Wine as cancer agent

Surprised nobody has reported on this A comparison of gender-linked population cancer risks between alcohol and tobacco: how many cigarettes are there in a bottle of wine? | BMC Public Health | Full Text yet? It rather negates any “health benefits” from drinking our prized stash.

Reported? Alcohol as a carcinogen should be considered common knowledge at this point

Well, yeah, but comparing glasses of wine to smoking a quantity of cigarettes appears novel.

I tend to ignore these “studies of studies.” Various alcohol/cancer studies have been out there for a long time. Anybody give up drinking?

Not my field, but the site on which it is published and the methodology for obtaining what they call “peer review” seems a little, um, unorthodox. I’ll wait for the JAMA or NE Journal study

Certainly not here.

I’m surprised they didn’t include smoke-tainted wine as a third category. That probably gives you supercancer.

lol

I gave up reading.

It only causes cancer in people who have had vaccinations.

Science-wise, they’ve only had 9,000 years to make an association.

Reading is a leading source of anxiety, which is a leading course of death. So good on ya’

Yes it probably does minimally increase the risk of cancer but may have benefits for cv health. Most of the cancer risk is associated with heavy use (hcc, esophageal scc)

I think it’s fair to say that an article with the subtitle “how many cigarettes are there in a bottle of wine?” has zero credibility.

I happen to have just stumbled across a blog post that addresses this and some of the other recent anti-alcohol articles.

Anyone have a list of what doesn’t cause cancer? At this point that’s a shorter list.

As short as only one item listed: distilled water!

It’s not that the study is wrong, it’s that what they contribute is hardly anything more than a little simple arithmetic. Basically, they are just converting the units of how we assess alcohol’s cancer risk into units of cigarette cancer risk. It wouldn’t make it into NEJM because journals of that caliber publish studies that actually make us change/reconsider how we think about the fields of medicine/biomedical science

After 2 or 3 glasses of wine, your spouse probably thinks your twice as good looking than you really are, and vise versa.
What’s life without a little slightly risky behavior…

Save yourselves from cancer and send your wine to me.

I found another article with a more in-depth explanation of why this “study” is total BS.

https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-campaign-to-make-alcohol-the-new-tobacco/

I think this part is particularly relevant:

Do you know what the cancer risk of smoking ten cigarettes a week is? No. Nor do the authors of the study. They say that ‘the risk of smoking approximately five cigarettes per day (35 cigarettes per week), [is] generally the lowest level of risk detailed in [epidemiological] studies’. This is true, and although there is a study that estimates the cancer risk of smoking very few cigarettes, albeit in a low quality journal, the authors ignore it and choose instead to extrapolate from other data. To put it in plain English, they had a guess.

(original text links to the mentioned study)

It’s not the wine that gives you cancer. It’s the noise produced by the cork popping.
We should submit an NIH grant to study the risk in sommeliers vs. the general population.