Alcohol Researcher Says Alcohol-Industry Lobbyists are Attacking His Work (yahoo.com) 154
"Last year, a major meta-analysis that re-examined 107 studies over 40 years came to the conclusion that no amount of alcohol improves health," the New York Times reported this June, citing a study co-authored by Tim Stockwell, an epidemiologist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research. Dr. Stockwell (and other scientists he's collaborated with) "are overhauling decades-worth of scientific evidence — and newspaper headlines — that backed the health benefits of alcohol," writes the Telegraph, "or what is known in the scientific community as the J-curve. The J-curve is the theory that, like a capital J, the negative health consequences of drinking dip slightly into positive territory with moderate drinking — as it benefits such things as the heart — before rising sharply back into negative territory the more someone drinks."
But Stockwell's study prompted at least one scientist to accuse Stockwell of "cherry picking" evidence to suit an agenda — while a think-tank executive suggests he's a front for a worldwide temperance lobby: Dr Stockwell denies this. Speaking to The Telegraph, he in turn accused his detractors of being funded by the alcohol lobby and said his links to temperance societies were fleeting. He was the president of the Kettil Bruun Society (a think tank born out of what was the international temperance congresses) [from 2005 to 2007] and he has been reimbursed for addressing temperance movements and admits attending their meetings, but, he says, not as a member...
Former British government scientist Richard Harding, who gave evidence on safe drinking to the House of Commons select committee on science and technology in 2011, told The Telegraph that Dr Stockwell had wrongly taken a correlation to be causal. "Dr Stockwell's research is essentially epidemiology, which is the study of populations," Dr Harding said. "You record people's lifestyle and then see what diseases they get and try to correlate the disease with some aspect of their lifestyle. But it is just a correlation, it's just an association. Epidemiology can never establish causality on its own. And in this particular case, Dr Stockwell selected six studies out of 107 to focus on. You could say he cherry picked them. Really, the important thing is not the epidemiology, it's the effect that alcohol actually has on the body. We know the reasons why the curve is J-shaped; it's because of the protective effect moderate consumption has on heart disease and a number of other diseases."
Dr Stockwell rejects Dr Harding's criticism of his study, telling The Telegraph that Dr Harding "doesn't appear to have read it" and accusing him of being in the pocket of the alcohol industry. "We identified six high-quality studies out of 107 and they didn't find any J-shaped curve," Dr Stockwell said. "In fact, since our recent paper, we've now got genetic studies which are showing there's no benefits of low-level alcohol use. I personally think there might still be small benefits, but the point of our work is that, if there are benefits, they've been exaggerating them."
The article notes that Stockwell's research "has been published in The Lancet, among other esteemed organs," and that "scientists he has collaborated with on research highlighting the dangers of alcohol are in positions of power at major institutions, such as the World Health Organisation."
And honestly, the opposing viewpoint seems to be thinly-sourced. Besides Harding (the former British government scientist), the article cites:
But Stockwell's study prompted at least one scientist to accuse Stockwell of "cherry picking" evidence to suit an agenda — while a think-tank executive suggests he's a front for a worldwide temperance lobby: Dr Stockwell denies this. Speaking to The Telegraph, he in turn accused his detractors of being funded by the alcohol lobby and said his links to temperance societies were fleeting. He was the president of the Kettil Bruun Society (a think tank born out of what was the international temperance congresses) [from 2005 to 2007] and he has been reimbursed for addressing temperance movements and admits attending their meetings, but, he says, not as a member...
Former British government scientist Richard Harding, who gave evidence on safe drinking to the House of Commons select committee on science and technology in 2011, told The Telegraph that Dr Stockwell had wrongly taken a correlation to be causal. "Dr Stockwell's research is essentially epidemiology, which is the study of populations," Dr Harding said. "You record people's lifestyle and then see what diseases they get and try to correlate the disease with some aspect of their lifestyle. But it is just a correlation, it's just an association. Epidemiology can never establish causality on its own. And in this particular case, Dr Stockwell selected six studies out of 107 to focus on. You could say he cherry picked them. Really, the important thing is not the epidemiology, it's the effect that alcohol actually has on the body. We know the reasons why the curve is J-shaped; it's because of the protective effect moderate consumption has on heart disease and a number of other diseases."
