Alcoholism FAQ
9/15/08
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 257
meo,
I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming that the author must be an alcoholic in denial just because what he has to say might rub us the wrong way.
I'm simply wondering about his motivations and passion behind producing such 'research'.
I've seen a lot of posts and threads here at SR in the past few months that seem to be on the 'wishful thinking' side...like one is somehow trying to rationalize their addiction by presenting evidence to support their own denial.
Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but my BS detector goes off when I read about things like the 'anti-alcohol industry'. I smell an agenda.
Besides, many universities are full of profs that produce 'research' to further their own agendas. Cal State @ Long Beach has it's own anti-Semite, Kevin McDonald, who refers to Jews as 'parasites' in scholarly articles sponsored by the school and other academic publications.
I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming that the author must be an alcoholic in denial just because what he has to say might rub us the wrong way.
I'm simply wondering about his motivations and passion behind producing such 'research'.
I've seen a lot of posts and threads here at SR in the past few months that seem to be on the 'wishful thinking' side...like one is somehow trying to rationalize their addiction by presenting evidence to support their own denial.
Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but my BS detector goes off when I read about things like the 'anti-alcohol industry'. I smell an agenda.
Besides, many universities are full of profs that produce 'research' to further their own agendas. Cal State @ Long Beach has it's own anti-Semite, Kevin McDonald, who refers to Jews as 'parasites' in scholarly articles sponsored by the school and other academic publications.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,682
yep you are right actually, ive removed the last post...just got back from 12 stepping a guy in GA who has gambled after 4 months of abstinence...coupled with the guy who keeps relapsing (drink/drugs) and spent a week in ICU...bit narrow minded tonight...maybe time for bed...wow i never thought i would be on SR advocating AA against someone elses recovery plan...lol my bad...im sure someone did that to me 9 months ago?!
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,445
meo,
with all due respect - I spent years researching my alcoholism and seeking to understand it...all while drinking.
We can argue semantics for a week but I consider it was not until I really acted...until I put the bottle down and did not pick it up again...that I began to make progress.
The author of this FAQ has made quite a career out of being a maverick.
Some of the facts on his page are anything but, IMO....but it's the internet...
D
with all due respect - I spent years researching my alcoholism and seeking to understand it...all while drinking.
We can argue semantics for a week but I consider it was not until I really acted...until I put the bottle down and did not pick it up again...that I began to make progress.
The author of this FAQ has made quite a career out of being a maverick.
Some of the facts on his page are anything but, IMO....but it's the internet...
D
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 201
This article doesn't come across as proper academic research about alcohol. Its clearly biased towards alcohol.
I asked myself why is this guy promoting alcohol so I did some research and it appears prof David J Hanson is funded by the Portman Group (a consortium of alcohol manufacturers). His views make sense now.
Cannot be bothered debating the many things he says, this thread would go on and on. He is way too biased to take seriously IMO.
I asked myself why is this guy promoting alcohol so I did some research and it appears prof David J Hanson is funded by the Portman Group (a consortium of alcohol manufacturers). His views make sense now.
Cannot be bothered debating the many things he says, this thread would go on and on. He is way too biased to take seriously IMO.
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 46
yea its all good everyone. Honestly, I didn't look into the author's credentials. I guess I was arguing about the idea before looking behind the idea if that makes any sense. I've seen all the problems within academia, especially questionable agendas. Have a good one. I'm coming down with the flu so I'm going to have some dinner and hit the sack.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 818
I don't have any problem with most of the stuff put out in the article, but the logic is a litte fuzzy on occasion. His discussion of binge drinking, for example, fails to accurately define the term as used in studies of the subject - 5 or more drinks in one sitting. I also suspect he created the "Myth" of many lives saved by nobody drinking to make a point that there are cardio-vascular benefits gained from light to moderate consumption. In reality, over 100,000 deaths each year are directly attributed to alcohol. More accurately, to the misuse or abuse of alcohol. We need also consider that any alcohol consumption is a non-starter for alcoholics, so cardio-vascular benefits are irrelevant for many people. And the last question I had is his claim that AA members think that one is born an alcoholic and will always be one even if that person never takes a drink. I suppose some AAs may feel that way, but it's not something I've ever noticed over the years I've been in meetings. Again, I think he's trying to reinforce a point that's not really relevant.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 679
Hey y'all,
So I am a research dork and I love reading anything and generally don't think I seek out a certain agenda (probably only partly true but my aim). However, this article said a few things that made me go whoa:
I was looking at this chart going what? Wait is this just Europe? No, he is talking about the US too. Ok, well has anyone been reading about Russia lately. The president is taking some drastic strategies to curb alcohol consumption because it is at 18 gallons per capita. So I think Russia beats Portugal, in fact it smacks it, and therefore makes me disbelieve the whole chart.
