Saturday, 27 October 2007
"Intelligent guess" becomes policy, excuse for raising taxes. Who'd-a thunk it?
Neoprohibitionists in England make it up, get caught:
The story in The Times:
-------
[1] Good summary of subsequent research findings in this article.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Guidelines on safe alcohol consumption limits that have shaped health policy in Britain for 20 years were “plucked out of the air†as an “intelligent guessâ€.A “guess,†huh? How “scientific!â€
The Times reveals today that the recommended weekly drinking limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 for women, first introduced in 1987 and still in use today, had no firm scientific basis whatsoever.(sings:)“Feelings! Yo-oh-oh...†Oops, sorry!
...
The disclosure that the 1987 recommendation was prompted by “a feeling that you had to say something†came from Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party that produced it.
He told The Times that the committee’s epidemiologist had confessed that “it’s impossible to say what’s safe and what isn’t†because “we don’t really have any data whatsoeverâ€.And what about that data?
Mr Smith, a former Editor of the British Medical Journal, said that members of the working party were so concerned by growing evidence of the chronic damage caused by heavy, long-term drinking that they felt obliged to produce guidelines. “Those limits were really plucked out of the air. They were not based on any firm evidence at all. It was a sort of intelligent guess by a committee,†he said.
...Subsequent studies found evidence which suggested that the safety limits should be raised, but they were ignored by a succession of health ministers.By then it's “policy, right?
One found that men drinking between 21 and 30 units of alcohol a week had the lowest mortality rate in Britain. Another concluded that a man would have to drink 63 units a week, or a bottle of wine a day, to face the same risk of death as a teetotaller.And all this is of interest because...?
Mr Smith’s disclosure casts doubt on the accuracy of a report published this week that blamed middle-class wine drinkers for placing some of Britain’s most affluent towns at the top of the “hazardous drinking†list.erm... “intelligent guesses?â€
The study, commissioned by the Government, relied on the 1987 guidelines...
...when it suggested that men drinking more than 21 units a week and women consuming more than 14 units put their health “at significant riskâ€.And... DRUMROLL!!!!
In a further attack on Britain’s drinkers, it was revealed yesterday that a coalition of health organisations is mounting a campaign to force a 10 per cent increase in alcohol taxation.Aha!
The story in The Times:
- Drink Limits 'useless'
- How 'safe drinking' experts let a bottle or two go to their heads[1]
- It's impossible to create a guide that suits all
"No one has refuted the findings that have shown there is a J shaped curve graph that plots alcohol consumption against survival. The teetotallers don’t do as well as the modest drinkers and the heavy drinkers do considerably worse than teetotallers."
- Jane MacQuitty: Cheers! Let killjoys learn the bitter taste of defeat
"For the Prime Minister and the Department of Health to descend to nanny and police state tactics, ostensibly to protect us from ourselves, but to further their own political agenda, is as risible as it is dangerous."
- The Register: Safe drinking guidelines "plucked out of the air"
"But stick it to them anyway, alright?"
-------
[1] Good summary of subsequent research findings in this article.
Posted by: Old Grouch in
Rants
at
19:08:58 GMT
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 6 kb.
72kb generated in CPU 0.0259, elapsed 0.1644 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.1463 seconds, 207 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
51 queries taking 0.1463 seconds, 207 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.