3 ms·
Hmm…so it’s about explaining that “dip” for low doses. I thought that was explained a long time ago: when you have certain diseases, the first thing your docto
by mpweiher 3y ago
Hmm…so it’s about explaining that “dip” for low doses.
I thought that was explained a long time ago: when you have certain diseases, the first thing your doctor will do is tell you to stop drinking alcohol.
So you get more sick people in the “no alcohol” group, despite alcohol being harmful at any dosage. Confirmed by the ADH1B study that TFA dismisses as “inconclusive” without any good reason that I could see, despite there being another study coming to the same conclusion.
Not being satisfied with labeling two perfectly fine studies as “inconclusive” for no good reason, he then strengthens that to claim that the alcohol-harmful-at-any-dose hypothesis is plain “wrong”. Again without giving any reasons.
Huh?
Just a weird article.
- pflenker 3y agoMisunderstanding this fact that you described makes its rounds here in Germany every 2-5 years with media claiming that moderate drinking is good for your health because the mortality of the „no alcohol“ group is higher even though as you pointed out it includes more sick persons.
- rpmisms 3y agoAlternatively, alcohol in low doses is healthy. Humans have been drinking alcohol for most of recorded history, it stands to reason that we'd have developed some sort of tolerance/affinity for it.
- mpweiher 3y agoNo, not really. I guess I didn't explain that once they figured out what the confounding variable was, they controlled for it and the dip disappeared. Given that, the ADH1B study and the other study mentioned in the article, the evidence is strong and completely one-sided. Having a tolerance just means harmful effects are less pronounced, not that there is a benefit.