5 ms·

What I remember reading in the papers long ago is that drinking wine occasionally was good for you. Can anybody tell me if this study invalidates that too?

ilaksh 4y ago
You mean like, someone else read it for you?
- webmobdev 4y ago
  - Not everybody knows how to read a scientific paper, especially when there are so many conflicting studies. I wanted to hear from someone who better understands this subject than me. - Wine, in general, has much lower alcohol content, and so some don't even consider it as an alcoholic drink.
  - ilaksh 4y ago
    As someone who better understands this subject than you, wine has plenty of alcohol, on average 10%, much more than beer. You don't need a scientific study for that.
robwwilliams 4y ago
Context needed: an individual’s environment, age, genetics, and pathogen exposure all needed to make any useful prediction (not that we yet have sufficient data to build the predictive model). Precision medicine is a mirage on the horizon. The population-based recommendations are crude tools.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
There have already been tons of papers that read one way or the other on that topic. Pick the one you want to believe.
- seadan83 4y ago
  Picking the one you want to believe is not science and is how we arrived to a place where the meaning of "fact" is not shared. There is a lot of bad science out there, so picking the one you want to believe is akin to saying find any flawed study and choose to believe that over anything else (which is a shame if the person does not realize the flaws in the study, that would seem to be little more than corporate manipulation)
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    I didn't realize a /s was needed for something so obvious. The point is that all of the available papers contradict each other, and no matter which ones I could provide, someone will come out of the woodworks to point to the others. So, I ask those who like wine to continue drinking it, or if they don't enjoy it to not, and stop asking about wine papers if they aren't going to look for the papers themselves, as the result is just going to be biased by who responds anyway. At the end of the day, those who like wine aren't going to stop drinking it when they find out it has minor negative effects. That much should have been obvious considering getting drunk is literally poisoning yourself.
seadan83 4y ago
That study failed to split non-drinkers from those that quit drinking. "It’s now widely understood that a lot of this data could be flawed: people abstaining from alcohol may be doing so because they’re unwell, rather than becoming unwell because they’re abstaining" https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191021-is-wine-good-for-you https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191021-is-wine-good-for...
jjtheblunt 4y ago
You could tell that by reading the article.

ilaksh 4y ago

You mean like, someone else read it for you?

webmobdev 4y ago
- Not everybody knows how to read a scientific paper, especially when there are so many conflicting studies. I wanted to hear from someone who better understands this subject than me. - Wine, in general, has much lower alcohol content, and so some don't even consider it as an alcoholic drink.
- ilaksh 4y ago
  As someone who better understands this subject than you, wine has plenty of alcohol, on average 10%, much more than beer. You don't need a scientific study for that.

robwwilliams 4y ago

Context needed: an individual’s environment, age, genetics, and pathogen exposure all needed to make any useful prediction (not that we yet have sufficient data to build the predictive model). Precision medicine is a mirage on the horizon. The population-based recommendations are crude tools.

xboxnolifes 4y ago

There have already been tons of papers that read one way or the other on that topic. Pick the one you want to believe.

seadan83 4y ago
Picking the one you want to believe is not science and is how we arrived to a place where the meaning of "fact" is not shared. There is a lot of bad science out there, so picking the one you want to believe is akin to saying find any flawed study and choose to believe that over anything else (which is a shame if the person does not realize the flaws in the study, that would seem to be little more than corporate manipulation)
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  I didn't realize a /s was needed for something so obvious. The point is that all of the available papers contradict each other, and no matter which ones I could provide, someone will come out of the woodworks to point to the others. So, I ask those who like wine to continue drinking it, or if they don't enjoy it to not, and stop asking about wine papers if they aren't going to look for the papers themselves, as the result is just going to be biased by who responds anyway. At the end of the day, those who like wine aren't going to stop drinking it when they find out it has minor negative effects. That much should have been obvious considering getting drunk is literally poisoning yourself.

seadan83 4y ago

That study failed to split non-drinkers from those that quit drinking. "It’s now widely understood that a lot of this data could be flawed: people abstaining from alcohol may be doing so because they’re unwell, rather than becoming unwell because they’re abstaining" https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191021-is-wine-good-for-you https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191021-is-wine-good-for...

jjtheblunt 4y ago

You could tell that by reading the article.