A new study by ‘scientists’ in Australia claims a warning for middle aged people that they risk embarrassing themselves through drinking is more effective at improving behaviour than highlighting the health implications.
The report claims that adults aged between 30 and 65 have only “minor” concerns about the health effects of alcohol. The truth of this can easily be observed as, in spite of frequent scaremongering campaigns by governments and their tame ‘scientists’ a huge number of people who drink more than the ridiculous recommended limits advised by governments are living happily and healthily to a ripe old age.
The study, carried out in Australia, not a country noted for abstemiousness, by the University of Adelaide, analysed interviewee’s responses about alcohol consumption from 13 previous papers, finding that for the middle-aged people without an existing drinking problem, the “principal barrier to reductions in alcohol consumption is not the lack of information about health risks”.
The report was vague about what the principal barrier to reducing alcohol consumption actually is, probably because it relates to people having completely lost confidence in ‘scientists’ and never having trusted government anyway. Thus the punters do not have much dificulty working out that all these scare stories floated by ‘scientists’ are nothing more than a scam to justify imposing the kind of punitive tax levels on alcohol as have failed to stop about 30% of people from smoking.
People simply do not like government pokenoses telling them what they can and can’t do. Government meddling in private lives only ever results in an enormous, catastrophic clusterfuck.
The Austrialian researchers suggest, (extremely idiotically, even by the idiotic standards of ‘scientists’) public health campaigns to reduce alcohol consumption could be more effective if they focus on the risk of behaving inappropriately after drinking too much, although, predictably, no definite examples of what kind of inappropriate behaviour they mean. An enthusiastic rendition of My Way at a Karaoke night maybe?
Acceptable drinking was classed as that which “was appropriate to one’s age or stage of life”, allowed the group to still meet their responsibilities and adhered to social norms, they found. Again that is just sanctimonious drivel. What responsibilities? What social norms? Science is supposed to be about precision, not about vague platitudes.
The report stated: “The drinkers in these studies were aware of public health messages, but drew upon alternative narratives to re-frame their behaviours in ways that minimised or dismissed personal risk. Health was either described as a minor concern or not considered at all.”
Lead researcher Emma Muhlack said: “It is surprising that health does not strongly factor in the way that this group thinks about their drinking. Well Emma, let Boggart Blog help you out, human beings are individual. Pseudo – science like your report seems to start from the assumption that we are all stereotypes who have no free will and are quite incapable of making our own decisions.
“We knew very little about the decision-making processes that go into the alcohol consumption of middle-age drinkers. The results from this review help us to better understand how drinking alcohol fits into their everyday lives and which factors may need to be taken into consideration when attempting to reduce alcohol consumption in this group.” Ms. Muhlack added.
The fact is that just as people have their own limits on how drunk they want to get, they have their own standards on behaviour, so a public health campaign, no matter what kind of behaviours it targets, is unlikely to engage the attention of more than a very small percentage of the target group. It has been known for example, since I was studying sociology fifty years ago, that middle aged people are less susceptible to peer pressure than they young.
The researchers suggest that campaigns which focus on failing to meet responsibilities because of alcohol and the possible loss of respect may be more effective than health messages.
Perhaps the researchers are thinking of a follow up report suggesting using targeted ads on social media. But again, middle aged people are less likely to be heavily addicted to social media than millennials, and also social media advertising is notoriously ineffective.
When I saw the headline (above) to this story, I just felt that even in these dying days of blog.co.uk, Jenny Greenteeth can still deliver a toxic bite. And so I posted this brief rant A reminder to those who screech that we must pour ever greater amounts of money into the NHS just exactly what kind of shit the bean counters and bureaucratic empire builders have been wasting our tax cash on to get the service into the catastrpohic state it finds itself in now.
May I add that I’ve nothing against Reiki (or homeopathy, or acupuncture), mere mention of which is enough to make the internet army of science tits go off on a massive hatefest, but as those things offer doubtful benefits, I feel that people who want such services should pay practicioners out of their own pockets. I mean, if we are paying for laying on of hands, what next? Exorcism on the NHS? Voodoo spells on the NHS? And as laying on of hands, i.e. hand jobs has been mentioned, how about prostitutes on the NHS?
Should anyone disagree with me on this, I will take it as your offer to pay for my Chateuneuf-Du-Pape and Chablis Premier Cru, both of which contribute far more to my continued good health that a head rub, a drink of water and a prick with a needle would.
