I don't disagree, cannabis is neither harmful or addictive, but to be fair, while it may not have chemical addictions, it is prone to psychological addiction, similarly to alcohol being addictive but that is irrelevant.

I think you are confusing medical benefits from a solitary viewpoint rather than an overall scientific fact. Take TAC for instance, believe it or not, it has a medical property based on fact and not isolated cases of it might/might not work depending on the person. A compound called "TAC" that is commonly used to treat bad cuts on the head, face or neck of kids, and it is 11 percent (to not name it directly as per TOS) "Whitney Houston's drug of choice." It's used because it is less painful and invasive than injecting a topical anesthetic and it doesn't distort or misshape the wound, which can increase the chance of scarring. No other drug combines the properties of a vasoconstrictor and an anesthetic.
Weed does not have a medical use on its own, the various properties in the plant do, the parts that aren't THC which IS used in various treatments and medical aides. There is a difference.

Comparing weed to over the counter Asprin as a mode for deaths isn't really applicable because a vast majority of those deaths are caused by people not following directions, as do many things.
As for fact sheets, they list all and any possible symptoms for liability reasons. But one of the many requirements to get approval is that the benefits MUST outweigh the potential cons.

My opinions are based on impressions, they are based on facts of how corporations and businesses operate. It isn't about the press releases, it's about the fact that these companies come and go each year because they literally operate at a loss far more often than not across the board. It's simple business economics one can rely on for the facts.