What a ridiculous study and article. It's a pretty narrow sample population (only 1,824 people who had outpatient care), and it has a huge age range without taking into account any other age ranges. They can't take such a narrow sample, especially one with such a strange and not-so-common denominator (outpatient care), and apply it to the population in general to make conclusions that fly in the face of other studies that use real stratified sampling. Also, what's with the unfounded statements the writer makes? "One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do." Consistent finding? Where are his citations? He doesn't have them... Time just wants hits on their website because it increases their revenue, so they write a biased article about a poorly-devised study, and what do you know? It works. It's pretty sad. They should stick with their "Top 10" and "Top 100" lists they put out all the time. At least then they're inherently based on opinions and not trying to mask them with nonsense they call science.... just my two cents.
Slashdot Mirror
What a ridiculous study and article. It's a pretty narrow sample population (only 1,824 people who had outpatient care), and it has a huge age range without taking into account any other age ranges. They can't take such a narrow sample, especially one with such a strange and not-so-common denominator (outpatient care), and apply it to the population in general to make conclusions that fly in the face of other studies that use real stratified sampling. Also, what's with the unfounded statements the writer makes? "One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do." Consistent finding? Where are his citations? He doesn't have them... Time just wants hits on their website because it increases their revenue, so they write a biased article about a poorly-devised study, and what do you know? It works. It's pretty sad. They should stick with their "Top 10" and "Top 100" lists they put out all the time. At least then they're inherently based on opinions and not trying to mask them with nonsense they call science.... just my two cents.