From a scientific perspective, we should not be wary of the research, so long as the methods and data are clearly disclosed and are made available to other researchers. Like any other study, this one will surely fail to establish once and for all whether moderate consumption is good or bad for health. No study can reach that level of perfection. Like all research, it will have limitations preventing broad sweeping conclusions and will raise fresh questions and speculations for follow-up research.
The interesting part of this, is the alcoholic beverage industry's motivations for funding the research. Could they want to further the talking point that alcohol and tobacco are dissimilar products, and thus should never be tarred with the same policy brush? If so, even with imperfections and fine print for additional research needed, the alcoholic beverage industry will very possibly get their refreshed talking point. New supporting prestigious research conducted with oversight from the leading government agency on the topic is gold. That could last ten years, probably longer. This is a bargain for the alcoholic beverage industry, at $100 million.
6
Now we see why Jeff Sessions is going after the marijuana industry.
4
It seems unlikely that NIAAA would be behind this idea, given the mission of the agency.
I think it's important to know how this collaboration between the researchers and NIAAA to solicit industry money came about. Was someone at NIAAA just 'asleep at the wheel', or was there something the agency could gain from it? It seemed to play an awfully active role in it.
The benefits to the researchers themselves are pretty obvious.
Why spend $100 million and start with the presumption that all types of alcohol have the same effect? This study is compromised from the start. Shame on the government and the researchers.
4
Ethanol is ethanol no matter what the delivery system.
8
Can anyone believe the results of this study? And, how many other studies were funded by Industry groups, and are therefore unreliable?
6
It is unethical to perform a clinical trial without equipoise; i.e., a lack of evidence that the treatment is better than placebo. Selling a trial to an industry as a way to "prove" an outcome violates this basic tenet of clinical research ethics, in addition to creating a conflict of interest for all involved.
10
No scientist should ever encourage anyone to drink alcohol. "Moderate drinking" will always be a call made by consumers, and even one drink for someone who is susceptible to alcoholism can be a trap. A lot of people who drink live long lives, but so many elements contribute to longevity, genetics being the most decisive, that saying people who consume alcohol live longer is a joke.
10
What about the study funded by gun manufacturers which shows that more AR-15's make us safer? And the tobacco company funded study proving the benign impact of cigarettes. And the sugar company funded study showing that eating lots of sweets makes people live to 110. And the oil company funded study that suggests burning of fossil fuels does not contribute to climate change. Under liar-in-chief Trump, science is twisted for political goals, jeopardizing the health of every American.
Studies such as the one cited in this article have the practical effect of encouraging people to drink alcohol. The weight of the medical evidence surely shows that alcohol causes disease, illness, lost productivity, assaults, rapes, and avoidable deaths, with no medical benefit. By contrast, marijuana is a far more benign recreational drug with multiple well established medical uses. Yet, Sessions & the drug warriors still try to make criminals out of those who use it responsibly, and the federal government blocks research that can help millions of patients benefit from a better understanding of its mechanism of action. The current policies of our government on this issue run contrary to scientific facts & will continue to harm the general public until they re changed.
12
Drink up - alcohol soon to be added to the food pyramid cause it’s so good for you. If you are alcohol deficient, perhaps you can get a prescription from your dr for some alcohol and health ins will cover it. Please. If alcohol is good for you so is heroin, cocaine, nicotine, meth, bathsalts, K2. What is up w alcohol? Its a drug, it does damage. Like everything else, enjoy it in moderation. There is such a push to get people to quit smoking cigarettes as if cigarettes are so evil, but no one talks about alcohol. I would like to see the stats on how many cases of driving while smoking cigarettes there are as opposed to driving under the influence of alcohol and also some domestic violence stats - such as how many cases of reported domestic violence were due to someone smoking way too many cigarettes as opposed to someone drinking way too much alcohol? There’s some of the damage alcohol creates right there.
4
Thank you NYTimes for another critical eye opener. And can anyone explain why this study would eliminate anyone with addiction or liver issues, as well as people who have decided not to drink at all. Why eliminate what would be a natural piece of the population?
7
I have little doubt that this study will hand the alcohol industry bona-fide scientific proof that consuming 1 oz per day of alcohol reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.
And even if the study fails to prove the hypothesis, there will be no consequence to the industry; they will simply not promote the study’s conclusions. The docs will get research funding, checking that box on their list of professional responsibilities. The only losers are the NIH and we citizens who once relied on the NIH as a trusted authority - and the biggest potential winner is the mammoth alcohol industry and the media companies who will earn money on the marketing campaigns that the favorable study outcome will undoubtedly unleash.
A study outcome that supports the researcher’s hypothesis will not move the needle one bit in the direction of improved cardiovascular health. There will not be a wave of former teetotalers who suddenly begin to measure out an ounce of vodka and put the bottle back on the shelf for the day.
Hell, small amounts of uranium extend the lives of cancer patients.
Very sad.
5
This is so bad on every level. The headline should have been ‘National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism colludes with industry to encourage drinking.’ When someone is addicted they shouldn’t be drinking at all. The premise of the study is wrong. The fact they went to the Breakers is wrong. The way they launder the money through the foundation is wrong. Dr Collins should close the NIAAA and combine NIAAA with NIDA to make a point.
4
Is nothing in big government safe from deep state corruption? The DEA,the FBI now the NIH-The Don has a lot of firing to do.
1
Absolutely fantastic news NYT. The fact that an industry was "courted to fund a study" means that taxpayer's money was NOT used. The fact that a positive finding within the study would also help those who funded it would be a concern only if that fact were hidden.
Do you think the American public is stupid and wouldn't take into consideration those who funded the study?
3
Many commenters may not appreciate the tremendous amount of epidemiological work that has ALREADY been done on this issue. Google "PMID 21343207" for a compilation of 84 of these prospective datasets. Pick any 3 or 4 and look at their details. This really is no longer an open scientific question. The reduction in cardiovascular mortality from moderate drinking we see is very large, on the order of a 30% reduction, and for all-cause death, which includes all the negative mortality effects as well, a 10% net reduction. These numbers are huge.
How does it work? See "PMID 21343206" for a compilation of 44 randomized control trial datasets indicating that alcohol raises raises (good) HDL in a dose-response fashion and produces higher beneficial adiponectin levels and lower levels of fibrinogen, which promotes thrombosis.
This new study, in contrast, will be a large-scale, long-term, hard-outcome randomized controlled trial, the “gold standard” of medical evidence. There is not much that blinded researchers can do to influence the results, unless you believe that a large academic group will all outright lie or make the data up and that their NIAAA overseers are stupid to see that.
Unscientific/religious-do-gooder neo-prohibitionists know that a large RCT like this will be the last word. They know what is coming and their only recourse is to pre-attack the researchers themselves like this before the trial has even started. Shame.
5
If indeed the article is basically factual, it once again punctures the bubble of those who have held scientific integrity to be functioning at the highest level--certainly those affiliated with NIH and our most prestigious academic institutions. Sadly, my bubble was burst years ago (early 90's). While writing a comprehensive HIV/AIDS Community Planning Document, I was convinced by a colleague to attend a "free" dinner to hear a Harvard physician give a talk on some of the emerging drugs. Being literally immersed in this topic while working with world class HIV/AIDS clinicians/researchers, I remember being stunned to hear what the Harvard doc had to say. Let's just say my blissful infancy and of course total naivete ended that day. I now understood what an objective scientific position could be differentiated from pure unadulterated marketing. It changed me completely, from adulation of our medical elite to a hardened sceptic. I try hard to maintain some balance--- but then I come across this type of article. Well done, NYT...
4
It's a complicated topic. But I believe it's the case that the longest-living communities in America are Mormons and another non-drinking religion whose name I forget.
1
This article goes together, closely I think, with last Friday's CDC press release entitled, "During binges, U.S. adults have 17 billion drinks a year."
Few if any comments indicate any appreciation of the trials planned . The participants are to consume 15 gm of alcohol per day. That corresponds to one beer, one 5 oz serving of wine, or one shot of 80 proof liquor. Hardly a threat, to anyone.
Before critiquing a document, reading it might prove useful.
2
The sciences are not and cannot be more objective than the humanities. Every aspect of human inquiry is shaped by the person and the interests conducting the research. Peer review does not validate truth or objectivity; it speaks only to how well the academic community regards your argument. Government funding of academic research is incredibly dangerous; the fact that so much of it goes to the "objective" sciences instead of the humanities is a function of specious claims about the truth value of the science.
'The sciences are not and cannot be more objective than the humanities."....What a silly comment. Two plus two equals four; not five and not three, ok?
1
Now this makes much more sense. I feel so much better since I stopped having 1 glass of wine some evenings because I sleep better, and we all know how important sleep is.
5
This is why it is so important to fund university research that have rules against taking private company funds that are associated with the study. These rules are more in the scientific community rather than university policy. Universities need funding as well so they do market themselves to industries that can support their research. There is a fine line that all scientists must walk along and there is pressure from university's Provost Office to deliver a more "industry positive" result. Most scientists can be objective because the university's standing goes up with every new innovation. The integrity of a scientist is vital and any bias or data tampering is incredibly punished by the community. This is how a scientist sometimes ends up at corporate places because other scientists have shunned their research and make sure they do not get any "real" research grants.
4
"A definitive clinical trial represents a unique opportunity to show that moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk or common diseases." This is a statement of intended outcome, not a scientific test or discovery. Worded this way it is a strong indication of initial bias. "A definitive clinical test represents a unique opportunity to test the hypothesis that moderate alcohol consumption ..." would be far more credible, approach if this is to be an unbiased study.
5
There are two simple purposes for this study and only one possible outcome, arrived at before the first number was crunched: 1)Sell more alcohol 2)Provide employment for researchers and admin (come on, the researchers brought the study to the liquor dealers, not the other way around. They knew they couldn't be turned down.) The outcome: as "expected", moderate drinking should be added to the daily food pyramid.
2
This article begs a more detailed investigation into the origins of this study. The notion that the NIH was the prime mover in the development of this project is not believable.
1
Big industries and big corporations...shameless and will do anything for a profit.
Do not consume any alcohol ever if alcoholic dna runs in your family. Do not drive after drinking alcohol. Do not spend $ on alcohol when you need this $ for more important things. Other than this, enjoy a cold beer once in awhile on a hot day, enjoy one glass of wine with a meal, and champagne at a wedding reception.
2
I'll drink to that!
1
May we assume that this despicable episode is an outlier? Or, it is just business as usual? How much scientific fact is bought and paid for by those who profit from the results? It's chilling to think that the Scientific Method includes a cost-benefit analysis by the bean counters at Bud Lite.
1
the latest health information from the new york times recommends drinking booze like senator joseph r mc carthy (republican wisconsin) but avoiding sugar in the morning,sugar in the evening,sugar in the night time too like the mc guire sisters !
As a Harvard graduate, I sure hope Dr. Kenneth J. Mukamal never becomes a full professor. He's an embarrassment to the school.
3
So many people calling for studies on the impacts of alcohol...on individuals, their families, etc...
Uh...we know that stuff already. People who dont abuse (in need of definition) alcohol dont have problems. Those who do abuse, do have problems.
As to the causes...those are as varied as are the users...be they abusers or not. Stress, illness, hopelessness, youthful exposure, loneliness, shyness, etc...can all led to abuse...or not.
The problem is the "or nots" out number those who will abuse...and we tend to lose sight of that in these discussions.
So many people act like puritans, that should beer, or wine, etc, be said to be a healthy part, but not a necessary part of a persons "diet", the abolitionists get all crazed. "No, no, no! You cant even say alcohol isnt a demon, its always a demon, and will lead to abuse!"
People need to make these choices for themselves...
Remember kids, smoking makes you sexy and socially successful. Results from a major university...blah, blah, blah....
No different than the meat and dairy industry funding members of the USDA telling us to eat red meat and drink milk. Huge con.
2
Maybe some day, in the distant future, we can return to taxing the wealthiest and the largest corporations at a rate that can sustain things like government research into the health effects of the products those corporations shamelessly hawk.
3
This study is very badly designed. How has it not been condemned by all who’ve known about it? Aside from the bald-faced conflict of interest, the designers assume the so-called “moderate” drinkers will never want more than one drink per day. And that the “non-drinkers” will somehow manage to stay sober for six to ten years! Both are ridiculous assumptions and don’t reflect how real people behave. Not to mention how irresponsible it is for them to set participants up to crave more than one drink a day. Haven’t these scientists ever heard of alcohol addiction?
2
I Graduated High School in 1985, all or most of the local Bar Flies are Dead from Alcohol. Make no mistake Alcohol is A Killer. In a surprising Twist most of the Old Pot Heads are still around Painting and doing Carpentry.
The Booze hounds Die Young.
Maybe one Drink A Day is Beneficial but why chance it? Junk Science and A Scam that's what this Study is.!
3
Well, this pre-concluded scientific research is now worthless. I hate to say it, but the corporations should ask the government for a refund.
2
I believe it’s called “buying yourself a job”, what these academicians and hard science researchers did, ostensibly in the name of advancing the frontiers of science. Not so very different from what Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Ag does, to name just three, buying favorable research, except for the direction of the job pitch in this case. Not so very different from billionaires buying House and Senate seats, and ambassadorships when you think about it, even the American presidency.
But there are difference . Billionaires strut and preen, and times are tough in academia. Too many unemployed post-docs, starving gypsy faculty and underfunded college departments. Colleges mint too many specialists, more than the market can employ. And money isn’t flowing onto campus like it used to. So academic politics are more vicious than ever.
But for the NIH to beat the bushes for economic support from multinational corporations that manufacture and distribute liver poison, products known to cause or contribute to many cancers and a host of other diseases, corporations that also are themselves cancers inside our state and federal legislatures, is unethical and unconscionable.
Not that it matters to these academics. It’s about survival, about jobs, dollars. As I learned firsthand in the UC system long ago, academic politics orbits a big black hole spelled “m-o-n-e-y”, and in UC’s case, you could support a university half its size on what it wastes.
2
Soliciting funding from interested parties is bad enough. But there was no honest request for proposals from those who would conduct the research, and the standard review process was simply scrapped. Outrageous!
2
Someone please tell me the downside of abstinence from alcohol. It irritates my esophagus, exacerbating GERD and it causes me to over eat mindlessly at a meal. My life is not blighted without it. Not even uncomfortable socially. When someone at an event asks me why I am not drinking - most often I notice that it is those who are slamming it back, I hold up my glass of club soda over ice with a twist and say “Hmm. This is a glass. It has liquid in it. I am drinking the liquid. What makes you ask why I am not drinking?”. What I am diplomatic enough NOT to say is “and why does it matter to you?”.
