Middle-aged people should go teetotal to reduce the risk of dementia, health watchdogs have said.
Guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence on how to protect against the condition suggests that even drinking within Government safe limits can increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
The new advice says the public should be advised that there is “no safe level of alcohol consumption” and calls on GPs to tackle the middle-aged about lifestyle behaviours linked to the condition.
More temperance puritanism scantily dressed in a patina of junk science. Bollocks, the lot of it. People have been consuming alcohol for millennia and managing perfectly well. The “no safe limit” is pure unadulterated nonsense and should be dismissed as such. That the mainstream is giving these extremist crackpots house room is deeply worrying.
As it is, I am teetotal. I tried alcohol in my teens and didn’t like it, so didn’t bother. Frankly, the constant authoritarian haranguing I am getting from these vile bastards is enough to drive me to the bottle…
It seems that there is nothing that these nagging, hectoring, self-righteous, pious busybodies won’t try to control, tax, ban or otherwise restrict in our lifestyles. They will be trying to stop us eating cheese next.
H/T Chris Snowdon and Timmy
Since when did one 175ml glass of wine equal two to three units of alchohol? Last week?
They shamelessly changed the definition of units a few years ago when, out of the blue, I heard an interviewee blithely refer to the “10 units in a bottle of wine”. The week before it had been six.
Funny as my grandmother was teetotal and had alzheimers as did a lot of her teetotal siblings.
The amount of units in a bottle depends on the size of the bottle, and the strength of the wine. These idiots are so ignorant that they do not seam to know that. It is of course, just appeasing a certain faith that does not approve of strong drink. I will have an extra glass or two this evening, and extend two fingers to the idiots.
Can you imagine the kind of drab, grey and miserable world that these people would create if we let them? I can imagine them all applying their junk science to trying to work out why suicide rates were suddenly rocketing.
I’m 64 and I’m sure as hell not giving up drink for the next 9 months! Why do they reckon it’s OK to drink after 65? Is it because we’re already gaga by then?
I’ll drink to that, ‘Old Geezer!’ An extra two fingers in my glass tonight.
My brother who is 67 drinks about a gallon of beer a day 6 days a week , and has been doing for over 40 years , he,s slim and fit, can do all cryptic crosswords etc he also cycles 12 miles a day1
Robbo,
“..cycles 12 miles a day.”. Has your brother ever thought about moving closer to the offie?
Snork!
The problem is that we live in a decadent society that pays self-righteous busybodies to torment us. I note that austerity appears to have had absolutely no impact on public health parasites or well heeled professional charity workers.
If we keep paying these parasites to dredge through data and dig up trivial “risks” that translate into totalitarian “advice”, they will keep doing it.
One idea is that you may not live longer if you follow the puritans’ advice but it will at least feel like you have.
Alex Salmond springs to mind.
Pity any Doctor trying to get him to quit the booze!
Unchristian though it might be, I dread the thought of Salmond being around for an extended period of time…
Salmond is a politician and therefore the spawn of the devil. So be as uncharitable as you please, it is well deserved.
Since it is up to politicians to a) set an example and b) practise what they preach (yes, I know either would be a ‘first’) should we not remove the subsidy from the bars in the Palace of Westminster and in fact add a stinging tax to all alcohol purchased there?
Of course they won’t stop nagging – they’re being paid by the Government to do it. How else are they supposed to maintain thier funding and (ergo) thier mortgage payments?