SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the this-news-is-terrible-and-I'm-gonna-need-a-drink dept.
No alcohol safe to drink, global study confirms
A large new global study published in the Lancet has confirmed previous research which has shown that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. The researchers admit moderate drinking may protect against heart disease but found that the risk of cancer and other diseases outweighs these protections. A study author said its findings were the most significant to date because of the range of factors considered.
The Global Burden of Disease [open, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31310-2] [DX] study looked at levels of alcohol use and its health effects in 195 countries, including the UK, between 1990 and 2016.
Analysing data from 15 to 95-year-olds, the researchers compared people who did not drink at all with those who had one alcoholic drink a day. They found that out of 100,000 non-drinkers, 914 would develop an alcohol-related health problem such as cancer or suffer an injury. But an extra four people would be affected if they drank one alcoholic drink a day. For people who had two alcoholic drinks a day, 63 more developed a condition within a year and for those who consumed five drinks every day, there was an increase of 338 people, who developed a health problem.
One of the study authors, Prof Sonia Saxena, a researcher at Imperial College London and a practising GP, said: "One drink a day does represent a small increased risk, but adjust that to the UK population as a whole and it represents a far bigger number, and most people are not drinking just one drink a day."
Related: The Truth We Won't Admit: Drinking is Healthy
Study Shows 3 Drinks a Day May Cause Liver Cancer
Even Moderate Drinking Linked to a Decline in Brain Health
American Society of Clinical Oncology: Alcohol Use Increases Risk of Cancer
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26 2018, @03:33PM (1 child)
You just ignored the entire point of those letters, which is the doctors came to the conclusion that babies dont feel pain because it was hard to observe it and that was the most convenient interpretation for them.
Also, they are letters to the journal "Birth" from 1986, reflecting the medical establishment's position at the time. You can see they were so confident babies dont feel pain that one mom got reported for being abusive for not allowing a surgery without anesthesia. There is a long history of very confident and horribly wrong pronouncements from the healthcare industry.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 28 2018, @10:28PM
If that were the point to the letter, then it's not much of a point. We already know medicine is very, very imperfect. I think however the real point was that the author of the letter felt the need to publicly blame others for misfortunes that were beyond anyone. Whether or not Jeffrey felt pain was irrelevant to the primary outcomes - that Jeffrey was alive and that he was retarded. Many of our medical procedures cause permanent damage when successfully performed. Perhaps instead it would be better to let Jeffrey die than to perform an imperfect medical procedure by imperfect people? I leave that up to you to decide.