3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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.