7 ms·

I despise the WHO generally but this article is solid. There is too much confusion about alcohol in the medical industry. If you ask European doctors having a g

• bamboozled 4y ago
  Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink. I know one guy who is ~90, survived cancer 3 times and attributes his survival to daily doses of Japanese Shochu. You might be able to argue that alcohol was the cause of the cancer but I guess we'll never know. Disclaimer: Currently not drinking even a drop. Edit: Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink....is a reference to the fact I read the article and I understand that statistically, there might be more old people alive because it seems like it's "statistically safer" not to drink so please, try to stay calm and stop telling me I can't understand anything about statistics...I know it's exciting to do this lately though.
  • SeanLuke 4y ago
    > Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. I know someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day who is almost 100 years old. Smoking is good or you!
    • bamboozled 4y ago
      Not what I said...however, I personally do know a lot more people who have actually died from health issues directly related to smoking: heat attacks, emphysema, lung cancer.
  • konschubert 4y ago
    This comment adds nothing to the discussion.
    • splatzone 4y ago
      Disagree, today I learned what Shōchū is
    • hungryforcodes 4y ago
      Nothing matters we will all die eventually.
    • billythemaniam 4y ago
      Neither does yours, neither does mine.
    • VLM 4y ago
      The world is full of people who strongly and honestly believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics are meaninglessly astrological in nature. Its a very popular set of beliefs, majority in some areas.
      • yokem55 4y ago
        The problem is that how well anyone's particular life circumstances fit into a statistical model (or not) can be a very difficult thing to discern. There is a combinatorial explosion of factors that everyone is subject to, and most epidemiological statistics can address and account for a handful of them at a time. So what ends up happening is folks look at the statistics, shrug, and continue their own n=1. The best they can do is be honest with themselves about "how is that working out for you?"
        • VLM 4y ago
          "hows that working out for you" has been completely replaced in society due to social media with "how many updoots will I get?"
      • rs999gti 4y ago
  • rco8786 4y ago
    For every of those is several people who died at 60 from liver disease
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • thebigspacefuck 4y ago
      It’s happening to a lot of younger adults in their 30s now too.
      • bamboozled 4y ago
        You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause, it might be all the other shit that we've put into the environment to, such as PFOAs, PFOS, Microplastics, air polltion and more and more...
        • thebigspacefuck 4y ago
          For the people I knew, there is no doubt in my mind. Only mentioning because until people I knew died, I thought liver disease only struck as you approached your 50s/60s.
        • rco8786 4y ago
          > You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause On an individual basis, no. But on a macro, yes. We can pretty directly attribute a large % of liver-related deaths directly to alcohol.
  • andsoitis 4y ago
    don’t let anecdata bamboozle you
    • bamboozled 4y ago
      Don't let andsoitis bamboozle you...
  • kevinmchugh 4y ago
    The thing they have in common is that they still have social connections, including with you. People who are alone for stretches of time have a lot more risk from falls, etc
    • bamboozled 4y ago
      Sometimes I drink with that person, and they might socially drink with others, so it might even be fair to say in this case, it's a positive then? I just have a real problem with talking in absolutes.
      • kevinmchugh 4y ago
        It's possible to accept the risk of alcohol as being worth it. I do when I choose to drink. But it's always going to be worse than not drinking, ceteris paribus. If you're able to replace the drinking sessions with tea, or a game, that's probably better for health. Maybe that's not possible, maybe there's something unique about the effect of alcohol, even in small quantities.
• ozim 4y ago
  It gets worse where people get issues and they start looking for some diet supplements or pills for "better liver" ,"concentration problems" or whatever else. When first thing they should do is stop drinking alcohol. In the reddit thread about article there was someone who could not connect the dots that after drinking alcohol they would have hangover the next day.
  • cinntaile 4y ago
    > In the reddit thread about article there was someone who could not connect the dots that after drinking alcohol they would have hangover the next day. To me it sounds like you have been trolled.
    • bluGill 4y ago
      I know enough alcoholics who have similar issues connecting dots such that I tend to think it is real. I mostly hangout with teatotalers, most people have a lot more contact, and so probaby haven't realized how normal it is.
    • ugjka 4y ago
      on the internet someone said something
• bryanlarsen 4y ago
  The dose makes the poison - Paracelsus
  • rileymat2 4y ago
    > “We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is,” explains Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, acting Unit Lead for Noncommunicable Disease Management and Regional Advisor for Alcohol and Illicit Drugs in the WHO Regional Office for Europe. I think that it is explicitly pushing back on that very concept.
    • zabzonk 4y ago
      of course, this "expert" has no self-interest for pushing this kind of stuff?
      • frereubu 4y ago
        You’d get more traction for this kind of comment if you’d taken the time to check rather than cast vague aspersions. And if you have checked, detail it here.
      • barbazoo 4y ago
        What would that self interest be?
