5 ms·

From the paper, > Globally, an estimated 741 300 (95% UI 558 500–951 200), or 4.1% (3.1–5.3), of all new cases of cancer in 2020 were attributable to alcohol c

From the paper, > Globally, an estimated 741 300 (95% UI 558 500–951 200), or 4.1% (3.1–5.3), of all new cases of cancer in 2020 were attributable to alcohol consumption. Males accounted for 568 700 (76.7%; 95% UI 422 500–731 100) of total alcohol-attributable cancer cases, and cancers of the oesophagus (189 700 cases [110 900–274 600]), liver (154 700 cases [43 700–281 500]), and breast (98 300 cases [68 200–130 500]) contributed the most cases. So ~4 out of 100 cancer cases can be attributed to alcohol consumption. I'm not sure if that's a _ton_ or how to contextualize it, but that seems like the more appropriate framing.

brador 5y ago
How though? By what mechanism is alcohol leading to an increase in cancer rates?
- yarcob 5y ago
  From the article: > What's the connection? > There are a few biological pathways that lead from alcohol consumption to a cancer diagnosis, according to the study. Ethanol, the form of alcohol present in beer, wine and liquor, breaks down to form a known carcinogen called acetaldehyde, which damages DNA and interferes with cells' ability to repair the damage. > Alcohol can also increase levels of hormones, including estrogen. Hormones signal cells to grow and divide. With more cell division, there are more opportunities for cancer to develop. Alcohol also reduces the body's ability to absorb certain cancer-protective nutrients, including vitamins A, C, D, E and folate. > What's more, the combination of drinking and smoking might indirectly increase the risk of cancer, with alcohol acting as a kind of solvent for the carcinogenic chemicals in tobacco.
- lambdaba 5y ago
  Alcohol also disrupts the intestinal barrier. Intestinal permeability causes immune system problems.
Falkon1313 5y ago
Well one other way to frame it would be that 96% of the people who got cancer were not regular drinkers. When you consider how many people are regular drinkers (and how low the bar is set - only 2 drinks per day) vs how many people get cancer (39.5%), then if only 4% of cancer occurred in regular drinkers, then you would naturally draw the conclusion that regular drinking appears to prevent cancer. But that goes against the narrative that they're selling. True, that's just a way to question it from a different angle and try to understand it. But if they don't address that angle, then it doesn't really say much.
- ImaCake 5y ago
  The error you are making is that the authors are calculating risk. That is, very broadly, the chance of getting cancer goes up if you drink. The authors do not claim that drinking == cancer. That is ridiculous and would rightly be ignored by cancer researchers. Lots of people drink and smoke and will not ever get cancer. The authors are not disputing this. They do however suggest that drinking might increase your risk of getting cancer.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  > Well one other way to frame it would be that 96% of the people who got cancer were not regular drinkers. No, that's just bullshit. 4% of cases being attributed to alcohol does not mean that only 4% of cancer patients are drinkers. You don't even understand how risk attribution works, but are happy to spin your own narrative.

brador 5y ago

How though? By what mechanism is alcohol leading to an increase in cancer rates?

yarcob 5y ago
From the article: > What's the connection? > There are a few biological pathways that lead from alcohol consumption to a cancer diagnosis, according to the study. Ethanol, the form of alcohol present in beer, wine and liquor, breaks down to form a known carcinogen called acetaldehyde, which damages DNA and interferes with cells' ability to repair the damage. > Alcohol can also increase levels of hormones, including estrogen. Hormones signal cells to grow and divide. With more cell division, there are more opportunities for cancer to develop. Alcohol also reduces the body's ability to absorb certain cancer-protective nutrients, including vitamins A, C, D, E and folate. > What's more, the combination of drinking and smoking might indirectly increase the risk of cancer, with alcohol acting as a kind of solvent for the carcinogenic chemicals in tobacco.
lambdaba 5y ago
Alcohol also disrupts the intestinal barrier. Intestinal permeability causes immune system problems.

Falkon1313 5y ago

Well one other way to frame it would be that 96% of the people who got cancer were not regular drinkers. When you consider how many people are regular drinkers (and how low the bar is set - only 2 drinks per day) vs how many people get cancer (39.5%), then if only 4% of cancer occurred in regular drinkers, then you would naturally draw the conclusion that regular drinking appears to prevent cancer. But that goes against the narrative that they're selling. True, that's just a way to question it from a different angle and try to understand it. But if they don't address that angle, then it doesn't really say much.

ImaCake 5y ago
The error you are making is that the authors are calculating risk. That is, very broadly, the chance of getting cancer goes up if you drink. The authors do not claim that drinking == cancer. That is ridiculous and would rightly be ignored by cancer researchers. Lots of people drink and smoke and will not ever get cancer. The authors are not disputing this. They do however suggest that drinking might increase your risk of getting cancer.
clusterfish 5y ago
> Well one other way to frame it would be that 96% of the people who got cancer were not regular drinkers. No, that's just bullshit. 4% of cases being attributed to alcohol does not mean that only 4% of cancer patients are drinkers. You don't even understand how risk attribution works, but are happy to spin your own narrative.