Red wine is bad for your health, experts reveal in a new report.
In a u-turn, Government experts have dismissed the supposed health benefits of wine and are set to rewrite the rule book on the nation’s alcohol consumption, according to reports.
A landmark report by Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies due to be published on Friday will destroy the long-held belief that red wine can cut the risk of cancer, heart disease and memory loss when drunk in moderation, the Sun reported.
I wonder if this is a u-turn since the report last year, which said the complete opposite:
Research conducted by the University of Alberta in Canada has found that health benefits in resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, are similar to those we get from exercise.
Red wine over a heavy session on the cross-trainer? Now that’s something we can definitely get onboard with.
According to lead researcher, Jason Dyck, these findings will particularly help those who are unable to exercise. Resveratrol was seen to improve physical performance, heart function and muscle strength in the same way as they’re improved after a gym session.
“I think resveratrol could help patient populations who want to exercise but are physically incapable,” he says.
“Resveratrol could mimic exercise for them or improve the benefits of the modest amount of exercise that they can do.”
I’ve long since ceased to pay any attention to any of this sort of health advice, particularly when advice from one ‘expert’ is immediately contradicted by another ‘expert’. After all, they can’t both be right. Clearly one of them isn’t an ‘expert’ or even an ‘acknowledged authority’. But which one?
Too likely neither of them are experts. And they can both be ignored.
It’s easy to sit on the fence when the boffins disagree with each other. But what about when all the boffins agree? Can you go on ignoring them then. If they all agree, shouldn’t you start paying attention to them?
I think something like this has happened with CO2-driven global warming, and Smoking Causes Lung Cancer. All the experts and pundits and authorities are agreed. And this is probably why so many people think that CO2 is driving global warming and that smoking causes lung cancer: all the experts agree. And they can’t disagree with all the experts, can they?
In fact, in both cases there are (and always have been) dissenters from the expert consensus. But in both cases the dissenters (or ‘deniers’) have been shouted down or otherwise marginalised. If you don’t believe in CO2-driven global warming, you won’t get a job in climate science. And most likely if you don’t believe that smoking causes lung cancer, you won’t get a job in the medical profession.
I think if you see dissenters being shouted down, you can be fairly sure that those who’re shouting them down aren’t interested in open debate, and probably have something to hide. Same when dissenters are demonised, as Tobacco Control does with tobacco companies (and now also tobacco smokers). That’s another way of preventing open debate, and again suggests they’ve got something to hide.
But if the experts are all agreed, and dissenters aren’t being demonised or shouted down, do you have to go along with the consensus?
I don’t see why. In a lot of areas of science – physics and chemistry – there is just such a consensus, and yet people are free to dissent. They might come up with a different idea.
I came across a graph of temperature during the past 60 million year Tertiary era
a few weeks ago, and started wondering why the Earth had been steadily cooling throughout that period. It reminded me of all the rock trains that I’ve constructed over the past 3 years in my search for a companion of asteroid DA14 that could have landed on Chelyabinsk on the same day as DA14 passed close to the Earth (I found it in the end: it was following 25 million km behind DA14, and made a close approach to the Earth on 15 Feb 2009, and thereafter went round the Sun three times in 4 years, before arriving over Chelyabinsk on pretty much the exactly correct radiant, at exactly the right time, on 15 Feb 2013). I began to wonder whether there might be some very long period dust trains that periodically pass through the solar system and cause gradually increasing shading of the Earth as they extend in length. There might be dozens of such dust trails, with orbital periods of thousands of years. When they all arrive together, there are periods of cooling – ice ages -, and when they arrive separately, there’s warming – like the current interglacial we are enjoying. Might it be possible to reconstruct the underlying pattern of dust trains in much the same way that complex pieces of music can be broken down into combinations of a number of simple sine waves?
That’s my new hypothesis. And I’ve already started work on it. But I don’t think anyone is going to call me a ‘denier’ or a shill for Big Dust. Not yet, anyway.