Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the latest studies hypothesized that there was a hidden variable - social interaction. Moderate drinkers were more likely to have consistent social interaction, which is strongly correlated with positive outcomes - enough to cancel out the negative health effects from drinking.
I agree with you. Here's a recent well run study, in a respected journal, paid for by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level…
Consider the following study: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736... This study only calculates HRs between current drinkers, finding that the lowest mortality rates occur below 100g/week of alcohol. The issues with the conclusions of this study (issues which are apparent in many other alcohol studies) are addressed in the follow-up here: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736...
I'm sure that similar issues exist with "Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories" but the statistical model is too complicated to really see what's going on. I agree that at a population level alcohol is bad for longevity but at an individual level there seems to exist no evidence to suggest that moderate drinking is.