To drink on a weekend

[TORONTONY]

I beg to differ.

 

There's not much call here for evidence, research papers or informed thinking.

 

But here's another study for you:

 

Moderate alcohol consumption has no positive effect on health - contrary to a number of studies - while heavy drinking doubles men's chances of dying from a stroke, research has found.

 

The large-scale study took place over 21 years, and while it confirmed that binge drinking is extremely bad for health, it contradicted studies showing reduced levels of heart disease among people who regularly drink a little.

 

There was no significant increase in the risk of heart disease among those drinking most, but men who drank more than 35 units - or 17 pints of beer - of alcohol a week had more than double the chance of dying from a stroke.

 

The Stroke Association, which funded the study, said the findings should raise awareness of the connection between alcohol and strokes, particularly among the young.

 

Professor George Davey Smith, of the department of social medicine at Bristol University, was a co-author of the paper, which appears in the British Medical Journal.

 

"We didn't find any benefit in low-level regular drinking," he told BBC News Online.

Small sample I know, but my mother in law had three Double

Diamonds and two Guinness almost every day for over 65 years and also smoked a lot. She lived to 89 My mother never touched either and lived to be 81. Facts ! The Queen Mother smoked and drank all her life and reached 102. Facts don't apply to everyone, is my point here.

 

---------- Post added 13-02-2017 at 19:31 ----------

 

[=Alcoblog;11596793]Fact … 14% of all road deaths are caused by drink drive accidents.

Fact … proving it's seven times safer to drive whilst over the limit.

 

Fact … facts can mean anything.

 

That's it, I am going to have a skinfull tonight and go for a spin. lol:P

Edited February 14, 2017 by TORONTONY

[Cyclone]

I beg to differ.

 

There's not much call here for evidence, research papers or informed thinking.

 

But here's another study for you:

 

Moderate alcohol consumption has no positive effect on health - contrary to a number of studies - while heavy drinking doubles men's chances of dying from a stroke, research has found.

 

The large-scale study took place over 21 years, and while it confirmed that binge drinking is extremely bad for health, it contradicted studies showing reduced levels of heart disease among people who regularly drink a little.

 

There was no significant increase in the risk of heart disease among those drinking most, but men who drank more than 35 units - or 17 pints of beer - of alcohol a week had more than double the chance of dying from a stroke.

 

The Stroke Association, which funded the study, said the findings should raise awareness of the connection between alcohol and strokes, particularly among the young.

 

Professor George Davey Smith, of the department of social medicine at Bristol University, was a co-author of the paper, which appears in the British Medical Journal.

 

"We didn't find any benefit in low-level regular drinking," he told BBC News Online.

 

Link please.

 

Oh, and if cgkshef is correct and you've changed that quote then that's very dishonest for someone who's so interested in the facts...

 

But you have at least just entirely contradicted the basis of your claims haven't you. Low level (ie moderate) drinking is at worse (ie your evidence) not harmful and not beneficial. Other studies, many of them, show it to be beneficial. No studies show it to be harmful. So explain again why you think moderate drinkers are damaging their health?

Edited February 14, 2017 by Cyclone

[cgksheff]

Sorry.

Forgot to post the links:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/377381.stm

 

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s33704.htm

[lectrolove]

I bet the OP wishes she never started this.

[Owethemnowt]

The facts provided are condensed to aid clarity of understanding.

 

The entire study's findings cannot be replicated here due to, partly, the length, but also the complexity of the findings. They are clearly not for everyone's appetite as it is by no means straight forward to comprehend.

 

However, the central tenet of what is presented here is the outcome of the actual findings in a study that over turns other studies.

 

It is a fact that the drinks industry, in similar fashion to the tabacco industry did, funds favourable research to mask the truth about its products. The cigarette manufacturers did this for over 50 years until science proved the links to cancer.

 

We have a situation of a similar nature today.

 

There is far greater funding to prove the health benefits of 'moderate' drinking because that is in the interests of those providing the very funding. They started with a proposition and then set out to prove it. The alcohol industry throws millions into 'research' the same as it does into advertising. Despite this an alternative voice has made itself heard.

