3 ms·

They looked at correlations for "cancer sites with sufficient evidence of a causal link according to the most recent IARC monograph.". But they don't mention a

They looked at correlations for "cancer sites with sufficient evidence of a causal link according to the most recent IARC monograph.". But they don't mention any other adjustments (age, other dietary factors, BMI...).

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Yeah, I get that. And I stand by what I said and I don't understand why it's at all controversial. Some cancers are known to be caused by viruses. Maybe people drink because they caught a virus that causes cancer, either to self medicate or because the virus makes them crave alcohol.
- danuker 5y ago
  While a randomized controlled trial is the golden standard when it comes to science, ones about cancer can be prohibitively expensive due to the durations involved. Who will accept a researcher-imposed dietary restriction for years? Who will follow it without requiring supervision? These cohort studies are the next best thing. The correlation is with alcohol consumption 10 years earlier, and they looked at the changes in countries' alcohol consumption.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    That's fine. As long as you state clearly it's correlation and not proven causation and we don't know the exact mechanism and yadda. I'm trying to walk away from a completely ridiculous pile on from an excessive number of people here. This is not a productive conversation at all and I have no idea why it went so wildly sideways.
    - kongolongo 5y ago
      Well that's not a very real distinction. No observational study can ever claim to prove causation at most it can provide data that supports causation is highly likely. The conclusion and how it's presented will naturally be in terms of likelihoods of some outcomes based on certain assumptions — which is exactly how this research is presented.
    - danuker 5y ago
      > completely ridiculous pile on I believe people reacted because you downplayed the importance of the study (at least I did). Just because it doesn't outright prove causation, doesn't mean we should not pay attention. In the past decades, public health suffered immensely due to "benefit of the doubt" given to smoking. Cigarette companies used the same arguments as you: “Sure there are statistics associating lung cancer and cigarettes. There are statistics associating lung cancer with divorce, and even with lack of sleep. But no scientist has produced clinical or biological proof that cigarettes cause the diseases they are accused of causing.” https://nutritionfacts.org/2019/04/04/the-disconnect-between-science-and-policy/ https://nutritionfacts.org/2019/04/04/the-disconnect-between...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

DoreenMichele 5y ago

Yeah, I get that. And I stand by what I said and I don't understand why it's at all controversial. Some cancers are known to be caused by viruses. Maybe people drink because they caught a virus that causes cancer, either to self medicate or because the virus makes them crave alcohol.

danuker 5y ago
While a randomized controlled trial is the golden standard when it comes to science, ones about cancer can be prohibitively expensive due to the durations involved. Who will accept a researcher-imposed dietary restriction for years? Who will follow it without requiring supervision? These cohort studies are the next best thing. The correlation is with alcohol consumption 10 years earlier, and they looked at the changes in countries' alcohol consumption.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  That's fine. As long as you state clearly it's correlation and not proven causation and we don't know the exact mechanism and yadda. I'm trying to walk away from a completely ridiculous pile on from an excessive number of people here. This is not a productive conversation at all and I have no idea why it went so wildly sideways.
  - kongolongo 5y ago
    Well that's not a very real distinction. No observational study can ever claim to prove causation at most it can provide data that supports causation is highly likely. The conclusion and how it's presented will naturally be in terms of likelihoods of some outcomes based on certain assumptions — which is exactly how this research is presented.
  - danuker 5y ago
    > completely ridiculous pile on I believe people reacted because you downplayed the importance of the study (at least I did). Just because it doesn't outright prove causation, doesn't mean we should not pay attention. In the past decades, public health suffered immensely due to "benefit of the doubt" given to smoking. Cigarette companies used the same arguments as you: “Sure there are statistics associating lung cancer and cigarettes. There are statistics associating lung cancer with divorce, and even with lack of sleep. But no scientist has produced clinical or biological proof that cigarettes cause the diseases they are accused of causing.” https://nutritionfacts.org/2019/04/04/the-disconnect-between-science-and-policy/ https://nutritionfacts.org/2019/04/04/the-disconnect-between...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]