7 ms·

NIH Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking

206 points by KKKKkkkk1 9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
This is a problem: “The presentations gave the alcohol industry an opportunity to preview the trial design and vet the investigators. Indeed, the scientist leading the meetings was eventually chosen to head the huge clinical trial.“ Which is unfortunate because “though excessive drinking is harmful and problem drinking is on the rise in the United States, many observational studies have found that moderate drinkers outlive abstainers and have less heart disease.”
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  It's a funny day to have this subject rise to the surface. I am as against shite science as anybody, but I would decry the reverse happening as well—fear mongering over the fact that, yes, alcohol will probably shorten your life and put you at higher risk for many physiological problems that may outweigh whatever minor benefits it bestows. I'd wager it's a larger question than all that. But of course I will second that the science-side should be represented honestly. I can't comment on the States, though. And I understand the concern about the language.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  There is also a problem with that. Essentially 100% of alcoholics started out as moderate drinkers.
  - mistersquid 9y ago
    Another problem is that many abstainers might already be at risk for either having once been problem drinkers or avoiding alcohol due to adverse reaction to alcohol. In other words, moderate drinkers may be a self-selecting group for people with good health.
    - always_good 9y ago
      Maybe people who can moderate a vice like alcohol also make other healthy decisions in life.
  - convolvatron 9y ago
    and a substantial number of heavy drinkers maintain the idea that they are moderate drinkers, and thus would actually be helping their health by continuing to drink.
Alex3917 9y ago
For what it's worth, some links to how funding sources affect clinical trial outcomes: http://www.alexkrupp.com/Citevault.html#drug-company-funding-and-research-outcomes http://www.alexkrupp.com/Citevault.html#drug-company-funding... My guess is that the best ways to reduce the risk of heart disease, normalized for effort, are getting a couple HEPA filters for your house and getting blackout curtains to improve sleep quality. Diet, exercise, meditation, etc., are obviously more effective, but also require actual effort, whereas with these interventions you just pay the couple hundred bucks and you're done.
- mrfusion 9y ago
  Why hepa filters?
  - sjg007 9y ago
    My guess is to filter out as many of the pollutants you possibly can. Newer houses are full of them since everything is made in China and off gassing. You also have external air which is full of diesel and gas emissions not to mention pesticides and everything else. The only thing you need to do though is make sure your HVAC can support it. Otherwise you run the risk of burning out the motors. Air pollution and radon are risks for lung cancer.
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      This. There have also been tons of experiments, starting with the Atlanta olympics, where external pollution sources get throttled and you can see a very clear and immediate drop in cardiovascular-related deaths. Also there are plenty of standalone units that don’t integrate with HVAC. E.g. I have the Winnex 5300-2, which is one of the Amazon recommended units. (Some of the others are designed for smokers, chefs, or other specialized purposes.)
    - ams6110 9y ago
      HEPA filters are for particulates. They won't do much about gasses such as formaldehyde or radon.
dpwm 9y ago
This sounds more like a problem with the perceived quality of health research than anything else. Given that the healthcare industry and the alcohol industry are fairly good sources of revenue, does anybody have an argument for why we should really expect a different outcome if this was funded by and influenced by federal government?
everdev 9y ago
Shouldn't it be required to list funding sources on research? It's surprising that I still see studies about the benefits of wine, chocolate, coffee, or basically any other vice as being healthy and life extending. It's not surprising that these studies are often funded by the industries themselves without mentioning it as a disclosure in the research or in the articles promoting the research.
- thereisnospork 9y ago
  It's kind of a catch-22 though, who other than the relevant industry has the money and interest to do an in-depth study on relatively minor and long term effects? Goes for 'positive' studies like coffee as well as negative ones like BPA. We've got to find a way to vet studies on their merits regardless or in spite of the conflicts of interest that are funding them.
  - erentz 9y ago
    I’m sure this won’t be a popular answer but: The government does. It’s called taking care of public health. Something squarely in the domain of the government, hence why the NIH and CDC exist. They shouldn’t have to go to industries that have a conflict of interest to seek funding on studies for public health issues.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > The government does. And to extend that reasoning, the public does. We need to fund these things, which means paying taxes.
- Thriptic 9y ago
  You are supposed to list any potential conflicts of interest when publishing study results in academic journals.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I have a serious medical condition. I found that a particular brand of salt was very beneficial. I became an affiliate and had ads on my health blog for that brand of salt. People accused me of having a conflict of interest and just trying to make money off of sick people. I am very leery of medical advice where I know doctors are basically there to prescribe drugs and surgeries when I know from experience I can get better results from diet and lifestyle. But talking about that is a huge shitshow. Most people don't want to hear that. I don't know how to solve this. The money needs to come from somewhere, but the minute money is involved, no one trusts what you say and it seems to not matter the order in which that association happens. Being a believer in the product because it worked for you and trying to make money on something you believe in makes you one of those MLM people in the minds of a lot of people.
warmcat 9y ago
As long as science continues to be funded by corporations, we will always have this problem of getting results biased towards the corporations. I wonder what else can be used to fund scientific research if not the government?
- kovek 9y ago
  I've seen that people start off gofundme's or the like when they need some financial support with an urgent unexpected issue. People are happy to help and contribute, sometimes even if they are complete strangers. I've read someone say it was because people want to know who is getting their support. Maybe if it was possible to easily support research similarly, then people might pitch in?
  - karthikb 9y ago
    Check out https://experiment.com/ https://experiment.com/ for exactly this!
  - dannyw 9y ago
    Early stage research still costs a lot of money. You won’t raise $200k from a bunch of individuals like a go fund me; and individuals are probably not the best at judging the impact and merit of proposals. We need an overhaul of the way research is funded, but I don’t think asking everyday individuals to fund is the right way.
- btrettel 9y ago
  Grad student here. I have thought about this a lot. I think governmental funding sources have problems similar to those from companies. They may not be as explicitly biased, but agendas will exist. There's also the problem that the people approving the funding don't necessarily make good choices. I might prefer an explicit lottery to the current system. My plan right now is to save money, retire early, and then doing whatever research I want that fits my budget. This avoids many of the problems with the current system, but is not possible for many. This would allow me to pursue more risky research (in the sense that the research may fail to produce useful results) than an assistant professor trying to get tenure could. I also wouldn't have to raise funds, so I could focus on projects I believe are important, not just what can get funded. In the book "Invention" by Norbert Weiner, as I recall, he suggests that the government could fund independent researchers to encourage better research. I don't think that will happen, so I have a DIY solution instead.
alexandercrohde 9y ago
Just to make super explicit why this isn't even a little bit okay, there's a very sordid history of corporations influencing research (even federal research). Before lead was put into gasoline two health studies were conducted by the government, but the relevant industries (including DuPont) had influence over the research. Both studies found leaded gasoline was totally safe. Low and behold it reduced the IQ of an entire generation around 3 points (best estimate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead --- Obviously alcohol isn't as damning as lead, but if funded research can declare lead safe it seems like it could conclude anything.
- Mononokay 9y ago
  Don't forget about Coke funding the cancer scare research on diet drinks last century! A brilliant and disgustingly immoral scare tactic. http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola
  - gruez 9y ago
    wait why? didn't they also produce diet drinks?
    - bdcravens 9y ago
      Perhaps corn syrup/sugar is cheaper than low-calorie alternatives, with the assumption people won't eliminate sodas, only whether they pick diet/non-diet
      - Mononokay 9y ago
        Because RC Cola was beating them by a tonne in the market because of their sugar-alternative. The article I linked has a tonne of info on it if you read down a bit.
    - Mononokay 9y ago
      Because RC Cola was beating them by a tonne in the market because of their sugar-alternative. The article I linked has a tonne of info on it if you read down a bit.
PakG1 9y ago
This is interesting because there are some interesting research signals recently that indicate that alcohol may cause cancer. Something like this may be a preemptive PR war strategy. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diet-physical-activity/alcohol-use-and-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diet-physical-ac...
- DanBC 9y ago
  These aren't signals, we've known for some time that alcohol both causes various cancers, and makes some other cancer spread faster.
tabeth 9y ago
