Excellent - always enjoy your pieces. Interesting to see the blandification of the names of some of these pressure groups as they cos-play at being QUANGOs (which is a in itself a weird sub-culture). I've got so much more respect for swivle-eyed loons who march proudly under the banners of properly hell-and-damnation named societies.
Great post, Chris. It is pieces like this that really help nail down the “which side is lying” question — well, for the tiny minority who are looking to genuinely figure that out.
I hope you get the opportunity to expose this latest disgraceful episode in the tabloid and broadsheet press. The wider population needs to know this stuff, not just your Substack followers.
If all the evidence points against moderate drinking being harmful, then why are these individuals against? Is it 1. They are just not at all convinced by the evidence? Or 2. They are happy to ignore most of the evidence, secretly believing it themselves, so they can clamp down on alcohol to serve some alternative goal, e.g. eliminating alcohol because they believe this will ensure a better life for everyone, even if it is shorter or less healthy?
They are horrified by the threat of carnal vices brought upon an individual through mild inebriation, due to some deeply suppressed and inconvenient feelings, would be my guess.
Playing devil's advocate, one could question the motivations behind the World Health Organization allegedly fabricating facts about the dangers of alcohol consumption. If such claims were true, what would be the endgame for the WHO in spreading false information? What potential benefits would they gain, either for themselves or for the world at large? It is important to critically examine these questions to foster a balanced understanding of the situation and explore alternative perspectives.
It was rather a crafty attempt to model away the J-Curve by creating a (meaningless) global risk curve in which things like TB were controversially thrown in. It didn't go through lots of studies. In fact, it didn't go through any studies. You can see the raw data in the appendix. It's a bit of a mess. The same team did an update last year in which the J-Curve suddenly reappeared. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2822%2900847-9
Jesus bloody wept that these peoples’ chosen path in life — and their host organism the WHO — survive on our taxes.
Since the organizations they run depend on tax-payer money, I suppose it behooves them to come up with barmy ideas wrapped in a veneer of virtue for which uptake will be low - since it provides them a path to continue to exist!
Perhaps they lie about other things too? Let me think...
Excellent - always enjoy your pieces. Interesting to see the blandification of the names of some of these pressure groups as they cos-play at being QUANGOs (which is a in itself a weird sub-culture). I've got so much more respect for swivle-eyed loons who march proudly under the banners of properly hell-and-damnation named societies.
Great post, Chris. It is pieces like this that really help nail down the “which side is lying” question — well, for the tiny minority who are looking to genuinely figure that out.
I hope you get the opportunity to expose this latest disgraceful episode in the tabloid and broadsheet press. The wider population needs to know this stuff, not just your Substack followers.
If all the evidence points against moderate drinking being harmful, then why are these individuals against? Is it 1. They are just not at all convinced by the evidence? Or 2. They are happy to ignore most of the evidence, secretly believing it themselves, so they can clamp down on alcohol to serve some alternative goal, e.g. eliminating alcohol because they believe this will ensure a better life for everyone, even if it is shorter or less healthy?
Either option doesn't make them look good.
They are horrified by the threat of carnal vices brought upon an individual through mild inebriation, due to some deeply suppressed and inconvenient feelings, would be my guess.
Playing devil's advocate, one could question the motivations behind the World Health Organization allegedly fabricating facts about the dangers of alcohol consumption. If such claims were true, what would be the endgame for the WHO in spreading false information? What potential benefits would they gain, either for themselves or for the world at large? It is important to critically examine these questions to foster a balanced understanding of the situation and explore alternative perspectives.
Any thoughts on the GBD 2016 study? 2000 citations, went through a lot of studies, and found no health benefits of alcohol.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(18)31571-X/fulltext
It was rather a crafty attempt to model away the J-Curve by creating a (meaningless) global risk curve in which things like TB were controversially thrown in. It didn't go through lots of studies. In fact, it didn't go through any studies. You can see the raw data in the appendix. It's a bit of a mess. The same team did an update last year in which the J-Curve suddenly reappeared. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2822%2900847-9
Thanks for the answer!
What is Jean-Claude Juncker doing now?
If that EU pension was not so generous, he would have more incentive to step up and take on the scientifically illiterate killjoys.
Jesus bloody wept that these peoples’ chosen path in life — and their host organism the WHO — survive on our taxes.
Since the organizations they run depend on tax-payer money, I suppose it behooves them to come up with barmy ideas wrapped in a veneer of virtue for which uptake will be low - since it provides them a path to continue to exist!