 

The evidence exists that there is no benefit in moderate drinking however it is defined.

 

It can not be shown that there is any conclusive,damage in the immediate short term. But then there were smokers who died of old age after 70 years of 60 a day. That proves some survive to die of old age. Nothing more. It proved that they did not contract cancer whilst millions of others did. But common sense, intuition, must guide us.

 

It would be stupid to conclude that moderate drinking, proven to have no benefit, does not have long term health implications.

 

Anyone who argues that it does not do any harm, is simply taking the same ostrich stance of denial, that those smokers before them did.

 

I would accept that the definatively complete trench of eividence is still unaccepted, greatly unknown and unavailable beyond miniscule wriggle room, but common sense tells us the way the forward. Science will prove the harm that drinking does no matter what the quantity imbibed. We are almost there. Like other ingested poisons the body may well defend itself but it can not be denied that anyone drinking 'poison' is in fact, [another awkward fact for you] doing themselves harm.

 

What remains is buttock twitching wriggle room for the apologists, the weak, the addicted and the delusional.

 

In conclusion, it is disappointing that no one has presented a worthwhile counter argument. Having presented the evidence in support of my argument I awaited the myriad of opposing sutudies, industry funded, to prove the benefits of alcohol as if it were mother's milk.

 

Alas, there appears no appetite to do such. However, bothering to review my latter reference to Professor Smith and being pedantic about it, does nothing to inform or further the argument.

 

The facts remain avoided like a plague.

 

Mostly probably because they remain beyond dispute.

 

We have to be informed in order to make sound judgements and the level of this discussion really has scraped the bottom of the barrel. Perhaps that is because so many are affected that way.

 

I never heard of anyone claiming they wouldn't be where they are today if it weren't for alcohol. Slight correction is needed: any one not sitting in the park nursing cider, which is where the road leads to: homeless, friendless, and toothless [ a bit like your argument.]

 

Enjoy the journey.

 

I won't be joining you.

 

And now I must put the kettle on. Time for a drink.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Owethemnowt

[Robin-H]

The facts provided are condensed to aid clarity of understanding.

 

 

No. Quoting people but removing pertinent parts of the quote without indicating that you have done so does not 'aid clarity of understanding' but changes what they were saying and is therefore incredibly disingenuous.

[Cyclone]

So OTNs claims now rest on a conspiracy theory about all the science being false, apart from the one report, that doesn't actually support his claim, but is the closest to doing so.

Based on that single study, he's prepared to exaggerate the "no effect either way" message, to "it's lethal" and then claim that anyone who doesn't agree is a) wrong, b) probably an addict.

 

Is that summary about right?

 

I'm also guessing that on the basis that he calls alcohol "poison" he's unaware that the body produces a low level of alcohol naturally as part of our metabolic process. He's probably also unaware of the truism, the dose makes the poison.

[Bob Arctor]

The facts provided are condensed to aid clarity of understanding.

 

The entire study's findings cannot be replicated here due to, partly, the length, but also the complexity of the findings. They are clearly not for everyone's appetite as it is by no means straight forward to comprehend.

 

However, the central tenet of what is presented here is the outcome of the actual findings in a study that over turns other studies.

 

It is a fact that the drinks industry, in similar fashion to the tabacco industry did, funds favourable research to mask the truth about its products. The cigarette manufacturers did this for over 50 years until science proved the links to cancer.

 

We have a situation of a similar nature today.

 

There is far greater funding to prove the health benefits of 'moderate' drinking because that is in the interests of those providing the very funding. They started with a proposition and then set out to prove it. The alcohol industry throws millions into 'research' the same as it does into advertising. Despite this an alternative voice has made itself heard.

 

The evidence exists that there is no benefit in moderate drinking however it is defined.

 

It can not be shown that there is any conclusive,damage in the immediate short term. But then there were smokers who died of old age after 70 years of 60 a day. That proves some survive to die of old age. Nothing more. It proved that they did not contract cancer whilst millions of others did. But common sense, intuition, must guide us.

 

It would be stupid to conclude that moderate drinking, proven to have no benefit, does not have long term health implications.

 

Anyone who argues that it does not do any harm, is simply taking the same ostrich stance of denial, that those smokers before them did.

 

I would accept that the definatively complete trench of eividence is still unaccepted, greatly unknown and unavailable beyond miniscule wriggle room, but common sense tells us the way the forward. Science will prove the harm that drinking does no matter what the quantity imbibed. We are almost there. Like other ingested poisons the body may well defend itself but it can not be denied that anyone drinking 'poison' is in fact, [another awkward fact for you] doing themselves harm.

 

What remains is buttock twitching wriggle room for the apologists, the weak, the addicted and the delusional.

 

In conclusion, it is disappointing that no one has presented a worthwhile counter argument. Having presented the evidence in support of my argument I awaited the myriad of opposing sutudies, industry funded, to prove the benefits of alcohol as if it were mother's milk.

 

Alas, there appears no appetite to do such. However, bothering to review my latter reference to Professor Smith and being pedantic about it, does nothing to inform or further the argument.

 

The facts remain avoided like a plague.

 

Mostly probably because they remain beyond dispute.

 

We have to be informed in order to make sound judgements and the level of this discussion really has scraped the bottom of the barrel. Perhaps that is because so many are affected that way.

 

I never heard of anyone claiming they wouldn't be where they are today if it weren't for alcohol. Slight correction is needed: any one not sitting in the park nursing cider, which is where the road leads to: homeless, friendless, and toothless [ a bit like your argument.]

 

Enjoy the journey.

 

I won't be joining you.

 

And now I must put the kettle on. Time for a drink.

 

You can post all you want, I just skim over your posts now because you've come across as such a vindictive and judgemental person. Any basis of a valid point you may have had has sunk beneath your bile I'm afraid.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2017 at 20:20 ----------

 

Interesting that he has chosen to misquote the line which should read:

 

"We didn't find any benefit or any harm in low-level regular drinking," he told BBC News Online"

 

The Professor was being very specific in his conclusions from the research and he also said:

 

George Davey-Smith: I think there's some feasible reasons why moderate drinking may have a protective effect against coronary heart disease ... "

 

I need to up my drinking then, I need to shorten my life expectancy, not prolong it!

[Owethemnowt]

The debate remains undeveloped until someone starts to address both sets of facts I have posted.

 

Alcohol-related brain damage is the damage that occurs to brain structures or function of the Central Nervous System as a result of the direct neurotoxic effects of alcohol intoxication or acute withdrawal. ... Alcohol abuse especially during adolescence causes or worsens executive functions in the frontal lobe.

 

Certainly sounds like poison to me.

 

When consumed in moderate amounts, ethanol is not a toxin. However, in large enough quantities it can cause alcohol poisoning. In such cases, the dosage makes alcohol a poison or toxin.

 

Although classified as a depressant, the amount of alcohol consumed determines the type of effect. Most people drink for the stimulant effect, such as a beer or glass of wine taken to “loosen up.” But if a person consumes more than the body can handle, they then experience alcohol’s depressant effect. They start to feel “stupid” or lose coordination and control.

 

Alcohol overdose causes even more severe depressant effects (inability to feel pain, toxicity where the body vomits the poison, and finally unconsciousness or, worse, coma or death from severe toxic overdose). These reactions depend on how much is consumed and how quickly.

 

Alcohol as a toxin poisons the body.

 

Happy now?

 

Technically accepted as a toxin it poisons the body.

 

Does that make it safe to consume? Hey, I'm only drinking a toxin ..... it's not a poison. But it poisons my system and my body , through evolution, has learned to re-act by vomiting, in an attempt to rid me of the ''toxin'' that actually isn't a poison but is poisoning me.

 

Well, that's cleared that one up!

 

Alcohol is classed as a drug.

 

Now try this: Alcohol kills more teenagers than all other drugs combined. It is a factor in the three leading causes of death among 15 to 24-year-olds: accidents, murders and suicides.

 

In 2005–2006, there were 187,640 National Health System alcohol-related hospital admissions in England.

 

There were 6,570 deaths in England in 2005 from causes directly linked to alcohol use.

 

In 2006, alcohol-related deaths in England rose to 8,758. This amounts to an annual increase of 7% from the previous year.

 

According to one study, of the 490 million people in the European Union, more than 23 million are dependent on alcohol.

 

In Europe, alcohol contributes to nearly one in ten of all cases of illness and premature deaths each year.

 

39% of all traffic deaths involved alcohol in 2005.

 

40% of violent crimes occur under the influence of alcohol.

 

A long term effect of alcohol abuse is alcohol poisoning. Allow me to reference the NHS Choices web site, which states that 'Alcohol poisoning occurs when a person drinks a toxic amount of alcohol, usually over a short period of time (binge drinking).'

 

The NHS refer to alcohol consumption to a level where it is toxic and then starts to poison the body.

 

Poison again. From the NHS. May be they are 'amateurs' and don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps we should have some bar room experts put me and the NHS right.

 

But the NHS does try to explain itself clearly: 'More than 12 units and you're at high risk of developing alcohol poisoning, particularly if you're drinking lots of units in a short space of time.

 

Oh dear, alcoholic poisoning!

 

The alcohol can begin to interfere with the automatic functions of your body, such as your breathing, heart rate and gag reflex.

 

May be it's because the body is being ........ poisoned!

 

You're at risk of losing consciousness.

 

That's what poison tends to do. Passing into unconsciousness is listed amongst the NHS signs and symptoms of alcoholic poisoning.

 

Therefore, alcohol is a poison. Unless of course you're just 'un-winding' at the end of the day with a bottle of red. You'd be better off making that HP Sauce. Rather than the sauce. Or a can. Open a can. Just a few cans. If it were beans you'd soon be alarmed at the unpleasant effect that would have. But booze?

 

A poison that doesn't discriminate between adults and children with the result that more than 40% of children who start drinking before the age of 13 will go on to abuse alcohol or to become alcoholics at some point in their lives.

 

Data released by the NHS reveals that 33 children are admitted to hospital each day in England, with drink related problems. The NHS figures also reveal that 7034 kids under 18 years old received treatment for problems related to drinking alcohol in the first six months of 2011.

 

1000 young people under the age of 15 are admitted to hospital each year with acute alcohol poisoning. All need emergency treatment and some die.

 

Alcohol is now causing more deaths than heroin, speed, cocaine, ecstacy and cannabis combined.

 

All drugs.

 

I don't, for a minute, think people will condone heroin abuse. Decent people will neither defend the use of the other drugs listed above with the possible exemption surrounding the debate of therapuetic usage of cannabis, which I don't condone.

 

And yet there is a mob mentality in the blanket defence of the most lethal drug readily available across our society.

 

A drug that is killing someone that we all know, are related to, work with, call a neighbour or a friend.

 

The terible effects of alcohol, its use, its abuse, its normalisation throughout society are known to us all and yet are denied by so many.

 

It is unfortunate.

 

It is tragic.

 

But it is self inflicted and for that reason I have no sympathy.

 

We need to rationalise health care in order to provide for the deserving. For example, one operation only can be funded by the NHS: If your waster son needed a liver transplant due to being an alcoholic and at the same time your health aware daughter needed heart surgery due to cardiac arrest; who would you choose to save?

 

It would be a good place to start by tackling the alcoholic scourge that contribute so little to society and yet demand so much.

 

The stats are there for you to consider.

 

Facts.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Owethemnowt

[woahthere]

Hi owethemnowt can I request a copy of your detailed diet plan, exercise regime and lifestyle choices?

 

I just want to make sure you're doing everything correct so I can decide whether or not I'd be ok with you getting medical help at any point in your life.

 

Cheers.