This is the most absurd statement ever. Even if you give him that moderate consumption of alcohol will prevent cardiovascular disease in 135,884 people, all the people who would not die from from alcoholism, drunk driving accidents, all other accidents where alcohol is involved which is the majority, homicides, suicides, etc. (alcohol is involved in a very statistically important number of trauma accidents, suicides and murders) that number would completely dwarf the 135,884. Maybe more people would die of heart disease because they would be living longer....
In terms of the advertising thing, I had a class where we touched on that briefly and read some peer-reviewed journal articles and basically it said that there was no real effect or if there was it was unable to be measured. It was kind of like kids notice alcohol advertisements when they are drinkers and don't when they aren't, so what came first the chicken or the egg? Do they notice them because now they actually drink? Or do they drink because they started to notice the ads. It is really unclear if the advertisements themselves have any sort of influence.
Other points he makes I think are completely true.
I just think you can't take everything you read as absolute truth, regardless of source, although of course that is important. I mean you would expect a university professor from a well respected place to have his research down but if something looks amiss or if he looks to be skewing his points in a certain direction then he probably is.
Here is a fun research site I recently found associated with Harvard—it is kind of like a peer-review journal type thing meets blog, I dig it— and it is about addiction— and they talk about things like A&E's show the Cleaner with footnotes to scholarly articles, I love it
The Brief Addiction Science Information Source (BASIS)
So I am a research dork and I love reading anything and generally don't think I seek out a certain agenda (probably only partly true but my aim). However, this article said a few things that made me go whoa:
Top 10 Alcohol Consuming Countries
1. Portugal 2.98
2. Luxembourg 2.95
3. France 2.87
4. Hungary 2.66
5. Spain 2.66
6. Czech Republic 2.64
7. Denmark 2.61
8. Germany 2.50
9. Austria 2.50
10. Switzerland 2.43
1. Portugal 2.98
2. Luxembourg 2.95
3. France 2.87
4. Hungary 2.66
5. Spain 2.66
6. Czech Republic 2.64
7. Denmark 2.61
8. Germany 2.50
9. Austria 2.50
10. Switzerland 2.43
Myth
Many lives would be saved if everyone abstained from alcohol.
Fact
Some lives would be saved from accidents now caused by intoxication and from health problems caused by alcohol abuse. However, many other lives would be lost from increases in coronary heart disease. For example, estimates from 13 studies suggest that as many as 135,884 additional deaths would occur each year in the US from coronary heart disease alone because of abstinence.
Many lives would be saved if everyone abstained from alcohol.
Fact
Some lives would be saved from accidents now caused by intoxication and from health problems caused by alcohol abuse. However, many other lives would be lost from increases in coronary heart disease. For example, estimates from 13 studies suggest that as many as 135,884 additional deaths would occur each year in the US from coronary heart disease alone because of abstinence.
In terms of the advertising thing, I had a class where we touched on that briefly and read some peer-reviewed journal articles and basically it said that there was no real effect or if there was it was unable to be measured. It was kind of like kids notice alcohol advertisements when they are drinkers and don't when they aren't, so what came first the chicken or the egg? Do they notice them because now they actually drink? Or do they drink because they started to notice the ads. It is really unclear if the advertisements themselves have any sort of influence.
Other points he makes I think are completely true.
I just think you can't take everything you read as absolute truth, regardless of source, although of course that is important. I mean you would expect a university professor from a well respected place to have his research down but if something looks amiss or if he looks to be skewing his points in a certain direction then he probably is.
Here is a fun research site I recently found associated with Harvard—it is kind of like a peer-review journal type thing meets blog, I dig it— and it is about addiction— and they talk about things like A&E's show the Cleaner with footnotes to scholarly articles, I love it
The Brief Addiction Science Information Source (BASIS)
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by sfgirl 
Hey y'all,
So I am a research dork and I love reading anything and generally don't think I seek out a certain agenda (probably only partly true but my aim). However, this article said a few things that made me go whoa:
I was looking at this chart going what? Wait is this just Europe? No, he is talking about the US too. Ok, well has anyone been reading about Russia lately. The president is taking some drastic strategies to curb alcohol consumption because it is at 18 gallons per capita. So I think Russia beats Portugal, in fact it smacks it, and therefore makes me disbelieve the whole chart.
This is the most absurd statement ever. Even if you give him that moderate consumption of alcohol will prevent cardiovascular disease in 135,884 people, all the people who would not die from from alcoholism, drunk driving accidents, all other accidents where alcohol is involved which is the majority, homicides, suicides, etc. (alcohol is involved in a very statistically important number of trauma accidents, suicides and murders) that number would completely dwarf the 135,884. Maybe more people would die of heart disease because they would be living longer....
In terms of the advertising thing, I had a class where we touched on that briefly and read some peer-reviewed journal articles and basically it said that there was no real effect or if there was it was unable to be measured. It was kind of like kids notice alcohol advertisements when they are drinkers and don't when they aren't, so what came first the chicken or the egg? Do they notice them because now they actually drink? Or do they drink because they started to notice the ads. It is really unclear if the advertisements themselves have any sort of influence.
