World Heart Federation charity accused of cherry-picking facts in order to increase its risk of drinking

  • A hard hitting pamphlet was published by the World Heart Federation (WHF), last week
  • This article covered alcohol’s dangers and warned that drinking can increase heart risk.
  • Cited a 2018 Lancet study that cited figures showing how high researchers discovered the risk of different cardiovascular conditions among drinkers. 
  • However, Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University said that this is not a true representation of the study. 

A global charity for health has been accused by scientists of picking out facts in order to support its claim that even small amounts are bad for your heart.

The World Heart Federation (WHF) last week published a hard-hitting pamphlet on the dangers of drinking in which it warned alcohol use increased the risk of ‘all the major categories of cardiovascular disease’.

It cited a 2018 study, published in The Lancet, quoting figures on how much higher researchers had found the risks of various cardiovascular conditions to be among drinkers compared to what WHF called ‘non-drinkers’. 

Scientists have accused a global health charity of cherry-picking facts to bolster its argument that drinking even small amounts of alcohol is bad for the heart

A global charity for health has been accused by scientists of cherry picking facts in support of its claim that even small amounts are bad for your heart.

The Cambridge University statistician, Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter, said the above was inaccurate. 

‘This WHF report makes extensive use of The Lancet study…but seriously misrepresents, and selectively reports, their findings,’ he said.

‘The WHF report claims that “in moderate drinkers, the risk of stroke is 1.14 times greater… than for non-drinkers”.

‘But [the 2018 study] did not make any comparison with non-drinkers.’

Their study actually compared the mortality rates of 600,000. They also analyzed cardiovascular disease and other health outcomes in people who had drank different amounts of alcohol. The study excluded non-drinkers.

The WHF criticised studies that found light to moderate drinking could benefit the heart, saying these tended to be ‘observational’ rather than gold-standard randomised controlled trials. 

But Dr Richard Harding, who helped review sensible drinking messages for the UK Government in the mid-1990s, said: ‘This campaigning document misrepresents the science and is not evidence-based.

Cambridge University statistician Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter said the WHF's representation of The Lancet study was not an accurate portrayal of the work

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge University said the WHF’s depiction of The Lancet study wasn’t accurate.

‘People shouldn’t drink alcohol for its potential health benefits, but those who choose to drink alcohol have a right not to be misinformed about the health consequences.’

Beatriz Champagne, of the WHF, said it had updated the document ‘to more clearly articulate our conclusions’, adding: ‘Our position is that studies showing a significant cardio-protective effect of alcohol consumption have by-and-large been observational, inconsistent, funded by the alcohol industry, and/or not subject to randomised control.

‘Any potential cardio-protective effect is negated by the well-documented risks and harms… no amount of consumption can be considered good for heart health.’