Dr Stockwell rejects Dr Harding's criticism of his study, telling The Telegraph that Dr Harding "doesn't appear to have read it" and accusing him of being in the pocket of the alcohol industry. "We identified six high-quality studies out of 107 and they didn't find any J-shaped curve," Dr Stockwell said. "In fact, since our recent paper, we've now got genetic studies which are showing there's no benefits of low-level alcohol use. I personally think there might still be small benefits, but the point of our work is that, if there are benefits, they've been exaggerating them."
The article notes that Stockwell's research "has been published in The Lancet, among other esteemed organs," and that "scientists he has collaborated with on research highlighting the dangers of alcohol are in positions of power at major institutions, such as the World Health Organisation."
And honestly, the opposing viewpoint seems to be thinly-sourced. Besides Harding (the former British government scientist), the article cites:
- The head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs (which Wikipedia describes as "a right-wing, free market think tank")
- An alcohol policy specialist at Brock University in Ontario (who argues rather unconvincingly that "you can't measure when someone didn't hurt themselves because a friend invited them for a drink.")
On the basis of that, the article writes "respected peers say it is far from settled science and have cast doubt on his research". (And that "fellow academics and experts" told The Telegraph "they read the report in disbelief.") Did the Telegraph speak to others who just aren't mentioned in the story? Or are they extrapolating, in that famous British tabloid journalism sort of way?
Little does he know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that a lot of medical researchers still ignore psychological effects. Yes, they are just a part of the puzzle and not the all-deciding thing some people think. But they are important. They are somewhat "icky" to a lot of researchers, because things are hard to measure and you cannot get really good measurements. So they get ignored, which, quite frankly, is a failure to live up to professional standards in a researcher and not only in the medical area. (I see that mistake in the IT security a
Re:Little does he know (Score:5, Informative)
People who drink even a little still die at the same time or earlier on average, no matter the psychological effects. Also, they're generally not the greatest effects.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what OP is getting at is he may just commit suicide today if not for alcohol numbing his pain. So instead of dying of an alcoholic disease later in life, they would be dead right now without alcohol.
Of course alcohol is bad for us and shortens a natural life. We know that. I'd say allowing OP to use alcohol to get by while still allowing them to be a productive member of society is worth the difference of shortening OPs natural life.
I'm assuming (I know I know) OP isn't homeless and stealing the alc
Re: Little does he know (Score:2)
I've actually never met a Mormon that didn't drink.
The running joke is they all have a bar in their basement. The reality is the dry towns in my province were largely dry towns to protect the moonshine business.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Some of the biggest booze hounds I've known have been muslims.
Most people are not particularly observant about their religious obligations, just the ultras.
Then again, I'm an Aussie, and we still fortunately have a situation where most people consider religion a turn off when it comes to politics and polite society.
Re: Little does he know (Score:2)
I come back to what I said.
Many of these people claim to not drink; that is rarely a true statement.
The lie perpetuates as the cost to discovery increases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've actually never met a Mormon that didn't drink.
Then you haven't met many Mormons, and the sample you do have is very biased. Some active Mormons drink, but 75% [religioninpublic.blog] of those who attend church regularly do not, and 90% of those who attend the temple do not. These numbers accord with my anecdotal experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well if religioninpublic.blog says so then it must be true.
Re:Little does he know (Score:4, Insightful)
That is bullshit. It really depends on the scenario. For example, religious fuckups that do not drink (think Mormons) tend to live longer. But once you bring quality of life into the picture, you find these people just waste their lives on a shared hallucination and are likely to get much less out of it. A one-dimensional number is very rarely a good quality metric.
And the fuckups that imbibe poison have a better "quality of life?" What does "get much less out of [life]" even mean? A pious asshole doesn't inflict the rest of society with their anti-social behavior (drunk driving, domestic violence, etc.) like a drunk asshole, so a the latter has a more meaningful life?
Re: (Score:2)
A pious asshole doesn't inflict the rest of society with their anti-social behavior (drunk driving, domestic violence, etc.) like a drunk asshole
Do you really assume everyone who drinks drives drunk and beats up their partner? Must it be binary? You make it sound like people who don't drink don't beat up their wives.
Re: (Score:2)
Theres a whole underclass of people whose lives practically depend on getting wasted in order to be tolerable.
Your waitstaff, the guy who rings up your gas, the entire us military.
I know it's hard to measure and nobody has any interest in doing so anyhow but if you like you can quit your IT job and see how the other half lives.
Re: (Score:2)
But once you bring quality of life into the picture, you find these people just waste their lives on a shared hallucination and are likely to get much less out of it.
How do you define "quality of life"? By almost any metric you can name, including perceived happiness, Mormons score better than the rest of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Little does he know (Score:4, Insightful)
Alcohol gives me the will to live.
Just gives me a wicked headache, even in modest amounts. I'm glad I found other aspects of life that make it worth living, because pipe cleaner disguised as a beverage ain't one of them, for me.
Re:Little does he know (Score:4)
Alcohol gives me the will to live. So, anecdotally, I believe he's wrong.
I'm poor with moderation, so not consuming alcohol has preventing me from dying from cirrhosis of the liver. So, anecdotally, I believe he's right.
Do you see the pointlessness of anecdotes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Little does he know (Score:2)
Guess we need a poll...
Or a party
Re:Little does he know (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet you're really fun at parties.
Dude, as it says on the homepage: "News for Nerds." The only kind of parties a lot of us attended in our younger years were of the LAN variety. It was all about the Bawls, Red Bull, and Dew.
Re: (Score:3)
But I'm still a lot of fun at parties!
Re:Little does he know (Score:5, Funny)
" Remember the days of hauling at 19" multisync monitor to a LAN party?"
No, cuz i was the one hauling around a 21" 1600x1200 Trinitron along with a massive fucking Antec case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Little does he know (Score:4, Insightful)
I never found someone who uses that cheap insult on others who actually would have been fun themselves either on or off parties.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, but in the process, alcohol abuse destroys so many others
the problem isn't alcohol, it's a corrupt industry driven by upper class greed that refuses to accept any responsibility for the harm they've caused
evil people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deserved Funny mod, but no moderators thought so. (Cut the "so"?)
Alcohol is terrible for you (Score:5, Informative)
With that said, moderate consumption isn't going to kill you very quickly.
Unfortunately, moderate consumption is a dream for many. I divorced my 14-year long wife for addiction - in the two years since she started smoking crack but certainly drank up a storm also and continues to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
My doctor showed me the liver issue, just starting off, so I essentially stopped drinking. I haven't had a real drink in months. I did have a handful of 0.5% beers, but not on the same day. So quitting can happen. Sorry to hear about your ex-wife.
Re:Alcohol is terrible for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. "No positive effects" does not imply "negative effects", even if that assumption is a very common mistake. Moderate consumption is not really doing anything for physical health but may make you feel better, help you relax, etc. That said, like with any drug (and that very much includes sugar, probably the number 1 killer drug in some parts of the western world), moderation is key and if you either react badly or cannot control it, stay away. There really is nothing that can be done in a free society, except maybe better education. We had a full several weeks in school on drugs (very fact-based, very honest, including by the police officers that came with sealed samples for us to look at - key take-away was that you might be fine or you might totally lose control of your life), and we had several years of cooking classes.
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol actually kills brain cells and damages the liver. Most other drugs, you have to look further for the long-term damage done to the body. Marijuana's impact on the brain is harder to pin down, though it is there and you can also see it in long term users. In comparison, the opiates are fairly mild on the body if you don't overdose. And cocaine, while it can cause cardiovascular symptoms and some damage to the nose if it is ingested that way, also is harder to pin down the long term effects of.
The
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that is because you chose your gut-feeling over looking at actual Science. In this case, that deeply flawed approach lets you probably err on the side of caution, but that will not always be the case. So, good luck.
That's not an alcohol problem (Score:2)
Substance abuse is never the disease. It's a symptom of some other underlying mental health issue. If you don't treat the underlying problem, they're just going to switch over to a new drug of choice, which could be anything from crack to something actually dangerous, like a cult.
Accusation is that Stockwell cherry-picked studies (Score:2, Informative)
If you read the article, he is accused of focusing on just 6 specific studies out of the 107 included in the meta-analysis.
His response to this allegation is that he did focus on just 6 specific studies out of the 107.
You can't do that. You can't claim a meta-analysis of 107 studies and then discard the 101 that you disagree with.
Re: Accusation is that Stockwell cherry-picked stu (Score:5, Insightful)
I am mot in that field and i havent read the papers.
But the question should be why did he exclude these 100 papers. Many papers are actually poorly written or with poor scientific protocols. Or maybe with small sample sizes.
So the real question is did you set the parameters and then filter. and you are left with 6. or did you want these 6 and retro engineer the reasonni gs
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly there was a good reason to exclude almost all the papers from the study. But then you have a meta-analysis of 6 papers, not 107.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And that is probably too low for a valid basis for a proper meta-analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree. There may even habe been completely valid reason to cut out 101 and only retain 6, but then the conclusion definitely should have been "no conclusive meta-analysis possible at this time".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps moderate drinkers were healthier than nondrinkers, they said, because they were more likely to be educated, wealthy and physically active, and more likely to have health insurance and eat more vegetables. Or maybe, these researchers added, it was because m
A meta-study is a study of studies. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't do that. You can't claim a meta-analysis of 107 studies and then discard the 101 that you disagree with.
From TFA `“We identified six high-quality studies out of 107 and they didn’t find any J-shaped curve,” Dr Stockwell said. “In fact, since our recent paper, we’ve now got genetic studies which are showing there’s no benefits of low-level alcohol use.`
This was a meta-study which means they were investigating the quality of the studies in order to ensure the validity of the conclusions. The result was that out of 107 studies that only six were high-quality studies while 101 studies were flawed in some regard and thus cannot be used to make an accurate conclusion.
The nice thing about science is that doing more high-quality studies will bring forth the truth.
Re: A meta-study is a study of studies. (Score:3)
Meta analysis ONLY points to whether a study should be done.
It does NOT and should NOT result in policy change. It is inherently at high risk for bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Meta analysis ONLY points to whether a study should be done.
This is incorrect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: A meta-study is a study of studies. (Score:2)
Meta analysis does not consider whether a study is flawed, that is for a replication study to assess. Meta analysis cares about whether there is anything in the data across various methodologies. There are a lot more than 107 studies on the subject of alcohol in humans, it is probably one of the more common studies, he picked those studies and rejected them for not having a certain type of statistical result (the expected curve) which is the definition of cherry picking.
Re: (Score:2)
Meta analysis does not consider whether a study is flawed
Some reading for you: Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis [nih.gov]
Few things in life are totally safe. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more with your statement.
That said, I believe no amount of alcohol is "healthy." It has ZERO positive physical attributes for the body. A better question is how "unhealthy" it is. That is hard to quantify, and must take in lots of factors. But this myth that "X" amount of it per day is helpful in any physical way has always been a lie. (And those who point to red wine, please know that most, if not all, supposed benefits could be had by taking red grape extract pills that contain seed
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a heavy drinker, never have been. But I do enjoy whiskey and beer on occasion. Earlier this year my wife and I took a trip to Disney World in Orlando and I had some classic cocktails for the very first time. I had to know how they were made so when we returned I picked up mixology as a hobby.
