There are no safe levels of Alcohol consumption ....

[Markymark]

You may have added a t by mistake. immoral?!

Oh, that's demonstrated hourly.

 

[SD1]

Well, your somewhat incomprehensible post also seemed to be suggesting that the NHS also blames anything and everything on alcohol.

And as someone who works in the NHS @JoshM is likely to be familiar with the NHS statistics, given he's probably involved (albeit circuitously) in compiling them.

Perhaps when you sober up you might want to post an apology to him?

Oh you are so bitchy!!
He has supplied no statistics from the NHS. He is giving an opinion in a stastical form with no evidence. His is not a statistic, it is mere guesswork, based on his bias.

 

[SD1]

) but I tried to drink a tiny glass of Port with Cheese and crackers the other day, and I couldn't - I'd normally knock it back. Found it too strong ?

Out of practise. You need to get back into training. Don't over do it at first, just build up slowly. Start with a pint of mild!!

 

[SD1]

Haven't had a drink for 16 years . I would rather spend my time and money elsewhere . If anyone wants my 14 units a week let me know

It's never to late to restart!! See below.

Out of practise. You need to get back into training. Don't over do it at first, just build up slowly. Start with a pint of mild.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Indeed, though none of that has any relation to the research which led to these new guidelines.

Which aspect of the research are you disputing as pseudo science?

 

[awomaninsane]

Oh you are so bitchy!!
He has supplied no statistics from the NHS. He is giving an opinion in a stastical form with no evidence. His is not a statistic, it is mere guesswork, based on his bias.

His evidence is based on his experience. He clearly stated that he works in the NHS and deals with people/patients and he said that 85% of incidents he is involved with have alcohol involved somewhere. That's not guesswork is it?

 

[Wafer]

Which aspect of the research are you disputing as pseudo science?

I'm not exactly, but I linked an article in my first post in the thread which basically says the conclusions of the research were contrived to undervalue the beneficial effects of some drinking (long term) and overegging the negative bits, showing results from other research suggesting that drinking some alcohol every week was better for you than being teetotal. To the extent that you'd need to be drinking over 40 units a week to have the same overall level of risk as being teetotal...

My conflict is that reading that kind of criticism, which is written in a fairly sciency way, becomes easy to believe compared to a bunch of restrictive guidelines, especially if that's what you want to hear.
So though I'm inclined to think the new guidelines are based on dodgy research (my trust isn't particularly high after stuff like the recent red meat causes cancer when the increased measured risk was minuscule) I am also aware that the criticism may not be entirely accurate either! Hence the idea of pseudo-debunking as a balance to pseudo science.....

None of it though is about what people get up to when they are drunk, that's a different thing.

 

[Fab Foodie]

If anyone wants my 14 units a week let me know

Pleeeze!

 

[JoshM]

Like to blame a lot on alcohol don't you/NHS. Anything or everything. Who correlated your statistics. Did you make a note every night? You have absolutely no idea what the statistics are, you have made them up.

I don't remember blaming anything on anything! Please show me where I blamed all incidents involving alcohol on alcohol? Indeed I've even argued against those who would 'blame' patients with alcohol related complaints with a fine. People should be free to make their own decisions regarding how much alcohol they consume and when, and they should be free to receive medical attention for any and all medical complaints they have. That shouldn't stop those providing that health care from saying over indulgence on a regular basis is risky and increases the demand on the NHS, and asking people to keep that information in mind when they make their decisions. After all any decision we make is all the better for being better informed.

Oh you are so bitchy!!
He has supplied no statistics from the NHS. He is giving an opinion in a stastical form with no evidence. His is not a statistic, it is mere guesswork, based on his bias.

And I've said as much. If it will help you to stop deliberately missing the point I'm making though, I'll bow to your pedantry and retract the figure 85% (which I've never pretended was anything other than illustrative)and replace it with 'in my experience the vast majority of calls at the weekend involve alcohol'.

 

[Wafer]

And as was pointed out to you, a little critical thinking goes a long way...

Pot, kettle.....

As I've also pointed out my level of trust in these alleged experts who have various qualifications is pretty low considering other health advice balls ups, so I very much am thinking critically. I'm open to someone pointing out why the article I linked is incorrect but no one has, just had a couple of implications that possibly the person who wrote it might not be qualified to comment and may have an agenda. Lots of big ifs.....

 

[SD1]

His evidence is based on his experience. He clearly stated that he works in the NHS and deals with people/patients and he said that 85% of incidents he is involved with have alcohol involved somewhere. That's not guesswork is it?

Yes it is. Does he note each one that involves alcohol on every shift?
Also (a made up example) he would include someone who was sat in there house drinking when a car crashed through the wall and injured them. That is his example of alcohol involved somewhere. Again he is making up the statistic. Supply the NHS statistics AND wherever alcohol had any bearing on them being in hospital.

 

[SD1]

, I'll bow to your pedantry and retract the figure 85% (which I've never pretended was anything other than illustrative)and replace it with 'in my experience the vast majority of calls at the weekend involve alcohol'.

It is not pedantry you made up the figure. That said thank you.

 

[SD1]

The new guidelines bring us into line with the guidance issued by the public health authorities in a number of countries. Unless it's all a big global conspiracy...

How many times have scientist reversed there "scientific findings"?
From eating eggs is bad for you, to good for you.
Drinking red wine is good for you, to bad for you.
In reference to conspiracy, I suggested it is a form of social engineering. The aim being to introduce a self imposed prohibition, NOT for medical reasons but social reasons.

 

[SD1]

Looking at your posts.... I think the social engineers might have a point.

Bitchy bitchy!
Kissy kissy!
Vomity vomity!

 

[MarkF]

Yes it is. Does he note each one that involves alcohol on every shift?
Also (a made up example) he would include someone who was sat in there house drinking when a car crashed through the wall and injured them. That is his example of alcohol involved somewhere. Again he is making up the statistic. Supply the NHS statistics AND wherever alcohol had any bearing on them being in hospital.

TBH I think Josh's estimate of late night alcohol admissions being 85% sounds about right, who else goes in? Old folk falling over, car crashes and that's about it.

Not that I think the alcohol related impact on the NHS is anything compared to fatso's and keeping old folk (bodies) alive. But but boozing is far easier to medialise.