4
Alcohol is
* Addictive
* Blurs judgement beginning with the first drink
* Carcinogenic See https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/listed_substances_508.pdf
2
Alcohol. Tobacco. Coca Cola. Pepsi. Big Macs. Junk food. Infant formula. Big Food, Big Drink, Big Sugar manipulate, bribe and corrupt. And spineless, greedy and ambitious researchers will sell their souls for a free lunch.
1
Harvard, appears to want to distinguish its academia as a great place for scientific prostitution. Who needs objective science when you can get money from corporate industry? Perhaps they can make tobacco part of a healthy American diet. Way to go Harvard.
1
Despicable. Utter corruption of public institutions in this country.
1
"Moderate" drinking may - or may not - affect your health, but what effect does it have on your ability to drive a car? Where is "moderate" on the breathalyzer scale?
We don't need a 100 million $ study to show that even small amounts of alcohol affect one's ability to drive safely. That's already been shown, so how much will this "moderate" amount affect it? There's no sharp threshold here; it's a continuous function, so any amount of alcohol raises the likelihood of an auto accident. Which may have very serious effects on one's health. Especially if you get killed.
Will the study take that possibility into account?
1
There is no department in the U.S. government that I trust anymore. The entire edifice is corporate owned and citizen beware! Look at glyphosate and the agricultural products the U.S. is pushing on us and the rest of the world. There is a case against Monsanto in CA right now of people with non-Hodgkins lymphoma they are claiming was caused by glyphosate, many of them former employees. The judge has yet to decide, but at this point it looks like the people harmed will not even be allowed their day in court. The WHO found glyphosate to be "possible carcinogen," but will any non-corporate, unbiased scientific entity test it? Research must be carried out by scientists totally disconnected from corporate influence. How else can we get honest results? I will eat organic and I am not about to start drinking. Drinking and breast cancer? It is very hard to be a mom right now and try to feed you family healthy food. And how do you tell your college daughter not to drink when there are studies designed to show that drinking is part of a healthy diet? My god!
6
As a college educator, teaching critical thinking has always been a challenge. But to say it’s become nearly impossible (and yet desperately necessary) in this age of disinformation would be an understatement. For years I’ve touted government agencies as “unbiased” sources of information, worthy of their college research papers. CDC, NIH, you name it—I argued these were nonprofit, trustworthy places to garner factual data. Meanwhile my students would laugh at my “naïveté.”
2
I wonder who you think funds clinical trials run by the FDA? And yet, the FDA is regarded world wide as the gold standard for drug approval. Apparently who funds the study doesn't always mean the results are bias, and especially when an independent agency is intimately involved in the design of the study and the results are are interpreted by an independent board. I am not arguing that bias never exists, only that a rush to judgment is inappropriate.
1
My grandfather lived to be 102 and never drank. I wonder if there are some who want this to be true? My concern is for people who have difficulty with this addictive substance, that this would be a way to justify their drinking.
Drinking is mostly disgusting- people slur their speech, change personalities, walk without good balance and throw up. Just look at college campuses.
And then there is all the giggling that comes when someone mentions drinking too much. Give me a break.
2
New Hampshire, where I live, finances a large part of the state government with hard liquor sales. We have no sales tax, so this and high property taxes are part of the answer. Just a coincidence, New Hampshire has the highest per ca-pita rate of alcohol consumption of any state. We also have a constant problem with out of control drunks doing insane things - driving down the interstate in the wrong direction, horrible accidents, fights, etc. etc., and we accept this as normal.
New Hampshire is also a leading problem state in opiate crisis - President Trump is coming here tomorrow to speak about it. Deaths are way up from this problem. There is a cruel irony here though. With the opiate crisis, people are killing themselves. The collateral damage is broken families and related social problems.
With alcohol, which is also a hard drug, drunk drivers wipe out entire families sometimes, people shoot and fight with other people, women get raped, etc. etc. etc. This has been going on forever. In other words, with alcohol, we have a drug that not only destroys the person who abuses it, but also kills and injures tens of thousands of innocent bystanders too - and we accept this as normal every day life. President Trump often brags about the excellent wine his family sells. Alcohol distributors are legal drug dealers, but the alcohol beverage industry has cleverly avoided the drug label. This needs to change.
3
Again, another example of how the Congress has miss used taxpayer money. There is already enough evidence from the Mediterranean Diet to conclude that moderate drinking is good for you. What a waste of money that could be used for children's healthcare, education, etc. These leaders will pay in Eternity!
This is how research scientists earn a living. They market themselves to groups with funds. they start with the NIH. Very difficult to get long term studies funded by the federal government, Congress and the bureaucracy are not known for their patience. So they go to other groups with money. This happens all the time.
And they did nothing wrong. They cannot discuss the project with NIH or the funding groups after the request for proposal hits the street, but before that anything goes. Very few proposals are awarded without being wired for a particular awardee.
that being said, why do they do it. Because they want to eat and they believe in science. They do what is necessary to get funding for this science. And they do it without bias, or at least with less bias than the writer of this article. All of the raw data will be available for review and peer review will take place before publication.
This is how science is funded in the 21st century (and a good part of the last century).
2
All else aside, the design of this study is absurd to the extreme. It conflates cause and correlation. No one* drinks “1 serving” of alcohol per day. Any subject who could do so clearly lacks the characteristics of a human who enjoys a moderate level of occasional alcohol consumption. Thus, the study selects non random subjects atypical of representative populations it presumably purports to examine. Duh!
*The only exception to my claim might be an Irish R.N. of my acquaintance who consumes 8 gin soaked golden raisins on a daily basis to prevent arthritis. And even she might not fit the subject criteria, as she supplements this regimen with a weekly dose of more than one serving of Bushmills Black Label at the pub.
1
This study will be overseen by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
The fundamental mission of the NIAAA is to prevent alcohol abuse and alcoholism and it is entirely staffed by career anti-alcohol types who invested their entire careers in the negatives of alcohol.
Therefore, the study cannot help but be biased against alcohol and its conclusions cannot be trusted.
Any studies by the NIAAA—and consequently its National Institute of Health parent—will be biased against alcohol.
Sound reasonable? Sound familiar?
There was nothing done wrong here. If you believe that there was, then you have to pretty much give up on all health research. Or be willing to raise your taxes significantly.
3
I'd like to see more of the original RAW documents. Are you SURE the operative term here was "benefits" rather than "effects". One word makes a HUGE difference and this is a situation where absolute accuracy is essential.
1
Perhaps you should also look into the structural issues at the universities where these researchers work. Researchers need to find every greater sources of funding for research, and the universities extract enormous indirect costs out of each grant (59% at Harvard, 68% at Yale). Indirect costs = what the university takes off the top of the grant. Of course, this is not limited to Harvard and Yale.
5
Ditto! The overhead rate in these grants makes this a bonanza for two of the wealthiest institutions in the country. And how does this square with the terrible problem of binge drinking on college campuses? In the end, why are public dollars being used at all to “prove” an old truism of ‘all things in moderation.’ Let the spirit industry fund their own research, like other segments do.
4
Why should we continue to allow corporate ADd when their lies are increasingly harmful to consumers; and in some cases deadly? There is now a real concern about how government corruption is threat to public safety.
1
We already know any amount of alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer in women and more than 2 drinks a day more than twice a week increases risk of colon cancer in both men and women, Heavier drinking is unequivocally linked to liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, and lung cancer. And of course problem drinking is linked to accident, injury, liver failure and brain damage. These are uncontested facts. The association with coronary heart disease is weak and contested and the trial won't help because it is using an unrealistic amount of alcohol and unrepresentative populations. A bit of exercise will go lot further in terms of heart health than a drink a day -- that's already established fact. To make not too fine point of it: this is crooked, getting a great big grant and a bevy of grad students and promotion and fame for a flock of publications, using industry money to promote a product known to be harmful. As an aside, I am an epidemiologist (one who really enjoys whisky and craft beer) and I am appalled by the bad science and even worse ethics on display here.
8
I thought the NIH was the last bastion of integrity and truth in basic research. I am sadly mistaken. Is there anyone out there who can be trusted?
6
"I am sadly mistaken."....Now how could you possibility know that? You know absolutely nothing about who is running the study. Nothing about the design of the study. Nothing about the results, nothing about by who and how the results will be interpreted. And yet you know for certain that there is an absence of integrity. You must be blessed with clairvoyance.
2
The study makes sense. It has been established that moderate alcohol intake increases one's HDL (the good) cholesterol, which protects against arteriosclerosis, the cause of heart disease and stroke.
1
Alcohol I can take or leave. As I get older, I don't like ingesting anything that affects my equilibrium, whether it be in the form of a pill or a liquid. I have often read that Queen Elizabeth drinks four drinks daily, beginning at lunch I believe. She seems healthy, lucid and robust but there certainly some good genes on her mother's side. Also, if she were to take a tumble after one of those drinks she wouldn't have to endure hours or days lying on the floor, unable to get up or call for help, as many older people have experienced. Personally, I believe common sense should prevail.
4
Anyone who thinks alcohol is innocuous when used in moderation should visit a person suffering end stage liver disease (caused by substance abuse). It is a horrific, painful disease which only a transplant can cure. The reality is there are far fewer livers available than can meet the need, so you have to not only need a liver, but prove for a lengthy period of time that you will change your habits permanently, before you get a liver. So maybe I wasn't actually addicted (or maybe I was--am?-- a functioning alcoholic), but seeing a loved one dying before my eyes in his early 40s from a totally preventable disease has scared me sober.
I would like to see someone in the media world produce a documentary on this important topic. Alcoholism and liver disease is on the rise in this country. It's probably bigger and more destructive than opioid addictions.
4
From the article I am not convinced the study would inherently be biased both in design and outcome because of the use of liquor industry monies. Rather, it is a troublesome misunderstanding of the way scientific research works. Firstly, all scientific studies start with a hypothesis which may be proven or disproven. whether the hypothesis is proven or not depends on the data and the value of the data is directly dependent on the protocol design. The industry representatives were not part of the protocol design nor would they be involved in the conduct or the analysis of the study.
Secondly, if the hypothesis is deemed worthy of a controlled trial (which can and should be debated), the money needs to come from somewhere. Government funds for scientific research and public health are extremely hard to come by and that is certainly not changing any time soon with the current scientifically uninformed and fact-challenged administration. Consequently, funding must be sought elsewhere.
Thirdly, It would have been preferable to state in any slide presentation that the trial represents an opportunity to show IF (rather than THAT) moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers disease risk, however the only way to get a result is to do the study. To design & conduct a meaningful study experts in the field are necessary and they will have informed opinions re the outcome tho that may not be the outcome.
3
An interesting summary of the scientific process, as you have presented, fails to consider that the involvement of payments would inevitably affect the outcome. “Misunderstanding” is the universal euphemism.
Could the funding affect the outcome? - of course that is possible and one can cite examples where that has indeed occurred. Is it inevitable? - no it is not. If one accepts the latter premise one is discounting the entire enterprise of scientific research. Money doesn't grow on trees and government as well as privately funded research can be accused of having a preference for a particular outcome.
If we refuse to study the questions because somebody has a vested interest in the outcomes we will never progress in any fields. My use of "misunderstanding" is a call for more critical reporting and the unfortunate tendency to read articles as confirming our pre-existing bias - in this case corrupted scientists and the evils of industry money. The devil is in the details and there are not enough here to convince me that the study design is biased or that the results will/would be.
1
Firstly, Big Alcohol was apprized of the protocol design of the experiment and tacitly gave their approval BEFORE they wagered $100 Million that the design would lead to outcomes that would pad their bottom lines.
Secondly, extending the tight-money argument is a recipe for disaster. It is in essence loan-sharking. How much is Science willing to compromise for the Almighty Dollar?
Thirdly, the fact that NIH did not follow the usual protocol of open bidding for the "experts" who would conduct this experiment raises a gigantic red flag. The lead investigator has built his career on the hypothesis that moderate drinking has positive outcomes that far outweigh its negative outcomes.
Fourthly, this experiment was developed and funded long before the current administration took office.
1
The government wants to design studies that make alcohol seem healthy.
Meanwhile, testing of cannabis is illegal because it might cut into pharmaceutical company profits.
8
Thank you, NYT for this great reporting. I hope NIH and Foundation for NIH are properly embarrassed by their ethical lapses and pull the plug on this study. Also hope Harvard fires the lead investigator.
4
Competent research should never be directed at proving a hypothesis but rather at determining if it is true or not. There is plenty of cognitive research to show that aiming at proving something will almost always succeed, whether due to conscious effort or unconscious reasons. This is why competent studies combine double-blind with control groups. This study has a control group but is eyes wide open. It can't be relied on.
Incompetent research design is a big problem and often results in bad results. One of the most ignoble is the UK study blaming autism on vaccines.
3
"One of the most ignoble is the UK study blaming autism on vaccines."....That wasn't the result of a poorly designed study; that was fraud. They are sort of different things.
1
The study is motivated by the observation that moderate drinkers are healthier. I would like to see them study the social habits of moderate drinkers. The result would likely be that the drinkers health and longevity is the result of the psychological effect of the friendship and camaraderie that comes with, not the physical effect of alcohol. No one drinks one drink alone. But no industry benefits from healthy interpersonal relationships.
3
But Cannabis, recommended for at least chronic pain and MS by the National Academies — and utilized by some of us as an aid to quitting opiates — remains anathema at the Federal level. This makes me embarrassed to be a US biomedical scientist.
5
With the momentum toward legalization of marijuana the alcohol industry is facing a great challenge. From your description the alcohol study is indeed marketing and likely to minimize harms. There is another consideration. In 35 years of medical practice where 35 to 50 per cent of my patients of all ages used marijuana at least weekly or more I encountered mental or physical complications from use perhaps once a year. On the other hand, I frequently saw mental and physical illness - and deaths - due to alcoholism on a regular basis. It is possible that 3 to 10 of these 7800 highly selected study subjects will experience on going harm. In any case they will not reflect the real world of exposure. The possibility of allowing one drink of alcohol as an NIH endorsed nutritional supplement will give another rationale to compulsive drinkers magnifying the existing terrible effects of this socially acceptable drug.
5
This sort of funding for research is invalid on its face and will never produce results to be trusted. The idea that the alcohol corporations can be kept at arm's length and not influence the results simply defies human nature.
The most discouraging part is that it was the NIH which did the courting of those companies. It is a black time indeed for a great organization. The project needs to be closed.
5
The FDA is, in large part, sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies I have researched. I was at the recieving end when the pyschiatric medications were being introduced. The doctors were largely being courted by the corporations. It was a living nightmare. I am very afraid what will happen if this is pushed through. There are too many people who have strong reactions to alcohol. Personally my immediate family being agmonst them.
1
There is the reason why "science" is for profit, not for benefit of humanity.
And, as my researcher wife just (rhetorically) asked, "what will they do if the data does not support their claims?"
Indeed, will they share that raw data with all?
1
No scientist here, but will all of the raw data collected from the study be made available to other outside scientists and statisticians who want to run their own analyses of the data? It seems to me that doing so would at least mitigate the opportunities for biased results. And even if the study design is flawed by the exclusion of select groups in the interest of doing no harm, does that preclude the possibility of obtaining useful knowledge from the study? I recognize the possibility of a built-in bias in the study's design, but is no knowledge at all (i.e., no study) better than a flawed study that might still yield useful information?
2
Suppose the study identifies short term cardiovascular benefits but because of the design fails to capture long term adverse consequences, and recommendations are made supporting moderate alcohol consumption...
3
While the scientists believe themselves, the study will be unbiased many forms of industry sponsored research prove that is historically unlikely. Industry sponsor of dietary research, such as the margarine research , has done massive damage to our nation’s health. Truly massive, massive damage to health was done by studies the scientists truly felt unbiased. Partly because many issues are more complicated than the targeted studies consider. For example, even if there is a modest benefit to heart health, the scientists are not even attempting to address all of the possible health damage to the human body in other organs by alcohol. So they are not outright lying about the damage two drinks a day will cause to the heart, they just refuse to know and appreciate the risks elsewhere in the body. Perhaps most of the damage is by people hearing this message but don't stop at two per day but perhaps not, perhaps these other organs have longer term unknown but reasonably serious problems. These issues may be statistically hidden by individual genetics and epi-genetics, but large numbers of people will be hurt nevertheless.
Further, the mild reduction in heart disease is assumed to be from the sense of stress relief you get from two drinks. But frankly getting that same stress relief from mediation, quality time with the family, or physical exercise is both cheaper and much healthier. The scientists are culpable for not studying this simultaneously. They should be flunked.
4
It is such a comfort to know our laypeople are so much wiser and more knowledgeable than are our educated scientists...
1
Big science projects ( e.g. , the Large Hadron Collider) that are too costly for any single country to afford involve multiple countries. Maybe other science projects - like this alcohol study - can be undertaken by multiple countries to avoid industry funding (and actual - or just perceived - industry influence).
2
Finally the proof that he Beverage Industry is using the same tactics as the Tobacco Industry to promote a product linked to death and disease.
They are now advertising flavored alcoholic drinks to attract children and promoting alcohol as a "Sports Drink". The American people should feel used.
5
This what happens when we don't use tax money, but privatize research. America is drunk on making a buck, no matter the impact on its people. There was tobacco influence in smoking research, and need I mention Exxon and climate change? We all know that alcohol has a profound affect on human physiology ... and indeed is a unique in each of us as our personalities. I for example, get a happy buzz on a half glass of wine. But then millions are always spent, whether it is private industry or government, on "research" that has a means to an end. Eggs are good for you, no they're not. Chicken causes cancer. Dairy is bad. No it isn't.
If all of us weren't rushing toward the new best thing, ate simply and healthily, we wouldn't need all theses studies and $$$ could be spent on infrastructure, education, preventive medicine. Who benefits from these studies when we aren't doing so well? Yup, those who fund it, the healthcare industry and big pharma. Think about it.
2
I disagree with Dr. George Koop's quote regarding the FNIH - it is not an impregnable "firewall". As someone who has conducted NIH funded human research for nearly 25 years, I have had two close interactions with this FNIH and it can potentially be an important vehicle for public-pharma collaboration, but to most part its management ultimately cared about what is in the industry's best interest. I believe that the NIAAA's primary goal in this instance to obtain supplemental support was appropriate, but how it went about approaching is problematic. Further, the FOA for the grant application making it a highly limited competition is very problematic and requires scrutiny. On a different but important note, in the midst of all of the chaos that is happening around us, there has been a dramatic increase in the rate of alcohol abuse by middle aged women, but I don't get the sense that there has been significant attention from the NIAAA and other public health agencies about this sure to-be catastrophic trajectory of alcohol abuse among selected subgroups of our population.
1
I'm a medical scientist and while I recognize many studies are funded by industry (usually pharma), I'm still appalled that NIAAA would go to the alcohol industry to ask for funds.
1) The way that this trial was presented to industry: "a unique opportunity to show that moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases,” "alcohol is to be recommended as part of a healthy diet" suggests that Dr. Mukmal already has made up his mind about the results apriori and felt comfortable saying this directly to industry. That is NOT science.
2) Article often ask that scientists disclose their financial interests but not ideological ones. Shouldn't researchers also be required to disclose the latter also? I have, when I have a history of strong opinions on something. It keeps me honest and alerts readers.
3) The devil is in the details and who will be policing the details? It's not only about the population that was chosen for the study but also the outcomes. Alcohol can cause falls, drug interactions, depression, osteoporosis, etc. yet if those are not chosen as outcomes to be measured, alcohol may be falsely judged to be "safe". Additionally, the time that death were measured over, what is defined as "diabetes" "stroke", etc. can be fudged so that results look more positive than they are.
NIH needs to either reject this money or put in an additional independent investigator to oversee this trial.
6
Cardiovascular benefits are there because not only do you forget your problems but you also forget what questions you had. :) Just kidding....
Anything in moderation is good. How many people will consider Alcohol a drug and should be used wisely? May be after few years NIH will ask funding from insurers to study if Alcohol should be available with the Dr. Prescription only, with baseline Lever Function Test? :)...Let me extrapolate... Now Beer companies will become drug companies and you will get a bottle of beer with $500.
2
What was most telling to me was the study design that, as the article points out, weeded out those who might get harmed down the road by being told to drink every day. I feel that scientists are often woefully short sighted when it comes to anticipating how the lay press will communicate their findings and how the average person will hear them. Of course the message won't end up being: "If you fit the following categories that make you low risk for alcohol-associated harms but high risk for cardiovascular disease, then drinking a glass of beer, wine or booze daily will lower your risk of the latter by 35%," or whatever. They'll hear, "If you drink moderately daily, it's healthy." And they'll define "moderately" themselves. Boom, the liquor industry just invested $100 million very wisely!
5
Deja vu with a different carbohydrate and prestigious institution. Harvard scientists sold themselves to the sugar industry (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shift.... Now NIH scientists apparently seek to fund studies of their preconceived bias with a likely result, intended or not, of promoting sales of alcoholic beverages.
6
This is the United States of Ameri$a, where capitali$m rules. My parents were professors in two highly ranked medical schools. They schooled me very well on how studies are conducted. They also drank more than they should.
Sir Joseph Lister knew very well the powers of alcohol to kill cells, and was a pioneer in sepsis and antisepsis.
A drink a day is NOT moderate use. It is not EXCESSIVE use. But a drink a day, of beer, wine, a mixed drink or neat, is enough to stimulate our system to make us CRAVE alcohol.
That is the tipping point, from which many do not return.
I'll have a beer, or a glass of wine or wine cooler after dinner or a shot of Irish or Bourbon in a tall glass of strong coffee [with ice cream] no more than twice a week.
Once you start to crave alcohol -- no matter the form -- your system wants it. That's the point where we tell ourselves that alcohol is OK.
And telling ourselves that alcohol is OK is the tipping point.
Alcohol kills cells better than any other substance.
As other commenters have mentioned, the money and motive behind this study is obvious.
16
There is no such thing as healthy moderate drinking. The degree and onset of adverse effects of regular drinking depends on the individual and their genetic makeup and overall tolerance. But as someone who reviews medical records as part of my job, if anyone tells their doctor they have 1-2 drinks every day, their med records will almost always reflect a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcohol use disorder. Any honest doctor would not tell their patient that it is okay to drink everyday. Even if nothing else was wrong with them physically, the long term effects would detrimental to the health of almost everyone. The small fraction of people who manage to get by unscathed by their drinking wont change the reality of what happens to most people who drink regularly, even in "moderation."
No one could get away with convincing anyone they eat chocolate cake every day in "moderation" because they have 1 slice instead of 2-3.
12
The gist of some comments is "who cares if what is claimed is true, the 'science' will prevent bias."
Science is conducted by scientists. They are people who are prone to influence, bias, and corruption like anyone else.
Rules around science exist to minimize the influence of bias on science, ultimately to promote truthful scientific results and to protect the public.
The reporting suggests the scientists may have violated NIAAA policy and then lied about it. Are we now to give them a pass because "the science will take care of itself?"
We should not look the other way when ethical concerns are raised. Giving scientists a pass because of their status virtually guarantees that misconduct will pervade science.
9
I quite driniking alcohol more than 25 years ago. Some people simply can't drink. Used to be there were no alternatives, but what with cannabis becoming both legal and acceptable the alcohol lobby has to turn somewhere. And look, federal government backing! Have that daily drink with your doctor's blessing, right?
Instead of Reefer Madness we get Marijuana Envy.
14
There are obvious reprehensible collusion issues in this study. But let us move away from just the ethical considerations and look at the fidelity of the study should it be allowed to proceed.
Given what we know, how can the study be flawed? Observer bias would be the most significant. There is significant risk here for investigators to frame data collection and recording the data erroneously because of murky industry-researcher relationships. Researchers can also be mired in bias in interpreting data (and even publishing data) favouring industry interests. Simply put, money skews optics. Doctors at pharmaceutical funded dinners, researchers colluding with industry at pernicious scale, and
industry dining politicians, all suffer the same potential temptation toward bias to who is paying the bill.
Significant ramifications can result if the science and medical community promotes alcohol based on spurious facts. Remember tobacco? Physicians promoted tobacco for health giving tobacco companies license to poison millions of people, the long effect of this error is still killing people.
Public health, government, the public need to scrupulously assess the merit of this study, the potential burden for harm is too great.
6
Alcohol has been a significant factor in human history. Like smoke from fire, humans have utilized both for thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Now we are harmed by both? I don't believe it.
1
Pharmaceutical companies do clinical trials on the drugs they are developing, for profit (gasp!)
It doesn't mean they are up to something nefarious.
3
What’s shocking is that taxpayer money would be used to try and ‘prove’ that it ‘can be part of a healthy diets’ V simply confirming whether most people can have a few drinks each week without health impact. Frankly, I thought that was pretty well established- At least from a disease POV. Wonder how they’ll account for the alcoholism that rages through this country, causing at least as much devastation as the oppose epidemic. But by all means, let’s pitch something that kills thousands each year as ‘healthy.’
4
Given the tainted funding of the study, who will believe the results, no matter what they turn out to be?
7
No matter the effects of ethanol and cardiovascular disease, we already know the impact on cancer. The international agency for cancer research classifies ethanol as a group one carcinogen. Given that, how could the government ever “recommend” increased ethanol consumption? Absurd. So in addition to all the obvious conflicts of interest the alcohol institute has raised it is also engaging in uncoordinated and hopelessly wasteful efforts.
5
Just one more example of the crummy "science" popping up regularly about the American diet.
Butter good. Butter bad. Butter good.
Red meat good. Red meat bad. Red meat good.
Sugar bad. Artificial sweeteners good. Artificial sweeteners bad.
Gluten good. Gluten bad.
Carbs good. Carbs bad. Carbs good.
Booze good. Booze the devil. Booze good.
7
Don't drink alcohol. You don't need it and you will feel better. Take it from a 20 year half a bottle a day drinker who stopped cold turkey last year. Dropped twenty pounds...run a couple miles a day at age 67. Great health and sex life....who needs booze? If you need something to calm down try yoga, meditation or weed if you live in the right state.
8
It's such a bummer that often, if not always, what seems to get lost in the hyperbole of this particular argument is the word, "moderation"...
4
Show me an alcoholic who can drink in "moderation" and I'll show you one who is actively drinking and can't stop themselves.
it is a sad time that the world's absolutely best health research agency cannot afford to carry out a very important health study
time to prioritize expenditures better
time to nip in the bud the reflex to ask for industry money for anything
3
So, what is the point here? Are tee-totalers supposed to start drinking as part of a healthier diet?
I doubt that's going to happen.
2
Tax revenue is a govt. incentive to keeping alcohol consumption socially acceptable. The fox is already in the hen house.
3
It is only a matter of time until the alcohol industry funds a study that finds moderate car accidents are good for us.
16
The goal of the alcohol industry is to sell more product. It's the goal of any industry.
This is why research funded by industry groups is so suspect: just as big and little pharma ran into huge problems in the 80s and 90s funding research that cherry-picked data and/or found physicians willing to slant the outcomes, there can be no disinterested funding of "legitimate" research based on sound scientific methods.
Alcohol taken in moderation may be helpful but who's to say what 'moderation' is? The United States has a huge addiction problem, and alcohol abuse is among the oldest.
I'm always struck by articles printed here from social workers and other "experts" trying to help problem drinkers moderate their drinking. As if a life without alcohol were something actually dangerous to one's health.
America doesn't need studies on the benefits of drinking, moderate or otherwise. What America needs is solid information on what types of programs work, and why, for problem drinkers.
What one person finds "moderate" is a mere drop to the alcoholic. Research like this, is, frankly, irresponsible.
11
The money could be better spent trying to help people overcome addiction to alcohol. Alcoholics Anonymous doesn't work for everyone.
1
A double blinded study to collect data, with funds flowing through the independent foundation, including generous extra funds for peripheral alcohol research. An independent team funded by NIH itself to interpret and write and report the results. lmportantly, one prefunded research period with no renewal option for the investigator, who should be someone other than Dr. Pitchman. This will establish objectivity. If there is any way to bring in research $$ and avoid conflicts of interest, NIH should consider it.
2
This seems like solid reporting. Thanks NYT for looking at this.
1
It would be nice to get the CDC and the NIH off the backs of pain patients and doctors to focus on alcohol whose deathtoll is multiple that of the “opioid epidemic.”
3
There is not one person in 10 thousand who drinks can stop on one.
$cience? The amount of money the alcohol industry spends on lobbyists is obscene, and the result is encouraging more young people to drink. Have you ever heard of Opiodism? Cannabisism? Alcohol is highly addictive, yet seldom if ever do we see alcohol linked to the word "addiction." Our morally corrupt "leaders" kowtowing to moron 45 nod in agreement with his demented suggestion that "drug" dealers be executed, ignoring the pharmaceutical industry's culpability in unleashing and promoting this demon. It's time to wake up and stop this insanity.
1
"... a long-term randomized controlled trial could dispel lingering doubts about the benefits of moderate daily drinking."
The more i drink- the longer I will linger at the bar, thus I dispel all doubt about anything random or controlled about it. I will miss my liver though.
