GM crops

Originally posted by humy

Nonsense, what you are talking about is the abuse of alcohol

So? Relevance to this conversation?
How dangerous a substance is partly depends on how it is used. You are an idiot if you deny this.

A beer with an ABV of 4% made in the traditional way contains vitamins, minerals, energy and many other health benefits.

...[text shortened]... ee/2013/jan/10/antioxidant-myth-easy-to-swallow

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtdag/Wenner_2013.pdf

you have trampled upon scientifically established data because it conflicts with your world view. How unscientific and bogus! The fact is that a well made British beer in moderation is well healthy, full of vitamins, energy and natural goodness! Now can we say the same for those dastardly herbicides? I don't think so. 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have trampled upon scientifically established data because it conflicts with your world view. How unscientific and bogus! The fact is that a well made British beer in moderation is well healthy, full of vitamins, energy and natural goodness! Now can we say the same for those dastardly herbicides? I don't think so. 😵

Why did you post here on this science forum if all you then do is just trash expert opinion from the scientists here?
What was your agenda? -it clearly wasn't for genuine curiosity for the truth.
Why did you even bother to post here? You already have made up your unscientific mind up what is the answer to your questions so why ask those questions? Was it just to dish out insults to all those experts here that don't happen to share your opinions or what?

If you don't like expert opinion, please don't ask for it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Nonsense, what you are talking about is the abuse of alcohol. A beer with an ABV of 4% made in the traditional way contains vitamins, minerals, energy and many other health benefits.

Here is a study which demonstrates that moderate consumption of beer is associated with lower cardiovascular risk.

http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007 ...[text shortened]... because quite frankly its tedious having to deal with claims that have not been made by anyone.

That's all well and good but do you seriously think most beer drinkers stick to the 'in moderation' agenda? I don't think so. Beer drinkers get together at a local pub for some snooker or darts and just drink pint after pint till they are wobbling around the floor looking for the restroom and in no condition to drive home. Moderation for you may be 3 or 4 beers but the science says we should get milligrams of alcohol, not kilograms which is what a serious driker would get.

Myself, I can't drink more than 2 beers, my Yuengling draft ale, a great beer, but 2 twenty oz glasses and I start losing it. I know my limits. Can most beer drinkers say the same?

If you drink 50 ounces of beer with 5% alcohol, you have consumed 2.5 ounces of 200 proof alcohol.

Originally posted by humy
Why did you post here on this science forum if all you then do is just trash expert opinion from the scientists here?
What was your agenda? -it clearly wasn't for genuine curiosity for the truth.
Why did you even bother to post here? You already have made up your unscientific mind up what is the answer to your questions so why ask those questions? Was it just ...[text shortened]... en to share your opinions or what?

If you don't like expert opinion, please don't ask for it.

expert opinion? my goodness man you dispense with others 'expert opinion' simply because its conflicts with your own. You are not a scientist, you are a charlatan!

Originally posted by sonhouse
That's all well and good but do you seriously think most beer drinkers stick to the 'in moderation' agenda? I don't think so. Beer drinkers get together at a local pub for some snooker or darts and just drink pint after pint till they are wobbling around the floor looking for the restroom and in no condition to drive home. Moderation for you may be 3 or 4 b ...[text shortened]... you drink 50 ounces of beer with 5% alcohol, you have consumed 2.5 ounces of 200 proof alcohol.

there are beer drinkers and there are beer drinkers, the same as there is wine drinkers and wino's, capiche? One does not drink a finely crafted ale the same as one does a bottle of malt liquor. I reject this stereotypical approach to this excellent subject. The British government has stated that one can drink 14 units of alcohol a week, that's roughly a pint (568ml) a day. A 20 ounce bottle is almost 600ml! You should not be drinking more than one. Please be sensible. The Germans sell beer in litre glasses!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maß

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]The British government has stated that one can drink 14 units of alcohol a week, that's roughly a pint (568ml) a day. b]

yep, and we all really trust the opinion and advice about scientific matters from the politicians over expert advice from qualified scientists, don't we? We all know the politicians, despite statistically having an average IQ over 20 points lower than that of the average scientist, are SO much more intelligent than the leading scientists that all say alcohol is a health risk and obviously really know and understand SO much more about science than the scientists that spend their lives intensively studying and researching it and are quite rightly normally just completely ignored by the government. We all should just blindly trust whatever opinion the government expresses and ignore the qualified opinion from the real experts who have done the actual research. Who cares about the truth anyway? asp if the truth is that your testy beer may be bad for you; who wants that?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/14904/title/It-s-True--Scientists-Are-Smart/
"...
The scientist group scored highest with an average IQ of 125,
..."

