One of the sloppiest, most flawed, and contextually misleading health articles is making global headlines and scaring the knickers off women wine drinkers.
“Drinking just a glass of wine a day increases women’s risk of breast cancer, as well as several other types of the disease, a new study concludes.”
 Take a drink. Get cancer. Any questions? |
But what it neglected to say is that the links are equivocal, not-conclusive and that scores of peer-reviewed studies, published over the past 20 years agree unanimously that people who consume alcohol in moderation live longer than either abstainers or heavy drinkers.
This longer life span, according to the research, comes from a 30 to 50 percent drop in deaths from cardiovascular disease — the number one killer in the developed world.
Scientists can make anything true if you give them enough money.
Women have been drinking wine here in Europe for thousands of years, you’d think somebody would have noticed by now…
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
#1, not true. Peer-reviewed studies reveal the facts, most often not newsworthy, while crackpot studies, like this, get the press.
There is no sloppy science, alcohol causes cancer, half the chemicals in our alcoholic drinks cause cancer and the dirty water its washed down with in clubs probably also causes cancer. Alcohol is also detrimental to the immune system so even if the cause of your cancer is unrelated to alcohol, the fact that the cancer beats you in the end can be very related to alcohol.
If you believe daily or regular consumption of alcohol (even in small doses) is beneficial for your health then you deserve the cancer that is waiting for you.
Media articles often sprout the small benefits of alcohol yet fail to compare them to the 999 disadvantages.
Is this the same guy that f’ed up the silicone breast implant study?
Google “Red Wine Cancer” for a dizzying array of baloney. Causes.. Prevents.. Tea apparently (from the same evil tannins) will riddle you with tumors as well. You’re gonna drop from something someday. Might as well have a drink and relax.
Wow! Government using fear as a weapon to control the sheeple – what a surprise. No matter if it’s about global warming or wine the game plan is always the same.
#4 – KD Martin,
#1, not true. Peer-reviewed studies reveal the facts, most often not newsworthy, while crackpot studies, like this, get the press.
I agree. I’d also add that the initial crackpot study not only gets the press, but when the science self-corrects, that is deemed uninteresting for the popular press.
If anyone is really curious about the validity of the study watch carefully over the next couple of years for studies and other peer-reviewed articles in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (where the study was published) or other peer reviewed medical publications.
On the other hand (in addition to having more fingers), perhaps the study is actually valid and simply is not dealing with the greater and positive impact on total health or on heart health in particular. So, even if this is true, it may still be advisable to drink the wine in moderation for the heart benefits knowing full well that it will increase risk of cancer by some percentage.
Personally, I’d worry more about the various toxins that are in all of our bodies that were never even intended to be consumed by humans, if worrying about such things could help.
#8 – contemptful conspiracy theorist,
Wow! Government using fear as a weapon to control the sheeple – what a surprise. No matter if it’s about global warming or wine the game plan is always the same.
Um … WHAT??!!?
I was under the impression that Britain was not actually ruled by Oxford University. Were you under some other impression?
#10 Misanthropic Scott
Have you seen what is happening in Britain? Oxford University will come up with any result Chairman Mao Brown says to come up with.
Of course, it *IS* interesting that the rebuttal is coming from “Wine Industry Insight”…
A completely unbiased viewpoint, I’m sure…
If this was the “Tobacco Industry Insight” rebutting an article about tobacco dangers, would we be as quick to jump on the wagon here?
That’s nothing compared to the sloppy science in the immune deficiency arena.
Actual newspaper headline above an actual newspaper story, as shown on Jay Leno’s weekly Headlines bit:
“New research shows research is valuable; researchers glad.”
BULLSHIT
This is just an article answering what the study found. I am not commenting on how good or accurate the study is because I haven’t seen it. The article though continually refers to what the study says. The article itself does NOT come to its own conclusions, it merely reiterates what the study reported.
The problem and danger with that is that the study is being filtered through a reporter and the editor before reaching the reader. The good part is that the reader has the essence of the report condensed into the relevant information that might be important to him.
I saw nothing in the article that would rate it as “sloppiest, most flawed, and contextually misleading health articles ” around. That is just another DU hit grabbing bit of news.