No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation • Hacker News Board

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#931

Post by cies » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 10:04 AM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #180

kube-system wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most victimless crimes have victims, they’re just hard to singularly identify.

No. Not even close. Most victimless crimes have literally no victim. There is no victim without some sort of harm. The reason we have speed limits and drugs are illegal is because if you go overboard enough with them there is a high likelihood of harm. In the vast majority of cases people don't go overboard and there is no actual victim though. These things are crimes because our system of justice is not good at puni…

> The reason we have speed limits and drugs are illegal

Are very different reasons.

Drugs are illegal because of big alc biz lobby, religious interference and orchestrated mass hysteria. The effect: the police can target any group, search them hard and lock some up because "drug". If the police would search hard in Beverly Hills they'd also find a lot, but they choose not to. It gives the police the power to hurt any group they choose because we all do drugs.

Speeding is an offense because it causes harm to others in some cases. Also there is an environmental impact. You choose to roll your car in public roads, you need a license, a proper car and to follow the rules. Cars can be seriously dangerous for other people on the roads. And it is in most cases "an offense"! Not a crime. You get a fine, not a jail sentence.

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#932

Post by cies » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 10:06 AM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #182

cies wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to at least be consistent. No not be a total joke as a gov't. I love the stories on "refer scare" and the prohibition (which has become some big historical period like the renaissance, merely by retarded gov't policy). And not like we're done with it. New Zealand is considering to ban tobacco sales to the next generation. What could probably go wrong with that? Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? (this…

> Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? Hasn't society already decided a while ago that, for some reason, age discrimination is okay as long as it's only against younger people?

Different law fir children/elderly/childbearing are not the same as saying a whole generation (no matter how old) cannot do something.

Please re-read my comment and see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#933

Post by cies » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 10:07 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #216

cies wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to at least be consistent. No not be a total joke as a gov't. I love the stories on "refer scare" and the prohibition (which has become some big historical period like the renaissance, merely by retarded gov't policy). And not like we're done with it. New Zealand is considering to ban tobacco sales to the next generation. What could probably go wrong with that? Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? (this…

> Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? This line of reasoning doesn't capture any nuance. These kinds of things operate on an allowlist. Unless there is a law enacted specifically as an exception then no, in general age discrimination is not okay. Voting, alcohol, weed, driving, truancy, parental control, marriage, consent for sex, contract law, criminal law, social security, retirement accounts, and milit…

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775

please see this. it is not protecting children, it is excluding a generation (no matter how old)

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#934

Post by seirl » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 10:28 AM UTC

klabb3 wrote: post #915

psyklic wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood distrust, because scientists base their work on research that is extensively cited. Making conclusions that are not supported by evidence, e.g. "desperately cloaking" policy preferences, could jeopardize one's scientific career. Many people seem to unrealistically demand scientific recommendations to be "guarantees." However, scientific conclusions are very precisely made best guesses, built on hum…

> I never understood distrust, because scientists base their work on research that is extensively cited. It's good that the supply chain of science is traceable, but it doesn't guarantee truth by any means. Their are many non-scientific human endeavors that have traceability, take software development for instance. I think the distrust comes from many fields having fairly obvious political trends, in particular socia…

The replication rate of Economics as a field is higher than replication rates for psychology, cancer research, pharmaceutical research, and many other fields. When was the last time you opened an econ journal?

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#935

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 10:31 AM UTC

lixtra wrote: post #872

ausername42027 wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is robust data that the risk of first-hand smoke is not a linear relationship between cancer (and other bad stuff) and dose--no amount of smoking is safe. To be frank you are uninformed on basic statistics as well as medicine. You are doing the standard thing that many educated people do when they think they are smarter and more informed than they are. You dress up a bad take as if you found some secret (CDC's…

> bad stuff carries linear risk This is a straw man. I believe that a lot of stuff carries continuous risk going up from zero and increasing with dosage. If a substance does not start with zero risk at zero dose, it is most likely not a toxin but an essential (i.e. vitamin A). Very few substances are so rare that the discreteness might matter for practical purposes. To portray the risk as binary, centered at zero is…

