Regarding a recent article by Peter Clausi , an experienced investment banker, who claims there is "no proof" that cannabis has any medicinal efficacy and that all that's available is anecdotal evidence; sarcastically he quotes “my cousin took it and felt better”.

In defense of cannabis and it's medicinal use, I say yes, most of the evidence is anecdotal.This is 100% due to the fact that people are incarcerated for even looking at the plant and also that it's been labelled a schedule 1 drug for the past 50 years, a category of drugs not considered legitimate for medical use.
Special licensing procedures must be followed to use Schedule I substances and the governing body doesn't make it easy to acquire it in the first place.

The problem stems from the fact that the war on drugs has perverted scientific research!

Even though it's a schedule 1 drug, lots of scientific research has been done, starting with Dr. Raphael Mechoulam work in Israel over 50 years ago.

Mr. Clausi goes on to say: "At some point, the marijuana industry is going to have to undergo stringent trials to prove up the various claims being made about its medical efficacy. Does it treat epilepsy? Prove it. Does it shrink tumours? Prove it. Alleviate post traumatic stress? Prove it".

My response is; Unfortunately Mr. Clausi, most of the funding for cannabis research in the past has been to disproof any benefit from using it, to prove it's harmfulness, to prop up the war on drugs.
Several years back the UK government funded professor David Nutt to do exactly this, and after years of dedicated research he submitted his findings to the government that cannabis was one of the safest plants in existence, non toxic, won't kill you and doesn't cause mental health issues such as Schizophrenia.

Directly after Professor Nutt submitted his research he was sacked, The UK government claimed they had conflicting views.
Which backfired, because now he has a whole bunch of well educated scientists supporting his findings.

Anyway, going back to Mr. Clausi's original article "Death in the Marijuana Market" (sounds like Agatha Christie) and the tragedy in France where a man died and several others were hospitalised with irreversible brain damage, a tragic event.

But lets not pin the blame on cannabis! I would say this is a case of pharmaceutical companies attempting to synthesize cannabis and play with it's structural integrity so they can patent and profit from it?

As you say Mr. Clausi "It’s like working in the kitchen to prepare a new meal, without a recipe and not knowing what ingredient does what. You might get eggs and baking powder and flour – you might get lemon peels, chicken feet and pig eyes. Would you want to eat that cake?"

I say, if you remove a key ingredient from a great recipe it can spoil the dish.

Synthetic adulterated cannabis is dangerous, no doubts about it.
On another note, there is a great clinical trial happening in Chile, The Daya Foundation, I'm looking forward to their results.