I do not drink. However, if a drink reduces stress than any physiological adverse effect may be considered negligible. This is a very subjective variable and cannot be measured through a scientific study. The study cannot be conducted objectively and would be impossible to ascertain whether one drink a day is adverse or beneficial. The same argument can be made for other drugs.
2
What is shocking here is not the fact that the alcohol industry is funding this research project (which is bad enough), it is that the NIAAA is conducting any study at all on the benefits of drinking alcohol. This is the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. For them to be looking at any potential benefit of drinking is directly in opposition of their mission. I wouldn't be surprised if the subjects of the study enjoy their one drink a day so much that they end up with "alcohol use disorder", compliments of the NIH.
4
Where do I sign up for this study?! Hah!
Seriously though, my alcoholism is destroying my life.
4
I am sorry for what you are going through - and those who love you, as well. Alcohol use is implicated in dementia, liver disease and all kinds of cancers. It is all too easy to slip from moderate to excessive drinking, very especially for the elderly and teen-agers - but of course, teen-agers dont drink ;) - and not so difficult for those in between. There is all kinds of help in AA.
4
Forget the study. You can always sign up as a friend of Bill.
3
As science, this "study" is worthless. As marketing, it is priceless. The perversion of the mission of the Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism is a black-eye for the NIH and a victory for the alcohol industry.
8
People are going to drink regardless of any silly studies.....
3
I for one would like to have a clinical study that examines the benefits or not of moderate drinking. And gun ownership.
But the choice of Mukamal smells to the High Heaven.
The proof is out. Alcohol is it. Why aren't there similar studies of weed? I against weed. I have never known anyone benefiting from weed. Weed is for losers.
2
HMMMM ! Wonder if they might contact the "Tobacco Industry" next. Betcha they'd liike to give it a try !
1
Geez. Better build more special ed classrooms ASAP. We can't handle the results of any level of alcohol consumption during the fertile years now...
Is shooting an assault rifle once a day good for your health? Not enough shooting for comfort and the NRA declined to fund the study...
1
Moderate drinkers live longer than teetotalers.
1
An awful lot of teetotalers used to be alcoholics.
5
Jane is right. Many studies do not separate out people who have been teetotalers all their lives and/or chose not to drink for reasons other than alcoholism or another disease from teetotalers who were forced by alcoholism (or high blood pressure, heart disease, liver disease, etc.) or told by their docs to stop drinking themselves into an early grave.
2
Mukamal and the others are angry - but, more so, ashamed - they got caught. Great reporting.
2
Rumor has it, some people don't tell the truth about how much they drink, limiting the value of self reporting studies.
7
Well we’ve already got vaping & marijuana- you mean there’s more?
Don't know....Don't care! I have one or two a day whether I need it or not.
Thanks for the update, but .......
Don't know, don't care !
Government control of any drugs is rife with manipulation for profit and corrupt studies that reflect the wishes of those who would profit from those studies, it’s always about who making money from what law is passed. Our grandfathers generation were thrown in prison for consuming or sale of alcohol(The Kennedy fortune was largely created by bootlegging), my generation in the sixties was imprisoned( if you were poor) for consuming or selling pot, this generation(of older people in particular)is being punished for the sometimes necessary use of prescription pain medications because a few idiots want to use them to get high, who benefits, big pharma number one, there’s no money in inexpensive, effective lose dose generic pain medications that have been safely used for decades, but there sure is in “ new” ridiculously expensive meds as there is in sometimes beneficial physical therapy, largely something you could do yourself if you weren’t in so much pain and of course the really big bucks are in often unnecessary surgeries performed on elderly patients who might be better served with the dispensal of responsibly taken pain medications. The “opiod epidemic “ has been turned into the latest political football, lumping together often beneficial pain medications with heroin and fentanyl, what a farce.
3
BOOZE IS POISON FOR MANY! PROMOTE THAT
I am not against alcohol but quit marketing it as some knida goodness. It is not goodness, it is a drug and messes many good people up.
Legalize all drugs so we can rationalize the problem with ALL mind altering substances and provide CARE for those who need it not jails.
2
Science for hire operating at the taxpayers' expense. Small wonder people lose confidence in government sponsored research. Small wonder folks become anti-intellectual and return to archaic religious practices.
Once the U.S. government banned all drinking, now they get paid to encourage it. Carry Nation is rolling over in her grave.
2
Did you actually read the same article I did?
I do not drink alcohol at all. Things are strange enough already.
3
Trust me. I’m with the alcohol beverage industry. I’m here to help you.
3
As a participant (unwilling) in a small study of alcohol consumption, based on living with a spouse who is now three years sober, entirely self-funded without financial contributions from the Alcohol Beverage Industry, I can publish the following conclusions:
1: No drinks a day prevents interactions with the New York City Police Department (who are skilled and helpful in this situation)
2: No drinks a day prevents unexplainable random cuts and bruises, some fairly large and scary.
3: No drinks a day are considerably less expensive than 8 drinks at dinner
4: No drinks a day allows a much happier home and work life.
5: The main conclusion, however, is that no drinks a day means that one of the study participants has stopped trying to commit slow suicide, and the other has stopped thinking about murder.
All the studies in the world, even those paid for by the people who profit from their predicted results, won’t change the fact that the healthiest amount of alcohol is no drinks a day for many, many people.
12
You get what you pay for. This especially applies to research. How did the NIH get so corrupt?
3
Where I live in Massachusetts, you are given a ticket if you're NOT speeding and or drunk driving. It's very acceptable in this state to have multiple DUIs and still be allowed to get behind the wheel of a potentially lethal motor vehicle. I read in the local paper today that someone got pulled over yesterday and was given his 4th DUI. He was let out on $500 bail and told not to drive. Yeah, like that'll not happen again.
Happy St. Paddy's Day everyone. Please don't drink and drive.
An absurdity that fits seamlessly into the prevailing Republicanisation of "truth" ,"facts", and "reality".
1
Science for sale is a contradiction in terms, and its history in the US is a story of willful harm done by liars to people believing what they hear. When government scientists join the liars they betray the people twice. When government encourages the betrayal it sells the people out. It's ugly to admit the fact that many so-called scientists are happy negotiate the terms.
This is why people lose trust in scientists. So depressing. So not shocking.
1
What''s new? The massive study showing cardio benefits from the "Mediterranean diet" in 2013 (New England Journal of Medicine 2013; 368:1279-1290) used foods donated by producers:
"Supplemental foods were donated, including extra-virgin olive oil (by Hojiblanca and Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero, both in Spain), walnuts (by the California Walnut Commission), almonds (by Borges, in Spain), and hazelnuts (by La Morella Nuts, in Spain). None of the sponsors had any role in the trial design, data analysis, or reporting of the results."
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200303?query=featured_home&
3
No surprise here. Lobbyists from Alcohol to gun sales and the NRA ruin lives. It will go on until the planets environmental peril is in our faces. Then the dollar won’t look as good as we scramble to survive the unstoppable inertia of the ol the plants demise. Humanity will not survive a day longer on dollars.
1
I was going to post a link to this article on social media. Then I remembered that about half of my friends are recovering alcoholics.
2
Shame on the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. This is yet another instance of the fox guarding the henhouse. The people who should be served by the research of the NIAAA have instead been abused, compromised and potentially put in danger. It casts a shadow on all the research of NIH.
An investigation is in order.
5
So is NIH going to the marijuana industry in Washington, California, and Colorado to find a study to see if one small joint a day keeps the doctor away? And let’s go to the apple industry to see if an apple a day . . .
Manipulation of data is a plague which can kill.
It's up to every citizen to think critically about whatever is presented as "gospel."
The good news is that there's legitimate information available about almost everything. You will be fooled only if you're lazy, indifferent, or dumb.
This so-called study is nonsense. It's not like a drug trial where some participants receive a specific dose of a drug and others receive placebo. Here, we have an "honor" system -- only one drink per day. Easy to lie; what alcoholic doesn't? I've been one, and the only way to stop is to stop. When I have an occasional beer outside my home, it always triggers a desire for more, which is hard to resist. I don't keep any alcohol at home; it's already damaged my body in irreparable ways.
1
It's always safe to assume study results that run counter to common sense are funded by the very corporations whose sales will benefit most. Some of us are not, and will never be, stupid enough to view alcohol as a health food.
4
What is so terrible about doing a study? It's a shame that the NRA and the gun industry would never fund a study on gun violence! Oh, that is right - they are prohibited from doing that by federal law!
1
To have the alcohol industry involved in any way in this research is absurd for obvious reasons. The design and the already biased principal researcher is equally absurd. Another indicator of the Obama government run wild.
Sounds suspiciously like the research funded by the sugar industry to point the finger for chronic diseases away from sugar and toward fat...............full disclosure is hard to come by. What is just as bad is headlines mislead people who never read the full story, so millions of people will say three drinks a day is moderate, when it isn't.
3
Alcohol is a toxin. Our bodies are designed to get rid of it. That’s really all you have to know to be informed.
3
Therefore toxins don't kill.
They don't even make us sick.
Our bodies just "get rid" of them.
So comforting.
2
Next they will be asking the elves at Keebler to fund a study to determine that moderate consumption of Fudge Stripes is part of a healthy diet. Thereafter, they can pursue the muffin man - who lives on Drury Lane - for funding looking into the health impact of breakfast quick breads and small cakes.
4
I don't want my tax dollars going to help the alcohol industry sell alcohol, a known carcinogen.
4
This particular gin and tonic do not mix well, at least not for public consumption.
Funny how easy it is for supposedly high caliber scientists to rationalize their way into such "research".
The explanation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8P80A8vy9I
This sounds like great material for a new chapter in the next edition of Merchants of Doubt.
2
Well, it was stupid on the part of "officials" to look for funding with the alcohol industry. In any case, I don't believe we need studies to confirm what we already know through many, many years of anecdotal experience, especially in Mediterranean countries: drinking in moderation, and the emphasis is on moderation, can contribute to overall health.
1
So do we suffer without it ?
Okey doke. I betcha the sugar institute recommends 3 cookies a day. Pharma.org thinks a couple oxys daily will give you a boost maybe. How 'bout hiring the NRA to recommend social interaction techniques?
Puh-lease!!
2
Unless the investigators lock the subjects in a room for several years and monitor their every movement, the study is already flawed because it will rely on self-reports, which are notoriously inaccurate. Shame on NIH for standing behind such lousy research.
4
Great job on this reporting. It's very disappointing that NIH would stoop to this level. Since the results have already been predetermined, they should shut down this study.
4
When your beer is 8 percent or higher... No! One is not healthy. No matter how good it may taste.
I’m sure we can get Casinos to fund research on how gambling is good for your mental health.
Churches might fund Bingo helping with socialization.
Drug companies (and cartels)) can fund the benefits of living outdoors.
There are many neglected areas of research. And plenty of charlatans willing to fund it.
Thanks for the exposé. No surprise, I suppose. I hope you're working on a similar story on CDC/FDA and the vaccine/pharmaceutical industry.
1
Another sickening example of how the toxic disease of free-market economics has corrupted science (as it does with everything else). Even if the results of this study did genuinely show that a drink or two per day had a positive effect on one's health, how could they be taken seriously.
I am reminded of that old adage, "He who pays the piper, calls the tune."
There will be scientists who will not be above prostituting themselves if the price is right.
2
With industry funding, we know in advance what the result will be. Remember tobacco? Who knew that smoking was good for you?
2
Good for the arteries, bad for the liver.
1
okay, this is bad, I know Ken, we are colleagues, I do research in this area, get funding from NIAAA, and the main point here is that this is a non-competitive grant that actually can't answer important possible good effects of alcohol. Any findings from this study that give evidence for some "positive" effect may be really harmful to actual public health. As a friend of mine, a total alcoholic, asked me once "you mean the first two drinks are good for me?" On top of this, most of the work in this area has been bad science corrupted by industry. And here is some of the best info we have on this topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19594799
5
Sorry, I just can't get my knickers in a twist (as the article implies I should do) about this. There has been plenty of evidence around for decades that moderate alcohol is good for many, if not most, people. The hysterical anti-booze lobby has done its best to hide, squash, or distort any such evidence (no doubt using plenty of tax dollars to do so). Therefore, I'm OK with booze manufacturers helping to pay for this. Study all information with skepticism; be aware of who benefits, make your own decisions.
5
Is it really that harmful to the alcohol industry's bottom line for people to know that alcohol is not good for them?
Hasn't it always been known that alcohol is bad for you? It says so right on the label of most alcoholic drinks; "may cause cancer." People will still want to drink anyways. Alcohol tastes good and makes you feel good.
Most people really want to feel good. Just look at how prevalent depression has become, there are a lot of sad people out there, even among the career successful. I wouldn't think widespread knowledge that alcohol is bad for you would mean that alcohol consumption would be going away any time soon.
31
Maturitas. 2015 Jan;80(1):3-13.
The impact of moderate wine consumption on health.
Artero A1, Artero A2, Tarín JJ3, Cano A4.
Abstract
"Wine is a traditional beverage that has been associated with both healthy and harmful effects. Conceptions like the so-called "French paradox" or the beneficial impact of the Mediterranean diet suggest benefit.... the key question is whether wine offers additional benefits. Resveratrol, a non-flavonoid compound, and quercetin, a flavonol, have received particular attention. There is much experimental work confirming a beneficial balance for both substances, particularly resveratrol, in various organs and systems. The pharmacological dosages used in many of those experiments have shed doubt, however, on the clinical translation of those findings. Clinical studies are limited by their observational nature as well as for the difficulties to abstract the benefits of wine from other confounders. Notwithstanding the doubts, there is reasonable unanimity in beneficial effects of moderate wine consumption in cardiovascular disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, maybe neurological diseases, and longevity. Observations are less enthusiastic in what refers to cancer. While considering these limitations, clinicians may spread the message that the balance of moderate wine consumption seems beneficial."
3
I would bet there is "research" out there, albeit a bit dated, that states "one cigarette a day is not harmful for one's health."
1
Alcohol is a depressant. Drinkers feel good at first, as it takes the edge off of anxiety. However, having one drink a day, will depress the central nervous system. My doctor recommended abstaining completely from alcohol and I feel better because of it and have more energy.
2
Is this from the Onion or Mad Magazine?
Any study of a product funded by the very industry that makes it is suspect and therefore a worthless endeavor. We have seen this in the medical literature for many years; that is why conflicts of interest are reported with every peer reviewed article in every reputable medical journal.
“We do things right at N.I.H.,” he said. “ and how much is the quoted person getting paid by this grant.
Ok, I give up. Spend the money to build the wall instead. Two worthless ideas, at least one will have something to show for it: a corroding wall for which we will have to have another study to fund its removal.
