Patent Nos. 2546250A & 2546251A: Process Of Concentrating Yeast Slurries & For Drying Yeast

patent-logo
Today in 1951, US Patents 2546250 A and 2546251 A were issued, both inventions of Stanley L. Baker, for his “Process of Concentrating Yeast Slurries” and “Process for Drying Yeast.” There’s no Abstract for either, but the description for the first is an “invention relat[ing] to the concentration of dilute suspensions or slurries of yeast and especially of brewers yeast slurry which will be referred to hereinafter as an example although it will be understood that the invention is not restricted thereto.”
US2546250-0

His second patent is described as an “invention relat[ing] to drying dilute suspensions or slurries of yeast and especially brewers yeast slurry which will be referred to hereinafter as an example, although it is to be understood that the invention is not restricted thereto.” You may have noticed that this description is exactly the same as the first. What’s clear is while these are two different patents, they are vey similar and are both about roughly the same yeast process. Even the drawings are only slightly different from one another.
US2546251-0

Studies Show Studies Don’t Show Much

pill
If there’s one thing prohibitionists love to shout about, it’s a new study showing how terrible alcohol is, and how it supports what they’ve been proselytizing about all along. A growing trend has been anti-alcohol groups funding studies, having the “team” look for problems through phrasing the study’s goals and methodology with a particular outcome in mind, and then releasing the results as if it was impartial news. Sadly, with our media overworked and underpaid, many fall for it and report such a sham study’s results without ever critically examining it or even looking for a dissenting opinion to bring some fair and balanced perspective. Prohibitionists, knowing this, package their press releases into print-friendly versions so media outlets can simply cut and paste, passing it off as actual news. To be fair, it’s not just them. Almost everybody does it. It’s become a game, of sorts, one where most reasonable people’s wishes are ignored in favor of a more extreme agenda. Issues get polarized, and meaningful dialogue is becoming increasingly impossible with mud being slung in both directions, though I tend to think on the prohibitionist front that more mud comes our way, than vice versa.

But I’ve spent the last decade or so taking a fairly critical look at study after study, taking issue with almost all of them in one way or another. For every study that says one thing, you can find another that says the complete opposite, which you’d think wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, be possible. But a lot of it has to do with the way studies are conducted, how rigorous the science is, and whether or not they started with a specific agenda or not. I’ve certainly crowed about studies that show alcohol in a positive light, though I’ve never financed any. But despite all the tamper tantrums from the prohibitionists, they’re the ones spending all the money creating a false record of harm, not to mention taking advantage of any others they can, part of their post-prohibition strategy to bring down alcohol by less obvious means in a slower, more patient approach, chipping away at public policy and the law brick by brick, so to speak.

As a result of seeing so many of these so-called “studies,” I’ve noticed a lot of tricks that they use to make them seem like the findings actually mean something, but they rarely do, and usually even the study’s authors, who presumably want to keep their status as impartial scientists despite taking money for funding, almost always issue cautions and calls for further testing and for no one to make too much of what they found, words invariably ignored by the people using their findings to promote an agenda. It’s made me question the entire medical, and to some extent the scientific, community because it’s so obviously been corrupted by money — like every other aspect of our society, sad to say — with so many willing to take money to help a fanatical group promote its agenda. And it seems like the shear number of such studies has ballooned in recent years, too. Just how many scientific journals can there be, and how many are truly scientific, if any?

But an article on Vox a few days ago addressed this very issue, with This is why you shouldn’t believe that exciting new medical study. As the author wonders “whether there is any value in reporting very early research,” I’ve seen how it’s more often misused than anything else. As she writes. “Journals now publish their findings, and the public seizes on them, but this wasn’t always the case: journals were meant for peer-to-peer discussion, not mass consumption.” Because of this, the amount of studies being conducted has skyrocketed since their use is often now well beyond the original purpose of real study and furthering the science surrounding an issue. The actual number of so-called journal studies have seen an astounding 300% increase over the last quarter-century.

