So how has the modern prohibitionist tendency responded?
‘The drinks industry is now using the tactics of Big Tobacco in trying to undermine evidence-based alcohol policy measures which would save lives and specifically target young and heavy drinkers. A minimum unit price is a targeted policy that will impact heavy drinkers whilst leaving the majority of moderate drinkers unaffected, and the international evidence (from Canada) shows that it works’:Ah, the old tried-and-trusted model of tackling the man and not the ball, eh? Tobacco template front and centre. No slippery slope here, oh no.
And the evidence?
It will save lives – according to research by the University of Sheffield, a 50 pence minimum unit price will prevent more than 3,000 alcohol-related deaths in England each year.This is from a university with a proven record of incompetence. In September they apologised to the BBC for not having risk assessed their staff on handling a calculator.
Correction: 28 September, 2012:
The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield has confirmed to Panorama that unfortunately, due to human error, figures they produced specifically for the programme Old, Drunk and Disorderly? broadcast on 10th September 2012 were incorrect. The figures are in fact 4-5 times lower than those originally given to Panorama.Their response to detractors wasn't even able to correctly quote the name of one of the authors.
There should be another source for this 'evidence', but the state plumped for a single useless one to waste our cash on. Their report is awful and intellectually degenerate, but the BMA and RCP are clinging to it like a baby to a comfort blanket.
So we have a sole bunch of muppets who have been paid to produce a pre-determined policy conclusion, but been exposed as being pants at it, and we are supposed to consider them as authoritative as the Oracle at Delphi?
And when the daft presumptions are challenged - as is any industry's right during a consultation period in what we loosely term a 'democracy' - they are condemned as being evil by association rather than there being any thought of raising some kind of intelligent rebuttal. Plus, a rent-a-quote from Evelyn Gillan is trotted out, despite her evidently not understanding the concept of fair and democratic political debate, preferring instead to go by the North Korean model of "the state knows best, so pipe down".
This is truly desperate stuff, as is the claim that a population level, universally-implemented price rise can in any way be described as "targeted".
If this is indicative of the standard of bullshit we can expect in the fight over minimum pricing, I welcome it. It could well have the effect of opening many eyes to the abuses of trust that have been visited on the public previously.
4 comments:
The advocates of minimum alcohol pricing are severely torturing the language to describe the policy as 'targeted'. A teetotaler purchasing a present will be just as unable to buy an alcoholic drink below the prescribed price as the drunkard supposed being 'targeted'.
"The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield has confirmed to Panorama that..."
due to a viewer being arsed to check the figures that the BBC credulously broadcast, then subsequently jumping through hoops for several weeks to highlight the impossibility of the figures originally used, ScHARR were backed into a corner whereby they were forced to accept that
"...unfortunately, due to human error, figures they produced specifically for the programme Old, Drunk and Disorderly? broadcast on 10th September 2012 were incorrect. The figures are in fact 4-5 times lower than those originally given to Panorama."
The member of staff responsible for not having the faintest idea about the figures repeatedly regurgitated for multiple similar studies has not suffered any consequence of their ineptitude, as we believe that getting the scaremongering propaganda out there in the first place is of considerably greater importance than anything loosely associated with factual accuracy and/or impartiality.
Would have been a far more honest correction :-)
THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF MODERATE DRINKING
Although there is substantial evidence of the health benefits of moderate drinking, there has been a continued campaign on the part of many alcohol opponents to suppress or deny these findings. For instance, Harvard epidemiologist Carl Seltzer, a co-investigator on the Framingham study, found positive effects of moderate drinking on heart disease 25 years ago. Seltzer was denied permission to publish these results by the US National Heart and Lung Institute on the grounds that an article about such results would be “scientifically misleading and socially undesirable in view of the major problem of alcoholism that already exists in the country.” (C. Seltzer, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997 50: 627-629, “Conflicts of Interest” and “political science”)
http://brusselsdeclaration.org/pages/alcohol_control/
http://brusselsdeclaration.org/pages/alcohol_control/
Although there is substantial evidence of the health benefits of moderate drinking, there has been a continued campaign on the part of many alcohol opponents to suppress or deny these findings. For instance, Harvard epidemiologist Carl Seltzer, a co-investigator on the Framingham study, found positive effects of moderate drinking on heart disease 25 years ago. Seltzer was denied permission to publish these results by the US National Heart and Lung Institute on the grounds that an article about such results would be “scientifically misleading and socially undesirable in view of the major problem of alcoholism that already exists in the country.” (C. Seltzer, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997 50: 627-629, “Conflicts of Interest” and “political science”)
Post a Comment