a randomized trial, which is the gold standard for establishing causal association
even then you have placebo and file drawer effects.
and adjust for confounding and other biases appropriately
from the article: “Whenever possible, adjusted relative risks were extracted; otherwise, crude relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from the number of events.”
“Forty-eight curves (908 182 subjects and 86 941 deaths) were adjusted at least for age; among them, 28 were adjusted for social status too, and 10 for social status and dietary markers.”
This is adjusting for 1-4 confounders out of many possible confounders. Even doing so they lost half of the association.
Note that the scientists themselves do not claim a causal effect, but only association. It’s reasonable to take their word for this.
I personally would not change dietary habits just based on studies like this.
No because saying alcohol is healthy could get them in lots of trouble.
I personally would not change dietary habits just based on studies like this.
Not even a little? Does it at least slightly increase your estimate of alcohol being healthy and so if at a social event deciding whether to have a drink shift your cost benefit analysis?
| No because saying alcohol is healthy could get them in lots of trouble.
You may be right—on the other hand, one can get a lot of publicity for a controversial finding. I don’t think these sorts of studies use conservative language because they fear getting in trouble due to subject matter. I think they fear getting in trouble for using the wrong statistical methodology or the wrong language to describe it.
| Not even a little? Does it at least slightly increase your estimate of alcohol being healthy and so if at a social event deciding whether to have a drink shift your cost benefit analysis?
I am not a rationalist, and I don’t use these kinds of cost benefit analyses when out drinking :). These sorts of studies are simply never a swing vote in my decision making. I agree that these studies are weak evidence.
even then you have placebo and file drawer effects.
from the article: “Whenever possible, adjusted relative risks were extracted; otherwise, crude relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from the number of events.”
From the paper itself:
“Forty-eight curves (908 182 subjects and 86 941 deaths) were adjusted at least for age; among them, 28 were adjusted for social status too, and 10 for social status and dietary markers.”
This is adjusting for 1-4 confounders out of many possible confounders. Even doing so they lost half of the association. Note that the scientists themselves do not claim a causal effect, but only association. It’s reasonable to take their word for this.
I personally would not change dietary habits just based on studies like this.
They claim causation in several places, albeit sprinkled with perhapses and maybes. From the abstract:
From the Comment section:
This is all causal language.
No because saying alcohol is healthy could get them in lots of trouble.
Not even a little? Does it at least slightly increase your estimate of alcohol being healthy and so if at a social event deciding whether to have a drink shift your cost benefit analysis?
| No because saying alcohol is healthy could get them in lots of trouble.
You may be right—on the other hand, one can get a lot of publicity for a controversial finding. I don’t think these sorts of studies use conservative language because they fear getting in trouble due to subject matter. I think they fear getting in trouble for using the wrong statistical methodology or the wrong language to describe it.
| Not even a little? Does it at least slightly increase your estimate of alcohol being healthy and so if at a social event deciding whether to have a drink shift your cost benefit analysis?
I am not a rationalist, and I don’t use these kinds of cost benefit analyses when out drinking :). These sorts of studies are simply never a swing vote in my decision making. I agree that these studies are weak evidence.