Along with cold weather, hot weather, daylight savings time, eating breakfast, not eating breakfast, sunbathing, etc. it's another example of ABV (Anything But the Vaccines).
of course this whole thing is another psyops. As everyone is drinking alcohol this is basically the most convenient excuse to use... ABV (I will steal this one...)
Not just that but who in the typical cancer patient population didn't have the childhood schedule first? How many got their first dose of sv40 as a baby?
Can we get a study on the health effects of exposure to self-righteous moral scolds? They are one of the main causes of my drinking.(the three others are that I like the taste, I like the way that it makes me feel, and I enjoy the social aspects) And that is not simple correlation.
These warnings that everything around you causes cancer is simply manipulation of the public away from the real cause of cancer - vaccines. Drinking of alcoholic beverages existed since the dawn of humanity. For centuries, beer was the only drinkable liquid in the cities as the water was extremely unsafe. And it is also not true that everyone died before reaching 40, people lived as long as we live now, but there was high childhood mortality because of poverty, malnutrition and neglect. No cancer in significant numbers was even described before the start of mass vaccinations in late 1700s in Europe. The reason they are going after alcohol - it's profitable! And they already banned smoking everywhere so they can't pin the cancer on smoking anymore! And labeling everything with Prop 65 in CA, even coffee cups that supposedly "cause cancer" doesn't work either.
The Good Book as the ultimate 'peer-reviewed' source tells us a little wine gladdens a man's heart. A cheerful heart has a positive impact on overall health. So much for the bad advice from today's pinch-faced experts.
I think bureaucrats and do-gooders focus on silliness like this because it makes it look like they're doing something, rather than, you know, doing something.
If people haven't learned that paying attention to experts is a health risk in itself, they deserve the outcome these "experts" will see that they get, the least of which is poorer health and the greatest of which is death.
It seems to me that much of this "alcohol is bad" comes from a group of persons who could not practice moderation, totally stop drinking and then switch to immoderately pushing this "alcohol is bad" mantra on the rest of us. I find this extremely annoying. Cheers and remember.... "one is good, two is too many and three is only half enough"... "all I need is a pint a day".
Jesus drank wine, and he in fact converted water into wine for the Wedding at Cana.
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake"
In times when the water supplies were ... let's say, of variable quality, men often drank beer or other alcoholic beverages out of simple hygienic caution.
When I travelled in certain parts of Asia I would drink imported canned coke. I almost never touch the stuff at home, but it was preferable to trusting the local water supply.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the health benefits of caffeine or sugar, and everything to do with being an autonomous adult capable of making my own risk/benefit trade-offs without a lecture from some dour moaning puritan pretending to be a scientist.
William, they certainly aren't making it easy to access the full text of Proportion and Number of Cancer Cases and Deaths Attributable to Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors in the United States, 2019. So far, I’ve only seen the abstract without any details.
After thoroughly reviewing the mortality data from 2018, I must say the Surgeon General is coming across as Chicken Little. Here's what the numbers tell us:
• Of the 2,839,205 total deaths in 2018, 36,185 reportedly "involved" alcohol in some capacity—including cases where alcohol-related mental disorders played a role.
• Within that subset, 16,686 deaths were attributed to alcohol-induced cancers—though I suspect there may be a degree of guesswork in some of those assessments.
Now consider this: in 2018, there were 168,039,139 adult alcohol consumers in the U.S. Doing the math, that equates to roughly 1 in 10,000 alcohol consumers dying from alcohol-induced cancer.
This hardly justifies alarmist rhetoric. It’s more like another instance of hand waving hysteria than sound public health policy.
Years ago I read of a prominent surgeon and professor in Paris late in his career in 1919 I believe, while doing a cadaver dissection ushered in his students to witness a lung cancer victim, his first observation in his decades long career. Smoking, mustard gas, petroleum exhaust, who knows the etiology but it was very rare in those times.
Along with cold weather, hot weather, daylight savings time, eating breakfast, not eating breakfast, sunbathing, etc. it's another example of ABV (Anything But the Vaccines).
of course this whole thing is another psyops. As everyone is drinking alcohol this is basically the most convenient excuse to use... ABV (I will steal this one...)
Not just that but who in the typical cancer patient population didn't have the childhood schedule first? How many got their first dose of sv40 as a baby?
Amazing.
