Jim Swayze wrote:

> You're apparently prepared to write off the Bristol findings
> as "statistical anomaly" and their explanation for the
> differences between their study and the others finding
> benefit in moderate alcohol consumption as mere "conjecture."
> 
> As scientists, I'm going to give our British friends a little
> more credit than that.

You're missing the point here, Jim. I'm not saying the Brits are idiots.
American scientists do the same thing, and there is nothing wrong with it.
The problem is that the PUBLIC is scientifically naïve, including the
reporters, and so conjectures are often seen as facts. 

You need to understand the scientific method. 

FIRST scientists formulate a theory.
SECOND they gather new data and test the theory.

The opposite order of things is not good science. It is merely conjecture.
When researchers gather the data first, and then based on that data
formulate a theory to fit the data, they we are not doing a scientific
experiment. They are merely formulating theories and conjectures that might
be tested by future experiments. And that is all these Bristol researchers
have done with respect to the question at hand.

-gts