quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I think it's true. Long ago I noticed the very high incidence of throat cancer in people who smoke cigarettes and drink.

I think heavy consumption of alcohol is devastating to the human body and triggering cancers seems to go hand in hand with such abuse.

My grandfather never smoked. He did however drink a lot of Seagram’s 7, and a few boxes a day of Vicks menthol-eucalyptus cough drops. He was always sucking on those drops, and usually had a whiskey.

He died of throat cancer.

The article in the OP reminded me of a NYT article many moons ago regarding alcohol consumption and mortality. Fortunately, the article did provide a table of numerical rates of death due to cirrhosis, heart disease, etc. and average alcohol consumption for the population in question. In this case, the populations were selected by nationality. The article in the NYT made similar claims that alcohol consumption led to higher mortality. When I took they data they presented in the article and plotted it, the graphs showed the exact opposite relationship. I wrote the the NYT and pointed this out. Not a peep from them. The take away is this, without the data the analysis is based on and all the assumptions that go into the analysis, the conclusion is meaningless.

No matter how hard I tried to eat right, crunch numbers, weigh food, calculate , plan ahead and cipher
There was someone who would tell me facts about how this would affect this organ,

Or that was bad for some other thing, and only small amounts of those with that condition.

Canned was no good. Processed was worse, free range this, non g.m.o. that, aspertame, gluten free.

Oy vey

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bendable,

It would be crazy if HPV was a cause as well.

I’ll drink to that!

Hell maybe I already have cancer and I just don’t know it yet. I think the most important thing in all cancer crap is genetics. I believe there are things in life that can e/affect that, but it’d be damn near impossible to say with any certainty that X causes cancer. My small anecdotal evidence linked to this would be my sister (non drinker still) who ate healthy and exercised (H.S. cross country runner, track runner, basketball player) getting cancer on her 21st bday while I exercised (H.S. Basketball player and hockey player) but had a shit diet when I was young and now have been drinking heavier than this studies’ “drinkers” for about 18 years and cancer free… Another life anecdote that I often think of is my dad working at a rocket engine test site that has high levels of cancer causing shit that they are still dealing with 30 years later or so and he’s perfectly fine. My father in law’s mom worked at the same site and they claim working there is what gave her cancer and took her…in her 80s… yeeeeears after working there… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...ana_Field_Laboratory

I’m sorry, but alcohols are one of the most common compounds found in nature, after sugars/ carbs. As a result, the human body is really good at processing a limited amount of alcohol. So intentional consumption of more alcohol is responsible for only 4% of all cancers?? That’s it? And I have to consume much more than 2 glasses a day for it to really matter? Could it be the contaminates in the alcohol being consumed?

I thought being overweight was the cause of additional cancers. Or was it smoking? Too much sugar, yeah, that was it. No, wait, it was having an acidic diet. Unless it was an acidic diet from the Mediterranean. Maybe not enough vitamin D, unless you get too much of it from sunshine. Or not enough selenium (except that is toxic if you get too much). I’m having trouble keeping up.

What I do know is there are very few chemicals we KNOW will cause cancer. There are a bunch that have a high correlation, like the mixture we call tobacco and it’s smoke. Hell, although ionizing radiation has a high correlation to cancer, and we know the actual mechanism of how it causes cancer, there is evidence that exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation actually is good for you, it stimulates your immune system and cellular repair.

I think we need to focus on getting rid of the artificial chemicals in the environment that our bodies can’t process.

quote:

In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

Either they typo'd, or they're wrong.

750ml x 2 = 1.5l
1.5l x 52 = 78l not 12l

or am I missing something...? Maybe in France, wine bottle are tiny?

They say, everything in moderation. I think at the root of that, it's not that in fact that everything is good for you in moderation, but rather - that like balancing a stock portfolio, you reduce risk through diversification. The poison is in the dose.

I know of no study showing teetotalers live any longer than moderate (say one or two beers or a cocktail per day) alcohol drinkers. There are people who have gotten lung cancer who never smoked, and people who have not gotten it who smoke unfiltered king-size cigarettes. All any of these studies show is a correlation.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:

quote:

In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

Either they typo'd, or they're wrong.

