Alcohol and health

[Glenn E.]

21 units a week with 2 days off a week to boot. I am sure that we can all respect that.

Shouldn't be a problem.

[jdaw1]

The BBC, in a misleading titled article entitled Michael Mosley: The truth about alcohol, denies that there is a truth.

[djewesbury]

The BBC, in a misleading titled article entitled Michael Mosley: The truth about alcohol, denies that there is a truth.

A man drinking three to four units a day increases his risk of developing prostate cancer by 23%.

That's the sort of statistic I simply don't believe is true. I can't understand how it possibly could be. A 23% increase in risk is a concept that's surely incalculable, without quantifying what each individual's risk was beforehand. Even if it's true, it's meaningless. If my risk before a drink is calculated as 0.034%, I'll be perfectly happy with a 23% increase in that risk. This is such an irresponsible and underhand use of statistics that the 'expert' in question should be cashiered and made to work cleaning the toilets in a pub.

The other thing that rankles is the state now telling me that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. This begs so many questions it's hard to know where to start... There's no 'safe' level of living, if by 'safe' you mean 'guaranteed not to cause or contribute to causing mortality'.

Bah!

[DRT]

I agree with Daniel, and that is not something I ever admit to easily.

It is the blatant misuse of statistics that I 110% disagree with.

[djewesbury]

I agree with Daniel, and that is not something I ever admit to easily.

Nonsense. You always agree with me.

*Normal service resumed*

[jdaw1]

It’s six of one or half a dozen of the other. If you drink lots, you die soon enough that your cellar lasts your whole life. And if you don’t drink, your cellar lasts your whole life. Why the fuss?

[LGTrotter]

As I understand it in the general population the incidence is 137/100,000 and if you are a drinker of more than 4 units per day the incidence would be 23% higher. This equates to about 31/100,000. (Why have I done this I know nothing about maths). In percentage terms it isn't that much higher but is statistically significant. We need to get over the fact that what we do does have significant health implications. I have made the choice to drink alcohol and will have to live with this.

However there are simple steps to self examination which given the age and alcohol consumption on this forum might be worth considering. Form an orderly queue gentlemen.

[LGTrotter]

I should add that prostate self examination usually requires the support of a partner. I suggest we team up in pairs.

[djewesbury]

You were doing so well...

[DRT]

Is that what happened to the missing bottle of Dow 1908?

[jdaw1]

but is statistically significant.

How do you know? As a general rule of thumb, reliable measurement of causes of diseases can be done if the relative risk is at least five-fold. E.g., smoking and lung cancer (the Richard Doll study had difficulty only because back then there were so few non-smokers). If the alleged factor is 1.23, it is unlikely to be much more than a hunch.

Or, as medical statistician Ken MacRae used to say, “if you torture the data enough it will say anything you want”.

[DRT]

Or, as medical statistician Ken MacRae used to say, “if you torture the data enough it will say anything you want”.

Indeed.

137/100000 is a 0.00137% chance of dying.

168/100000 is a 0.00168% chance of dying.

That doesn't feel like a statistically valid increase in risk. If rounded to two decimal places both are 0.00%

[djewesbury]

Am I dying or not? The statistical likelihood of that happening appears not to have changed.

Cheers.

[jdaw1]

137/100000 is a 0.00137% chance of dying.

168/100000 is a 0.00168% chance of dying.

That doesn't feel like a statistically valid increase in risk. If rounded to two decimal places both are 0.00%

You have quietly slipped two decimal places. Hush—nobody noticed.

[LGTrotter]

Am I dying or not? The statistical likelihood of that happening appears not to have changed.

Cheers.

Apparently not. Julian and Derek have just run the numbers and it turns out they understand stuff better than the medical establishment, who after all have been proved time and time again to have been hysterical fools.

Or a bunch of lads who drink more than is good for them might want to think about prostate cancer and the pretty irrefutable link which has been made. You decide.

[jdaw1]

Lots of people, perhaps disproportionately drinkers, die with prostate cancer. Few die of it.

Also see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

[djewesbury]

The medical profession is sticking up for itself and ganging up against us.

[LGTrotter]

Few die of it.

About 10,000 per year in the UK.

[DRT]

Seriously?

2% of deaths in the UK are caused by prostate cancer?

Really?

What I mean is - REALLY?

