It gets worse where people get issues and they start looking for some diet supplements or pills for "better liver" ,"concentration problems" or whatever else.

When first thing they should do is stop drinking alcohol.

In the reddit thread about article there was someone who could not connect the dots that after drinking alcohol they would have hangover the next day.

> In the reddit thread about article there was someone who could not connect the dots that after drinking alcohol they would have hangover the next day.

To me it sounds like you have been trolled.

I know enough alcoholics who have similar issues connecting dots such that I tend to think it is real. I mostly hangout with teatotalers, most people have a lot more contact, and so probaby haven't realized how normal it is.

on the internet someone said something

I think the challenge is really that even spices like pepper cause inflammation.

You can always find a downside to anything you ingest.

I think you’re correct, the best approach is to explain “safe limits”.

Personally, I think it’s fine if people smoke, drink, etc until their heart is content. That said; it’s also why I’m opposed to socialized medicine. Almost everyone I know on social medicine didn’t take care of themselves (only a maybe one couldnt take care of themselves).

The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.

> The challenge with socialized medicine is that we should now push to ban alcohol, logically.

That has not worked in the past. Do you think it would work any better nowadays?

It actually has worked in the past. But a more pragmatic approach is to tax alcohol heavily so that it costs you more to willingly destroy your body.

Could present-day China pull something like that off?

The reason its effectively important to ban alcohol is because the precursors are sugar, water, and yeast. It's trivial to make alcohol even in small apartments.

Yes prohibition in any form, anywhere has always worked successfully

There is no logical banning of alcohol, we've learned that lesson.

I had to google the meaning of "socialized medicine" (no I don't live in the US). My first thought was that maybe it meant "getting better thanks to emotional support from other people", but Wikipedia had this to say about "socialized medicine":

>> More recently, American conservative critics of health care reform have attempted to broaden the term by applying it to any publicly funded system.

Fascinating how different political groups literally do not speak the same language. I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?

It’s a pretty ubiquitous term here used by all sides. They even poll using the term https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20080214/poll-us-sp...

Though I think some of the political proponents have shifted their SEO terms to “universal healthcare” in recent years after they found the term confusing.

> I now assume you mean that all people should pay 100 % for their own health care needs since people only have themselves to blame if they need health care?

I’m not saying one way or the other what I think. I’m saying the logical conclusion of paying for everyone’s medical bills is that you create regulation to try to lower said bills. By definition, this restricts freedoms, which I’m opposed to.

>If having one drink can decompress you after a hard days work, fine, you're not gonna get cancer.

That would seem to contradict the headline, and content, that there's a safe level of alcohol consumption.

In fact, the WHO really takes that claim seriously -- the headline is not a simplification:

>>when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health ... Alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer ... "We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage."

But yeah, I agree, in that I'm sure you can find a low enough level of alcohol consumption that can't be discerned in health outcomes. Like, 1 microliter, one time.

It sounds like your comment is more about rejecting claims that there can be a health benefit to alcohol, but the WHO is going much further than that.

"not gonna get cancer" is in no way contradicting the headline. There's plenty of non-cancerous dangers in the world.

Except that a) the WHO says that amount knowably increases cancer risk (and so the author would disagree with the parent's comment), and b) if you just say "it won't have harm X" while not endorsing harms you think it has, you're implying there are no harms. As long as the parent wasn't endorsing the WHO's claim of harm from that level, he's disagreeing with the thesis.

The dose makes the poison

- Paracelsus

> “We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is,” explains Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, acting Unit Lead for Noncommunicable Disease Management and Regional Advisor for Alcohol and Illicit Drugs in the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

I think that it is explicitly pushing back on that very concept.

of course, this "expert" has no self-interest for pushing this kind of stuff?

You’d get more traction for this kind of comment if you’d taken the time to check rather than cast vague aspersions. And if you have checked, detail it here.

What would that self interest be?

publish another paper in two years fully financed.

or find another job.

what would you chose?

Jesus, it's impossible to do research without being accused of being biased, is it.

