According to a recent Gallup poll, public sentiment on alcohol has shifted. Over 50% of Americans now consider moderate alcohol consumption to be dangerous for their health. This number was only around 25% less than ten years ago. Apparently, younger Americans are in the lead but older Americans are "catching up to the shifted scientific consensus."
Either this poll is unreliable propaganda, or it indicates that Americans are falling for propaganda, which would be more worrisome. According to a recent Gallup poll, public sentiment on alcohol has shifted. Over 50% of Americans now consider moderate alcohol consumption detrimental to their health.
The recent "shift in scientific consensus" about health hazards derived from moderate drinking is based on "science" as solid as the one that "shifted the consensus" to determine that modRNA injections are "safe and effective" and "need to be recommended to the entire population."
The "science underpinning" the health hazards of moderate alcohol consumption is based on flawed assumptions, cherry-picked "evidence" and biased data analysis, as I outlined both here and in my older post:
We do not need any revised health recommendations on alcohol consumption and I am strongly urging Sec. Kennedy to conduct a thorough review of the recently "shifted consensus," similar to what he is conducting on other topics.
Finally, I can only question why the media are trying to (succeeding at?) convincing us not to drink, but are not doing the same at all for other substances with health hazards, such as marijuana. It seems that one can observe the following trend: substances that may have serious health hazards, yet make the populace lazy, fat, uncommunicative and atomized, are not highlighted in the media. However, those substances that work as a social glue, make people talkative, joyful and speak their minds, are being demonized.
With methodology similar to the one that assesses the global 'alcohol attributable' cancer burthen, here is a publication that estimates the global burthen of type II diabetes and cardiovascular diseases attributable to sugar sweetened beverages.
Questions can be asked about the methods used in each publication. However, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in most developed countries, outpacing cancer (in general, more significantly so those types of cancer mentioned to be alcohol related). I do not see calls for a warning from the Surgeon General on sugar sweetened beverages for diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk, so why exactly do we urgently 'need' one on alcohol containers?
Terrific piece on the methodological issues with this guidance and the possible political motivations. In reading the full advisory, it was striking that by their own possibly flawed analysis, the risk from moderate drinking goes up from 10% to 13% over one’s lifetime. The statistical underpinnings of the advisory are not convincing, and the cause and effect discussion seems unproven for moderate alcohol consumption.
Thank you! When I was diving into the reports that "justify" Australian, Canadian and US updates to alcohol guidance, I was stunned myself to see how weak the underlying "evidence" is. It is equally shocking to observe how much "health authorities" are maintaining double standards depending on which industry they are "investigating." Evidence that can be rejected with a smile for one industry, is gladly accepted as "strong and causal" if the product is not liked by the narrative du jour.
This comes from the same "health authorities" that told us earlier this year that supplementing Vitamin D is unnecessary, that we should eat less beef and chicken but more (often ultra processed and genetically manipulated) soy products. Same "health authorities" that claim there are no side effects to mRNA vaccines and hormon blockers. That it is ok to be fat, but if you want to lose weight, just get yourself a lifetime ozempic subscription. That has been poispning our children for decades with fluoride, artificial dyes and high fructose syrup. That is consistently pushing a high-carb diet on an increasingly fat and diabetic population. I am more likely to have a glass of wine with my dinner if they tell me not to.
The data they base their "guidance" on is ridiculous, thank you for breaking it down. It is even more ridiculous of them to translate a population-based YLL metrics into minutes per beer! The audacity!
The inconsistency in "health authorities'" assessment of is shocking indeed. We need an urgent return to objective standards in society in general, but definitely also in this area. When they refer to the "latest science," that should imply that they look for hypotheses be questioned until they can no object to them. What we are observing here is quite the contrary. It pretty much looks like the "research" started from predefined conclusions and then some tools, borrowed from true science, were applied to construct models that arrive at those predetermined conclusions, while maintaining the appearance of science.