Medical_studies-2

But as she points out, early reporting on these studies rarely leads to any meaningful breakthroughs, even though those initial findings become fixed in the public mind as fact. A recent example that springs to mind is about glutens. A study in Australia initially seemed to suggest that eating gluten-free could be healthier for even people who didn’t suffer from Celiac disease, but further work by the same scientist found that his initial results were incorrect, and that there were no appreciable health benefits to a gluten-free diet for most people. Despite this clear repudiation of the initial findings, gluten-free as a healthier lifestyle remains an idea many people not only still believe, but even follow, despite having been refuted years ago. This is not an isolated occurrence.

In 2003, researchers writing in the American Journal of Medicine discovered something that should change how you think about medical news. They looked at 101 studies published in top scientific journals between 1979 and 1983 that claimed a new therapy or medical technology was very promising. Only five, they found out, made it to market within a decade. Only one (ACE inhibitors, a pharmaceutical drug) was still extensively used at the time of their publication.

One.

So that means 100 others proved to not pan out, their promise as originally reported proving to not stand up to further research or lead to any meaningful breakthrough. But the news cycle has already moved on, and the damage has been done, with the study reported and its inaccurate findings fixed into people’s minds. And this is just one of the reasons why immediately promoting the results of a study to the public is a bad idea. As the Vox article makes clear. “This cycle recurs again and again. An initial study promises a miracle. News stories hype the miracle. Researchers eventually disprove the miracle.”

“There’s a big, big, difference between how the media think about news and how scientists think about news,” Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of the history of science, recently told [Vox’s Julia Bellus] in an interview. “For you, what makes it news is that it’s new — and that creates a bias in the media to look for brand new results. My view would be that brand new results would be the most likely to be wrong.”

In some cases, results are published too soon precisely to get attention for the study or the research in order to get more funding to carry on the research, or simply because of the pressure to “publish or perish” in academia or a career. Or, of course, it’s published specifically to promote an agenda or ideology.

Medical_studies-3

More often than not, single studies contradict one another — such as the research on foods that cause or prevent cancer. The truth can be found somewhere in the totality of the research, but we report on every study in isolation underneath flip-flopping headlines. (Red wine will add years to your life one week, and kill you quicker the next.)

This is seen in beer, a lot, too. But as the graph below makes clear, it happens everywhere, all the time, with the main culprit being the media in general, and the prohibitionists more specifically, reporting on single studies that show one thing rather then treating the issue as a whole or continuum of understanding. In particular, Alcohol Justice frequently takes one study that shows something in line with their agenda and treats it as if it’s the final answer and no further study is necessary; they’re right, case closed. Which, as you can see, is never the case.

Medical_studies-1

A good example of this is a recent tweet from Alcohol Justice, questioning that “Alcohol good for your heart? Evidence is evaporating http://usat.ly/1JkkEny Don’t believe industry-sponsored science.”

AJ-tweet-15-03-24

The link takes you to a USA Today story, entitled Alcohol good for your heart? Evidence is evaporating, which is where AJ got the witty language in the tweet. But the part about not believing “industry-sponsored science” is completely made up. The story never even addresses that as an issue. It’s pure propaganda. As you’ll see, the trail from the USA Today story leads not to “industry-sponsored science,” but to another anti-alcohol group.

The USA Today story itself is a hodgepodge of misinformation and innuendo, written in that most common style of the mainstream media that believes scaring people captures their attention and gets ratings, viewers or whatever metric they measure their success by. Early in the piece, the author sets out her premise.

But before you pour your next cocktail, beer or glass of wine, you should know this: the science suggesting a benefit has never been conclusive. And some experts believe the evidence is getting thinner all the time.

Almost no science is conclusive, or ever has been. That’s the point of continuously conducting research, to constantly learn more and to further our understanding of whatever’s being studied. But just as benefits may be inconclusive, the evils are similarly inconclusive. But she chose to frame the story in such a way as to emphasize the negative, despite the fact that the statement could be said almost any way and still be technically correct. And saying “some experts” reveals that not everyone agrees, even with so vague a premise. You can always find a person to disagree about anything, especially if they have some reason to do so.

