If you get a disease that you wouldn’t have gotten had you not consumed alcohol, then the alcohol consumption is the root cause of your disease. The study found 61 diseases for which this is the case for different people
As I said, the root cause of many people’s heart stopping has been a bullet passing through it - those people’s hearts wouldn’t have otherwise developed massive holes and would have gone on ticking had it not been for the bullet - but that doesn’t mean that bullets piercing hearts is the exclusive reason that hearts stop.
I’m not sure if the point you’re trying to make is that not everyone who consumes alcohol gets these diseases or that alcohol consumption isn’t the only cause of these diseases. Both of those statements are correct but neither are contrary to the study’s conclusion.
You cannot compare a bullet passing through a heart - an entirely physical process - with diseases from cancer - complex biochemical processes. This is statistically and logically wrong - like comparing apples and oranges, although your example is even more wrong. Apples and oranges are at least fruits, but heart and cancer?
The entire field of ontology is complex in itself. I agree that alcohol CAN (!) increase the chance to get cancer, but - again - Paracelsus plays an imminent role, which is even not considered! Also possible interactions with all the other environmental, psychological etc variables are missing. This diminishes considerably the value of this study.
If I have time and the motivation, I could dig deeper into the design. But it seems to have remarkable flaws and thus makes it in the context of medicine and science a pub, which should be considered with caution!
You cannot compare a bullet passing through a heart - an entirely physical process - with diseases from cancer - complex biochemical processes.
I can’t compare causes of death with different root causes because of different mechanisms of malady? It’s done all the time and I just did it successfully. You don’t like it because it disproves your (still unknown) argument concluding in the “diminished value of the study” which you never read, as evidenced by you asking if they considered Paracelsus.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that when the highly knowledgeable and trained people performing the study, in conjunction with all the people (at least in this thread) who seem to similarly understand what “root cause” means vs the 1 person who doubles down but hasn’t read the study, that you are the issue and not everyone else. And this is “statistically and logically” the case. And honestly, your psuedo-scientific half-understanding zeal and intensity just come off as a drinker who refuses to accept that their actions might result in 61 known diseases that they wouldn’t otherwise encounter if they choose not to drink.
You’re obviously intent on continuing to double down on what amounts to your own personal definition of what “root cause” means as you’ve refused to address what the study authors and everyone else in this thread seen to understand clearly - that getting a disease that you wouldn’t have otherwise gotten had you not been a drinker means that drinking is the root cause of that disease for you. When you get one of these diseases, be sure to argue with your doctor that drinking definitely was NOT the root cause as you have rejected the title of a post on Lemmy that asserts the opposite. Use the word Paraclesus a bunch too.
I think you blew the lid right off this thing, champion
The more you write about science, statistics, and causality, the more obvious it becomes that your confidence is doing the heavy lifting where methodological understanding should be.
It has to be discouraging for you to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about while continuing to double down, to know that you didn’t read the study and that you’re responding to a post title with a gut feeling, to know that all of your “arguments” amount to, “nuh uh, you’re illogical and wrong so I won’t even try to make a single reasoned point” while being completely unwilling and unable to address actual points because you can’t, to know that the likelihood that your gut feeling is actually correct despite the conclusion of a robust study is pretty tiny, and to know that it all played out in a public forum.
I know that last part is ironically what drives you to be rude and condescending when it only hurts your credibility as a thoughtful person. Your fragile ego was challenged and you got mad and attacked the person instead of the idea, hoping no one noticed that saying, “oh man, you don’t know anything” would move the spotlight off of you, who happens to carry all the burden to prove that the study is “silly,” as you put it. And you know that’s true, too, and I bet its transparency doesn’t help that ego of yours.
« Could » is the word. It literally means: we don’t know. It stays an assumption.
BTW, was Paracelsus considered in the study?
If you get a disease that you wouldn’t have gotten had you not consumed alcohol, then the alcohol consumption is the root cause of your disease. The study found 61 diseases for which this is the case for different people
As I said, the root cause of many people’s heart stopping has been a bullet passing through it - those people’s hearts wouldn’t have otherwise developed massive holes and would have gone on ticking had it not been for the bullet - but that doesn’t mean that bullets piercing hearts is the exclusive reason that hearts stop.
I’m not sure if the point you’re trying to make is that not everyone who consumes alcohol gets these diseases or that alcohol consumption isn’t the only cause of these diseases. Both of those statements are correct but neither are contrary to the study’s conclusion.
You cannot compare a bullet passing through a heart - an entirely physical process - with diseases from cancer - complex biochemical processes. This is statistically and logically wrong - like comparing apples and oranges, although your example is even more wrong. Apples and oranges are at least fruits, but heart and cancer?
The entire field of ontology is complex in itself. I agree that alcohol CAN (!) increase the chance to get cancer, but - again - Paracelsus plays an imminent role, which is even not considered! Also possible interactions with all the other environmental, psychological etc variables are missing. This diminishes considerably the value of this study.
If I have time and the motivation, I could dig deeper into the design. But it seems to have remarkable flaws and thus makes it in the context of medicine and science a pub, which should be considered with caution!
I can’t compare causes of death with different root causes because of different mechanisms of malady? It’s done all the time and I just did it successfully. You don’t like it because it disproves your (still unknown) argument concluding in the “diminished value of the study” which you never read, as evidenced by you asking if they considered Paracelsus.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that when the highly knowledgeable and trained people performing the study, in conjunction with all the people (at least in this thread) who seem to similarly understand what “root cause” means vs the 1 person who doubles down but hasn’t read the study, that you are the issue and not everyone else. And this is “statistically and logically” the case. And honestly, your psuedo-scientific half-understanding zeal and intensity just come off as a drinker who refuses to accept that their actions might result in 61 known diseases that they wouldn’t otherwise encounter if they choose not to drink.
You’re obviously intent on continuing to double down on what amounts to your own personal definition of what “root cause” means as you’ve refused to address what the study authors and everyone else in this thread seen to understand clearly - that getting a disease that you wouldn’t have otherwise gotten had you not been a drinker means that drinking is the root cause of that disease for you. When you get one of these diseases, be sure to argue with your doctor that drinking definitely was NOT the root cause as you have rejected the title of a post on Lemmy that asserts the opposite. Use the word Paraclesus a bunch too.
I think you blew the lid right off this thing, champion
The more you write about science, statistics, and causality, the more obvious it becomes that your confidence is doing the heavy lifting where methodological understanding should be.
It has to be discouraging for you to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about while continuing to double down, to know that you didn’t read the study and that you’re responding to a post title with a gut feeling, to know that all of your “arguments” amount to, “nuh uh, you’re illogical and wrong so I won’t even try to make a single reasoned point” while being completely unwilling and unable to address actual points because you can’t, to know that the likelihood that your gut feeling is actually correct despite the conclusion of a robust study is pretty tiny, and to know that it all played out in a public forum.
I know that last part is ironically what drives you to be rude and condescending when it only hurts your credibility as a thoughtful person. Your fragile ego was challenged and you got mad and attacked the person instead of the idea, hoping no one noticed that saying, “oh man, you don’t know anything” would move the spotlight off of you, who happens to carry all the burden to prove that the study is “silly,” as you put it. And you know that’s true, too, and I bet its transparency doesn’t help that ego of yours.