Look around the Internet long enough and you may come to the conclusion that unless you live in a bubble and starve yourself, your risk of getting breast cancer is 18% higher than someone that lives in a bubble.

Look at this article that was published today by 2 doctors. Too many times, studies that are looking to publish statistics draw a conclusion based on a pre-conceived hypothesis that ultimately misleads the public. For example, many studies have been released that infer a direct cause between drinking and breast cancer. But is there really a direct cause?

I would want to know what was the population of the study. For example, did they just include people between the ages of 40 and 50, follow them to see if they got breast cancer, and then ask them if they were consuming 3 or more drinks per day? However, even if the data from that group of people that consumed 3 or more drinks per day had a higher occurrence of breast cancer than the women who did not, can we reasonably conclude there was any direct cause? For example, couldn’t a reasonable person assume that anyone who consumes 3 or more drinks per day is less likely to exercise than someone who doesn’t drink? So what is the cause, the drinks of the lack of exercise? I can also reasonably assume that a person who consumes 3 or more drinks per day is more overweight than a group that does not drink. Once again, what is the cause? You see my point?

Rating 3.00 out of 5
[?]