Research: Wine helps beat the cold

[jswordy]

Sheesh! Somebody ought to tell my body this! I've been sick since late December. Got one cold, got over it for 3 days, got another one…

There is already a wealth of evidence that red wine does you good, lowering the risk of heart attacks, dementia and a stroke.
Now research has revealed that all wine is a powerful ally against a far more frequent health problem - the common cold.
Doctors have discovered that drinking a moderate amount can help develop a kind of immunity against the 200 viruses that trigger the ailment.
The study found that people who had more than 14 glasses of wine a week had a 40 per cent lower risk of getting a cold than teetotalers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-151568/How-glass-wine-help-beat-colds.html#ixzz2rMHsjXr3

 

[jamesngalveston]

oh man, i never will get sick....

 

[ckvchestnut]

especially not if you're drinking a lot of port!

 

[Boatboy24]

Great. More than 14 glasses a week will keep the common cold at bay. But it will also get you labeled as a flaming alcoholic that will die young from liver disease. Pick your poison, I guess.

 

[corinth]

Very Interesting Study!
I guess that is why when I was in Spain and the Canary Islands I never got a cold.

Corinth

 

[Arne]

I'm waiting for Duster to come on and say he drinks the 14 glasses. (Find somewhere where he has posted and check out his glass.) LOL, Arne.

 

[BernardSmith]

Sheesh! Somebody ought to tell my body this! I've been sick since late December. Got one cold, got over it for 3 days, got another one…



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-151568/How-glass-wine-help-beat-colds.html#ixzz2rMHsjXr3

I think the jury may still be out... The findings were based on self reports from a sample of about 4000 people. The drinkers were asked to report when they FELT they had suffered a cold so perhaps one could argue that those who drank enough wine (14 glasses a week?) are less reliable monitors of their own health or less accurate reporters of their health than non drinkers or drinkers of beer or spirits.

They authors claim that they were able to confirm through a substudy that their sample could accurately self diagnose incidence of the cold... I am suspicious. My sense is that few folk in the USA accurately self diagnose the presence of the virus although they may have upper respiratory distress.
The Daily Mail is not noted as the most accurate news source in the world. Makes the NY Post look good, but the article states that the article is based on "the latest" issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology... trouble is that the article was published in 2001..I think the finding was cited... 3 times in 13 years...
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/9/853.full

 

[jswordy]

Love it Bernard. Actually, everything I've ever read about the health benefits of wine has been 99.8% marketing and .2% truth. All of it - anti-oxidants, heart-healthy, all of it - has been later debunked by hard scientific inquiry.

 

[sour_grapes]

Love it Bernard. Actually, everything I've ever read about the health benefits of wine has been 99.8% marketing and .2% truth. All of it - anti-oxidants, heart-healthy, all of it - has been later debunked by hard scientific inquiry.

So true, so true .... but I am holding on to the reports of health benefits like a man overboard in a tempest clinging to a piece of flotsam!

 

[BernardSmith]

Love it Bernard. Actually, everything I've ever read about the health benefits of wine has been 99.8% marketing and .2% truth. All of it - anti-oxidants, heart-healthy, all of it - has been later debunked by hard scientific inquiry.

so true, although often the scientific data that are published in papers are often couched in reasonable language. It's the popular press that suggests the inch offered with some support from the evidence is in fact not an inch but a light year long and a parsec high and is as incontestable as claims about the earth being round and not flat. So, for example, while it is likely true that a phenolic compound found in some red wine called "resveratrol" slows down the phenomenon of the "aging" that takes place in biological cells, you would likely need to drink enough wine to fill an Olympic swimming pool each and every day to experience the anti -aging effects of the substance... but Hey! Red wine slows down aging...

 

[jswordy]

so true, although often the scientific data that are published in papers are often couched in reasonable language. It's the popular press that suggests the inch offered with some support from the evidence is in fact not an inch but a light year long and a parsec high and is as incontestable as claims about the earth being round and not flat. So, for example, while it is likely true that a phenolic compound found in some red wine called "resveratrol" slows down the phenomenon of the "aging" that takes place in biological cells, you would likely need to drink enough wine to fill an Olympic swimming pool each and every day to experience the anti -aging effects of the substance... but Hey! Red wine slows down aging...

Yeah, I'm pretty much going to disagree with that, given the research by two UAH professors and others ((“Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing,” Allen W. Wilhite, Eric A. Fong; Science, Vol. 335, February 3, 2012), who found considerable dishonesty in published papers.

And as my wife and I, both former journalists, often say: "Follow the money! WHO FUNDED THE STUDY?" If there's a media blind spot, it's in not noting who the money came from. Funny how the results follow the cash.

 

[bkisel]

Very disappointed with this post! I thought "helps beat the cold" as in cold weather.

Oh well, maybe next wine study.

[Before opening and reading the thread I really did think cold as in weather because it would have been so topical.]

 

[sour_grapes]

Yeah, I'm pretty much going to disagree with that, given the research by two UAH professors and others ((“Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing,” Allen W. Wilhite, Eric A. Fong; Science, Vol. 335, February 3, 2012), who found considerable dishonesty in published papers.

Holy conflation, Batman! That paper you cited by Wilhite and Fong may detail some unsavory practices by editors of journals to promote their own journals, but does not say a whit about "dishonesty in published papers." Did they perhaps do other studies about dishonesty in publishing?

