Re: OT: Sturgeon General warns even moderate drinking causes cancer

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 13:22:14 -0800, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-01-14 08:14:20 +0000, Pluted Pup said:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:28:53 -0800, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-01-14 02:54:29 +0000, Pluted Pup said:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:11:17 -0800, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-01-13 22:23:56 +0000, The Horny Goat said:

On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 04:30:44 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

In article<vlbfel$g7qt$1@dont-email.me>, super70s@super70s.invalid wrote:

>
And living to 100 causes death!
>
Reminds me of back in the 70s and 80s when they were always coming out
with something causing cancer, a friend of mine would say "next they'll
be telling us fresh mountain water causes cancer."

>
Just another attempt by leftists to reintroduce Prohibition without
passing laws or changing the Constitution...

>
The Left? The Left loves recruiting kids to alcohol
and drug use, to "break" them from their squareness.
>

I guess I must be a zombie then since I drank a 750ml bottle of wine
on New Year's Eve (and subsequently paid for it but it's once a year).
And it was a variety that has a rather higher alcohol content than
usual to - I'm a big guy but was floating in my chair by the time I
went to bed. (Haven't had a drop since)

>
Like anything else, alcohol can be good in some wasy and bad in others,
when used sensibly.

>
Like cigarettes?

>
I meant in the sense of food and drink.

>
Alcohol is a drug, not a food.

>
Nope. Alcohol is a drink. It can be addictive from some people, but
it's not a drug.

It is a medically active narcotic drug, if it was beneficial it
could be prescribed for a particular condition, but what it is
beneficial for is vague, it, like marijuana, has been described
by its users as a panacea for all diseases.

That alcohol, like caffeine, can be consumed as a beverage does not
mean it isn't a drug.

>

True, but the constantly changing opinons based on these idiotic and
flawed studies *ARE* stupid (as well as a massive waste of time and
money).

>
The media changes it's opinions based on promotion, not facts.
The media is so into sensationalism that it often slaps misleading
headlines to articles, to help spread confusion.

>
It's not the media running the silly studies and continually changing
their minds about whether something is good for you or bad for you. The
media only reports the results of the study (often with misleading
headlines) that they've been given in a media release.
>
The silly studies themselves are run by universities and medical
research companies. The problm is their methodology is flawed and the
results statistically manipulated ... just like all polls, surveys, and
studies.
>

Also like anything else, alcohol taken in excessive amounts will be bad
for you.

>
And like cigarettes, causes cancer. Teaching kids to drink
is like teaching kids to smoke.

>
Personally I can't even stand the stench of alcohol to bother drinking
it, but as long as people drink it *sensibly* there is no real danger
to it and it can have some beneficial effects.

>
As studies have long shown, alcohol is harmful as a beverage,
it causes cancer, for example.

>
That's one of the bad potential effects when drinking it in excessive amounts.

It is a carcinogen in any amount, like smoking. If this
is an acceptable risk, that's what is up for debate.

>
But there is nothing wrong with alcohol when used *sensibly*, and in
some ways it can be beneficial.

For normal people, drinking is about as beneficial as smoking.

No one talks about sensible cigarette smoking being good for you.

Just like any other food or drink, if
you're stupid enough to go to excessive amounts, you will cause
yourself problems.
>

The "studies" that claimed moderate drinking is better for you were
all bogus because they shoved the ill, ex-alcoholics, etc.,
into the abstainer category. Someone who came down with liver
disease from drinking and became an abstainer would be counted in
these studiesas a non-drinker, rather than an ex-drinker.
These biased "studies" ignored people's drinking histories.
In reality an ex-drinker has a greater risk of cancer than a
never-drinker, just like an ex-smoker has a greater risk of cancer
than a never-smoker.
>
This is just like as if they ignored someone's smoking history
if they were currently non-smoking, but they don't, they count
an ex-smoker as an ex-smoker. No one is saying that one
cigarette a day is better for you, and so should no one say that
about drinking.

>
As I said, the studies are flawed, making them all at best worthless
wastes of time and money, and at worst can be highly dangerous (partly
thanks to the media reporting them).
>
One 'good' example is the idiotic study and reports that people should
"drink 8 glasses of water a day". After the silly study was reported in
the media, some people took it to extremes, including some people who
died from drinking too much water.

I don't think there was any such study, but it was a media
urban legend that everyone needed to drink 8 glasses of water
a day. If the leading news sources concocts a new fad, all other
news sources take the same stance like they do in all other
issues.

Besides, water is necessary for life, while alcohol and
smoking is harmful in any amount, they are carcinogens.