No Healthy Level of Alcohol Consumption, Says Major Study (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Even the occasional drink is harmful to health, according to the largest and most detailed research carried out on the effects of alcohol, which suggests governments should think of advising people to abstain completely. The uncompromising message comes from the authors of the Global Burden of Diseases study, a rolling project based at the University of Washington, in Seattle, which produces the most comprehensive data on the causes of illness and death in the world. Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016. It was the leading risk factor for premature mortality and disability in the 15 to 49 age group, accounting for 20% of deaths. The study was carried out by researchers at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), who investigated levels of alcohol consumption and health effects in 195 countries between 1990 to 2016. They used data from 694 studies to work out how common drinking was and from 592 studies including 28 million people worldwide to work out the health risks. According to the report, "27.1% of cancer deaths in women and 18.9% in men over 50 were linked to their drinking habits." The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%).

"Worldwide we need to revisit alcohol control policies and health programs, and to consider recommendations for abstaining from alcohol," said the report's senior author, Professor Emmanuela Gakidou. "These include excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising. Any of these policy actions would contribute to reductions in population-level consumption, a vital step toward decreasing the health loss associated with alcohol use."

Comments

Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean... I'm here for a good time, not for a long time.

Re: Well Fuck

[Archfeld]

Smoking ANYTHING is bad news. Vaporizing or atomizing is better but certainly not good for anything but your 'head' and attitude. Just like grilling meat is not 'good' for you, but is damn tasty. Just do things in moderation, even moderation :)

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:

But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.

“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”

Re:Well Fuck

[houghi]

Too many people are hung up about quantity of life, not quality of life.

I am fat (for somebody in Europe) that my doctor asked me if I was willing to change my life habits, meaning eating and drinking. I said no.
I do not want to get old. I know what getting old is. My great-aunt was 115. She was healthy. My parents lived to an above average age and also lived, not just existed.
If I die, I die. At least I had fun.

And what greater fun that having a few drinks in great company of friends? In the end, that is all that matters. And I know. My great aunt told me, as well as other old people. And if you look at the photo on Wikipedia that I took, she is taking some advocaat at the age of 113.

Oh and on the WIki page, the thing about wisdom she told about hering and orange juice was not completely true.
She said it because she did not want to say anything about alcohol, because kids would read the newspaper and take it out of context. When _I_ asked her why she became so old, the answer was "Luck. Somebody has to be the oldest and by pure luck, this time it is me."

And even as the oldest person, she choose quality of life over quantity.

Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

...how many ugly people got laid because of alcohol?

And how many babies got made because of alcohol?

I wonder if the number of lives created by alcohol's ability to facilitate sex is greater than the number of deaths it causes.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[smi.james.th]

Well, parts of the profit are socialised as well. No government will advise citizens not to drink at all because they all get a juicy "sin tax" on the sale of alcohol.

Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is this:

First, we consolidated 694 individual and population-level data sources to estimate alcohol consumption levels among current drinkers. Second, we developed a method to adjust population-level consumption for alcohol consumed by tourists. Third, we improved pre-existing methods that account for unrecorded population-level consumption. Fourth, we did a new systematic review and meta-analysis of alcohol use and 23 associated health outcomes, which we used to estimate new dose–response curves of relative risk. Fifth, using the new relative risk curves and a new analytical method, we estimated the exposure of alcohol consumption that minimises an individual's total attributable risk.

Which just sounds like a lot of malarkey.

So they combined a bunch of data sources together (likely of very different quality, measures, etc), massaged it together to "estimate population level consumption by tourists", the massaged it a bit more, made some more estimates here and there... and BOOM alcohol is resposible for x% of cancer!

This is the kind of stuff that gives science a bad name. Where's the control? There isn't any. This barely qualifies as science.

People aren't going to stop drinking. We tried that already, and it didn't work out so well. It just feels too damn good to have a drink now and a again after the day is over. It's worth it! Frankly even if have a 10% increase in cancer from 1 drink a day, I'll take it. Do I really care if I have a 11% chance of cancer with an occasional drink vs an 10% chance of cancer with zero?

Realistically it just can't be THAT bad for you since we'd see large effects between drinkers and non-drinkers. Smoking, for instance increases your chance of lung cancer (over your lifetime) by a factor of 17. That is, smokers have about a 17% lifetime chance of getting lung cancer, and non-smokers have a 1% chance. That's HUGE, and the kind of thing we should be concerned about. But alcohol? Nonsense, the effect just can't be very big, or else we'd see it more obviously in the existing data.

If they really wanted to study this, take some similar populations. Study Mormons vs Ex-Mormons, or practicing vs non-practicing Muslims. But don't take data from 694 different studies and then do some weird data manipulation on it. Quite honestly, how do they know if they're right, or they just managed to tweak the data in the right way?

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

So cannabis smoke is, then, a carcinogen. Got it, thanks.

Re: And still

[c6gunner]

Absolutely. I used the same defense at my drunk driving trial. "Just because I was drunk doesn't mean alcohol had anything to do with me rear-ending a cop car!"

Judge didn't buy it. Fucking asshole.

This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

"Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016."

These idiots clearly failed to grasp the other half of the equation. Alcohol probably prevented just as many deaths. Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work, sooner or later you'd wind up skinning your boss with a letter opener and skull-fucking the company president and his snotty secretary to death with the rolled up hide.