Carolina Branson, PhD, is an associate editor with HealthNewsReview.org. Her graduate work at the University of Minnesota focused on media studies and health.
For years, we’ve been hearing moderate drinking is a health boon. From lowered heart disease risk to increased lifespan, the splashy headlines make for great media fodder. The problem: these stories are based on observational research.
Here at HealthNewsReview.org, we think it’s important to point out the limitations of observational research. We’ve reviewed many such stories, including attention-grabbing coverage that claims eating fiber as a teen reduces the incidence of breast cancer, to vegetarians who eat fish having a lower risk of colon cancer. At first glance, these stories don’t seem to be problematic. What’s the harm of healthy eating habits?
False security for the worried well
Well, for one, such stories may give people a false sense that they are significantly impacting their cancer risk by adopting these behaviors. For example, in our review of the story that claims vegetarians who eat fish have a lower risk of colon cancer, we note: “the story never gives readers an accurate breakdown of the primary limitations of the study, and the statistics used in the story will give readers an inflated sense of the benefits.” Such a story might distract readers from more proven methods of preventing colon cancer such as screening with colonoscopy or fecal occult blood testing — neither of which is mentioned by the coverage.
The case for alcohol is more contentious: not only are the health benefits disputed but there are also some established risks of drinking including an increase in accidents, stroke, and some cancers.
Studies purporting to show the positive effects of alcohol abound in stories such as these:
8 ways red wine keeps you healthy
Compounds found in chocolate, red wine may lower Type 2 diabetes risk
“May lower risk of heart attack?”
“May lower Type 2 diabetes risk?”
Those are cause-and-effect statements that aren’t supported by the existing observational data.
And not surprisingly given those limitations, new research out this week paints a quite different picture:
A little alcohol may not be good for you after all
Is moderate drinking not so good for you after all?
There’s a gaping hole in the scientific case for moderate drinking
This recent spate of stories is yet another example of the scientific merry-go-round news consumers are subject to, and another illustration of the perils of reporting superficially on observational studies.
Were the abstainers alcoholics?
In a nutshell, the new research claims that many of the studies that showed an association between moderate drinking and longevity or a reduction in heart disease combined people who used to drink but currently abstain and lifelong abstainers into the same group. So, for example, those who used to drink and are currently abstaining may also be sick (one reason for not drinking) or may have suffered from alcoholism. Those factors would make the abstainer group look less healthy in comparison with the drinkers, and would tend to skew the conclusions of such research to suggest that alcohol is healthier than it really is.
As the author of the new study, Tim Stockwell, director of the Center for Addictions Research in British Columbia points out in Bloomberg, “The research on potential health benefits of alcohol needs a more skeptical evaluation, by scientists, journalists, and the public alike”. ‘In fairness to the journals, this is a contested area, and it’s an illustration of how subjective the peer review process is,” he said. “We hope our contribution is to put the skepticism back in there.”
Words to live by.
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Richard Hockey
March 28, 2016 at 9:25 pmThe anti-alcohol bias of these authors are pretty well known. see http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/tim-stockwell-merchant-of-doubt.html
or http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/studies-linking-alcohol-to-health-benefits-flawed-researchers/7264040
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like