You've got me cornered with that single sentence, don't you? "The report says...". Well, I'm not convinced by your selective interpretation of the evidence.
You're putting the best spin on a complex issue, but ignoring the nuances and context that are essential to understanding this report. The Surgeon General's report is about the ri…
You've got me cornered with that single sentence, don't you? "The report says...". Well, I'm not convinced by your selective interpretation of the evidence.
You're putting the best spin on a complex issue, but ignoring the nuances and context that are essential to understanding this report. The Surgeon General's report is about the risks associated with excessive drinking, not moderate enjoyment - which happens to be the vast majority of wine consumption.
The fact remains that the report itself acknowledges the importance of responsible drinking practices and clear information about alcohol products. I'm not convinced that this report is a catastrophic blow to the wine industry. I think it's just another opportunity for us to have a more informed and nuanced conversation about responsible drinking.
But how exactly can we have a "more informed and nuanced conversation" with a starting point of inaccuracy and fear-mongering? Evidence does not show that risk goes up with one or fewer drinks, yet that's the talking point being offered. That is nothing even approaching non-moderate drinking, but rather a warning against any drinking at all. It's like saying the statement "evidence shows risk goes up with one immigrant or fewer" as a starting point for "more informed and nuanced" conversation on immigration. Ignoring the untruthfulness and scare-tactic essence of an public statement doesn't allow for the conversation you're looking for. None of us would have an issue with it if it did.
While it's true that the report may have some areas of controversy, aren't you fear mongering by implying deliberate deception?
When you compare the report to an example of immigration policy, do you really think that's a fair analogy? Immigration is a highly politicized and emotionally charged issue, whereas the Surgeon General's report is, at its core, a scientific assessment of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "none of us would have an issue with it if it did." Are you implying that we should be more accepting of public statements that distort or misrepresent facts? That we should be less critical when the information presented is inaccurate or misleading?
I think we need to do better than just criticizing the messenger and ignoring the substance of the report. Instead, let's focus on engaging with the actual evidence and arguments presented in the Surgeon General's report, rather than relying on rhetorical flourishes and emotional appeals.
Alcohol is also a highly politicized and emotionally charged issue - especially in a country that spearheaded prohibition with a capital "P", and we know for a fact that the "science" that the Surgeon General's new "scientific assessment" is based on has been dubunked and was cobbled together and promoted by the very same organization that was behind prohibition in the early 20th century (International Organisation of Good Templars which recently rebranded as "Movendi International".)
That's not a conspiracy theory - it's public knowledge, and taking action on debunked "science" is the same as pushing back against anti-vaxxers. The pushback is important, and not done to have an "open and nuanced conversation" which the science deniers aren't interested in having. My "none of us would have an issue with it if it did" the "it" referred to "allow for the conversation you're looking for." If that's what it was about, sure, let's have the conversation. But that's not what these actions are leading to, nor what its cheerleaders want, any more than anti-vaxxers want to have open conversations. They just want what they want, non-debunked science be damned.
There is no evidence that alcohol causes cancer to a greater degree than any other substance, when consumed in alarming quantities. Those pushing the issue removed the "J curve" from actual studies to show that "any alcohol consumption is risky/dangerous, which isn't true, studies have in fact shown the opposite - that moderate consumption is slightly healthier than teetotaling. Everyone "criticizing" the report is doing so because we HAVE been following it closely in terms of the actual facts vs. the overt politicization of the issue. It seems plain that you have not, and are playing devil's advocate out of a sense of fairness without knowledge - which isn't helpful to anyone.
So I'm going to turn the onus of definition back on you, Walker: does pointing out that an ostensibly scientific organization is doubling down on debunked science "fear mongering"? Or is said scientific organization embracing debunked science to scare people away from using a product "fear mongering"? Facts matter.
It's quite rich of you to accuse me of playing devil's advocate without knowledge when your own arguments are riddled with conspiracy theories and misinformation. If you're going to accuse me of being ignorant on this topic, at least have the decency to get your facts straight before opening your replying to me in a thread.
Movendi International is not some shadowy organization pushing debunked science on alcohol consumption. It's a legitimate public health organization that has been working tirelessly to address the real issues surrounding excessive drinking.
The J curve you're so fond of citing was indeed removed from studies because it doesn't support your assertion that moderate drinking is healthier than teetotaling. In fact, numerous scientific reviews have consistently shown that any level of heavy drinking increases the risk of various health problems, including...cancer.
As for your implication that I'm not taking a nuanced view on this issue, let me tell you: I am precisely doing so. I recognize that there are complexities and controversies surrounding alcohol consumption, but it's essential to separate fact from fiction and evidence-based science from ideology driven agendas.
Your comparison of the Surgeon General's report to anti-vaxxers is laughable. The two issues couldn't be more different, and it's insulting to reduce this complex public health debate to a simplistic vaccine conspiracy narrative.
Furthermore, I take issue with your claim that I'm not knowledgeable about this topic because I haven't been following the details closely. As someone who has taken the time to engage in an informed discussion about the report, I think my contributions are far more valuable than your sensationalized diatribes and unsubstantiated claims.
As for your final question – does pointing out that Movendi International is doubling down on debunked science constitute fear-mongering? – let me say this: no, it doesn't. What you're doing, Dave, is trying to intimidate and bully others into silence by implying they're part of some vast conspiracy or scientific cabal. That's not debate; that's propaganda.
If you want to have an honest conversation about the Surgeon General's report, I'm happy to engage with actual evidence and arguments. But until then, please refrain from spreading misinformation, exploiting conspiracy theories, or trying to silence others through guilt by association tactics. That's not how we have meaningful discussions.