6
The antidotal family stories of individuals do not prove anything. Just because someone drank a lot throughout their lives does not prove that it’s a good idea for the everyone to drink freely. Drink if you want to...but let’s not pretend there are no consequences or negative side effects.
2
Classic example of "conflict of interest". The continual blurring of right and wrong, fact and fantasy throughout our entire society whether in politics, scientific research, investigative journalism - through the entire fiber of America.
Makamal should be censored by the faculty review and state medical boards - not allowed to be the spokesperson for 'fake' science.
3
The massive impact on routine sleep is a worldwide problem with alcohol.
72 hours of alcohol free sleep is glorious!
2
This reaseach has nothing to do with knowledge. It is a propaganda program and any future claim should be taken as such. An independent study on the consequences of alcohol use would be even more important after the disguised promotional advertising claims of this study are released.
2
If the proposed study is to be publicly available once completed ad the outcome is expected to approve 'moderate' daily drinking based on exclusions for high risk people, how may people with read the (usually) 'small font' message in the exclusion? Will there be a label/message on bottles of beer, wine and spritis that idicate that 'moderate ddaily drinking' is approved by NIH and the definition and exclusions of those deselected as candidates for the study readily available? Something doesn't jive and it isn't necessarily the industry funding. Why would anyone promote moderate drinking to young adukts of drinking age? I suggest that incidence of DUI may be aoutcome that would not be subject to test but oftentakes a serious toll of roaday accidents on the young adults who have a higher propensity to drink and drive - espesially young males, and end up dead after a night of 'moderate drinking'.
Tip of the iceberg. Science is an industry with a managerial/financial model and assumptions shared by government, higher education, and other corporatized entities that must operate in a certain advanced form of market economy. It is subordinate to the same managerial revolution that has spread over the most developed parts of the globe. The scientists who operate in this milieu are business people. The scientific and intellectual effects of this are well-known and include publication bias and replication crisis and a massive bureaucracy of agenda-ridden managers and administrators who distribute funds.
This system produces incredible sophistication, stupidity, and low levels of honesty all at the same time. It also produces some good science, but rarely with the "impact" and "implications" and "results" advertised. It is also like education in that every reform imaginable requires increasing and strengthening the bureaucracy, which just reproduces and amplifies the strengths and weaknesses of the system--and requires more money and more time.
1
Addictive, and dangerous, our government should not be trying to sell alcohol to anyone. So many people have poor judgement, when it comes to alcohol, much to the detriment of their health.
2
As soon as I read the alcohol industry paid for the study I knew it was fake report. The World Health Organization found in 1988 that no amount of alcohol is safe. It causes so much cancer it should have a skull with bones in a x on the warning labels. The poor uneducated souls who still drink daily should not receive health care knowing this and I have no sympathy when they are diagnosed with alcohol related cancers. You do the lifestyle you suffer the consequences.
To: The Vatican, Rome
From: Galileo
Re: Research Grant
Dear Gentlemen: It has come to my attention that you may have the means and motive to help finance a research project that I would like to undertake in regard to the findings of Copernicus and others.
It has further come to my attention that you will be most generous if I can assure you, discretely, in advance that my findings support the hypothesis that the earth is a flat disc and that the sun revolves around it.
Looking forward to your help at the earliest instance....etc., etc.
3
Two quick thoughts.
This doesn't mean we should throw the credibility of the NIH out with the bathwater.
The totality of their work is positive and useful I'm sure.
Thanks Founding Fathers and Mothers for emphasizing the critical, indispensable role of a free, curious, inquiring, aggressive press so that we free Americans can stay informed about the issues that affect us and our union.
Let no squirly, con-man scoundrel turn us away from the guarantors of our freedom - the people who keep us informed so we can make best choices and govern ourselves effectively.
2
As a retiree trying to live my remaining years as healthily as possible, I've tried to limit my drinking to the 'recommended' level, but this article is so reminiscent of the tobacco and cigarette industry disinformation campaigns, that I realize that it could well be a mistake to keep further potentially compromising my future by continued ingestion of 'safe amounts' of a known toxin. As part of the precautionary principle, at this point maybe ethanol should stay in gas tanks instead of being recommended as part of a healthy, well-balanced diet. I think I'll go right now and pour out that disgusting cherry flavored whiskey I mistakenly bought yesterday!
It would be nice to have real scientific knowledge on this subject to guide behavior, but it's apparent that this study isn't going to provide it!
59
Why on earth would you drink (cherry whiskey?) when you live in a place where pot is legal, has lots of potential benefits, and no downside to your mature body and brain? Just don't smoke it.
1
I'm speculating that when the funding was in place, Dr. Mukamal opened a bottle of champagne and consumed more than one glass.
1
Why dont we ask some of the major drug cartels to fund studies into the actual effects of various illegal substances? Especially marijuana...
Seems the cartels would be favorable to such studies...plus it would help them launder their cash...
2
Thank you for spotlighting corporate interests funding government "research".
This is yet another example of a Foundation set up to influence government.
Science and policies for sale!
There also is a CDC Foundation that GM funded to get CDC to amend Triage Guidelines to reduce exposure to liability in crash lawsuits.
See
https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/CFCV-MonthlyReport-March2014-...
"But, referring to the alcohol industry, Dr. Gunzerath said, 'If we had a clinical trial, and it was a positive result — which we thought it might be, you sort of think you know where it’s going — they’d be happy.'"
And if they were not happy with the results, would the data from the study still be made public, or would the conclusions be shelved?
67
Captured by Wall Street, NIH is no longer a credible source for education, it is just a place to disseminate industry propaganda.
What next? NIH announces an industry sponsored research program that determined moderate smoking is good for your health?
The rich believe government exists to advance the best interests of the rich with no concern about the impact their bad behavior has on our country. Where will we get the information we need to keep us safe from corporate harm? Nowhere.
So where is the opposition? Spineless. The Democratic party keeps closely tucked in behind Republican shock troops in a giant deception to make us believe we have a choice. Our two party family shares a common Wall Street mother.
What a shame Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on the importance of independent government oversight to prevent us from being poisoned or shot to death as a result of Wall Street corruption.
I'm learning that Republicans believe being poisoned or shot to death as a result of Wall Street or Russian influence is the ultimate measure of our patriotism.
And I'm learning that Democrats are never going to grow a spine.
One should not extrapolate the behavior of one bad apple, to one of the world finest medical institutions whose results is the foundation of medicine that saves many many lives!!
Makes me embarrassed to be a behavioral scientist. No one will take this work seriously because of the funding source.
What does Mukanal's description of his job as "to educate" mean? That he predetermined his findings so that his work could be funded by a biased industry?
Harvard and Yale should not tolerate this from their faculty.
1
I am about to retire from a 46 year career on the front lines of addiction treatment which is one of the alternative modes of the social control of the collateral damage caused by addiction (the other is incarceration). Alcohol (ethanol) is a moderately addictive but highly toxic and powerful drug. It kills more people year in and year out than we are seeing at the peak of the opioid crises. Furthermore, many if not most of individuals we see with opioid use disorders have a history of alcoholism. Here is the most stunning fact about alcohol consumption from studies that have been repeated and replicated numerous times: 10% of adults drink 70% of the alcohol consumed (in units of absolute ethanol). This means that 70% of the industries profit can be attributed to 10% of their customers. Over 30% of adults don't drink at all, yet the CDC says every standard drink of alcohol correlates with roughly $1.85 in social costs, which are a burden carried by taxpayers. Drink responsibly? That's the advice of the liquor industry, but they would be in big trouble if their customers followed that advice! We have been attempting to get a $.05/drink tax on beverage alcohol in Minnesota for 30 years to offset the $500 million costs of alcohol abuse in our state. We have never managed to get a penny due to the busloads of lobbyists from the "beverage" industry. People are dying young from opioid overdose, which is devastating, but more people die as a result of alcohol.
4
I use a spray bottle filled with cheap vodka mixed and white vinegar to clean my bathroom and kitchen. Alcohol is an excellent solvent and disinfectant, and I don't have to worry about breathing the fumes. I'm delighted to learn that it MIGHT EVEN BE GOOD for my health.
1
I know way too many people struggling with alcohol addiction, four of whom have died from complications associated with alcohol. Drinking is a scourge. The promotion of "moderate" consumption as good for your health is a crime and a lie. TV shows, movies and industry have colluded in normalizing daily, regular drinking. There are studies that show that moderate drinking affects your brain negatively and has no positive benefits for your heart or any other aspect of your health, which makes total sense to me. Alcohol is a neurotoxin. Consuming other neurotoxins in small amounts doesn't make you healthier either. Why should it be true for alcohol? I can eat grapes or other forms of the beneficial substances in wine without drinking the wine. And now it turns out that the NIH was in on the whole charade. US society is about money and power, and nothing else. Any pretense of values happens at the fringes for the purposes of optics. I am disgusted every day all the time.
4
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Big Alcohol money has been a powerful influence in our country for over a hundred years.
Alcohol kills far more Americans every year than guns do, in addition to a massive daily infliction of non-fatal harm -- mangled DUI victims, beaten women, abused, neglected, and orphaned children, broken families, ruined careers -- that guns could never dream of achieving. Yet when liberals talk or write about alcohol, it tends to be shameless gourmandizing about favorite foreign wines or local craft brews, apparently free from any qualms about societal collateral.
Your uncontrolled access to alcohol comes at horrific cost to your fellow Americans. Measures that are often proposed for common-sense gun control (background checks, purchase limits, banning domestic abusers) are obviously appropriate, but they're much more urgently needed in the case of alcohol. Let's start having that conversation, please.
1
Good to have this article in print.
The "results," whatever they are, are not going to be accepted by the scientific community because the investigation is corrupt.
Period.
Alcohol is a drug, plain and simple. The way many adults act giddy about it (Gee, if there's wine/beer I'll be there!, etc.) and the way industry flogs it, and the media normalizes (and hypes) it, it's no wonder to me that the kids of this generation are losing their lives, both literally and figuratively, to drug addiction. In my youth we'd point out to our parents (who were in a dither about our generation using pot and LSD) that alcohol is a drug, too. Kids today are just as aware.
Disclaimer: Alcohol has caused serious illnesses and death in my family for generations, not to mention it spoiled every special occasion during my childhood by making my father argumentative and my mother act in ways that made her seem scarily like a stranger to me. Personally, I don't care what "health benefits" the study uncovers, I wouldn't touch the stuff. Nor would I want to model it's use for my kids. There are much better ways to maintain your health - with no cancer, no strokes, no suicide, no liver damage, and no frightened children in the mix.
6
To understand this better: "one drink" each day equals 4 ounces of wine for women and 8 ounces for men. Pursuant to N.I.H. studies and the large Cancer associationd. For women, that is half of a very small cup- not what anyone considers a glass of wine.
2
Of course. What could possibly be wrong with this? I shake my head in wonder.
As Mr. Trump cuts back funding to all sorts of agencies, I cannot imagine where the money for this and other research would come from other than interested parties such as manufacturers.
On the other hand, there appears to be no monitoring in the model to know whether a participant actually drinks one drink every day, skips some days or drinks more on some days. We know that self-reporting can be very unreliable.
Then there is the issue of those who are excluded for various reasons. To whom will the results of the study apply? Only to those who drink only one drink every day or most days.
Finally, I must comment that although I do not know Dr. Krystal personally, I have attended a number of seminars he has led and presented at. Hints in this article that he was unethical do not match the character of the man I have observed.
2
Previous studies that showed that moderate drinking of alcohol was healthier than abstention failed to take into account that many of those who abstain were previous alcoholics who's health had already compromised by their previous drinking. When that subset it's eliminated, the relationship between drinking and death rate becomes linear - the more you drink, the poorer your health and the higher the death rate.
65
My online research shows otherwise. Quote your source.
The best practices of science involve funding that is independent of special interests and the construction and conduct of experiments to test hypotheses by researchers who have a healthy skepticism toward the hypothesis to be tested. Neither of these practices were employed in this particular study. The problem with the approach taken by the NIAAA and the N.I.H in this study is that it is very difficult to prevent confirmation bias in the the design and conduct of an experiment when that experiment is funded by those who have a pecuniary interest in the results and conducted by researchers who strongly believe that the experiment should show a positive result in line with the goal of the funders. In this particular case the chances of getting invalid results leading to bad science and bad health practice that could negatively affect millions of people are very great indeed.
4
Not sure how the NIH will repair their reputation... if they even think it needs repairing. But this clearly taints any research flowing from the NIH. It's a shame... in a world where the GOP has been working overtime to undermine the publics faith in government, and tRump has been tearing the government norms and institutions apart by hand, it's sad to see a well respected department undermine it's own good intentions.
66
its, not it's.
2
Just imagine if this happened during the Trump administration instead of the Obama admin.
I assure you, the vast majority of NIH funded research is for the study of human disease, in order of mortality, for example, cancer and heart disease. I conduct such research. We need the NIH to conduct research to help continue the advancement of modern medicine.
1
The author of this NYT story and these commentators cannot intelligently comment on the study without reading the study protocol (essentially the rules for conducting the research), without reviewing the investigators and research facilities qualifications and track records for doing research, without reviewing the IRB (Institutional Research Board) oversight for the study, and without reviewing the NIH (National Institute of Health) or FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regulatory oversight of the clinical trial. Furthermore all clinical trials in the USA are published on www.clinicaltrials.gov for the oversight of the public. The author of this NYT story and many these commentators impugn the scientific integrity of the NIH and the study investigators without any evidence that their integrity is compromised. It would be virtually impossible to fund this study without industry sponsorship. I have no doubt that the NIH and study investigators will perform the study and report the results in peer reviewed journals with the highest integrity.
7
Indeed. Many commentators here seem to forget that most drug clinical trials are funded by drug manufacturers. This type of funding mechanism should be fine as long as there is transparency and proper oversight of the design and the conduct of the study.
3
These NIH and probably also CDC foundations are ways that private entities can fund government research. Are these really not initiated or prompted by the government agencies themselves?
For years we have been told there is "No Safe Level Of Exposure" to Class A carcinogens, no matter how highly diluted they may be. That's the ENTIRE basis of the absolute push for mandated government smoking bans with zero options for ventilation or air filtration provided.
Alcohol is a Class A carcinogen. And now the government is not simply going to allow such a carcinogen but plans to RECOMMEND it? And is planning to do so on the basis of studies specifically funded by the alcohol industry?
James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat took an amount from the tobacco industry equal to just the last 5% or so of funding that had been put into it by the American Cancer Society type funds for their landmark study showing that secondary smoke did not cause heart disease. Their research was then thrown out as being worthy of government consideration *not* because of any defects found in their work... but simply because of that 5% "industry taint."
And now we see the Feds actually "courting" Big Alcohol to fund research they've promised will be favorable before it's even done???
If today was April 1st I'd have no problem with this. It's not April 1st. I do have a problem with this.
2
McFadden - really? We drinking Americans have long been seeking healthy justifications to continue our habits. We love it every time wine, or beer and other spirits are deemed helpful...in moderation. Then we can run off and define our parameters for IS moderate.
We do it with all consumables.
Then of course there's the absurd Govt and privately funded FDA food pyramid. That dumb thing has long been supported by US Agri-Biz. Heavy on the cheap and GMO laden stuff.
2
The most long lived corporations on earth are breweries. I have little doubt that will continue unabated.
The study is needed.The industry's goose could be cooked as a result of the study. I suspect the study will help the breweries. Fascinating article.
19
New concept: separation of industry and state.
We pay taxes for the purpose of funding government activity that improves the welfare of we, the People. If the NIH needs money from the private sector to do its job, our taxes are clearly being misallocated.
Cut the defense budget, cut the pork for states, real Citizens United, get money out of elections by publicly funding them, no lobbying/donating/contributing—even on a private level. Voters' monetary contributions to the democratic election process should come from their taxes. Their votes are their voices.
5
The entire study should be abandoned immediately. We've learned a great deal in recent years about how hard it is to accurately capture reality in a scientific study - consider the "replication crisis" in psychology and other areas of science, or widespread issues with the design of many studies - to the point where an industry-funded study run by people who have already assumed the final results should seen for what it is: a complete waste of time.
5
Right. No more studying. Just knowing everything without that.
1
I said "the study," not "all studies."
Amidst the innuendo what the article neglects is that the scientists involved in this work are primarily motivated by uncovering truths about human health. That is their mission and that is what they are professionally rewarded for.
3
I actually have no problem with them getting the alcohol industry to fund this research as long as the study in the end passes scientific rigour, and if the results don’t support their hypothesis that the information is still published unaltered. It’s hard to do these kinds of studies. there’s not enough money in the healthcare business
12
Disgusted to see that the N.I.A.A.A. appeared to be creating a study designed to capture a particular outcome. NIH and its constituent entities should be adhering to the highest standards of research, not pandering to commercial interests.
For shame.
4
"creating a study designed to capture a particular outcome"
Your are wrong. For any scientific study there is a hypothesis to be proven or disproven. The hypothesis for this study is that alcohol consumption in moderation had specific benefits. The study as designed may prove this is correct or incorrect.
7
Sure. Like the many decades of "support" for the tobacco industry by "nine out of ten doctors."
1
As a scientist with a PhD in biology, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that this study is a total joke.
Get ready for more stories like this. Maybe next time it will be Apple or Whole Foods or Fitbit. As a nation we've decided to turn over medical science to industry. The sad truth is that NIH has been underfunded for 20 years and can no longer afford supporting unbiased and important medical research. Many scientists find corporate partnership to be the only viable path for continuing their work. Of course the scientists see the potential for industry bias. No scientist wants his/her work to be tainted, but faced with the reality of funding shortfalls there are few alternatives. Its fine to complain about bias, but only if you're willing to pay for objectivity.
7
Beyond the obvious ethical issue of the alcohol industry funding an NIH study, there is also the selective methodology of studying people who do not have addiction, psychiatric and certain medical issues. This screens out the people who are mostly likely to be harmed by daily drinking.
But the most glaring flaw in this study is - find someone who drinks just ONE alcoholic beverage a day. That person would have more self-control than the rest of us mortals. And this highly self-disciplined person is more likely to follow a sensible diet, exercise daily, and snack on unbuttered popcorn.
11
This process is tainted from the start. The fact that the companies had any say in the study design or the selection of investigators is not how it should work. There should have been an open competition, with review by an impartial panel of experts. The companies should have no role or input into the analyses or preparation for publication. They should see the results when publications have been prepared
As someone who has headed a committee to monitor a clinical trial that had implications for drug companies, I think that the system has been corrupted. The results of this study, if they show a benefit, always will be under a cloud.
9
Arms length may not be long enough to pass the smell test on this research. It's unfortunate to rely on the alcohol industry to fund this research. It cast a big shadow over whatever results it comes up with. Poor planning.
66
Crooked planning,all the way-gimmie the money honey & we give you the OK.
A scientist does not say this,
“a unique opportunity to show that moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases”
A scientist says
“a unique opportunity to ASSESS WHETHER moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases”
My concern is not industry funding an expensive pre designed study, but rather, as the reporter points out:
1) if the reports show a benefit for the people included in the study, the results will be misrepresented as a benefit even for those groups excluded from the study, as happens with the off label use of drugs.
2) the triall is too short to report other (negative) effects of alcohol, such as addiction and cancers.
Thus, the trial, even without industry support (but perhaps with an eye to attract industry funding) has a flawed design that will emphasize positive effects.
In other words, it WAS designed to give it the best chance “to SHOW that moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases”
20
A scientist does not say this,
“a unique opportunity to show that moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases”
A scientist says
“a unique opportunity to ASSESS WHETHER moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases”
You hit the nail on the head, Lynn. They were starting with the conclusion.
5
Even better than that, you should say “a unique opportunity to assess whether moderate alcohol consumption is a risk factor for common disease.”
This sounds like some sort of a full employment act!
1
This is simple economics.
It's more efficient directly to go after the NIH's endorsement of something as "healthy" than to use the traditional method of propping up university studies to create sponsor bias, and to lard the NIH study sections with a particular viewpoint.
Food and CPG companies are rapidly learning that social media clickbait renders all of this obsolete anyway.
3
Seems most commenters are entirely missing the big issue here. The issue isn't whether or not moderate drinking is beneficial (studies differ, and you'll just believe what you want anyway); nor is it whether the methodology is biased; nor is it that this study is funded by the alcohol industry.
The big issue is that the NIH actively "pitched" for funding for a research study to ANY industry with an interest in the outcome, especially when there is any implication of what the likely results will be. That's not just bad science, that's straight up political corruption in my book.
91
Exactly right. It might be corruption from one perspective, but it's rational managerial business strategy from another, and big science has in many respects become a managerial business enterprise. Success is measured by getting funding and publicity. There are rational strategies for that, many of which have little to do with science. Few universities will turn down someone with the right funding and publicity, despite some mild off-camera grumbling from resident experts.
Articles like this can help to raise awareness and are critical in the development of more science-centered science.
8
And if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention! This is clearly reprehensible and UNACCEPTABLE!
1
Utterly corrupt.
Happy St. Patrick's day. Keep your spirits high with or without an alcoholic drink. If a glass or red wine a day keeps HDL high, does not raise blood glucose above the 100mg/dL, does not cause elevation of uric acid resulting in gout, does not cause any liver damage as indicated by higher levels of liver enzymes ALT and AST in blood, does not cause domestic violence or rash driving or inebriation; why not let the alcohol industry claim benefits of very moderate drinking under annual medical supervision. The French lady who lived the longest in well documented history would have port wine regularly, a kilo of chocolates, lots of olive oil. My father's sister who is 92 and whose husband lived to 95 made sure that he had a shot of whiskey with water or soda everyday without fail. Her elder brother who will be 96 in August was in the army also has to have an alcoholic drink everyday. My father who will be 99 in August likes a glass of red wine or whiskey with pomegrante juice in 1 to 3 proportion. I stopped alcoholic drinks over 2 years ago after a bout of gout following Kentucky bourbon but occasionally drink non alcoholic beer (described as sports drink at the winter Olympics in Korea). I did have a Kingfisher beer on Superbowl 2018 evening, but that is after getting my uric acid levels normalized with allopuirnol. In summary, to each his or her own in terms of moderate drinking. There is no need for federally funded tax payer supported research or alcohol industry research.
5
Is it just a coincidence that this story was published on St. Patrick's Day?
If, and only if, the study is legitimately done it would be ok to do it with donated money. That means that the donors get absolutely no inside information on the research - they learn the results when the results are published. The main reason that I am emphatic on this is that if the alcohol companies do learn how the study is going, they will absolutely suggest changes to their own advantage. And the Trump administration, no friend of science, would grant these changes.
2
I believe that first drink is probably good for my health and the second one may also have benefits. After the third one I don't really care.
Happy St. Patrick's Day.
16
". . . people whose health might be compromised by light drinking" are to be excluded. How is this a "randomized" controlled trial?
13
There are exclusions for every study.
Sure - drinking alcohol is a very healthy thing to do.
Reminds me of the physicians and scientists in the 1960's who swore on a stack of bibles that there was no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Their "studies" were funded by - guess who? - tobacco companies....
44
As a scientist, I think that a careful analysis of who funds research is very important and should be included with every research report/publication, along with the methodology used to ensure that is is not tainted. Without commenting on the details of this case, which I do not know enough about, I can say that the past example of sugar and tobacco industry-funded research has shown that evidence that does not support the desired conclusions is suppressed, and that gives us reason to be concerned, and this is why the majority of basic research is government-funded. Having said that, however, I think people should recognise that research funding is hard to come by, and the current executive and legislative branches of government are not very friendly to science, so I am not surprised that researchers would look to industry for funding. What you need is mechanisms in place that can completely remove connections between funding and potential outcomes.
159
The article mentions just such a firewall. Funds go to the foundation for NIH, and the funders have no ability to direct the study.
2
Mr./Ms. Scientist:
Of course research must involve communication. A nice gathering of government paid scientists and liquor industry executives in a "open bar" setting would great.
No need to worry about expense.
All of the machinations of this perversion of Science occurred before the "current executive...branch of government" took office. Eisenhower warned us of the insidious relationship between federal science and big business. The warning came right after his MIC comments. That was more than fifty years ago.
I've been drinking regularly and immoderately since I was 15 years old (sixty years ago). I had my annual physical including blood tests last week and as usual everything was perfect. In fact, my doc says I have the health,body and looks of a man 20 years younger,and he tells me "Keep doing whatever you're doing." On the other hand,I see other people my age, some close relatives, who don't drink and they look a wreck.
7
Thanks for the anecdotal evidence of one. This is akin to the old comment, "my grandpa smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, ate nothing but bacon and steak, and lived to 105...".
13
Here is another n=1 story, of a young woman who passed out and froze to death at age 45. Perhaps you've just been lucky that you live in San Diego instead of the Midwest.
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-15/news/ls-32287_1_george-mcgovern
2
There are more old drunks than old doctors.
Last week the members of my church were asked to pray for the repose of the soul of our parish secretary. She died at the age of 99 after 30 years of service. Each morning at 11:00 AM she had one shot of scotch whiskey. It clearly did not do any harm.
12
Except that genetically, she was expected to live to 120; those alcoholic drinks shortened her life by 21 years. Disprove that.
2
I like alcohol. Although, it is the deadliest drug in use in the US. I doubt it has any health benefits but at low to moderate levels it likely does little harm. That said, many people are incapable of limiting their intake and usually suffer because of it. I am not sure that anything can be done. Most people will find some way to destroy themselves. They have been trained to work hard and die young before they collect much retirement benefits. They are good serfs and proud of it.
I am a scientist and I doubt a study funded by the industry that could benefit from a good finding will be done honestly and scientifically. At the very least, the finding will be massaged to imply the outcome that is desired even if the real evidence is to the contrary. People get confused about this. Many studies actually have the opposite conclusion to the cherry picked results presented to the public. This works because most people cannot think critically. Science however never lies, but some scientists do.
21
Aside from the myrad of problems fellow readers have mentioned who will monitor whether participants in this flawed study actually consume (or abstain) from the prescribed number of drinks? If the study depends on self-reporting it is flawed from teh start. What says the one (or two) drink per day person won't add an extra one or two without reporting it?
10
Good point,Barry,since many people regularly lie about the amount of alcohol they consume.even to themselves. There is an old practice of the medical profession that when a doctor asks a patient how many drinks a week the patient has,the doctor should double it.
2
All the hypothesized shortcomings and possible misinterpretations will undoubtedly be addressed in the experimental design, the extended analysis of the data (NIH data is normally open, a reason to do it this way no doubt) in the studies that follow, and the derived scientific experience. Which, as opposed to what seems to be asserted here and by many of the responders, will provide important provisional knowledge open to further study. Given alcohol exists in our society and is used by many as a personal choice and pleasure, such a study should be done. To preordain the study as failed before it’s done, to impugn the scientists involved before you see the work, to presuppose every result and motive then argue it’s wrong before the study is even really started and to somehow know in advance how it *should* turn out is not how knowledge is gained or facts established. That “don’t even collect the data” is some kind of orthodoxy. The same people that argue those that somehow manage to “disbelieve” climate science are ignorant are often the same ones saying, among many things, vaccines are a harmful plot against children proffered by pharma, or that this moderate alcohol study is inherently corrupt before it’s even done. The point is, this study in fact is reasonable and important to do. It asks a question that should be asked in a world where alcohol exists and is used by many. Yes there are alcoholics, etc and that’s bad. Different questions, different studies.
2
When I read the study was paid by the alcohol industry I knew they would say it is good for you. The world health organization in 1988 found the no amount of alcohol is safe. In fact it causes so much cancer to many body parts I am amazed at how many poor souls are drinking it daily. This all needs to come out because it is the truth and many people are in denial about. I feel people who continue to drink any amount of alcohol daily should not get health care and they are putting the burden on the health care system whose workers are over worked from the excesses of alcohol users and tobacco users.
5
Millions of years spent trying to raise our consciousness, only to be told, lowering it might be healthier...
5
I'm an older retiree & would definitely fall in the non-drinker category. I offer this information if the study is in interested in a volunteer in good health wh0 would enjoy the opportunity to feel even better. You can reach me at. .......
3
Light to moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial to light to moderate drinkers who have no history of addictive behaviors or serious illnesses. This really is cutting edge research.
9
You're being sarcastic, right?
What we need is a study funded by taxpayer dollars, not the liquor industry. Look to Consumer Reports as the model. CR uses contributions to test products, all of which are purchased on the open market. CR does not accept any advertising nor industry funds.
92
Yep, I could agree with that. If consumers are so outraged, then let the funding come from them, the taxpayer! These research studies, done right, cost millions of dollars. Where else is that money going to come from?
1
Unfortunately Consumer Reports has been purchased by Sears, so its once vaunted absolute independence is no longer assured.
Consumers Reports is not owned by Sears. It is a completely unbiased organization providing real testing on the most popular products to inform consumers. It would be a nice idea to make sure you are providing real comments instead of alternative facts.
