Can Wine Drinkers Rely on Science?
I haven’t investigated the question, but I have to wonder if faith in the ability of science to provide reliable depictions of nature and its workings has fallen among Americans. I’m motivated to investigate this question upon waking up today to read these two stories:
Study: Drinking Alcohol More Important Than Exercise to Living Past Ninety.
“Analyzing more than 1,600 nonagenarians, the study results showed that people who drank two glasses of beer or wine a day improved their odds of living longer than those who abstained by about 18 percent.
Then there is this:
Alcohol Fuels the Majority of Early Onset Dementia Cases, Study Finds
“The study of more than 1 million dementia sufferers, published in the Lancet Public Health Journal, found almost six in ten diagnoses before the age of 65 were linked to heavy drinking. Experts said the study showed the burden of disease linked to alcohol is “much larger than previously thought”
My wife reminds me that there is nothing contradictory about these two findings that appeared in my inbox on the same day. She notes it merely means that those of us who drink wine will be a burden on our children for far longer than those that don’t drink wine.
Dementia is no fun. I have experience with it. On the other hand, living past 90 years old, particularly in this easy hip and knee replacements and medical advancements, sounds pretty damned good to me.
As your cartoon highlights. The defining parameter is that number of drinks per day. Two standard drinks per day(not the 8 Oz Minnesota pours) is good. More than that becomes ‘heavy’ and is clearly doing damage.
No doubt you’ve heard to expression “follow the money”? Here’s a corollary: wait for the peer review. If the science is bad we’ll know about it.