"But if the same 100,000 people drank nothing at all, 914 would still have one of those same problems. That’s only 4 more people per year (per 100,000) who will

"But if the same 100,000 people drank nothing at all, 914 would still have one of those same problems. That’s only 4 more people per year (per 100,000) who will have a problem that’s attributable to alcohol—that’s tiny. But it’s also not zero." ...and it's also far too little to be statistically significant. Moreover, nutritional studies of any kind have been infamously bad at giving reliable information. The advice from one decade is almost routinely found in the next to be invalid, or even the opposite of the truth. That's for things like carbohydrates, about which there were few religious injunctions or political polarization. For a topic with as much emotional and political baggage as alcohol, I find it unlikely to be any better. Whatever your decision about alcohol, I think the reliability of the science (pro- or anti-) is just not sufficient to help you make your decision.