It is entirely possible.

But "research" as this paper here are mostly useless.

They are good for nothing.

It's like researching the fact that "there is no amount of soap that can be considered harmless for the environment".

Yes, we know, and now that everyone knows that we all know, what about "we don't care and we'll keep using soap responsibly"?

p.s.: replace "soap" with "human activity" and the paradox will probably be more evident.

Hold on, there is a lot of popular wisdom that thinks that small amounts of alcohol is either harmless or beneficial. Solid research on that topic absolutely is valuable.

Everyone absolutely does not know that small amounts are harmful.

Exactly, I love that this is publicized and hopefully minds will change over the next years and decades like they did with cigarettes.

> like they did with cigarettes.

THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Animals enjoy alcohol too, it's a beverage, it's a natural substance, there's no way that alcohol it's gonna be like cigarettes!

Hotdogs are bad for your health, do you think hotdogs and cigarettes are the same thing?

Do you really believe that alcohol is a modern addiction, like tobacco industry?

Have you ever heard that Christians drink wine because it's the blood of Jesus Christ? (who turned the water into wine BTW!)

Do you know that radical Islam prohibits alcohol because it can induce a loss of self-control?

Do you believe that radical Islam is the way to go for the future?

I really don't.

Alcohol is rooted in our ancestry, it's part of who we are, stop blaming substances, this is truly a modern take: it's the never ending bullshit of the war on drugs that started with prohibionism, it's the USA that promote the puritan way of life, while destroying the planet more than everybody else combined and indulging in the worse lifestyle possible (eating garbage, drinking like there's no tomorrow, working to death, healthcare considered a luxury etc.), it's the same old story of Americans not understanding that their problems are absolutely not everyone's problems

The oldest verifiable brewery has been found in a prehistoric burial site in a cave near Haifa in modern-day Israel. Researchers have found residue of 13,000-year-old beer that they think might have been used for ritual feasts to honor the dead

Those who believe alcohol is a fad are simply delusional.

yes, i believe it is - simply don't use your very dubious research to tell others what they should be doing. we don't have these problems in astronomy, for example

Why is alcohol only dangerous in alcoholic beverages? Fruit juice (they real stuff) also contains small amounts of alcohol, for example.

That is an excellent question, perhaps the benefits of those fruit juices outweigh the small amounts of harm a small amount of alcohol may create.

If was to get my random opinion without expertise, I would guess that sugar is the dominating factor as to whether fruit juice is healthy combined with your typical non-juice sugar consumption or not; given you are not deficient in some key nutrient.

But to clarify, I was just quoting the article in response to the idea that the dose is the issue. I am a software developer without any expertise in the issue.

Sorry, yes, this was meant to address your quote - should have made that clear.

Sometimes the correct dose is zero

That’s not really universally true. There are plenty of things where any amount does harm.

Which ones are like that?

You really don’t want to consume any quantity of radium.

Allergens, pathogens, radioactive material, lead — any more than trace amounts of these is dangerous.

Plutonium is a good one to start with. Poison and radioactive.

and that quote stems from his philosophy:

Paracelsus believed that true anatomy could only be understood once the nourishment for each part of the body was discovered. He believed that one must therefore know the influence of the stars on these particular body parts.[59] Diseases were caused by poisons brought from the stars. However, 'poisons' were not necessarily something negative, in part because related substances interacted, but also because only the dose determined if a substance was poisonous or not.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink. Maybe I'd know more if they didn't drink.

I know one guy who is ~90, survived cancer 3 times and attributes his survival to daily doses of Japanese Shochu.

You might be able to argue that alcohol was the cause of the cancer but I guess we'll never know.

Disclaimer: Currently not drinking even a drop.

> Anecdotally I know a lot of really old people who still drink.

I know someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day who is almost 100 years old. Smoking is good or you!

Not what I said...however, I personally do know a lot more people who have actually died from health issues directly related to smoking: heat attacks, emphysema, lung cancer.

