A glaring eror
I only smoke when I'm a pub, boozing. Hence, if I stopped drinking I would LESS likely to get cancer.
Pfft. These boffins think they've thought of everything!
A shocking new study has revealed that giving up drinking perceptibly increases your chance of getting cancer. If you stay on the booze, however, your chances of getting cancer will be pretty much exactly the same as if you had never touched a drop in your life. One need hardly add that this heartening result for boozers …
I only smoke when I'm a pub, boozing. Hence, if I stopped drinking I would LESS likely to get cancer.
Pfft. These boffins think they've thought of everything!
The only way I can see giving up booze is some major health scare.
Say cancer or heart trouble plus a severe talking to by a medical specialist: the "stopping booze" category will be heavier on this type of grave dodgers than the other, so I'd expect cancer rates to be higher in this group.
People who used to drink a lot used to spend a lot of time in smoky pubs or lounging outside on hot summer days, both already known to cause cancer.
Loads of things they didn't control for their test subjects. They likely just junked all forms of cancer that could be attributed to other things (skin/lung cancer) and focused on other cancers (stomach perhaps?). They should have found a source group that didn't have sunbathing/tanning in their habits, didn't smoke, do drugs, drink coffee, or have a family history of cancers. Then perhaps they'd have a better subject group they could split out based on drinking habits.
...as I'm annoyed by some of your other stuff, this is absolutely EXCELLENT. Well done!
(watch that croc...)
I'm a responsible tea-totalling adult who wouldn't dream of allowing a drop of the evil stuff pass my lips in front of the missus.
But in light of this important medical research on this incredibly warm and blue-sky sunny day in London, I now feel obliged to follow Lewis Page's advice and go to the 'chemist' this afternoon to get some 'medicine' and do my utmost to keep myself healthy.
After all, it avoids yet another burden on the NHS. I'm just trying to be a good and healthy citizen. That's all. That's why I'm emailing this link to the missus along with a note that I'll be home from work half a day later than usual for a Friday night.
...when I noticed it was the lead item on BBC Breakfast this morning - "OMFG drinking causes cancer!!!1111ONE111!!!"
Still, worth watching for Susanna Reid....
susanna is loveleee...bet she likes a cinzano on a friday night....
I like a bit of Keeley Donovan on the weather :) Only real reason to watch Look North (Yorks)!
old bulldog ackroyd still on look north?
What makes you think Henry Brubaker is any more of a pretend scientist than the usual rent-a-quotes the media like to wheel out?
Although good call on citing the Mash, the nearest thing we now have to a proper news source.
Pint, obviously and Anon. cos it's not quite the weekend yet...
"Former consumers" are usually ex-alcoholics, so you would expect them to have the worst health problems, and the study seems to confirm this.
Lewis's interpretation isn't how it was presented this morning.
It's *not* that 10% is down to former alcohol consumption and 3% down to current, rather that for men it's 10% and for women it's 3%, in both cases down to "current and former alcohol consumption". It's not entirely clear as to whether this correlation is directly down to the alcohol or whether there are other co-correlating variables.
But, on the whole, this is actually a rather better study than most of the "health stories", involving a very large cohort being followed over more than a decade. The findings, as always, need caution but it's not as rubbish as most of them are.
How will the Daily Hate report on that discovery I wonder? In the meantime I'm going to stay so drunk I can barely focus, thus avoiding the potential future risk previously mentioned.
You've not seen the recent reports about toxins leeching into your cereal from the cardboard packet that's made from recycled newspaper then?
We're all doomed, I tells thee!
Getting cancer causes some people to stop drinking.
Never forget, the NHS has a 100% failure rate - everybody dies at some point.
For me, the biggest question is whether I get a say in the means and timing of my demise. Do I want to drink my self to death, get knocked down by a bus on the way to a checkup, hang on grimly 'till I just fall apart or die slowly and painfully while being popped full of very expensive, yet oddly ineffective, drugs when I'm too old to care much anyway.
At some point we, as a society, have to get over this fear of death (although aversion to untimely death is reasonable) and be prepared to say: "well he/she had a good innings." or "lucky b~sterds, I hope I go like that". As part of that, we should have the right to push back against the do-gooders, nannies and experts who prognosticate, pontificate and preach that doing too much/too little of something/nothing is good./bad for us. We should be permitted to act like adults: weigh the consequences of our choices in an informed manner and just get on with it.
 other options are available.
I would agree to most of that, except that in Britain, at least, *your enjoyment* will cost *me* with higher taxes and national insurance payments.
By all means drink yourself into oblivion (I know that's not what you said) but do it on your own dollar.
Have you seen how much tax is on booze these days? He *is* paying for it.
I agree wholeheartedly. Just like my NI contributions subsidise the lifestyles of others. In that respect the "worst" offenders are the people who probably led abstemious lives: didn't drink, smoke, partake of substances, exercised regularly and ate sensibly. They will live to a grand old age, far beyond what their savings allow for and will spend many years if not decades in £500++/week nursing homes at the taxpayers expense.
Contrast that with smokers, to take an example [n.b. I don't fall into that category]. At least they have the decency to die young after generally quite short periods of incapacity/dependency - that's one reason their life insurance rates are lower than healthy peoples'.
He didn't ask you to buy his pint for him and the stuff is heavily "sin" taxed anyway on top of normal VAT.
If he does drink himself to an early grave then you're saving on ongoing state pension burden, too.
Now, if you want to have a go at boozers for running up high NHS bills then you should turn your ire to the binging* obliviot fuckers who get so bladdered they lose the ability to avoid grievously injuring themselves and clog up A&E units everywhere on a Friday or Saturday night.
*As in properly lashing it up well over your usual limits rather than the "*gasp* TWO large glasses of wine in one night?" bollocks we're currently bombarded with.
Your suggestion reminded me of what happenned to my Mum recently.
About 6 months ago she ended up choking on the food she was eating, nothing anyone around her had tried could bring the food stuck in her throat back up and she was slipping out of consciousness.
Long story short, In the end all worked out fine, but all she can remember now is that her last thoughts at the time wern't "OMG OMG I'm going to die" but rather a more cheery "Ah well, I've managed 65 years, I've done well"
Carefully never mentioned by the nannies at the Dept of Health, there is no medical or scientific basis for UK units and the advice about consuming them, the numbers were simply 'plucked out of the air' at a conference .
Every unit of measurement - time, mass, length, speed is arbitrary. A metre was just the distance of two marks on a metal stick, a kilo was a chunk of polished metal.
So someone came up with a definition of a unit of alcohol which happened to correspond to approx 1/2 pint of beer or a glass of wine and that is how things are measured. You may be right that there may be some uncertainty about how much is or is not safe to consume, but that doesn't mean such advice or the measurement used to present it is somehow meaningless.
he was referring to the "drink no more than x units per week" as being arbitary and pulled out of someone's bum; not the idea of a 'unit' itself.
The other arbitrary unit in constant use by nanny is the portion - make sure you eat 5 portions of fruit and veg per day. So what's a portion? One grape, one pineapple, a pea, a kilo of potatoes?
A slice of bread could be described a a portion of vegetable matter - at least it used to be made of wheat, before the bakers and supermarkets discovered flour "improvers" which ensure that the bread goes mouldy two days after buying it.
I'll join you for the pint, though, as long as it's real beer.
I saw the title of this article and immediately thought of the Daily Mail. How disappointing it is to see a missed opportunity on their part.
I love it when The Register goes off on these ridiculous rants without any understanding of the subject matter in general or the research specifically, it really is just the ticket for a Friday afternoon. Keep on shining that spotlight!
I'll be having a drink later despite evidence of the health risks, not because of intellectual flailing to discount that evidence as a result of my not liking what it says.
Thanks Lewis, now we know.
Drink doesn't cause cancer.
Radiation doesn't cause cancer (not that we can prove!)
Oh shit, don't tell me that belief in MMGW causes it?
(Excuse me if I take my medical advice from medical statisticians instead of angry navy drop outs!)
Personally, I'm waiting for the following articles from Lewis:
Wind Power causes cancer
The Eurofighter decreases your attractiveness to the opposite sex
Nuclear power reduces erectile dysfunction
'There is absolutely nothing worth giving up for the sake of an extra three years in a nursing home in Weston-Supermare.'
This includes gin.
Why do I get the feeling that Ben Goldacre is going to give this tabloid coverage a good kicking on Monday.
First, it isn't just cancer that kills you, and (as I recall) overall mortality rates are lower for moderate drinkers.
Second, a 3% increase in merely getting (not dying from) cancer, is not exactly world-beating. I know of at least one lifestyle choice, widely practiced in the US (and UK), that is correlated with a 39% higher all-cause mortality rate:
"After adjustment for age, sex, and educational level, the relative risk in those who cycled [to work] was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.89). After additional adjustment for leisure time physical activity, body mass index, blood lipid levels, smoking, and blood pressure, the relative risk was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.91)." [note to amateur math pedants: 1.0 is 139% of 0.72. If the norm is driving, choosing to bike is a 28% reduction in risk.]
