Science Journalism in a Nutshell

A friend sent me a link to this Guardian article by Martin Robbins. It appears to be the lorem ipsum used by science journalists as they're selecting adjectives and nouns for use in the Mad Libs game they call science reporting.

Some highlights:

This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like "the scientists say" to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist.

In this paragraph I will state in which journal the research will be published. I won't provide a link because either a) the concept of adding links to web pages is alien to the editors, b) I can't be bothered, or c) the journal inexplicably set the embargo on the press release to expire before the paper was actually published.

...

In this paragraph I will reference or quote some minor celebrity, historical figure, eccentric, or a group of sufferers; because my editors are ideologically committed to the idea that all news stories need a "human interest", and I'm not convinced that the scientists are interesting enough.

...

This paragraph contained useful information or context, but was removed by the sub-editor to keep the article within an arbitrary word limit in case the internet runs out of space.

I highly recommend giving it a read. The only thing that keeps it from being funnier is that it is depressingly representative of the way science journalism actually seems to work.

Good Point

In today's article on Skepticblog, Dr. Novella tackles the prickly issue of alternative cancer treatments (and does an admirable job, as is his wont). I highly recommend reading it.

Steve is discussing a Huffington Post article promoting a recent book by Hollie and Patrick Quinn, in which Hollie's decision to forgo conventional treatment for breast cancer is lauded (even though she did receive a lumpectomy—although mention of this is apparently absent from the news article). One sentence in Dr. Novella's article leapt out at me, though, as it's something that is seldom mentioned in discussions regarding alternative medicine:

Not only is it anecdotal, and further worthless as evidence of anything since Hollie did, in fact, undergo surgical treatment, but we must also consider that all the women who forgo proven therapy for alluring nonsense and die horribly are not around to write books about their experience.

Good point.

Chiropractic Makes for Antisocial Networking

Spinal manipulation cures allergies. Who knew? D.D. Palmer, that's who!

I've touched very briefly on chiropractic before, but a minor debacle on the grand old book of faces has briefly renewed my interest.

A skeptical friend of mine recently posted that he was disturbed by a friend's status update, which described taking children to visit a chiropractor. This apparently cured them of "bed wetting, asthma, and a laundry list of other ailments."

Although he received some agreement from a few of his friends, several were fairly upset by his comment. In an unusual display of restraint, I will avoid directly quoting from Facebook in a vain attempt to avoid pissing anyone off. I'll summarise, instead:

1. It helped me and/or my family members.
2. Chiropractic is drug-free
3. My children remark that they feel better after each visit.
4. "Scientific evidence" isn't all it's cracked up to be: pharmaceutical studies up-play the good results and downplay the adverse effects.

My unedited responses:

Gem: Regarding: "...they generally up-play the good results and majorly downplay the adverse effects..." It's true that this is a major problem. The file-drawer effect refers to the predilection to ignore (and not publish) the results of a study that doesn't say what you wanted it to say. This is a problem with pharmaceutical companies, and it's why there is currently a push to have all medical trials registered before they begin, so that the public can see when a company tries to bury the data. I find no reason to believe that a large corporation will behave ethically without strict oversight and regulation... At the same time, publication bias is also rampant among alt-med practitioners.

Gem: Cervical spinal manipulation has been shown in several studies to increase the prevalence of strokes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17330693?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Granted, that is not several studies: it is one study. Here are some more:

• Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. (Ernst, E.)
• Cerebrovascular complications of neck manipulation. (Paciaroni, M.; Bogousslavsky J.)
• Adverse events following chiropractic care for subjects with neck or low-back pain: do the benefits outweigh the risks? (Rubinstein, S.M.)
• Does cervical manipulative therapy cause vertebral artery dissection and stroke? (Miley, M.L.; Wellik, K.E.; Wingerchuk, D.M.; Demaerschalk, B.M.)

I'm not cherry-picking, here. One of those four studies concluded: "The best evidence suggests that chiropractic care is a useful therapy for subjects with neck or low-back pain for which the risks of serious adverse events should be considered negligible." I found myself wondering (perhaps unfairly) whether it had been carried out by a chiropractor. It had. Unfortunately, I am unable (and, frankly, unqualified) to assess the study's strengths and weaknesses.

