DO HEAVY DRINKERS REALLY OUTLIVE NON-DRINKERS?

DO HEAVY DRINKERS REALLY OUTLIVE NON-DRINKERS?

©  August 2014: Dr.V.M.Palaniappan, Ph.D.)

One of my school-mates - a Taiping Georgian, forwarded to my e-mail ID an article that was published in 2010, which had the title “Why do heavy drinkers outlive non-drinkers?”.

I have written a critical analysis of this claim in one of my books, and have also written about it in this Blog.

I think, it should be worth your while to visit the following URL, and read the article in full to know all about living long after drinking:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html

Have you finished reading the article that was published in TIME?

In short, the report informs that those who consume alcoholic drinks in moderate quantities (e.g., 2 -3 drinks, a day) tend to live much longer than those who do not drink alcohol at all, and slightly longer than those who are heavy consumers.

The results are said  to have come from a large-scale research study of 1,824 participants over a period of 20 years.

It a “meta analysis”, and the findings are expected to be almost totally undeniable.

The study is said to have been conducted by a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin.

They are said to have taken into consideration several possible factors for such a lifespan prolongation, such as socio-economic status, physical activity, friendships, social support, and the like.

After ruling out all the above, they have, for sure, found the following results:

The death rates were highest for non-drinkers (69%)

Second highest were heavy drinkers (60%)

The lowest were moderate drinkers (41%)

They have accepted a minor disproportion in the sample: that is, 63% of them were men, the rest being women.

The general understanding, worldwide, appears to have accepted that the non-drinkers die faster, alcohol consumers tend to live longer.

This story was published in the journal “Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research”.

******************

At this juncture, I wish to have enough guts to use a harsh language to question the validity of the above research study: Yet, I am containing it myself within me, for want of modesty or decency.

Please recognise the gross mistake in the experimental design:

Let me highlight it for your evaluation: Please do not jump to any form of conclusion until you finish reading my critique:

***********
In the first place, heart blockages occur essentially due to calcium deposits (may be in combination with a few other minor additions).

When excessive free calcium keeps floating in the lymph stream within the body, in the absence of vitamin-D, they thicken the blood vessels, giving rise to what is called Athero (or arterio-) sclerosis.

As a result impeded blood flow due to such blockages, people can die of heart failure.

Now, why should, or what enhances the presence of excessive free calcium?

Adult men and menopausal women require about 450 mg of Calcium daily.

The same for menstruating women is about 500 mg or so. This  slight extra is to ‘subsidise’ the loss of calcium in the menstrual fluid at monthly intervals.

The main source of calcium to human body is from food and water.

We know all seafood, dairy products, egg, etc. contain plenty of calcium.

Of course, almost without exception, all the food and drinks we consume tend to contain calcium in varying amounts.
(The rainwater and distilled water are probably the exceptions.)

This calcium (along with a few more alkaline substances, to a minor extent) tends to keep the blood in an alkaline state.

The pH of the arterial blood will have to be exactly pH 7.41. Increases or decreases in this can prove to be fatal.

That means, it excessive free calcium forms part of the blood stream, it will over-alkalise the blood, and the person will die almost immediately.

Therefore, God, or Nature, has provided a 'manager' in our thyroid gland.

A hormone, called “Calcitonin” secretes there, and that makes absolutely sure that the pH of the arterial blood stays constant at pH 7.41 all the time.  

If so, what would happen if a person consumes too much of calcium containing food?

Well, the Calcitonin ‘pushes’ out such unwanted excesses into the LYMPH fluid, which in turn throws out through the kidney and urinal bladder as a dissolved substance in the URINE

This keeps the person in good health.

An unfortunate thing happens only when the person ‘REFUSES’ to urinate properly.

From my study, I have found that a person needs to urinate about EIGHT (8) times daily, so that all the unwanted toxic substances, including the unwanted calcium excesses, would get eliminated out of the body.

If a person happens to urinate only, say four times, then, naturally, half of the toxic substances – half of the calcium excesses will have no other choice except to accumulating within the body.

In such cases, a storage organ will be required to store all these calcium excesses.

Well, the cells, especially those that make up the soft tissues all over the body (including the breast tissues of females) appear to be the best store houses. So, they get stored.

When calcium enters into the cells, the liquid would dry up there, and form grains, and (a) enlarge the size of each of the cells of that organ, and (2) increase the weight of THAT cell, and thereby THAT entire soft tissue – THAT organ!

The overall result of this will be: the person becomes big-sized, and overweight, OR obese!

Continued retention of such calcium excesses, of course, would give rise to lumps, fibroids, cancers and stone diseases.

If an under-urinating person consumes calcium supplements, then his problems would increase manifold, according the quantity of the calcium taken.

(Apart from under-urination, one other important factor that can increase the retention of excessive free calcium is related to one's defecation pattern.

That is, if a person’s faeces happens to be slimy and shapeless most of the time, which is recognised as ‘diarrhoea’ by the medical fraternity, and called “chronic constipation’ by me (see my definition in my book “The True Causes of All Diseases), abundant calcium that is part of the eaten vegetable matter (about 70 – 80%),, rejected as unwanted excess by the brain (i.e., the intestinal system), which is supposed to get out of the body along with the faeces, will get ABSORBED by the glandular cells that are present in the lining of the large intestine.

THIS Calcium will get added up to the ALREADY-ACCUMULATED calcium that stayed back due to under-urination.

As a result, ALL such free calcium will make the person rapidly obese, and would give rise to cancers and stone diseases.

(If the under-urinating person happens to expose his body to sunshine, or if he is going to consume vitamin-D as a supplement, then, these calcium excesses, instead of getting into the cells of the soft cells, would combine with the marrow and become part of the BONE structure, thus undesirably increasing the bone density.  

Babies fed with high calcium containing milk feed tend to develop high density bones, and that would make them weigh much heavier.

The SPUR some people get at their heels is the result of this phenomenon!)

********
Thus, we now know that the following are the sources for the CALCIUM EXCESSES:

1.  Under-urination

2.  Chronic constipation (called diarrhoea)

3.  Excessive consumption of calcium-rich and calcium-enriched food and drinks,

4.  Intake of Calcium supplements.

Now, we also know that to remove these excess, one best way is to URINATE ADEQUATELY.

If a person is to urinate well, he has to DRINK ENOUGH WATER.

If he is going to abstain from water intake, SURE, that part of the water-soluble free calcium within his body would NOT to get removed.

If yes, naturally, THAT calcium is going to INCREASE THE BLOCKAGES in the heart, besides making stones in the kidneys.

If yes, this REDUCED WATER CONSUMING person would die MUCH EARLIER when compared to a person who drinks adequate quantity of water.

So, if we are to conduct a research wherein we compare the following five groups of people in the following manner:

1.  Those who do not drink water (or any other liquid) at all.

2.  Those who drink hard liquor such as whisky, brandy, rum, gin, and the like: eg., 500 ml.

3.  Those who drink only beer: e.g., 2 L

4.  Those who drink only soft drinks and non-alcoholic beverages, can be 2L

5.  Those who drink water only – say 2 L daily.

Such a study would almost certainly reveal the following results:

Those of Group 1: Would develop leprosy – since urine will not form, and since all the toxic substances need a way to get out of the body, they ooze out through the tissues and skin – thus giving rise to leprosy (For more details, see my book: The True Causes of All Diseases”)

Group-2 people: They would die of heart attack, in addition to other diseases due to the strong alcohol consumption-related diseases. The death rate would be much higher, next only to the leprosy people.

Group-3: This group of people would live longer than those in Group-2, for the water content in the beer would help in the removal of most of the free-floating calcium from the body through the abundant urine that is voided by these drinkers.