To illustrate what I mean, take her reliance on an editorial written by “Mike Daube, professor of health policy at Curtin University in Australia.” He “writes that the once-touted benefits of moderate drinking ‘are now evaporating,'” providing the piece’s catch phrase and hook. But who is Mike Daube. Is he a doctor or scientist? Nope. Is he an impartial expert? Hardly, “Mike Daube, professor of health policy” is all that USA Today reports, and at the editorial she’s quoting from, the only author affiliation listed is “Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, WA 6845, Australia.”

But you don’t have to look too hard to find out that Mike is also co-chair of Australia’s National Alliance for Action on Alcohol, an organization who’s sole stated purpose is that is “has been formed with the goal of reducing alcohol-related harm.” So while he’s railing against “industry lobbying and promotion [being] rife and unchecked by governments, he’s pretending to be an impartial health professional, while also leading an organization who’s already convinced that alcohol has only a negative impact on society and is working to battle it, or get rid of it. That doesn’t seem particularly impartial to me. How utterly disingenuous and hypocritical. He’s using his background as a health policy professor to make it seem as if he has some expertise in medicine, but his area of study is public policy, with an emphasis on health, and you don’t need an advanced degree to understand those are two very different things.

And the editorial USA Today is relying on, Alcohol’s evaporating health benefits (they sure love a good turn of phrase, don’t they?), is published in The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal). So essentially a policy expert — who in 2012 was “awarded [the] ‘Oscar’ of public health campaigning — is editorializing about science and medicine in a medical journal. It’s an editorial — an opinion. No matter how authoritative, he should carry about as much weight on scientific matters as I do. We have exactly the same number of doctoral degrees in medicine.

Even so, while lambasting alcohol over a new British study which forms the basis for his “evidence is evaporating” quip, he has to admit that the study did show a positive correlation for “women aged 65 or more” but dismisses that as “at best modest and likely to be explained by selection bias.” Which may true, but then again maybe not. Perhaps more study is necessary before making such sweeping pronouncements as the “evidence is evaporating.” Which is entirely the point. He’s looking at one study in a vacuum and choosing the outcome he favors, because of his own bias. So that’s not, or should not, be newsworthy. “Hey guess what? What I believed all along is what I still believe, and here’s this one study that partially agrees with me, so I must be right after all. Can I be in your scientific journal?” Is this really what passes for peer-reviewed science? What a load of bollocks.

The USA Today article is actually very short, but is padded out with a list of “what U.S. experts say you need to know for now.” Unfortunately, that list is entirely about the negative aspects of alcohol consumption and completely ignores any positive contributions to a person’s health, and it’s not like they’re hard to find.

But one study said something different, so I guess all those others are wrong, right? Yet this is the approach prohibitionist groups take time and time again. And as the Vox article makes clear, this approach can result in creating false hopes and leading researchers, scientists and even public policy-makers down the wrong path. As journalist Julia Belluz admits, it’s hard for the press to not jump at new study results, because their novelty is catnip to the management structure of both old and new media. But as the media blinders are understandable and even forgivable, at least to some extent, that’s not the case for the anti-alcohol groups who take that news and use it unscrupulously to advance their agenda. They’re the ones doing actual harm, because they’re creating a false narrative that is dishonest and knowingly wrong. I think they’ve forgotten that advancing a particular point of view doesn’t mean destroying the other side by any means possible, especially since they so often claim to own the moral high ground. But if their “ends justify the means” strategy reveals anything, it’s that they don’t own a mirror. They only judge our morals, attacking us frequently and accusing us of caring only about business, money and hurting children.

The Vox article concludes with some sage advice from “Harvard’s Oreskes, Stanford’s John Ioannidis, and many other respected researchers,” who insist “we need to look past the newest science to where knowledge has accumulated. There, we’ll find insights that will help us have healthier lives and societies.” Could somebody please tell the prohibitionists?

