Poor alcohol regulation could cost up to 250,000 lives in England and Wales over the next 20 years, doctors warn.
More junk science. Note the “could” there. Not “will”, no demonstrable evidence of causal links – could. Maybe, possibly, might, if we get a blue moon – you get the picture. And the cure for this impending catastrophe?
Writing in The Lancet, leading liver disease specialists say measures including a minimum price of 50p per unit are urgently needed.
Well I never. Didn’t see that one coming, did we? And what about this little gem?
They also said the coalition government was “too close” to the drinks industry.
What!?! Maybe the writers in the Lancet, these “experts” have had one over the eight?
Sir Richard Thompson, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said: “How many more people have to die from alcohol-related conditions, and how many more families devastated by the consequences before the government takes the situation as seriously as it took the dangers of tobacco?”
I’d ask this; how many more busybody shroud wavers have to peddle half-baked statistics, half-truths, guesses and outright lies before people rise up and string them from the nearest lamp post?
The role of doctors is to cure the sick. Sure, advise their patients about their lifestyles if they deem it to be a part of that patient’s problem, but leave the rest of us and the social engineering alone, thankyou very much. Oh, and while you are at it, perhaps another set of statistics might be of interest. Although I do note that these charlatans have that one covered.
Sir Ian said recent figures had shown a slight decline in the level of alcohol consumption.
But he warned: “Fewer people are drinking more”.
You just can’t win with these people.
I think I may have shot to judgement too early. I commented last week that fearmongering fake charities were the worst blight on our society. I should of course have added rent-seeking social engineers masquerading as Doctors.
I don’t drink a huge amount but I’ll defend to the death the rights of anyone to pickle their own liver as they see fit. Yes, alcoholism can have ‘unintended consequences’, but these specialists are not referring to the social aspects of addiction but to self-harm caused by drinking to excess. At what point will we (if ever) accept that if man has dominion over nothing else, he is free to treat his own body as he sees fit? And the cost argument is bullshit; what the hell are we paying national ‘insurance’ for if not to cover us in the event of sickness or harm to our bodies.
Fuck ’em. I’m going for a smoke and I’m buying a bottle of single malt and a nice steak for dinner.
“They also said the coalition government was “too close” to the drinks industry.”
I’ve known several doctors who were to close to the bottle, but they were human and as far as I was concerned did a good job, particularly the one who convinced me that a tot of Scotch each night wa good for me.
In practice, most people spend some weeks/months being treated in NHS hospitals in the period prior to their death, whether for senility, cancer or liver disease. It actually costs the NHS far less if people die young from liver disease than if they soldier on to their nineties, as is my ambition. Think of what I’m costing in “routine maintenance” in spite of my being reasonably fit. Plus of course the cost of my OAP, winter fuel allowance, etc.
So what’s their poblem?