Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms How Many no longer Drink Alcohol?

I saw a programme on drinking/alcoholics etc. a while ago.

A Doctor on this programme quoted "that if alcohol were invented today, it would be banned alongside other drug's...."

I don't miss drink at all....

Another medical quote/definition;

"You're only an alcoholic if you drink more than your doctor"

If you can‘t handle it, you should not drink.

Every alcoholic thinks they can..!!

So, is it a huge profit for the maker? If there's no alcohol related tax in the price that's a very expensive cordial.....or is there still duty in that price?
Nick

A study at the Medical College of Wisconsin a number of years ago showed a couple of glasses of wine a day decrease the risk of stroke and heart attack, more than this is injurious.

Not stopped completely, as part of my Osteoporosis diagnosis, yes you guessed it Alcohol is a contributing factor.

I have limited myself to no more than one bottle of wine over a week.And as I still work that's not in the working week, but it just gets to the point where I don't bother.

Cuppa Tea anyone?

Indeed & very heartening!

But overall, the medical literature on the benefits of low-level alcohol consumption is more mixed. There are other studies that show no benefit from low to moderate consumption. And the 'positive' studies (like the one quoted) typically do not correct for associated possible causal factors - such as the fact that low levels of wine drinking are typically correlated with people who only drink with a meal, or that people who are possessed of the self-control or socio-demographic profile to make make good judgements on alcohol are probably also making better life-choices around diet, exercise, exposure to stress etc.

Put bluntly, since it's a bit difficult to conduct the gold-standard of clinical analysis on alcohol (the double-blind clinical trial with both trial cohorts corrected for all other confounding factors) then we don't actually know.

I agree with Two Tribes regarding the lack of true knowledge re other factors that lead to the conclusions drawn. It’s the same for any trials such as statins being good for you or not, the evils of sugar, fat and so on.

There are also two massive factors to take into account with all these sort of analysis. The first is “confirmation bias” - that is, what was the scientist looking to show to start with and the extent to which the data has been interpreted to prove his point, cleverly glossing over the associated factors that might also influence his result. (Such as those mentioned by two tribes). Or the less scrupulous researcher simply being clever with the numbers to prove his point - lies, damned lies, and statistics if you like.

The second, more hidden one, is who is behind the funding of the research. This is not always obvious as it might not be direct, but if (for example) the University has the promise of a new wing being built by Coca Cola any research done which shows links between the chemicals used in their diet drinks and health issues in humans is likely to be “modified” by the powers that be before publication.

Hence I take all studies with a massive pinch of salt (which may or not be good for you ) and avoid wherever possible processed foods and or chemical laden foods.