Snowdon described it as "lying with statistics".
It is a bald-faced lie to say that there have been any "significant changes in alcohol-related deaths observed in British Columbia".Well, via Crampton, it appears this was no fluke. Stockwell turns out to be a serial abuser of evidence and data.
Despite the absurd contortions he was forced to perform in order to reach a pre-determined result on minimum pricing, he has gone on record criticising other researchers who found that moderate consumption of alcohol is largely beneficial.
[...] in a letter to Addiction, he keeps wondering if it's possible ever to derive any evidence of protective benefits from population epidemiological studies because of potential uncontrolled confounding.His targets have responded by pointing out that Stockwell really should take that plank out of his eye before accusing others.
[...] we sense a desire by some in the field to apply tough standards on protective effects and more lenient standards on other effects, where sometimes the responses to very simple survey questions such as ‘Did your partner’s alcohol consumption contribute to your marriage problems?’ are accepted as causal evidence.So, it appears he doesn't just lie with statistics. He also lies by emphasising research - however dubious - which agrees with his agenda, while dismissing other research - however strong - which doesn't.
Another dangerous, dishonest crank gets through the BBC's {cough} rigorous, {cough} world-respected health team, then.
