Health Alert

[Ferminator]

I already gave up cigarettes & hookers, I ain't giving up beer.

Cigarettes okay but, hookers and beer their is no reason to quit! those go so good together

 

[DregAddict]

I totally misread the article before I posted on this thread. D'oh!

Its happened to the best of us. Don't drink and read.

 

[Gremlyn]

I like that the alcohol in by beer, but not in wine or liquor is what causes this. How is the same chemical all of a sudden different if the sugar comes from grape, grain or..wait, grain...?

Not sure about the wine, but I know for an absolute fact that distilling liquor makes it so concentrated that your body chooses to ignore the presence of the ethanol.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

About 30 years ago, a study showed that eating raw onions prevented baldness. My father loved raw onions (he ate them almost daily in salad), and his forefront met the back of his neck when he was 19.

That article is just a typical sample of a news company using anything they can find to fill air time, or, in this case, space.
So they made a study with a 500000 people sample size. Impressive.
What's the incidence? How many of those 500000 people did actually have gastric cancer? 10? 10000?
If you follow the numbers provided in that same article, in the US, with a 300 million people population, there's 11000 (to make it a round number) gastric cancer cases a year. If we use the same proportions, a 521000 people sample size would give you 19.1 gastric cancer cases (let's say 20), definitely NOT an adequate sample size to draw any valid conclusions from.
And then we have other variables. Diet? Race? Smoking habits? Other drinking habits? Lifestyle?
And, to boot, you have that the same article contradicts itself. At the beginning, it says beer drinkers have a 75% higher risk for gastric cancer, and later on it cites the risk being 65% higher.

All in all, a stupid, unscientific way to waste people's time, and to spread even more nonsense. Like we need that...

 

[Zider]

Sure 75%more than FA is still FA but this is just one type. Daily drinking more that a unit or two is linked to others as well from breast to liver. I think we're not designed to drink booze daily no matter how much we like it. This isn't the first study to link beer with colon c. I don't think they have an agenda it's just what they found. I wish drinking 3 pints a day was really good for you, really I do. Yes genetics food bad luck and all sorts have a role to play and a safe life can be a dull one. In the middle lies reason.

 

[FatherJack]

Not to be a conspiracy nut here, but I would be willing to be that somewhere at some point in time, due to "research" like this, beer could end up on a restricted list that is dictated by health care policy as provided by some people.

And the "research" says it should be so.

Or, to take a different direction, I bet the wine industry doesn't like the attention the beer industry is getting now and may have paid for such "research" to be conducted.

Either way, I ain't buying it. With studies like this, thousands of years of history tend to disagree with the "experts".

 

[mendnwngs]

Math is fun

You can make anything sound as good or as bad as you want.

Lets say GI (Gastrointestinal) cancer happens in 1 out of 1000 people ( I don't know what the numbers, I've currently RDWHAHB a bit tonight, and I don't care to)

But lets say 1 in 1,000 get some form of GI cancer..

A "75%" increase means 1.75 people per 1,000 will develop some form of GI cancer.

Is it a big increase? Yeah.. Its almost double.. Is it gonna affect *you* well, really, statistically, no. The chance was so slim, now its a bit less than slim..

I hate hearing stuff like "75% higher chance of cancer" as it sounds so much more horrible than it is..

You wanna drink homebrew?.. Drink homebrew..

Worried about health? then dont drink..

Its really easy, if you think about it..

Just remember to put the fear-mongering numbers in perspective.

 

[quadbikerjosh]

if i die from prolonged beer enjoyment, then i will die a happy man.

 

[Mustangfreak]

Not worried, life in general causes cancer. Just drink your beer and enjoy your time on this planet.

 

[Mmmgood]

I think the marijuana industry has sponsored this study and will try and use is to promote a healthy alternative to drinking. After all it did come from MSNBC. They are either high or stupid. Same junk science that had been used for years. If you own a gun you are more likely to be shot and everyone around you is in danger

 

[FatherJack]

I think the marijuana industry has sponsored this study and will try and use is to promote a healthy alternative to drinking. After all it did come from MSNBC. They are either high or stupid. Same junk science that had been used for years. If you own a gun you are more likely to be shot and everyone around you is in danger

Not just MSNBC. I think most main stream media, regardless of who it is tends to go off on the deep end for hysteria reporting.

After living in Japan and seeing the laughable job almost all stations did with reporting on the earthquake, I tend not to believe anyone for anything.

If I wasn't trying to drop weight as fast as I could I would crack open and nice 22oz of homebrew and re-read the article.

 

[Beerrific]

Can't drink - Can't drive - Death is everywhere.

"Polluted Freeway Air Causes Brain Damage in Mice"

Good thing we aren't mice.

How is it that we ended up with 'science' that no longer follows the same scientific method people are taught in grade school (or at least used to be).

Yes! Hypothesis driven research. Instead we have "researchers" sitting around all day putting huge amounts of data (the method of obtaining this data is suspect to me) into programs and trying to find trends and correlations. At the end they will say something like "this groundbreaking discovery motivates further research into this topic." And that is great and it does, but no one ever does the follow up research because that would require proper controls, removal of confounding conditions, etc. and honestly above all else, it would cost A LOT of money.

I honestly think that a lot of this is come from the "dilution" of medical research. NIH has more and more money to spend, and instead of sending big chunks to people that can really do the proper hypothesis driven studies, they spread it out and this is the crap we get. But, they get published and acknowledge their funding source and they can all go back to sniffing their farts and thinking what a service they have done for the medical community. I will stop here unless someone wants to pick this up in the debate forum....

 

[johnnybrew]

The science itself appears to be sound, but the media's interpretation of the study is incomplete (big surprise!)

Agreed.

 

[PanzerBanana]

Did you know theres a large number of cancer patients that have eaten eggs at some point in their lives.

 

[redcoat_or_rebel]

I would be willing to be that somewhere at some point in time, due to "research" like this, beer could end up on a restricted list that is dictated by health care policy as provided by some people.

it's called Codex Alimentarius.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

The science itself appears to be sound, but the media's interpretation of the study is incomplete (big surprise!)

I disagree. Not only the science doesn't appear to be good, but actually there doesn't seem to be any science whatsoever behind those claims.
"Science" is defined as the correlation of cause-process-effect. Meaning, once you find out something is producing a given effect, you look for the reason, and mechanism causing it. What that article describes is a purely cause-effect correlation, the old "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.
If Sir Isaac Newton had stopped at that, we'd all know today "gravity" is the force that causes apples to fall to the ground. But he didn't, and that's what made him a scientist. Now, thanks to him, we also know gravity is the reason glass carboys have such a short life expectancy, for example...

If that "study" had said, for example, "after conducting a Pan European study for 10 years, and reviewing 50 thousand cases of gastric cancer all around the continent, on people of all races and nationalities (race, diet and lifestyle are known to be major factors for this kind of diseases), we have found a correlation between beer drinking and gastric cancer, and, upon studying the phenomenon, we have found that beer contains this and that substances, that produce this or that effect on the cells, ultimately leading to a high incidence of gastric cancer", that would be sound science.

 

[smokinghole]

It's bullcrap science, I'm sure of it.

Think about the artificial sweetners claim of causing cancer. They linked cancer to these sweetners in mice. The amount they gave the mouse equated to way more than a human could reasonable ingest. It was ridiculous and I'm sure this study is very similar.

 

[unionrdr]

Science without conscience is treason to science.

 

[Rev2010]

Think about the artificial sweetners claim of causing cancer. They linked cancer to these sweetners in mice. The amount they gave the mouse equated to way more than a human could reasonable ingest. It was ridiculous and I'm sure this study is very similar.

Yeah, I had a friend who was a chemist and worked for a major pharmaceutical company. He mentioned that once and said they injected the mice with nearly 1000x the typical dosage amount and did it repeatedly over months and a few got cancer from it.

I may be off with the 1000x amount, but I remember it was an astronomical amount.


Rev.

 

[unionrdr]

Yeah, I had a friend who was a chemist and worked for a major pharmaceutical company. He mentioned that once and said they injected the mice with nearly 1000x the typical dosage amount and did it repeatedly over months and a few got cancer from it.

I may be off with the 1000x amount, but I remember it was an astronomical amount.


Rev.

They did that with many,if not all of the "carcinogens" previously "unknown". Hence my previous reply...

 

[izatt82]

I am more worried about all the **** I was exposed to in the military as well as the shots we were given, than this BS.

Originally Posted by McMalty "What are we supposed to do, the balls get the best signal"

 

[Beermagic]

700% icreased risk, it would be a lot of people dying already but cancer is more under control than ever, (hey it's Europe with their crappy healtcare system)

 

[redcoat_or_rebel]

cancer is no where near "under conrol". check the rates from the 50's till now, world wide or by country its the same, they are up probably 1,000%. Dr.'s used to come from miles aroun to see chilren with cancer because it was so rare, now every neighborhood has a few.

 

[DregAddict]

cancer is no where near "under conrol". check the rates from the 50's till now, world wide or by country its the same, they are up probably 1,000%. Dr.'s used to come from miles aroun to see chilren with cancer because it was so rare, now every neighborhood has a few.

A lot of that is from better diagnostic techniques. Any statistic about the increased incidence of cancer compared to 60 years ago needs to take into account that today we have a greater awareness of the need to get certain tests and we have more advanced ways of interpreting the information gained from them.

