Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
https://e3.365dm.com/21/09/640x380/skynews-sarah-harding-girls-aloud_5503094.png?20210906171656
Birds Aren't Real
uziq
Member
+441|2633
sadly ironic that the memoriam chooses a picture of her holding alcohol.

alcohol is a huge risk factor in breast cancer for women. it increases oestrogen production massively.

In 1988, the World Health Organization declared alcohol a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning that it’s been proved to cause cancer. There is no known safe dosage in humans, according to the WHO. Alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, but it kills more women from breast cancer than from any other. The International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates that for every drink consumed daily, the risk of breast cancer goes up 7 percent.

The research linking alcohol to breast cancer is deadly solid. There’s no controversy here. Alcohol, regardless of whether it’s in Everclear or a vintage Bordeaux, is carcinogenic. More than 100 studies over several decades have reaffirmed the link with consistent results. The National Cancer Institute says alcohol raises breast cancer risk even at low levels.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … st-cancer/

she was a recovering alcoholic who died of breast cancer.

i wouldn't 'blame' anyone for their death but it is pretty disrespectful how much of the media coverage subtly infers this by always picturing her holding a drink or on a night out.

check out this daily mail headline:

‘Britain’s most glamorous hell-raiser: How Girls Aloud’s ‘Hardcore Harding’ became famous for wild-partying, explosive love affairs and stints in rehab – but now faces a battle against cancer’. T

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-07 00:53:07)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
You're right, she should have used cocaine

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7333298.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Sam-Mitchell-Danniella-Westbrook.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/18/25CA2BD600000578-2950441-image-a-17_1424253392736.jpg

https://i2-prod.ok.co.uk/incoming/article14671014.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200c/600511_1425903572_danniella-westbrook-black-eye_5e64f6ba976bc61a74d8a8f513cbf337

Drugs are cool, drugs are great, all the cool kids take drugs, medical doctors and university PhDs say drugs will do you good.
Birds Aren't Real
uziq
Member
+441|2633
once again, i have never claimed that cocaine is good for you. cocaine and alcohol are both bad news, and both ruin a lot of lives. i take cocaine in the same way that i consume alcohol: knowing that it's harmful and implies risk. you drink alcohol merrily and claim that cocaine users are 'morons'. maybe learn to self-reflect?

i said that a whole host of 'illegal drugs' are safer than alcohol. this is not controversial. pot was recently legalized. MDMA, LSD, psiocybin and ketamine are all being heavily researched for their beneficial effects. that's not even in the same ballpark as alcohol, cocaine, crystal meth, etc. the only people trying to sell you the line that alcohol is 'good' for you are ... the alcohol, liquor and spirits lobbies, using heavily cherry-picked data and focus group studies.

funny how snooty you are about 'medical doctors and university PhD's' but then elsewhere claim your average person is an idiot. so who can you trust? i guess it's just a case of D I L B E R T  K N O W S  B E S T.

and i was never making some asinine 'alcohol versus drugs' argument anyway (spoiler alert: alcohol is a drug!). i was saying that the media coverage of her death is tone deaf and insensitive. another case of a celebrity who gets built up by red tops and tabloid rags to be a 'party girl' and then everyone acts shocked and upset when their addictions derail or kill them. kind of like ... britney spears? katy perry? lady gaga? haven't an awfully high proportion of your tween idols had substance abuse problems?

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-07 01:18:19)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
Who knows if alcohol killed her? You're making assumptions.
Birds Aren't Real
uziq
Member
+441|2633
you can never say for sure if smoking lead to someone's lung cancer, which then may kill them. drawing direct causation in something as complex as cancer growth and metastasis is not exactly easy. one works with probabilities – and the probabilities if you drink often increase steeply. why don't you smoke or eat red meat yourself if 'you can never be sure if that's what really gets you'? don't you rely on the same probabilistic rationale elsewhere?

you seem to think the entire 'science' of claiming 'omg scary illegal drugs' as safer than alcohol is bunk ... based on one particular researcher with whom you disagree (nevermind there are literally 1000s of researchers in the field and dozens of major institutional collaborations). but then you parrot the line that drinking small amounts regularly is good for you ... based on research funded by the alcohol industry. you really cannot make it up, rofl. david nutt, one guy, versus the alcohol industry ... who spent $40 mill+ lobbying politicians in the US alone last year, and hundreds of millions on glitzy marketing and feel-good publicity campaigns. ha ha ha ha. 'those untrustworthy medical practitioners and university researchers', you say. you really are a man of science!

and i'm not making assumptions. i just said above i don't 'blame' anyone for the manner of their death. i said the MEDIA are being tone deaf in constantly presenting her as a 'party girl', holding alcoholic drinks, when she died of a fucking cancer type highly associated with alcohol intake at 40 ffs.

alcohol is straight-up carcinogenic. there's no arguing against it. it's like posting a 'RIP' picture of someone who died of lung and throat cancer toking on their favourite pipe. never mind that she had a fucking decade-long struggle with alcohol abuse/addiction. is it really sensitive to memorialise an alcoholic by picturing them with booze? stop being a bellend.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-07 01:45:14)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
Never quoted research funded by the alcohol industry, all you ever do is quote this Nutt guy. 'literally 1,000s of researchers' LMAO.

Anyway, well done derailing another thread.
Birds Aren't Real
uziq
Member
+441|2633
you have frequently quoted the line that drinking a small amount 'helps cholesterol'. this is fake. it was funded by the alcohol industry.

The industry’s attempt to transform its products into health tonics might never have succeeded without the help of Morley Safer. In 1991, Safer hosted a 60 Minutes segment about the “French paradox,” the idea that the French eat heaps of red meat, cheese, and cream but have lower heart disease rates than Americans, who were many years into a low-fat dieting craze. On the show, he held up a glass of red wine and declared, “The answer to the riddle, the explanation of the paradox, may lie in this inviting glass.” New research, he said, showed red wine might flush out fatty deposits on artery walls and counteract the effects of the heavy French diet.

That TV episode, which according to the International Wine & Food Society was viewed by more than 20 million people, created a media sensation and caused a spike in red wine sales nationwide. Researchers soon debunked the idea that wine was helping French heart health, and France’s heart disease rate turned out to be higher than advertised. Meanwhile, all the wine the French consumed was killing large numbers of them. The same year as the 60 Minutes episode, France passed some of the world’s strictest regulations of alcohol advertising to combat prevalent liver cirrhosis.

Even so, the US wine industry lobbied to include a positive health message about alcohol in the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans published by the Department of Agriculture. The new guidelines removed language indicating that alcohol had “no net health benefit” and stated that for some people, moderate alcohol consumption might reduce the risk of heart disease.
Scientists have long known that heavy drinking causes high blood pressure, strokes, and heart attacks. That’s why early studies investigating drinking and heart disease started with the logical supposition that people who abstain from alcohol should have low rates of heart disease compared with moderate or heavy drinkers. As it turned out, they didn’t. When plotted on a curve, drinkers fell into a J-shaped pattern: Abstainers in the studies had rates of cardiovascular disease similar to those of heavy drinkers.

But this J-curve is deceptive. Not all the nondrinkers in these studies were teetotalers like the ones I grew up with in Utah. The British epidemiologist A. Gerald Shaper began a wide-ranging men’s heart health study in the late 1970s, and when he examined the data, he found that 71 percent of nondrinkers in the study were actually former drinkers who had quit. Some of these ex-drinking men were as likely to smoke as heavy drinkers. They had the highest rate of heart disease of any group and elevated rates of high blood pressure, peptic ulcers, diabetes, gallbladder disease, and even bronchitis. Shaper concluded that ex-drinkers were often sicker than heavy drinkers who hadn’t quit, making them a poor control group.

Yet for decades, researchers continued to include them and consequently found an implausible number of health benefits to moderate drinking, including lower rates of deafness and liver cirrhosis. The industry has helped promote these studies to doctors.