Their death rate will be less compared those in Group 2.

However, these people would die of cirrhosis of the liver, because of the accumulation of excessive calcium, which can come from the beer itself.

Group-4: These people would live longer than those in Group 3, only slightly, because, most of the beverages tend to contain excessive calcium in them. However, these people may not develop cirrhosis of the liver. 

Group-5: These people would liver much longer, compared to any of the other four groups.

(In the reported study, the death rate was 41%. In this case, that could go down to even 5%)

It is so because, when these people drink 2 L of plain water, they would urinate liberally, and such liberal voiding would remove most of the calcium excesses from within the body, leaving it in a healthy state.

We can accept the above, but with the following caution:

Those who drink plenty of water (2 L or more), MAY or MAY NOT urinate liberally.

I have observed, large number of people who drink plenty of water, for several reasons (see my books for more details on this) may NOT urinate liberally – they may urinate just twice or thrice daily.

This category of people, as per my study, would develop, for certain, TYPE-2 DIABETES MELLITUS.

Only those who drink 2 L or more WATER and URINATE more than 7 or 8 times daily, do not develop type-2 diabetes, heart blockages, stone diseases, thyroid problems, cancers, including prostate problems.

(I have observed the occurrence of prostate enlargement among men who drink SOUPS (any kind) MORE THAN 10 times, or so, every week.

Do you know why this happens?

It is so because, the soups are nothing more than the extracts of a particular vegetable (e.g., cauliflower, beetrot, or any vegetable), or anything of animal origin (such as chicken soup, bone soup, crab soup, fish soup, or anything of this kind).

In other words, all the calcium in the entire vegetable or animal matter would get collected in the soup.

The soup-soluble calcium excesses, since in liquid form, rapidly and more directly reach the urinal bladder and the surrounding tissues, through the lymph fluid, of course.

The prostate gland, similar to the Lacticiferous ducts in the female breasts, are designed to ‘suck-in’ or scavenge all available free calcium in the 'neighbourhood' into the prostate gland for making up the seminal fluid.

Such an activity leads to the enlargement of the prostate gland. Similar phenomenon is what contributes to the breast lump and cancer in women.)

*********
After knowing the intricate details of the phenomenon I have explained above, you should now be in a position to judge or conclude yourself very easily as what could be the playing factor in prolonging the lifespan of the beer drinkers, ‘discovered’ in the above meta study by the team of researchers in the University of Texas, in Austin, USA.

The significant fault in the experimental design appears to be:

They seem to have compared the beer-drinkers only with those who do not drink adequate liquids.

In other words, they compared liberal urinators with non-urinators. That yielded the ‘preferred’ result.

The study appears to have misinformed the entire world with this erroneous results.

My friend who heard my critique, asked me this question:

“Dr. Palani, do you doubt if those researchers were financed by the beer brewers?”

I doubt it. Most probably, the erroneous experimental design could have been the result of some shallow-thinking. 

While pitying the researchers, I feel sorry for all those who started drinking more beer after reading this article.

My patient, a nice gentleman in his forties, who had given up drinking beer after my suggestion, started drinking beer again after reading this kind of article about two decades ago, and DIED at the hospital (see my report in my book on heart problems).

That is why I used to insist to all my patients:

WHATEVER YOU HEAR FROM WHO SOEVER IT MAY, EVALUATE THE TRUTH IN IT, BEFORE ACCEPTING IT.

I have the following suggestions to offer, and you may want to evaluate the truth, before accepting or rejecting them:

Any form of advertisement or the questionable results of some of the so-called research works should be carefully evaluated before accepting what is being said in it.

In my opinion, it would be better to give up consuming alcoholic drinks, especially if they are going to damage our good health. 

It would be best if you can drink clean water and urinate liberally, since our health would get guarded well.

Well friends, with best wishes,

Dr. Palani, Ph.D

 

.