This seems important…

[smokingman]

The scientists accused of using ‘flawed’ research to tell you to stop drinking

There is no safe level of alcohol. A single drink a day could shave almost three months off your life. And drinking can boost your cancer risk by 23 per cent.

news.yahoo.com

I think we heard this before and as it was back then, it was about control.

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

May want to tell the "other" scientist the narrative has changed.

Moderate Red Wine Consumption Increases the Expression of Longevity-Associated Genes in Controlled Human Populations and Extends Lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster

The beneficial effects of moderate red wine consumption on cardiovascular health are well known. The composition of red wine includes several compounds, such as the phytoestrogen resveratrol, that exert these beneficial effects, although not all the mechanisms ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[gassprint1]

I think we heard this before and as it was back then, it was about control.

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

May want to tell the "other" scientist the narrative has changed.

Moderate Red Wine Consumption Increases the Expression of Longevity-Associated Genes in Controlled Human Populations and Extends Lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster

The beneficial effects of moderate red wine consumption on cardiovascular health are well known. The composition of red wine includes several compounds, such as the phytoestrogen resveratrol, that exert these beneficial effects, although not all the mechanisms ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Probably 20 or 30yrs ago, over seas, mainly Italy and France did studies which was supposed to prove different wines, especially reds, was good for a longer life..
Just another spewing crap because they know people have to belive information coming from a doctor or scientist..

 

[smokingman]

Probably 20 or 30yrs ago, over seas, mainly Italy and France did studies which was supposed to prove different wines, especially reds, was good for a longer life..
Just another spewing crap because they know people have to belive information coming from a doctor or scientist..

At least most of those studies were based on chemistry(Resveratrol, known to increase telomere lenght),and not OMG OMG you are all killing yourself with every drink.

As the scientist of the new study pointed out his links to the temperance societies(as in more than one) were fleeting. I mean the "scientist" was only elected president of Kettil Bruun Society at an international temperance congress...because he was there? Maybe, motives of the scientist in question here can be in doubt. Oh,and why did that same society fund this research if said scientist is impartial and looking for actual science and not an almost religious idiology?

 

[patience0830]

Breathing can be toxic to your health and knock minutes, weeks or months off your life.

Stomach cancer is caused by saliva. But only when consumed in small quantities over long periods of time.

 

[Shadow01]

Actually, I think it's the not breathing that's so hazardous

Both are equally deadly to your health

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Worth repeating:

“Dr Stockwell has never conducted any primary research into this as far as I’m aware,”

That's the neat thing about science. It's peer reviewed. When your peers note you didn't actually research anything, just did a copypasta of the bits of other people's work that you happened to like, that's fairly telling of how much stock to put in your opinion I would think. Sort of like "do I trust these independent scientists or these RJ Reynolds scientists on the question of tobacco's link to lung cancer...hmmmmm"

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's not and has never been about public health, it's about control as demonstrated during the Covid scam. The so called scientists have destroyed their own credibility so spare me the "I care about your health" lecture.

So which ones destroyed their credibility here? The one who's never done any research telling you it's bad for you or the vast majority saying a certain quantity is somewhere between neutral and beneficial?

There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism. I'd rather strive for the first, though I know I also sometimes veer into the second.

 

[bwframe]

Ever get tired on that endless search for confirmation bias?

Ever get tired of trying to kill the messenger?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Remember, by not drinking, you get all the hottest babes.

 

[Bugzilla]

Global cooling
Asprin a day
Daily vitamins
Blood- letting


At one time "the earth was flat"

I have serious doubts about the veracity of much of today's "scientific findings".

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Please tell me how I would know that I lost three months of my life?

Pass me the Bourbon!

Even if it does, those months come off the end of your life, and those months are crappy anyway.

 

[JCSR]

People that don't drink are just better than those that do. Just wait and they'll tell you. They even post on the internets about it.

 

[MrSmitty]

Years ago, I remember hearing that a glass of red wine a day was good for pregnant women, now...not so much..

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

Even if it does, those months come off the end of your life, and those months are crappy anyway.

You know, I never really understood the scientific basis on claiming "this thing will take away 31.4 minutes off of your life if you eat it". How is something like that observed and quantified? There are WAY too many variables as to someone's health to be able to quantify their reaction to a specific element. Even though this is a personal anecdote, it illustrates my point. I know quite a few people from all walks of life. I've met habitual chain smokers and daily drinkers still somewhat active for their age in their 90's, and also known people who cared for their health dying in their 50's and 60's, mainly due to random illnesses.

Can a certain bad element or behavior contribute to a bigger health problem, one that could result in death, heck yeah it can. But going so far as to try and actually quantify it with a statistical value of "this much time is shaved off" to me is anything but scientific and falls more into the sensationalism. Quite frankly, things like sanitation, certain innovations in medical science, and access to a functioning grid have been the primary reasons for people living longer. Mental outlook can also have a major role as well. There is stuff in what we consume that is not good for us and shouldn't be present (like micro-plastics, certain types of syrups and oils, and heavy metals), but I can't help but feel that the studies saying eating bacon or drinking alcohol will shave whatever time from our lives are creating tempests in teapots.

 

[Mgderf]

Critical thinking seems to be a lost art these days.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You know, I never really understood the scientific basis on claiming "this thing will take away 31.4 minutes off of your life if you eat it". How is something like that observed and quantified? There are WAY too many variables as to someone's health to be able to quantify their reaction to a specific element. Even though this is a personal anecdote, it illustrates my point. I know quite a few people from all walks of life. I've met habitual chain smokers and daily drinkers still somewhat active for their age in their 90's, and also known people who cared for their health dying in their 50's and 60's, mainly due to random illnesses.

Can a certain bad element or behavior contribute to a bigger health problem, one that could result in death, heck yeah it can. But going so far as to try and actually quantify it with a statistical value of "this much time is shaved off" to me is anything but scientific and falls more into the sensationalism. Quite frankly, things like sanitation, certain innovations in medical science, and access to a functioning grid have been the primary reasons for people living longer. Mental outlook can also have a major role as well. There is stuff in what we consume that is not good for us and shouldn't be present (like micro-plastics, certain types of syrups and oils, and heavy metals), but I can't help but feel that the studies saying eating bacon or drinking alcohol will shave whatever time from our lives are creating tempests in teapots.

It's one of those interesting human nature things I guess, to offer some kind of simple benchmark as a quantification of something that's actually super complicated.

As the young people say, my source is "Trust me, Bro"

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You know, I never really understood the scientific basis on claiming "this thing will take away 31.4 minutes off of your life if you eat it". How is something like that observed and quantified?

The media tends to not understand what they report on and to sensationalize it either way. By necessity, a lot of the reporting and summary is just a very brief illustration of the underlying study as well. Running an anti-smoking campaign, for example. "A cigarette takes 2 minutes off your life" sort of statements are easy to understand in the brief time it takes to read it, where a 40 page study breaking down the actual effects on various morbidity factors wouldn't be read (or fit on the ad).

Typically they arrive at these numbers by averaging the lifespan of large groups of people, isolating for that variable. If, for example, I take the male population of a town in Kentucky with a coal mine and use mortality data for everyone, then divide out those who mined coal and those who didn't, I can see the effect on lifespan of mining coal. The population is pretty homogenous (which means the culture and eating habits are all likely to be similar) and other variables will likely average out across the group. There's likely to be the same percentage of men smoking who work in the mine vs men who don't work at the mine, etc.

From that data, you can get a pretty good idea of how working in a coal mine effects longevity. Now, what you don't get is why. Is it coal dust? Is it exposure to something else in the mine? Is it lack of sunlight exposure? From there, you'd have to start dividing in to those who, say actively mined vs ran utes to drive back and forth from the surface. If it's coal dust, you should see a more pronounced effect among those who are closest to the actual mining, etc.

There are other ways in some circumstances. Say you know a given level of a chemical in the blood, a certain level of blockage in blood vessels, etc. is associated with a fatal outcome. People with 85% blockage tend to die X years earlier than those with less than 70%, etc. Then if you can measure how quickly that variable is increased by a given act, you can start making that determination as well.

All said, nobody in research believes that it's an exact figure for a given individual, it's an illustration of the strength of the effect over an average of the studied population.

 

[Lpherr]

Years ago, I remember hearing that a glass of red wine a day was good for pregnant women, now...not so much..

It certainly helps in them getting pregnant.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Quoted from the Wikipedia thing on Prohibition:

"To prevent bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal beverages, the federal government ordered the denaturation of industrial alcohols, meaning they must include additives to make them unpalatable or poisonous. "

"New York City medical examiners prominently opposed these policies because of the danger to human life. As many as 10,000 people died from drinking denatured alcohol before Prohibition ended.[92] New York City medical examiner Charles Norris believed the government took responsibility for murder when they knew the poison was not deterring consumption and they continued to poison industrial alcohol (which would be used in drinking alcohol) anyway."

Intentionally poisoning thousands of people whose only crime was drinking alcohol is (pardon the pun) a sobering reality. First it was done to discourage drinking of illegal beverages, but it continues now only to discourage drinking untaxed beverages. It should make us realize that, among all the real reasons for which laws are made, caring about human lives is not one of them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Quoted from the Wikipedia thing on Prohibition:

"To prevent bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal beverages, the federal government ordered the denaturation of industrial alcohols, meaning they must include additives to make them unpalatable or poisonous. "

"New York City medical examiners prominently opposed these policies because of the danger to human life. As many as 10,000 people died from drinking denatured alcohol before Prohibition ended.[92] New York City medical examiner Charles Norris believed the government took responsibility for murder when they knew the poison was not deterring consumption and they continued to poison industrial alcohol (which would be used in drinking alcohol) anyway."

Intentionally poisoning thousands of people whose only crime was drinking alcohol is (pardon the pun) a sobering reality. It should make us realize that, among all the real reasons for which laws are made, caring about human lives is not one of them.

Perhaps cold hearted, but if you purposefully drink industrial alcohol I put that in the same boat as huffing paint. If it wasn't intended for human consumption but you use it to get high, you get what you get. Now, if it was mislabeled by that era's equivalent of fentanyl dealers, I'm somewhat more sympathetic.