I'm still not a big drinker, and I agree with you that no amount of alcohol consumption is "healthy." But I think the reason people get their panties in a knot about these types of studies, and the fact that the
Hot take: water is wet (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt there are many people who think drinking small to moderate amounts of alcohol have significant health benefits. Maybe there's some benefit but if there is, it's tiny. We all know the big picture of how to stay health: eat a varied diet, exercise some, keep your weight down, don't smoke. Do that and you'll get 90% of the benefit of all health advice.
Conversely, we all have ample evidence that drinking small to moderate amounts of alcohol don't seem to adversely affect people's health. We've got 5,000 years of observational evidence showing this isn't a huge problem. You can check it yourself: think about all your friends who aren't heavy drinkers. Does their health seem to correlate with their drinking? I didn't think so. (Yes, yes, I know, the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data".)
You know what's also not surprising? That when a headline says "no amount of drinking is healthy" (when what the researcher actually found was "small amounts of drinking are a no-op for health"), what the editors want to say is "we should ban alcohol". And it's not surprising people who make they living selling alcohol might want to call bullshit on that. Who else would you expect to complain? Well, other than the millions of people who enjoy drinking beer, wine, and spirits and find the pleasure in drinking far, far outweighs any negligible health effects. The busybodies and nannies have used that overly-precautionary principle far too many times to let it slide.
Re:Hot take: water is wet (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. No amount of alcohol is healthy, but incredibly few want to actually ban alcohol. A drink or 3 a week, spread out, might not have a significant health impact, but it will have an impact.
Re: (Score:2)
We tried banning alcohol once. That didn't work out so well.
Also, we're kind of ignoring all of the culinary uses for wine and various spirits. I don't even drink the stuff and I'd still be royally pissed about a ban because I use it quite often in my cooking.
Re: (Score:2)
Much (often most) alcohol used in cooking is "burned off" (evaporates/converts) during the cooking, or greatly reduced. It does depend on how much went in, how it was cooked, for how long, etc.
Even so, I would certainly oppose any type of ban. And no, I don't drink alcohol (never have, never will).
Re:Hot take: water is wet (Score:4, Funny)
Nope. No amount of alcohol is healthy, but incredibly few want to actually ban alcohol. A drink or 3 a week, spread out, might not have a significant health impact, but it will have an impact.
Most of my friends who insist that alcohol has beneficial health effects in moderation, consider one drink per hour for 3 or 4 HOURS to be "moderate".
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. No amount of alcohol is healthy
Well, that's what's being investigated and debated so let's not take that as a given just yet.
Perhaps we should be clearer what "healthy" means. Does it mean it improves one's health? Or does it just not have negative consequences? Or not have significant negative consequences? My guess is most people and most drinkers would stipulate drinking alcohol itself likely doesn't improve one's health and also probably doesn't do anything especially bad. I further guess most people read "healthy" and think "improve
Re: (Score:2)
A drink or 3 a week, spread out, might not have a significant health impact, but it will have an impact.
So will eating cake. I don't hear anyone clamoring to ban cake for everyone...
Re:Hot take: water is wet (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt there are many people who think drinking small to moderate amounts of alcohol have significant health benefits.
Never underestimate the gullibility of humans.
https://www.seattletimes.com/n... [seattletimes.com]
But it wasn’t until the “60 Minutes” segment [in 1991] that the idea of red wine as a virtuous health drink went “viral,” he said. Within a year after the show aired, red wine sales in the United States jumped 40%.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not gullibility, that's willful ignorance. People wanted to drink more, and by la
Re: (Score:2)
seems like semantics - in order to profit from marks, you want to pick the easiest ones to convince into "willful ignorance" and believing your story
Interesting take. Who do you think are the marks in this case? People who want a cover story for drinking or those who want to restrict access to something they don't personally approve of?