Back to the original question of who is to share culpability for inflating claims of the importance of routine findings: I will agree that there is some self-imposed pressure to make as grandiose a claim as the data will support. I have rolled my eyes more than a few times upon reading the introductory paragraph of a paper. However, peer review generally prevents authors from making unwarranted or unsubstantiated claims. I have, on multiple occasions, read the original paper upon which grandiose news claims are based. Without fail, the original papers are full of codicils, caveats, and acknowledgements that multiple explanations are possible for the observed phenomenon.

 

[BernardSmith]

Holy conflation, Batman! That paper you cited by Wilhite and Fong may detail some unsavory practices by editors of journals to promote their own journals, but does not say a whit about "dishonesty in published papers." Did they perhaps do other studies about dishonesty in publishing?

Back to the original question of who is to share culpability for inflating claims of the importance of routine findings: I will agree that there is some self-imposed pressure to make as grandiose a claim as the data will support. I have rolled my eyes more than a few times upon reading the introductory paragraph of a paper. However, peer review generally prevents authors from making unwarranted or unsubstantiated claims. I have, on multiple occasions, read the original paper upon which grandiose news claims are based. Without fail, the original papers are full of codicils, caveats, and acknowledgements that multiple explanations are possible for the observed phenomenon.

But there is also incredible pressure to publish these days and garbage dressed as lamb does slip through peer reviewers.
If you divide up the world into smaller and smaller areas in which you do research then you pretty much know everyone in the field who is working on the kinds of issues and questions that you are interested in and quid pro quo one reviewer may close an eye to a colleague because that reviewer is going to be submitting a paper next month that the writer of this piece is likely to be one of the "anonymous" reviewers.

 

[sour_grapes]

A colleague is an editor at the principal journal in my field (broad field, not subdiscipline, but still....). He said that he could not count the number of times that someone complained to him about a referee, and said "I KNOW it must be so-and-so" that is holding that up that paper. My colleague says that not once in 20 years has the author correctly guessed the referee!

Have I felt bad about rejecting a paper of a friend? Yes. Have I bent my standards (e.g., of importance of the work) a little bit in such cases? Perhaps. Have I knowingly let something WRONG or unsubstantiated through? Never.

 

[roger80465]

I worked in the pharmaceutical business for 15 years and found the studies to be less than valuable. Yes, follow the money. Also, I am convinced that the desired result is predetermined and the stats are filtered to achieve those results. As my statistics professor once said, there are lies, dam lies and statistics.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Wine Making mobile app

 

[sour_grapes]

I worked in the pharmaceutical business for 15 years and found the studies to be less than valuable.

In what way?

 

[jswordy]

Holy conflation, Batman! That paper you cited by Wilhite and Fong may detail some unsavory practices by editors of journals to promote their own journals, but does not say a whit about "dishonesty in published papers." Did they perhaps do other studies about dishonesty in publishing?

Back to the original question of who is to share culpability for inflating claims of the importance of routine findings: I will agree that there is some self-imposed pressure to make as grandiose a claim as the data will support. I have rolled my eyes more than a few times upon reading the introductory paragraph of a paper. However, peer review generally prevents authors from making unwarranted or unsubstantiated claims. I have, on multiple occasions, read the original paper upon which grandiose news claims are based. Without fail, the original papers are full of codicils, caveats, and acknowledgements that multiple explanations are possible for the observed phenomenon.

I would say that honorary authorships, citations, etc., are "dishonesty in published papers." So in fact, more to the point, the characterization that research papers are somehow inherently unsullied, while the popular media is the yawning horde distorting them is incorrect.

The pair of professors are indeed currently furthering the research at present under a HHS Office of Research Integrity grant. At the time of release, their earlier work was an academic bombshell that was widely reported.

Further, I made two points, the first being that research papers in and of themselves are not pure, and the second being that it is necessary to follow the money, as far as grants and other funding that goes into the research being done. It is amazing how simply framing the hypothesis can be influenced by who wrote the check. I realize all this ruffles the academic feathers, so to speak.

 

[roger80465]

In what way?

As WORDY says, the hypothesis is influenced by the money. IOW, how do you want it to look. Politicians do it all the time. It isn't difficult to show only what suits your purpose and ignore that which weakens your desired outcome. Happens in every field.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Wine Making mobile app

 

[BernardSmith]

I worked in the pharmaceutical business for 15 years and found the studies to be less than valuable. Yes, follow the money. Also, I am convinced that the desired result is predetermined and the stats are filtered to achieve those results. As my statistics professor once said, there are lies, dam lies and statistics.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Wine Making mobile app

As a medical sociologist I would say that these days there are lies , damn lies and pharma data. Fairly frequently published reports on the effectiveness of new treatments are ghost written for the named research workers by the chemists in the corporation and critical data that may weaken the significance of results is routinely ignored or dismissed or recast. The money trail is short and clear and ...paved with gold forr those willing to prostitute their name and their reputations.
I know that the journals in which I have an interest we are required to state any financial or other connections we have outside our immediate academic institutions. But these days online journals with little or no pre-peer review are popping up like weeds. The argument seems to be that peer review takes place AFTER publication...with the applause or opprobrium offered by knowledgeable readers