[deleted]

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#936

Post by spider-mario » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 10:38 AM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #731

dionidium wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…

If you want to feel some dissonance about this dissonance, you might note that a meta-analysis was done on the evidence that using a parachute is effective at saving your life when jumping from an aircraft. It's a real, but satirical approach to worshiping randomized controlled trials for things that should effectively be obvious. There are obvious limits to empiricism, and we shouldn't proudly flaunt lack of evidenc…

To be clear, the problem here is in equating “evidence” with randomized controlled trials. We have plenty of evidence that parachutes work, just not in the form of RCTs.

David Gorski of sciencebasedmedicine.org calls it “methodolatry”:

https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/1484220420295376900

https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/1479900075602194445

https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/1483268592674217986

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#937

Post by spider-mario » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 10:47 AM UTC

Xixi wrote: post #842

dionidium wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…

Just speculating here, but doesn't it have something to do with accumulation in the body? Your body obviously can't accumulate radiations. It also does process and eliminate the like of ethanol and many other substances. That's not the case, I believe, for heavy metals like mercury, lead or arsenic, that are eliminated much more slowly (if at all?). That's why you can enjoy lychees by eating a few everyday if you fan…

You might enjoy this excerpt from E. T. Jaynes’ book “Probability Theory: The Logic of Science”:

https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf#page=16 (the section that starts with “What is ‘safe’?”)

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#938

Post by ChrisLomont » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 11:21 AM UTC

N1H1L wrote: post #539

ChrisLomont wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have some place to read this? Everywhere credible I look seems to still say it. For example, https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-me... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-can... Good overview of the controversy.

You started with this

>It has all fallen apart in the last 2-3 years.

as if the scientific community has demonstrated it - it has not, and your articles do not support that claim. Your articles from 2-3 years ago are about one report, and even your articles call into question that report. So no, it has most definitely not "all fallen apart."

Interestingly, days after your NYT article, they published this one https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-di...

Go figure, right? He also has papers claiming the opposite of well established sugar research, which, you guessed it, was paid for by a industry trade group that tries to undermine health guidelines to make people believe doctors less and eat bad stuff....

When there are decades of papers and different groups with a similar claim, and one group publishes one counter claim, it makes news. It does not mean the counterclaim will stand further scrutiny. In this case, as looking over google scholar at research following the 2019 claim, it has not withstood more scrutiny.

Here is the paper you posted [1]. Here [2] is but one followup paper claiming your paper is basically crap. I can find none supporting the conclusions in [1].

All papers since then I can find still claim meat increases the risk of intestinal and other cancers.

Please don't believe or spread outlier results from news stories.

[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621

[2] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red...

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#939

Post by avar » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 12:46 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #737

avar wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "no amount proven safe" mantra is refuted by epidemiological studies on the subject. There's no evidence that modern drinking is something to worry about. It's well known that pregnant women become more risk avarse, and humans being bad at risk assessment in general they tend to channel those worries in relatively unproductive ways. E.g. worry about obscure food safety issues, as opposed to something like traffic…

> The "no amount proven safe" mantra is refuted by epidemiological studies on the subject. Is there a source?

Probably numerous sources, but for what it's worth my own recollection on this subject is based on this article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/pregnancy-drinking...

Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation

#940

Post by thirdsun » Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 1:09 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #925

dleslie wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody gains anything from an activity that fundamentally requires exposure to tobacco smoke. Except smokers, of course. Smoking isn't just addictive and deadly, like alcohol, it has its own appeal to users.

Isn't smoking a terrible deal, even for smokers? If its just about the nicotine there are lots of ways to get it without ruining your lungs or arteries (inflammation is the easiest way to get heart disease).

As a former smoker: It's not just the nicotine, it's also about the ritual, the habit and the social component. Although the latter might have changed these days as smoking has become a lot less popular since then.