back to article Health quango: Booze 'evidence' not Puritan enough, do us another

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 …

  1. sabroni Silver badge

    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.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Pint

      Re: In before the smartarses going "what's new?", "we all knew this already", etc....

      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.

      1. Chris Miller
        Pint

        Re: In before the smartarses going "what's new?", "we all knew this already", etc....

        Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

        H L Mencken

        I'm off to get my five a day. Cheers!

        1. Mark 85

          Re: In before the smartarses going "what's new?", "we all knew this already", etc....

          I'll go with Heinlein's take on this: “Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.”

          1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

            Re: In before the smartarses going "what's new?", "we all knew this already", etc....

            I'm happy with two units a day. I'm up to June 2034 already.

  2. cbars Bronze badge

    standard gov behaviour

    We need a justification for this idea. Let's ask the experts!

    Wait, that's not useful, that isn't what we want.

    Let's just say what we want, and imply its come from the experts. Bonus points, we can blame them when it goes south.

    Hey, new idea!....

    1. frank ly

      Re: standard gov behaviour

      It's called 'policy based evidence'.

  3. rmason

    Hardly a surprise...

    If memory serves one of the many "how bad are drugs" studies (for classification etc) ended with everyone sacked because they could or would not state that certain drugs were as bad as the gov wished to claim.

    Fired. New team hired.

    DRUGS ARE BAD verdict given.

    1. unwarranted triumphalism

      Re: Hardly a surprise...

      Cannabis kills, that is a fact. Whinng about your favourite drug-enabler 'scientist' Nutt being rightfully sacked will not change anything.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hardly a surprise...

        I can't wait in a 100 years when the health campaign would ask "have you had your zoot today".

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: Hardly a surprise...

          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'.

          1. tiggity Silver badge

            Re: Hardly a surprise...

            Real computer & real work onsessions ... does he like a computer workstation with nice ERGonomics?

      2. caffeine addict

        Re: Hardly a surprise...

        UT - have you got a single citation for a death that was due solely to cannabis?

        I'll bet you an upvote that you haven't.

      3. jmch Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Hardly a surprise...

        "Cannabis kills, that is a fact"

        would you care to present any evidence for this "fact"?

      4. FIA Silver badge

        Re: Hardly a surprise...

        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.

        1. Sgt_Oddball
          Childcatcher

          Re: Hardly a surprise...

          On that note 100% of all murderers and paedophiles have taken water...

          Maybe we should ban that too..

          Thinking of the children of course....always thinking of the children.

        2. sloshnmosh

          Re: Hardly a surprise...

          "Rightfully sacked? IIRC he pointed out the risks of taking ecstasy were lower than the risks associated with horse riding; which they are."

          Horse riding while rolling on X may be a risky adventure as well.

      5. Arthur the cat Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Hardly a surprise...

        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.

        1. caffeine addict

          Re: Hardly a surprise...

          <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?

      6. Jeffrey Nonken

        Re: Hardly a surprise...

        Water kills, that is a fact.

        http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs347/en/

        Go peddle yer papers.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Hardly a surprise...

          "Water kills, that is a fact."

          Every single person who drank water in 1881 is now dead. Thus we prove that water kills.

      7. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Hardly a surprise...

        "Cannabis kills, that is a fact."

        Citations required.

    2. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

      Re: Hardly a surprise...

      David Nutt is who you are thinking about.

  4. ARGO

    Policy based evidence making

    It's hardly new, but being caught doing it breaks the first rule of government.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Policy based evidence making

      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).

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        Re: Smoking and Drinking

        Given the huge tax put on smoking and drinking , far in excess of a Bupa subscription or other health insurance policy , not to mention not hanging around claiming a pension for as long , smokers and drinkers should be be treated like fucking royalty by the NHS.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The role of government scientists and statisticians is not to guide in the making of policy, but to gather evidence in support for policy that has already been made.

  6. Swiss Anton
    Pint

    No comment

  7. 8Ace

    Sheffield Alcohol Research Group....

    I'm sure that's an interesting Christmas Party

    1. Red Bren
      Happy

      Re: Sheffield Alcohol Research Group....

      With all that left-over research booze?

      1. MrBanana

        Re: Sheffield Alcohol Research Group....

        Left over? You're not doing enough research Red.

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Red Bren
      Devil

      Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

      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...

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. 's water music

          Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

          What's the counteraction to nose picking. If it is farting, then i am doing ok.

          [Citation needed] for my SO

          1. ravenviz Silver badge

            Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

            What's the counteraction to nose picking. If it is farting, then i am doing ok

            I think you may have to stick something in your bum rather than something coming out. Then you're even.

      2. inmypjs Silver badge

        Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

        "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.

        1. ibmalone

          Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

          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.

        2. tekHedd

          Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

          > "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".

          1. PassingStrange

            Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

            >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.

      3. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

        The secret of a long, happy life is to ensure all your vices counteract each other.

        Or, as they used to say: "moderation in all things". Including moderation..

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I Don't Understand The Graphs

      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.

  9. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Pint

    Whether it's news or not

    I'll drink to it

    Sorry, couldn't resist

  10. Aladdin Sane

    And yet

    The bars in the Palace of Westminster are still open.

    1. AmenFromMars

      Re: And yet

      "The bars in the Palace of Westminster are still open." Are they still allowed to smoke in those bars too?

  11. Baldy1138

    Not Puritans!

    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.

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      Re: Not Puritans!

      "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.

      1. Baldy1138

        Re: Not Puritans!

        ""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.

        1. Aladdin Sane

          Re: Not Puritans!

          When El Reg refers to puritans, you can be pretty sure that they're referring to the Cromwellian ones since this is a predominantly UK site.

          Prat.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not Puritans!

      Victorians? Puritan? They were some of the world's biggest drug pushers. They even had navel battles to force countries to buy their junk. And don't even get me started of Victorian sex... (please don't. Nanny says I can get exited like that again until next Friday)...

  12. Whitter
    Thumb Down

    Impartial advice?

    "... which had commissioned the researchers for impartial advice."

    Quite clearly they commissioned (and got) the advice they wanted. Impartiality wasn't at the races.

  13. Jim 59

    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.

  14. Hollerithevo

    Why can't academics simply tell the truth

    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.

    1. Velv

      Re: Why can't academics simply tell the truth

      Not just biting the hand that feeds you, the commissioning body would simply commission another report from someone else and your report would never see the light of day.

    2. Roguetech

      Re: Why can't academics simply tell the truth

      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.

  15. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    Why argue about a J curve?

    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 ...

    1. Aladdin Sane

      Re: or the Mrs

      Or somebody else's. It's a lot more fun if you don't get caught.

  16. Velv
    Big Brother

    Can I just remind everyone that the current Secretary of State for Health is Jeremy Hunt.

    Now that Public Health England have been caught red handed lying about the scientific evidence is he going to resign?

  17. Cynic_999

    The government quite clearly got the best evidence than money can buy.

  18. Jonathan 27

    I'm worried I don't drink enough.

  19. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Maybe these are the experts Gove had in mind when he said not to trust them.

  20. redpawn
    Pint

    Moderation in all things...

    including moderation.

  21. G.Y.

    "and here follow my conclusions

    upon which I will base my facts"

  22. Martin Budden Silver badge
    Boffin

    Dear Politicians,

    Kindly stay the fuck out of science.

    Sincerely,

    Humanity

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Doesn't surprise me in the least...

    Given the government's stance that Cannabis has absolutely no positive effects whatsoever, and use only results in harm.

  24. MJI Silver badge

    I find I actually need to consume alcohol

    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.

  25. Roguetech

    > 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.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon