"In contrast, Mendelian randomization studies generally suggest that there is no safe level of alcohol intake." I believe this is the case. The idea that mode

"In contrast, Mendelian randomization studies generally suggest that there is no safe level of alcohol intake." I believe this is the case. The idea that moderate alcohol consumption is "healthy" or beneficial in some way is a misunderstanding of their data. What we see is the following: People who drink no alcohol at all and people who abuse alcohol have, generally, poorer health outcomes than people who drink, but do not abuse, alcohol. The poor health outcomes for the alcohol abusers needs no explanation. It is the poor health outcomes of the abstainers that is misunderstood: they're simply not robust, or constitutionally enabled, to drink even small amounts of alcohol without feeling bad. So my conclusion is that the abstainers are not having poorer health outcomes because of the absence of alcohol - they're having poorer health outcomes anyway.