Attilio

This is true but going back to med school, at least at the recent turn of the century (circa 2000 A.D.) the indoctrination wasn't really present, they were still encouraging critical thinking and above all they trained us to be very skeptical of what is called science. The problem is that a study can be designed based on inclusion criteria or how the control groups are chosen or treated to seem quite valid when in reality they easily confound variables that can reach the desired conclusion by those behind the study.

The issue here and why I believe these anti alcohol stats is because nobody is benefitting except individual people who will likely quit consuming it. It goes against the money, goes against power. Alcohol not only is big business but it's a great sedative to make people weak, powerless and accept what their government is shoving down their throats, or at least take away the strength to resist. It's a numbing agent part of the "bread and circus for the masses" control agenda that has been going on for millenia and useful to the politicians, international finance, corporations and old money power structure.

Obviously going against the money or big companies isn't always a sign of truth either, take the anti-vax quack from the UK who claimed that vaccines cause autism in children. His "study" had a sample size of maybe 10-12 subjects which alone made his claims ridiculous on its face. But these anti alcohol studies are huge, of high quality, very significant, and the message is very repeatable through slightly different study designs in different places with large groups of people. When you have that level of reproducibility using different techniques, looking at different things, surviving peer review to that high level and it goes against the established money I listen! The truth is that there is no "cui bono" or "who benefits" other than individuals saving money, time, disease and life expectancy. Being without alcohol is like most good things in life, free!