WOMEN DRINKING BEER CAN RUN THE RISK OF HEART ATTACK COMPARED TO THOSE WHO DRINK WATER

(© 27 September 2015: Dr.V.M.Palaniappan,Ph.D.)

I read three days ago in Medical Xpress (Sept. 24,2015), the article on beer drinking by women. 

It was entitled, “Women with moderate beer consumption run lower risk of heart attack”.

It also said that the same beer consumption increased the risk of cancer.

You can get to this news through the following URL:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-09-women-moderate-beer-consumption-heart.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=ctgr-item&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

The news was based on a study of Swedish women by

Professor Dominique Hange in the University of Gothenburg,

published the Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

(July 2015. DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2015.1067515)

It seems that those women who drank beer once or twice per week had 30% lesser risk of heart attack, compared to heavy drinkers AND who NEVER DRANK any beer at all.

One cannot doubt the results, for the conclusion is the result of observations made studying some 1,500 women, aged 70 t0 92 years, over a period of about 50 years!

It also seems that 185 women had a heart attack, 162 suffered a stroke, 160 developed diabetes, and 345 (i.e., 50% higher risk of dying) cancer.

Professor Dominique Hange was unable to confirm if wine consumption had identical effect

*  *  *  *  *  * 

AT THIS, LET US EVALUATE SCIENTIFICALLY THE REALITY BEHIND THIS FINDINGS:

Let us remember the following basic truth, which no one may want to differ:

We need about 2 liters (L.) of water for the digestion of the food, its transportation, and for numerous body functions, including the removal of toxic substances from the body, in the form of urine.

Two L. of clean, plain WATER will do a better job compared to 2 L. of any of other beverages including fruit juices and soups, or alcoholic drinks such as BEER.

It is common sense to believe that the 2 L. WATER would keep the heart in good health, compared to 2 L. BEER.

TWO L. BEER would help more, compared to 500 ml WATER (since the water content in the beer will be more than the 500 ml.)

Half L. beer will be good, compared to not drinking any water at all (or drinking, say 100 ml water).

The above would translate in the following manner: (estimates are mere assumptions):

If 100 people are going to drink 2 L plain water, may be, only 2 persons may die of heart attack.

If 100 are going to drink 2 L beer, may be, only 5 persons would die.

If the 100 drink 500 ml WATER, may be, 10 would die.

If the 100 drink 500 ml BEER, may be, 20 would die.

If we EXTEND the logical conclusion further, we may get something similar to the following:

If the 100 are going to drink 200 ml WATER, may be 30 would die.

If the 100 drink 200 ml WINE, may be, 40 would die.

If the 100 are going to ABSTAIN from drinking any kind of liquid, but live only with the support of the water present in the vegetables, fruits, rice, and the like, may be, 50 would die.

In MY STUDY, I have found the last group of people (who abstain from drinking any liquid), to develop LEPROSY, and I have reported this with proper explanations in several of my published papers and books

(Palaniappan, V.M. 2008. The true causes of all diseases. Neo Health Care: ISBN 978-967-9988-13-0. 192pp. Also available as e-books in KINDLE & AMAZON.COM)

*  *  *  *  *  *

I don’t think anyone would want to dispute on the above understanding.

The above being the truth, let us see how the “beer is good” conclusion must have come about:

Professor Dominique Hange, while tracing the data, or while doing the experiments, would have OVER-LOOKED the effects of drinking plain water as compared to drinking beer.

He has compared people who took beer with those who did NOT take beer. He has NOT compared the beer-drinkers with water-drinkers.

If he did the latter, he would have come up the following result:

Water drinking will be excellent.

Beer drinking will be good.

Abstaining from BOTH the above will be very bad.

*  *  *  *  *  *

Now, let us evaluate some other observations made by Professor Dominique Hange in this connection:

The Professor has recorded that 185 women had heart attacks (myocardial infarction), and 162 suffered strokes.

Heart attack and strokes tend to occur when the blood flow to the heart and the brain gets impeded.

The blood flow gets hampered essentially because of the constriction caused by the blockages in heart or brain, which is mostly due to CALCIFICATION of the blood vessel wall.

How and why should the blood vessel wall develop such thickenings or calcium deposits (arterio- or atherosclerosis)?

The answer is:

Menstruating women require approximately 500 mg of CALCIUM daily.

Since the study sample consisted of menopausal women (aged 70 – 92), their daily calcium requirement must have been only about 450 mg.*

(* Large quantities of calcium gets lost in the menstrual fluid at monthly intervals in fertile women. Hence they require about 500 mg of Calcium daily.

Once menopaused, their body starts accumulating the calcium month of after month, thus making their body weight increase gradually, month after month, and even making their breast firmer, and the like.

However, if they happen to fall sick with diabetes, or take much reduced food because of digestion problems, or for want of good teeth, etc.), their body weight would get gradually reduced. The calcium deposits in such women may get decalcified to some extent as well.

