quote:

Originally posted by Nalin not to mention that heavy drinking rapes your liver too.

Well, the last time I was at the doctors I specifically requested a liver function test ... supposedly it's aok.

Hmmmm maybe I should race my liver against my brain and see which one gives out first

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well, the last time I was at the doctors I specifically requested a liver function test ... supposedly it's aok. Hmmmm maybe I should race my liver against my brain and see which one gives out first

haha, well all jokes aside its scary shit, + you're still young, 24/25 if i remember correctly? in any case liver cancer is gonna take till your 40s/early 50s to develop, and then of course as we all know cancer isn't just sealed death, its sealed PAINFUL death, so you gotta be careful man, as a matter of fact, speaking from a eastern european background where its probably more common for people to abuse their bodies in order to drink their sorrows away, i can attest that its (almost) always been liver cancer they died of in late 30s/40/early 50s as opposed to brain problems/strokes/seizures ? although i'll bet they were mentally pretty fucked up as well, but in any case, you get my point.


all i can say is that im glad i dont have that problem - even though i love to drink myself - i mean REALLY appreciate wine, hard liquor, the occasional beer, but damn, doing it moderately is still very satisfying.

NOOO THAT CANT BE TRUE!!!!! ITS LEGAL! THE GOVERNMENT WOULDNT WANT TO HARM US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now that explains alot

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

My friends and I have three levels

"I AM NOT DRINKING TONIGHT" = >1 but <6 beers
"Im drinking tonight" = >6 <12
"im Jrinkin tonight" = >12

i think ive totally abstained uhhh twice this month.

This study is hopelessly flawed and a blatant attempt by prohibitionists to advocate their "cause."

I'd generally love to read the actual study before slamming it, but just from the article you can tell it's a grade-A waste of money and effort.

quote:

46 chronic, heavy drinkers and 52 light drinkers

These numbers are way too small to show anything.

quote:

"The enrollment criterion for heavy drinkers was the consumption of more than an average of 100 alcoholic drinks per month for men over 3 years before the study (80 drinks for women)," the researchers wrote in their report, published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.

This is just sad. The distribution of those 100 drinks over time, as well as other factors such as whether they're taken with food, if you're using any other drugs (legal or otherwise), et cetera, are highly important factors which appear to have been ignored entirely. Inconsistencies among these variables could easily result in skewed, or completely inaccurate, results.

quote:

"Would these people, if they dried for a period of three or four weeks, would they have these abnormalities?" Martin said it was most likely the damage was real and long lasting. "My personal experience is that there is an awful lot of evidence ... showing that the more people drink and the longer they drink, the more likely they are to have cognitive impairments."

Am I the only one who finds Martin's answer to this extremely pertinent question somewhat unsatisfactory?

So let me get this straight: his "personal experience" is that there is an "awful lot of evidence" that his entire experiment isn't fundamentally flawed because it fails to account for the possibility that the symptoms are caused by withdrawal rather than any permanent damage?

Well, I feel better now. I would have expected him to say that his personal experience indicated that this entire study was a sham and a complete waste of money and time.

If I had to describe this study in one word, the word would be "shitty." If I could use two words, it would be "very shitty."

The Arbiter's ruling: Pay them NO heed.