 

[redcoat_or_rebel]

A lot of that is from better diagnostic techniques. Any statistic about the increased incidence of cancer compared to 60 years ago needs to take into account that today we have a greater awareness of the need to get certain tests and we have more advanced ways of interpreting the information gained from them.

i disagree. while there is no doubt we have better detection technology i don't think that would account a significant amount of an increase.

to me its not that not that hard to see - we are bathed in electromagnetic fields 24/7 by all the electronic devices, cell phones, cell towers, etc, we are constantly in contact with chemicals in our processed foods, pesticides on our vegetables and fruits and grains, hormones in our meats and dairy, there have been hundreds of above ground nuclear tests done since the atomic age and the radiation from Chernobyl was detecable around he world for 2 years via the jet stream. so many people are on Rx drugs that have awful side effects, pahramcuticals are one the biggest causes of death in the US.


we come in contact with cancer and other viruses on a daily basis, our immue system defeats them. all of the above adds up and certain people are susceptible to different stresses. an increase in enviornmental stresses equals an increase in cancers.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

to me its not that not that hard to see - we are bathed in electromagnetic fields 24/7 by all the electronic devices, cell phones, cell towers, etc, we are constantly in contact with chemicals in our processed foods, pesticides on our vegetables and fruits and grains, hormones in our meats and dairy, there have been hundreds of above ground nuclear tests done since the atomic age and the radiation from Chernobyl was detecable around he world for 2 years via the jet stream. so many people are on Rx drugs that have awful side effects, pahramcuticals are one the biggest causes of death in the US.


we come in contact with cancer and other viruses on a daily basis, our immue system defeats them. all of the above adds up and certain people are susceptible to different stresses. an increase in enviornmental stresses equals an increase in cancers.

No disrespect, but that has about the same validity as the MSNBC article.
Do you have any scientific proof that any of the contaminants yo cited has any direct influence in the incidence of any type of cancer?
True, many of them are known to be harmful. But are they harmful at the current levels? Where's proof?

 

[redcoat_or_rebel]

http://http://wildmonkeysects.com/data/20050207_israel.pdf
From:
The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.
The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.
p. 3 "The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station."

published International Journal of Cancer, 2004

http://http://www.surgicalneurology-online.com/article/S0090-3019(09)00145-1/abstract
Results
The results indicate that using a cell phone for ≥10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral&#8221 side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.

Conclusion
The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.

published Surgical neurology, 2009

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/9/800.short

Use of chlorinated pesticides among applicators over 50 years of age and methyl bromide use were significantly associated with prostate cancer risk. Several other pesticides showed a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer among study subjects with a family history of prostate cancer but not among those with no family history. Important family history-pesticide interactions were observed.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/242/4885/1513.short
Radioactive material was deposited throughout the Northern Hemisphere as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station on 26 April 1986. On the basis of a large amount of environmental data and new integrated dose assessment and risk models, the collective dose commitment to the approximately 3 billion inhabitants is calculated to be 930,000 person-gray, with 97% in the western Soviet Union and Europe. The best estimates for the lifetime expectation of fatal radiogenic cancer would increase the risk from 0 to 0.02% in Europe and 0 to 0.003% in the Northern Hemisphere. By means of an integration of the environmental data, it is estimated that approximately 100 petabecquerels of cesium-137 (1 PBq = 10(15) Bq) were released during and subsequent to the accident.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/151/10/951.short
Use of tricyclic medications for greater than 2 years, however, may be associated with a twofold elevation, and use of paroxetine may be associated with a substantial increase in breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 2000

You can Google Scholar any of the terms i metnioned and see several published studies, some causing different types of cancers in men and women etc.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

Ok, so far, I've read only this one:

http://http://wildmonkeysects.com/data/20050207_israel.pdf
From:
The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.
The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.
p. 3 "The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station."

published International Journal of Cancer, 2004

Again, this "study" does nothing but to illustrate my point.
Even a statistic with a sample size of 622 individuals is NOT VALID. Doesn't matter where it's been published, 8 cases of cancer (even worse, of DIFFERENT TYPES of cancer), are absolutely not representative. especially when the 622 individuals live in the same area.
Who's to say their cancer wasn't caused by them drinking water off of a contaminated main, or any other possible common cause to their area?
That's why a proper scientific study has to be conducted, before taking that BS as gospel.
A statistic is never scientific proof of anything. Statistics just show the possible causes or consequences of something. A properly conducted scientific study shows "THE" causes or consequences of that something.

 

[Inodoro_Pereyra]

Your second link goes nowhere.
Your third link only shows the abstract to a "study". No mention as to the methodology used, experimental data, discovered mechanisms by which pesticides would produce cancer, or any kind of data that would even suggest a scientific experiment was ever conducted.
Your fourth and fifth links only show, again, just articles about how this or that "agent" "may" cause a given disease, based on "interpretation of statistical data". Nothing on either of them suggests a scientific experiment has been conducted to bring validity to any of those claims.

 

[Wingy]

700% icreased risk, it would be a lot of people dying already but cancer is more under control than ever, (hey it's Europe with their crappy healtcare system)

Not really. Buying 7 lottery tickets increases your chance of winning the lottery by 700%, but it doesn't turn it into a sure thing. If the risk of developing a rare disease increases by 700%, it will still be a rare disease.