• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

first it was smokes but now.....

That's just crap! :angry:

Medical science for the last 1000+ years---since before it could even be properly called science---has known that moderate alcohol consumption is GOOD for you. Actuarial tables bear this out, and NO one is more conservative about these things than the insurance industry. People who have 1-2 drinks per day live longer than both heavy drinkers . . . and teetotalers. Proven fact.

Can't believe the French, for hundreds of years the banner wavers for the "good life," are caving in to this PC nonsense now. What's the world coming to?

~Boar
 
If you read on the are also going after red meat, bacon, sausage and salt After they take that stuff I would volunteer to die because life as I enjoy it is over!!!
 
Didn't you hear, air will kill you too!

This Thursday, I'm going to our clubs annual boxing event. Lets see here:
  • Cigars
  • Red Wine
  • Red Meat
  • More Cigars
  • Scotch
  • Boxing
  • More Cigars
  • More Scotch
Looks like I'll be dead before Friday Morning!!!

I am so tired of these people that wants everyone to live in a sanitary bubble and not enjoying life.
 
That's story is just insane. Human beings have been drinking wine for literally thousands of years. And decades of research and hundreds of studies continue to prove the health benefits of wine, especially red wine. Ask your doctor, he'll probably recommend it too.

link

8 Straight Benefits of Red Wine

Wine is one of the oldest alcoholic beverages on the planet. Its history spans thousands of years and while heavy drinking of any alcoholic beverage rather brings lots of health-related troubles instead of benefits, current research suggests that a glass of red wine each day may be providing you with more than just a little relaxation.

Reduced risk of death from nearly all causes: European researchers suggest that moderate daily intake of red wine (22-32 g of alcohol) has a protective effect on all-cause mortality. According to studies from France, UK, Finland and Denmark, moderate consumption of wine is more beneficial than that of beer or spirits.

Smoking: Acute smoking significantly impairs vessels' natural ability to relax, or vasodilate. Red wine, with or without alcohol, decreases the harmful effect of smoking on the endothelium - layer of cells that provide a friction-reducing lining in lymph vessels, blood vessels, and the heart.

Heart disease: One of the well-known and most studied benefits of red wine is its heart protective effect. Moderate consumption of red wine on a regular basis may be a preventative against coronary heart disease. Scientists believe the red wine reduces the risk of coronary heart disease by reducing production of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and boosting high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.

Blood clots: Red wine produces anticlotting, or antithrombotic, action. Light to moderate consumers of wine have lower levels of protein fibrinogen which promotes blood clot formation.

Atherosclerosis: Red wine may prevent the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis (hardening or "furring" of the arteries). Atherosclerosis starts when blood vessels begin to lose their ability to relax. Both the alcohol and polyphenols in the red wine appear to favorably maintain healthy blood vessels by promoting the formation of nitric oxide (NO), the key chemical relaxing factor that plays an important role in the regulation of vascular tone.

Hypertension: Excessive alcohol consumption is generally considered a risk factor for hypertension. However, there is some evidence of favorable effects of red wine on blood pressure. Two glasses of red wine (250 ml), taken together with the meal, lower post-meal blood pressure in hypertensive persons.

Kidney stones: Red wine intake reduces the risk of kidney stone formation.

Alzheimer's disease: Moderate wine drinking correlates with a lower risk for Alzheimer's disease. Researchers found that resveratrol, a red wine polyphenol, produces neuroprotective effects.
Click to expand...
 
Like my Doctor said,"The more I practice medicine, the more I realize it depends more on genes than anything else". It's not what you eat or drink, it's who you are. I eat bacon, eggs, red meat, butter and cream. My cholesterol levels are very low. I have a good friend who married a Japanese woman. He eats her diet, which is very low in fat. His cholesterol, without medication runs well over 300.

Doc.
 
There's nothing wrong with the research. Those results and recommendation are for cancer prevention. The recommendation (and the source reports and peer-reviewed journal articles) say nothing about living longer.

The recommendation is nothing new. Alcohol mutates genes. Smoke (any kind) mutates genes. The two together have a multiplicative effect on mutating genes. A gene mutation that produces uncontrollable growth is what cancer is.

Looking at one risk in isolation, i.e., not considering overall risk, is what appears to have you all up in arms. Note that the article says nothing about the overall risk, i.e., it says nothing about living longer, let alone how you can live longer.
 
baldheadracing said:
There's nothing wrong with the research. Those results and recommendation are for cancer prevention. The recommendation (and the source reports and peer-reviewed journal articles) say nothing about living longer.

The recommendation is nothing new. Alcohol mutates genes. Smoke (any kind) mutates genes. The two together have a multiplicative effect on mutating genes. A gene mutation that produces uncontrollable growth is what cancer is.

