Alcohol and mortality: 50 000 deaths per year in France

[Christophe]

I was sure you would like it!

Can you develop?

Because I have a few arguments ...

[Janic]

Christophe "04/10/21, 10:55

I was sure you would like it!

no more than that!

Can you develop?

it's simple humans have more imagination to destroy themselves than to build themselves, what is astonishing is that they still exist! We must believe that it was well designed despite everything!

Because I have a few arguments ...

I love arguments!

[Christophe]

it's simple humans have more imagination to destroy themselves than to build themselves, what is astonishing is that they still exist!

Your astonishment shows that you are wrong, right? It's an argument, isn't it?

[Janic]

christophe

Your astonishment shows that you are wrong, right? It's an argument, isn't it?

Ah good? Expand to see!

[Christophe]

No, I let you macerate a little for the moment ... macerate in the schnapps of course!

[Janic]

then macerate, macerate

[Obamot]

We are a little mistaken about the debate here. Basically:

1) alcohol or the joint, as “substance to disinhibit”And break the insurmountable barrier that cuts us off from the expression of our feelings (towards and for others) The cigarette or the coffee break as "Way to give yourself courage to get back to work" (and we could even add pastries, sodas, and other cakes ...)

All these crutches are as many behaviors, cognitions which initially concern the mind and the thought and sometimes the unconscious, it is the volatile aspect which can be understood as prerequisite to go to point “2” .

2) the notion of “Benefit VS risk” but where does it come from (apart from its semantic origins)? Messenger RNA injections make it clear to us:
- giving our cells the order to manufacture substances which will be deliberately harmful in order to create an immune reaction, is a poisoning mechanism similar to that of the ingestion of a drug. This reveals that:
=> a) metabolic functions are diverted => drugs => hyper stimulation.
=> b) vital energy of the organism is taken for that, => in the example of sugar, alcohol => release of insulin.
=> c) a “product” (poison) is produced by our body through tens of billions of hooks intended to penetrate into the vascular epithelium in order to cause (chronic?) inflammation, the purpose of which would be to trigger an immune reaction ... => drug => the poison is introduced / ingested, deliberately.

In both cases the risk is much greater than the benefit for healthy subjects => diversion of metabolic functions (a good part of our vital energy is wasted, not only for questions of “biochemical balance” and if only to fight against inflammations vaccinations (because it is not as if by the miracle of thought, our being should be free from the metabolic reactions which we are discussing when speaking of addiction / s!).
But there may be cases where the benefit temporarily outweighs the risk! (but, it is just as dangerous to persevere, to take advantage of it and to play with fire ...)

There, the addiction problem we are talking about in this thread is the result of psychosomatic and / or psycho-biochemical interactions which interact between points 1 & 2 ... Suddenly there are about as many special cases as 'there are inhabitants in France. Suddenly, Janic is absolutely right when he says that:

on 02/10/21, 21:38 PM So, we fully agree, it is the abuse that is not good.

no, it is its consumption, in any quantity whatsoever, that is not good! Suppose your wife wants to kill you in small doses of poisons: in your opinion it's good or it's not good since there is no abuse, only time does the trick. After having long denied that alcohol is a poison except in high doses, the WHO finally recognizes' that a single glass already promotes cancerizations

A person who drinks 2 glasses of wine a week will probably have no problem.

no problem visible to the eye, but biologically [...]

The devil is in the detail, it is not the dose that initiated the addiction.

Now you have to be very careful and not make anyone feel guilty, neither by the dose, nor by the individual approach ... nor to make sure to create this guilt or any other gene ...

[Rajqawee]

I throw it like that, quickly ...

Even a small amount of alcohol may have an effect on the body. But in this case, everything has:

-pollution of cities
-pollution of volatile pesticides
-the use of household products (even traditional ones, such as vinegar, etc.)
-volatile compounds of oils or essences for wood
-the plastic micro-particles that surround us
-brief, the environment what ...

So there remains suicide - but in good health! - which finally makes it possible to be pure? (this is taunt eh?)

More seriously, the life expectancy of the last decades is not really to be demonstrated. Overall, it shouldn't be that bad for a lot of people. I am wary of words like "no no no, you did not get it, the right way to do it is THAT CI, any deviation is necessarily bad".
I do not believe. I believe that below certain thresholds, it is no longer relevant, because the other variables are much more preponderant.

Now the real debate, and Obamot is absolutely right, is addiction. And that is much, much more complicated than many believe. We are not at all genetically equal when it comes to this. (and socially neither, but there it is even more complex) To simplify to the extreme:

-some people have genetic predispositions (it depends on the response of certain areas of the brain .... and we do not yet understand everything!) for addiction, in general.
- in addition to that, we all have variables depending on the substances in question: some "work" better than others, for us.
-It depends on substances in general, too.

For example, I am someone with very little addiction overall. It's luck, but so much the better. On the other hand, I am more easily addicted to coffee than other substances (actually alcohol, since it's the only other thing I have ever tried. Ah, yes, sugar. But the same, no addiction) , I know it, and therefore I pay more attention to it.

In general, it is fashionable - I agree - to think about "what brings me what?" and "what does it do to me?"
Regarding alcohol, some just like the taste (I love beer! I brew it myself, by the way.), That's a sufficient argument. But it is obviously necessary to monitor the dependence that the substance can induce (and that of alcohol is no longer to be proven).
So you have to know yourself, and here again, it's personal. Despite everything, it is useful to define "target" values, which I find are customary and awareness campaigns are still far too high!
at present, public health france talks about 10 doses of alcohol per week and 2 per day not to be exceeded, which is, from my point of view, absolutely mind-blowing. I am absolutely certain that we can respect these thresholds and be totally dependent.

[Janic]

paradise

For example, I am someone with very little addiction overall. It's luck, but so much the better. On the other hand, I am more easily addicted to coffee than other substances (actually alcohol, since it's the only other thing I have ever tried. Ah, yes, sugar. But the same, no addiction) , I know it, and therefore I pay more attention to it.

this explains your reflection above.
However, the WHO does not speak of addiction, but of consumption from a first drink, in addition to the other aggravating causes cited of course. But even with additional causes, some countries have understood that the only acceptable alcohol level when driving is zero!

[Obamot]

raj: this is perfectly correct, except that if the pollutants / toxicants (mentioned) in ingestion or passive inhalation, are a cocktail leading to chronic inflammation, they are therefore not to be minimized, as much as we can say NO, to those known to be the most addictive (and even non-addictive: food additives, vaccines, orgy of cosmetics that women put on their skin, etc.)

Then yes, "staying below any toxic assimilation threshold remains relevant”(And there are natural toxins) - as long as“we don't know”=> Precautionary principle => REACH is more than 40 toxic substances released by humans [...] - otherwise how to explain:
- the recent and endemic deficit of populations to vitamin “D”, even among those who are properly exposed to the Sun? And it is a current and very serious subject ...
- the “chemical causes of HIV” ...
- cumulative disastrous effects of comorbidities in populations?
- etc

But you're right, everyone does what they want and we can't force anyone!