Honestly, a bridge too far? Heavens!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal...9f4691b039bed4&ei=17

Frankly, an evidence based recommendation is fine.

It’s regulatory acts based on these that are the problem.

I think that the evidence is that consuming alcohol has no physical health advantages. Ok, fine, thanks for the information… carry on.

Of course, we have had all kinds of variability in these studies. Red wine has a cardioprotective effect… etc.

What the findings are for this is that the number of say, lives saved by cardiovascular effects is dwarfed by the number of adverse things (like drunk driving deaths) so the “overall” effect is negative. Just like any other substance.

The post was intended as a little levity on a Friday.

Recommendations are just that, and most are simply ignored. The fact is, drinkers will drink, drunks will get drunk, and those who prefer to abstain will do that. The costs to society from these choices will continue to be spun to suit the narrative of the narrator, and there you have it. Regards, Bill

The idea that we would be looking to Canada for guidance on how much beer to drink is amusing.

See, Mitchell and I agree n practically nothing but I can agree with him there.

It’s all about power with government and that we all agree on

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
The idea that we would be looking to Canada for guidance on how much beer to drink is amusing.

Yes, it is!