That’s one reason why, until recently, alcohol’s heart health benefits have been treated as incontrovertible science. But in the mid-2000s, Kaye Middleton Fillmore, a researcher at the University of California-San Francisco, decided to study Shaper’s ex-drinkers. When no one in the United States would fund her work, she persuaded Tim Stockwell, then the director of Australia’s National Drug Research Institute, to help her secure Australian government funding.

Stockwell and Fillmore analyzed decades’ worth of studies on alcohol and heart disease. Once they excluded studies with ex-drinkers—which was most of them—the heart benefits of alcohol largely disappeared. Since then, a host of other studies have found that drinking does not provide any heart benefits. (Some studies have found that drinking small amounts of alcohol—sometimes less than one drink per day—can be beneficial for certain people at risk of heart disease.) Robert Brewer, who runs an alcohol program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says, “Studies do not support that there are benefits of moderate drinking.” The Agriculture Department removed language suggesting that alcohol may lower the risk of heart disease in the most recent US Dietary Guidelines
S C I E N C E ! ! !

and no, i have linked multiple times to a number of research groups at harvard, john hopkins, northwestern univ, etc. or do you think nutt is the nefarious hand behind all of them? it's not the jewz and israel, you know, dilbert.

anyway, an alcoholic substance abuser died at 40 from cancer and you decided to post an image of her holding booze. what a tasteful chap you are.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-07 03:01:54)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
Not sure if I've ever mentioned cholesterol, interestingly my cholesterol is staggeringly low.
My sister is on every health kick imaginable and her rates are five times mine.
Birds Aren't Real
uziq
Member
+441|2633
way to miss the point. i have never focussed specifically on cholesterol. you have been parrotting 'good in moderation' nonsense for years. no, any quantity of alcohol is bad for you and probably should be taken with the same risk provisos as railing a line of coke or riding a quadbike.
uziq
Member
+441|2633
by the way, groups researching the potential health benefits of 'horrible illegal drugs for morons', which have nothing to do with david nutt or imperial college.

https://hopkinspsychedelic.org
john hopkins, the US's top medical research centre.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ … chedelics/
harvard.

http://calendar.northeastern.edu/event/ … Tc7cy0RrT8
northeastern.

read some news articles! non-scientific for dunderheads like yourself, who are seemingly allergic to 'medical professors and university PhDs'.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00187-9
How ecstasy and psilocybin are shaking up psychiatry

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-r … enaissance
the science of the psychedelic renaissance

please refer to this post in future whenever you try to dishonestly claim that it's all just david nutt cooking the books and presenting falsehoods as fact. i think we can safely conclude that any drug being considered for medicine is assuredly healthier for you than alcohol, a known carcinogenic poison with no medical uses whatsoever.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-07 03:23:34)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
All those places research all kinds of things for medical purposes, frog oozings, south american caterpillar poo, etc etc.

Doesn't mean people should go eating caterpillar poo for health benefits.
Birds Aren't Real
uziq
Member
+441|2633
are you really so thick? alcohol is absolutely net negative. it has no potential medicinal uses or health benefits.

you've claimed illegal drugs are 'far worse'. how can they be far worse, physiologically, if they're being researched for medicine? i don't think doctors and mental health professionals would be looking into drugs which are poisonous or toxic as potential 'treatment' ... as indeed alcohol is.

isn't part of your whole tirade against drugs that they're 'cooked up in some basement by dodgy strangers'?

here's the medical industry thinking about standardizing doses and creating a safe supply. which will obviate the illegal drugs trade, natch.

and you're still stubbornly insisting 'no, they're bad actually, alcohol is fine'.

you really can't see the stupidity in you vouching for letting people self-administer any dose of a potentially lethal, carcinogenic, health-obliterating drug like alcohol ... but then claim that any number of other drugs being researched are 'only good for controlled environments', as if that's a 'gotcha'? you moron, if alcohol were discovered today, it wouldn't even be deigned good enough for controlled use!

All those places research all kinds of things for medical purposes, frog oozings, south american caterpillar poo, etc etc.
and no, they have produced several major studies specifically on MDMA, LSD, magic mushrooms and ketamine with very positive results. why must you be so fucking fatuous? 'they research everything, these guys'. no, they're really looking into drugs which have been classified with the harshest legal punishments as potential medicine. that's it. that's what's happening.

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-07 03:37:11)

uziq
Member
+441|2633

SuperJail Warden wrote:

The actor that played Omar Little died. Last film is the upcoming Sopranos movie.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2021/september/omar-comin





Last edited by uziq (2021-09-11 22:39:45)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2900
Sopranos curse
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+441|2633
hardly. james gandolfini was a clinically obese, life-enjoying man who was into his booze and drugs a fair amount.

michael k williams had a tiny part in the original (not sure about the upcoming movie; meh tbh). he also had a lifelong issue with drug abuse.

what other actors from the sopranos have died conspicuously young or tragically? genuine question.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
Wait I thought drugs were good.
Birds Aren't Real
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,954|5952|USA

Yes, you did think drugs were good. Alcohol, being a drug.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+530|2900
I watched Jame G. last movie Killing Them Softly the other day. James G.'s thoughts on hookers at 4:40 made me think of Dilbert.

"You want ass? There's no ass in the whole world like a young Jewish girl that's hooking"
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+441|2633

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wait I thought drugs were good.
people who get addicted to crack and overdose have much bigger problems than a drug. there's a reason that stuff is concentrated in extremely poor and disadvantaged communities.

seeing i'm roundly in support of social democratic politics, shortening the inequality gap, helping people get a leg up or get on their feet, etc., i don't think my attitudes are really so inconsistent or hypocritical.

alcholism is a very real thing and many hundreds of thousands of people die from it every year. yet you still vouch for your tipple? so why should it be any different with recreational drug users versus the dangerously addicted?

FYI half the drugs i have been talking about are (a) NON-addictive, and have no addiction potential (MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, etc.) and (b) NON-toxic, with no physiological harm, and are practically impossible to overdose on (LSD, psilocybin). alcohol is both addictive and extremely easy to overdose on.

it's almost like applying a little bit of rational thinking works wonders. try it, science man!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,954|5952|USA

As I understand it, a human liver can only metabolize so much before alcohol starts to accumulate in your body. People who have a "high tolerance" are at a higher risk of overdose. Alcohol poisoning, a pretty life-threatening thing. Binge drinking, sizeable problem in the US.

I wonder how dilbert would have gotten along in the prohibition days. Would we find him at a speakeasy on the regular? Or would he go all Walter White on us and have a secret brewery?
uziq
Member
+441|2633
alcohol metabolises into acetaldehyde pretty much as soon as it enters your body – ordinary saliva can do the trick for microbial amounts – which is an extremely toxic substance and carcinogen. hence why heavy drinkers suffer from mouth, throat/oesophageal, and other upper tract cancers.

alcohol's metabolites fuck with your body in any number of ways. heavy drinking can promote oedema as the body starts trying to retain fluids in an attempt to counter-act the rapid dehydrating effects of alcohol on your liver/kidneys. heavy drinkers get swollen toes, feet, ankles, due to fluid retention. this minor symptom can progress to serious disruption to cardiac, renal, liver and brain function.

it's really nasty stuff, no two ways about it, and ranks near the top of any objective table of drug harm. psilocybin doesn't metabolise into toxic carcinogens.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
In 2016, a study was done at Johns Hopkins by Roland Griffiths and others, in which 1993 individuals completed an online survey about their single most psychologically difficult or challenging experience (worst "bad trip") after consuming psilocybin mushrooms. 11% put self or others at risk of physical harm. 2.6% behaved in a physically aggressive or violent manner and 2.7% received medical help. Of those whose experience occurred >1 year before, 7.6% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. Three cases appeared associated with onset of enduring psychotic symptoms and three cases with attempted suicide.
Yeah completely harmless.
Birds Aren't Real
uziq
Member
+441|2633
i have consistently said 'physiologically' harmful and toxic. a drug damaging your body and killing you chemically is different from a 'challenging' mental experience. you could take 100x the regular dose of acid or psilocybin and not get physically ill from it. if you took 100x the safe dose of alcohol, you'd be stone dead.

