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?
No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
791–800 of 1001 posts
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#792Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is such a thing as being unnecessarily and overly cautious, however. This sure seems like a good example of that.
Exactly. Precaution comes at a price. The question is whether the benefits of the precaution outweigh the costs. And that is an answer science cannot, and should not, answer. These days, it seems, many scientists are desperate to cloak their policy preferences in "science." That is precisely why there is presently so much distrust of scientists.
Many people seem to unrealistically demand scientific recommendations to be "guarantees." However, scientific conclusions are very precisely made best guesses, built on humanity's knowledge.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#793Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. These accusations are a common way to tear down democratic institutions, handing power to corporations and powerful individuals. Do you have evidence of it? I've seen none, other than some things attempted by political appointees during the Trump administration.
The CDC (formally Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has long tried to enter the gun control debate. That has nothing to do with their mission of communicable disease prevention. Congress has repeatedly voted to block them.
Meanwhile, all they've tried to do is research gun violence, not "enter a debate".
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#794Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#795Earlier quoted context omitted.
The wider medical community has been vocal about gun control, because guns are a leading cause of injury and death. The fact that it's not a virus or bacteria is arguably a pointless technicality, incidental to saving people's lives. The people who catch the 'bullet' disease are treated at hospitals by doctors. You may not think it's appropriate, but many doctors disagree. There's nothing in that indicating it's poli…
Should CDC also be involved in traffic laws too?
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#796An increase in high-density lipo-protein (HDL) cholesterol has been the most compelling potential source of biologic plausibility for how alcohol might help prevent CVD. However, the cardioprotective effect of HDL is under challenge: many studies find no effect from increased HDL levels on reducing the risk for myocardial infarction(23)(24)(25). Other proposed cardioprotective biological mechanisms have also been shown to be inconsistent with sound epidemiologic studies. These include coronary calcification and carotid intima-media thickness, where alcohol consumption is associated with worse vascular health(26)(27). Contrary to popular opinion, alcohol is not good for the heart. This directly contradicts the common message over the past three decades from some researchers, the alcohol industry, and the media that alcohol prolongs life, chiefly by reducing the risk of CVD. For example, the use of red wine has been promoted through various diets as a “heart-healthy” beverage for the longest time. The presence of resveratrol in wine has been known for its cardioprotective characteristics in light to moderate drinkers. However, there are multiple reasons that the belief that alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is no longer acceptable:
• Such evidence has been based on observational studies • No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have confirmed health benefits of alcohol • The presence of unaccounted confounding factors further weakens the quality of evidence • Studies misclassify unhealthy ex-drinkers as abstainers • Most evidence is observed only in the Caucasian population • Studies that show positive effects are funded by the alcohol industry.* Research in the latest decade has led to major reversals in the perception of alcohol in relation to health in general and CVD in particular. These developments have prompted health authorities in a number of countries, e.g. the Netherlands(28), England(29) and Australia(30), to lower their recommended amount of alcohol for low-risk drinking. The alcohol industry has also perpetuated misleading information about the benefits of drinking alcohol. This interference by the alcohol industry closely reflects the universally vilified activities of tobacco companies. Alcohol industries deceptively promote their products under the labels of “healthy” and “safe”. Portrayal of alcohol in print and electronic media as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use. Youth-targeted advertisement and encouraging alcohol as “heart-healthy” have created a conducive environment for young adults to relate alcohol with ‘having a good time’. Contrary to this belief, evidence from all around the world exists to link alcohol with a range of noncommunicable and infectious diseases."
https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Po...
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#797Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, we shouldn’t. Instead, we should work on ensuring that as many people are able to enjoy new opportunities it provides if they do desire as possible. Everyone should be able to enjoy life.
Climate impact is significant. That's going to interfere with generations enjoying their lives.
Talking about taking away things that people like, like airplanes and red meat and gas stoves just get people up in arms. Start with the low-hanging fruit: crypto has no value except to speculators and criminals and tax evaders. Concrete is like 10% of our energy use, and we use way too much of it for temporary structures. No one likes leaf blowers, just ban the gas-powered ones.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#798Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but not high on the list of priorities. How about enabling people to get healthcare, go to college, or to survive by addressing global warming.
"Stop everything above this line on Maslow's pyramid because some people fall below the line" is not a solution to any of the problems faces by people below the line. It's like demanding that an astrophysicist cure AIDS at once before ever using another telescope. You don't help people climb a ladder by chopping off the top and declaring the ladder climbed.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#799Earlier quoted context omitted.
The wider medical community has been vocal about gun control, because guns are a leading cause of injury and death. The fact that it's not a virus or bacteria is arguably a pointless technicality, incidental to saving people's lives. The people who catch the 'bullet' disease are treated at hospitals by doctors. You may not think it's appropriate, but many doctors disagree. There's nothing in that indicating it's poli…
Should CDC also be involved in traffic laws too?
One example of many:
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#800Earlier quoted context omitted.
And medically those are unsafe. The crucial part, though, is that that's not at all to say you shouldn't do them. You are simply using a different understanding of the word safe than they are. This is a medical brief aimed at experts who should have no trouble understanding what claims are and are not being made. This is not a lifestyle or dietary recommendation. This is not a cost benefit analysis. This is a medical…
If time word “unsafe” means “carries more than zero risk” then it isn’t very useful to me to know whether a doctor considers something unsafe.