Can we get a study on the health effects of exposure to self-righteous moral scolds? They are one of the main causes of my drinking.(the three others are that I like the taste, I like the way that it makes me feel, and I enjoy the social aspects) And that is not simple correlation.
Just substitute vaccines for alcohol and one will have a much truer and more accurate cause of cancer.
These warnings that everything around you causes cancer is simply manipulation of the public away from the real cause of cancer - vaccines. Drinking of alcoholic beverages existed since the dawn of humanity. For centuries, beer was the only drinkable liquid in the cities as the water was extremely unsafe. And it is also not true that everyone died before reaching 40, people lived as long as we live now, but there was high childhood mortality because of poverty, malnutrition and neglect. No cancer in significant numbers was even described before the start of mass vaccinations in late 1700s in Europe. The reason they are going after alcohol - it's profitable! And they already banned smoking everywhere so they can't pin the cancer on smoking anymore! And labeling everything with Prop 65 in CA, even coffee cups that supposedly "cause cancer" doesn't work either.
The Good Book as the ultimate 'peer-reviewed' source tells us a little wine gladdens a man's heart. A cheerful heart has a positive impact on overall health. So much for the bad advice from today's pinch-faced experts.
I'm waiting for the Experts to find that oxygen is harmful. Everyone who has died has partaken of the deadly gas.
But how does alcohol compare with toast? Acrylamide is a carcinogen.
And maybe we need warning labels on Cheerios.
I think bureaucrats and do-gooders focus on silliness like this because it makes it look like they're doing something, rather than, you know, doing something.
A friend once bought a very large handgun. Stamped on the barrel was a warning about possible danger or death from misuse.
Duh!
I saw in a market, on a jar pf peanut butter, "May contain peanuts."
I should hope so !
"May"???
🤣
If people haven't learned that paying attention to experts is a health risk in itself, they deserve the outcome these "experts" will see that they get, the least of which is poorer health and the greatest of which is death.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if it was good enough for the Psalmist and Our Lord, it’s good enough for me.
I don’t think Jesus would turn water into wine and then chastise people for drinking it.
It seems to me that much of this "alcohol is bad" comes from a group of persons who could not practice moderation, totally stop drinking and then switch to immoderately pushing this "alcohol is bad" mantra on the rest of us. I find this extremely annoying. Cheers and remember.... "one is good, two is too many and three is only half enough"... "all I need is a pint a day".
Jesus drank wine, and he in fact converted water into wine for the Wedding at Cana.
Beer is lower in ABV. I homebrew beer.
Everyone should believe in something.
I believe I'll have another beer.
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake"
In times when the water supplies were ... let's say, of variable quality, men often drank beer or other alcoholic beverages out of simple hygienic caution.
When I travelled in certain parts of Asia I would drink imported canned coke. I almost never touch the stuff at home, but it was preferable to trusting the local water supply.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the health benefits of caffeine or sugar, and everything to do with being an autonomous adult capable of making my own risk/benefit trade-offs without a lecture from some dour moaning puritan pretending to be a scientist.
William, they certainly aren't making it easy to access the full text of Proportion and Number of Cancer Cases and Deaths Attributable to Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors in the United States, 2019. So far, I’ve only seen the abstract without any details.
After thoroughly reviewing the mortality data from 2018, I must say the Surgeon General is coming across as Chicken Little. Here's what the numbers tell us:
• Of the 2,839,205 total deaths in 2018, 36,185 reportedly "involved" alcohol in some capacity—including cases where alcohol-related mental disorders played a role.
• Within that subset, 16,686 deaths were attributed to alcohol-induced cancers—though I suspect there may be a degree of guesswork in some of those assessments.
Now consider this: in 2018, there were 168,039,139 adult alcohol consumers in the U.S. Doing the math, that equates to roughly 1 in 10,000 alcohol consumers dying from alcohol-induced cancer.
This hardly justifies alarmist rhetoric. It’s more like another instance of hand waving hysteria than sound public health policy.
What a clueless stooge this guy is ... these people are exactly what is wrong with our society. "SAFE & EFFECTIVE" sure buddy !
Years ago I read of a prominent surgeon and professor in Paris late in his career in 1919 I believe, while doing a cadaver dissection ushered in his students to witness a lung cancer victim, his first observation in his decades long career. Smoking, mustard gas, petroleum exhaust, who knows the etiology but it was very rare in those times.