Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#1

Post by legodt » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study
arstechnica.com

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#2

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

Doesn't greater alcohol consumption correlate with tobacco use and other adverse behaviors? It think they're making quite a stretch to say that the cause is the alcohol.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#3

Post by dang » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 6:20 PM UTC

The 'study' was discussed yesterday at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12142140, but this is more a media story, so we can treat it as a separate topic.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#4

Post by summarite » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #2

Doesn't greater alcohol consumption correlate with tobacco use and other adverse behaviors? It think they're making quite a stretch to say that the cause is the alcohol.

I think you should look at the background papers before making such a bold and unwarranted dismissal. Any researcher worth their salt will make sure to at least try to exclude other factors, and any good peer reviewer and journal editor will point out if this is missing. So if papers consistently find this link chances are very good it's there.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#5

Post by elgabogringo » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#6

Post by TelmoMenezes » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #2

Doesn't greater alcohol consumption correlate with tobacco use and other adverse behaviors? It think they're making quite a stretch to say that the cause is the alcohol.

"The effects of characteristics of the studies, of selected covariates (tobacco) and of the gender of individuals included in the studies, were also investigated as putative sources of heterogeneity of the estimates."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363992/

Take a look at the papers before saying things like this.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#7

Post by mc32 » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

elgabogringo wrote: post #5

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

Social science is quite bad. Reporters on, KQED for example, will cite a single study to bolster their opinion on something. It'll go along the lines of, "UC Davis ran a study which concluded giving money directly to the homeless with no strings attached had the best results". But they won't say how many people were involved, what other studies this was compared to, how it was conducted, were there studies with opposite conclusions, etc., etc.

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#8

Post by jasonjei » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 7:10 PM UTC

What I find interesting (perhaps confusing is the better word for me) is that the other article from a few days ago that proclaimed drinking leads to cancer didn't mention that the moderate drinkers have fewer risk factors than the control group of abstainers. (The OP article does indicate the result, however.)

So what is it? Is moderate drinking helping? Or is it the lifestyle of moderation helping?

From the National Cancer Institute: "Can drinking red wine help prevent cancer? Researchers conducting studies using purified proteins, human cells, and laboratory animals have found that certain substances in red wine, such as resveratrol, have anticancer properties (16)."[0]

Meanwhile, the same National Cancer Institute source writes that "[b]ased on extensive reviews of research studies, there is a strong scientific consensus of an association between alcohol drinking and several types of cancer (1, 2)."[0]

Drinking causes cancer but red wine is known to have anticancer properties? Abstainers in one study have higher risk factors than moderate drinkers?

[0] http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/al...

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#9

Post by percept » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 7:19 PM UTC

"IARC list ethanol in alcoholic beverages as Group 1 carcinogens and arguments "There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of acetaldehyde (the major metabolite of ethanol) in experimental animals.""

(Wikipedia, citing http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Classifications...)

Re: Journalists confused an opinion piece for an alcohol-cancer study

#10

Post by jsprogrammer » Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

elgabogringo wrote: post #5

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories.

Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?