There are others; I simply picked the first four that came up on PubMed. Just search PubMed or any similar database.

Gem: Chiropractic is simply not an evidence-based practice (although a very small number of practitioners are working to change that). The core tenets of chiropractic dictate that subluxations disrupt the flow of "innate intelligence" (a prescientific vitalistic force that has never been demonstrated). British journalist Simon Singh was sued in 2008 by the British Chiropractic Association for libel, after he called their treatments "bogus". You can find his article, with citations added, here: http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/the-libellous-simon-singh-article-on-chiropractors/. It's a short read, but quite good. As Professor Frank Frizelle quipped, "Let's hear your evidence not your legal muscle." The BCA dropped the suit when it became clear that their claims were untenable.

This post caused one of the proponents of chiropractic to rail against drugs and unnecessary surgery (stating that they "do more harm every day!!!"). This person went on to state that "tons of research" had been and continued to be done into the efficacy of chiropractic.

‎Gem:"Unnecessary surgery" is by its very definition not necessary, and so I won't argue that it doesn't do more harm than good. As far as drugs go, saying that they "do more harm every day!!!" is not a useful statement. Water does more harm every day: people drown in it, people slip and hurt themselves, etc. That doesn't make water inherently bad. If chiropractors want to syphon their money into more research, they're more than welcome to it—but they've had a hundred years to turn up evidence for efficacy, and on almost all of their claims the evidence has been negative. We shouldn't be wasting public funds on it, of that I am convinced.

At this point it was revealed that the person with whom I was arguing was a former chiropractor, who went on to make my points for me. Before leaving the conversation (presumably in disgust), the chiropractor said two things of interest:

1. Chiropractic works for people who believe in it.
2. Research exists to support both sides of every argument, and proponents of either side can pick and choose studies that will support their point of view, "but not everyone is right!!!"

This person then stated, "I need a drink...", and was never seen by any hobbit in Hobbiton again.

Gem: I agree. That's why it's important to look at systematic reviews of the research, rather than simply cherry-picking studies that agree with you. If you do twenty studies with a p-value of 0.05, by chance alone you would expect one of them to be a false-positive or false-negative. The it-works-if-you-believe-in-it approach seems fairly consistent with the placebo effect (although there is weak evidence for efficacy for some lower back pain). I'd rather have a treatment that works consistently.

Then a new voice chimed in. This person was of the opinion that "there is merit [to] some chiropractors", but was not convinced by claims that they could treat asthma, renal failure, autoimmune diseases, or infections. "Evidence-based practice does not demonstrate statistical proof that Vertebral subluxation [treatment] is an effective treatment." The newcomer claims that "spinal alignment without massage is useless" (necessitating repeat visits for readjustment) and states that more research is needed, before linking to two Cochrane Collaboration reviews: one on alt-med treatments for bedwetting and another on the subject of chiropractic treatment for lower-back pain. We are left with this quotation from Edzard Ernst's critical evaluation of chiropractic:

With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition.

Interesting.

Gem: From what I've read, the very existence of subluxations is in question. Even the General Chiropractic Council (UK) has stated (http://www.chiroaccess.com/News/Claims-of-Subluxation-Causing-Disease-Prohibited-in-Great-Britain.aspx?id=0000165):

"The chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex is an historical concept but it remains a theoretical model. It is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease or health concerns."

And what is a subluxation?

From Dr. Harriet Hall of ScienceBasedMedicine.org (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3022):

"The chiropractic subluxation is the essential basis of chiropractic theory. A true subluxation is a partial dislocation: chiropractors originally believed bones were actually out of place. When x-rays proved this was not true, they were forced to re-define the chiropractic subluxation as 'a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health.' Yet most chiropractors are still telling patients their spine is out of alignment and they are going to fix it. Early chiropractors believed that 100% of disease was caused by subluxation. Today most chiropractors still claim that subluxations cause interference with the nervous system, leading to suboptimal health and causing disease."

