data on potency, frequency (see Results), timing, or quantity of cannabis exposure in this data set. It will be important for future efforts to better understand the impact of dosage, strain, and method of ingestion.
73 Fourth, while we were able to account for many known familial, pregnancy-related, and child-related confounding variables, the role of unmeasured confounders cannot be discounted. Relatedly, while we account for underlying genetic vulnerability using both familial history and PGS, it is possible that the current genome-wide association studies from which PGS weighting was estimated do not adequately represent genetic risk for the specific child outcomes under study (eTables 15 and 16 in the
Supplement)."