Surgeon General Warns of Connection Between Alcohol Use and Cancer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think alcohol will be my generations smoking. The more data that comes out it’s pretty bad. While I agree that the stuff in food is also bad for you, that doesn’t give alcohol a pass. Also if I overeat on treats, etc, my Fitbit doesn’t really show a difference in my stats for the day. If I have even one glass of wine (I am a very occasional drinker—maybe 1-2 times per month), my resting heart rate goes up 4-5 bpm which is big jump for me, and my heart rate variability takes a complete nose dive. That alone has been enough for me to curb a lot.

Me too- I always comment on how my Fitbit knows when I had even 1 glass of wine.

Um, same with coffee, but we know coffee consumption is good for you. Again, correlation is not causation. No, wine is not the same as cigarettes. Not a single study has definitively shown a link nearly as close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I have any alcohol, my resting heart rate increases for up to two days afterwards. You can see it on Apple Watch. This is just one biomarker. It’s obviously not good for you; really no surprise on the cancer link. I think that if you can control it (big if) you’re probably ok once a month or something. Beyond that, it’s going to be negative.

But all the studies would prove you wrong. That's the thing. You see alcohol=bad, without reading a single study with a critical mind. You're just blindly accepting broad statements without using any free thinking to understand it. That's what is so disturbing about this. It's almost like a test to see what they can do to get people to believe what they say, without question. This is about control, not public health.

[Anonymous]

It would be nice if celebrities stopped pushing their alcohol brands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1988 the surgeon general put out a report telling people to stop eating fat, but to enjoy sugar.

As far as I know they've never withdrawn that report, which killed tens of millions of Americans.


https://downloads.regulations.gov/FDA-2012-N-1210-0002/attachment_100.pdf

+1

Not saying excessive alcohol is ok, but the way some people guzzle down recommendations even when authorities have been proven to be wrong is odd. Like when the AAP told pregnant women to avoid peanuts because of allergies in children, which led directly to a ballooning of rates of peanut allergies in children. Or when Fauci testified that masks and social distancing actually don’t do anything.

I think critical thinking and asking for the data and about the threshold of causation matters. That’s not being anti-science—it’s being pro-science and pro-data.

Also, why isn’t the USG saying anything about plastics, processed foods, endocrine disrupters, etc.

All of this. And the answer to your last question is this: control. And starting with another prohibition because that seems more "virtuous," is just an easier way to see just how gullible and naive our society is. What kind of prohibition will come next. I find it deeply disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think alcohol will be my generations smoking. The more data that comes out it’s pretty bad. While I agree that the stuff in food is also bad for you, that doesn’t give alcohol a pass. Also if I overeat on treats, etc, my Fitbit doesn’t really show a difference in my stats for the day. If I have even one glass of wine (I am a very occasional drinker—maybe 1-2 times per month), my resting heart rate goes up 4-5 bpm which is big jump for me, and my heart rate variability takes a complete nose dive. That alone has been enough for me to curb a lot.

Me too- I always comment on how my Fitbit knows when I had even 1 glass of wine.

Um, same with coffee, but we know coffee consumption is good for you. Again, correlation is not causation. No, wine is not the same as cigarettes. Not a single study has definitively shown a link nearly as close.

No actually, my Fitbit does not register the same thing with coffee. Wow, some of you love your alcohol so much that you cannot possibly process this info!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am thinking of the poster who was not sure how to get through NYE without alcohol...

That poster never said they couldn't get through. Like many people, that poster wanted to enjoy some wine on a night that is traditionally festive and she was staying with weirdos who say they don't drink, then had champagne. In fact, that poster came back and said they didn't drink. Not everyone who enjoys having wine or cocktails at festive events are alcoholics.

There were definitely posters in that thread who would said they would not attend a dry NYE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1988 the surgeon general put out a report telling people to stop eating fat, but to enjoy sugar.

As far as I know they've never withdrawn that report, which killed tens of millions of Americans.


https://downloads.regulations.gov/FDA-2012-N-1210-0002/attachment_100.pdf

+1

Not saying excessive alcohol is ok, but the way some people guzzle down recommendations even when authorities have been proven to be wrong is odd. Like when the AAP told pregnant women to avoid peanuts because of allergies in children, which led directly to a ballooning of rates of peanut allergies in children. Or when Fauci testified that masks and social distancing actually don’t do anything.

I think critical thinking and asking for the data and about the threshold of causation matters. That’s not being anti-science—it’s being pro-science and pro-data.

Also, why isn’t the USG saying anything about plastics, processed foods, endocrine disrupters, etc.

All of this. And the answer to your last question is this: control. And starting with another prohibition because that seems more "virtuous," is just an easier way to see just how gullible and naive our society is. What kind of prohibition will come next. I find it deeply disturbing.

Exactly. Vaccines mandates are out, apparently prohibition is in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am thinking of the poster who was not sure how to get through NYE without alcohol...

That poster never said they couldn't get through. Like many people, that poster wanted to enjoy some wine on a night that is traditionally festive and she was staying with weirdos who say they don't drink, then had champagne. In fact, that poster came back and said they didn't drink. Not everyone who enjoys having wine or cocktails at festive events are alcoholics.

There were definitely posters in that thread who would said they would not attend a dry NYE.

I don't attend some events because I know they will just be booze fests. If you don't drink it's annoying to split the bill to subsidize others' drinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Everyone is drinking less. The post war trend of binge drinking that lasted into the 2000s is over. Even on college campuses drinking is way down. It’s all for the better. The high side of moderate drinking and heavy drinking is likely skewing all of these studies in a big way. There is a level of drinking that is unquestionably bad for you and it’s becoming less and less common.

But the people who insist that it’s 0 or near 0 (2 drinks a month?) are bananas. They started the same hysteria over lead and asbestos (any amount is toxic and will increase the chance of adverse health effects). It’s just not true - you have environmental exposure to both substances that don’t involve a statistically significant increase in cancer. Both substances are highly toxic and the most convincing evidence involve chronic or occupational exposure. Further studies have shown that lower levels are also hazardous. And that has been blown out of proportion to say, for example, a 1 time exposure to asbestos insulation makes you at risk for mesothelioma.

Public health professionals need to educate people on the science, not engage in fear based advocacy. Look at all the stupid shit people still believe about transmitting Covid. Like all other respiratory viruses it’s transmitted by particles expelled from the lungs and requires 15 minutes+ of direct exposure to the shared air. COVID isn’t likely (though technically possible to demonstrate in ideal lab environments) to be transmitted via fomites, toilet plume, auto passenger air intakes, etc. Your chances of getting it in well-ventilated or outdoor spaces, especially with passing contact, is virtually 0.

People have been brainwashed to “follow the science” but the science doesn’t say what they think it says. They’re following the dumbed down overly simplified cliffs notes version brought to you buy public health officials and their media relations departments who are trying to alter population level health behavior through fear because they think everyone is too stupid to understand the actual studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am thinking of the poster who was not sure how to get through NYE without alcohol...

That poster never said they couldn't get through. Like many people, that poster wanted to enjoy some wine on a night that is traditionally festive and she was staying with weirdos who say they don't drink, then had champagne. In fact, that poster came back and said they didn't drink. Not everyone who enjoys having wine or cocktails at festive events are alcoholics.

There were definitely posters in that thread who would said they would not attend a dry NYE.

I don't attend some events because I know they will just be booze fests. If you don't drink it's annoying to split the bill to subsidize others' drinking.

Then ask for your own bill, you goober. How meek are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Filled with sugar and food-coloring. So healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about time they make an announcement about alcohol. Kids go crazy in college drinking and then it continues into their 20s-30s because it is the social thing to do. ‘Let’s get drinks!’ Etc. Yet, it’s the first question the oncologist asks when you initially get diagnosed with cancer. ‘Do you drink and how much?’ Then, ‘Do you smoke?’ So, they have known for decades that there is a link to cancer. Both are rough and unnatural to your body. Just now the U.S. Surgeon General is going to label it.

Younger people are drinking less than previous generations https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/

Anecdotally I see this at work. Happy hour is not as popular and even when we have one at work, there is a huge demand for nonalcoholic fun drinks.

Everyone is drinking less. The post war trend of binge drinking that lasted into the 2000s is over. Even on college campuses drinking is way down. It’s all for the better. The high side of moderate drinking and heavy drinking is likely skewing all of these studies in a big way. There is a level of drinking that is unquestionably bad for you and it’s becoming less and less common.

But the people who insist that it’s 0 or near 0 (2 drinks a month?) are bananas. They started the same hysteria over lead and asbestos (any amount is toxic and will increase the chance of adverse health effects). It’s just not true - you have environmental exposure to both substances that don’t involve a statistically significant increase in cancer. Both substances are highly toxic and the most convincing evidence involve chronic or occupational exposure. Further studies have shown that lower levels are also hazardous. And that has been blown out of proportion to say, for example, a 1 time exposure to asbestos insulation makes you at risk for mesothelioma.

Public health professionals need to educate people on the science, not engage in fear based advocacy. Look at all the stupid shit people still believe about transmitting Covid. Like all other respiratory viruses it’s transmitted by particles expelled from the lungs and requires 15 minutes+ of direct exposure to the shared air. COVID isn’t likely (though technically possible to demonstrate in ideal lab environments) to be transmitted via fomites, toilet plume, auto passenger air intakes, etc. Your chances of getting it in well-ventilated or outdoor spaces, especially with passing contact, is virtually 0.

People have been brainwashed to “follow the science” but the science doesn’t say what they think it says. They’re following the dumbed down overly simplified cliffs notes version brought to you buy public health officials and their media relations departments who are trying to alter population level health behavior through fear because they think everyone is too stupid to understand the actual studies.

Amen!
I will argue one point: there's one downside to the decrease in college drinking: the cannabis lobby has led those like you describe above to believe that it's perfectly safe. We are going to say an entire generation go through a painful withdrawal from regular cannabis use when they hit real adulthood. It's simply a bad idea to use pot every day.

[Anonymous]

In law school we had to sit through multiple seminars about alcoholism in the profession but then were also invited to just so many networking happy hours and similar. I learned and used the "lime in a sprite" trick to hide that I didn't drink in those contexts.

There are also some people who will grill you if you're not drinking, especially if you're female they'll assume you're pregnant. Which A) no, lots of reasons people don't drink sometimes and B) in the instance when this happened when I was pregnant, it was early enough I didn't want to talk about it, certainly not around people I'd just met and it was frustrating to be put in that position.

I'm not anti alcohol, but, boy, the way drinking culture is ingrained in some contexts, to the extent you're interrogated by some people for NOT drinking is messed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In law school we had to sit through multiple seminars about alcoholism in the profession but then were also invited to just so many networking happy hours and similar. I learned and used the "lime in a sprite" trick to hide that I didn't drink in those contexts.

There are also some people who will grill you if you're not drinking, especially if you're female they'll assume you're pregnant. Which A) no, lots of reasons people don't drink sometimes and B) in the instance when this happened when I was pregnant, it was early enough I didn't want to talk about it, certainly not around people I'd just met and it was frustrating to be put in that position.

I'm not anti alcohol, but, boy, the way drinking culture is ingrained in some contexts, to the extent you're interrogated by some people for NOT drinking is messed up.

This is mostly a function of maturity. I’ve seen this decrease (though not totally go away) the older my “crowd” gets.