 Once you're removed from studies on alcohol and mortality, the systematic error of misclassifying former drinkers as if they were lifelong abstainers, moderate alcohol consumption, like a glass and wine a day, does not appear to be protective after all. The immediate implication from this new research is that clinicians need to be highly skeptical about the hypothesized health benefits of alcohol consumption and should not advise their patients to drink to improve their life expectancy. This is especially important given increasing awareness of cancer risk from even moderate alcohol use. Given the cancer risk, if there's just harms and no benefits, then the ideal alcohol intake on a routine day-to-day basis should really be zero, potentially making it a red-light beverage. The problem was that many of these population types classified those that quit drinking in response to ill health as non-drinkers. This is the problem of reverse causation. Instead of abstaining leading to poor health, poor health may have led to abstaining. As like when studies show those who sit around and watch TV have worse health, is more TV leading to illness or is illness leading to more TV on the couch? That's one of the reasons why if you look at the hierarchy of evidence where higher on the period means stronger evidence, interventional trials like randomized controlled trials tend to offer better evidence than observational studies of populations which can suffer from both reverse causation and confounding factors. For example, light drinkers as a group may be more likely to drink their glass of wine with a salad than a cheeseburger, and that's why the wine appeared protective. But sometimes it's hard to do randomized controlled trials, like you can't randomize people to smoke a pack a day for a few decades, so sometimes you have to base your decisions on observational studies. But now we have a new tool, Mendelian randomization. In cases where randomized controlled trials are not feasible or practical, this new tool can provide reliable evidence on the cause and effect relationship between exposures and risks of disease. It's like the HDL story. Alcohol does raise your HDL good cholesterol levels, but unfortunately it seems good cholesterol isn't any good at lowering heart disease risk after all, based in part on Mendelian randomization studies, where people who are randomly assigned higher HDL levels genetically from birth don't appear to be protected. Is there any way to study people who are randomly assigned since conception to not drink as much? Remarkably, yes. Alcohol is detoxified in the liver to carbon dioxide and water by two enzymes, but in the process a toxic intermediate metabolite is produced called acetaldehyde, which can cause unpleasant nausea and flushing sensation. So if people are born with a slow variant of this enzyme or a superfast variant of this enzyme, acetaldehyde can build up making alcohol drinking, and these people are relatively unpleasant experience throughout their lives. So they're just born less likely to drink as much. So do they have increased risk of heart disease, like the original observational studies would suggest? No, they have reduced risk of heart disease. This suggests that reduction of alcohol consumption even for light to moderate drinkers is beneficial for cardiovascular health. So this just sheds further doubt on the protective association between moderate alcohol consumption and heart disease, which was already plagued with the confounding and bias, and now the scientific pillars on which it's based increasingly shaky, leading some to suggest the leaning tower of presumed health benefits from moderate alcohol use has finally collapsed. Given the harms attributed to alcohol use, it's not surprising that reports suggesting benefits attracted enthusiasm among consumers, the media, and of course the alcohol industry, but these apparent benefits are now evaporating. What conclusion should we draw from this emerging evidence? First, in health as elsewhere, if something looks too good to be true, like butter is back, it should be treated with great caution. Secondly, health professionals should discourage drinking. Thirdly, health advice should come from health authorities, not from the alcohol industry, which will remove all misleading references to reported health benefits, which are increasingly looking more like a triumph of spin doctoring than good science. As contrived as the alleged split among scientists over climate change, advanced by the petroleum industry. As an intoxicating, addictive, toxic, carcinogenic drug, alcohol is not a great choice as a therapeutic agent, even if it did help. There are better ways to prevent heart attacks, namely diet and exercise, and drugs when necessary. In contrast to that of alcohol, effectiveness of lifestyle interventions has been demonstrated, and as a bonus, has no abuse potential. There's a reason there's no apple-holics anonymous.