The problem is that a general statement like "no alcohol is good for the heart" is that it is probably factually wrong.And I base this on the fact that grapes f

The problem is that a general statement like "no alcohol is good for the heart" is that it is probably factually wrong.And I base this on the fact that grapes for example is known to be a very good fruit for all-things blood and especially red cells.(Most notably iron here).This is not pseudo-science. And while yes, you could say "that's not alcohol itself" and that's correct, but obviously not all alcohol is equivalent, and also you cannot exactly separate alcohol and examine it in a vacuum.Alcohol is not consumed purely in the vast majority of cases. Generally speaking if the institution name starts with "World" or "Global", it's more likely to say something to be accepted by virtually everyone, and most often that will sound dystopian and bullsh1t.The prohibition did not work(and i say this as someone who drinks maybe <=5 times a year, very much liking to stay lucid but also acknowledging the benefits of such an experience when i do).The drug on war did not work.Institutions want to regulate any substance that deviates thought from the mainstream hivemind narrative.Your statement can easily be deconstructed by more than 2000 years of written history where people battled whether consumed drugs and especially alcohol is or not beneficial for health.With the exceptions of exaggeration in certain cultures(see alcoholism in russia) this is not an issue.The other exaggeration happened in US with Prohibition and we've seen that's also not desirable, and it promotes drinking irresponsibly.