This comment adds nothing to the discussion.

The world is full of people who strongly and honestly believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics are meaninglessly astrological in nature. Its a very popular set of beliefs, majority in some areas.

The problem is that how well anyone's particular life circumstances fit into a statistical model (or not) can be a very difficult thing to discern. There is a combinatorial explosion of factors that everyone is subject to, and most epidemiological statistics can address and account for a handful of them at a time. So what ends up happening is folks look at the statistics, shrug, and continue their own n=1. The best they can do is be honest with themselves about "how is that working out for you?"

"hows that working out for you" has been completely replaced in society due to social media with "how many updoots will I get?"

The world is full of people like you who thinks that making this comment ensures you're intellectually superior to others.

I, of course, know what statistics is and how to interpret it , I'm aware drinking isn't especially good for ones health and other aspect of ones life, which is why I'm currently...not drinking.

I'm also aware how silly it is to worry about it and make absolutely claims like "No level..blah".

No level of C02 from fossil fuels is good for us anymore; However, I'm certain you'll get in your car and drive or on a plane and fly soon enough.

The point I'm trying to make is that what matters one minute often seems inconsequential the next, regardless of statistics.

For example, the WHO provides quite shocking statistics on the dangerous of food fires and other heating / cooking methods which are used in my neighborhood: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a..., it freaks me out but I can't do much about it or my neighbors use of a wood stove. Should I move?

So while I think it's been obvious for sometime, alcohol is bad for ones health, smoke is also bad for ones health, is there anything really new or wise in this bulletin from the WHO, I don't think so really.

Have a read of this on the WHO's website:

FACT: Alcohol-based sanitizers are safe for everyone to use

Alcohols in the sanitizers have not been shown to create any relevant health issues. Little alcohol is absorbed into the skin, and most products contain an emollient to reduce skin dryness. Allergic contact dermatitis and bleaching of hand hair due to alcohol are very rare adverse effects. Accidental swallowing and intoxication have been described in rare cases.

So in this case, my body will adsorb alcohol, but in this case it's ok because it's on another page separate from the one we're discussing?

> believe anecdotes are more important than statistics and statistics

Yes look at the current world, media, and western societies

The next level up are people that have no actual understanding of statistics, empirical reasoning, and the weaknesses therein but have learned that if you throw certain science-y words together your arguments will tend land better.

Disagree, today I learned what Shōchū is

Neither does yours, neither does mine.

Nothing matters we will all die eventually.

For every of those is several people who died at 60 from liver disease

It’s happening to a lot of younger adults in their 30s now too.

You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause, it might be all the other shit that we've put into the environment to, such as PFOAs, PFOS, Microplastics, air polltion and more and more...

For the people I knew, there is no doubt in my mind. Only mentioning because until people I knew died, I thought liver disease only struck as you approached your 50s/60s.

> You don't actually know if alcohol is the cause

On an individual basis, no. But on a macro, yes. We can pretty directly attribute a large % of liver-related deaths directly to alcohol.

don’t let anecdata bamboozle you

Don't let andsoitis bamboozle you...

The thing they have in common is that they still have social connections, including with you. People who are alone for stretches of time have a lot more risk from falls, etc

Sometimes I drink with that person, and they might socially drink with others, so it might even be fair to say in this case, it's a positive then?

I just have a real problem with talking in absolutes.

It's possible to accept the risk of alcohol as being worth it. I do when I choose to drink. But it's always going to be worse than not drinking, ceteris paribus. If you're able to replace the drinking sessions with tea, or a game, that's probably better for health. Maybe that's not possible, maybe there's something unique about the effect of alcohol, even in small quantities.

I dunno, is it a solid article? They say "Risks start from the first drop" and I am having a a hard time imagining how they could prove that, regardless of how likely it is. Looks like fearmongering.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that everyone should stop drinking. I'm not a fan of mind-altering drugs and it makes for boring conversation. But we need to get used to the idea that literally nothing is safe. Living kills us all eventually. The argument against alcohol needs to be that an alcohol-free life is of higher quality.

