I am a subscriber to the NW Wine Guide, and a lover of wine (especially Washington Cabernet Sauvignon). I enjoyed reading your post about recent concerns expressed by the Surgeon General and others about the potentially carcinogenic effects of consuming alcohol. Two things in your post caught my attention: First, your statement "The same mindset that pushes political agendas that aim to take away individual rights and freedoms from those who hold different viewpoints is powering this barrage of manipulated studies and conveniently ignorant rants about the evils of alcohol." Wow, that is a really loaded and provocative statement that you do not elaborate on. Second, you support your argument by citing the work of Dr Vinay Prasad. Dr Prasad is highly-regarded and very prominent, but clearly has a bias. Checking on his biography, Wikipedia states:
"In October 2021, Prasad prompted social media controversy when he published a blog post comparing the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic response to the beginnings of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan said that Prasad's arguments were specious and ignorant, and science historian Robert N. Proctor said that Prasad was "overplaying the dangers of vaccination mandates and trivializing the genuine harms to liberty posed by 1930s fascism".
In November 2021, Prasad expressed his opinion that pediatricians must be honest with parents about the risks of COVID immunization. However, physician Jonathan Howard noted that Prasad was selectively omitting the risks of COVID disease which would not be consistent with the tenets of medical informed consent.
In January 2022, the conservative periodical City Journal published an opinion piece by Prasad in which he attempted to demonstrate that the American public health organizations were not being honest in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Writing for Science-Based Medicine, epidemiologist Lynn Shaffer criticized Prasad's article for the various "mistruths" it contained about face masks as a COVID-19 mitigation measure, for example the unevidenced claim that mask wearing was stunting children's language development. In Shaffer's view Prasad's writing "lean[s] heavily on pushing people's emotional hot buttons" and amounted to a form of fearmongering.
Prasad was an early member of the Urgency of Normal, a group that in 2022 campaigned against quarantines and mask mandates in schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. He spoke in support of repealing such mandates in a March 2022 interview.
Earlier in 2023, Prasad showed support for the ideas of Robert Kennedy Jr."
In short, given the choice between following the advice of the US Surgeon General and the consensus of most medical experts, or the advice of a physician who equates the government's response to the COVID-19 to the Third Reich, I will clearly choose to listen to the Surgeon General. Going forward, I would appreciate it if you would be more objective in your writing, or at least admit to your personal biases. It's OK to acknowledge that consumption of alcohol is a cause of cancer and still enjoy drinking wine. I plan to do both, and hope that you will, too.
Statement #1 I stand by completely. I had and have no intention of elaborating. Take it for what it is. As for Dr. Prasad, I only linked to his essay for those interested in his analysis of statistical studies of the effects of alcohol. I didn't endorse or confirm his findings. You may prefer me to be more objective (whatever that may mean) but I write what I believe to be true and relevant. As for admitting to biases - to what purpose? My writing is clear and honest. If you see biasses, so be it. I am subjective, opinionated and somewhat ornery. If you want objective, unbiassed writing, you'll have to look elsewhere.
Modern times and science have bestowed us with Coke, Pepsi and artificial sweeteners. Big Gulps are joyful. I have seen the stars.
Paul,
I am a subscriber to the NW Wine Guide, and a lover of wine (especially Washington Cabernet Sauvignon). I enjoyed reading your post about recent concerns expressed by the Surgeon General and others about the potentially carcinogenic effects of consuming alcohol. Two things in your post caught my attention: First, your statement "The same mindset that pushes political agendas that aim to take away individual rights and freedoms from those who hold different viewpoints is powering this barrage of manipulated studies and conveniently ignorant rants about the evils of alcohol." Wow, that is a really loaded and provocative statement that you do not elaborate on. Second, you support your argument by citing the work of Dr Vinay Prasad. Dr Prasad is highly-regarded and very prominent, but clearly has a bias. Checking on his biography, Wikipedia states:
"In October 2021, Prasad prompted social media controversy when he published a blog post comparing the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic response to the beginnings of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan said that Prasad's arguments were specious and ignorant, and science historian Robert N. Proctor said that Prasad was "overplaying the dangers of vaccination mandates and trivializing the genuine harms to liberty posed by 1930s fascism".
In November 2021, Prasad expressed his opinion that pediatricians must be honest with parents about the risks of COVID immunization. However, physician Jonathan Howard noted that Prasad was selectively omitting the risks of COVID disease which would not be consistent with the tenets of medical informed consent.
In January 2022, the conservative periodical City Journal published an opinion piece by Prasad in which he attempted to demonstrate that the American public health organizations were not being honest in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Writing for Science-Based Medicine, epidemiologist Lynn Shaffer criticized Prasad's article for the various "mistruths" it contained about face masks as a COVID-19 mitigation measure, for example the unevidenced claim that mask wearing was stunting children's language development. In Shaffer's view Prasad's writing "lean[s] heavily on pushing people's emotional hot buttons" and amounted to a form of fearmongering.
Prasad was an early member of the Urgency of Normal, a group that in 2022 campaigned against quarantines and mask mandates in schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. He spoke in support of repealing such mandates in a March 2022 interview.
Earlier in 2023, Prasad showed support for the ideas of Robert Kennedy Jr."
In short, given the choice between following the advice of the US Surgeon General and the consensus of most medical experts, or the advice of a physician who equates the government's response to the COVID-19 to the Third Reich, I will clearly choose to listen to the Surgeon General. Going forward, I would appreciate it if you would be more objective in your writing, or at least admit to your personal biases. It's OK to acknowledge that consumption of alcohol is a cause of cancer and still enjoy drinking wine. I plan to do both, and hope that you will, too.
Statement #1 I stand by completely. I had and have no intention of elaborating. Take it for what it is. As for Dr. Prasad, I only linked to his essay for those interested in his analysis of statistical studies of the effects of alcohol. I didn't endorse or confirm his findings. You may prefer me to be more objective (whatever that may mean) but I write what I believe to be true and relevant. As for admitting to biases - to what purpose? My writing is clear and honest. If you see biasses, so be it. I am subjective, opinionated and somewhat ornery. If you want objective, unbiassed writing, you'll have to look elsewhere.