This should shock no one. Health wise, alcohol is bad for you. Period. However the potential decrease in loneliness and potential resulting friendships may negate the health negatives somewhat. However the increased likelihood of injuring yourself and/or others with too much consumption may negate that, and so forth. This is exactly why it's difficult to properly control for the supposed moderate drinking that's "healthy". Sooo many ways to explain why "moderate" drinkers are healthier: 1. Maybe they're a self selected group of people who can properly moderate usage of something that's bad in order to get the benefits, in this case, friendships and social activity. 2. Maybe drinking is bad and moderate drinkers know it. Therefore moderate drinkers intentionally moderate their drinking and overcompensate in other miscellaneous healthy activity. etc etc etc
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  The same could be said about smoking. Bad for you without a doubt, but the social aspects are undeniably attractive (and I don’t mean looking cool, but having reasons to take and socialize during breaks). It made giving it up that much tougher.
- brownbat 9y ago
  There was a good meta analysis in 2016 on this, you lose the mortality benefits of moderate drinking once you correct for study design, which can basically dictate results here. One big confound, a lot of current strict abstainers are former heavy drinkers with serious health problems: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26997174/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26997174/
  - taneq 9y ago
    Even without being former heavy drinkers, the fact that a fair percentage of teetotalers abstain due to serious health issues is enough to sway the results
- soperj 9y ago
  It's pretty easy to go out and not drink booze. Just be the DD, and drink waters. Everyone will love you for driving anyway.
forapurpose 9y ago
Stepping back and looking at a broader trend: As government is cut back, we shift power into the hands of the wealthy, individuals and corporations. There's sort of a law of preservation of political power: Cutting government doesn't reduce the amount of power out there, it just gets democratic government out of the way so that other powerful people can seize the power. That doesn't mean we should always expand government; government has other drawbacks. But there are trade-offs that should be considered: some things should be controlled democratically, rather than by the powerful. The purpose of democracy is to distribute that power equally to everyone.
DenisM 9y ago
I can’t wait for the cult of alcohol to go the way of the cult of tobacco. Away. The ads of yore about “most doctors prefer Camel” look alien today, yet the “moderate drinking is helpful” stuff is still with us.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Alcohol has been part of human culture forever, I doubt it's going to go away. Binge drinking needs to stop, though. Besides the obvious health hazards, it's also putting the rest of us — who just enjoy a nice glass of whisky once in a while, or some beer at a concert — in a needlessly bad light. Drink for the taste, not for the buzz.
  - bobx11 9y ago
    There are non alcoholic drinks that have the taste without the buzz if you don't want the health issues from drinking.
    - jabot 9y ago
      ... and they are about as good a substitute as tofu is for real meat.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      Please find me a non-alcoholic drink that tastes close to even a mediocre whisky or bourbon or rum or grappa or cognac, or any other aged spirit.
- bobx11 9y ago
  I agree. Personal experience is that even moderate drinking causes poorer sleep and mental performance but can only be observed after you have been clean of alcohol for months. After you are in the habit of drinking multiple times per week you can not compare your state to the baseline of non drinking. I ran into this by accident when training for a race and did not believe it when people told me.
osrec 9y ago
When I told a friend of mine, a very well respected surgeon in the UK, that I don't drink at all, he told me that I should, and that a glass of wine is good for you. Thankfully I had come across a journal which refuted that very claim about wine just a few days prior, so could offer a solid basis for my abstinence (as a non drinker, you are often under pressure to do so!). What surprised me was that a medical professional (specialising in the liver, no less) was happy to disseminate this information, believing it to be true. Clearly the marketing/propaganda campaign has been exceptionally effective in putting across their false rhetoric, having convinced even an individual that probably sees empirical evidence to the contrary during his day job!
- dartdartdart 9y ago
  Link please
  - webbles 9y ago
    http://bfy.tw/HB1g http://bfy.tw/HB1g This isn't a research paper. Do your own fucking research you lazy asshole.
jack9 9y ago
Alcoholic drinks (not just casual content like vanilla extract) have been consumed by humans for millions of years. To put it in perspective, milk has been consumed by humans for less than 10000 years. It would be unsurprising that there might be some evolutionary selection that benefits people who consume some alcohol. I find this specific topic interesting, given my observations about patterns in my adult friends (when they started and stopped drinking, when they started and stopped working out, when they have kids, etc).
- erazor42 9y ago
  Humans does not exists for millions of years. ~200k years more or less.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    Well even monkeys get drunk.
onetimemanytime 9y ago
300 million people, $19 Trillion economy, $4 TRILLION budget and we cannot pay $10 million a year ($100m for 10 yrs) for an independent study for something that affects the lives of maybe 100 million Americans. Something wrong?

206 points by KKKKkkkk1 9y ago

This is a problem: “The presentations gave the alcohol industry an opportunity to preview the trial design and vet the investigators. Indeed, the scientist leading the meetings was eventually chosen to head the huge clinical trial.“ Which is unfortunate because “though excessive drinking is harmful and problem drinking is on the rise in the United States, many observational studies have found that moderate drinkers outlive abstainers and have less heart disease.”

52-6F-62 9y ago
It's a funny day to have this subject rise to the surface. I am as against shite science as anybody, but I would decry the reverse happening as well—fear mongering over the fact that, yes, alcohol will probably shorten your life and put you at higher risk for many physiological problems that may outweigh whatever minor benefits it bestows. I'd wager it's a larger question than all that. But of course I will second that the science-side should be represented honestly. I can't comment on the States, though. And I understand the concern about the language.
jjeaff 9y ago
There is also a problem with that. Essentially 100% of alcoholics started out as moderate drinkers.
- mistersquid 9y ago
  Another problem is that many abstainers might already be at risk for either having once been problem drinkers or avoiding alcohol due to adverse reaction to alcohol. In other words, moderate drinkers may be a self-selecting group for people with good health.
  - always_good 9y ago
    Maybe people who can moderate a vice like alcohol also make other healthy decisions in life.
- convolvatron 9y ago
  and a substantial number of heavy drinkers maintain the idea that they are moderate drinkers, and thus would actually be helping their health by continuing to drink.

Alex3917 9y ago

For what it's worth, some links to how funding sources affect clinical trial outcomes: http://www.alexkrupp.com/Citevault.html#drug-company-funding-and-research-outcomes http://www.alexkrupp.com/Citevault.html#drug-company-funding... My guess is that the best ways to reduce the risk of heart disease, normalized for effort, are getting a couple HEPA filters for your house and getting blackout curtains to improve sleep quality. Diet, exercise, meditation, etc., are obviously more effective, but also require actual effort, whereas with these interventions you just pay the couple hundred bucks and you're done.

mrfusion 9y ago
Why hepa filters?
- sjg007 9y ago
  My guess is to filter out as many of the pollutants you possibly can. Newer houses are full of them since everything is made in China and off gassing. You also have external air which is full of diesel and gas emissions not to mention pesticides and everything else. The only thing you need to do though is make sure your HVAC can support it. Otherwise you run the risk of burning out the motors. Air pollution and radon are risks for lung cancer.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    This. There have also been tons of experiments, starting with the Atlanta olympics, where external pollution sources get throttled and you can see a very clear and immediate drop in cardiovascular-related deaths. Also there are plenty of standalone units that don’t integrate with HVAC. E.g. I have the Winnex 5300-2, which is one of the Amazon recommended units. (Some of the others are designed for smokers, chefs, or other specialized purposes.)
  - ams6110 9y ago
    HEPA filters are for particulates. They won't do much about gasses such as formaldehyde or radon.

dpwm 9y ago

This sounds more like a problem with the perceived quality of health research than anything else. Given that the healthcare industry and the alcohol industry are fairly good sources of revenue, does anybody have an argument for why we should really expect a different outcome if this was funded by and influenced by federal government?

everdev 9y ago

Shouldn't it be required to list funding sources on research? It's surprising that I still see studies about the benefits of wine, chocolate, coffee, or basically any other vice as being healthy and life extending. It's not surprising that these studies are often funded by the industries themselves without mentioning it as a disclosure in the research or in the articles promoting the research.

thereisnospork 9y ago
It's kind of a catch-22 though, who other than the relevant industry has the money and interest to do an in-depth study on relatively minor and long term effects? Goes for 'positive' studies like coffee as well as negative ones like BPA. We've got to find a way to vet studies on their merits regardless or in spite of the conflicts of interest that are funding them.
- erentz 9y ago
  I’m sure this won’t be a popular answer but: The government does. It’s called taking care of public health. Something squarely in the domain of the government, hence why the NIH and CDC exist. They shouldn’t have to go to industries that have a conflict of interest to seek funding on studies for public health issues.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > The government does. And to extend that reasoning, the public does. We need to fund these things, which means paying taxes.
Thriptic 9y ago
You are supposed to list any potential conflicts of interest when publishing study results in academic journals.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
I have a serious medical condition. I found that a particular brand of salt was very beneficial. I became an affiliate and had ads on my health blog for that brand of salt. People accused me of having a conflict of interest and just trying to make money off of sick people. I am very leery of medical advice where I know doctors are basically there to prescribe drugs and surgeries when I know from experience I can get better results from diet and lifestyle. But talking about that is a huge shitshow. Most people don't want to hear that. I don't know how to solve this. The money needs to come from somewhere, but the minute money is involved, no one trusts what you say and it seems to not matter the order in which that association happens. Being a believer in the product because it worked for you and trying to make money on something you believe in makes you one of those MLM people in the minds of a lot of people.