750ml x 2 = 1.5l
1.5l x 52 = 78l not 12l

or am I missing something...? Maybe in France, wine bottle are tiny?

They are calculating pure ethanol content.

quote:

Originally posted by rocket72:
It would be crazy if HPV was a cause as well.

Not crazy, mine was. Throat. Have an excellent result with treatment, five years ago.

quote:

In France, people consume about 12 liters per year or about two wine bottles per week.

There was a previous study that found that such consumption was good for your heart. I thought I was following the guidelines...

quote:

The good news, said Soerjomataram, is that long-term trends show declines in alcohol drinking in many countries, including the high wine-producing countries of France and Italy

I’d be curious to know if the total population of wine-drinkers in these countries has diminished at the same rate as the consumption of said wine.

They’re not replacing the drinkers in those countries.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I know of no study showing teetotalers live any longer than moderate (say one or two beers or a cocktail per day) alcohol drinkers. There are people who have gotten lung cancer who never smoked, and people who have not gotten it who smoke unfiltered king-size cigarettes. All any of these studies show is a correlation.

My mother never smoked, did not drink alcohol except a rare half glass of wine at family gatherings, maybe 5-7 glasses a year. Was in really good shape, was never overweight, had a very sensible diet, walked daily for exercise. She died from lung cancer, it really tore her up.

Life causes cancer.

RMD

Well our government is handing out big checks to vets who spent time at Camp Lejeune based on correlation.

I remember reading 25 years ago in a book by Dr. Dixie Lee Ray. The three largest exposures to carcinogens are smoking, drinking, and cooking.

Yeah, it ain't just a river in Egypt.

Related

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...qg4IgtX%2Bk6%2BaI%3D

How Sugar Fuels Cancer in the Body

Processed sugar is a potent energy source. It causes a variety of changes in your body.

You may have heard that sugar can feed cancer cells. Is that true?
Sugars ‘Nourish’ Cancer Cells

For cancer patients, “sugar intake can indeed nourish cancer cells,” Mingyang Song, associate professor of clinical epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told The Epoch Times.
This is supported by strong epidemiological evidence, he said.

A study published in PLoS One involving 1,011 colon cancer patients with a follow-up period of over seven years found that compared to patients consuming less than two servings of sugar-sweetened beverages per month, those who consumed two or more servings per day experienced a 67 percent increased risk of colon cancer recurrence or mortality.
image-5529677
Another Spanish study published in Clinical Nutrition in 2021 involving over 7,000 participants found that for every additional 5 grams of sugar consumed in liquid form per day, cancer incidence increased by 8 percent. People with the highest intake experienced a 46 percent increase.

A can of soda usually contains 30 to 45 grams of sugar.

A shift in a population’s sugar consumption can significantly affect cancer rates. Lewis Cantley, a well-known biologist and professor of cell biology at Harvard Medical School, used Taiwan as an example in an email to The Epoch Times. He wrote that before World War II, Taiwan had relatively low rates of cancers, including colon, endometrial, and breast. That was when sugar-sweetened beverages were scarce. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, with the introduction of Western diets—particularly sugary drinks—cancer rates there steadily began to rise. They’ve now reached a level comparable to those in the United States.

Cancer cells require a substantial amount of glucose to survive. In the 1930s, Otto Warburg, a German biochemist, discovered that both cancer cells and normal cells require sugar, but their metabolic pathways differ: Normal cells primarily convert glucose into energy through aerobic respiration, while cancer cells obtain energy through glycolysis instead of using oxygen.

Cancer cells produce very little and inefficient energy due to their unique method of metabolizing sugar, which is why they voraciously consume sugar—at a rate 200 times faster than normal cells. That appetite can have wide-ranging effects.

cont...

How do they eliminate the environmental exposure to chemicals/solvents in the study. We are exposed every day to chemicals, solvents! Walking across my carpet with my bare feet, putting on make up deodorant. To rule out environmental causes you would have to study a tribe of drunken pygmies. I call not enough information in the release notes of the study to form a true answer.

"'Drink in moderation' is one of the most ridiculous statements ever made."