I have discussed elaborately on this in my book: Palaniappan, V.M. 2012: Menses, menopause, and osteoporosis. Neo Health Care pub; ISBN 978-967-9988-17-8. 144pp.)

Calcium can accumulate in a person because of various factors, such as:  

(a) Most of the people tend to consume, unwittingly, abundant calcium through their food and drinks*. 

(* The beer itself tends to contribute to some amount of calcium, for calcium forms an important mineral required for brewing of beer.)

Such calcium excesses tend to get eliminated from the body through urinations.

However, if the person happens to UNDER-URINATE, the calcium excesses tend to stay within the body, thus contributing to the blood vessel thickening and heart blockages.

(b)  Menopausal women are prescribed (due to erroneous belief related to osteoporosis) to take CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS. This will definitely increase the blood vessel wall thickening and heart blockages, leading to heart attacks.

(c)  Wanting to prevent constipation, people, tend to take items containing VERY HIGH FIBERS and over-ripe fruits such as papaya. All these, along with chocolates, biscuits, and bakery products tend to make one’s faeces SLIMY.  

Some 70 to 80 of the calcium present in the vegetable matter eaten does NOT get absorbed, and are thrown out along with the faces. This way the brain avoids over absorption of calcium.

Normally, the calcium-containing faeces is SOLID and SHAPELY.

If for any reason, the faeces turns SLIMY, then the calcium gets ABSORBED by the glandular cells (adenomatous cells) present in the lining of the colo-rectal regions.

Such EXCESSIVE calcium either accumulates in the lining tissues and gives rise to COLO-RECTAL CANCERS, or goes into other organs, transported by the LYMPH fluid.

(The latter can increase the body weight of the person, form stones in kidneys, make the blood vessels thick and give rise to heart blockages, give lumps and cancer in the breast, or any other part of the body).

I have provided elaborate description of this phenomenon in my books:  

1. Palaniappan, V.M., 2001. Heart problems, diabetes, and related diseases. Ecohealth Sdn. Bhd. Pub., ISBN 978-967-9988-08-6. 287 pp. 

2. Palaniappan, V.M. 2010. Cancer: causes, cure, and prevention. Neo Health Care. 624 pp. 

3. Palaniappan, V.M 2013. All about obesity in a nutshell. Neo Health Care. ISBN 978-967-9988-18-5. 221 pp

*  *  *  *  *  * 

Of the 1500 women observed by Professor Dominique Hange,  

1. 185 women had heart attack. This works out to 12%.
2. 162 suffered stroke, amounting to 11%,
3. 160 developed diabetes, making 11%,
4. 345 developed cancer, forming 23%.

This adds up to 57%. The remaining 43% appears to have stayed healthy!
*******
As a critical thinker, do you still want to believe that beer drinking is good?

Can the conclusion in this study that says “Women with moderate beer consumption run lower risk of heart attack” be considered alright for acceptance, without adding cautionary statements to it?

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Let us not stop our evaluation at this point, for the results of Professor Dominique Hange appears to offer some very beneficial extrapolations as well.

The Professor found 12% of the women had heart attack, and 11% had strokes.

This should be taken to mean that 23% of the women (347 individuals, who had heart attack and strokes) must have UNDER-URINATED (Say, only about thrice daily), without drinking any plain water, or drinking very little water.

They could have also been taking CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS.

These have collectively given them those diseases.

*  *  *  *  *  * 
Eleven percent of the women had diabetes.

This tends to indicate that this group of 160 women must have been drinking about 1 or 2 L of PLAIN WATER, in ADDITION to the beer they consumed.

This observation is based on my study that showed (Ref: Palaniappan, V.M., 2011. Diabetes: causes, cure, and prevention. Neo Health Care. ISBN 978-967-9988-15--4. 256 pp.):

• All those who drink PLENTY of WATER (e.g., 2 L or more), and UNDER-URINATE (e.g., about 2 or 3 times daily) get TYPE-2 DIABETES. 

• Those who drink very LITTLE water and therefore UNDER-URINATE, get BOTH Type-2 Diabetes + Heart Attack. 

• Those who almost abstain from drinking water, but consume very little juices or soft drinks, and UNDER-URINATE, appear to be getting CANCERS. 

*  *  *  *  *  *
Some 23% of the women is said to have developed CANCERS.

As per my above explanation, this group of 345 women, could have consumed relatively LESSER quantities of beer, but claimed that they were moderate drinkers.

Further, they could have totally abstained from taking any plain water.

They could have consumed higher doses of calcium SUPPLEMENTS, in addition to eating high-calcium-containing seafood, eggs, and calcium-enriched food and drinks (including beer itself), with the idea of maintaining their bone density – to prevent the possible occurrence of osteoporosis after menopause.

In addition, they could have also defecated most of the time only SLIMY (somewhat watery – diarrhea-like) FAECES that released the ‘locked-up’ calcium form the dry, solid and shapely faeces, due to the possible consumption of very high-fiber diet, chocolates, biscuits, pastries made of ultra-refined flour, and the like.

All these could have given them cancers in different parts of their body that led them to death.

*  *  *  *  *  * 

I think, we cannot stop discussing the subject at this point.

In this study, some 57% or 852 moderately-beer-drinking women suffered some kind of sickness.

Whereas, 648 such women that constituted 43% DID NOT SUFFER ANY DISEASE, but remained HEALTHY.

This tends to show that these 648 women:

• Must have drunk plain water (could have been 1 or 2 L more), in addition to the beer.
• 
  
• Must have urinated very well, about 7 times or more daily, to the extent of keeping their Liquid Input / Urine Output Ratio to remain between 1.0 and 1.2 (Please see my book diabetes, referred above, for more information on this aspect).
• 
  
• Must have defecated solid and shapely faeces all the time.
• 
  
• Must have avoided eating chocolates, biscuits, pastries, high-fiber preparations, over-ripe fruits such as papaya, and the like.
• 
  
• Must have avoided eating calcium-enriched snacks and drinks, and would not have taken any calcium supplement at all.

All the above should have kept them healthy, although they were consuming beer on and off.

For more information, you may want to refer to the following books:  

1. Palaniappan, V.M. 1998. Obesity: causes, cure, and prevention. Ecohealth Snd. Bhd. Pub., ISBN 978-967-9988-05-8. 471 pp. 

2. Palaniappan, V.M. 1998. Health problems: diagnose yourself. Ecohealth Snd. Bhd. Pub., ISBN 978-967-9988-06-6. 148 pp. 

3.  Palaniappan, V.M., 2001. Heart problems, diabetes, and related diseases. Ecohealth Sdn. Bhd. Pub., ISBN 978-967-9988-08-6. 287 pp. 

4.  Palaniappan, V.M. 2008. The true causes of all diseases. Neo Health Care: ISBN 978-967-9988-13-0. 192pp. Also available as e-books in KINDLE & AMAZON.COM. 

5.  Palaniappan, V.M. 2010. Cancer: causes, cure, and prevention. Neo Health Care. 624 pp. 

6.  Palaniappan, V.M. 2011. Diabetes: causes, cure, and prevention. Neo Health Care pub.  ISBN 978-967-9988-15-4. 256 pp. 

7.  Palaniappan, V.M 2013. All about obesity in a nutshell. Neo Health Care. ISBN 978-967-9988-18-5. 221 pp. 

(IF ANYONE WANTS TO BUY ANY OF MY BOOKS WITHIN MALAYSIA, YOU MAY PLEASE CONTACT Mr.PUMA BALA in Kuala Lumpur (Mobile:  012-2705172), WHO HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTING MY BOOKS IN MALAYSIA. People in Singapore can communicate with ME directly through an e-mail vmpalaniappan@gmail.com)

*  *  *  *  *  * 

Dear friends,

I have written TWO more articles in THIS blog earlier, on the same subject. If interested, you may want to retrieve them in this blog.

My overall opinion about beer or other alcoholic beverage drinking:

If you wish to be a social-drinker, by drinking moderately only occasionally, I don’t see any damage occurring to your health.

However, simply because this kind of articles keep suggesting, or providing a false notion, that beer drinking is good for your health, if you start drinking alcoholic beverages, I personally and strongly believe that your health is going to be at stake. PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE. Please beware of this fact.

*  *  *  *  *  *

A true story:

(I have recorded this in my book on heart problems (2001) in page 158):

A nice gentleman in Kuala Lumpur, 35 then, doing logistics, was a heavy drinker.

His claim was that he had to entertain his clients daily in pubs, where he would drink several bottles of beer.

When he came to me with some health problems, I cured him, and also successfully stopped him from drinking altogether.

From then on, he became totally changed.

When I met him at a wedding after some three years, he said his business has been thriving very well with a new group of clients who do not expect him to offer any drinks.

After about 5 years, I met him in a gathering. He was fully drunk.

"Sorry, Doc.," he said, "Do you know that an ..... Scientist has published in a reputable journal that drinking beer is good for heart?

So, wanting to keep my heart in good health, I have started drinking beer since it was published a few months ago!"

Subsequently, I lost contact with him.

However, after some 3 years or so, I received a phone call from his Secretary, who said,

"I am sorry Dr. Palani, I am sorry to tell you that my boss Mr... has passed away in University of Malaya hospital this morning, because of liver cirrhosis. The funeral will be held at .. in ... Church."

The above happened about two decades ago, and that was the first time when newspapers worldwide carried the news that said drinking beer is good for heart.

Well friends, I pray so that all of you, irrespective of your drinking habit, will live healthily for a prolonged period.

With best wishes,

Dr. Palani, Ph.D.

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

 

.