3 ms·

This is complete bunk, like most nutrition epidemiological studies. They start by assuming a causal relationship that we simply don't know actually exists, usin

This is complete bunk, like most nutrition epidemiological studies. They start by assuming a causal relationship that we simply don't know actually exists, using biologically "plausible" pathways that are, again, unproven. And even then, they don't seem to account for the reduction of cancer risk that many wine and beer studies have shown (though, again, from equally spurious epi studies). And here again we have news outlets just uncritically parroting the findings to their audiences.

RandomWorker 5y ago
The title is wrong here Of the 740k is global not USA. And it represents 4% of all cases. Which is relatively low but not insignificant. I don’t think they are wrong, anecdotal evidence from my family also explains this, the family members who drink quite a lot more than 2 cups a day, they all have colon cancer in my family. Strangely those that do not drink have kept it at bay or at least got it 10/20 years later.
ImaCake 5y ago
>They start by assuming a causal relationship that we simply don't know actually exists They assume this causal relationship based on decades of randomised controlled trials (the only ethical way to get this information in humans). Their estimate for the risk of cancer based on alcohol consumption comes from previous work which would have carefully summarised the data from these trials and conservatively estimated the risk. As for the counter that alcohol may reduce cancer risk. Sure, that is true. You can also demonstrate that sunscreen causes cancer. But does the increased cancer risk from sunscreen outweigh the risk of getting too much sun exposure? Probably not (keep wearing sunscreen!). It is easy to imagine a similar equation for alcohol.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  There are people that drink what the study says to drink, every day? What else would 'controlled' mean in this context?
  - ImaCake 5y ago
    >There are people that drink what the study says to drink, every day? Not sure, honestly. They seem to pull this data from a WHO database on health statistics [0]. In stricter terms, you are asking if their estimate of what people drink reflects what they really drink in real life. That is, is the estimate biased? I would expect it to be biased in this case. I am not sure how much it really matters unless you are in charge of large sums of money for public health policy. The best evidence we have suggests alcohol does increase the risk of cancer. Faulty population level alcohol consumption data is not being used for that observation, so it won't matter. Although it would impact the quality of this particular paper. "Controlled" doesn't appear in the original paper so not sure what you mean there. 0. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/global-information-system-on-alcohol-and-health https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/global-information-...
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      You plainly stated that evidence about alcohol use comes from randomized controlled trials. It doesn't, it all comes from observational studies.
- TaupeRanger 5y ago
  It's really not so simple, even for sunscreen: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/ https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...

RandomWorker 5y ago

The title is wrong here Of the 740k is global not USA. And it represents 4% of all cases. Which is relatively low but not insignificant. I don’t think they are wrong, anecdotal evidence from my family also explains this, the family members who drink quite a lot more than 2 cups a day, they all have colon cancer in my family. Strangely those that do not drink have kept it at bay or at least got it 10/20 years later.

ImaCake 5y ago

>They start by assuming a causal relationship that we simply don't know actually exists They assume this causal relationship based on decades of randomised controlled trials (the only ethical way to get this information in humans). Their estimate for the risk of cancer based on alcohol consumption comes from previous work which would have carefully summarised the data from these trials and conservatively estimated the risk. As for the counter that alcohol may reduce cancer risk. Sure, that is true. You can also demonstrate that sunscreen causes cancer. But does the increased cancer risk from sunscreen outweigh the risk of getting too much sun exposure? Probably not (keep wearing sunscreen!). It is easy to imagine a similar equation for alcohol.

maxerickson 5y ago
There are people that drink what the study says to drink, every day? What else would 'controlled' mean in this context?
- ImaCake 5y ago
  >There are people that drink what the study says to drink, every day? Not sure, honestly. They seem to pull this data from a WHO database on health statistics [0]. In stricter terms, you are asking if their estimate of what people drink reflects what they really drink in real life. That is, is the estimate biased? I would expect it to be biased in this case. I am not sure how much it really matters unless you are in charge of large sums of money for public health policy. The best evidence we have suggests alcohol does increase the risk of cancer. Faulty population level alcohol consumption data is not being used for that observation, so it won't matter. Although it would impact the quality of this particular paper. "Controlled" doesn't appear in the original paper so not sure what you mean there. 0. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/global-information-system-on-alcohol-and-health https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/global-information-...
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    You plainly stated that evidence about alcohol use comes from randomized controlled trials. It doesn't, it all comes from observational studies.
TaupeRanger 5y ago
It's really not so simple, even for sunscreen: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/ https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-...