4 ms·
>This is not a helpful statistic because it doesn't say what percent of people are in this category. Exactly. I came here to ask whether anyone had read the pa
by fauigerzigerk 5y ago
>This is not a helpful statistic because it doesn't say what percent of people are in this category.
Exactly. I came here to ask whether anyone had read the paper carefully enough to say whether this information is actually missing or just absent from the summary.
I get the impression that there is a sort of culture war going on. Some seem to be so keen on stressing that there is no safe level of drinking that they avoid saying anything about where the risk curve really starts to bend upward more steeply, which is what most people will want to know.
- danybittel 5y agoBecause most peoples main desire is "comfort" and not "truth".
- eurasiantiger 5y agoOrrrrr could it be that there is lots of money in selling booze, and big players don’t want it banned again in favor of less harmful and/or more beneficial substances?
- taneq 5y ago> I get the impression that there is a sort of culture war going on. This is absolutely what's happening. Messaging from some official sources is so ideologically driven that they happily publish wrong and misleading information if they think it will further their goal. The measure has become the target and so ceased to become a good measure.
- fighterpilot 5y agoThe entire article is missing the only stat that matters: How does your probability of getting cancer (or better yet, your overall mortality risk) change with alcohol consumption? Such a long article totally devoid of useful information.