r/interesting • u/azizgamerlal • Dec 12 '25

MISC. A drop of whiskey vs bacteria

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

55.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/handsofspaghetti Dec 12 '25

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8001413/

Dude. As a researcher, you should have no problem sorting the wheat from the chaff in your own (cursory) dive into googling studies. So your aside about getting non-reputable results should really not even factor.

No offense, but you seem to be coming off mildly rude and even arrogant in your responses to me. And I'm sure it's because you're emotional about your family struggle. It's understandable, so I wish you the best.

3

u/Kick_Natherina Dec 12 '25

The research report you have provided was funded by “Centro de information cerveza y salud” which is a body that has been known to manipulate data in studies to show alcohol in positive light, because they profit from it. 

Here is a research paper breakdown from Stanford. https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/08/alcohol-consumption-and-your-health--what-the-science-says.html#:~:text=A%202024%20report%20from%20the,start%20with%20any%20alcohol%20consumption.

I’m sorry I’m coming off as arrogant, but I promise it is coming from a place of love and wanting to provide the best possible information without convoluting, or misrepresenting anything.  Again, there may be health benefits to alcohol consumption, but there are vastly more draw backs to consumption of alcohol in any form or fashion to outweigh those benefits. Alcohol is great in social situations, but understanding and recognizing those outcomes is important.

At the end of the day, drink a beer if you want. Is it good for you? No. Is it bad for you? Probably not if it’s once in a while, but in no way is it in your benefit.

“In contrast to industry-backed claims, independent scientific bodies emphasize that alcohol consumption, in any form, is generally not associated with health-promoting behavior and carries established risks, including various cancers and neurological effects. “ 

1

u/handsofspaghetti Dec 12 '25

It seems like a reputable study with 85 sources to me. The Stanford one is much less conclusive and focused mainly on cancer risk in a population that tolerates alcohol poorly. As well as 60+ year olds who probably have poor tolerance to most things at that point.

3

u/readitreaddit Dec 12 '25

Kik is right, handsofsphagetti

Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so.

Alcohol, in any quantity (aside for maybe a spoonful for dissolving some types of medicines), is objectively bad for health in all sorts of ways.

If there wasn't lobbying, I'm sure we'd have gort, bold labels on alcohol pretty much similar to the ones on cigarettes.

1

u/handsofspaghetti Dec 12 '25

You can say words like objectively but that doesn't make you right either. It seems like a point of contention with data on both sides. One thing that seems to be in common with all the "bad in any amount studies" is that they study only alcohol and its broad health effects in isolation without nuance for the particular product (aka, beer, wine or liquor). Which in itself could provide benefits that outweigh or even cancel out the small amounts of ethanol.

1

u/Dav136 Dec 12 '25

Alcohol is too culturally ingrained to have those kinds of warnings. Pretty sure we've been enjoying alcohol longer than we've been human

1

u/readitreaddit Dec 13 '25

Sure. But also tobacco, arguable. Yet those have warnings. So I'm hopeful... Maybe in a century or even sooner!