It is always fun to write a lengthy blog, a detailed thread, and have someone strawman two minor points in that broad discussion to argue that you're wronghttps://twitter.com/sib313/status/1032217398118637576 …
Generally speaking, the more rigorous the control for confounding, the more attenuated the positive correlation btwn alcohol and outcomes becomes. The few controlled trials on the subject have seen the opposite result. Given that it is biologically unlikely...
-
-
...that alcohol is providing a benefit, and there are known, direct causal pathways between alcohol and harm, it is reasonable to conclude that even moderate intakes of alcohol are harmful. This has also been shown in a number of epidemiological studies...
-
...such as this one, from NZ, where the association appeared significantly protective but was entirely mitigated through controlling for social confounders: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/geronb/gbw152/2645642/The-Health-Benefits-of-Moderate-Drinking-in-Older?redirectedFrom=fulltext …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This works both ways (as Speigelhalter has pointed out) some larger harms in studies are a result of failures to adjust for obvuious confounders such as social class.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.