They did back around 2008. I used Wiki on a stick - see https://stickwiki.sourceforge.net/which was kind of neat) but after a few years, Chrome etc stopped letting it save itself.
He and his team started with 3,248 relevant studies of which 3,125 were immediately discarded. This left 123 cohort studies to which they added 87 relatively recent cohort studies. They then discarded 103 of these because they didn’t meet Stockwell’s increasingly stringent and somewhat arbitrary criteria. This left 107 studies, but there was still work to do.
...
In his comments to the Guardian he more or less admits that he is only doing this because the benefits of alcohol consumption are inconvenient to people like him who want to regulate booze like tobacco...
Would you admit - just for the sake of more balanced arguments - that there's another possible reason for the exclusion of the majority of studies? Like visible bias towards "alcohol in reasonable amounts {is | may be} {good | not making harm} for health" opinion?
This NS piece is complete misinformation. This below is by a writer who has been writing about this sort of thing for years.
"Tim Stockwell has been up to his old tricks. In a study that was widely publicised this week despite being published in January, he claims - yet again - that moderate drinking does not confer health benefits. The study is largely a rehash of his meta-analysis from last year (which I wrote about here) so there isn’t much more to say except to note the extraordinary amount of cherry-picking that is required to come to such a conclusion.
He and his team started with 3,248 relevant studies of which 3,125 were immediately discarded. This left 123 cohort studies to which they added 87 relatively recent cohort studies. They then discarded 103 of these because they didn’t meet Stockwell’s increasingly stringent and somewhat arbitrary criteria. This left 107 studies, but there was still work to do.
In the new study, he introduces yet another filter for “quality” and reduces the number of studies down from 21 to 18 and then 15, but these still show lower risk for moderate drinkers, so he introduces some more criteria until a vast literature built up over 50 years is whittled down to just six studies. This gets rid of the apparent benefits of moderate drinking. He then removes one more study and, voila!, moderate drinkers are now at greater risk than teetotallers."
>In his comments to the Guardian he more or less admits that he is only doing this because the benefits of alcohol consumption are inconvenient to people like him who want to regulate booze like tobacco...
>>“The idea [alcohol has benefits] has impacted national drinking guidelines, estimates of alcohol’s burden of disease worldwide and has been an impediment to effective policymaking on alcohol and public health,” he added.
That doesn't sound like he's "admitting to" what your linked article says he's admitting to.
Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, trying to debunk this Stockwell guy's work, only to make oneself look unreliable with such claims.
Here in the UK, almost 17% (about nine million people) live outside towns and villages. A trip to the local shop can be several miles on roads that don't have pavements and public transport is of the "one bus a day" type if you are lucky. There are a few people who cycle but they're dedicated and for most it is not an option. Cars are an essential.
As I understand it, that’s not _strictly_ true. 17% live in “rural” areas, but this includes towns and villages in rural areas. It’s 8% for “rural village and fringe” [0], or much less for actually outside of towns and villages. Unless you have other stats to share?
I have lived in several towns and cities in the UK.
The problem is that even in reasonable sized towns not having a car is very limiting. The solution is much better public transport - more frequent is the big thing. That is the difference
On the other hand I did not have a car in London (which has very frequent public transport until quite late in the night), nor in Manchester (not as good, but OK) until I had a child. It was no problem. paying for the occasional taxi and hiring cars for trips when needed was a lot cheaper than running a car and more convenient too.
There is no way to provide a public transport service from the village 9 miles away with 4,000 people to my village of 150 at 2145 on a Friday night. It would have to literally be a taxi going out and back to transport one person.
Wouldn't there be a better outcome for those misidentified and publicly slandered and inconvenienced if they sued for stress? Some unlucky sod could have a heart attack from this.
The minster asked the nuclear operators whether they could operate the plants longer, and the operators said (paraphrasing) "we'd need more fuel, and even if we were to order fuel today it wouldn't be delivered in time" and that was the end of the story. Two years later, "fraud!" Amazing.
They actually wrote and I'm paraphrasing as well:"It's not a problem and it would also lower the overall power prices as the cheaper nuclear power would push the gas plants out of the merit order system." But this was never communicated to Habeck (Minister for economic affairs) [1]
And in the department of the environment a report was completely altered from "can run for years" to "is impossible to use them at all" by a single person that shares the ideology... [2][3]
Interesting how official documents that have been made available clearly show how experts have been ignored and their reports have been altered to fit a political and ideological scheme.
Apart from the other replies… I find the use of phrasing quite clever, and interesting in a way.
There were reasons to not extend the lifetime by a few weeks/months (e.g. contracts had been terminated, and calling vendors back for one month would be unreasonable). There were also reasons to not extend the lifetime by much more (e.g. fuel rod availability). The two sets of reasons were largely disjoint.
But by deemphasising how long the extended operation would last, extension is made to look much more reasonable. The reasons against a long-term extension clearly don't apply (to a short-term extension) etc. Rhetorically quite clever.
Ref [1] says that extending the use of the plants until March 31. could help reduce prices by the Merit-order effect. This extension is exactly what Habeck did: The life time was extended! So this is complete bullshit and already debunked completely by more serious German media.
What makes this rather obvious bad-faith attack targeted at the gullible idiots is that the nuclear exist was decided years ago by conservative government (Merkel after Fukushima). Now to pretend that finally shutting down the last three plants as planned by others a long time ago was some evil doing of the new minister (after all other plants were shut down a long time ago and the remaining operators said it makes no sense form them to continue at this time because it is too late to change course) makes no sense and this should make it obvious that there is no scandal here.
What truth exactly? As far as I can remember Haback was willing to extend the run time of two reactors and the chancellor then decided for all three for the interest of piece.
Refresh your memory. The German chancellor had to enforce the extension.
And the real bad-faith attack here is to make it look like there weren't any new circumstances that made it necessary to reconsider the runtime of the plants.
Seeing how three public servants modified a document to change its meaning from 'possible' to 'not possible' so that it looks to Habeck like there is no other option available is highly alarming.
When you alter a document to reflect your ideological views instead of going with its content and by this going against the public/greater good of the German people with intent to present false information to Habeck then this could be considered nothing short of treason.
Why do people keep repeating this lie; there is no Brexit disaster. Life goes on as normal in post Brexit Britain; lockdowns did way more harm than Brexit and we've mostly recovered from those. The rest of the EU seems to be suffering more economically than Britain. We're selling more into the EU than when we were in the EU, have many trade agreements with US states and other countries, were ahead of the EU with Covid vaccines and first to support the Ukraine.
He listed a series of facts. You are living in that Britain even if you don't realize or accept it. The different Britain you believe you inhabit may exist only in your mind.