Other points he makes I think are completely true.
I just think you can't take everything you read as absolute truth, regardless of source, although of course that is important. I mean you would expect a university professor from a well respected place to have his research down but if something looks amiss or if he looks to be skewing his points in a certain direction then he probably is.
Here is a fun research site I recently found associated with Harvard—it is kind of like a peer-review journal type thing meets blog, I dig it— and it is about addiction— and they talk about things like A&E's show the Cleaner with footnotes to scholarly articles, I love it
The Brief Addiction Science Information Source (BASIS)
So I am a research dork and I love reading anything and generally don't think I seek out a certain agenda (probably only partly true but my aim). However, this article said a few things that made me go whoa:
I was looking at this chart going what? Wait is this just Europe? No, he is talking about the US too. Ok, well has anyone been reading about Russia lately. The president is taking some drastic strategies to curb alcohol consumption because it is at 18 gallons per capita. So I think Russia beats Portugal, in fact it smacks it, and therefore makes me disbelieve the whole chart.
This is the most absurd statement ever. Even if you give him that moderate consumption of alcohol will prevent cardiovascular disease in 135,884 people, all the people who would not die from from alcoholism, drunk driving accidents, all other accidents where alcohol is involved which is the majority, homicides, suicides, etc. (alcohol is involved in a very statistically important number of trauma accidents, suicides and murders) that number would completely dwarf the 135,884. Maybe more people would die of heart disease because they would be living longer....
In terms of the advertising thing, I had a class where we touched on that briefly and read some peer-reviewed journal articles and basically it said that there was no real effect or if there was it was unable to be measured. It was kind of like kids notice alcohol advertisements when they are drinkers and don't when they aren't, so what came first the chicken or the egg? Do they notice them because now they actually drink? Or do they drink because they started to notice the ads. It is really unclear if the advertisements themselves have any sort of influence.
Other points he makes I think are completely true.
I just think you can't take everything you read as absolute truth, regardless of source, although of course that is important. I mean you would expect a university professor from a well respected place to have his research down but if something looks amiss or if he looks to be skewing his points in a certain direction then he probably is.
Here is a fun research site I recently found associated with Harvard—it is kind of like a peer-review journal type thing meets blog, I dig it— and it is about addiction— and they talk about things like A&E's show the Cleaner with footnotes to scholarly articles, I love it
The Brief Addiction Science Information Source (BASIS)
I posted this just as an informational source with dozens of references to back up the author's assertions. I didnt view it as pro or con drinking. In fact the authors documentation is extensive from multiple studies. I think the bias is in the reader, and is shines brightly with the comments I have read. And yes Russia was included in the study; they have a much larger population that Portugal, for example. That is where the bias and misreading comes in. The author references dozens of sources for every fact he points out.
It those who refuse to look at them who have bias, imo.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 74
I would bet ten to one, not one person looked at the several dozen references the original author cited before posting. And I find that odd, because I found this neither pro or con in terms of alcoholism. Considering my original post included the disclaimer that it was from the SUNY website, and their strict policies about correct information being posted from their official site, I find it very odd the hysterics about factual information.
I got nothin'
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: My house.
Posts: 4,890
Originally Posted by sfgirl
Maybe more people would die of heart disease because they would be living longer....
Yup...everyone has to die of something.
sfgirl correctly pointed out the how “facts” can presented in a very disingenuous manner.
That's the problem with this author's assertions and why I think this is a bunch of crap.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 679
Originally Posted by socialismislost
I posted this just as an informational source with dozens of references to back up the author's assertions. I didnt view it as pro or con drinking. In fact the authors documentation is extensive from multiple studies. I think the bias is in the reader, and is shines brightly with the comments I have read. And yes Russia was included in the study; they have a much larger population that Portugal, for example. That is where the bias and misreading comes in. The author references dozens of sources for every fact he points out.
It those who refuse to look at them who have bias, imo.
It those who refuse to look at them who have bias, imo.
I did look at his footnotes. I saw a lot of references to very old studies and things I couldn't get to or verify most of them are pre-1999, some from the 60s and 70s, also some footnote to an unpublished study. But my mistake, I just looked up the real (I misread and miswrote previously— see can't believe everything you read, certainly not coming from me
) consumption of alcohol per capita in Russia every year and it is actually 10.58 liters a year. Portugal is higher at 12.49. The US is around 8. And the highest is 19.49 liters from...Uganda. Strange? Right. Anyways this is according to the 2004 study from the World Health Organization (WHO | Alcohol). I guess I don't really want to get into an argument about this. I just wanted to share that I felt there was something amiss with the things he was saying; this isn't because he doesn't agree with my agenda, not at all, I don't think I have an agenda. But hey, maybe I do and am not completely aware of it
. I know how frustrating it can be to put a link to research or facts on here and not get the response you want. I have done it a million times on this site. Good luck in your recovery.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
