Re: Religious Tolerance

Hi Mike,

I am reading the primary literature, and despite your insistence, the
literature does not state, show, or even clearly imply linearly
increased cancer risk.

You, however, extrapolate data to assert it. The studies themselves
continue to recommend moderate alcohol use. You read into the data
what you want to, and accuse me of not being able to do so.
Certainly, I could interpret the data any way I choose, but I am
rather letting the studies you cite interpret their own data.

And what they say is that moderate alcohol use is okay. You, however,
extrapolate and interpret to make a point that is not in the studies.
Why? Is it your version of the Baha'i Faith that makes you do so?

--Kent

On Oct 21, 11:58 am, mikera...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The major problem I have here with both Tim's and Kent's position is
that neither one seems to be reading the primary literature that I am
citing in defense of my premise that alcohol is a carcinogen. Whether
you drink one cup a day or more than two it only linearly increases
your cancer risk. About the only people who dispute this are Tim  and
Kent. Based on what they are presenting, I can only assume that they
are sifting through it all looking for one-liners that seem to support
their position. Even worse, kent  cited a one liner in support of the
notion that alcohol is not carcinogenic below a couple drinks a day,
only when you read this article you will see that indeed it is stated
my exact premise. While there are a multitude of articles on the
subject proving my point, I'm going to stick with one kent cited just
to keep it simple, and I'll abbreviate it, if you want the whole
article, just check back a few posts.

"Alcohol and Breast Cancer in Women
A Pooled Analysis of Cohort Studies

Stephanie A. Smith-Warner, PhD; Donna Spiegelman, <snip>

JAMA. 1998;279:535-540.

Objective.— To assess the risk of invasive breast cancer associated
with total and beverage-specific alcohol consumption and to evaluate
whether dietary and nondietary factors modify the association.
<snip>

Data Synthesis.— For alcohol intakes less than 60 g/d (reported by>99%
of participants), risk increased linearly with increasing intake;

the pooled multivariate relative risk for an increment of 10 g/d of
alcohol (about 0.75-1 drink) was 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI],
1.04-1.13; P for heterogeneity among studies, .71). The multivariate-
adjusted relative risk for total alcohol intakes of 30 to less than
60
g/d (about 2-5 drinks) vs nondrinkers was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.18-1.69).
Limited data suggested that alcohol intakes of at least 60 g/d were
not associated with further increased risk. The specific type of
alcoholic beverage did not strongly influence risk estimates. The
association between alcohol intake and breast cancer was not modified
by other factors.

Conclusions.— Alcohol consumption is associated with a linear
increase
in breast cancer incidence in women over the range of consumption
reported by most women. Among women who consume alcohol regularly,
reducing alcohol consumption is a potential means to reduce breast
cancer risk."

 My point in citing this is that no where in the scientific literature
is there any study relating to breast cancer that puts a lower
threshold value on the amount of alcohol that can be consumed safely.
The risk of cancer increases linearly with consumption. Both Kent and
Tim propose that there are lower non-carcinogenic limits to alcohol
consumption, a theory that is not supported in the primary literature.
This paper is not alone in this claim. I'll recite one more paper that
I encourage these two to review:

"Alcohol as a cause of Cancer
May 2008
Authors
Samara Lewis1, Suzanne Campbell2, Emma Proudfoot2, Adèle Weston2,
Trish
Cotter1, James F Bishop1

The risk alcohol poses for cancer is large. Four standard drinks a
day
increase the cancer risk by 22%
or with eight standard drinks a day the cancer risk increases by 90%.
For each standard drink per day,the risk of breast cancer
specifically
increases by around 10%. "<snip>

  Kent, how can you call yourself a fair minded person and fail to
respect the research in these two papers. Your avoidance of
acknowledging this information casts serious doubt on your sincerity
and credibility.

  What confuses people here is that the american cancer society does
put an advisment out that alcohol consumption above two drinks per day
increases your cancer risk, but fails to advise people about the risks
below two drinks per day. Interestingly, they specifically state that
there may be health benefits for certain cardiovascular patients below
two drinks per day and that people should seek the counsul of their
primary care physician when deciding what to do. (Which is exactly
what the Baha'i position is). Both Kent and Tim are at best providing
us with a poor reading of this advisement that would seem to suite
their own purposes.

  What's been pointed out to me is that regardless, Baha'u'llah has
foridden this drink and anything else which consumes reason and I can
appreciate that this is the core reason for not drinking. But what the
point I want to drive home is that independent of the Baha'i position
our society has done a miserable job of educating people about alcohol
and in spite of the overwhelming research on the subject in many
areas, our society has exhibited a double standard that emboldens
people like Tim to forward such absurd claims that people should drink
for their health. This reminds me of the folks who back in the day
adovacted smoking for long life.

  Hey, for the last time, I have no real position on prohibition. I'm
just advocating education.


.

Relevant Pages