i've never said everyone should take drugs regardless of their mental health and personal constitution. i said alcohol is far less safe than you keep pretending it to be.

apart from the self-selection bias in that study – asking people specifically for their 'worst' experiences is obviously going to find bad-sounding evidence, and there's no experimental control, making it effectively anecdotal (people can self-administer mushrooms in a reckless and irresponsible way just as surely as they can drink themselves into paralytic state on a saturday night) – only 2.6% of people behaved aggressively on mushrooms. i wonder what the numbers are like for drunken people? take a look again at the links and overlaps between alcohol inebriation and just about every type of violent crime.

now quote some john hopkins studies that state the remarkable positive benefits of psilocybin experiences. there have been many such studies, likely done by the same group. (by the way, didn't you all of 3 posts ago discredit these research groups, saying they 'research all kinds of things like licking toads'?)

Alcohol, Violence, and Aggression

Scientists and nonscientists alike have long recognized a two-way association between alcohol consumption and violent or aggressive behavior (1). Not only may alcohol consumption promote aggressiveness, but victimization may lead to excessive alcohol consumption. Violence may be defined as behavior that intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict, physical harm. Violence falls within the broader category of aggression, which also includes behaviors that are threatening, hostile, or damaging in a nonphysical way (2). This Alcohol Alert explores the association between alcohol consumption, violence, and aggression and the role of the brain in regulating these behaviors. Understanding the nature of these associations is essential to breaking the cycle of alcohol misuse and violence.

Extent of the Alcohol-Violence Association

Based on published studies, Roizen (3) summarized the percentages of violent offenders who were drinking at the time of the offense as follows: up to 86 percent of homicide offenders, 37 percent of assault offenders, 60 percent of sexual offenders, up to 57 percent of men and 27 percent of women involved in marital violence, and 13 percent of child abusers. These figures are the upper limits of a wide range of estimates. In a community-based study, Pernanen (4) found that 42 percent of violent crimes reported to the police involved alcohol, although 51 percent of the victims interviewed believed that their assailants had been drinking.

Alcohol-Violence Relationships

Several models have been proposed to explain the complex relationships between violence or aggression and alcohol consumption. To avoid exposing human or animal subjects to potentially serious injury, research results discussed below are largely based on experiments on nonphysical aggression. Other studies involving humans are based on epidemiological surveys or data obtained from archival or official sources.

Alcohol Misuse Preceding Violence

Direct Effects of Alcohol. Alcohol may encourage aggression or violence by disrupting normal brain function. According to the disinhibition hypothesis, for example, alcohol weakens brain mechanisms that normally restrain impulsive behaviors, including inappropriate aggression (5). By impairing information processing, alcohol can also lead a person to misjudge social cues, thereby overreacting to a perceived threat (6). Simultaneously, a narrowing of attention may lead to an inaccurate assessment of the future risks of acting on an immediate violent impulse (7)
.
Many researchers have explored the relationship of alcohol to aggression using variations of an experimental approach developed more than 35 years ago (8,9). In a typical example, a subject administers electric shocks or other painful stimuli to an unseen "opponent," ostensibly as part of a competitive task involving learning and reaction time. Unknown to the subject, the reactions of the nonexistent opponent are simulated by a computer. Subjects perform both while sober and after consuming alcohol. In many studies, subjects exhibited increased aggressiveness (e.g., by administering stronger shocks) in proportion to increasing alcohol consumption (10).

Last edited by uziq (2021-09-13 03:33:33)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,765|5286|eXtreme to the maX
Hold on, I thought whataboutism was bad.

Alcohol being bad doesn't stop your drugs being bad.
Birds Aren't Real

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard