Good thing I'm not a moderate drinker.

I'll drink to that.

/I'll drink to anything

Well, there is your problem, you moderate drinkers aren't drinking the required follow up drinks needed to kill the cells sent haywire by the first two drinks.

Amateurs.

Mugato: Good thing I'm not a moderate drinker.

Obviously not. You're a farker.

Mugato: Good thing I'm not a moderate drinker.

This

*sips Bloody Mary*

what_now: *sips Bloody Mary*

I see what you did there.

In another, related study, life has a 100% mortality rate.

Do you want to spend it sober, eating tofurkey and drinking the juice from lawn mower clippings? You have that right, and more power to you if that's how you want to live.

Cheers!

Beerguy: Well, there is your problem, you moderate drinkers aren't drinking the required follow up drinks needed to kill the cells sent haywire by the first two drinks.

Amateurs.

See, this is what I always said. My idea was the "dahmers love zombie's theory of alcohol tolerance". Since viruses and bacteria are very, very small, they obviously have a much lower alcohol tolerance then you do. It's just like when you give the 12-year-old next door a couple of shots of Everclear in her Kool-aid -- knocks her the hell out, right? But bacteria and viruses are WAY smaller than she is. So an amount of alcohol that will give you a serious buzz should be enough to flat out kill all of those little bugs. Cancer should be the same way. The new DNA in those cells hasn't had nearly enough time to build up a tolerance to YOUR level of drinking, so going on a weeklong bender should do it.

_{/i am not that type of doctor
//don't do this}

Eggs good for you this week (new window)

I'm glad they finally cleared that up.

dahmers love zombie: Beerguy: Well, there is your problem, you moderate drinkers aren't drinking the required follow up drinks needed to kill the cells sent haywire by the first two drinks.

Amateurs.

See, this is what I always said. My idea was the "dahmers love zombie's theory of alcohol tolerance". Since viruses and bacteria are very, very small, they obviously have a much lower alcohol tolerance then you do. It's just like when you give the 12-year-old next door a couple of shots of Everclear in her Kool-aid -- knocks her the hell out, right? But bacteria and viruses are WAY smaller than she is. So an amount of alcohol that will give you a serious buzz should be enough to flat out kill all of those little bugs. Cancer should be the same way. The new DNA in those cells hasn't had nearly enough time to build up a tolerance to YOUR level of drinking, so going on a weeklong bender should do it.

/i am not that type of doctor
//don't do this

Why are you getting the 12 year old girl next door drunk? I mean I realize its probably 'For Science' but still.

Only tangential to the article, but I've had pancreatitis before. It's about the single most painful experience I ever had. I don't recommend it to anyone.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies- a nd-medical-science/8269/ (new window)

This array suggested a bigger, underlying dysfunction, and Ioannidis thought he knew what it was. "The studies were biased," he says. "Sometimes they were overtly biased. Sometimes it was difficult to see the bias, but it was there." Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results-and, lo and behold, they were getting them. We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it's easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously. "At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded," says Ioannidis. "There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded."

...Still, Ioannidis anticipated that the community might shrug off his findings: sure, a lot of dubious research makes it into journals, but we researchers and physicians know to ignore it and focus on the good stuff, so what's the big deal? The other paper headed off that claim. He zoomed in on 49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years, as judged by the science community's two standard measures: the papers had appeared in the journals most widely cited in research articles, and the 49 articles themselves were the most widely cited articles in these journals. These were articles that helped lead to the widespread popularity of treatments such as the use of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, vitamin E to reduce the risk of heart disease, coronary stents to ward off heart attacks, and daily low-dose aspirin to control blood pressure and prevent heart attacks and strokes. Ioannidis was putting his contentions to the test not against run-of-the-mill research, or even merely well-accepted research, but against the absolute tip of the research pyramid. Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable. That article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I wish they'd make up their minds already. This is making it hard to figure out which vice will kill me first.

MONSTERTRUCK: Tellya what else, if Mitt Romney gets elected president, he'll impose a law to ban drinking. They (the Moroms) have similar reasons as noted in the article for not drinking coffee or tea.

Yeah well the mormons were also hard core racists until like the 1970s. So even if Romney isn't going to completely downplay his mormonism, the President simply doesn't have the power to ban alcohol (again). Farking Emperor Palpatine couldn't swing that shiat.

New Farkin User Name: What???
Drink=Good
me no understand


You're in one of those Kentucky counties like below, right?

beer4breakfast: Artist: This Farkette drinks her single malt scotch neat, mixed drink of choice-Negroni, wine-red-burgundy, champagne-brut-Moet white star, likes her burgers rare, goes to bed whenever, does not exercise (yet I remain slim!), believes in the goodness of bacon, mashed potatoes with butter, dry aged fillet seared in a cast iron skillet, dark chocolate in any form is to be savored at any time, and my all time favorite breakfast food is a slice of triple layered chocolate fudge cake.

Sounds like you're a girl who's fun to party with.

I was about to say...

Mugato: MONSTERTRUCK: Tellya what else, if Mitt Romney gets elected president, he'll impose a law to ban drinking. They (the Moroms) have similar reasons as noted in the article for not drinking coffee or tea.

Yeah well the mormons were also hard core racists until like the 1970s. So even if Romney isn't going to completely downplay his mormonism, the President simply doesn't have the power to ban alcohol (again). Farking Emperor Palpatine couldn't swing that shiat.

What do you mean "were?"

They still are for the most part (black skin IS the mark of Cain, you know). It's that now they don't withhold the priesthood from black males.