Tom,
You've got me cornered with that single sentence, don't you? "The report says...". Well, I'm not convinced by your selective interpretation of the evidence.
You're putting the best spin on a complex issue, but ignoring the nuances and context that are essential to understanding this report. The Surgeon General's report is about the risks associated with excessive drinking, not moderate enjoyment - which happens to be the vast majority of wine consumption.
The fact remains that the report itself acknowledges the importance of responsible drinking practices and clear information about alcohol products. I'm not convinced that this report is a catastrophic blow to the wine industry. I think it's just another opportunity for us to have a more informed and nuanced conversation about responsible drinking.
But how exactly can we have a "more informed and nuanced conversation" with a starting point of inaccuracy and fear-mongering? Evidence does not show that risk goes up with one or fewer drinks, yet that's the talking point being offered. That is nothing even approaching non-moderate drinking, but rather a warning against any drinking at all. It's like saying the statement "evidence shows risk goes up with one immigrant or fewer" as a starting point for "more informed and nuanced" conversation on immigration. Ignoring the untruthfulness and scare-tactic essence of an public statement doesn't allow for the conversation you're looking for. None of us would have an issue with it if it did.
Dave,
While it's true that the report may have some areas of controversy, aren't you fear mongering by implying deliberate deception?
When you compare the report to an example of immigration policy, do you really think that's a fair analogy? Immigration is a highly politicized and emotionally charged issue, whereas the Surgeon General's report is, at its core, a scientific assessment of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "none of us would have an issue with it if it did." Are you implying that we should be more accepting of public statements that distort or misrepresent facts? That we should be less critical when the information presented is inaccurate or misleading?
I think we need to do better than just criticizing the messenger and ignoring the substance of the report. Instead, let's focus on engaging with the actual evidence and arguments presented in the Surgeon General's report, rather than relying on rhetorical flourishes and emotional appeals.
Alcohol is also a highly politicized and emotionally charged issue - especially in a country that spearheaded prohibition with a capital "P", and we know for a fact that the "science" that the Surgeon General's new "scientific assessment" is based on has been dubunked and was cobbled together and promoted by the very same organization that was behind prohibition in the early 20th century (International Organisation of Good Templars which recently rebranded as "Movendi International".)
That's not a conspiracy theory - it's public knowledge, and taking action on debunked "science" is the same as pushing back against anti-vaxxers. The pushback is important, and not done to have an "open and nuanced conversation" which the science deniers aren't interested in having. My "none of us would have an issue with it if it did" the "it" referred to "allow for the conversation you're looking for." If that's what it was about, sure, let's have the conversation. But that's not what these actions are leading to, nor what its cheerleaders want, any more than anti-vaxxers want to have open conversations. They just want what they want, non-debunked science be damned.
There is no evidence that alcohol causes cancer to a greater degree than any other substance, when consumed in alarming quantities. Those pushing the issue removed the "J curve" from actual studies to show that "any alcohol consumption is risky/dangerous, which isn't true, studies have in fact shown the opposite - that moderate consumption is slightly healthier than teetotaling. Everyone "criticizing" the report is doing so because we HAVE been following it closely in terms of the actual facts vs. the overt politicization of the issue. It seems plain that you have not, and are playing devil's advocate out of a sense of fairness without knowledge - which isn't helpful to anyone.
So I'm going to turn the onus of definition back on you, Walker: does pointing out that an ostensibly scientific organization is doubling down on debunked science "fear mongering"? Or is said scientific organization embracing debunked science to scare people away from using a product "fear mongering"? Facts matter.
Dave,
It's quite rich of you to accuse me of playing devil's advocate without knowledge when your own arguments are riddled with conspiracy theories and misinformation. If you're going to accuse me of being ignorant on this topic, at least have the decency to get your facts straight before opening your replying to me in a thread.
Movendi International is not some shadowy organization pushing debunked science on alcohol consumption. It's a legitimate public health organization that has been working tirelessly to address the real issues surrounding excessive drinking.
The J curve you're so fond of citing was indeed removed from studies because it doesn't support your assertion that moderate drinking is healthier than teetotaling. In fact, numerous scientific reviews have consistently shown that any level of heavy drinking increases the risk of various health problems, including...cancer.
As for your implication that I'm not taking a nuanced view on this issue, let me tell you: I am precisely doing so. I recognize that there are complexities and controversies surrounding alcohol consumption, but it's essential to separate fact from fiction and evidence-based science from ideology driven agendas.
Your comparison of the Surgeon General's report to anti-vaxxers is laughable. The two issues couldn't be more different, and it's insulting to reduce this complex public health debate to a simplistic vaccine conspiracy narrative.
Furthermore, I take issue with your claim that I'm not knowledgeable about this topic because I haven't been following the details closely. As someone who has taken the time to engage in an informed discussion about the report, I think my contributions are far more valuable than your sensationalized diatribes and unsubstantiated claims.
As for your final question – does pointing out that Movendi International is doubling down on debunked science constitute fear-mongering? – let me say this: no, it doesn't. What you're doing, Dave, is trying to intimidate and bully others into silence by implying they're part of some vast conspiracy or scientific cabal. That's not debate; that's propaganda.
If you want to have an honest conversation about the Surgeon General's report, I'm happy to engage with actual evidence and arguments. But until then, please refrain from spreading misinformation, exploiting conspiracy theories, or trying to silence others through guilt by association tactics. That's not how we have meaningful discussions.