If we're going to discourage people from doing unsafe things, are we planning to disband the army? There is no safe amount of time to spend in a moving vehicle either, those things are dangerous. Working a day job is no good for people's health. Safe doesn't mean no harm; that is impossible. And the question is always whether the benefit outweighs the cost.

"Risks start from the first drop"

If this is true, the medical community is actively causing harm. Many compounded or suspended children's medicines contain alcohol. Many do not have alcohol free alternatives.

All medicine have risks, the added alcohol is a tiny extra risk that the medical community thinks it is worth taking because it has benefits that are greater than the risks. For example, other chemicals that could be used as a substitute may be worse or poorly tested.

Medicine containing alcohol often comes with a few more counter-indications because of it, plus it limits the sales to people who wish to maintain strict abstinence, like Muslims. If they keep the alcohol, it is probably for a good reason.

It is completely different from recommending alcohol itself.

"If they keep the alcohol, it is probably for a good reason."

Can you name medications that require alcohol vs an alternative? Most of the alternatives are innocent like glycerin, or similar to food preservatives.

My main point is that there is hypocrisy. Saying that one drop is dangerous yet having it be heavily prevalent children's meds... one of these isn't right.

> If this is true, the medical community is actively causing harm.

That’s kind of a bizarre way of phrasing it. Yes, the medical community actively causes lesser harms, with the goals of preventing greater harms. Radiation therapy and chemotherapy, for example, are extremely harmful! Yet we use them as cancer treatments because the cancer we are treating with them is probably more harmful than the treatment.

Radiation therapy and chemotherapy are extreme examples, but this analysis is done across medicine with lesser treatments as well—and yes, we change the way we treat people as our understanding of the risks and benefits of various treatments changes.

With alcohol, its often times added to medicines as an inactive ingredient with little to no therapeutic value. It also has alternatives.

My main point is that's it's hypocritical to say one drop is dangerous and then have a myriad of children's meds containing it when alternative ingredients exist.

> My main point is that's it's hypocritical to say one drop is dangerous and then have a myriad of children's meds containing it when alternative ingredients exist.

You're miles away from making that point in a way that I can understand.

Even if there are risks you have to compare the risks. Would I have a child drink a small amount of alcohol for some life saving drug? Just like how you drive to work despite there being a risk in driving.

So what is the risk of damaging your life from 4 drinks a week compared to risks of getting killed by someone else walking to work every day (in the US with its drivers and SUVs)? Less alcohol is better, perhaps, but we live past our savings while drinking all the same.

What your example misses, is that alternatives exist to alcohol for most medicines. There's no reason for most of these medications to include alcohol.

Acetaminophen is cytotoxic and causes liver damage. No amount of it is safe. Yet we have children's tylenol.

Why? Because the body heals whatever miniscule damage occurs with small amounts. The trade off is one which we decide to leave to people to make with their judgment.

Then why do they fear monger with alcohol and not Tylenol? That's my question.

> If you ask European doctors having a glass or two of wine "extends health".

but it's not because of the alcohol, why wine is "good", it because we mostly relax with it, which reduces stress levels. everything else is bad, at least that it the perception of the last 2-4 years in germany.

Guess we better give up alcohol swabs, can't be rubbing known carcinogens on our bodies. Cause isopropyl is poisonous too.

this article is doing an even worse job though: there are a lot of people i the comments that are convinced that if they do not drink at all, they will live longer.

They won't.

> The facts are facts. Alcohol is a poison that wrecks havoc on your mind and body

So are almonds

If you eat 20 apples including the seeds, you die instantly.

But so are also soda beverages

but US citizens drink an estimated 154 liters per capita every year

On the subject of decompressing from daily stress.. I would humbly submit that a small (just above psychoactive threshold) puff of vaporized (not combusted) THC extract or other legal cannabinoid, is a good harm reduction measure, compared to alcohol. Especially if it eliminates the urge to drink or seek other more risky hedonic outlets.