Originally posted by humy
yep, and we all really trust the opinion and advice about scientific matters from the politicians over expert advice from qualified scientists, don't we? We all know the politicians, despite statistically having an average IQ over 20 points lower than that of the average scientist, are SO much more intelligent than the leading scientists that all say alcohol is ...[text shortened]... t the truth anyway? asp if the truth is that your testy beer may be bad for you; who wants that?

Expert advise from scientists? so lets get this, the British government simply made those values up, consulted no one, imagined them, dreamt them, found them in their pocket after jumping into the river Clyde?

Look how your bias has driven you insane, you are imagining things to such an extent that you are becoming delusional, a belief in your own propaganda has made you mad!.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so lets get this, the British government simply made those values up, .

No, they just don't understand the science and thus don't know the significance or true meaning of the values presented by the science.
You said
"The British government has stated that one can drink 14 units of alcohol a week"
this is a very vague statement; for what level of health risk 'can' you do that?
You 'can' also "drink 1000 units of alcohol a week"; why not? It may eventually kill you but that doesn't mean you cannot do it. There is no physical barrier stopping you so you 'can' do that just as you 'can' drink 14 units of alcohol a week; that doesn't mean it is healthy to do so.

Originally posted by humy
No, they just don't understand the science and thus don't know the significance or true meaning of the values presented by the science.
You said
"The British government has stated that one [b]can drink 14 units of alcohol a week"
this is a vague statement; for what level of health risk can you do that?
You 'can' also "drink 1000 units of alcohol a week ...[text shortened]... at just as you 'can' drink 14 units of alcohol a week; that doesn't mean it is healthy to do so.[/b]

So you have no idea who they consulted? and the 14 units of alcohol is the safety limit. This is understood to anyone with a modicum of discernment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you have no idea who they consulted?

It wouldn't matter who; if they made that very vague statement just as you stated then they obviously either didn't understand whoever they did consult -or perhaps they didn't try hard enough to listen to what he was actually saying, or, if not that, just perhaps they consulted an idiot.
Most good self-respecting scientists wouldn't make such ridiculously vague statements. I ask again, for what level of health risk 'can' you drink that amount? and how was that level of risk scientifically quantified? With what study/research? By which scientists? Was it allowed to go through peer review and meta-research? Where the scientists paid by the brewery industry? (if you think that is a silly suggestion, it isn't the first time its happened! That wouldn't invalidate their results but one must watch out for the risk of bias resulting from financial interests )

Originally posted by humy
It wouldn't matter who; if they made that very vague statement just as you stated then they obviously either didn't understand whoever they did consult -or perhaps they didn't try hard enough to listen to what he was actually saying, or, if not that, just perhaps they consulted an idiot.
Most good self-respecting scientists wouldn't make such ridiculously vag ...[text shortened]... wery industry? (if you think that is a silly suggestion, it isn't the first time its happened! )

My good Sir, we are European, we don't resort to the skulduggery of American corporations!

Dame Sally Davies, Britain's Chief Medical Officer, says 'There is no safe level of drinking'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3394679/Why-killjoy-new-alcohol-rules-just-plain-wrong-devastating-critique-award-winning-writer-alcohol-affects-health.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
Dame Sally Davies, Britain's Chief Medical Officer, says 'There is no safe level of drinking'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3394679/Why-killjoy-new-alcohol-rules-just-plain-wrong-devastating-critique-award-winning-writer-alcohol-affects-health.html

The link then goes on to suggest that she was wrong but there are several quotes there in that link that indicate what this link says is extremely flawed;

What the people behind the new guidelines ignored - either deliberately or accidentally - are two clinching pieces of evidence.

The first is that when alcohol is tested in clinical trials (i.e. just like a pharmaceutical drug), it increases HDL ('good'😉 cholesterol, and reduces blood clotting and the 'inflammatory markers' associated with heart disease.

For starters, the huge myth that cholesterol causes heart disease and there is such thing as 'bad' and 'good' cholesterol was completely busted YEARS ago;

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/20/cholesterol-myths.aspx

also see;
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/27/saturated-fat-cholesterol.aspx

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-top-10-myths-of-heart-health/

So there isn't such thing as 'bad' cholesterol and cholesterol isn't what causes heart disease.
Thus one of those two so-called "two clinching pieces of evidence" is just pure bullocks.

The other so-called "clinching pieces of evidence" was;

The second is that in post-mortems, moderate drinkers have lower levels of atherosclerosis (clogged-up arteries).

which by itself is completely meaningless without contextual information such as their age and what they died of i.e. you cannot draw any rational conclusions from that without such contextual information, which the link doesn't give. For all we know from this so-called "clinching pieces of evidence" alone, the moderate drinkers have lower levels of atherosclerosis because they generally died younger as a result of their drinking habits and younger people do tend to have less atherosclerosis.

