ThePortForum.com

Posted: **17:21 Wed 06 Jan 2016**

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

Posted: **13:43 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

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

Posted: **18:25 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:The BBC, in a misleading titled article entitled Michael Mosley: The truth about alcohol, denies that there is a truth.

Michael Mosley, quoting a Canadian wonk in the story above, wrote: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!

Posted: **18:50 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

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.

Posted: **18:52 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

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

Nonsense. You always agree with me.

*Normal service resumed*

Posted: **19:16 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

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?

Posted: **19:47 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

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.

Posted: **19:52 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

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

Posted: **20:53 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

You were doing so well...

Posted: **23:42 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

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

Posted: **23:44 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

LGTrotter wrote: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”.

Posted: **23:50 Sun 10 Jan 2016**

jdaw1 wrote: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%

Posted: **00:10 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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

Cheers.

Posted: **00:24 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

DRT wrote: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.

Posted: **00:26 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

djewesbury wrote: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.

Posted: **00:32 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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

Also see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

Posted: **00:34 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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

Posted: **01:09 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:Few die of it.

About 10,000 per year in the UK.

Posted: **01:46 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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.

Posted: **02:05 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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.

Posted: **02:11 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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.

Posted: **02:19 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

"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?

Posted: **02:21 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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

Posted: **02:24 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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

Posted: **02:26 Mon 11 Jan 2016**

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...

ThePortForum.com

Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health

Re: Alcohol and health