I think you've got that wrong.

[LGTrotter]

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health- ... ading-Zero

Those reckless fools at cancer research UK just hyping the results to get the cash out of us I suppose.

[LGTrotter]

Anyway, I am certainly going to be having too many glasses of port. I just don't think we should kid ourselves. Not all the time anyway.

Everybody should get back to mocking government stats, now that I've sucked all the fun out of this one. And what could be more fun than putting on rubber gloves and exploring the bung hole.

[DRT]

"The crude mortality rate shows that there are 35 prostate cancer deaths for every 100,000 males in the UK."

That is not 2%. It is 0.035%. Am I missing something?

[LGTrotter]

There is also a number. It is the wrong side of 10,000. Sorry an' all.

[LGTrotter]

I should hastily add that despite my banging on about this I have no expertise in epidemiology or cancer.

[DRT]

I come from a very large family with interconnections to and friendly relationships with lots of other very large families, mostly Scottish and Irish. I have not known anyone who has died of prostate cancer in my near 51 years on this Earth.

Hearties? Loads, all male. Old age? Loads, mixed sex. Rampant cancer in various organs? Loads, all female. Prostate cancer, none.

Put your gloves away, Owen, there is nothing to prod here...

[LGTrotter]

Oh go on, you know you want to.

In regard to deaths of people I know, me neither. I wonder if it is a primary cancer that then spreads to other, more important organs which is the thing that polishes you off.

I will always keep a pair of non-latex about me in case you change your mind.

[DRT]

I wonder if it is a primary cancer that then spreads to other, more important organs which is the thing that polishes you off.

That doesn't really explain my experience of never having known a male connected in any way to my family who has died of cancer of any type.

I will always keep a pair of non-latex about me in case you change your mind.

This is very comforting to know. The very threat might help move things along when some of our members are lagging behind when voting for WOTN.

[PhilW]

That's the sort of statistic I simply don't believe is true. I can't understand how it possibly could be. A 23% increase in risk is a concept that's surely incalculable, without quantifying what each individual's risk was beforehand. Even if it's true, it's meaningless. If my risk before a drink is calculated as 0.034%, I'll be perfectly happy with a 23% increase in that risk.

Even your re-stated example is ambiguous, with the increased risk being either 0.04182% or 23.034%. I agree that such statistics need to be very clearly presented in order for the meaning to be correctly understood, and sadly this is rarely the case in journalism, especially for output where headline-grabbing is more important than providing a truthful impression.

[djewesbury]

I have known people who died of prostate cancer, including in my own family. Does that rebalance everything?

[DRT]

No. It simply confirms that it does happen, albeit very rarely.

[flash_uk]

"The crude mortality rate shows that there are 35 prostate cancer deaths for every 100,000 males in the UK."

That is not 2%. It is 0.035%. Am I missing something?

There are 35 prostate deaths per year per every 100,000 males in the UK. Not per 100,000 males who died in the UK per year.
There are 10,000 prostate deaths per year in the UK.
There are 500,000 deaths per year in the UK.
So 2% of deaths would appear to be from prostate cancer. (If the cancer research website and the ONS website are to be believed)

[Doggett]

Does anyone know if I am more at risk from port or from the chargrilled sirloin steak (rare) that normally accompanies it? Btw please factor in that I eat lots of tomatoes (raw, cooked and processed) and always have.

many thanks,

Simon

[djewesbury]

Derek is innumerate.

[DRT]

Derek is innumerate.

Yet again I find myself in 200% agreement with Daniel.

[PhilW]

According to the Office for National Statistics in 2014 there were 245142 male deaths of which 3682 were due to prostate cancer;
3682/245142 is almost exactly 1.5%.

[djewesbury]

According to the Office for National Statistics in 2014 there were 245142 male deaths of which 3682 were due to prostate cancer;
3682/245142 is almost exactly 1.5%.

We already established that the figure quoted was not a percentage of all male deaths, but of males in the UK.

What kind of cancer did Bowie have?

[Glenn E.]

According to the Office for National Statistics in 2014 there were 245142 male deaths of which 3682 were due to prostate cancer;
3682/245142 is almost exactly 1.5%.

We already established that the figure quoted was not a percentage of all male deaths, but of males in the UK.

Nevertheless, 3,682 != 10,000.

So 6,318 women die of prostate cancer in the UK every year?

[flash_uk]

According to the Office for National Statistics in 2014 there were 245142 male deaths of which 3682 were due to prostate cancer;
3682/245142 is almost exactly 1.5%.

We already established that the figure quoted was not a percentage of all male deaths, but of males in the UK.

Nevertheless, 3,682 != 10,000.

So 6,318 women die of prostate cancer in the UK every year?

[LGTrotter]

According to the Office for National Statistics in 2014 there were 245142 male deaths of which 3682 were due to prostate cancer

I can't see this stat on the page you have linked to. Could you point out where it is? Apologies for my blindness.

The other thing I find curious is that the cancer research numbers reference the ONS.

But I have so much to puzzle about. Such as why did I want 'Wine Journeys' by Stuart Oliver for Christmas? It has just arrived from America and I now have no idea what I wanted to read it for. It's quite good though.

[LGTrotter]

According to the Office for National Statistics in 2014 there were 245142 male deaths of which 3682 were due to prostate cancer.

Having looked at the linked pdf it would seem that the 3682 deaths refers to men aged 65-79. The rest of the deaths due to prostate cancer presumably coming from other age groups. 10,000 lives to fight another day, or not, depending on how you look at it.

[Alex Bridgeman]

According to the Office for National Statistics in 2014 there were 245142 male deaths of which 3682 were due to prostate cancer

I can't see this stat on the page you have linked to. Could you point out where it is? Apologies for my blindness.

The other thing I find curious is that the cancer research numbers reference the ONS.

But I have so much to puzzle about. Such as why did I want 'Wine Journeys' by Stuart Oliver for Christmas? It has just arrived from America and I now have no idea what I wanted to read it for. It's quite good though.

Perhaps you were planning to serialise it, one page at a time?

[djewesbury]

Well as of today I know of another person with prostate cancer. You really must live a gilded life Derek.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I read in a paper today (yesterday?) that drinking a glass of red wine 3 times a week and eating citrus fruit and berries prevents all erectile dysfunction forever.

[LGTrotter]

I read in a paper today (yesterday?) that drinking a glass of red wine 3 times a week and eating citrus fruit and berries prevents all erective dysfunction forever.

Yes I think I saw this piece of research from the University of Hopefully's department of Madeupology. I think they also did that work on two bottles of port a week for a washboard stomach.

[jdaw1]

I am svelte.

Photographed in the Tower of London.

(Also discussed in The Guardian.)

[Alex Bridgeman]

Excellent news. I have just read an article in the Telegraph which clearly says that eating butter is good for you and eating low fat butter substitutes will kill you.

I plan to celebrate with toasted crumpets tonight.

[jdaw1]

An outbreak of E. Coli affecting more than 100 UK people could be linked to eating contaminated mixed salad leaves, public health officials say.

To date, 109 people are known to have caught the bug - 102 in England, six in Wales and one in Scotland.

South-west England has been worst hit.

E. coli O157 infection can cause a range of symptoms, from mild diarrhoea to bloody diarrhoea with severe abdominal pain.

Public Health England says it has triggered heightened surveillance and is carefully monitoring the situation across the UK.

Although the cause of the infection is not absolutely certain, preliminary investigations show many of the people affected ate salad, including rocket leaves, prior to getting sick.

[DRT]

Presumably the Scottish patient was intentionally poisoned?

[TLW]

An outbreak of E. Coli affecting more than 100 UK people could be linked to eating contaminated mixed salad leaves, public health officials say.

To date, 109 people are known to have caught the bug - 102 in England, six in Wales and one in Scotland.

South-west England has been worst hit.

E. coli O157 infection can cause a range of symptoms, from mild diarrhoea to bloody diarrhoea with severe abdominal pain.

Public Health England says it has triggered heightened surveillance and is carefully monitoring the situation across the UK.

Although the cause of the infection is not absolutely certain, preliminary investigations show many of the people affected ate salad, including rocket leaves, prior to getting sick.

Indeed. My grandfather did not drink alcohol, and he ate vegetables frequently.

He is dead, and I will not make those mistakes.

[jdaw1]

My grandfather did not drink alcohol, and he ate vegetables frequently.

And both my grandfathers.

He is dead

And both my grandfathers.

and I will not make those mistakes.

Mistakes they are — and I will not make them.