There is a prime example in the Herald today which declares Heavy drinking can cut risk of heart disease, says study.

Drinking a bottle of wine a day, or half a dozen beers, cuts the risk of heart disease by more than half in men, an extraordinary study reports.

In one of the largest studies on the link between alcohol and heart disease, researchers have found that the protective effects of a daily tipple are not limited to those who drink moderately, but also extend to those who consume at what are conventionally considered to be dangerously high levels.

And the understatement of the year…

British scientists said the study, published in the journal Heart, was “flawed”.

And here I was thinking of another descriptive adverb beginning with “F”…

Perhaps someone can tell me what the purpose of finding out that the cardioprotective effect extends to toxic doses of alcohol, when you know that that amount of alcohol has massively bad health effects that easily wipe out any possible protection against heart attacks. I have no idea. It seems to me that some researchers just like to find things out, regardless of whether the information has any meaning in the real world. I guess they think it’s good to know that when an alcoholic dies of liver failure or heart failure then at least their risk of a heart attack was low.

I’m all for “pure” research, but that seems like it does not really increase the some total of human knowledge in any meaningful way.

In defense of the somewhat myopic authors, I suspect they were merely confirming the cardioprotective effect of alcohol in general (already a fairly pointless task) and they found they had all this data on really heavy drinkers and they just couldn’t help themselves…

Ah well, at least it’s not quite as bad as the researcher who discovered the amazing fact that complaints about ED waiting times were directly proportional to the length of wait in the ED.

Truly groundbreaking research.

Related posts:

1. Drinking Your Way to Cancer
2. Pushing the Limit
3. No Magic Bullet

The real tragedy here is that WINZ do not make their support conditional on a compulsory rehabilitation program, but rely on the doctors to “promote” this:

Mr Brooking said doctors and case managers needed to take more responsibility when placing someone suffering drug and alcohol abuse on to a benefit.

“If doctors are willing to write a medical certificate for Work and Income purposes saying that a particular client is sick because of an alcohol or drug problem, then it’s incumbent either on that doctor or on that person’s case worker to ensure that that person attends a drug and alcohol treatment programme,” he said.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brooking is an idiot. The vast majority of doctors see these people once every three months to renew their WINZ form. The conversation goes something like this:

“Doctor, I need a renewal of my benefit”

“Okay. Been to rehab yet?”

“Yeah, Doc. I’m going to give up drinking/smoking/inhaling/injecting next week.”

“Great. Here’s your form. See you in three months”

Only an fool could possibly think that anything a doctor can say would persuade a person to go into rehab. Few doctors are fools, so we don’t even bother to try.

WINZ has absolutely no authority to compel someone to rehabilitate. Case workers will probably suggest stopping the behavior from time to time, but with zero success rate.

Having worked with alcoholics and drug-addicts, I can tell you that no amount of persuasion or resources will help these people. Until they move from “I can’t help myself” to “I must help myself”, there is nothing you can do for them. Any cushioning of them from the consequences of their actions merely delays that moment and retards their healing and rehabilitation. Paying for the sins of others puts them into a place where they can be victims instead of victorious, dependent instead of determined. It sucks them back into the comfort of their addiction.

WINZ may be the single biggest reason why we have record numbers of drug and alcohol addicts in New Zealand.

Now there’s a sobering thought…

Related posts:

1. Drug Benefits
2. The Victimless Myth
3. Entitled

In 1999, when the drinking age was lowered, I sent a letter on behalf of the Emergency specialist and non-specialist doctors at that year’s Emergency Medicine conference, representing most of New Zealand’s contingent of ED doctors. In it, we urged the government not to vote to lower the drinking age, citing half a dozen studies demonstrating that lowering the drinking age to 18 had increased the rate of arrests for underage drinking and increased the rate of presentation to the ED of serious alcohol intoxication in minors.

The letter was sent to the select committee and copies were emailed to the Newspapers, TV and all MPs. It was completely ignored. Sadly, the consequences were exactly as we predicted, with drunken 14, 15 and 16-year-olds becoming common sights in both EDs and police cells. And it gives me no pleasure at all to say “We told you so”.

Nearly a decade later, all the data still points to the same conclusion: the single most effective way of reducing drunken youth rampages, intoxication comas in 16-year-olds and young drunk drivers, is to increase the drinking age back to 20 and enforce it. It feels slightly weird being against the lowering of the blood alcohol limit for driving and pro the raising of the drinking age! Reason takes you to strange places.

I know this is an unpalatable opinion for many. David Farrar over at Kiwiblog apparently nearly choked on his cornflakes this morning when he read that National was revisiting the law. He thinks the way to deal with 14-year-olds getting drunk is to make the supply of liquor to minors illegal. Unfortunately, it has been illegal for years, unless you are the parent or legal guardian. The trouble is, it has not been enforced. 

And none of that would help the ever-increasing numbers of 18 and 19 years olds who think a good evening is one you do not remember the following day.

Related posts:

1. Booze Scoop
2. Pushing the Limit
3. Mostly Nothing