I person been uncovering flaws successful studies captious of intoxicant depletion successful debased to mean doses. The 1 I will analyse is the pursuing 1 utilized arsenic “definitive” statement successful the aesculapian discussions.
George S, Naimi TS, Keyes K, Martinez-Matyszczyk P, et al. (including Shield KD). “Alcohol Intake and Health Study: No Protective Effect astatine Low Levels, With Mortality Increasing to 1 successful 25 astatine 14 Drinks Per Week.” Journal of Studies connected Alcohol and Drugs, 2026 (Vol. 87, Issue 4; DOI: 10.15288/jsad.25-00435). This study was commissioned by the US goverment. It has a deceiving title and a deceiving summary conclusion: “At debased levels of consumption, nary protective nett effect of intoxicant depletion connected wellness was observed.”. Their declare is that life alcohol-attributable mortality consequence were >1 successful 1,000 astatine astir 7 drinks per week and reached ~1 successful 25 (4%) astatine 14 drinks/week (the established precocious line limit). It offers a guidance of nary much than 1 portion per time (or less).
Table 1 successful the insubstantial shows information that doesn’t fresh the communicative (there are evident gains from intoxicant astatine debased levels, and precocious modular errors) and, worse, immoderate methodology that is obscure capable to beryllium suspicious.
Primo, they usage mysterious asymmetric CIs (confidence intervals). The consequence for 7 drinks for >70, present −5.47, is not halfway successful [−28.59 14.57] (should beryllium −7.01). Nothing appears to fresh a modular probability distribution. The lognormal must beryllium ruled retired since location are antagonistic consequence numbers. Monte Carlo (MC)? needs an explanation. The supplemental worldly is highly amateurish and silent connected calculation.
Secundo, the full consequence is an nonstop unweighted sum of each property segments. However the CI are not added. The full interval is tighter than the sums of subparts. Naive summation gives 35.81, quadrature (independence) gives 22.42, and TABLE 1 reports 31.86, overmuch nearer dependence. This is simply a MC propagating the uncertainty utilizing orrelated draws for each property bracket.
This is sloppy. We person nary thought astir the relationship structure. Their babe equations successful the matter and their supplementary bloviation do not explicate it.
Terso, 1 property bracket dominates the study —the 1 wherever modular correction is maximal, wherever origin of decease is almost ne'er isolated. For males consuming 21 drinks, the >70 contributes 27.30 of 68.92 , [5.58, 48.33]. So the full declare remainder connected the astir stochastic segment: mortality is highest, vulnerability is recalled and subjected to survivor-filtering, the cause-of-death attribution is almost ne'er unique. The underlying subjects are frail. There is nary sensitivity study excluding it/bootstrapping, etc.
For a insubstantial claiming to overturn decades of intoxicant drinking recommendations, the statistical instauration is underdocumented and, to beryllium mild, statistically strange. There is thing definitive there.
English (US) · 
Indonesian (ID) ·