So your argument here is that it is ridiculous to suggest that an RCT is possible in this circumstance, so we should therefore accept observational studies whic

So your argument here is that it is ridiculous to suggest that an RCT is possible in this circumstance, so we should therefore accept observational studies which derive correlations as truth. Not only does that conclusion not follow from your premise (a logical fallacy), but it's an absurd suggestion as a process for deriving truth. Observational studies, at best, offer an insight into possible hypotheses, and should by no means be considered persuasive unless all interacting systems have been controlled for. In the case of ethanol, there are an enormous amount of interacting systems that need to be controlled for. Your premise is also strictly false, as it's clear that not only is an RCT for ethanol consumption possible, but it was planned and partially in progress before it was terminated. It's truly incredible to see the kind of language that you use here, how confident you are about your fallacious argument. I kindly request that you turn down your confident language. Science is a long and careful process of pushing back the fog of ignorance, and if you are serious about the search for truth you shouldn't use such confident language.