        • B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
          publish another paper in two years fully financed. or find another job. what would you chose?
          • barbazoo 4y ago
            Jesus, it's impossible to do research without being accused of being biased, is it.
• SilasX 4y ago
  >If having one drink can decompress you after a hard days work, fine, you're not gonna get cancer. That would seem to contradict the headline, and content, that there's a safe level of alcohol consumption. In fact, the WHO really takes that claim seriously -- the headline is not a simplification: >>when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health ... Alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer ... "We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage." But yeah, I agree, in that I'm sure you can find a low enough level of alcohol consumption that can't be discerned in health outcomes. Like, 1 microliter, one time. It sounds like your comment is more about rejecting claims that there can be a health benefit to alcohol, but the WHO is going much further than that.
  • sophacles 4y ago
    "not gonna get cancer" is in no way contradicting the headline. There's plenty of non-cancerous dangers in the world.
    • SilasX 4y ago
      Except that a) the WHO says that amount knowably increases cancer risk (and so the author would disagree with the parent's comment), and b) if you just say "it won't have harm X" while not endorsing harms you think it has, you're implying there are no harms. As long as the parent wasn't endorsing the WHO's claim of harm from that level, he's disagreeing with the thesis.
• lettergram 4y ago
  I think the challenge is really that even spices like pepper cause inflammation. You can always find a downside to anything you ingest. I think you’re correct, the best approach is to explain “safe limits”. Personally, I think it’s fine if people smoke, drink, etc until their heart is content. That said; it’s also why I’m opposed to socialized medicine. Almost everyone I know on social medicine didn’t take care of themselves (only a maybe one couldnt take care of themselves). The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.
  • RhodesianHunter 4y ago
    There is no logical banning of alcohol, we've learned that lesson.
  • MauranKilom 4y ago
    > The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically. That has not worked in the past. Do you think it would work any better nowadays?
    • dividedbyzero 4y ago
      Could present-day China pull something like that off?
      • rs999gti 4y ago
        Yes prohibition in any form, anywhere has always worked successfully
      • kevinmchugh 4y ago
        The reason its effectively impossible to ban alcohol is because the precursors are sugar, water, and yeast. It's trivial to make alcohol even in small apartments.
    • bjourne 4y ago
      It actually has worked in the past. But a more pragmatic approach is to tax alcohol heavily so that it costs you more to willingly destroy your body.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• roenxi 4y ago
  I dunno, is it a solid article? They say "Risks start from the first drop" and I am having a a hard time imagining how they could prove that, regardless of how likely it is. Looks like fearmongering. I'm sympathetic to the idea that everyone should stop drinking. I'm not a fan of mind-altering drugs and it makes for boring conversation. But we need to get used to the idea that literally nothing is safe. Living kills us all eventually. The argument against alcohol needs to be that an alcohol-free life is of higher quality. If we're going to discourage people from doing unsafe things, are we planning to disband the army? There is no safe amount of time to spend in a moving vehicle either, those things are dangerous. Working a day job is no good for people's health. Safe doesn't mean no harm; that is impossible. And the question is always whether the benefit outweighs the cost.
  • giantg2 4y ago
    "Risks start from the first drop" If this is true, the medical community is actively causing harm. Many compounded or suspended children's medicines contain alcohol. Many do not have alcohol free alternatives.
    • kenjackson 4y ago
      Even if there are risks you have to compare the risks. Would I have a child drink a small amount of alcohol for some life saving drug? Just like how you drive to work despite there being a risk in driving.
      • quantified 4y ago
        So what is the risk of damaging your life from 4 drinks a week compared to risks of getting killed by someone else walking to work every day (in the US with its drivers and SUVs)? Less alcohol is better, perhaps, but we live past our savings while drinking all the same.
      • giantg2 4y ago
        What your example misses, is that alternatives exist to alcohol for most medicines. There's no reason for most of these medications to include alcohol.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• merb 4y ago
  > If you ask European doctors having a glass or two of wine "extends health". but it's not because of the alcohol, why wine is "good", it because we mostly relax with it, which reduces stress levels. everything else is bad, at least that it the perception of the last 2-4 years in germany.
• quantified 4y ago
  Guess we better give up alcohol swabs, can't be rubbing known carcinogens on our bodies. Cause isopropyl is poisonous too.
• B8MGHCBekDuRi 4y ago
  this article is doing an even worse job though: there are a lot of people i the comments that are convinced that if they do not drink at all, they will live longer. They won't. > The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body So are almonds If you eat 20 apples including the seeds, you die instantly. But so are also soda beverages but US citizens drink an estimated 154 liters per capita every year
• Nihilartikel 4y ago
  On the subject of decompressing from daily stress.. I would humbly submit that a small (just above psychoactive threshold) puff of vaporized (not combusted) THC extract or other legal cannabinoid, is a good harm reduction measure, compared to alcohol. Especially if it eliminates the urge to drink or seek other more risky hedonic outlets.