Did you read the article? It doesn't really support your point. Though I agree that illnesses like fatty liver disease are probably a more pressing issue than the increased cancer risk.

Results:
Forty ingredients (80%) had articles reporting on their cancer risk. Of 264 single-study assessments, 191 (72%) concluded that the tested food was associated with an increased (n = 103) or a decreased (n = 88) risk; 75% of the risk estimates had weak (0.05 > P ≥ 0.001) or no statistical (P > 0.05) significance. [...] Meta-analyses (n = 36) presented more conservative results; only 13 (26%) reported an increased (n = 4) or a decreased (n = 9) risk (6 had more than weak statistical support).

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right so the paper I linked to is criticizing the state of nutritional research being mostly observational associations rather than causal studies.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Considering that alcohol is a drug with severe side effects, I'd be rather surprised if it was part of the "statistically small or not significant results" group. Do you have a paper that specifically discusses the research on alcohol?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I haven't looked into it. But if there was a stronger signal then epidemiology it would have been stated in the first article.

We do have causal papers between alcohol and FLD, and diabetes.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

if there was a stronger signal then epidemiology it would have been stated in the first article.

The site is called "techexplorist", really doesn't strike me as the kind of publication to support their medical claims with cited studies.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 1 day ago

Sure. Anyway, I'm not a fan of alcohol, but it has enough bad things we can prove it does, no reason to use weaker evidence to try to make it more dangerous