warmcat 9y ago

As long as science continues to be funded by corporations, we will always have this problem of getting results biased towards the corporations. I wonder what else can be used to fund scientific research if not the government?

kovek 9y ago
I've seen that people start off gofundme's or the like when they need some financial support with an urgent unexpected issue. People are happy to help and contribute, sometimes even if they are complete strangers. I've read someone say it was because people want to know who is getting their support. Maybe if it was possible to easily support research similarly, then people might pitch in?
- karthikb 9y ago
  Check out https://experiment.com/ https://experiment.com/ for exactly this!
- dannyw 9y ago
  Early stage research still costs a lot of money. You won’t raise $200k from a bunch of individuals like a go fund me; and individuals are probably not the best at judging the impact and merit of proposals. We need an overhaul of the way research is funded, but I don’t think asking everyday individuals to fund is the right way.
btrettel 9y ago
Grad student here. I have thought about this a lot. I think governmental funding sources have problems similar to those from companies. They may not be as explicitly biased, but agendas will exist. There's also the problem that the people approving the funding don't necessarily make good choices. I might prefer an explicit lottery to the current system. My plan right now is to save money, retire early, and then doing whatever research I want that fits my budget. This avoids many of the problems with the current system, but is not possible for many. This would allow me to pursue more risky research (in the sense that the research may fail to produce useful results) than an assistant professor trying to get tenure could. I also wouldn't have to raise funds, so I could focus on projects I believe are important, not just what can get funded. In the book "Invention" by Norbert Weiner, as I recall, he suggests that the government could fund independent researchers to encourage better research. I don't think that will happen, so I have a DIY solution instead.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

Just to make super explicit why this isn't even a little bit okay, there's a very sordid history of corporations influencing research (even federal research). Before lead was put into gasoline two health studies were conducted by the government, but the relevant industries (including DuPont) had influence over the research. Both studies found leaded gasoline was totally safe. Low and behold it reduced the IQ of an entire generation around 3 points (best estimate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead --- Obviously alcohol isn't as damning as lead, but if funded research can declare lead safe it seems like it could conclude anything.

Mononokay 9y ago
Don't forget about Coke funding the cancer scare research on diet drinks last century! A brilliant and disgustingly immoral scare tactic. http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola
- gruez 9y ago
  wait why? didn't they also produce diet drinks?
  - bdcravens 9y ago
    Perhaps corn syrup/sugar is cheaper than low-calorie alternatives, with the assumption people won't eliminate sodas, only whether they pick diet/non-diet
    - Mononokay 9y ago
      Because RC Cola was beating them by a tonne in the market because of their sugar-alternative. The article I linked has a tonne of info on it if you read down a bit.
  - Mononokay 9y ago
    Because RC Cola was beating them by a tonne in the market because of their sugar-alternative. The article I linked has a tonne of info on it if you read down a bit.

PakG1 9y ago

This is interesting because there are some interesting research signals recently that indicate that alcohol may cause cancer. Something like this may be a preemptive PR war strategy. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diet-physical-activity/alcohol-use-and-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diet-physical-ac...

