Serious international researchers into the health effects of alcohol have uncompromisingly slammed a recent call by British trick-cyclists for severe restrictions on drinking by elderly people. A report issued earlier this month by the Royal College of Psychiatrists described elderly (over-65) drinkers as society's "invisible …
International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research
How do I get on that and what's the average age of the 'researchers'?
I wonder what this pint tastes like?
Keep flippin' the coin
... until you get the result you want.
You wanted heads, it came up tails? never mind: go for best of three. D'oh, heads again - make that best of 5.
And so it is with the soft sciences - just keep doing more and more studies until you get the answers that fit your own personal opinions and "gut" feeling. Then stop - that bit's important.
Maybe what they really need is a study into why their all other studies keep producing different conclusions every time they're done.
... but ...
Playing Satan's solicitor, and having not read either paper, I am perhaps overqualified to pontificate on this. Presumably the shrinks' paper looked at alcohol and the elderly from a psychological point of view and the biologists looked at the physical aspect, hence two conflicting results.
That said, these reports are a load of shite aren't they?
Re: ... bu t...
"Presumably the shrinks' paper looked at alcohol and the elderly from a psychological point of view"
I'm still baffled as to how drinking more than a single glass of wine a day makes someone an alcoholic from a psychological view....
Psychlos want people to be happy
Like bodywork shops want people to drive safely.
Bunch of miserable Vulcans, the lot of 'em. Send 'em all back.
Now that's a job I fancy
Pierre-Louis Teissedre, PhD, Faculty of Oenology – ISVV, University Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2, Bordeaux, France.
What the hell.
I'm quite looking forward to getting to the age where I can do anything I like, and it can't really knock much off my life expectancy. We're all going to die: might as well go out with a smile on your face. Cheers!
Re: What the hell.
Speak for yourself, mortal boy.
The Goddess has spoken
Hey Lester, I think Sarah is taking this 'moderation' stuff a little too far, can you get an extra pint or two into her at lunch, please??
The reply that dare not type itself
There's at least one joke in there somewhere, but I'm too chicken to post any of 'em.
Age is relative ...
Here in Sonoma, CA, the saying is "sixty is the new forty" ... But as a fifty-something, I'm not certain I want to indulge quite as much as I did as a thirty-something ;-)
Must tell my parents....
Have to wait till they sober up though.
In other news, once knew a doctor who planned to take up smoking when he retired, as he knew it wouldn't have time to kill him before he died of old age. He wasn't expecting the stroke that killed him 18 months after he retired though.
Oi, where's my 'boffins'?
A doctor I know has a very interesting opinion:
If you have survived to the ripe old age of 80, relax and don't worry too much, you are probably hard to kill.
That's the kind of science I like to hear (as does my dad)
Please drop the Trick Cyclists bullshit
In one article its mildly clever, but in every single article that refers to psychiatrists it now only ever says 'trick cyclists'.
Drop the bullshit, please
Re. Please drop the Trick Cyclists bullshit
No don't, please continue to use it as you see fit
Also its Boffins, not scientists............
Lewis was a prototype for ELIZA
and sadly the boffin who programmed him passed away in 1983. If you want him to broaden his vocabulary or make more sense then you'll have to gen up on Fortran 77 and dust off his punch cards.
It's a horribly dated piece of slang.
Psychiatrists aren't the sort of people I'd expect to know the answers on this. But their report is about substance abuse in the elderly. It's meant for the guidance of member of the Royal College.
Lewis, I expect a lot of the words in that report to mean something a bit different to what you or I think. Imagine you're driving a bus past a wine-bar and you hear somebody scream "Port!"
I for one
Look forward to my mid fifties, when I am allowed to have another half-measure between Flog-it and whatever replaces the Jeremy Kyle show.
I'll drink to that
Having recently reached my mid fifties, I can assure you that I have no intention of spending my declining years propped up in an oversized chair in the St Peter's Close Home for the Terminally Bewildered.
I intend instead to grow old disgracefully. I have my obituary ready:
"Passed away aged 110 ... shot dead by an enraged husband. He spent 90% of his money on beer, women and roller-coasters. The rest he just frittered away."
Do I need to explain the icon?
Given the state of the economy don't we want elderly people to die swiftly and cheaply? Unless the medical profession has a legal solution to this conundrum they should just shut the hell up. I mean, what are we paying them for?
You're paying them...
..to be crusty ol' curmudgeons, who'll grumble at you young whippersnappers and complain about the gub'mint. And to do that, they'll need to be in fine, full voice
Don't you know that already?
a rock and a hard place
Having worked with psychiatrists for 20 years of my working life until they destroyed it in a clash of opinions about a scientific issue, I am torn:
I can appreciate why the report might be flawed, bad science and overly restricted in what it considered: such things were the constant areas on which I am the psychiatrists always disagreed, me using rational argument to try to persuade them; and they using personalized comments (like "too much of a perfectionist" and "not prepared to fully understand the complexity of what we have to deal with here") in an attempt to disregard what I was saying.
On the other hand, I am sure the evaluations of the report might suffer from the twin problems of the extent to which ordinary language is used in novel and specialized ways within psychiatry, and the ways in which technical language has moved into everyday language and is misused and misunderstood. This is on top of the possible different focus of attention of the two sides: one on psychiatric issues, the other on biological issues.
However, given my experiences and my knowledge of the manner in which a lot of reports typically get generated from within psychiatry, my gut-feeling is that if I had to choose one, the critiques of the psychiatry report would be the ones to pick. Of course, a detailed study of both the report and its criticisms would be required to get a more accurate view, and then my experience tells me that any conclusions critical of the psychiatrists would, once again, be subject to responses like "too perfectionist", "done from positions of ignorance", "we are the experts in psychiatry here, so shut up", and similar.
The whole of the way psychiatry is organised both as a *profession" and as a system of enquiry that calls itself a science, leaves much to be desired. Because of its over-emphasis on professional importance and authority figures, its bases, which are often built on shifting sand, allow all sorts of "research conclusions" to be drawn and elevated into far more than they deserve. It is a potentially useful, yet dangerous, area of enquiry, crippled by the professional bodies and thought processes of the people that have claimed it.
Philosophy and alcohol.
My philosophy, which I have to admit I pinched from someone else who unfortunately will not come to mind (too much alcohol?) is "moderation in all things - including moderation."
As the twilight years descend upon me, my other thought towards those British psychiatrist is "Fuck off, and leave me alone."
I am supporting the economy by providing more of a tax take (from alcohol -obviously!) to the government.
There isn't a wine glass icon but beer is good too, providing it's not that tasteless stuff commonly sold under the designation of lager - or Australian beer!