Nanny State is on the warpath, admonishing finger wagging furiously, lips compressed into a thin line, she is launching another determined effort to make sure we are all too scared to think for ourselves or make our own choices, Nanny is now warning, with the usual threats of early and painful death is we disobey, that we should only have an alcoholic drink on alternate days. Nanny says government experts have advised her to issue this warning:
Drinkers should not consume alcohol on consecutive days to avoid endangering their health,
New advice will recommend a one day on, one day off rule, with the public urged to abstain on the day after they have had a drink.The new guidelines have been drawn up by Public Health England, the government quango charged with promoting healthy living.
Even drinkers who are not considered to be consuming alcohol at dangerous levels will be encouraged to abstain every other day, under a pilot project aimed at getting heavier high-risk drinkers to cut down.
In its Marketing Strategy for 2014-17, under the heading Promoting irregular drinking, the quango says daily drinking is a key contributor to increased risk of alcoholism, and alcohol-related diseases such as cancer, heart attacks and liver disease.
The government scientists who produced this latest example of scaremongering say that failure to comply with their diktat may result in regular drinkers being diagnosed with ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). This is a mental illness for which any sign of eccentricity, non – conformity or individualism can be interpreted as a symptom.
Boggart Blog has a message for Nanny State and her ultra conformist advisers:
Fellow Manc. Noel Gallagher gives the standard northern response to Nanny State and her cohorts – is he displaying symptoms of ODD or just warning the busybodies to FUCK THE FUCKING FUCK OFF
Here at Boggart Blog we are happy to say we believe in moderation and will continue to drink every other say as we do now; today and every other day we fancy a drink that is.
Nanny State Has Her Cake And Eats It
Nanny State index
Manufactiring madness (health)
Oppositional Defiant Disorder – the disease of thinking for yourself
Alcohol and breast cancer risk
Alcohol minimum price fscism
Alocohol minimum price fascism
Alcohol related authoritarianism
I sometimes get accused of being unfair to science tits who are, as they like to remind me, a bunch of altruistic superior beings who devote their lives to a quest for truth and an effort to improve the miserable lot of humankind, often working for peanuts. In the highly paid industry I worked in it was often said, “Pay peanuts, you get monkeys”. What does that say about people who work for peanuts?
The latest project to fall into the category of absolutely useless research unless its objective was to flush taxpayers’ money down the toilet, is a report on what effects the lifestyle a typical secret agent (licensed to kill), which involves compulsory heavy drinking and smoking, regular encounters with skilled torturers and explosives experts and alluring women who keep stilettos in their stilettos would have on a man’s body.
In what is probably the most useless piece of pseudo – scientific research ever, a bunch of
OCD bell ends from the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trusthave discovered an adult male human cannot drink five bottles of spirits and ten bottles of wine a day, smoke seventy cigarettes an hour, get killed at least once a week and still be a secret agent (licenced to kill). That’s the finding of researchers who say that they’ve plotted James Bond’s alcohol intake across his career and that far from being a superhero, he was a physical wreck. OK, I know these blokes are scientists and we have to make allowances, but FFS, don’t they realise James Bond is not a real person and that fact alone enables him to break all the rules. The humorless nerds will be telling us next that having studied the aerodynamics of the Kruptonian body they conclude Superman can’t fly.
They report in their humourless way, “This consistent but variable lifetime drinking pattern has been reported in patients with alcoholic liver disease”. A person with this lifestyle would be impotent and b) he wouldn’t be able to shoot straight. So less a case of Goldeneye than Blurred Vision. Really? Can’t get it up, poor physical coordination, bad breath, tunnel vision? Sounds like he’d make a great scientist.
Sadly these sexless science lovers are unfamiliar with Thorpe’s law, that that the more dissolute your lifestyle the more sex you get and the better you are in bed.
What I loathe most about this type of scientists is the lofty tone they adopt when stating what is starkly effing obvious as if they are imparting some gem of wisdom non scientists could not possibly be aware of.
Do these guys think we mere mortals do not know Bond is a fantasy figure or that we are unaware a lifetime of heavy drinking and smoking is likely to ruin a person’s health.
