Study ‘proves alcohol causes cancer’. The problem? There wasn’t a study – IOTW Report

Study ‘proves alcohol causes cancer’. The problem? There wasn’t a study

SpectatorUK: A new study has proved that alcohol causes cancer according to the front pages of the Guardian and the i today. The i adds the kicker that the study shows that the ‘supposed health benefits of a glass of red wine are now “irrelevant”‘.

The study was published in the journal Addiction and the only problem with it is that it isn’t a study. It’s a comment piece. It doesn’t contain any new research, nor does it contain statistical analysis of previous research. It’s not a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It is a short essay in the ‘For Debate’ section of the journal in which one woman gives her opinion about whether correlation equals causation when it comes to the epidemiological evidence on alcohol and cancer.  MORE

27 Comments on Study ‘proves alcohol causes cancer’. The problem? There wasn’t a study

  1. The same group is working on a study that proves climate change and the consumption of alcohol causes cancer, impotency, male pattern baldness, attacks on authority figures, slow internet access, bad breath, diabetes and schizophrenia.

    Nitwits…

  2. Another instance of an author not understand what the fuck she’s writing about, an editor not knowing what the fuck he’s publishing, reporters not knowing what the fuck the difference is between a study and a dear diary entry, and a benighted readership who don’t know the fuck about anything at all. Fuck ’em. Fuck ’em all.

  3. Well big deal, alcohol has been here since day 1 and cancer has been here since day 1. Damn if that doesn’t make the connection a proven scientific fact.

  4. IDD> On the contrary, alcohol kills all old, dead, dried up brain cells and leaves the drunk with only good, solid brain cells. That’s why the drunk is usually brilliant at parties; he can sing, dance, solve problems, debate anyone and win. He holds the family together as the wife is always so proud of him. I got that info in a study I read once.

  5. Bah!
    Not being an cave man with a life expectancy of 23 causes cancer.
    Having enough leisure time to require an implement(chair)causes cancer.
    Not having to eat onions for a month because that’s all you can find causes cancer.

  6. Studies. Phony research.
    Notice all the headlines about lung cancer disappearing now that millions have stopped smoking for over 50 years?
    No, there aren’t any. Lung cancer rates have increased as smoking has decreased. So have all the other things attributed to it.
    The anti-science left wants us to go back tens of thousands of years to a time of authoritarian socialism and no science.

  7. Ode To A Drunk

    “It was late last November,
    As well as I remember.
    I was walking down the street,
    With manly pride.
    When my heart began to flutter,
    And I fell in to the gutter,
    And a pig came up and lay down by my side.
    As I lay there in the gutter,
    My heart still a-flutter,
    A lady passing by did hapt to say;
    ‘You can tell the one who boozes
    by the company he chooses,’
    And the pig got up and slowly walked away.”

    Prof Jim McFatter (1939-2016) Suffern, NY. (An extraordinary man.)

  8. Vietvet, If you get to chose a particular group that fits your narrative you can make almost anything appear to be so.
    Cancer rates among different groups fluctuate up and down, taking just one year, 50 years after the substantial drop in smoking rates is meaningless.
    Look at the total numbers. The increase over the last 50 years has been very small, but it has been consistent throughout the timeframe.
    Don’t forget that the “scientists” that pushed this were claiming that almost 80% of lung cancer was caused by smoking. Fact is that it was closer to 1/2 of one percent.

  9. @JohnS: I fail to see why the CDC and the American Cancer Society would cherry-pick the data to say that lung cancer rates were dropping, when most of their funding comes from people having a disease, not the opposite.

    But let’s assume for a moment that your theory is correct. What’s your point? That smoking is not harmful to you? I have personally seen two people die from emphysema, which is primarily caused by smoking, and it’s not a quick or pretty death. More akin to being slowly suffocated. If you smoke long enough, you’ll likely develop emphysema, and I believe I’d rather have lung cancer. It’s faster.

    So – unless you’re a smoker and want to feel better about continuing to smoke, I don’t see what difference it makes whether lung cancer rates are dropping or increasing, because smoking increases your chances of getting the disease, and once you have it, statistics will be meaningless to you.

Comments are closed.