![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Guardian this morning had an article claiming that because drinking alcohol increases the risk of breast cancer, women should avoid alcohol all together. This was based on a report from The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) which made the same recommendation.
I clicked through as far as I could go, and was unable to determine several key numbers:
- comparative rates of breast cancer among women who do and do not drink. (Is it 12.49999% of non-drinkers, and 12.500000% of drinkers, or is it 20% of drinkers and 10% of non-drinkers?)
- is it dose dependent? How dose dependent. What is the cancer rate for an alcoholic, compared to a weekly drinker, compared to a Christmas and weddings drinker, compared to a tee-totaller?
- how does it interact with e.g. genetic risk factors for breast cancer?
- net effect on life expectancy - how much earlier will the average female drinker die, compared to the average female teetotaller, given that breast cancer probably won't get them. (Breast cancer incidence in women is about 1 in 8, which is where I get the 12.5% in my examples)
Also interesting:
- women only? Men do get breast cancer (rarely), and prostate cancer. Any recommendations here? Any known rates here?
And this assumes the studies reviewed are of decent quality. Maybe certain cultures that ban alcohol also have lower (breast) cancer risks for other reasons. Maybe severe alcoholics die of complications before they get around to developing breast cancer. What controls were used in the studies on which this review is based?
At best, this is media being sloppy, possibly following a report that's equally sloppy.
At worst, it's plausible because it recommends women be restricted in some way, moreover one that just happens to be consistent with childbearing. (Alcohol in pregnancy is a common thing to dis-recommend, and it's well known that too much alcohol can have bad effects on the baby - google fetal alcohol syndrome.)
I doubt the Guardian itself has a women-are-merely-breeders agenda, but what about its source?
At a guess, the source also has no sexist agenda. It merely is so focussed on cancer that they believe that any reduction in risk, however tiny, must be a clarion call to action.
But why not give the numbers?
I clicked through as far as I could go, and was unable to determine several key numbers:
- comparative rates of breast cancer among women who do and do not drink. (Is it 12.49999% of non-drinkers, and 12.500000% of drinkers, or is it 20% of drinkers and 10% of non-drinkers?)
- is it dose dependent? How dose dependent. What is the cancer rate for an alcoholic, compared to a weekly drinker, compared to a Christmas and weddings drinker, compared to a tee-totaller?
- how does it interact with e.g. genetic risk factors for breast cancer?
- net effect on life expectancy - how much earlier will the average female drinker die, compared to the average female teetotaller, given that breast cancer probably won't get them. (Breast cancer incidence in women is about 1 in 8, which is where I get the 12.5% in my examples)
Also interesting:
- women only? Men do get breast cancer (rarely), and prostate cancer. Any recommendations here? Any known rates here?
And this assumes the studies reviewed are of decent quality. Maybe certain cultures that ban alcohol also have lower (breast) cancer risks for other reasons. Maybe severe alcoholics die of complications before they get around to developing breast cancer. What controls were used in the studies on which this review is based?
At best, this is media being sloppy, possibly following a report that's equally sloppy.
At worst, it's plausible because it recommends women be restricted in some way, moreover one that just happens to be consistent with childbearing. (Alcohol in pregnancy is a common thing to dis-recommend, and it's well known that too much alcohol can have bad effects on the baby - google fetal alcohol syndrome.)
I doubt the Guardian itself has a women-are-merely-breeders agenda, but what about its source?
At a guess, the source also has no sexist agenda. It merely is so focussed on cancer that they believe that any reduction in risk, however tiny, must be a clarion call to action.
But why not give the numbers?
