In before the smartarses going "what's new?", "we all knew this already", etc....
What's new is the audit trail of the back and forth between sponsor and researcher where one persuades the other to fuss the figures to fit their agenda.
Academics at the UK's leading alcohol research centre tweaked their model to help the government introduce more Puritanical booze advice. The tweaks emerged after FoI requests uncovered correspondence between the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group (SARG) and the quango Public Health England, which had commissioned the …
What's wrong with a bit of policy-based evidence-making...
Beer icon, obviously. As we all need to get our units in for the week. I must confess I'm a little ahead of government targets, due to an incident on Saturday night with a rather tasty bottle of single malt.
Unwarranted Triumphalism's past posts are a warranted magnet for down-votes. He seems to have something against cannabis (which for some varieties and some users he has a point, but he wildly overstates his scantily-made case) and is one of those with views of what constitutes a 'real computer' or 'real work'.
Cannabis kills, that is a fact.
So does water.
Whinng about your favourite drug-enabler 'scientist' Nutt being rightfully sacked will not change anything.
Rightfully sacked? IIRC he pointed out the risks of taking ecstasy were lower than the risks associated with horse riding; which they are.
The take home message presumably intended to be 'There's an activity that carries an element of risk but people enjoy it so we allow them to undertake it whilst being aware of the risks, whereas another less risky activity is prohibited which is maybe something as a society we should consider if we're happy with'.
Unfortunately people missed that bit as reactionism is so much easier. Much less thinking.
Cannabis kills, that is a fact
The relevant paper:
Stoner, A; Toker, D et al. J. Drug Phys, Vol 420, pp42-45.
Abstract: In controlled trials involving dropping calibrated weights of cannabis a distance of 2 metres onto laboratory rats, the LD50 value was estimated at 376.2 kg +/- 17.8 kg.
<quote>Abstract: In controlled trials involving dropping calibrated weights of cannabis a distance of 2 metres onto laboratory rats, the LD50 value was estimated at 376.2 kg +/- 17.8 kg.</quote>
Sod the rats, you'd kill an elephant if you dropped 376kg from 2m.
Besides, shouldn't the measurement be stones?
David Nutt is who you are thinking about.
being caught doing it breaks the first rule of government
I think that over the past few decades they've been caught out so many times that they now have no shame. As a bunch of useless arts graduates, they wouldn't know what "scientific evidence" actually was, so why worry what any advisor says? It's only "advisory".
The general population should take note that the underlying purpose of this made-up set of rules is far more sinister than merely the inherent hypocrisy and killjoy tendencies of government. Just as the NHS is starting to refuse treatment to overweight people and smokers, the Department of Health think that it'd surely be a great thing if they could refuse treatment to anybody caught drinking at all (other than in the Palace of Westminster's subsidised bars).
This post has been deleted by its author
An alcohol-related disease doesn't mean exclusively caused by alcohol. Heart disease risk increases with excessive alcohol intake but reduces with moderate intake, compared to no intake.
The secret of a long, happy life is to ensure all your vices counteract each other...
This post has been deleted by its author
"but reduces with moderate intake"
Does it? Is there any proof or realistic possibility of obtaining proof that the correlation is causal?
I would suggest the completely T-total are already worried about their health or unhealthily anal retentive.
That is the problem with the frankly bullshit interpretation of these studies and the bullshit 'risk factors' they produce.
Moderate intake is maybe a bit high, but there is an observed effect for very low amounts. (One possible motivation for PHE's approach was that when you say a very small amount may be beneficial people are quite ready to go "wahay!" and order another ten pints to celebrate. So if you're attempting to influence health outcomes then do you take that into account?) . On one side there are people who suggest what you do: teatotallers might be people with bad health or who stopped drinking for health reasons. On the other hand, particularly for red wine, there are people who will attribute an effect to stuff in the drink, such as riboflavins, and alcohol itself is a small molecule we've evolved in the presence of (one of the few drugs people take that lots of animals have exposure to too), so could have a minor role. The effects of people stopping drinking can be mitigated by study design, but apparently there is a RCT on alcohol consumption and heart disease being done in the states now.
> "but reduces with moderate intake"
> Does it?
In a word, "yes."
Statistical analysis is a mature science with straightforward (albeit unintuitive) rules. We now have quite a bit of data to work with. If the data shows that risk decreases with moderate intake and other analysis shows strong correlation, then the statement "risk decreases with moderate intake" is a correct statement.
To summarize and reiterate, "yes".
>If the data shows that risk decreases with moderate intake and other analysis shows strong correlation, then the statement "risk decreases with moderate intake" is a correct statement.
I'm sure that's true, but it's a very technically-worded statement, and open to huge misinterpretation (especially by media hacks, who rarely understand the science and simply want a good headline and story).
What it says is that it has been observed that, ON AVERAGE, people who drink in moderation are less likely to suffer from the said diseases than those who don't drink at all. It says nothing about the "why". And what it most definitely does NOT say is "Scientists prove that a little drink is good for you". But that, of course, is the next day's headline.
"Correlation does not imply causation", and all that. "Weather improves with ice cream sales" is also true - but you won't bring on a sunny day by buying a few tonnes of the stuff.
You need to remember that statistics are merely mans attempt to abstract real life into numbers. But there's a limit to how well they do that.
As proved by the fact that someone who never drinks (in this case) won't live forever, they'll just die of something else.
I would just like to point out that the American Puritans, which is what people seem to think of when they say "Puritans," were not anti-alcohol. They drank heavily, in part because beer was often safer to drink than water. But alcohol was also simply one of "God's gifts," and like other gifts (the big one being free will) was covenanted for either proper or improper use.
"Puritanical" really means "Victorian," because Modernist writers of the 1920's hated Victorians for being, well, puritanical, and there were people in the 1840s-50s, like Nathaniel Hawthorne, ready at hand to foster the myth that the Puritans were grey-wearing, life-hating, humourless prudes etc.
I know. I bore even myself.
"Puritans," were not anti-alcohol.
They did, however, disapprove heartily of drunkenness.
They drank heavily, in part because beer was often safer to drink
Indeed it was. However, the majority of what they drank was "small beer" which only has about 0.5% alcohol - so you would have to drink gallons of the stuff to get drunk.
To counteract your argument - the Puritans were the major Parliamentarian faction in the Civil War in Britain[1] - the end result of which was theatres being closed and laws made banning public singing.. So they really were keen to ban anything seen as frivoulous or "worldly".
And lets not forget - the Puritans left Britain not because they were persecuted (they were not) but because they were angry that the state allowed Catholics to live. So, they went to America to found their ideal state based on religious intolerance and very, very strict adherance to moral codes that precluded public drunkenness, singing or Christmas.
"Puritanical" really means "Victorian,"
Nope. Read some history (particularly British history) before you make such silly statements.
""Puritanical" really means "Victorian,"
Nope. Read some history (particularly British history) before you make such silly statements."
I specified I was talking about the usage of "Puritanical" (and "Victorian") to refer to American Puritans, so read carefully before you shoot your mouth off.
Most of the general public dismissed the HE advice when it changed to recommending the same levels of alchohol for men and women, something which:
- seems to contradict common sense
- contradicted the previous guidelines
- contradicts guidelines other countries.
- has an odour of politics about it.
Instead of signalling, Holmes could have just said, "They didn't like the actual evidence and asked us to fudge the data to come closer to their preconceived ends.'
I guess they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, but it would have been nice if academics made it clear that facts had to trump hopes.
Mon-ay. Even eggheads need to eat, and they weren't merely being paid for the report, but they got paid to make the change... "[The change] carries some extra costs as changing the base case means updating the whole report." And to be blunt, the initial report probably contains biased assumptions.
It's not right, but this is what happens when mixing government with science (which is at times unavoidable). It's not like they just completely fabricated data to say global warming is a hoax, so... judge the system, not the people.
J curves of various gradients are often present in biological systems so the J curve itself shouldn't be considered 'odd'.
Take another substance that can be abused - abstinence causes death, moderate consumption promotes health, over consumption causes death. That compound is water ...
Many, many natural compounds exhibit similar results.
Even synthetics like Viagra can be the same ... a small amount helps but a lot tends to give you (or the Mrs) palpitations ...
To avoid problems.
I used to suffer with chilblains on my feet when young.
Found a cure in the drinks cabinet.
Yes been having small amounts of alcohol for years and never get them now.
Yes had Whisky, Vodka and Lager when young, not done me any harm.
And I am able to have a small drink and stop.
I am still suspectable as I almost got some recently after 3 days no alcohol.
> We categorically refute the claim that PHE in any way attempted to influence or pressure Sheffield University on their research work to inform the alcohol guidelines.
Wow. Caught red-handed, demanding and getting a change without any scientific basis. They even PAID MORE MONEY to have it changed. And, now, they deny deny deny, but it's in black and white. On the bright side, even if they're fired, send them across the pond... Trump will hire them.