According to a recent Gallup poll, public sentiment on alcohol has shifted. Over 50% of Americans now consider moderate alcohol consumption to be dangerous for their health. This number was only around 25% less than ten years ago. Apparently, younger Americans are in the lead but older Americans are "catching up to the shifted scientific consensus."
https://apnews.com/article/drinking-alcohol-beer-wine-liquor-poll-health-091aa28c3375d30d728d48c628a9023a
Either this poll is unreliable propaganda, or it indicates that Americans are falling for propaganda, which would be more worrisome. According to a recent Gallup poll, public sentiment on alcohol has shifted. Over 50% of Americans now consider moderate alcohol consumption detrimental to their health.
The recent "shift in scientific consensus" about health hazards derived from moderate drinking is based on "science" as solid as the one that "shifted the consensus" to determine that modRNA injections are "safe and effective" and "need to be recommended to the entire population."
The "science underpinning" the health hazards of moderate alcohol consumption is based on flawed assumptions, cherry-picked "evidence" and biased data analysis, as I outlined both here and in my older post:
https://www.wildhorsewisdom.xyz/p/beer-for-the-horses?r=31a4ti&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
We do not need any revised health recommendations on alcohol consumption and I am strongly urging Sec. Kennedy to conduct a thorough review of the recently "shifted consensus," similar to what he is conducting on other topics.
Finally, I can only question why the media are trying to (succeeding at?) convincing us not to drink, but are not doing the same at all for other substances with health hazards, such as marijuana. It seems that one can observe the following trend: substances that may have serious health hazards, yet make the populace lazy, fat, uncommunicative and atomized, are not highlighted in the media. However, those substances that work as a social glue, make people talkative, joyful and speak their minds, are being demonized.
With methodology similar to the one that assesses the global 'alcohol attributable' cancer burthen, here is a publication that estimates the global burthen of type II diabetes and cardiovascular diseases attributable to sugar sweetened beverages.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03345-4#Sec9
Questions can be asked about the methods used in each publication. However, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in most developed countries, outpacing cancer (in general, more significantly so those types of cancer mentioned to be alcohol related). I do not see calls for a warning from the Surgeon General on sugar sweetened beverages for diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk, so why exactly do we urgently 'need' one on alcohol containers?
Terrific piece on the methodological issues with this guidance and the possible political motivations. In reading the full advisory, it was striking that by their own possibly flawed analysis, the risk from moderate drinking goes up from 10% to 13% over one’s lifetime. The statistical underpinnings of the advisory are not convincing, and the cause and effect discussion seems unproven for moderate alcohol consumption.
Thank you! When I was diving into the reports that "justify" Australian, Canadian and US updates to alcohol guidance, I was stunned myself to see how weak the underlying "evidence" is. It is equally shocking to observe how much "health authorities" are maintaining double standards depending on which industry they are "investigating." Evidence that can be rejected with a smile for one industry, is gladly accepted as "strong and causal" if the product is not liked by the narrative du jour.
This comes from the same "health authorities" that told us earlier this year that supplementing Vitamin D is unnecessary, that we should eat less beef and chicken but more (often ultra processed and genetically manipulated) soy products. Same "health authorities" that claim there are no side effects to mRNA vaccines and hormon blockers. That it is ok to be fat, but if you want to lose weight, just get yourself a lifetime ozempic subscription. That has been poispning our children for decades with fluoride, artificial dyes and high fructose syrup. That is consistently pushing a high-carb diet on an increasingly fat and diabetic population. I am more likely to have a glass of wine with my dinner if they tell me not to.
The data they base their "guidance" on is ridiculous, thank you for breaking it down. It is even more ridiculous of them to translate a population-based YLL metrics into minutes per beer! The audacity!
The inconsistency in "health authorities'" assessment of is shocking indeed. We need an urgent return to objective standards in society in general, but definitely also in this area. When they refer to the "latest science," that should imply that they look for hypotheses be questioned until they can no object to them. What we are observing here is quite the contrary. It pretty much looks like the "research" started from predefined conclusions and then some tools, borrowed from true science, were applied to construct models that arrive at those predetermined conclusions, while maintaining the appearance of science.