But of course, I am just an unrealistic tiresome loon for pointing this out. "Everyone knows" it's simply not practical. (And much as I disagree with the rah-rah nucular cheerleading, this is yet another example of "people are bone-stupid about risk".)
WTF? How did I miss the news that death is now optional?
Face it, if you were born, you're going to die. What you do between those two events isn't going to change the outcome.
Typically aren't the healthiest of people. People that drink moderate amounts are normal, and less likely to be unhealthy than a reformed alcoholic, or a heart failure patient on aspirin and warfarin who has been told to stop the ethanol drinking.
This is partly why moderate wine/beer/brandy drinkers are "healthier". Control for the people on the over transplant waiting list and the seriously ill in these studies before reaching these conclusions!
Where are the people who just don't actually drink?
There can't actually be so few of us can there?
(Yes I have drunk in the past - and even on special occasions maybe once or twice a year - actually have a pint/can/etc.)
More relaxed, less stressed, is it any wonder moderate drinkers live longer than teetotalers.
I am going to monitor the repies to see what gets said.
I guess 75% will understand and 25% will do what I will reply about later.
Pint icon - a pint a day keeps the doctor away.
I'm sure smokers say exactly the same thing about feeling more relaxed etc. Didn't work out well for them did it?
Now maybe drinking is nothing like smoking in this respect? (I'm not a doctor so don't know), but if you honestly get so wound up that you *need* to drink/smoke/whatever - then maybe a lifestyle change should be on the cards?
Seemed to go pretty darn well for Nathan Birnbaum (January 20, 1896 – March 9, 1996). You might know him as George Burns. I remember seeing an interview with him in the early 90's, when asked what his doctor thought of his smoking, he quipped "My doctor's dead."
Now, I don't smoke, stats show that it increases my risk and accounts show that it lowers my funds. That said, if you want fag, have at it.
there may be a relationship with cancer and occupation (journalism) as well.. are'nt print inks toxic?
Mine's the one with the hip flask.
Oil-based inks are supposed to be carcinogenic, and newspapers do generally use oild-based. A lot of things are printed with acrylic inks now though.
if you give up drinking imperceptibly?
Then everybody can see you drinking.
Yes, You can't just stop. After two weeks of not drinking at all, I started imperceptibly. As long as I can go all day without a drink, I won't get sacked. Although, my friendly security guard tells me that I still stink of booze in the morning. Bummer.
1) It focuses on one cause of death. Even if cancer was increased by drinking, maybe strokes or heart disease are decreased? You'd never know. Some big studies show that all-risks death rates are lower for what the NHS would call heavy drinkers (and what the rest of us would consider normal).
2) It lumps all alcohol together, even though some studies also show that wine is better for you, beer is pretty much neutral, and spirits worse.
3) Even if the relative risk was different from 1 (say 2 or so) this still wouldn't amount to very much change in the actual death rate, because it's quite low. You'd have a better impact on your lifespan by being careful when you drive a car, than giving up alcohol.
I am sure that these people have to come up with something to get 'emselves in the news. Of course sober alcoholics will suffer more from all sorts of problems including various assorted cancers because of their abnormal drinking pattern before stopping. I am myself an alcoholic (altho' 27years sober) and it is surely commonsense that we are not 'normal' subjects in terms of our abuse of alcohol previous to sobriety.
Most people who drink (and do everything else) in moderation, are likely to be significantly healthier on the whole. So don't feel guilty – enjoy a coupla pints – for most people it is actually good for them in terms of unwinding and relaxing with friends. If, on the other hand, you ARE in trouble with the stuff and it is costing you more then money then don't waste time with bullshit counselling from govt funded quangos that is there to give someone a job. Go to AA. otherwise relax :-)
Now I don't follow this religiously of course but stop worrying about stuff you can't change and try to enjoy being alive! If you need get dressed up in a furry suit and hang about woodland carparks, then so be it. If you need to collect cough lozenge wrappers from the 1960s, then do it!
Sure stuffing down 26 BigMacs a day is not a bright idea but shatting your pants just because you had a donut today and one Barcardi breezer two weeks ago I am pretty sure is not the secret to a happy life. Stop worrying, find something that makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else ( unless they concented of course ) and start living!
My Mum died of stroke aged 63 after falling out the back of her Land Rover taking photos as prep for her watercolours , she lived every minute enjoying life and it made seeing her off a thousands times easier to cope with, knowing she would have had very few regrets.
So get down the boozers tonight and raise a glass to life!
Then til I get a bottle of red.cheers. best friday reading til my world ends
In our radiotherapy department, we treat a lot of head and neckcancerpatients. Almost every H&N patient has a drinking (and smoking) problem. A lot of questionmarks......
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017