This is surely reason enough to not trust anything else the link says about the health risks and said 'benefits' but, it also says;

The evidence also shows that moderate drinkers have lower risks of dementia, strokes caused by blood clots, arthritis, obesity, prostate problems, kidney stones, and even the common cold.

OK, the common cold is caused when a cold virus enters the body; how would drinking alcohol stop the virus physically entering the body?
And, as far as I am aware, there is NO evidence that drinking boosts the immune system.
Sorry! I don't believe them! I think alcohol stopping the common cold is just pure bullocks; I think they are simply LYING.
So, I ask those believers in the 'alcohol is healthy' theory, why should I trust anything else they say here about the 'health benefits' of alcohol?

I must admit that some if not most of the claims made by those advocating beer are difficult to believe. Some are even claiming that it has

Anti-Cancer Properties: A flavonoid compound called Xanthohumol is found in the hops commonly used in brewing beer. It has been seen to play a major role in the chemoprevention of cancer, including prostate cancer. According to Bio-medicine, it is also a good source of polyphenols, due to the grains used for fermentation. Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine.

https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/beverage/health-benefits-of-beer.html

Now while I do not doubt that hops have these compounds I do find it incredulous to believe that these are 'proven' in fighting cancer. This appears to me to be quackery of the most cruel and insidious kind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I must admit that some if not most of the claims made by those advocating beer are difficult to believe. Some are even claiming that it has

Anti-Cancer Properties: A flavonoid compound called Xanthohumol is found in the hops commonly used in brewing beer. It has been seen to play a major role in the chemoprevention of cancer, including prostate ...[text shortened]... en' in fighting cancer. This appears to me to be quackery of the most cruel and insidious kind.

A flavonoid compound called Xanthohumol is found in the hops commonly used in brewing beer. It has been seen to play a major role in the chemoprevention of cancer, including prostate cancer.

WRONG!
Here is what the science says;

http://www.readersdigest.ca/food/healthy-food/antioxidant-myth/

The Antioxidant Myth

Free radicals bad, antioxidants good, right? For the supplements industry, the truth might be a hard pill to swallow
....

evidence gathered over the past few years shows that, at best, antioxidant supplements do little or nothing to benefit our health. At worst, large doses could have the opposite effect, promoting the very problems they are supposed to stamp out.
...
“People are still trying to defend it, but you don’t get an effect on free-radical damage unless you start with people with a vitamin C deficiency,” says Halliwell. “I think it’s a lost cause.” In fact, results from the vast US Women’s Health Study suggest vitamin C supplements may accelerate atherosclerosis in some diabetics.

One class of antioxidants that is still relatively unresearched is polyphenols. These again act as antioxidants in the test tube, but it is not clear how long they stay in the bloodstream. For example, most of the flavonoid called resveratrol – the polyphenol found in red wine – is rapidly broken down and cleared from the body.
..."
If it is rapidly broken down and cleared from the body, it cannot have much biological effect let alone a measurable beneficial health effect!

Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine.

WRONG!
Here is what science says;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/red_wine_study/
"...
Boffins debunk red wine miracle antioxidant myth

Saddening news from US researchers who have demonstrated that quaffing red wine doesn't confer some of the alleged benefits attributed to the tipple, specifically the ability of the antioxidant resveratrol to "reduce deaths, cardiovascular disease or cancer".
..."

Now while I do not doubt that hops have these compounds I do find it incredulous to believe that these are 'proven' in fighting cancer.

you contradict yourself, you just said "Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine" now you imply you are not sure of this; you cannot assert both without contradicting yourself.
Do you really doubt it is 'proven' or have you already made up your mind? which?
Why not look at the real science evidence and ask us the experts here says is the truth rather than believe whatever you want to believe? If you don't want the truth, fine, just believe whatever you want to believe and don't bother asking us anything.
As you simply rudely dismiss and even sometimes dish out insults to us when you don't like what us the science experts say on the matter, why do you bother to ask us? What is your agenda here?
Please don't ask for expert info if you cannot accept the truth.
When I go to my doctor, I don't lecture to him about what is the 'correct' diagnosis and dismiss his diagnosis just because I don't like it; I humbly admit ignorance and accept his expert opinion over any opinion I might have. I am only entitled to disagree with him if he starts to talk about something other than medical but which I just happen to be an expert on, such as probability theory in relation to the analysis of personal sensory data (which is the main thing I am currently very intensively researching), what is scientific method esp as defined mathematically (which I am also currently intensively researching), A.I. basic physics/chemistry etc.