Surgeon General says alcohol causes cancer
National Academies says alcohol lowers all-cause mortality.
WTF
Breaking down the data here:
Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
Those are entirely compatible claims. Whether or not they are both true for alcohol, the are almost certainly true for at least some other things. Alcohol, plausibly reducing cardio vascular death rates more than a slight increase in cancer rates.
OMG the stated change in absolute risk is so minimal. If my doc told me I could decr my risk of cancer by 1-2% if I lowered my alcohol consumption, I'd laugh. Compare that to the absolute risk reduction for stopping smoking. Now *that* deserves a surgeon general warning.
Exciting news in the biofuels industry! POET, world's largest bioethanol producer, is teaming up with Summit Carbon Solutions to capture carbon from 17 ethanol plants, reducing emissions and creating new economic opportunities. #CarbonCapture
Very few people crash their car or fall down the stairs from cookies or Doritos but with alcohol it happens all the time. Alcohol is in no way the same as cookies or Doritos and should not be discussed as if it’s a food. Doritos, btw, are a National Treasure.
Lots of observational data shows a J-curve between alcohol and health (small amounts are good). But causal arrow could be reversed - chronically-ill people (e.g., T2D, CVD) are likely to reduce or eliminate alcohol but still have poor outcomes ("teetotaller effect").
It’s good! But how much do you think your decision to cut down was influenced by the increasing noise that “alcohol is bad”?
I know this is an impossible question and you may have been equally influenced by the prior messaging that “moderate drinking was healthy”. Just curious
Two points I'd make:
1. Studies are almost always based on self-report, and I bet most people under-report (meaning that observed health impacts occur at higher consumption levels than estimated).
Much like smoking cigarettes, I never had any doubt that alcohol may/can/does/will have deleterious effects. I simply don’t care. Likewise, I couldn’t care less what a politician says.
Good point. I did not see the discussions of sample size, significance level, potential selection bias, and surprisingly, no mention about the baseline effect (people who never drink) in the report (or maybe I missed it?).
Basically all data on how what we consume affects our health is TERRIBLE. And I say that as someone with major skin in the game.
It’s virtually impossible to objectively assess the impact of anything we ingest that isn’t overtly toxic. The inability to control for all the…
Agree 100% - Observational data is problematic, but often the only data available
"nearly all of our analysis of the relationship between alcohol consumption and health is based on observational data."
Higher rates of drinking are associated with peoples from colder climates, who also typically live longer and have higher tolerance for alcohol.
This Surgeon General who said the covid vaccines were safe and effective and also said those of us who had questions about the vaccine were spreading misinformation??? He can take his opinions and shove them.
Students everywhere clipping the quote "alcohol lowers all-cause mortality" for papers justifying coming to class late the day after a "life extension ceremony" (party).
GIF
Here’s a rundown of Trump’s health policy stances and his potential top priorities in a second administration.
All confounded. But alcohol is toxic, addictive and destructive. I really do wonder why people are trying to persuade that it's fine.
Alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, including breast, liver, mouth, throat, and colorectal cancers. It damages DNA, disrupts hormone levels, and increases cancer risk even with moderate drinking.
Discover more
Sourced from across X
I'm sick of the AEA acting like it has the right to be the arbiter of how our profession should operate.
Social media isn't just for interacting with other economists. A big part of why I use it, especially when talking about policy, is to communicate with people outside of
Show more
Quote
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="48" height="48"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Steve McGuire
@sfmcguire79
NEW: The American Economic Association is encouraging economists to leave X for BS.
A new report cites the decline of hashtag EconTwitter, harassment (especially of women, people of color, and LGBTQ scholars), and policy changes under Elon as reasons to switch.
Show more
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="1024" height="1199"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Rate proposed Community Notes
Academic organizations should not tell their members what newspapers to read, what movies to watch, or what social media to use. The AEA has stepped out of line. This advice to move from X to BS should be rescinded.
Quote
Steve McGuire
@sfmcguire79
NEW: The American Economic Association is encouraging economists to leave X for BS.
A new report cites the decline of hashtag EconTwitter, harassment (especially of women, people of color, and LGBTQ scholars), and policy changes under Elon as reasons to switch.
Show more
Rate proposed Community Notes
AEA should advise economists which statistical software to use, to settle this debate once and for all.
Never expected to appear in a math joke.
Quote
Ben Golub
@ben_golub
When a government does more nudges and the economy grows more as a result, that's a Thaler expansion