1
Maybe if we funded the NIH properly they wouldn’t have to try to get funding from external sources. That should be the lead on this story.
179
uh, uh. We are made aware that NIH can be tainted. Why is the NIH allowed to take funding from the so-called independent private foundation?
No. NIH is very well funded. This is workfare for certain researchers.
The basic ethical obligation of the legal profession is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. While the ethics of the medical profession begin with doing no harm. Capitalist business ethics require maximizing shareholder owner profitable return.
Science rests in providing the best natural explanation for observed natural phenomenon based upon the best current data information. Using double-blind controlled experimental tests that provide refutable predictable repeatable results is the scientific method for affirmation, disproval or neutrality.
Deciding what phenomena are worthy of scientific study based upon private business funding is a very troubling method for selection among many priorities. The thin veneer of government involvement is a triumphant public subterfuge victory of form over substance.
18
This fits right in with the USDA's food pyramid concept of a healthy diet when it is primarily a marketing tool for agricultural industries. Once exposed, it takes away from the credibility of the government as a provider of sound health and medical information. The CDC, IDSA, and FDA are similarly subject to industry and private profit influence and corruption.
26
The FDA top appointees in this century hasve usually been from industry and overruled the recommendations of the working scientists.
Perhaps there could be a study of the indirect effects of having family members who insist on continuing to drink, howevere moderatly, despite having addicts among them (seems that every family has one). Good luck finding a commercial interest to fund that one. Or, a new study of the effects of very low alcohol taxes on the heavy drinkers who manage to afford enormous amounts of (I believe "Paying the Tab" reported that this is were most of the alcohol sales go. Another suggestion: Let's see if the alcohol and entertainment industry has the same sort of agreements that the tobacco industry has had to cause alcohol consumption to show up so frequently in movies and TV.
11
I vividly remember some research scientists commenting on PBS that alcohol, even in moderate amounts, might play a role in 7 different cancers.
27
Are 2 of those cancer of the liver and esophagus?
They were gonna put the NIH seal of approval on an industry-sponsored study? And there wouldn't have been any disclosure statement either since it was done in the semblance of "arms length" via the foundation. I'll have to think twice before believing any study coming out of NIH from now on.
51
The NIH should return all of the tainted contributions received for this study and cancel it. This is the wrong study at the wrong time. Far too many Americans still suffer from alcohol addiction and abuse, the effects of which often ruin lives and families. We need a study that evaluates the prevalence of those who drink multiple amounts of “moderate” alcohol regularly, and the impact it has on their health and those around them. Perhaps more importantly, this kind of collusion with biased contributors seriously undermines NIH’s moral character and reputation. We need the NIH to retain its independence and high standards, and use its scarce resources to fight so many devastating health issues, not to promote an industry that undermines our health.
225
You are right. There has been 200% increase in the frequency of alcohol abuse among middle aged women in this country in last 15-20 years. Another very critical piece information missed in this domain is the risk of breast and important other solid organ cancers associated with one drink of alcohol each day.
I totally agree this is the wrong study for the wrong time . In addition two drinks can interact with a wide variety of prescription drugs to harm health.
And let's not forget Dr. Saitz' note that they are intentionally not using folks who may have a problem with alcohol, folks who are likely *very* *common*: "...many people whose health might be compromised by light drinking — anyone with a history of addiction, psychiatric, liver or kidney problems, certain cancers or a family history of breast cancer — will not be allowed to participate. People who have never drunk alcohol also are excluded."
A trial will not add scientific value to existing observational data. Lifestyle cannot be faithfully reproduced by randomized trials. The observational data provides evidence that moderate drinking might be beneficial, but if you do not have the habit, it is better not to start drinking. Look at the rates of cancer, heart disease and other conditions of Mormons and Adventists. Public funds should be invested to answer novel research questions.
24
A simple industry tactic is to control the study design such that it will show what they want. The study proposed here will ask the question whether one drink a day in subjects who are at high risk for heart disease will decrease that risk.
Save your money. I can tell you now that the answer will be yes.
But that is not what we really want to know. The real question is, does alcohol, as it is realistically used in our culture, improve users' quality of life, including broad health measures beyond cardiovascular disease, such as cognition, mental health, social functioning, accidents, and all cause mortality.
Medicine is rife with money making treatments based on tightly circumscribed evidence. As an example, treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, now referred to as "stage 0 breast cancer" at oncology institutions, slightly decreases the risk of invasive breast cancer, but does not reduce all cause mortality. And the overall health benefits are uncertain. Same for prostate cancer, back surgery, and countless examples.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
48
As a long time student of biostatistics and having been involved in publishing medical research in journals...one can get statistics to show just about anything that they want to, depending on how the parameters, Z values, and confidence intervals are set up. That is why you have to have non-biased scientists performing and reporting on the research.
16
Not only is the potential bias of this study a problem, but there a potentially numerous methodological problems. For example, there is different levels of ethyl alcohol (ETOH) in different alcoholic beverages. Five oz of wine has roughly the same ETOH content as a 12oz can of beer. If the actual ETOH content each subject in the experimental group consumes is not equal and not monitored, you can't really use that data to make any conclusions about the potential harm or benefit of "moderate" drinking. Apparently, there is also no placebo group in the research design. ETOH is a potent drug. It should be studied like other drugs. The gold standard is a randomized design where the participants are given the exact dame dosage of the drug and placebo group where the participants are given a placebo drug-- usually a sugar pill. In the study mentioned, the exact amount of ETOH should be delivered to the experimental group and a non-alcoholic drink should be given to a control group. This study, funded by the alcoholic beverage industry has the potential of bias and a flawed study design that will simply confirm the biased hypothesis of the principle investigators. Glad my tax dollars are not funding it.
19
The study will say it's funded by the NIH, which is government-funded.
The public should always be wary of "studies" such as this. Many medical studies are financed by private interests such as pharm groups and other special interests as a way to increase market share. Moderate drinking may be healthy for some but but not for those who can't drink responsibly.
10
Another example of what is wrong with healthcare in the US. Industry funding of research is a HUGE red flag and should always call into question both the design of the study and the outcomes. The physicians involved in pandering to the booze industry for money should be ashamed. Supposedly "Do no harm" should be guiding them.
31
"These days, it is not unusual for the N.I.H. to look to business to participate in public-private partnerships to fund medical research." Not unusual?? What other way is there to fund these studies nowadays? Who do you think is going to pay for it? The government? The taxpayers?
19
Better no study than a bad one.
I've seen the best and worst of alcohol in my own family. My father was a successful businessman and enthusiastic social drinker. He lived to be 96 - at home until 95, and was mentally sharp to the end. My brother went off the deep end with alcohol, went through detox twice and had all kinds of expensive therapy etc. etc., but could not stop drinking all the time. He died from complications of alcoholism at 64.
As usual, thanks in part to the beverage industry marketing, there is not one mention in this piece of alcohol being a drug, a hard drug in fact. The beverage industry hypocritically helped finance the "Partnership of a Drug Free America" organization, as a superb example of the charade they are running.
Alcohol is way more dangerous than pot, which is still illegal in most states, but that is changing quickly. America needs to come to grips with the actual drug based nature of alcohol, and rethink our whole attitude towards drugs. Better education about the dangers of alcohol is needed. When Thomas Jefferson, an enthusiastic wine drinker, wrote about certain "inalienable rights", like the "pursuit of happiness", he would surely include the deadly, and potentially addictive hard drug alcohol.
64
"Alcohol is more dangerous than pot." Maybe for the consumer, but definitely not the case for other drivers on the road. One can safely navigate after a glass of wine with dinner -- most of that alcohol has been already processed by the liver -- but a pot-head behind the wheel is terrifying. After three encounters as a passenger with a driver high on grass, I will not get in a vehicle drive by such again, even if the alternative is a ten mile walk.
And, unlike breathalyzers and blood tests for alcohol: There are no equivalent tests for THC. Indeed, while the brain does not retain alcohol, it does absorb and retain THC, well beyond its detectability in the blood stream by all but the most expensive analytical systems.
I enjoy both. But I won't drive until a minimum of 3 hours after the last puff -- and, usually, I reserve that activity for bedtime; then, getting mellow endangers nobody.
7
I think given the premise of the study in question, one could assume the previous poster was referring to personal health safety as opposed to driving safety. It’s true that driving while high is dangerous, it’s just not relevant. Conflating the two casts an unnecessarily grim light over one substance while letting the other off far more lightly. Way too many people die on the road due to drinking and driving every year to brush it off as a nonissue. Personally, I wouldn’t allow a person who had even one drink with dinner to drive me anywhere and would recommend treating alcohol with as much care as you treat weed.
2
as a past frequent user of both alcohol and pot - no comparison - alcohol is by far the most destructive.
3
And who funded the studies that brought us false narratives of a low-fat, high sugar diet for the last generation or longer? No hard data here, but I'm guessing the packaged food industry was complicit in that American tragedy, resulting in addictive consumption of sugary foods (causing physical reactions not unlike those of alcohol and opiate abuse in our bodies). Results have been widespread obesity, a diabetic health pandemic and an expensive domino effect in health care costs and, ultimately contributing to the widening of income inequality.
92
There is hard data about who funded the false narratives on sugar. Please read Gary Taubes' "The Case against Suger," or any of Gary's other wonderfully researched books.
1
USDA dietary guidelines from 1980-2015 can be found at the following link:'
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/
Perhaps after studying the information, some who recommended Jeff's comment will come to a different conclusion.
People with numerous health conditions were excluded. To find the exclusions the people were tested. This means they would find issues that the people did not know they had. The results of the study will not apply to people with the exclusions, but people with these exclusions reading the study won't know it doesn't apply to them.
15
"If the health effects of moderate drinking are a priority for the N.I.H., she added, “they should fund it themselves.”"
With what money? NIH money comes from taxpayers like me. Why not get industry to pay, just like the drug industry pays to test their products. Funding does not necessarily imply bias if the research is properly structured and monitored. Just give industry funded research more scrutiny.
10
Well, the Congress could have used some of the $80 billion allocated to the Defense Dept OVER AND ABOVE what DOD said they needed. There are plenty of other items in the budget that could have been more rationally applied to NIH.
An answer to "Why not get industry to pay?" was in the paragraph just before the one you cited: "We know that industry funding not only affects the results of studies but affects the questions that are asked, how the results are analyzed and what the answers are,” said Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a professor of pharmacology at Georgetown University and director of Pharmed Out, a group that researches drug marketing.
To move the discussion forward, it would be good to address this claim.
Finally. Some reason.
There is strong evidence that there is a link between the level of alcohol consumption and several types of cancer. The link is strong enough that in 2017 the American Society of Clinical Oncology, for the fist time, published a paper outlining the details of their findings: http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.1155 ("Alcohol and Cancer: A Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology").
It is possible that one might see benefits in other types of illnesses, but we should all hope that we don't end up with another example of industry paying for research results it wants, for yet more examples of the "Merchants of Doubt": http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/ .
Balancing risks and benefits of alcohol is tricky business. Blanket recommendations are not possible: there are too many variables. Depending on individual circumstances, risks can be none or minimal--or far greater.
29
The key point of this article is Dr. Gunzerath's defense of the study parameters. The institute's mission is to prevent alcoholism, and this makes for a clear bias in the institute's research: only alcoholism is studied and not alcohol use itself (this in itself ignores the experience of 80%+ of the population). The possible bias in having the liquor companies fund this research is completely appropriate given the puritanical bias of the institute itself. If it can only look for alcoholism, then it is forbidden from research into possible positive effects from alcohol use, and the use of outside corporate funds in this instance is warranted.
6
So long as the data upon which the conclusions are based are properly vetted, I have no issue with the producers of a product helping fund the study thereof. That’s common. All prospective new drugs are put through clinical trials -- at the expense of their creators, who will then benefit financially on a huge scale, with a product supposedly of value to humanity that only they, by patent law, are allowed to produce.
A study published in "Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research in 2010" investigated the mortality rates of people who do not drink alcohol, people who drink moderately (one to three drinks per day), and people who drink heavily. Researchers, led by University of Texas professor Charles Holahan, found that the lowest mortality rate occurred among moderate drinkers. Surprisingly, the highest mortality rate occurred among those who didn’t drink at all—it was higher than that of heavy drinkers.
No one company – indeed, no one beverage category – is betting its financial future on this study. I expect it to be rigorously monitored, particularly with the furor it is already raising, and any attempt by its corporate sponsors to influence its design or sway its conclusion will be discovered and trumpeted by the press.
In short: Relax. Have a sip or two of wine with your dinner. You will feel much much better.
13
The problem in this study is not in the way the data will be eventually vetted, but in the way the study was designed in the first place. T
They're not even controlling the intake of alcohol -- they're simply recommending to the treatment group that they have "one serving" of alcohol a day, and to the control group that they abstain. It all depends on the compliance of the subjects. In similar studies, for example of weight-loss diet or exercise, they have low compliance rates.
This study should have been a randomized, controlled trial, in which one group was delivered an alcoholic beverage and the other group got a similar beverage with the alcohol removed.
In a study like this, if you have low compliance, then the effect of the alcohol will be weaker -- it will be more likely to come out saying that alcohol has no harmful effects (even if it does).
Vetting after the facts can't control for that. It can't control for a poorly-designed study.
3
According to the study design posted on clinicaltrials.gov, participants will be asked to consume ~15 gm daily of beer, wine, or spirits for ~6 years.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03169530?recrs=abc&titles=Mod...
Marcy: Correction: 15 gm of alcohol. That corresponds to one beer, one 5 oz serving of wine, one shot of 80 proof liquor. Hardly a threat, to anyone.
Let's face it. We can't trust anything anymore. Politics, science, environment, medicine and pharmaceuticals, all bought and paid for the conclusions reached. Everyone knows that stats can be manipulated to reach the conclusion desired. Always follow the money. Don't believe anything you read.
103
Tricia:
Your views are increasingly common, even if cynical and potentially destructive: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2975&cont... ("Expertise and Disbelief: Post-1945 American Attitudes Toward the Authority of Knowledge," 2015).
Your assertions are quite different from what scientists understand as the importance of ignorance and failure in the advancement of science.
2
I disagree. Most studies are not funded like this and the fact that it made an article in the times is a very positive and healthy sign. Now everyone reading the results in 10 years will be extra critical about the methodology and very careful about extrapolating the results to the larger population.
1
Especially if the money leads to any government agency. They are the most corrupt of all.
