Reach for a Daily Mail factfile explaining why “red wine is good for you”. Research from the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College, London, suggested it could help to treat serious lung disease. (“Inhibition by red wine extract, resveratrol, of cytokine release by alveolar macrophages in COPD”, is the precise learned journal headline). Because “past studies” have shown it helped “prevent cancer, protect against heart problems and improve brain function”. Because Spanish scientists reported “that people who drank more than two glasses a day had 44% fewer colds. Because (another study) “red wine may prevent herpes” – and, yet further research, “extends the life of brewer’s yeast by up to 80%”.
But all this studying was then (a dozen or so years ago). And now? “Red wine’s not good for you after all” booms a Mail headline. Cancel whatever facts you’ve filed. Perhaps the about-turn is a mere disappointment. Perhaps, more seriously, it’s just one more example of the way conflicting research conclusions damage belief in scientific fact (and global warming). Time for one more glass before the chief medical officer changes the advice. Again.