Re: (Score:2)
You know what's also not surprising? That when a headline says "no amount of drinking is healthy" (when what the researcher actually found was "small amounts of drinking are a no-op for health"), what the editors want to say is "we should ban alcohol"
The reason why propagandists (and other marketeers) use science so prominently to disseminate their agenda is because it's effective: it's a claim with an implicit claim to authenticity: Science(tm)! They've been doing it since the beginning of modern pharmacol
Re: (Score:2)
... and yet, today we've got a modern medical government monopoly/mafia that's pushing pretty hard for the complete ban of tobacco/nicotine products. Why is that - despite the fact that nicotine has been shown to have extremely valuable anti-parasitic, fungal, and viral properties?
Don't get me started.
I don't necessarily agree governments want to ban tobacco. States get a ton of money from the tobacco lawsuit settlement and literally can't afford for people to stop smoking tobacco. If it was about health, we'd have states and the Feds vigorously promoting vaping. I'm sure there's a Bootleggers and Baptists situation going on. Some people fervently believe any use of tobacco or nicotine is evil and bad, vaping looks like smoking and has nicotine, so it must be bad. The bootleggers are
Re: (Score:2)
is the impact, which is not "a significant heath impact" worth caring about?
no.
that's the entire point. yeah, ok, fine, alcohol is a f'in' poison.
but it makes me feel better in a way that the non-stop stress of 21st century life does not.
The stress is gonna kill me faster than the booze will. I will NOT back down on that fact. The stress of living the life this culture and society have pinned to us is worse than a drink every few nights.
None of the cited articles are talking about stress and the degree that
Re:Hot take: water is wet (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it can be difficult to find alternatives, but drinking as a coping strategy for stress is a really, really good way to end up worse off. It's worth looking at other ways to reduce or relieve stress.
The studies saying small amounts of alcohol (Score:2)
So no the research is not found small amounts of alcohol are healthy, in fact when actual research has been done even small amounts of alcohol are quite unhealthy. That said it doesn't mean you should stop pranking I mean yeah I don't but I also chug a whole hell of a lot of soda which is ridiculously bad for me. That s
Re: (Score:2)
Are beneficial have long since been debunked.
To be precise, I don't know anyone said the actual alcohol in wine was beneficial. IIRC any health benefit was mostly attributed to antioxidants and other substances in the wine. The same story applied to coffee and chocolate. The most I heard speculated was that alcohol might help dissolve and digest fats. Personally that sounds pretty far-fetched but I'm not a doctor or nutritionist.
...but I also chug a whole hell of a lot of soda which is ridiculously bad for me. That said I've yet to have a doctor tell me I should take up drinking alcohol...
My doctor tells me to lose weight and avoid sugars every time we talk about my blood glucose levels.
Alcohol is addictive and it's one of only two genuinely addictive substance you can just haul off and buy whenever the hell you feel like it (The other being tobacco).
Those might be the bigg
My links to the KKK were fleeting. (Score:3)
I was just the Grand Cyclops and attended meetings and was paid by them.
Robert Byrd
No amount of alcohol improves health? (Score:2)
Re:No amount of alcohol improves health? (Score:4)
Our ancestors survived BECAUSE of alcohol, in so many areas you literally COULD NOT drink the water without dying.
This is something that everybody knows.
By the way, it is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree, but... (Score:2, Funny)
I disagree completely with this guy's findings, on a real and personal level. And since when has a tautological conclusion like this ever proven honestly backed? That sounds like bullshit. There is undoubtedly some form of special interest behind it, and given how big a splash this has had (I've seen dozens if not hundreds of articles passed between/to alchy family members to get them to stop.) For instance, the "all nicotine is bad for you" science which has been argued by government industry for decades,
Re: (Score:2)
"all nicotine is bad for you" science which has been argued by government industry for decades, to the point that tobacco products are effectively regulated to near extinction. Oh really? Then why does it have various properties which make it medicinally useful (eg. anti-parasitic, anti-fungal, anti-viral) which have been used for that purpose for millennia?
Your arguments are normally used ironically. In fun contexts, people call alcohol their mouth wash, says it kills bacteria.
