This is just an article answering what the study found. I am not commenting on how good or accurate the study is because I haven’t seen it. The article though continually refers to what the study says. The article itself does NOT come to its own conclusions, it merely reiterates what the study reported.

The problem and danger with that is that the study is being filtered through a reporter and the editor before reaching the reader. The good part is that the reader has the essence of the report condensed into the relevant information that might be important to him.

I saw nothing in the article that would rate it as “sloppiest, most flawed, and contextually misleading health articles ” around. That is just another DU hit grabbing bit of news.

“New research shows research is valuable; researchers glad.”

If this was the “Tobacco Industry Insight” rebutting an article about tobacco dangers, would we be as quick to jump on the wagon here?

Have you seen what is happening in Britain? Oxford University will come up with any result Chairman Mao Brown says to come up with.

Wow! Government using fear as a weapon to control the sheeple – what a surprise. No matter if it’s about global warming or wine the game plan is always the same.

Um … WHAT??!!?

I was under the impression that Britain was not actually ruled by Oxford University. Were you under some other impression?

#1, not true. Peer-reviewed studies reveal the facts, most often not newsworthy, while crackpot studies, like this, get the press.

I agree. I’d also add that the initial crackpot study not only gets the press, but when the science self-corrects, that is deemed uninteresting for the popular press.

If anyone is really curious about the validity of the study watch carefully over the next couple of years for studies and other peer-reviewed articles in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (where the study was published) or other peer reviewed medical publications.

On the other hand (in addition to having more fingers), perhaps the study is actually valid and simply is not dealing with the greater and positive impact on total health or on heart health in particular. So, even if this is true, it may still be advisable to drink the wine in moderation for the heart benefits knowing full well that it will increase risk of cancer by some percentage.

Personally, I’d worry more about the various toxins that are in all of our bodies that were never even intended to be consumed by humans, if worrying about such things could help.

If you believe daily or regular consumption of alcohol (even in small doses) is beneficial for your health then you deserve the cancer that is waiting for you.

Media articles often sprout the small benefits of alcohol yet fail to compare them to the 999 disadvantages.