It is AMAZING that this silly idea that alcohol is beneficial to human health persists in lay and scientific belief. An explanation for the apparent protective effect of alcohol on Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) was first proposed by Shaper, Wannamethee, and Walker way back in 1988. The systematic misclassification of ex-drinkers and occasional drinkers as ‘abstainers’ in longitudinal studies results in a negative bias in the health status of the reference group of abstainers.
After the publication of many subsequent studies purporting to have ruled-out these misclassification errors, the argument was relegated, by most, to history - until very recently. After reviewing, in detail, the questions put to respondents regarding alcohol use among 54 all-cause mortality studies and 35 CHD-specific morality studies, Fillmore et al found only seven of the former and two of the latter to be without misclassification error.
All of the studies affected by misclassification error showed protective effects, and none of the few which were error free displayed a protective effect.
This finding has now been repeated in a recently follow up Australian study referenced below.
Harriss L, English D, Hopper J, et al. Alcohol consumption and cardiovascular mortality accounting for possible misclassification of intake: 11 year follow up of the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, Addiction 2007, vol 102, pp 1574 - 1585.
This guy obviously hasn't discovered the positive effects of a shoulder of hazar vodka
coadsterlego 1 year ago
[1]
It is AMAZING that this silly idea that alcohol is beneficial to human health persists in lay and scientific belief. An explanation for the apparent protective effect of alcohol on Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) was first proposed by Shaper, Wannamethee, and Walker way back in 1988. The systematic misclassification of ex-drinkers and occasional drinkers as ‘abstainers’ in longitudinal studies results in a negative bias in the health status of the reference group of abstainers.
(Cont. in [2])
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
[2]
After the publication of many subsequent studies purporting to have ruled-out these misclassification errors, the argument was relegated, by most, to history - until very recently. After reviewing, in detail, the questions put to respondents regarding alcohol use among 54 all-cause mortality studies and 35 CHD-specific morality studies, Fillmore et al found only seven of the former and two of the latter to be without misclassification error.
(Continued in [3])
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
[3]
All of the studies affected by misclassification error showed protective effects, and none of the few which were error free displayed a protective effect.
This finding has now been repeated in a recently follow up Australian study referenced below.
Harriss L, English D, Hopper J, et al. Alcohol consumption and cardiovascular mortality accounting for possible misclassification of intake: 11 year follow up of the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, Addiction 2007, vol 102, pp 1574 - 1585.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
yes
katuray33 2 years ago