[dynm]

The results for how much people actually drank in daily life were basically zero. No effect at all. The effects you're talking about are for a weird lab experiment where they sort of had people sit there in the lab and drink (or not). A huge percentage of people declined to participate in that experiment, too, which makes causality non-obvious.

[llm_nerd]

The effects you're talking about are for a weird lab experiment where they sort of had people sit there in the lab and drink (or not).

Where people on GLP-1s -- in a randomized, double-blind study, notably -- chose to partake of less. I cannot fathom how you dismiss this.

It's a 9 week study at very low doses, and already a significant measurable effect was seen. Now if this wasn't a double-blind study I would dismiss it, but otherwise yeah, it matters.

People who have drinking habits will take a long time to adopt new habits. I would never expect to see baseline behaviour changes in so short a time. But their non-habit desire for alcohol clearly was diminished, hence the lab outcomes.

[dynm]

When you have lots of non-randomized dropouts from a randomized trial, that greatly weakens the causal link. The results are effectively non-randomized.

Meanwhile the evidence from actual drinking levels was much stronger (far fewer dropouts) and showed zero effect. Before this trial was done, you may have predicted that there would be positive results for the lab experiment but zero results in ecological conditions. But I think that prediction would be quite unusual. For anyone who expected results in ecological conditions (like me), this was disappointing.