(Link to the article, written by chiropractors, that she is discussing: http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/pdf/1746-1340-17-13.pdf)

The thing is, chiropractic is alt-med (or SCAM*, if you prefer). That doesn't mean that it "doesn't work" (although what exactly "work" means in this context is often quite difficult to define). But it does mean that it isn't beholden to any real standard of care. Often science-based medicine is perceived as the enemy, and consequently chiropractors seem to have a penchant for bundling various other unscientific modalities into their practice. This is highlighted best, I think, by a sign advertising for a chiropractic clinic that was erected two years ago near my office. At the time it read:

Did Jesus or Moses get the flu vaccine? Then why should you?

I'll let you pick that apart at your leisure.

* Supplementary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine

xkcd: The best way to start your day!

Monday, Wednesday, and Friday!

Skeptical News Roundup!

We have three items to talk about briefly.

The Pregnant Nun

First on the list is the pregnant nun ad that was recently banned in the UK:

"We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics. We concluded that to use such an image in a light-hearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith," the ASA decision says.

Obvious free-speech concerns aside, I'm annoyed that they're portraying a nun as "pregnant through immaculate conception". This is an annoyingly common distortion of Catholic dogma. The doctrine of immaculate conception has nothing whatever to do with the virgin birth: immaculate conception refers to Mary being purportedly conceived free from the stain of original sin.

Tip of the habit to my wife for sending me the link.

He's a Witch!

Next, we have the man who was arrested for practicing witchcraft:

A Brampton, Ont., man is charged with practising witchcraft to exorcise money from a victim.

...

"We really don't care if you want to practise witchcraft, as long as you don't allegedly defraud people," Peel police Sgt. Zahir Shah said.

He also urged people who have sought advice from the suspect to contact investigators.

"We know people may be embarrassed," Shah said, but police allege the suspect took advantage of the victims' beliefs to defraud them.

Okay, so (despite the headline) he wasn't actually arrested for practicing witchcraft—he was arrested for fraud. Perhaps some would call this a "stupid tax" (a name that I've often heard associated with the lottery), but not me. I'm simply not cool with taking advantage of people. Remember Wheaton's law: Don't be a dick.

Again, the missus gets a tip o' the spirit trumpet for alerting me to this one.

ZOMG!!1! The radia-shun is gonna get me!

And finally, Dr. Gifford-Jones has posted a follow-up to last week's article regarding so-called "dirty electricity", entitled Guard against dangers of radiation: Dirty electricity emitted from many devices we use:

Dirty electricity is produced when transformers convert clean 60-hertz household current into low-voltage power for electronic devices. This creates micro surges of electricity that contain up to 2,500 times the energy of a conventional 60-Hz system. This electrical pollution causes a negative effect on our health.

Honestly, there's not a lot of new information, here. At least he didn't talk to "renowned international expert" (and crackpot) Magda Havas again. (For more information, see my discussion of "dirty electricity" from earlier this week. Incidentally, it seems as though the Free Press has decided against publishing my letter to the editor.)

There are a couple of juicy tidbits here, though:

A Swedish study reported teens who use cellphones have five times greater chance of developing brain cancer than adult users.^{[citation needed]}

"A Swedish study"? Could you be a little more specific?

If he's talking about INTERPHONE (mentioned later in his article, though not by name), I find it puzzling that, rather than referencing the entire study (which also included data from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK) he references only the Swedish study (which, like the others, was also published independently). This would seem to be the very definition of cherry-picking.

If he's not talking about INTERPHONE, providing a reference would have been nice. But Dr. Gifford-Jones continues:

In May 2010, the World Health Organization released a 10-year study into cellphone use and cancer rates. It recognized a significant correlation between malignant brain tumours and people who used their cellphones, wireless home phones or Wi-Fi-connected devices for more than 30 minutes combined daily.

I figure that Gifford-Jones must be referring to the INTERPHONE study (which he dishonestly mischaracterised last week): a ten-year study funded by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, part of the WHO) that was published 17 May 2010. But that seems to be where the similarities end. As far as I can tell, there are no data in this study regarding WiFi, and I would dispute his claim that it "recognized a significant correlation between malignant brain tumors and people who used their cellphones... more than 30 minutes combined daily".

So what did the study conclude?

The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years.

The study actually found a decreased risk of glioma and meningioma for moderate mobile phone use. (Unless you surmise that cell phone use has a protective effect against cancer, this is probably a statistical artefact.) There was a correlation found between increased incidence of one form of cancer and extended use of mobile phones, but the authors conclude that the biases and errors in the study prevent them from drawing a causal relationship.

From the INTERPHONE study press-release (PDF):

A reduced OR [odds ratio] for glioma and meningioma related to ever having been a regular mobile phone user possibly reflects participation bias or other methodological limitations. No elevated OR for glioma or meningioma was observed ≥10 years after first phone use. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, in the highest decile of cumulative call time, in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour and, for glioma, for tumours in the temporal lobe. Biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation. [Emphasis added.]

Even if it were true that a causal relationship existed between extensive cell phone use and cancer (and the WHO states flat-out that there is no dose-response relationship: "there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use"), it is still unlikely to be a problem:

Today, mobile phone use has become much more prevalent and it is not unusual for young people to use mobile phones for an hour or more a day. This increasing use is tempered, however, by the lower emissions, on average, from newer technology phones, and the increasing use of texting and hands-free operations that keep the phone away from the head.

Gifford-Jones is free to reinterpret the INTERPHONE data, if he thinks that the researchers got it wrong—but that's not what he's doing. He's grabbing little snippets of their analysis out of context and failing to provide his readers with an easy way to identify which studies he's talking about—this makes it difficult for a layperson to examine his sources.

So feel free to abide by the precautionary principle—but don't dishonestly inflate your case.

Tip o' the ol' Stetzer filter to Derek, who dropped a hard-copy of the article on my desk this morning.

---

Quick Edit: One fairly humorous minor gaffe: Gifford-Jones tells his readers to "teach your children to use cellphones like porcupines -- make love very, very carefully". I think that what he meant was that we should teach children to "use cellphones like porcupines make love—very, very carefully". Although the way he worded it is technically ambiguous, it implies either:

1. that our children should use their cellphones the way our children use porcupines: they should make love to them very, very carefully; or
2. that our children should use their cellphones the way porcupines use their cell phones: to make love very, very carefully.

I don't think that either of those suggestions are good for anybody's children.

I also find it amusing that the same crazy comment from Gifford-Jones' last article has been posted almost verbatim to this new one. Even his the comments are recycled!

Dirty Electricity: Poor Journalism is Making Me Sick

I'll begin by quoting in full a letter to the editor that I recently submitted to the Winnipeg Free Press. (Links added for citation of sources.)

On Friday, the Free Press ran an article entitled "Dirty electricity is making us sick". In it W. Gifford-Jones argues that "dirty electricity" and "electrosensitivity" are responsible for a laundry-list of symptoms, which included "irritability", "aches and pains", and "foggy brain". Academic clinical neurologist Dr. Steven Novella calls these "common symptoms of life".

I was appalled and astounded by the poor scholarship evinced by this article. The author's obvious disdain for the rigours of science and evidence does a disservice to science journalists everywhere.

First of all, electrosensitivity almost certainly doesn't exist. Award-winning journalist and medical doctor Ben Goldacre sums it up nicely: "There have now been 37 such double blind 'provocation studies' published in the peer reviewed academic literature, and they are almost all negative, although you could argue that the evidence is unanimous. There are, to be clear, seven studies that did find some statistically significant effect for electromagnetic signals: but for two of those, even the original authors have been unable to replicate the results; for the next three, the results seem to be statistical artefacts... and for the final two, the positive results are mutually inconsistent..."

The scientific literature is rife with studies showing no adverse biological effect from low-level EMF radiation.

The author’s primary source (a Ph.D. who was instrumental in the Ontario WiFi scare a few weeks back) cherry-picks studies that confirm her biases rather than relying on systematic reviews. Her personal website directs visitors to EMF Solutions for information regarding Stetzer filters, which will "reduce the dirty electricity" in your home. The EMF Solutions site is a den of pseudoscientific nonsense, proposing that Stetzer filters are effective treatments for diabetes, asthma, multiple sclerosis, and autism. Any potential conflicts of interest between Havas and EMF Solutions remain undisclosed.

Health Canada has investigated Stetzer filters in the past. A 2006 report found that they "increas[ed] ambient magnetic field levels ", and concluded that Stetzer filters "add to the level of 'dirty electricity' in the house." Note the quotation marks: "dirty electricity" is not a scientifically meaningful term.

