Drink beer, smoke tabs

Studies like this are so contrary to 'public health' dogma that it's amazing that they get published at all these days. But every now and then someone has the balls to do it.

 

Impact of Alcohol Intake on Parkinson's Disease Risk and Progression: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

 

Spoiler: it's good news for drinkers. And although the title of the systematic review doesn't mention them, it's even better news for smokers.

 

One reason why smoking isn't in the title may be that the protective effect of smoking really isn't in any doubt. As a 2024 study said: "The link between smoking and a lower risk of Parkinson's disease (PD) is one of the strongest environmental or lifestyle associations in neuroepidemiology." The only question is about the biological mechanism (it doesn't seem to be nicotine).

 

The new study is equally unequivocal...

 

The association between alcohol consumption and Parkinson's disease (PD) risk remains unclear, whereas smoking has an inverse relationship with the disease.

 

The authors looked at the entire scientific literature on alcohol and PD and found that... 

 

Using abstainers as the reference group, a pooled analysis showed a significant inverse association between total alcohol consumption and PD risk (RR = −0.45, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.32, I² = 50%, P = 0.739).

 

That's a 55% reduction in risk, but don't drink too little because... 

 

Sääksjärvi et al. reported that light drinkers (<5 g/day) had an increased PD risk compared with non-drinkers (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.12–2.93), indicating that former or low-level alcohol intake may not offer protection, or that early disease symptoms lead to reduced alcohol consumption. 

 

Unsurprisingly, Mendelian Randomisation has been used a couple of times in the hope of erasing these findings. Those two studies found "inconsistent results" (surprise, surprise) but one of them found a protective effect from genetically-predicted alcohol consumption and both of them found a protective effect from genetically-predicted smoking. 

  

So far these results are most satisfactory.  

 

Compared with non-drinkers, protective associations were observed in both men and women across all consumption levels.

 

Happy days. And it gets better...

 

Using non-drinkers as a reference, the lowest risk was found among ever-smokers who drank alcohol (LRR = −0.37, 95% CI −0.54 to −0.20), suggesting an additive protective effect. 

...Although the inverse association between smoking and PD risk is well established, few previous meta-analyses have assessed the combined or interactive effects of alcohol consumption and smoking. In contrast, our review included two prospective cohort studies that evaluated joint exposure. Both studies consistently reported the lowest PD risk among participants who both drank alcohol and smoked, suggesting a potential additive or synergistic effect of these habits.

 

So if you want to avoid Parkinson's Disease, smoking will help enormously but you'll also want to drink alcohol, and plenty of it.

 

That, surprisingly, is not the authors' conclusion.

 

Neither alcohol consumption nor smoking can be recommended for PD prevention because of their established overall health risks.

 

But that's just their opinion. 

Share

Tweet

Money for almost nothing

Last week I wrote for The Critic about the Sheffield University alcohol research group continuing to get government grants rolling in despite having been wrong about everything for the best part of 20 years. I also wrote for the Spectator about the deranged war on non-alcoholic drinks by people who supposedly want us to drink less alcohol.

These two themes converged when I saw this article in the BMJ by Sheffield’s John Holmes - who is now a “professor of alcohol policy” - and three like-minded souls. It is titled ‘How should public health respond to rise of alcohol-free and low alcohol drinks?’, to which the answer should be either ‘nothing’ or ‘throw a little party’. Instead, the four amigos - who think they represent ‘public health’ - drone on at great length about the trivial concerns of pointless academics.

 

Read the rest on my Substack. 

 

 

Share

Tweet

Selling zero-alcohol drinks to kids

Labour is weighing up a crackdown on people under 18 buying ‘no and low-alcohol’ drinks. On current form, this means Keir Starmer’s government will launch a public consultation, commit itself to a ban, endure weeks of mockery and abuse from the public and then perform a humiliating U-turn. But when the inevitable climbdown comes, what will be the main reason? Let us consider the options.

Firstly, it is impractical. Where do zero-alcohol drinks end and soft drinks begin? The very definition of a soft drink is that it has no alcohol. Assuming that the government doesn’t want to ban teenagers from buying Fanta and Pepsi Max, it is going to have to make a legal distinction between a non-alcoholic drink and a soft drink. It could do this on the basis of branding, but if a non-alcoholic beer removes the word ‘beer’ and calls itself a soda, what is the government going to do about it? Conversely, what if a company decides to call its brand of apple juice a non-alcoholic cider?

Kids can buy drinks that have up to 0.5 per cent ABV. One option is for the government to drop this limit to zero. But there is a reason the current limit is 0.5 per cent. Sugars in soft drinks can ferment slightly, meaning that they might contain minute traces of alcohol; less than 0.1 per cent, perhaps, but not nothing. Some fruit juices can contain up to 0.5 per cent alcohol. Even ripe bananas are slightly alcoholic because natural fermentation converts sugars to ethanol.

 

Read the rest at the Spectator. 

 

Share

Tweet

Waking up to the reality of tobacco's black market

There's a website called Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues which is written by a few anti-smoking activist-academics. It provides lots of tobacco-related statistics and a bit of editorialising. 

The website has a whole section devoted to criticising "industry estimates of the extent of illicit trade in tobacco". It is an article of faith in tobakko kontrol that industry-commissioned research into the illicit trade is a tissue of lies, despite the industry having a lot more skin in the game than anti-smoking activists when it comes to tackling black market tobacco. Industry figures are routinely portrayed as being vast exaggerations designed to scare governments away from excessive taxation and regulation.

 

As has occurred in New Zealand¹ and the UK²,the major tobacco companies operating in Australia have commissioned the production of many reports over the past 15 years claiming alarmingly high estimates of the extent of illicit trade in tobacco in Australia.^3-6

 

Perhaps that's because the extent of the illicit trade in these countries is alarmingly high?   

 

Industry estimates suggest that illicit tobacco consumption as a percentage of total consumption increased from 11.8% in 2012 to 23.5% of the total tobacco market in 2022. This contrasts to the 2022 estimate from the Australian Taxation Office of 14.3%.

 

Perhaps it's the Australian Taxation Office that is wrong?

 

Industry figures are usually based on empty pack surveys which most governments can't be bothered to conduct. The authors of Tobacco in Australia try to debunk empty pack surveys on the basis that...

 

People most likely to buy packs originating from overseas—being travellers, recent migrants and international students or special visa workers—are much less likely to be motorists and much more likely to be walking and using public transport. The packs they use are therefore much more likely to enter the litter stream in public places than are packs used by cigarette consumers who do not travel frequently overseas.

 

Right. So all those packets of Manchester and Top Gun, which are not legally sold in most countries, are all being brought in by tourists - tourists, who by the way, are limited to bringing in no more than 50 cigarettes by law. Not packs of cigarettes. Cigarettes.  

 

If that doesn't sound very plausible, don't worry because...

 

Between 2015 and 2022, estimates of the extent of illicit tobacco used in Australia prepared by the Australian Taxation Office were consistently substantially lower than those included in the reports produced for tobacco companies by KPMG LLP.

 

Who you gonna trust? A government agency or consultancies commissioned by the tobacco industry?

 

As it turns out, you should trust consultancies commissioned by the tobacco industry. Last October, the Australian Taxation Office put out a statement saying that its estimates of the tobacco tax gap are "unreliable" and that the real figures must be "significantly higher".

 

This year, the ATO has performed its traditional analysis on the total tobacco gap using the existing channel-based bottom-up method. However, preliminary data from a University of Queensland research project that is looking at the biomarkers of tobacco leaf consumption in samples of waste water throughout Australia suggests that the total tobacco market and therefore the total illicit market is significantly higher than what we have previously estimated.

With this information, we now assess this tobacco tax gap estimate as unreliable and are undertaking a review of the methodology. We caution using this information as it is no longer a sufficiently credible or meaningful estimate of the illicit tobacco market in Australia.

 

The ATO's most recent estimate says that 25% of Australia's tobacco market is illicit. That is still a huge proportion but, as it now admits, it is an under-estimate. 

 

According to Australia's Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner, in a report published late last year, the real figure is between 50% and 60%. This is higher than the estimate of 39.4% from the industry-funded FTI Consulting report. So much for the industry exaggerating the scale of the problem!

 

Someone should delete this section of the Tobacco in Australia website, but I'm glad they haven't because it stands as a testament to a more innocent age, before the firebombings and murders began.

 

A number of academic papers, reports produced by US government research agencies, statements by political parties and research services and newspaper articles, allege that powerful and dangerous criminal gangs and terrorist groups are involved in counterfeiting activities on a massive scale. 

 

.... Such reports have been embraced enthusiastically by think-tanks with a political agenda of keeping taxes very low. The tone of these reports is often highly emotive and alarmist, and are consistent with in the interests of tobacco companies to ‘talk up’ the problem of illicit trade in general and counterfeit cigarettes in particular.

 

Imagine thinking that dangerous criminal gangs could be involved in the illicit tobacco trade on a massive scale! How "alarmist"!

 

One such dangerous criminal has just been arrested in Iraq...

 

In Australia, Hamad’s crew were busy waging a relentless turf war for control of Australia’s multibillion-dollar illicit tobacco trade, a battle involving dozens of firebombings and the gunning down of business and personal rivals. 

 

He's now in prison, but the illicit trade remains and will continue as long as the government creates demand with insanely high cigarette taxes. A tobacco store in Melbourne went up in flames this morning.

Legal sales of tobacco halved between 2022/23 and 2024/25, mirroring a similar decline in the UK. The only difference is that HMRC has not yet admitted that its own tobacco tax gap estimates are hopelessly and demonstrably wrong.   

Share

Tweet

Me on the Tom Nelson podcast

I did the Tom Nelson podcast last week. We discussed a range of issues including vaping, nicotine, obesity, prohibition and more. Check it out.

Share

Tweet

Clive Bates on Substack

 Clive Bates has started a Substack. His first post is an interview he did a while ago...

 

You are a critic of Michael Bloomberg’s role in tobacco policy, why?

The New York financial services billionaire and philanthropist, Michael Bloomberg, spends hundreds of millions of dollars in this field and serves as a WHO ambassador for non-communicable diseases. Yet his policy instincts are those of an out-of-touch elitist, beset by a range of obvious, harmful, unintended consequences. He remains totally unaccountable for the consequences of his actions and interactions with governments through his giant complex of well-funded activists, academics, PR professionals, and officials. He is surrounded by people who refuse to engage with evidence suggesting he is doing more harm than good. Nowhere is this more evident than in low- and middle-income countries, where his staff and money can make a significant impact with little resistance. Though they like to pretend to be independent academics, journalists or civil society organisations, Bloomberg’s complex of organisations serves the ambitions and policy preferences of one overconfident, unaccountable billionaire and his prohibition agenda. It is the most counterproductive use of philanthropic money in the whole of public health, and it needs to stop before even more people are killed by philanthropic negligence.

 

Go subscribe (it's free). 

Share

Tweet

Anti-alcohol plot backfires in the USA

Some happy news to end your week. An attempt by anti-alcohol academics to rig America's drinking guidelines has failed spectacularly.

 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform does not pull its punches. Its report - A Study Fraight with Bias - concludes that ICCPUD’s Alcohol Intake and Health (AIH) study was a politically motivated waste of money that violated federal law.

 

Read the rest on my Substack.  

Share

Tweet