Patent No. 2740049A: Method And Apparatus For Destruction Of Live Yeast Cells In Beer

patent-logo
Today in 1956, US Patent 2740049 A was issued, an invention of William C. Stein Sr., for his “Method and Apparatus for Destruction of Live Yeast Cells in Beer.” There’s no Abstract, but the description states that the “invention relates to a method and apparatus for destroying live yeast cells in beer.” When he lays out the various objects for the invention, it’s clear that the yeast is destroyed when “the beer is cascaded over violet ray tubes,” allowing for the “continuous treatment of the beer.” It apparently differs from how this was accomplished beforehand, as using this method “the beer will be subjected to a pre-carbonation pasteurization whereas under prior process the beer was pasteurized after carbonization.”
US2740049-0
US2740049-1
US2740049-2
US2740049-3

Patent No. 1995626A: Manufacture Of Minim Alcohol Beverage

patent-logo
Today in 1935, US Patent 1995626 A was issued, an invention of Karl Schreder, for his “Manufacture of Minim Alcohol Beverage.” There’s no Abstract, as far as I can tell, Minim means low-alcohol. I wonder if that was a common term back then? It’s not one I hear these days. Curiously, although the invention relates to what they call “low alcohol beverages,” the percentage of alcohol is never discussed, which strikes me as odd. Here’s what is revealed:

It has been found that Termobacterium mobile (Lindner) (Pseudomonas Lindneri-Kluyver) discovered by Professor Dr. Lindner is particularly suitable for the manufacture of beverages containing a low proportion of alcohol.

A process for the manufacture of beverages of this kind forms the subject-matter of the present application.

For obtaining a high grade end product it is essential that the preparation of the malt and of the wort be carried out carefully.

Okay, but what is the “high grade end product?” Is it non-alcoholic or near beer below 0.5% a.b.v.? Or something that might be considered a session beer with an alcohol percentage lower than a beer of typical strength?
US1995626-0

Patent No. 1021669A: Beer-Tapper

patent-logo
Today in 1912, US Patent 1021669 A was issued, an invention of William W. Frisholm, for his “Beer-Tapper.” There’s no Abstract, but the description states that his “invention is an improvement in beer tappers, and consists in certain novel constructions, and combinations of parts, hereinafter described and claimed. Sometimes the language in these is just wonderful, case in point:

The object of the invention is to provide an improved device for tapping beer and other effervescing liquids which will permit the entering of the device into the keg or other receptacle without waste, and which, while permitting the free egress of the liquid, will also permit the entrance of air under pressure to force out the liquid.

US1021669-0

Patent No. 848228A: Cooler For Beer

patent-logo
Today in 1907, US Patent 848228 A was issued, an invention of Johann Ettel, for his “Cooler for Beer or Other Beverages.” There’s no Abstract, and the description is without a doubt one of the worst OCR conversions I’ve ever seen. For example, here’s what should be the introduction, verbatim:

To afl’ whom` if my Concern.- l Be it’known that I, JOHANN ETTEL, a enbject of the Em eror of AustriaHungalj, Brooklyn, county of Kings,

new and useful Improvements in (loolers for Beer or other Beverages, of Whiel’ithe following is eepeei’lieet-ion- L The`presentinvention ‘has for its object to provide n. meier for heer or other beverages principally in hors;restaurant-s, mul the like.- v

Which I think we can infer that Johan Ettel, who was from Austria-Hungary, but living in Brooklyn, invented a new beer cooler.
US848228-0

Patent No. 8678247B2: Creamy Foam Beer Dispensing System

patent-logo
Today in 2014, just one year ago, US Patent 8678247 B2 was issued, an invention of Paul Haskayne, Robert W. Shettle, Donald W. Smeller, Jarrell L. Jennings III, and Merrill R. Good, assigned to the Lancer Corporation, for their “Creamy Foam Beer Dispensing System.” Here’s the Abstract:

A creamy foam beer dispensing system includes a coupler removably securable with a keg, a transportation tube, and a faucet having a handle coupled with a plunger communicating with the transportation tube. The handle is movable among a closed position, an open position, and a creamy foam position. In the closed position, the handle maintains the plunger squeezed against the transportation tube such that no beer flows from the faucet. In the open position, the handle lifts the plunger substantially, completely off the transportation tube such that beer flows smoothly from the faucet. In the creamy foam position, the handle lifts the plunger off the transportation tube a distance such that an aperture created in the transportation tube produces creamy foam flow from the faucet.