Nicotine is bad for you for the same reason it's bad for the parasites, fungi, and viruses: it kills stuff. Medicines are not things that are "good". If they were good, they would be categorized "food supplement" not "medicine". Medicines are used because they kill the bad stuff slightly faster than they kill you. You only should take medicines when there is no other choice. You can kil
Re: (Score:2)
Almost every single bit of what you write there is complete nonsense.
1. The extent to which nicotine is "bad for you" is that it might be a human carcinogen, not because "it kills stuff."
2. Medicines are not "used because they kill the bad stuff slightly faster than they kill you.' Naproxen doesn't kill things. Penicillin does not "kill the bad stuff slightly faster than it kills you." Metformin, dexamethasone, digoxin, sumatriptan, levonorgestrel, haloperidol, epinephrine, and a whole slew of other medi
Re: (Score:2)
there are indigenous peoples who exist primarily on fermented (alcoholic), often alcoholic foods, and their health is enigmatically good vs western or even similar primitive peoples. Fermenting things into alcohol increases protein and many nutrients and reduces starch, making them significantly more healthful.
AFAIK, the alcohol content in such foods is rather low, and it's more about the lactic acid fermentation than producing alcohol. These are also traditional in more "developed" cultures, e.g. Kimchi and other varieties of Sauerkraut. I'm also reminded of traditional European beer styles where the low alcohol content kept the drink from going bad but didn't get you particularly drunk, so it was a practical drink for working people. The "alcohol in food" process is also used widely to bake bread, though the a
Re: (Score:2)
Holy cow, there are a lot of low-digit usernames on Slashdot who don't understand how science works and really like their drinks.
Who stands to benefit? (Score:2)
Does Stockwell benefit financially if people drink less? Or do alcohol companies benefit financially if people drink more?
Look at who's funding each side of this debate.
Slainte (Score:2)
I drank to all of this. I am so sorry about it, or happy for them, whatever, Iâ(TM)ll have another.
I will gladly drink more if it improves my health. But I wonâ(TM)t drink less if it turns out that it doesnâ(TM)t.
This article makes no sense (Score:2)
Beyond the typical clickbait title, this article and even the controversy being written about makes no sense.
The article clearly states that one researcher among many who came to the conclusion that alcohol is 100% bad for you no matter how much you drink, is the one being accused of being a front for the alcohol industry? What?
And the accuser is the guy who started the idea that moderate drinking is good for you? Is it not completely obvious that this person would be the most pro-alcohol person in the situ
Re: This article makes no sense (Score:2)
Never mind the stupid clickbait title and totally convoluted writing in the article threw me. Stockwell = anti-alcohol, Harding=anti-alcohol
Re: This article makes no sense (Score:2)
Jesusâ¦harding = pro-alcohol
Alcohol lobby? (Score:2)
I used to work for a brewery/pub company and this is the first I have heard of some secretive overarching illuminati style "alcohol lobby" whatever that means.
The closest you get are the annual meetings between breweries (in the UK) where they discuss/demonstrate things they have done etc, basically its like a trade show.
They talk about what ERP systems they have been using, any concerns with changes in world trade export red tape etc and how that will be addressed, in order to come to some agreement as to
Google it Re:Alcohol lobby? (Score:2)
Googling for "alcohol lobby" will get you up to date on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for a lobby (Score:2)
Enough people want alcohol to have some health benefit so they can feel better about consuming it. So naturally anyone who says otherwise will get attacked.
This is just a reminder (Score:2)
That Wakefield's research purporting to demonstrate that vaccines cause autism was "published in the Lancet" and then went unretracted for over a decade.
um, wait... (Score:2)
I'm not a scientist, I don't even play one on TV, but I was under the impression that having a small amount of wine, specifically red wine, for health purposes, was because of the things besides alcohol that was in the beverage. It seems that this argument is something like, don't take your meds because the gel coating is bad for you.
Moreover, as many have pointed out, alcohol reduces stress, and as Bartok says, "Stress, it's a killer, sir."
So yeah, technically correct maybe, but wrong conclusion, due to n
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to die from ODing on cannabis.
