ALCOHOL - KILLJOYS AT IT AGAIN.

Yet again the do-gooders and killjoys are at it.

A report published in the medical journal 'The Lancet', claims that alcohol is simply bad. The authors reckon that the only safe level of alcohol consumption is zero. This conclusion has been reached by researchers from the 'Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation', a highly pretentious sounding name, based in Seattle, Washington, who are responsible for the equally pretentious 'Global Burden of Diseases study'. 

However, when I refer to these people as researchers, I may be giving them a status that is undeserved. It seems that what they've actually done is to combine and re-analyse the results of hundreds of meta-analyses of real studies by real researchers in order to come up with what they describe as "the most comprehensive estimate of the global burden of alcohol use to date". More pretentious twaddle.

No one would argue that alcohol consumption is devoid of risks and clearly excessive consumption is potentially dangerous, even fatal. However, this applies to many other things as well. Drinking excessive amounts of carrot juice, even of water can be dangerous; eating too much meat is supposedly bad and dairy products such as cheese and butter are frowned upon by many, while sugar and salt are absolute evils. So why pick on alcohol ?

Perhaps alcohol consumption can be linked to health problems and assorted diseases but what about the relief from stress that it can bring at the end of a hard day ? What about the social interaction that can be enjoyed over a glass of beer or wine ? Are we to be denied these benefits because a few killjoys are determined to save us from ourselves with their meta-analyses of other people's meta-analyses ?

I, for one, will continue to drink moderately and if I suffer a few consequential side effects, so be it. I'd rather live a reasonably happy and sociable, if shorter, life than a miserable and lonely long one.