Do they not understand that while fully conversant with these things some people will choose to smoke or drink too much, drive fast cars, surf the biggest wave in the world, boff the local gangster’s wife (It was a long time ago, OK) or try to ride an inflatable elephant down the black slopes at Val d’Isere because we are human and doing stupid things proves we are alive.
When will someone fund some research into why so many scientists find it impossible to GET A LIFE.
MORE FROM THE GREENTEETH STABLE
Boggart Abroad … Daily Stirrer home … Boggart-Eft at Blogster Greenteeth Bites … Boggart Blog … Greenteeth Labyrinth … Ian at Wikinut … Post Any Article … Author… Told By An Idiot … Gather … Bubblews … Authorsden … Scribd …Little Nicky Machiavelli
Ian Thorpe at Facebook
I’m always gobsmacked by the unthinking stupidity of those we allow to rule us. While the developed nations struugle with unemployment, due to automation of processes that provide jobs amongst other things, our poticians and the “experts” who advise them are creaming thrir pants over another technological development that will destroy thousands of jobs.
Their latest miracle tachology is self driving vehicles:
“Automation has already been responsible for the loss of countless jobs in America and around the world. You can see brilliant accounting for this here and here.
Well, you’ve got less than ten years warning that millions more will go unemployed due to self-driven cars. Two fresh reports outline where this is all going.
The first, titled “Computer driven cars will convulse the automotive industry” appeared yesterday in the Detroit News. The article praised the many benefits of self-driven cars, but also pointed out that there will be some losers:
Now the article goes on to raise many intelligent points about the negative consequences of bringing in self drive cars (though not the one that concerns me, what about those of us who thing driving is fun).
But what the people cheering, waving flags and going “Woo – ooo – ooo for technology” have not thought of is the way this is going to make chaose of the drink driving laws.
A drinking water reservoir that serves Portland, Oregons population of 500,000 was shut down and drained recently after a 21-year-old man was caught having a slash in it.
According to OregonLive.com, officials took the Mount Tabor reservoir offline and dumped its more than 7.8 million gallons of drinking water after officials observed the man relieving himself into its waters, an act that he could not deny as it was recorded by video surveillance cameras.
Though a pint of peepee among around 65 million pints of water is approaching homeopathic levels of dilution and therefore is hardly a threat to the citys water supply, and with the reservoir being situated in open country surely worse things have found their way into the water, Portland Water Bureau Administrator David Shaff decided to drain the reservoir as a political move, hoping his prompt action will impress the voters.
As the action will cost taxpayers upwards of $400,000 to fully remediate it might turn out to be politically counterproductive. When asked about this strange decision, Shaff admitted that draining the reservoir has nothing to do with science but immediately conjured up images of people drinking pee so as to justify it.
Don’t know what the fuss is about, Hindus and Buddhists drink their own piss as a diet supplement, preverts pay good money to drink other people’s and Africans have no choice but to drink water from very small pools that very large elephants have pissed in. And how many of us have at some time drunk a can of supermarket own brand lager?
You’ve heard all the finger wagging, Nanny state loving MPs and ministers screaming about the evils of binge drinking and how we need minimum per unit prices for alcohol to prevent ‘the poor’ seeking solace in alcoholic oblivion. MPs, ‘health experts’ and sociologists have for several years been pushing a campaign to stop supermarkets selling cut price booze.
As usual the hypocritical shits are not willing to lead by example. With the mouth on one face they may be claiming the moral high ground by prating about the demon drink. With the mouth on the other they are calling for the already cut price booze sold in the bars at the Palace Of Westminster to be made even cheaper.
Despite prices for alcohol being kept cheaper than a nearby Wetherspoons pub at the four Palace of Westminster bars, MPs have suggested Parliamentary prices should not be linked to pubs in central London. Instead they claim the price of a pint should be linked to that in the Jarrow and Hebburn Welders and Riveters club.
At the moment prices are kept lower, than a nearby Wetherspoons in Victoria Street, with pints of John Smiths bitter costing £2.60 and Becks lager £3.20 cheaper than many London pubs but still dearer than most northern working men’s clubs.
Senior Back Bencher Rupert Fatte – Bastard (Con. Poshington) said, “People are always complaining that MPs are our of touch with the ordinary voter, well how can we be in touch with ordinary voters when we have to pay the same for a pint as City Bankers, Mwah ha ha!”
MORE FROM THE GREENTEETH STABLE