At the end of the Free Press article the author states that all information presented "correlates to the recent World Health Organization study on cellphones that identified a need for more research into teen phone use and deadly malignant brain tumours."

But what is not mentioned is that according to the WHO, "animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields" and human epidemiological studies show "no consistent evidence of a causal relationship between radiofrequency exposure and any adverse health effect". Not only that, but the exact same INTERPHONE study that Gifford-Jones quotes found "no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use"—in other words, no dose-response relationship. To use the WHO to link teen phone use with "deadly malignant brain tumours" in this way, without providing the appropriate context for the study, is not only irresponsible scaremongering, it is dishonest.

All in all, the article was a credulous, scare-mongering fluff-piece, and its publication without even token skepticism tarnishes the reputation of the Winnipeg Free Press.

Gem Newman,
Organiser, The Winnipeg Skeptics

This was actually the second draft that I submitted, as the letters editor requested that I cut it by 250 words. I felt that this was fair, and had condensed several of my points. But this is print media we're talking about. I received a reply the next day, informing me that when she had said "by at most 250 words", she had meant "to at most 250 words".

In any event, this is what they are planning to print:

I was appalled by the poor scholarship in Friday’s "Dirty electricity is making us sick". The scientific literature is rife with studies showing no adverse biological effect from low-level electromagnetic fields (EMF). "Dirty electricity" is a scientifically meaningless term.

Electrosensitivity almost certainly doesn't exist. Thirty-seven double blind studies published in the peer reviewed literature have been nearly unanimously negative. Of the seven that did find some statistically significant effect for electromagnetic signals, two could not be replicated, even by the original authors; the results of three are regarded as statistical artefacts, and in the final two the positive results are mutually inconsistent. (Source: Journalist and Medical Doctor Ben Goldacre)

Magda Havas cherry-picks studies that confirm her biases rather than relying on systematic reviews. She endorses EMF Solutions, which sells Stetzer filters, asserting they can be used to treat diabetes, asthma, multiple sclerosis, and autism. (Source: magdahavas.com, emfsolutions.ca) Health Canada found that Stetzer filters "increas[ed] ambient magnetic field levels " and that they "add to the level of 'dirty electricity' in the house." (Source: Health Canada CCRPB)

The article states that the WHO "identified a need for more research into teen phone use and deadly malignant brain tumours." This is irresponsible scaremongering. The article does not mention that the WHO states "no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use". (Source: WHO)

The article was a credulous fluff-piece, and its publication without even token skepticism tarnishes the reputation of the Winnipeg Free Press.

Gem Newman,
Organiser, The Winnipeg Skeptics

Terse, isn't it?

I managed to squeeze most of what I wanted to say into the first letter, but in case you're curious, here are some links to additional articles published on the subject:

Award-winning Podcaster and Science Enthusiast Brian Dunning:
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Real or Imagined?

Academic Clinical Neurologist Dr. Steven Novella:
Banning WiFi from Schools
Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors?
Cell Phones and Brain Tumors

Surgical Oncologist Dr. David Gorski:
Cell phones and cancer again, or: Oh, no! My cell phone’s going to give me cancer!

Award-winning Journalist and Medical Doctor Ben Goldacre:
Cherry Picking and the Professional Association of Teachers
Why don’t journalists mention the data?
Factors that risk being left out of the equation

The author of the Free Press article, W. Gifford-Jones (apparently an M.D.), tells us that he "discovered it's easy to get fooled by dirty energy if you're not an electrical engineer." Irony notwithstanding, it occurred to me that I'm not an electrical engineer, so perhaps I'd been fooled. I turned to Magda Havas' website for clarification. Here's what she had to say:

The term "Dirty Electricity" is often used to describe the type of power that originates from our generation stations. Hydro electric and solar are considered to be "Green" sources of power where coal is considered to be "dirty" because of the air pollution that is created.

Okay, I'm with her so far—although hydroelectric dams aren't exactly environmentally neutral. But that doesn't really seem to correspond to the article's description. Let's see if there's any more...

"Dirty Electricity" can also be used to describe electric power that has become corrupted by our use of modern appliances.

Oh. Well that makes sense.

