foolsgold66

I did locate it and read it. It's not directly my field as such things go, but my eye isn't particularly untrained as to the level of difficulty involved, and I don't care much for the data gathering and how most article writers 'reference' and interpret most studies. So, as a person with some experience, all I can say is that I question the motivation, culling methodology, and usefulness of such things. I don't really want to argue about it anymore.

EndGameNYC

I don't have a desire to argue about it either. If I have a point, it's that the study delivered what it set out to deliver. I only commented on how the study was done. The investigators' scope is limited and their results are based on very specific definitions of what heavy drinking, binge drinking and alcohol dependence are. No single study can address all relevant variables, and studies that are designed to do just that are thoroughly unmanageable and generally unhelpful.

My takeaway is that people who are not alcohol dependent (heavy drinkers and binge drinkers) are also at risk for serious medical conditions, and that this needs to be addressed. Nothing more. The journal to which the study was submitted is Preventing Chronic Disease and, within that context, the study met its obligations.

wpainterw

EndGame: This "takeaway" seems to my untutored eye, to be intuitively correct. It stands to reason that the periodic ingestion of large amounts of what many agree can be a toxic chemical would create a risk of serious medical conditions. The only doubt I have is spending a significant amount of money for a survey to reach that conclusion. Reminds me of the tale told in my childhood of the mother who cautioned her kids not to "stuff beans up your noses." She went out and when she returned her kids all had beans stuffed up their noses.

W.

EndGameNYC

Large-scale research studies are often driven by political, financial and/or other, less obvious, motivations. The fact that the CDC did the study in part reflects emerging government policy around the astronomical and mounting financial, social and medical costs of drinking alcohol among those who do not meet the criteria for the diagnosis of alcohol use disorders.

The CDC is essentially giving their blessing to providing subsidies and other forms of financial backing for alcohol education and treatment. A lot of folks talk about such matters, but it usually takes an institution like the CDC to get things rolling. There are hundreds of studies like this one that are done each year, many of which are more comprehensive and more compelling than what the CDC has done, but it's only because the CDC conducted this study that it made headlines. I've coordinated a few studies like this one, in which political, social and financial motives for doing the studies were most definitely present, and often stated in the manuscripts.

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye, but I'm on my way out.