DanBC 9y ago
These aren't signals, we've known for some time that alcohol both causes various cancers, and makes some other cancer spread faster.

tabeth 9y ago

This should shock no one. Health wise, alcohol is bad for you. Period. However the potential decrease in loneliness and potential resulting friendships may negate the health negatives somewhat. However the increased likelihood of injuring yourself and/or others with too much consumption may negate that, and so forth. This is exactly why it's difficult to properly control for the supposed moderate drinking that's "healthy". Sooo many ways to explain why "moderate" drinkers are healthier: 1. Maybe they're a self selected group of people who can properly moderate usage of something that's bad in order to get the benefits, in this case, friendships and social activity. 2. Maybe drinking is bad and moderate drinkers know it. Therefore moderate drinkers intentionally moderate their drinking and overcompensate in other miscellaneous healthy activity. etc etc etc

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
The same could be said about smoking. Bad for you without a doubt, but the social aspects are undeniably attractive (and I don’t mean looking cool, but having reasons to take and socialize during breaks). It made giving it up that much tougher.
brownbat 9y ago
There was a good meta analysis in 2016 on this, you lose the mortality benefits of moderate drinking once you correct for study design, which can basically dictate results here. One big confound, a lot of current strict abstainers are former heavy drinkers with serious health problems: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26997174/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26997174/
- taneq 9y ago
  Even without being former heavy drinkers, the fact that a fair percentage of teetotalers abstain due to serious health issues is enough to sway the results
soperj 9y ago
It's pretty easy to go out and not drink booze. Just be the DD, and drink waters. Everyone will love you for driving anyway.

forapurpose 9y ago

Stepping back and looking at a broader trend: As government is cut back, we shift power into the hands of the wealthy, individuals and corporations. There's sort of a law of preservation of political power: Cutting government doesn't reduce the amount of power out there, it just gets democratic government out of the way so that other powerful people can seize the power. That doesn't mean we should always expand government; government has other drawbacks. But there are trade-offs that should be considered: some things should be controlled democratically, rather than by the powerful. The purpose of democracy is to distribute that power equally to everyone.

DenisM 9y ago

I can’t wait for the cult of alcohol to go the way of the cult of tobacco. Away. The ads of yore about “most doctors prefer Camel” look alien today, yet the “moderate drinking is helpful” stuff is still with us.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Alcohol has been part of human culture forever, I doubt it's going to go away. Binge drinking needs to stop, though. Besides the obvious health hazards, it's also putting the rest of us — who just enjoy a nice glass of whisky once in a while, or some beer at a concert — in a needlessly bad light. Drink for the taste, not for the buzz.
- bobx11 9y ago
  There are non alcoholic drinks that have the taste without the buzz if you don't want the health issues from drinking.
  - jabot 9y ago
    ... and they are about as good a substitute as tofu is for real meat.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Please find me a non-alcoholic drink that tastes close to even a mediocre whisky or bourbon or rum or grappa or cognac, or any other aged spirit.
bobx11 9y ago
I agree. Personal experience is that even moderate drinking causes poorer sleep and mental performance but can only be observed after you have been clean of alcohol for months. After you are in the habit of drinking multiple times per week you can not compare your state to the baseline of non drinking. I ran into this by accident when training for a race and did not believe it when people told me.

osrec 9y ago

When I told a friend of mine, a very well respected surgeon in the UK, that I don't drink at all, he told me that I should, and that a glass of wine is good for you. Thankfully I had come across a journal which refuted that very claim about wine just a few days prior, so could offer a solid basis for my abstinence (as a non drinker, you are often under pressure to do so!). What surprised me was that a medical professional (specialising in the liver, no less) was happy to disseminate this information, believing it to be true. Clearly the marketing/propaganda campaign has been exceptionally effective in putting across their false rhetoric, having convinced even an individual that probably sees empirical evidence to the contrary during his day job!

dartdartdart 9y ago
Link please
- webbles 9y ago
  http://bfy.tw/HB1g http://bfy.tw/HB1g This isn't a research paper. Do your own fucking research you lazy asshole.

jack9 9y ago

Alcoholic drinks (not just casual content like vanilla extract) have been consumed by humans for millions of years. To put it in perspective, milk has been consumed by humans for less than 10000 years. It would be unsurprising that there might be some evolutionary selection that benefits people who consume some alcohol. I find this specific topic interesting, given my observations about patterns in my adult friends (when they started and stopped drinking, when they started and stopped working out, when they have kids, etc).

erazor42 9y ago
Humans does not exists for millions of years. ~200k years more or less.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  Well even monkeys get drunk.

onetimemanytime 9y ago

300 million people, $19 Trillion economy, $4 TRILLION budget and we cannot pay $10 million a year ($100m for 10 yrs) for an independent study for something that affects the lives of maybe 100 million Americans. Something wrong?