Items such as CFL bulbs, cellphone transmission antennas, power supplies for portable computers, cell phone chargers, dimmer switches, variable speed fans and many other electronic devises that require a transformer to convert the voltage will "dirty" the electricity that enters our home. This form of dirty electro-magnetic fields (EMF), is invisible to the eye, but has a biological effect on the human body and has been associated with a wide variety of illnesses.

And that's the end of her explanation. Variable-speed fans make the electricity dirty. It's all the transformers' fault. (Presumably it's the Decepticons that are the problem—the Autobots wouldn't do that to us.)

On a side note, I was curious as to the source of Gifford-Jones' contention that "during the height of the Cold War, they [Soviet scientists] secretly bombarded the U.S. embassy in Moscow with microwave radiation, causing radiation sickness in American staff." Although no source was cited, Google is your friend: I traced it to a news article hosted on educate-yourself.org, a fairly disreputable conspiracy-mongering site, and from there to a paper entitled PRACTICAL GUIDELINES To Protect Human Health Against Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted In Mobile Telephony on getpurepower.ca. It seems that this bombardment did actually occur, however I find the contention that it caused radiation sickness puzzling, as radiation sickness is caused by ionizing radiation. Microwaves are non-ionizing, and are found on the opposite end of the electromagnetic spectrum. If anyone more familiar with the subject is interested in chiming in, please feel free.

A friend of mine remarked that the article reminded him of some of the crazy things Thomas Edison said during the War of Currents.

I'll conclude by quoting, in its entirety, the first (and currently only) comment found on the digital version of this news story.

It has now become political to whether or not Cell Phones, Power Lines etc are or are not responsible for Health related problems.

First off, every one who thinks they do, will all agree that these emit a HARMFUL energy. "WRONG"

Okay, I'm with you so far. Bring it home!

It is NOT the energy emitting that is the problem and "there is a problem".
It IS, IS, IS the ENERGY that these absorb, robbing cells of the body of this needed energy!

Hat tip to Robert McGregor, who directed me to this story (and who apparently reads the newspaper).

---

Edit: The Register (a UK technology news source) has recently published an excellent and tangentially-related article on the subject of Belly Armor. You can check it out here! Thanks to Grant Rogerson for the link!

---

Edit: Minor follow-up on "dirty electricity".

---

Edit: Dr. Steven Novella directly addresses Magda Havas' claims here.

Will drinking make you live longer?

Over not drinking anything at all? Probably. Over drinking non-alcoholic beverages? Maybe. But maybe not.

From Neurologica:

While there is room for a range of interpretations, my take on the totality of research is that there may be a small beneficial effect to CHD [coronary heart disease] (through raising HDL or some other mechanism) to light to moderate alcohol consumption, but this benefit has not been clearly established. Further, any such small effect is likely counterbalanced by many negative health effects associated with regular alcohol consumption. And in any case there is no evidence that for any individual taking up regular alcohol consumption is of any health benefit. Further, I think the small effects being seen in these studies are overshadowed by possible confounding factors and the weaknesses of observational studies.

Nephalism win!

For some context: Dr. Novella is discussing a recent study which examined late-life alcohol consumption and 20-year survival, and which has been garnering some media attention. Unsurprisingly, this sort of media buzz seems to happen whenever any scientific paper suggests that something that we like may actually be good for us. The evidence is usually weak, but is distorted by the media sufficiently to convince the average person that copious consumption of Guinness and Snickers bars will make him or her immortal. We seem to have a tendency to focus on scientific findings that tell us what we want to hear. Go figure.

But I digress. Dr. Novella continues:

Taken at face value, these results indicate that moderate regular alcohol consumption had the lowest mortality, followed by light drinking, then heavy drinking, and then non-drinkers. This last bit is the surprising result, as prior studies have always shown that heavy drinkers have the highest mortality. Of course, that is also the bit that press reports latched onto – heavy drinkers outlive non-drinkers. The effect is tiny once confounders are removed (51% increase in mortality over moderate drinkers for abstainers and 45% for heavy drinkers), but the effect remains.

Given the totality of existing research this is the part of this study that to me says the results are not reliable. It is far easier to believe that there are missing confounding factors in this study or some systematic bias in data analysis rather than that heavy drinkers outlive non-drinkers, despite a large amount of prior research that says the opposite.

I recommend reading his full critique here. But don't neglect the actual study itself, of course.