If one likes his alcohol of choice, most informed people end up asking their doctor . Like so many medical professional guidelines, you get the quick answer 1 drink a day for females, two for men. Reminds of of a BMI index professionals use for weight, as if one size fits all. Most western Democracies governemnt's in conjunction with hypertension bodies, oncologist etc. have alcohol consumption guidelines . I was amazed however how they differ, especially Canada and Australia, if I recall. Canada as example, as have other governments, broken down their studies by type of Alcohol as well. To exaggerate two glasses of wine are no comparison to two martini's. Big big caution to day is having an ultrasound to determine fatty liver. Then with no cure for fatty liver people are told to stop drinking. Problem is most people with fatty Liver disease are not drinkers.
9
Wine is part of a meal. It is chosen to complement the dish served.
As such it is a pleasure.
Pleasure is good for health.
Until we understand the causes of alcoholism and other addictions, is it wise to think of recommending "a daily alcoholic drink as part of a healthy lifestyle?"
26
Yes, it is. Everything a non- sensitive consumers ingests is harmful to someone out there with an intolerance for the substance. We don't outlaw milk because there are so many that are lactose-intolerant.
Yes, alcohol is not an essential nutrient. But does improve the quality of life for the moderate drinker -- and that user's longevity. That has been proven in multiple studies.
8
Moderate intake of alcohol as defined by the CDC is two drinks a day for men, but excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for approximately 88,000 deaths a year in the United States.
Excessive alcohol consumption begins with moderate drinking, and someone is lucky to be satisfied with two drinks a day for an extended period before their body becomes tolerant and they become physiologically dependent. This study benefits the industry because one of its indirect implications is to encourage conditions for addiction, especially if someone is already prone to it because of genetics, socio-economic background, brain chemistry, etc.
33
Countries where wine is always served with the main meal do not have a greater number of alcoholics than we do in the US. In particular, the Mediterranean diet that always includes wine has been shown to be beneficial.
Only some alcohol drinkers are at risk for addiction. This is similar to being allergic to any substance. For instance, people allergic to wheat, crave it. So if you're allergic to alcohol, of course you should stay away from it. But if moderate alcohol drinking doesn't lead to immoderate drinking (as I suspect is the case for the majority of people) then a glass or two of wine or beer is not an automatic prelude to alcohol addiction (aka alcoholism)
If there was no industry sponsored research on nutrition there wouldn’t be much at all, since serious research on nutrition is so expensive.
9
And much of it is truly shoddy....
Much of this type of research seems to be a waste of time and money. People have been consuming alcohol for thousands of years with probably the same results. Moderate drinking is probably not very harmful but seems a stretch to claim it’s good for you. On the other hand, excessive drinking is well known to cause major and long term problems for individuals, families, and communities.
64
Scott:
Millennia ago average life expectancy was roughly 20 years. Circumstances and consequences are not remotely the same. This is a serious public health issue and should not be waved away in dismissive fashion.
11
It's not a waste of time and money for the deceivers' goal: fooling people into buying poison for their bodies, luring them into deadly complacency.
You don't seem to grasp the gravity and greed of their mission.
I agree with JSK. Moderate drinking needs to be studied and understood. I've had docs who believed no drinks were always better than my daily 1-2 drink intake (once a month I drink more), and others who said what you say, and one who actually thought a glass of wine a day was better than none. No one really knows and a study like this is very much needed for people like me. If it showed even 1-2 is bad I would stop. Unfortunately this study's tainted funding will make it harder to believe the results if positive.
What is happening at the NIH? Their last, very public study-SPRINT-pushed blood pressure guidelines for systolic back to 120 after Cochrane had an extensive analysis of studies that indicated no harm in sbp less than 160 for seniors. SPRINT got the publicity because it sells more drugs-and no, doctors are not going to be prescribing off-patent generics, as some have suggested. Paralleling the current article, the lead investigator of SPRINT was asked what it would mean if the higher (sbp 140 group) did better than the sbp 120 group and his response was basically, "I don't see that happening". Why do a study if you already have decided the outcome? Moderate drinking in men is currently defined as two drinks a day; why wasn't that included? The really good outcome of this NYT article is that the results of the study will be looked at very, very carefully. To this scientist's mind, the experimental design is too flawed to yield meaningful results. For people that can't wait for the study results, here they are: there will be no difference between the one drink a day group and the abstainers, hence drinking is fine.
18
Thank you. We'll said.
Speaking as both a recovered alcoholic (29 years) and one who has worked in the field of substance abuse, I will say that the unpredictability of the human response to alcohol merits caution. Some can drink vast quantities all their life and be (seemingly) unaffected. Others go into full alcohol dependence almost immediately. The problem is particularly acute among the elderly: mixing an afternoon sherry with daily meds can be--often is--deadly. All-in-all, the message is consistent: if you must and can drink, well and good, but be aware. As the old mapmakers used to add to their maps: "Here be dragons."
101
This is an excellent article. Before it is even launched, the research study is damaged goods and will have no credibility. The liquor companies aren’t funding this because they are concerned citizens. They’re doing so in anticipation of results that will help them sell more booze. Is there nothing left that is not for sale in America?
209
Next up--a study by the Center for Disease Control on the health and social benefits of gun ownership. The study will encourage participants to purchase many different types of guns throughout the course of the experiment. Semi-automatic weaponry will also be part of the study for a more wholistic view of their effects on a more beneficent society. To be funded in whole or in part by Sturm Ruger, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson and the NRA.
266
better yet, how about a study as to why some people believe that murder is OK in the first place?
1
Brilliant comment by a women with a crystal ball.
And don't forget to eliminate negligent discharges, suicides, and domestic violence as endpoints in the study. Just study home invasion prevention.
The stated hypothesis of this study is that moderate alcoholic consumption by individuals who have no negative predisposition (addiction, cancer histories, etc.) may be a good choice.
The vast majority of humanity has consumed alcohol (also eggs, meat, dairy products, etc.) for most of recorded history. The dangers of excessive alcohol consumption are pretty well documented.
I'm not sure that the results are going to change many minds or habits. So, perhaps, it is best that the funds are provided by the alcohol industry.
Our tax money can then be spent for more pressing medical issues. May I suggest inquiry into why-KNOWING that cigarettes, obesity, addictions and indolence are unhealthy-Americans are still so accepting of them. These health choices are costing us a fortune and killing us. Let's tackle the big issues first.Then we can debate the exact milliliter level of safe alcohol consumption.
23
The otherwise validity of your comment is marred by you using the term "indolence" . Are you making a moral judgement on anyone suffering from an illness? As for obesity, look up recent studies. In many cases it is a matter of hormonal and/or genetic make up. Again it calls for empathy and not opprobrium.
1
If the alcohol industry wants to fund a 10-year study on moderate alcohol drinking, it can do so and the results can be reported. The results would show industry sponsorship.
The problem in this study is it has the NIH imprimatur. We are misled to think it is not industry funded, that it has no pre-ordained outcome. Alas, the NIH has soiled its reputation for independence.
1
While this is deeply troubling from the point of view of scientific objectivity, my greatest worry is that incidents such as this one will add fuel to the fire for critics of science and fact-based research. I can only imagine the blowback that the already-embattled NIH will receive because of this scandal, if it is indeed true. While this article points to problems in its oversight process, the NIH is the one if the bedrocks of public health research funding and if its opponents succeed in curtailing its otherwise-invaluable efforts, we all will suffer.
25
Well, Andrew C: if the NIH has in fact done something that undermines scientific objectivity, don't you think this provides "scientific" (factual) support for the idea that the NIH may have problems with bias? Why do you assume that its actions are "otherwise-invaluable"? Any intelligent person who needs to make health decisions benefits from being able to see all of what's behind a research study.
1
i would be happy to participate in this study. My requirements are simple:
a bottle of Johnnie Walker Red every two months, and some Goslings now and then. These items will help me wind down from my stressful job as doorman at the chicken coop, where I am tasked with opening the door whenever the Wolf passes by.
8
Please consider moving up to Black or better and I'll join you with some IPAs !
Unless the data are fudged what is the problem? The results could be detrimental to the alcohol industry.
The major problem with research these days is the file drawer problem, where results that are inconvenient are simply kept in a file drawer and not published.
But here the study is public. Everyone will know if the data are being suppressed. They can't be filed away in a drawer.
I say let the alcohol industry fund it. It's better than using my tax dollars. Then my tax dollars can be used for other studies.
9
One of the problems is that the investigators have already said "wink wink" that the industry will likely benefit from the results.
11
BA: Evidence for your assertion, please?
I’m on my way to an AA meeting ar 6:30 AM. I’m living proof that a small amount of alcohol daily is clearly not good for my health. I associate with hundreds of people for whom this is true. Before we just dive into a pot of money from the alcohol companies, I’d welcome a study of this issue. My guess is that for many, maybe even most any alcohol is just not a good thing.
135
I go to AA meetings also. The last thing alcoholics need is another reason to drink! Health reasons! Tell that to all the families of people who have died from alcoholism.
I would say alcoholics probably make up 80-90% of alcohol consumption. A normal drinker will drink at the most 3 drinks in one night. That is nothing for an alcoholic -- a 12-pack of beer, a quart of booze, a gallon of wine is normal. The liquor industry would not be as successful as it is today without the alcoholic consumer.
4
Some people can drink in moderation, but a lot of people either can't or shouldn't.
2
Did you stick to a small amount of alcohol daily? If you go to AA you probably didn’t and you are blaming the alcohol rather than yourself for drinking more tha one drink daily, don’t you think?
2
"Esophageal cancer
Most studies have shown that alcohol is the primary risk factor."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4021327/
69
Humphrey Bogart died from esophageal cancer and he was a notorious drinker and cigarette smoker. However, my grandfather a heavy drinker and cigarette smoker most of his life is still alive, albeit pretty much homebound in his 80s. My grandmother, who I've never seen drink and never smoked is now struggling through her third bout of cancer in roughly 10 years. She's always been an active and hardworking person, but was raised in the south on a carb heavy and saturated fat heavy diet without adequate vegetables. Even getting her to eat better now that she sick is a struggle.
When I visited Italy and France I noticed that most people were much more careful about how much and what they eat then how much they drink. Not to say that we shouldn't limit alcohol consumption, but perhaps we shouldn't ignore the connection between Rising obesity rates and cancer, not to mention chronic illnesses like hypertension and diabetes.
3
Don’t pay any attention to that study...wasn’t funded by the alcohol industry.
If corporations and individuals benefiting from a scientific study's specific outcome are asked to help pay for that study, why would anyone believe the results are genuine?
The Center for Disease Control's opioid reduction recommendations were reached by a committee led by Andrew Kolodny, who was previously director of Phoenix House, a chain of drug rehabilitation centers. The committee failed to include medical doctors who specialized in treating chronic pain. It reached the conclusion that Americans were "over-medicated" on opioids and recommended across the board reductions in opioid prescriptions.
In a country where corporations are treated as people whose lifeblood is profit, it should come as no surprise when "scientific" studies produce results that benefit financial sponsors.
Major corporations with deep pockets have discovered that agencies ostensibly protecting the public are more than pleased to receive their donations.
In America's medical institutions, those with sufficient financial resources really do get what they pay for.
53
Yes, but the general public is usually unaware of the industry sponsorship of the study, or the sponsorship is hidden, as would be the case here, with NIH being the source of the funding.
In addition, most media reporting does not include the funding sources; in this case, how would the media even know of the hidden source of NIH funding?
1
Every public institution in this country is for sale.
1
Whenever I read a research study, the first thing I do is to go to the end and see who funded it. Almost every published study that has an industry sponsor shows results that are favorable to that sponsor. The fact that NIH has already picked a lead investigator with a bias only reinforces this fact.
By excluding from the study the many groups of subjects who may be harmed by alcohol ingestion, the investigators are skewing their results even before the study commences.
NIH needs to be given the funds from government to conduct impartial, unsponsored research if it is to,produce the type of quality studies that can be believed.
168
However, scientific inquiry always starts with a question & a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is that moderate drinking provides health benefits that may help people live longer than abstinence. My initial reaction to the headline was that I was about to read about a tainted study. However, by the time I finished reading the article, I came away much less concerned because the industry funding went to a foundation & not directly to the study. I believe the foundation is, indeed, enough of a "firewall" to guard against tainting the results.
8
You should reread this part of the article:
The research will attempt to track the risks of drinking, but critics say it may not fully capture the harms. For one thing, the study will be too short to detect an increase in cancers linked to alcohol consumption, which may take decades to develop.
In addition, two servings has long been considered moderate drinking for men. Lowering the threshold may reduce falls, car accidents and alcohol abuse among the subjects; but one drink daily also may not reflect real-life habits.
Moreover, many people whose health might be compromised by light drinking — anyone with a history of addiction, psychiatric, liver or kidney problems, certain cancers or a family history of breast cancer — will not be allowed to participate. People who have never drunk alcohol also are excluded.
“You’re picking off the people who are most likely to have the harms,” said Dr. Richard Saitz, chair of the Department of Community Health Sciences at Boston University School of Public Health, after reviewing the parameters of the study.
Despite its shortcomings, M.A.C.H. may well be the last word on the subject of moderate drinking, since trials like these are both expensive and logistically complicated to carry out.
1
I agree, however , the taint is larger than just the liquor industry. This reflects the general reduction in independent moral likely coming the top, this time coming coming from the disgraced Secretary of Health Education, and Welfare , Tom Price, and originating from the morally blind Trump. Many can be tainted , even historically respectable scientific organization , when the corruption flows down from the very top. This process is happening all over our government now at a lightening fast pace.
4
Mixing targeted industry funding with research, even advertising what the projected results would be, not only undermines the credibility, but risks real injury to a society already beset with alcohol abuse related problems. This is not worthy of the NIH.
103
I don't think people abusing alcohol will be swayed one way or another by this study's results. Only people who drink that 1-2 a day now or are wondering if they should might change their behavior. That's exactly why it is important that a study like this be done, but it would've been much better had it been done with untainted funds.
2
It's possible for research to be funded by industry while still being objective. The most concerning aspect of this case is that the lead researcher had a clear stake in arriving at a particular conclusion. If the study shows no benefits, it sounds like such a result would cut against much of his previous work. If the project had been proposed by someone in the opposite position, would the alcohol industry have funded it?
22
Possible, yes, ATS. Probable, no. There's a reason why industry funds such studies and it's usually a thing called money.
15
I understand the power of money, including the power of money to corrupt. But this doesn't mean industry-funded research should never happen. It means it should only happen under strict oversight, which is the role the NIH may have abdicated in this case.
7
Industry funded studies that are critical of the industry never see the light of day. It’s imply naive to think otherwise.
5
A tainted study is worse than no study at all.
258
The study should get a spectrum of drinking habits and let them consume alcohol or not consume alcohol at will. Daily usage can be smart phoned into a data base. Data obtained could be evaluated after 5 , 10, 15, and 20 years.
7