TL;DR I pointed at the wrong link for the "no safe level" claim. That quotation is from the first link, the meta-analysis "Moderate Alcohol Use and Reduced Mor

TL;DR I pointed at the wrong link for the "no safe level" claim. That quotation is from the first link, the meta-analysis "Moderate Alcohol Use and Reduced Mortality Risk: Systematic Error in Prospective Studies and New Hypotheses". It's a single piece of work focused on the "sick quitter" phenomenon, which only shows that light or "moderate" consumption is at best providing no benefit, as you say. This was the main thrust of my point -- it's not health-promoting. I did make a mistake and say that this meta-analysis justified a stronger claim though. I should have justified it using the second link. The second link is an editorial, "Alcohol’s evaporating health benefits: Industry lobbying and promotion are rife and unchecked by governments". It's more of an overview of many studies and meta-analyses, and is the reference I should have given for my claim of "no safe level". Choice quotation and it's reference. > A recent mendelian randomisation meta-analysis further concluded that “reductions of alcohol consumption, even for light to moderate drinkers, may be beneficial for cardiovascular health.” [16] > [16] Holmes MV, Dale CE, Zuccolo L, Silverwood RJ, Guo Y, Ye Z, et al. Association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ 2014;349:g4164 CHD is the number one killer in the US.