I'm not sure this is all that surprising. Turn it around: what do we expect to be the causes for those adults between age 20 and 64 who die? I really should read up on the relevant actuarial facts, but isn't it the case that by and large those from 20 to, say, 50 plus or minus are fairly healthy?
Especially when there's a certain bias If person died from diabetes, but drank, this goes into the "alcohol deaths" count, even if the person would have suffered from it without the alcohol. Same thing for smoking. Yes, there are people who die of lung cancer without smoking or being exposed to specific carcinogens. And of course everybody dies, but if the person has a heart attack at 80 and drank it is likely it wil…
If person died from diabetes, but drank, this goes into
the "alcohol deaths" count, even if the person would have
suffered from it without the alcohol.
That would be a monumentally stupid way to conduct a research. Until you can show me evidence of this level of incompetence I'll assume you are mistaken.