US08678247-20140325-D00000
US08678247-20140325-D00001
US08678247-20140325-D00003

US08678247-20140325-D00002 US08678247-20140325-D00004

US08678247-20140325-D00005 US08678247-20140325-D00008

Patent No. 3501934A: Apparatus For Repairing Kegs

patent-logo
Today in 1970, US Patent 3501934 A was issued, an invention of Albert W. Engel and Gerald J. Forbes, for their “Apparatus For Repairing Kegs.” There’s no Abstract, but the description states that the invention relates to a “method and apparatus for repairing metal kegs, such as the aluminum kegs used for containing beer. The apparatus includes a die shaped to the outside form of the keg. The deformed externally projecting parts of the keg are pressed into an area defining original confines of the keg. In other words all external projections are forced inwardly by pressure. To return the keg to its original condition, the keg is filled with water, and an explosive is placed in the keg. The explosive is detonated to blow the keg back to its original form. The method comprises a hydraulic means of expanding kegs against a closed die to return the kegs to their original shape.”
US3501934-0
US3501934-1
US3501934-2

Patent No. 3174650A: Bung Withdrawing Assembly

patent-logo
Today in 1965, US Patent 3174650 A was issued, an invention of Frank A. Bellato, for his “Bung Withdrawing Assembly.” There’s no Abstract, but the description states simply that the “invention relates to a device for removing the wooden bungs from beer kegs and similar containers after such kegs have been emptied of their contents.” Then the goals of their patent application are laid out:

A major object of the invention is to provide an auger, of special form for the purpose, having a pilot portion arranged so as to first penetrate the bung along a path axially of the bung without possible deviation from such path such as grain direction or irregularities in the wood of the bung might cause, and having a portion following the pilot portion arranged to then advance into the bung in a manner to cause the bung to be withdrawn from the bung hole and split into separate sections so that such sections will fall of themselves from the auger.

It is another and important object of the invention to provide a means for operatively mounting the auger, both for rotation and axial movement, in an upwardly facing position, and a means for supporting the keg above the auger in such a position that the bung, which as usual is in one side of the keg, will be disposed in a downwardly facing position directly in line with the auger.

The importance of having the bung disposed in an inverted position, with the auger disposed below the keg and bung, is that no chips or wood dust, as created by the action of the auger, can enter the keg but will drop down clear of the keg.

A further object of the invention is to provide a catch tray and carryotf chute in connection with and directly below the auger which will receive, and cause to be carried alway, all chips, withdrawn bung pieces, as well as any liquid residue dropping from the empty keg when the bung is withdrawn, and keep such waste matter from possibly fouling the auger supporting and operating mechanism.

The keg, when initially placed on the supporting means, may not always be disposed with the bung in the necessary downwardly facing position, and a still further object of the invention is to provide a keg support-ing means which enables the keg, after once being supported, to be easily rotated so as to dispose the bung in the proper position for engagement by the auger.

In connection with this latter feature, it is also an object of the invention to provide a clamping unit for engagement with the top of the keg, which will rst exert a yieldable hold-down action on the keg which still allows the keg to be rotated if necessary, and which will then clamp the keg against any movement. At the same time, the clamping means is mounted so that it can be readily moved clear of the keg so as to offer no interference with the placement of the keg on or removal of the same from the supporting means.

US3174650-0
US3174650-1
US3174650-2

Patent No. DE2145298A1: Instant Beer Powder

patent-logo
Today in 1973, US Patent DE 2145298 A1 was issued, an invention of Siegfried Beissner, for his “Instant Beer Powder — by vacuum-freeze drying.” Here’s the Abstract:

Beer is subjected to vacuum-freeze drying at -10 degrees to -20 degrees C, under a press. of about 0.5 atm. with agitation. Beer can be rapidly restored by treating the powder with water and a source of CO2 (pure CO2 or a mixt. of NAHCO3 and tartaric acid) and/or alcohol. The CO2-source and/or alcohol can be enclosed in capsules made from water-sol. gelatine and packed together with the beer powder.

instant-powdered-beer

Given that we’re seeing this type of product in the trade recently, and the anti-alcohol groups have been going apeshit, I would have thought this was a more recent invention. But a version of it was around at least as early as 1973, over forty years ago. I wonder why it took so long for it to make it to market?