The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.
But Professor Doug Sellman says;
“I’m not happy using words like responsible, moderate and safe. They are the words that the [liquor] industry likes to use.”
“The public needs to know what low-risk drinking is. The government should be telling us all, using the best science possible.”
Oh dear. It looks like "low-risk" drinking is no drinking.
2 comments:
As much as I'd like to believe the result, I'll stick with the consensus of the literature: moderate drinking is better than abstaining, and abstaining is better than heavy drinking, for most people on average.
Nice. Presumably, by "low risk drinking," he means, "teetotaling."
Post a Comment