However, a lot of people die young from it. It's just not well researched. It's not just lung cancer. Cannabis can cause psychosis.
https://childmind.org/article/... [childmind.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In the article you linked:
Can pot use cause schizophrenia?
Maybe, maybe not.
Can smoking weed cause psychosis?
Experts don’t know for sure whether smoking weed causes psychosis.
It's just not a very convincing article. It backs out of the headlines with a lot of weasel words and an unwillingness to commit to a position.
I think this [cambridge.org] is a better link. "In patients, there was a linear relationship between the positive symptom dimension and the extent of lifetime exposure to cannabis, with daily users of high-potency cannabis having the highest score (B = 0.35; 95% CI 0.14–0.56)."
Overall, there is a lot we don't know about both psychosis and about cannab
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of cannabis deaths is still 0.
It's admittedly outside of my pay grade, but I'd imagine regularly inhaling any burning plant matter is going to have deleterious health impacts. That being said, if an adult wants to barbecue their lungs, that should be their choice as long as long as I'm not forced to smell it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are much better/safer ways to consume it- like eating it or vaping it. That said, you are right that the smell from people smoking it is absolutely disgusting, it seems impossible to get away from nowadays.
As for it being "zero deaths" (the OP), I don't believe that for a moment. But I also know it is probably zillions of times medically and sociologically safer than alcohol. And yet I also know it is still considerably deleterious to society to have a significant amount of people zonked/high/dull
Re: Meanwhile (Score:2)
Yeah, but isn't that 'society', in its actual form, cause for much more issues than just those for which alcohol or cannabis use/abuse are responsible, not even excluding these?
Re: (Score:2)
> vaping it
Vaping is even more dangerous and untested.
Re: (Score:2)
You actually believe vaping is more dangerous than inhaling burned/combusted smoke? I am afraid you are not going to find much support for that position. I believe most relevant literature indicates between a 90 and 95% harm reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
I trust the raw flower over whatever is hopefully inside the vape pen. Especially when I'm more likely to know the source of the flower versus the source of the vape pen. I've heard of people dying from bad vape pens where as I've not heard of someone dying from bad flower.
Obviously any kind of smoke inhalation is bad for the lungs and daily usage of high quality flower can have negative effects on quality of sleep and other areas of your life as well.
I'd still trust the flower over the vape pen.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of cannabis deaths is still 0.
It's admittedly outside of my pay grade, but I'd imagine regularly inhaling any burning plant matter is going to have deleterious health impacts. That being said, if an adult wants to barbecue their lungs, that should be their choice as long as long as I'm not forced to smell it.
Anecdotally speaking, vaping cannabis is the way to go. Back when I was consuming it - long before it was legalized here - I smoked it off-and-on for three decades. Then, at 50, I caught a bad cold - and suddenly I had asthma.
After that, smoking the stuff was then a problem. But a friend gave me a vaporizer. Vaping was terrific - minimal effect on my asthma, no clouds of smoke, virtually no smell at all, and still a terrific high. I 'highly' recommend vaping bud to anyone who likes to indulge in cannabis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is zero, then you have a problem with the way you count. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide smoke cannabis, some people are bound to die from it, I can't imagine any activity on such a scale causing zero deaths. Even activities that are almost universally recognized as good, like exercising causes some deaths.
You can get to zero if you narrow down the definition of a "cannabis death" enough. Maybe if you are talking deaths by the toxic effect of THC, then you may be right, though I still need so
Re: (Score:2)
Given the way you want to measure things, walking and breathing can kill you. Cellphones kill you. EVERYTHING CAN KILL YOU!!!
I find that a dubious way to measure deaths associated with certain activities. You are still more likely to die from a car accident on the way to the store then you are from the alcohol or weed you just bought there. Guess we should ban driving then.
Re: (Score:3)
Argument by assertion, not a valid refutation of the claim that cannabis causes zero deaths. Do you have any actual evidence to back up your claim?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)