Looking at one risk in isolation, i.e., not considering overall risk, is what appears to have you all up in arms. Note that the article says nothing about the overall risk, i.e., it says nothing about living longer, let alone how you can live longer.
Click to expand...

You need to read a little more carefully here. They didn't do any research at all. I will quote from the article.

"The pleasantly illustrated ministry brochure makes grim reading. The INCA collated hundreds of international studies and summarised the relation between types of cancer with food, drink and lifestyle."

Now pay attention that they COLLECTED and then collated aka examined what they read carefully. Collecting someone elses data is not research. Unless you either redo what they did step by step so you can duplicate their findings or just do your own research so others can examine and test your findings.

According to your logic...it would be like me reading all of CP and saying that each member enjoys a Moontrance up their ass. There is data showing some like the Moontrance and data that says the Moontrance is horrible. But there is overwhelming evidence of dick and ass jokes on here to last several lifetimes. Thus I can conclude by what I read that members have to partake in taking a Moontrance up the ass.

Now hopefully you can see how flawed that article is now. And yes, I do hope no CP'er enjoys doing what I said in my extreme example which is how extreme their so called "research" is in the first place.
 
Okay, you're right in some ways, but that's a criticism of the article.

I rarely believe news stories get all the salient facts - as a summary, they cannot. So I went to the source, the "glossy publication:" http://www.e-cancer.fr/v1/fichiers/public/...lcoolcancer.pdf and read that, and checked the epidemiological methodology (pages 43-46). I did not check each source study - and I guess one could pick apart each of those as well - but the manner that the results of the source studies were combined seems methodologically sound to me.

Of course - and this was my point - how people interpret or apply them may be suspect - everyone does have different genes, etc. - but there's nothing that I can see that is obviously wrong with the way the numbers were arrived at. (BTW, to address your logic/example: you cannot bring back the dead; and short of studies of twins, an experiment on human beings cannot be repeated. There is also an ethical consideration in performing experiments that deliberately introduce disease to human beings.)

BTW, FWIW, Institut National du Cancer (INCa) is one of the French members of International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). INCa probably does little to no research of its own. However, INCa probably funds much of the epidemiological surveillance research on cancer done in France.

As such, it forces the people who get the funding to do the research to follow a common international research protocol and standards. The full list of participating countries is on the IARC site. Similar epidemiological standards are followed among all funding agencies belonging to IARC to enable the results of research - done by others - to be combined as best as can be done under the circumstances.

Disclaimer: A decade ago, my staff was responsible for the methodology of Canada's Cancer statistics.

Rant: Abuse of numbers is everywhere, and one should always question where the statistics came from, and dig to find out if the underlying assumptions make sense. There is rarely a yes/no decision; much is shades of gray. The hard part is digging just as deeply behind the numbers that you agree with as those that you disagree with. Every post in this thread trashes either the article and the research behind it - yet all that is really being said by the source publication is that alcohol slightly increases the odds of getting some fairly rare forms of cancer. I hope that most will agree with me - as I sip my after-dinner Alberta Premium Rye - that there are other risks that are more important to one's life.
 
Its all about the control of people. The group who makes the most ruckus gets to control those of us who just want to be left alone to our own lives. They wont be satisfied until everyone is forced to live the way that they want to. Ironically 99 time out of 100 these same people are the ones preaching "tolerance".
 
It seems like the general public always freaks out whenever a news agency mentions cancer.

Most of the time, mentioned studies show a correlation between cancer and whatever it is, but there is absolutely no causation. Despite being one of the most elementary concepts taught in high school psychology class, people still don't understand this.

Statistics in the form of percentages also seem to scare the living hell out of the ill-informed. But if you boil down all the statistics, do the mathematics, and interpret the numbers, I doubt a 168% increased chance of contracting cancer is far from negligible.

*Insert baldheadracing's rant here*
 
Typically, stories like this are almost always complete bulls#!t because they are not fully controlled studies.

Did the people in the study come from the same age group..?? Did the people in the study all eat exactly the same food? Did the people in the study all get the exact same amount of sleep? Did the people in the study have similar lifestyles, with respect to stress levels and overall mental environment? Did the people in the study get the exact same amount of exercise? Maybe most importantly, was the study size large enough to diminish the effects of genetics to a background level when it comes to the final results (props to Doc)...??

In almost all of those questions, the answer is "....eh, no...".

Doc is right on; who your parents were probably matters as much if not more than anything you can do with your lifestyle. For example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...h-birthday.html

I shall drink, I shall smoke. That's how it is.

Best Regards - B.B.S.
 
Wow... I don't know what to really say. I don't see why people are so scared of everything. But I'll be drinking wine and smoking cigars at their funeral! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top