tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post1064331695909963674..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Bashing DiageoChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-47259038879336427592011-06-14T10:48:52.738+01:002011-06-14T10:48:52.738+01:00Silly question I know, but what did women do in th...Silly question I know, but what did women do in the bad old days when the water was not safe to drink and everyone drank small beer or wine? Were thousands of fetal alcohol syndrome babies born in the middle ages? Was this common in Ancient Rome, classical Greece? I think the answer is probably no, but bigger problems like giving birth to a live child, surviving the whole process and then keeping the sprog alive for more than a year were probably higher on peoples list of priorities in those days. It seems to me that the less we have to worry about the more hysterical we get. I recall reading a "health" article in one of the "quality" newspapers advising pregnant and breastfeeding women to avoid spicy food. That's it for Asian women then, nothing to eat for at least a year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-24612151117148756192011-06-13T22:04:04.474+01:002011-06-13T22:04:04.474+01:00'4% did not reduce their intake'
What a l...'4% did not reduce their intake'<br /><br />What a load of crap !! The majority of women are not total piss heads and would see no need to reduce their 'intake'<br /><br />A few gin and tonics or glasses of wine are not going to cause a baby to be born half pissed.<br /><br />These 96% of women who say that they have reduced their alcohol intake are just saying that to keep the quacks happy.<br /><br />Maybe the odd few health freaks do a zero alcohol during pregnancy, but the rest just carry on as usual until they get heartburn.<br /><br />That is the reason that most women stop drinking while pregnant.Aconitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387766623677561125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-49323441575353645622011-06-13T19:56:59.918+01:002011-06-13T19:56:59.918+01:00So it isn’t OK for commercial companies to fund he...So it isn’t OK for commercial companies to fund health initiatives unless the monies are controlled by political extremists riding high on the public health gravy train? Failed medics like Anna Gilmore should be grateful that their own performances are not subject to the same scrutiny as any of those who actually have to work for a living. No doubt Anna will come up with some statistical trick to explain why this straightforward initiative will be disastrous for public health. Why not? When she lied about heart attacks and smoking bans, the BBC lapped it up and the taxpayer funded her through her mate Kevin Barron and the less than incorruptible DH.Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364023294207490403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-50032645899923757192011-06-13T11:52:56.866+01:002011-06-13T11:52:56.866+01:00It does not seem that FAS is that common <0.3%....It does not seem that FAS is that common <0.3%. Which is in line with the accepted scotch on the cornflakes in the morning figure of 0.4%.<br /><br />"Catchment data on the incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are derived from the Birth Defects Monitoring Program of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (13). Based on data from 1,500 hospitals, CDC reported the nationwide incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to be 0.3-0.9 per 10,000 births (excluding Native Americans). In contrast, Abel and Sokol (10) surveyed 19 published epidemiologic studies worldwide. The overall rate from all studies was 1.9 cases per 1,000 live births. The average for retrospective studies surveyed by Abel and Sokol was 2.9 per 1,000, compared with 1.1 per 1,000 for prospective studies."<br /><br />http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa13.htmDaveAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249090980650806030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-42033666533046689762011-06-13T10:02:44.198+01:002011-06-13T10:02:44.198+01:00Anna Gilmore and Naomi Klein are both left wing an...Anna Gilmore and Naomi Klein are both left wing and, as such, have a view of business and free markets (or 'capitalism' in their minds) that hasn't changed in 50 years that I know of. You only have to watch that stupid BBC programme The apprentice to see the infantile view they have of 'business'.<br /><br />You see we're all ruthless, self interested, cannibals with no care or concern for anything other than profit. These people never went away in the 80's and 90's, they just changed their appearance to hide behind different 'causes' but still with the same agenda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-26040733317331273962011-06-13T04:00:10.111+01:002011-06-13T04:00:10.111+01:00@ LI
The same sort of thing applies to people goi...@ LI<br /><br />The same sort of thing applies to people going to pubs. <br /><br />According to the ONS survey (which Snowdon has talked about recently), which ASH rely upon to claim that pubs have not suffered since the smoking ban, the following facts apply:<br /><br />No change to pub going habits (just one particular set of figures):<br /><br />............Men........Women<br /><br />2008.......79%........80%<br /><br />2009.......77%........73%<br /><br />ASH are trying to say that these figure show that there has been hardly any change, but wait! Taking just the men, in 2008, 21% said that their habits have changed. That is a lot of people, if the 21% are the regular drinkers. The 79% could easily be those people who only go to pubs once every blue moon, for all we know. So the % of people who said that their habits have not changed went up to 80% in 2009. (Is that 80% of the 79%?) So what? The same considerations apply. Other figures relate to 'going more often than before' and 'going less often than before', but the same ideas apply there too.<br /><br />MSM headlines:<br /><br />"ASH PULL ANOTHER STATISTICAL FAST ONE!!"<br /><br />Chances of seeing that headline?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-87004420578844522912011-06-13T02:56:39.548+01:002011-06-13T02:56:39.548+01:00Leg-Iron,
Although it's never safe to assume ...Leg-Iron,<br /><br />Although it's never safe to assume a degree of competence from these folk, I expect they excluded non-drinkers from the sample. More than 10% of women are teetotallers.<br /><br />CJSChristopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-31339420039993739472011-06-13T01:37:09.734+01:002011-06-13T01:37:09.734+01:00'4% did not reduce their intake'
It's...'4% did not reduce their intake'<br /><br />It's entirely possible that four percent of any group of women are non-drinkers, therefore cannot reduce their intake below zero unless they magically develop the ability to piss gin.<br /><br />Should such a woman exist, my phone number is...Leg-ironhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04932361799889315359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-78643112757647313722011-06-12T21:57:21.474+01:002011-06-12T21:57:21.474+01:00Another twist, look who is listed with competing i...Another twist, look who is listed with competing interests within the Pharma / UK Tobacco Control, yes Anne Gilmore<br /><br />http://www.ukctcs.org/ukctcs/personnel/staffcompetinginterests.aspxBill Gibsonnoreply@blogger.com