Before you go and make Christmas more miserable than it need be, it is worth taking the following into consideration.
A committee that was set up to determine safe drinking levels published a report that stated the safe drinking level for men was 28 units of alcohol per week (roughly three bottles of wine) and for women it was 21 units (roughly two).
A member of the committee, Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, later said that they couldn’t actually find any scientific evidence to justify these limits but thought they ought to publish something as that was what they had been tasked with so they just “plucked the figure out of the air”.
Some time later, the safe drinking levels per week were reduced to 21 units for men and 14 units for women. Now the safe limits are 14 units per week regardless of whether someone is male or female.
Perhaps this has been done in the name of equality or to make it easier for men to switch genders and become women without worrying about the reduced alcohol limit.
The most charitable explanation for this absurdly low level is that the nanny state knows we are all going to exceed the recommended level regardless of where it’s set so they set it low to keep alcohol consumption down. Their intention was to make us feel so guilty we become abstemious instead of rampant alcoholics.
The trouble is, they may be doing more harm than good and over the last two years our health experts haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory. Professor Sir Richard Doll was the epidemiologist that first found a causal link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. He was so convinced that he immediately stopped smoking. He was meticulous and through his integrity and lifelong insistence on the highest standards, Doll won the respect of colleagues and scientists throughout the world.
In 1994, a study of 12,321 middle-aged, male doctors led by Sir Richard Doll and a team at the Radcliffe Infirmary – “Mortality in relation to the consumption of alcohol” – found that: “The consumption of alcohol appeared to reduce the risk of ischaemic heart disease, largely irrespective of amount.” Other studies have since been published which showed that moderate amounts of alcohol gave some degree of protection against heart disease.
“But what about cancer, liver disease and all those other ailments alcohol consumption causes?” I hear you cry.
Earlier this year the BBC broadcast a programme showing the post mortem of an overweight American woman who had died in her sixties. As her organs were removed it was shown how each was affected by certain factors and how, if she had still been alive, this would have gone on to cause her demise.
Lastly they removed her heart and saw she had heart disease which was what had killed her. She was teetotal. Perhaps if she had been more inclined to have one or two glasses of wine a day she may have lived longer.
So if you do have a particularly indulgent Christmas and New Year perhaps a few alcohol free days wouldn’t go a miss, but whatever you do don’t ruin the whole of January.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So when the Fascist pigs want to terrify their own people, each scariant is deadlier than the last, including the Kentiscariant. But when Macron wants to score a point against Britain (how very novel for a French leader!), our Fascists suddenly find that the Kentiscariant is a tame lapdog.
Well well.
I am not giving Macron a ‘pass’ here, he should have resisted the enormous pressure from his ‘experts’ that sometimes make SAGE look like poodles. But in his speech he was careful not to phrase reference to the Kent ‘variant’ as if it was a ‘britsh/brexit’ issue, which is how most of the UK MSM and this article are painting it. This doesn’t help anyone.
I agree that the almost linear rise in ‘cases’ is more a function of increase tests than anything else, but its also reflected in numbers of hospitalisations and ICU admissions, again in a linear increase.
This is highly unusual behaviour for a virus. There is no explanation I have seen for this.
I suspect some of the numbers are very suspect, and are part of an attempt to convince at least part of the 50% of the French population that are saying no to vaccination.
If people will need a booster jab in September that’s billions more in profit for big pharma and another reason to reintroduce restrictions if there is a seasonal rise in cases before everyone has their booster. I wonder who is lobbying who to push the largely nonexistant dangers of all these variants.
Since viruses continously mutate, and presumably have done for hundreds of millions of years it seems obvious that the immune system would evolve to be able to fight variants of a virus as well as the strain that is currently circulating. Any organism that was immune against new variants and not just the old one would have a competative advantage and be more likely to pass on the genes for developing this immunity. This is another reason why it would’ve been better to allow the virus to spread among people at low risk of serious illness. Natural herd immunity is likely to be better than vaccine induced immunity. Sadly this is one more basic principle of biology/virology that the “experts” seem to have ignored, for reasons only they can know.
Not yet.
A few months ago someone leaked the contract. They can choose to make a profit from July, if I recall correctly
It depends on who gets to call the end of the emergency at which point
1. AstraZeneca can start charging market rates.
2. Authorisation for use under ’emegency’ provisions must surely be called into question ?
… which gives the rationale for continually upping the ante in terms of new Scary Fairies, and continuing the suppression of possible cheap prophylactics like Ivermectin.
They are experimenting on millions of subjects for free, whilst getting lots of coverage, that’s a nice win-win
Your link to the PHE study is hilariously, embarrassingly wrong.
It is actually the link to a BMJ study (March 10) concluding that the Kent variant is indeed much more deadly.
Please provide the correct link.
Yes – even in the report written by the “Swiss Doctor” there is only a link to an article in the Daily Telegraph. The study seems not to have been published (or peer reviewed) yet, and its existence is only known due to a press conference at 10 Downing Street.
There could be an easy explanation for increased hospitalization rate not accompanied by higher mortality rate. The propensity to admit could have been increased compared to the first wave ie less sick cases admitted. The health care sytem did not collapse in the first wave might increase “overhospitalization” ie doctors admit more,knowing it would have less effect on the system. Really the excess mortality and the the true C-19 mortality is the only way to estimate if a variant really is more dangerous.
The Swizz doctor is a bit leaning to van den Bosche scenario saying if neutral antbodies are affected as above could be problematic although they allude to something called T-cells immunity. But another study published a few days ago,again showed that T cells have a broad immunity incl. against variant.
One would bet that natural acquired immunity ,is the most effective T cells response as known by everybody pre 2020 and that an artificial immunity like vaccine can never come up to that level. The article above is down here
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab143/6189113#.YGTXD75sdDQ.twitter
CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent individuals target conserved epitopes from multiple prominent SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants
This study examined whether CD8+ T-cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent individuals (n=30) potentially maintain recognition of the major SARS-CoV-2 variants suggesting that virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants.