Letter: Feeling confused by the figures? Blame it on the drink
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Paul Ashton
Sir: It is ironic that opposition to the new "safe" drinking limits should come from doctors ("Doctors' fury over 'safe' drink limits", 13 December). It was, after all, the research by Sir Richard Doll on the drinking habits and health of doctors which purported to show (statistically) that there were health benefits to be had from regular and "moderate" drinking of alcohol.
The real irony, however, is that it was the same Richard Doll who first produced statistical evidence in this country showing the relationship between smoking and cancer. Buried in that report was the fact that light smokers had lower morbidity and lower disability rates than did non-smokers.
Perhaps, then, we might yet see the health minister recommend regular and moderate smoking?
Yours faithfully,
Paul Ashton
Eastbourne, East Sussex
14 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments