Does Listerine have any side effect?

[doG]

Recent studies have indicated that there is no safe level of consumption of alcoholic beverages.

 

 

My understanding from that last link is that 'no safe level of consumption' is related to the detrimental effects of alcohol on the developing teenage brain and the foetus rather than to the development of cancer. So my above statement may be true but not for the reason I and the reporters were assuming and not for the segment of society that I and the reporters were assuming. Short of paying a visit to the university of Melbourne Ballieu Library and trauling through all the medical journals etc, I am probably unlikely to find the official scientific sources for this statement.But here is a federal government source also stating that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption by teenagers. Would you dismiss this is nothing more than an invalid opinion in the same category as a HeraldSun article or what ever?http://www.alcohol.g...re-teen-alcohol....

 

Switching claims in the middle of a debate is not supporting your claims. You well implied in your original post that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption for anyone. Now you want to dig up sources showing that excessive use is unsafe for teenagers or pregnant moms or some other group of society. You need to get back to supporting your original claim or withdraw it.

[Greg Boyles]

"John Cuthber do you still insist on dismissing this as an totally unsubstantiated opinion?"

 

Since I never did, your question makes no sense.

 

And, re you assertion, "I could equally say that you position that there is or may be a safe level of alcohol consumption is equally unsubstantiated opinion most likely being generated by the alcoholic beverage industry."

You could say that, but you would be wrong so I suggest that you shouldn't say it.

 

Anyway, in answer to the question "So where are your direct medical scientific sources that support your position that there is or may be a safe level of alcohol consumption?"

This

"compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk. "

from here

http://onlinelibrary...1286.x/abstract

 

Or " After 12 years of follow-up per subject (21,716 man years of follow-up in all), 159 men have died, 74 from CHD. Incidence rates of overall mortality were lowest for moderate drinkers in each of three age groups."

from

http://www.jsad.com/...verin/1772.html

seem fairly typical.

 

Incidentally, in order to avoid the forum being sued for slander perhaps we should clarify a few things.

Listerine does not contain isopropanol.

It also does not contain chlorhexidine.

All the ingredients (at least all those listed in WIKI) are also present in foods.

 

 

And, while we are at it.

I already said that alcohol is toxic and a carcinogen. So is the primary metabolite, acetaldehyde.

However to put that into context, both materials are added to food and drinks.

I'm sure we all know about alcohol in drinks.

Acetaldehyde is used as a flavouring - notably for orange flavoured food and drink. It's also present in the natural products.

 

There really is a difference in risk between teenagers drinking and people using mouthwash.

 

No doubt many in here know about the correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and increased HDL (High Density Lipoproteins) in the blood which is in turn associated with a decreased risk of heart disease.

 

But in digging around on this subject I have also found that there has never been a long term study, over decades, to provide better evidence that there is a real causal link.

 

Some researches have noted that those who drink moderately are statistically more likely to be of a healthy weight and have a healthy diet when compared to both heavy drinkers and non drinkers.

 

So it is possible that the link between moderate alcohol consumption and lower risk of heart disease is not a causal one, but rather a coincidence.

 

http://www.medicalne...leases/3968.php

Studies show, for example, that health benefits only come with moderate drinking and are greatest for older men. And even moderate drinking is not recommended for women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or for people who are under 21.

Let's assume that there is a causal link between raised HDLs and moderate alcohol consumption. Here they seem to be saying that moderate alcohol consumption is only a health benefit when the risk of coronory heart disease is greatest in older men.

 

And that when you are young and your risk of cardiovascular disease is low, alcohol provides you with little or no health benefit.

 

It is a well known fact that alcohol in the blood stream raises the level of High Density Lipoproteins and that people with naturally high levels of HDLs have a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease.

 

But please note this passage from Wikipedia:

 

While higher HDL levels are correlated with cardiovascular health, no incremental increase in HDL has been proven to improve health. In other words, while high HDL levels might correlate with better cardiovascular health, specifically increasing one's HDL might not increase cardiovascular health

 

 

 

 

 

 

And according to what I have read, some mouth washes contain chlorohexidine, but not listerine given that you have probably looked at the active ingredients on the label.

 

DentalIt is often used as an active ingredient in mouthwash designed to reduce dental plaque and oral bacteria. It has been shown to have an immediate bactericidal action and a prolonged bacteriostatic action due to adsorption onto the pellicle-coated enamel surface

 

The main chemical in Listerine is a non-edible alcohol, which kills germs and loosens the plaque in your gums. Menthol, thymol, and eucalyptus are there mostly for flavor; they do have an effect of soaking into the skin layers to make your mouth feel cooler and to make that taste remain for some time. The methyl salicylate is related to aspirin (acetylsalicylate) and will kill some of the germs as well as partially numbing the skin. This also contributes to the "clean" feeling.

 

What the hell is non edible alcohol exactly?

Edited December 18, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[John Cuthber]

"What the hell is non edible alcohol exactly? "

I don't know.

If you also don't know what it means, why did you introduce it?

Were you not able to find some data that you did understand?

Also where you have said

" Here they seem to be saying that moderate alcohol consumption is only a health benefit when the risk of coronory heart disease is greatest in older men."

you need to realise that while it may seem to you that they are saying that, to the rest of us they are saying what they actually said.

Specifically, they said "that health benefits only come with moderate drinking and are greatest for older men. And even moderate drinking is not recommended for women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or for people who are under 21."

 

 

Anyway, I'm not sure if it's worth responding to your post because, as doG has pointed out, you keep moving the goalposts and pretending that you were right in the first place.

 

I'm feeling optimistic so here goes

"So it is possible that the link between moderate alcohol consumption and lower risk of heart disease is not a causal one, but rather a coincidence."

Or perhaps not. Again, I see Occam sharpening his razor.

The reports I cited did say that they had tried to account for some other factors.

 

BTW, are you going to apologise for ludicrously misrepresenting what I said?

[Greg Boyles]

"What the hell is non edible alcohol exactly? "

I don't know.

If you also don't know what it means, why did you introduce it?

Were you not able to find some data that you did understand?

 

Because all the pages I found about the active ingredients of listerine stated that the main active ingredient is non edible alcohol.

 

Also where you have said

" Here they seem to be saying that moderate alcohol consumption is only a health benefit when the risk of coronory heart disease is greatest in older men."

you need to realise that while it may seem to you that they are saying that, to the rest of us they are saying what they actually said.

Specifically, they said "that health benefits only come with moderate drinking and are greatest for older men. And even moderate drinking is not recommended for women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or for people who are under 21."

 

 

Anyway, I'm not sure if it's worth responding to your post because, as doG has pointed out, you keep moving the goalposts and pretending that you were right in the first place.

 

Not at all Johny boy. I am merely suggesting that niether of us is entirely correct as I have been digging further on this issue.

It is not entirely clear as to what is a safe level of alcohol consumption, or if it is safe at all, but nor is it clear that a moderate amount of alcohol is harmless or provides a health benefit. Adequate long term and large scale research has not been carried out apparently. Both positions seems to be based on small scale and short term research.

 

I'm feeling optimistic so here goes

"So it is possible that the link between moderate alcohol consumption and lower risk of heart disease is not a causal one, but rather a coincidence."

Or perhaps not. Again, I see Occam sharpening his razor.

The reports I cited did say that they had tried to account for some other factors.

 

BTW, are you going to apologise for ludicrously misrepresenting what I said?

You originally refuted entirely my post about the possibility of there being no safe level of alcohol consumption.

 

So it seems to me that you are also shifting your goal posts pal.

[John Cuthber]

What I actually said was this "Studies on alcohol and health are notoriously difficult to do and these seem to be trying to prove a negative- which is a logical impossibility.

Can you cite a reference for them please? "

 

I pointed out that trying to prove a negative is impossible- and it is.

I asked for evidence. You have yet to provide any.

I have not altered my position at all- it remains that of science in general. I don't believe things just because someone tells me something unless they have some sort of evidence.

 

This assertion of yours "Both positions seems to be based on small scale and short term research." seems to be a matter of opinion.

I cited a study that followed over a thousand people for twenty years.

 

How long a study would it take to convince you?

 

And, re "Because all the pages I found about the active ingredients of listerine stated that the main active ingredient is non edible alcohol."

1 you should have checked wiki, or the msds, as cited by someone earlier.

http://www.esciencelabs.com/files/chatcher/Listerine.pdf

 

Also, if your source says something that makes no sense, you should find a better source.

Edited December 18, 2011 by John Cuthber

[Greg Boyles]

This assertion of yours "Both positions seems to be based on small scale and short term research." seems to be a matter of opinion.

I cited a study that followed over a thousand people for twenty years.

 

How long a study would it take to convince you?

 

And, re "Because all the pages I found about the active ingredients of listerine stated that the main active ingredient is non edible alcohol."

1 you should have checked wiki, or the msds, as cited by someone earlier.

http://www.esciencel...r/Listerine.pdf

 

Also, if your source says something that makes no sense, you should find a better source.

 

I didn't say this John. I merely repeated what other authorities have said, in a number pages I was reading, who doubt know considerably more about the state of research on this matter than both of us.

 

I think the prof from the UK was one of them.

 

 

SCIENCE CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE

 

What Mr Jacobs says (1) could mislead my fellow lawyer Ian Barnett (2). Regrettably, and with my respects to him, but Mr Jacobs has got it wrong yet again. He claims 'in medical research, you can never prove a negative'.

 

If scientific method is applied to medical research, science can prove a negative in more than one way.

 

We can also establish that MMR vaccine causes autism, and that has been done (3). Therein lies the problem for the pro-MMR camp and why they fall back on regrettably inaccurate epidemiology which proves nothing, as Mr Jacobs so readily agrees (1):-

'There is indeed no evidence that proves there is no link between MMR and autism.'

 

Where exactly have I made such an argument John?

 

I have merely stated there is research to suggest that the rise in HDL levels as a result of alcohol consumption and the apparent lower risk of coronary heart disease may be a coincidence rather than causal.

 

And I have stated that there is at least respected medical opinion that any level of alcohol consumption may be derimental to health.

 

Niether are the same as the above double negative, which is indeed impossible to prove.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[John Cuthber]

WTF does the MMR farce have to do with this?

 

Also, where you say "I didn't say this John" yes you did.

This

"Both positions seems to be based on small scale and short term research."

and this

"Because all the pages I found about the active ingredients of listerine stated that the main active ingredient is non edible alcohol."

which are the things I say that you said, are direct quotes from you in this thread.

 

I still maintain that it is impossible to prove that there is no safe dose for alcohol.

I am not commenting on whether the statement is true- just on the fact that you can't prove it.

To prove it you would need a non-exposed population. However as alcohol is present naturally in some foods there is no such population.

 

However there is evidence (as I have shown) the moderate alcohol consumption is associated with longer life.

Incidentally, I never said it was cause and effect. I think it is, but I'm well enough aware of the difference between correlation and causation.

 

Incidentally Re "Where exactly have I made such an argument John?"

you said this "But it does not change the fact that medical authorities now regard alcohol containing mouth washes carcinogenic and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption in general. "

 

Do you have any actual evidence for that?

At best you have one report that some people in Australia think some of that is true, in the particular instance of teenage drinkers

 

 

Re "For example the alcoholic essences in the baking isles of supermarkets were being used a cheap source of alcohol by youths but governments have since extended that tax to these items. With the result that the manufactures no longer use ethanol as a base for these essences. Is my recollection correct here?"

Nope, your recollection is wrong. The last peppermint extract I bought (a few months ago) contains ethanol as its major ingredient.

 

Re "In which case manufactures of mouth washes would use alternative alcohols if they could. Probably why mouth washes are rather expensive. "

I have not checked in detail, but a quick look suggests that the alcohol free version is the same price, so it's not alcohol duty that determines the retail price.

(why didn't you check that?)

[doG]

Mods, you might as well close this one. It's going in circles. It's incredibly obvious at this point that Greg cannot and will not support his claim. He is in clear violation of the forum rules.

[Greg Boyles]

WTF does the MMR farce have to do with this?

 

Incidentally Re "Where exactly have I made such an argument John?"

you said this "But it does not change the fact that medical authorities now regard alcohol containing mouth washes carcinogenic and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption in general. "

 

OK granted I did say that early on based on a couple of pages I found. But as I tried to explain that, as I kept digging, it was becoming increasingly clear that there was inadequate research to 'prove' categorically that either any level or alcohol consumption was dangerous or that moderate levels of alcohol consumption are beneficial.

 

Do you have any actual evidence for that?

At best you have one report that some people in Australia think some of that is true, in the particular instance of teenage drinkers

 

I provided source to back this up that was considerably more than mere public opinion.....or are you forgetting about that one John?

 

It should be quite obvious to you John that this stuff coming from the media is not just random public opinion like the benfits of drinking urine. It is obviously based on the position of credible and respected medical scientists etc such as David Nutt, and others in Australia presumably.

 

David Nutt is professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and chairs the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs

 

Last week I attended a discussion group chaired by the Observer's health correspondent Denis Campbell where one of the other experts, a public health doctor, asserted that alcohol should be treated differently from tobacco (and by inference other drugs) because there is no safe dose of tobacco whereas alcohol is safe until a person's drinking gets to "unsafe" levels. Its health benefits for the cardiovascular system are also often used to support the claim that in low doses alcohol is safe, for how else could it be health-promoting?

 

The myth of a safe level of drinking is a powerful claim. It is one that many health professionals appear to believe in and that the alcohol industry uses to defend its strategy of making the drug readily available at low prices. However, the claim is wrong and the supporting evidence flawed.

 

There is no safe dose of alcohol for these reasons:

 

• Alcohol is a toxin that kills cells such as microorganisms, which is why we use it to preserve food and sterilise skin, needles etc. Alcohol kills humans too. A dose only four times as high as the amount that would make blood levels exceed drink-driving limits in the UK can kill. The toxicity of alcohol is worsened because in order for it to be cleared from the body it has to be metabolised to acetaldehyde, an even more toxic substance. Any food or drink contaminated with the amount of acetaldehyde that a unit of alcohol produces would be immediately banned as having an unacceptable health risk.

 

• Although most people do not become addicted to alcohol on their first drink, a small proportion do. As a clinical psychiatrist who has worked with alcoholics for more than 30 years, I have seen many people who have experienced a strong liking of alcohol from their very first exposure and then gone on to become addicted to it. We cannot at present predict who these people will be, so any exposure to alcohol runs the risk of producing addiction in some users.

 

• The supposed cardiovascular benefits of a low level of alcohol intake in some middle-aged men cannot be taken as proof that alcohol is beneficial. To do that one would need a randomised trial where part of this group drink no alcohol, others drink in small amounts and others more heavily. Until this experiment has been done we don't have proof that alcohol has health benefits. A recent example of where an epidemiological association was found not to be true when tested properly was hormone replacement therapy. Population observations suggested that HRT was beneficial for post-menopausal women, but when controlled trials were conducted it was found to cause more harm than good.

 

• For all other diseases associated with alcohol there is no evidence of any benefit of low alcohol intake – the risks of accidents, cancer, ulcers etc rise inexorably with intake.

.

.

.

.

 

 

David Nutt is professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and chairs the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs

 

Re "For example the alcoholic essences in the baking isles of supermarkets were being used a cheap source of alcohol by youths but governments have since extended that tax to these items. With the result that the manufactures no longer use ethanol as a base for these essences. Is my recollection correct here?"

Nope, your recollection is wrong. The last peppermint extract I bought (a few months ago) contains ethanol as its major ingredient.

 

Well the rum essence I recently bought no longer contains alcohol. And that was the sort of product that the teenagers were buying apparently. Guess not many teenagers would drink peppermint essence.

 

Re "In which case manufactures of mouth washes would use alternative alcohols if they could. Probably why mouth washes are rather expensive. "

I have not checked in detail, but a quick look suggests that the alcohol free version is the same price, so it's not alcohol duty that determines the retail price.

(why didn't you check that?)

 

Similar reason to various low fat foods being more expensive than the regular version when they generally don't contain more expensive ingredients I suppose.

 

If it was less expensive to produce alcohol free mouth washes then I guess they would take the opportunity to increase their profit margin.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[John Cuthber]

OK, so the latest crop of questionable or simply not true stuff is...

 

"I provided source to back this up that was considerably more than mere public opinion.....or are you forgetting about that one John?"

No, I remembered it and I pointed out that it referred to particular group's opinion of alcohol exposure in another specific group. It's intelectually dishonest to pretend that that extrapolates to everyone.

 

"Alcohol is a toxin that kills cells such as microorganisms"

So is penicillin. So what: the question is do traces of it harm otherwise healthy humans?

"which is why we use it to preserve food and sterilise skin, needles etc."

Yes, specifically at concentrations of about 70%- because, with less than that, it doesn't work properly. Not many people drink 70% alcohol.

"Alcohol kills humans too. "

Undoubtedly- but as far as I know there has never been a single case of a death attributed to the use of mouthwash.

It's noteworthy that electricity kills people too, but I don't hear much talk of banning it.

"A dose only four times as high as the amount that would make blood levels exceed drink-driving limits in the UK can kill. "

or not, I'm pretty sure I have survived that sort of level quite often.

On the other hand people who are perfectly sober still kill people with cars- nobody is banning cars.

 

"Any food or drink contaminated with the amount of acetaldehyde that a unit of alcohol produces would be immediately banned as having an unacceptable health risk."

I have watched the staff in a food flavouring factory mixing 100Kg of acetaldehyde into a food flavouring product (the other dominant component was ethyl isobutyrate IIRC)

Last time I checked 100 Kg was more than (about) 8 grams.

I already explained that acetaldehyde is added to some foods and present naturally in others. Why did you cite this rather silly assertion?

 

" Although most people do not become addicted to alcohol on their first drink, a small proportion do."

At best, that's a minority opinion and, if Nutt seriously believes it then it will colour his judgement. that may explain the other odd things he has written.

 

"The supposed cardiovascular benefits of a low level of alcohol intake in some middle-aged men cannot be taken as proof that alcohol is beneficial. To do that one would need a randomised trial where part of this group drink no alcohol,"

So, since that "no exposure" group doesn't exist, he has proposed an impossible experiment.

Where's the point in that?

There's nothing wrong with epidemiology as a means to find information. It is, for example the reason why things like asbestos, lead and tobacco are regulated.

"Population observations suggested that HRT was beneficial for post-menopausal women, but when controlled trials were conducted it was found to cause more harm than good."

Those population studies were small and showed and apparent small effect.

Most population studies get the right answer - of course.

Just because something failed one time among many does not mean it is always wrong.

This is particularly important where that alternative- a proper trial- is impossible (for the reasons given above).

 

Frankly I have seldom seen such a shoddy report.

I don't know if the science is good and has been misquoted or if it's absurdly biassed in the first place.

 

"For all other diseases associated with alcohol there is no evidence of any benefit of low alcohol intake"

For most illnesses there will be no effect.

However the one disease where alcohol has been found to be beneficial is cardiovascular disease.

Heres another datum that puts that difference in context.

"According to the World Health Organization, chronic diseases are responsible for 63% of all deaths in the world, with cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death."

So the learned prof is saying that, since alcohol is only beneficial in the world's leading cause of death, it isn't helpful.

 

Are you sure you really want to be on his side in a discussion?

 

BTW, soft drinks in pubs and bars are not generally cheaper than beer. It's not just duty that sets the price of products, it's the market.

Since you probably already knew that (ever bought a coke in a bar?) there was no good reason for you to introduce it.

 

 

You do seem to have introduced a lot of things that have no relevance to the thread. MMR, IPA, and chlorhexidine.

Perhaps that's because , as you said "Not that I have ever looked at the active ingredients"

 

 

Well, basicaly I think you should go away and not come back until you have learned to find out what you are talking about before you post.

That way you will avoid such howlers as "I believe some medical scientists have discovered that the isopropyl alcohol used in mouth washes may be a carcinogen."; "no doubt some products use isopropyl alcohol"; "Recent studies have indicated that there is no safe level of consumption of alcoholic beverages.";"Perhaps it is not so much the chlorohexidine as the perhaps unavoidable impurities in it"; "But it does not change the fact that medical authorities now regard alcohol containing mouth washes carcinogenic and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption in general. "Consider if your mouth wash contains both ethanol and chlorohexidine. "; "John Cuthber do you still insist on dismissing this as an totally unsubstantiated opinion?"; "But in digging around on this subject I have also found that there has never been a long term study, over decades, to provide better evidence that there is a real causal link."

and so on.

 

And it's not just in this thread is it?

You did much the same here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62131-cleaning-silver/

 

There's an old adage that you have two ears and one mouth because you should listen twice as much as you talk.

You might want to think bout that before you post next time.