EP-ology, the study of E PEPidemiology, scientific EPistemology, Ethical and Evidenced-based Policy making.
Readers looking for my more popular blog, about tobacco harm reduction and related subjects, will find it at antiTHRlies.com.
This blog now basically just serves as my home for miscellaneous writings that do not fit there.
- Book Reviews: The Science and History of Studying Epidemics
- A few notes on soda taxes (a footnote to @cjsnowdon’s work)
- A cautionary lesson in amateur fact-checking: What was wrong with Sarah Kaplan’s article
- My personal moment of really empathizing with Trump voters
- Working paper: Phillips – Preferences, practices, and intentions of a population of U.S. adult enthusiast vapers (CASAA member survey)
- August 2017
- May 2017
- November 2016
- July 2016
- January 2016
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- December 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
Category Archives: unhealthful news
For the last few days, CNN has run a story for New Year’s Eve revelers about how to deal with the hangover the next morning, caused by drinking too much alcohol the night before. (You can find one of their versions of the story here, and no doubt similar stories appeared on hundreds of broadcast news outlets – it is a favorite.)
The reporter pointed out that we do not understand what causes a hangover. By this she actually meant we do not understand the biological steps on the causal pathway from heavy drinking to hangover, which is an important distinction. We clearly know that the drinking causes the hangover. Also, there is pretty good evidence that some of the symptoms, particularly headache, are caused or exacerbated by dehydration so drinking a lot of water while imbibing (or pounding back a lot before falling asleep) helps a lot.
The critique I want to focus on is about the most emphatic piece of advice in the story, that the “hair of the dog” approach (which is to say drinking a bit in the morning – I am not sure if that idiom is universal) is bad because it merely makes you feel better. I will set aside her common nonsense (“alcohol is a ‘toxin’ so drinking more of it must be bad for you”) until I am stuck on a slower news day. I will focus instead on the interesting false dichotomy between “curing” a hangover and feeling better. A hangover is not cancer or a serious infectious disease, where diminishing the symptoms does not eliminate the core problem. The reason a hangover is bad is because it makes us feel bad, so for all practical purposes the symptoms are the disease. The bloody mary in the morning (or beer or even bourbon if you are not into froofy drinks) that “merely” makes us not feel the hangover has, as far as we can define it, eliminated the hangover. (As an aside, even for cancer, an intervention that eliminates pain and nausea is a great benefit in itself that should not be ignored, though it may do nothing to cure the cancer.)
This is not to say that binge drinking to the point that it causes a hangover is harmless. But, as the reporter should have known — given that she reported that we do not fully understand the causal pathway — we do not have any reason to believe that the hangover itself, treated or not, represents any real ongoing harm. A moderate amount of alcohol with breakfast is no more harmful than it is when you do not have a hangover. Perhaps not so good for productivity, but there is no reason to believe that it increases the real harm of the recent binge. Also, for some people the treatment works and for some it probably does not, but each individual drinker can probably figure this out (expanding on this point is a topic for another day).
This reminded me of a wind turbine case I worked on recently in New Zealand (no easy links to the particular case, but some of what I have written on the topic is here), where one of the main arguments by the industry’s consultants was that what residents suffered due to nearby wind turbines was not a disease but just a collection of symptoms. The first response to that is that “symptom” in this case is short for “symptom of a disease” so there must be a disease there somewhere, whether we know what to call it or not. But the deeper response is that for many conditions (it makes no difference whether we call them a disease or not), the symptoms are what matter. A superficial scrape or minor burn can be described in terms of tissue damage, but what really matters to people is that it hurts – get rid of the pain and whatever remains during the healing process is just invisible biology at work. Some headaches represent underlying conditions that need to be fixed, but most are just about the pain, so Tylenol does not “merely treat the symptom” – it cures the condition.
