Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker
David M. Bueker
Riesling Guru
34376
Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am
Connecticut
Tim York wrote:The French press today contains a report from Prof. Dominique Maraninchi of the (French) National Cancer Institute and Didier Houssin, Director General of Health, to the effect that as little as one glass a day of wine (unit of alcohol) entails a significantly increased risk of cancer. The report quotes 168% increased risk for cancers of the mouth, larynx and pharynx, 28% for the oesophagus, 10% for the breast and 9% for the bowel. I have read before that the association of tobacco and alcohol favours cancers of the upper digestive tract but this is the first time that I read such a sweeping condemnation of the carcinogenic effects of alcohol on its own.
Is this more disinformation from the French Public Health fascists or are there similar conclusions being drawn elsewhere?
Mark Lipton wrote:Tim York wrote:The French press today contains a report from Prof. Dominique Maraninchi of the (French) National Cancer Institute and Didier Houssin, Director General of Health, to the effect that as little as one glass a day of wine (unit of alcohol) entails a significantly increased risk of cancer. The report quotes 168% increased risk for cancers of the mouth, larynx and pharynx, 28% for the oesophagus, 10% for the breast and 9% for the bowel. I have read before that the association of tobacco and alcohol favours cancers of the upper digestive tract but this is the first time that I read such a sweeping condemnation of the carcinogenic effects of alcohol on its own.
Is this more disinformation from the French Public Health fascists or are there similar conclusions being drawn elsewhere?
Tim,
I keep a fairly close eye on studies of this sort and haven't seen anything close to this. Recent studies in fact swing much more to the opposite conclusion: that moderate consumption of alcohol and wine in particular is associated with a lower incidence of several diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Regarding the statistics: 168% increases mean little until one knows the raw numbers. For instance, the difference between 5 and 3 (out of 10,000) is a 168% increase, but could easily be within a statistical margin of error.
Mark Lipton
Charles Weiss wrote:Mark,
That's about a 68% increase rather than 168% increase but your important point remains.
Users browsing this forum: APNIC Bot, ClaudeBot, Google IPMatch and 2 guests