With a general election looming in 2010, the puritans are frantically pushing as much illiberal claptrap in front of the gullible Labour morons as they can, before Brown and his government of incompetents wipe themselves off the political map for a generation.
Their preferred delivery method of binge-bullshitting is the BBC.
The Filthy Smoker over at the Devil's pad has reprised his inspired 'bollock-kicking and turd-flinging' analogy whilst unloading on this addled tripe from Holland, which Comrade Beeb regurgitated without question.
Alcohol on TV 'prompts drinking'
Participants were offered wine, beer or soft drinks
People are more likely to turn to alcohol while watching TV if they see drinking being portrayed in films or adverts, a study suggests.
It was a different side to the same coin of assault on alcohol that we saw last week ... again from the BBC. Again published without question.
Drink a day increases cancer risk
One drink may be one too many, cancer research scientists believe
A glass of wine each evening is enough to increase your risk of developing cancer, women are being warned.
And again, easily proven to be a steaming pile of horse shit.
I would recommend reading the debunk, it doesn't take long as the study is pure fantasy. Here are a few snippets.
One can’t help but wonder just what (Dr Naomi) Allen herself has been drinking in the Senior Common Room at Oxford. After all, her public pronouncements, her recommendations to government, and the reports about her study in the media are certainly not supported by her results.
This means that the study, as an observational study – the weakest kind of epidemiological endeavour and certainly nothing close to the gold standard of a randomised controlled trial – is inherently unable to draw any causal conclusions about a link between drinking and cancer.
No one knows how much or how little these women really drank since no one bothered to measure it. This makes any conclusions based on such ‘evidence’ just a tad dicey. At its foundation, therefore, the study can’t warrant that any of its data about the key fact – the drinking habits of its subjects – is accurate.
The association with breast cancer, with by far the largest number of cases in the study (almost 22,000), was non-significant. Therefore, of the cancer-drinking correlations examined, virtually none was statistically significant.
What is the real take-home message of this study? Perhaps it should be to avoid drinking policy advice produced by Oxford epidemiologists.
In short, it was crap. Oh yeah, and Dr Naomi Allen is a skank temperance-movement-cock-sucking whore.
Sadly, it doesn't matter how many times these studies are destroyed, they still pass into the collective plebeian mindset as fact, like this bollocks did, from ... err ... Maiden Auntie Beeb again.
Those wishing to inflict their idealist Utopia on us have long since departed from actually having to prove their findings, they now utilise the tool of 'Science by Press Release'. Get the false assumption out there, however flawed, via respected organs like the Beeb, and it will be believed. The science community can subsequently take an AK47 to the study and punch more holes in it than a sieve, but it's too late. Joe Sheep, Mrs Sheep, and their lambs, have already swallowed it and passed it virally around their address book like a Snopes myth.
The latest assaults are designed to address steps 3, 4 and 5 of the seven step plan of the Righteous, as I detailed here.
3) On the back of junk science, nobble the opposing industry with advertising bans
Check
4) Create a junk science reason for launching the scare
Check
5) Embed the junk science firmly in the minds of the sheep
Yep, all going swimmingly.