So, in the case of the hangover and for many other cases, it is nonsense to draw a distinction between feeling better and being better. The problem is that most health reporters have committed that cardinal journalistic sin of getting too close to their subjects, the medics and researchers, reporting what the subjects care about as if it were what the audience should think or care about. Those who focus on disease as an epistemic object in itself can easily forget that what ultimately matters is what is experienced by what they call “the patient” (who the rest of us call “people”). I am reminded of a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conference I went to during my postdoc, a mix of physicians who were learning to be researchers and scientists learning about health topics. During one remark from one of the medics, related to a talk about some medical condition that caused pain, he joked “as background for you non-physicians, I should mention that pain is a bad thing.” One of my social science colleagues immediately shouted out from the audience (with speed that I envy to this day), “I think the physicians are the ones that need to be taught that.”
Starting in a separate post today and continuing each day of 2011, if I can manage, I will write a post each day about reporting in the health news that offers unhelpful analysis, gives unhealthy advice, draws unsupported conclusions, or generally perpetuates or creates scientific illiteracy. The “unhealthful news” for short.
You might ask why we need yet another regularly scheduled quick-hit critique of the health news (as opposed to occasional deeper analysis that I and some others prefer to write). It is indeed true that there are several good “what is wrong with the health news of the day” newsletters, blogs, etc. out there. But I am sure that anyone familiar with the situation would agree that there is a lot more bad information that needs to be fixed than there are efforts to fix it, so the more the better.
Additionally, I aim to do something a bit different. Instead of focusing on contradicting incorrect conclusions, I am going to try to focus on incorrect reasoning that anyone can be educated to recognize. Kind of a “teach a person to fish” thing. I believe I am in a particularly good position to do this, given my background in scientific epistemology (including both the nitty gritty of the statistical and data gathering methods as well as broader viewpoints), health policy analysis, and many specific scientific topic areas. Indeed, I used this teaching method (culling examples for discussion from the week’s news) as a major part of my flagship course for over a decade. My syllabus was half blank at the start of the semester (much to the annoyance of narrow-minded administrators and those who wanted to try to clone my course) – after all, how could I know what the teachable health research and health policy moments of the semester are going to be before the semester started?
My goal is that someone who reads most the series will be much better at scientifically analyzing health research/information than almost all of those who are reporting it in the press and, frankly, better than the vast majority of those publishing in the health science journals.
I will have to see how things play out in this medium, which might be somewhat different from culling news items for use in class. My expectation is that most days’ blogs will:
-be based on a current story, often from the past day or so, but sometimes a bit older (I will not try to always find something from the same day. I do not want to make the same mistake that the reporters (and some of their critics) do, trying to rush something out with inadequate thought as if I were reporting a weather forecast or political rumor which will time-out in a day, rather than scientific information that should stand the test of time.)
-not necessarily focus on the entire story or even its conclusions, but rather on specific analysis methods, misunderstandings, errors, or other factors which are not unique to that story; there may be much wrong with a story that I ignore, and it may be that the conclusions are generally right but there is still an error worth emphasizing
-go negative: as the previous paragraph implies, most of my analyses will focus on errors since those are the easiest source of teaching material, though I hope to find a few gems where I can celebrate someone who got something more correct than is typical
-sometimes focus on the reporting and sometimes on the research that is being reported
-emphasize public health over medicine, and generally avoid the purely biological/mechanical side of health reporting (the average reader can benefit from understanding public health or personal health information, and thus suffer from bad information, but information about a new cancer drug or genetics research is similar to astrophysics – it is great that someone knows it, and many of us are entertained by reading about it, but only a few experts can really make any use of the information)
-tend toward my main areas of interest/expertise, for obvious reasons, though I will try to keep it as broad as possible
-focus on the economic side of health more than most commentators (this includes policy implications as well as individual preferences and tradeoffs – i.e., what people really care about when it comes to their health; note: do not confuse “economic” with “financial” – I will have very little, if anything, to say about that dominant health news topic, paying for medical care)
Beyond that, this should be self-explanatory, and indeed what evolves will probably differ from whatever I can plan now, so on with it. This series will probably crowd out most or all of my random short essays that I previously posted, but I will still use this blog to publish some of my more in-depth analyses.
Happy New Year.