FifteenTen
Well-Known Member
miller lite is bad for you or none of the above. I won't stop brewing and drinking it.
Your brewing and drinking miller lite?
miller lite is bad for you or none of the above. I won't stop brewing and drinking it.
FifteenTen said:Your brewing and drinking miller lite?
gratus fermentatio said:I already gave up cigarettes & hookers, I ain't giving up beer.
BierHerr said:Considering that beer is the national drink in Germany, where beer is cheaper than a glass of water, coffee or soda, you'd think Germans would be dying off from gastric cancer right and left.
I do know one German who did, though. She was my wife's aunt. She was a health nut and never drank any alcohol (but did drink her own piss) (yes, really). Died at 68 from gastric cancer.
Well piss is the liquid your body doesn't want so drinking it doesn't seem like the best thing to do.
hahaha, that would suck! But alas, that 700% means you're 8 times more likely to be affected. If the normal likelihood is 1 in 100, and the new rate is 700% higher, that means 8 in 100. I know it sounds weird that 700 equates to 8 times, but "100% more likely" means "twice as likely", so 100% = twice as likely. 200% = thrice as likely. Etc.
so you are saying it's a percentage based off a percentage? So for example purposes (please excuse if some numbers are off, I'm just trying to understand this whole statistics thing), let's say that 100% of something is 1 in 100 billion. so magically, if 2 in 100 billion occur, it's now 200%? If 1000 in 100 billion occur, does that now make it 1000%?
It seems like an awful way to easily mislead people into thinking that the chances of "said thing" happening is greatly increased, because before only one person in 100 billion developed the cancer, but in the second test 7 people in 100 billion developed the cancer. Seems like a very slight flaw in testing can cause HUGE differences in results.
so you are saying it's a percentage based off a percentage? So for example purposes (please excuse if some numbers are off, I'm just trying to understand this whole statistics thing), let's say that 100% of something is 1 in 100 billion. so magically, if 2 in 100 billion occur, it's now 200%? If 1000 in 100 billion occur, does that now make it 1000%?
It seems like an awful way to easily mislead people into thinking that the chances of "said thing" happening is greatly increased, because before only one person in 100 billion developed the cancer, but in the second test 7 people in 100 billion developed the cancer, making the chances 700%. Seems like a very slight flaw in testing can cause HUGE differences in results.
It doesn't make the chances 700%, it increases the chance by 700%. It's not a misleading statistic, it's math. For a 700% increase you could easily say that it is an 8 times increase in risk. The reason why they state it in a percentage increase is for numbers that don't work out as simply. To use their study as an example, a 75% increased risk would be 1.75 or 1 3/4 times more likely than normal. If they would use a decimal or fraction then the same people who don't understand the percentage increase would likely still be confused.
It doesn't make the chances 700%, it increases the chance by 700%. It's not a misleading statistic, it's math. For a 700% increase you could easily say that it is an 8 times increase in risk. The reason why they state it in a percentage increase is for numbers that don't work out as simply. To use their study as an example, a 75% increased risk would be 1.75 or 1 3/4 times more likely than normal. If they would use a decimal or fraction then the same people who don't understand the percentage increase would likely still be confused.
I understand what you are saying, but it still very misleading because you don't know what the numbers were for the testing. By saying your chances of winning the lottery are increased 100%, most people would think that they WOULD be winning the lottery. But the secret number that's never told, is only 1 in 1 trillion people will win the lottery, but now it's increased to 2 in 1 trillion people, so your actual odds are only 1 in 500 billion....i think... if my math is correct...
True, but no can deny that study authors commonly switch between relative and absolute risk reporting depending upon their bias.
Correlation masquerading as causation.
Just to clear something up, a 75% increased risk doesn't mean that 75% of the drinkers will get gastic cancer. It means that if there risk was say 1% that it increases by 75% up to a whopping 1.75%. And I'm sure the latent risk of gastric cancer is less than 1% anyways, I was just using it as an easy statistic to increase by 75%.
gratus fermentatio said:I already gave up cigarettes & hookers, I ain't giving up beer.
I totally misread the article before I posted on this thread. D'oh!
I like that the alcohol in by beer, but not in wine or liquor is what causes this. How is the same chemical all of a sudden different if the sugar comes from grape, grain or..wait, grain...?
I think the marijuana industry has sponsored this study and will try and use is to promote a healthy alternative to drinking. After all it did come from MSNBC. They are either high or stupid. Same junk science that had been used for years. If you own a gun you are more likely to be shot and everyone around you is in danger
Can't drink - Can't drive - Death is everywhere.
"Polluted Freeway Air Causes Brain Damage in Mice"
How is it that we ended up with 'science' that no longer follows the same scientific method people are taught in grade school (or at least used to be).
The science itself appears to be sound, but the media's interpretation of the study is incomplete (big surprise!)
I would be willing to be that somewhere at some point in time, due to "research" like this, beer could end up on a restricted list that is dictated by health care policy as provided by some people.
The science itself appears to be sound, but the media's interpretation of the study is incomplete (big surprise!)
Think about the artificial sweetners claim of causing cancer. They linked cancer to these sweetners in mice. The amount they gave the mouse equated to way more than a human could reasonable ingest. It was ridiculous and I'm sure this study is very similar.
Yeah, I had a friend who was a chemist and worked for a major pharmaceutical company. He mentioned that once and said they injected the mice with nearly 1000x the typical dosage amount and did it repeatedly over months and a few got cancer from it.
I may be off with the 1000x amount, but I remember it was an astronomical amount.
Rev.
Enter your email address to join: