[wes-exp]

Don't single out cancer without considering all-cause mortality. A number of studies show that moderate alcohol consumption results in overall less death even if cancer risk is increased.

"The beneficial effects of alcohol are not only evident in cardiovascular disease, but also in reducing mortality from all causes."

http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consum...

[ekianjo]

There is no cardiovascular benefit for alcohol intake. The only evidence for this is an observational study, which does not prove causation at all and is heavily disputed. It would not be the first time that observational studies are proven wrong in actual trials :

> In recent years we have seen that the results of similar “observational” studies were disproved when subjected to a “randomized controlled trial”—the standard bearer of scientific proof. A good example of this is female hormone replacement. For decades it was believed that female hormone replacement was beneficial. But a randomized controlled trial, called the Women’s Health Initiative, demonstrated that the exact opposite was true. The study was stopped in 2002 because women taking the study pills of estrogen plus progestin were developing heart disease and breast cancer at increased rates compared to those taking the placebo or inactive pills."

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/01/red-wine-good-heart-brai...

[jholman]

The concern about drawing conclusions from correlation is legitimate, but it's more than "an" (i.e. one) observational study.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/AlcoholAndHealth.html

That page cites 188 articles, almost all of them finding health benefits to drinking alcohol. Without having gone into all of them to look for methodological flaws, that hints at a very consistent pattern of correlation.

That page alleges that it is maintained by a professor emeritus, who at least at this time, does not have nor need any funding from e.g. the alcohol industry. That's far from an exhaustive proof that he's free of bias, but it clears the most obvious source.

[ekianjo]

Well you'll have to explain me how you fit "greater longevity" claimed by the page you linked with the indisputable fact that alcohol consumption drives the rate of cancers, which are one of the leading causes of death in the developed world. There is clear evidence that alcohol contents cause mutations, which in turn cause cancers when out of control. A number of deadly cancers are directly correlated with alcohol intake, such as oesophagus, stomach and digestive tract cancer. Plus, all alcohol drinks contain some amounts of formaldehyde which is a powerful poison for humans (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/formaldehyde_508.p...).

So I'm not sure how a doctor can say with a straight face that 1-2 drinks a day has no detrimental effect on your health at all.

[wes-exp]

The explanation of greater longevity is simple. Heart disease and stroke, at least in the US, together account for slightly more deaths than cancer. Suppose that moderate alcohol consumption increases cancer risk by 5%, but decreases heart disease and stroke risk by 10%. Although there would be more cancers due to alcohol, the overall death count would still be reduced, because of the protective effect on the cardiovascular system.

No one is saying that alcohol doesn't have negative effects on health. It's just that the positive effects of moderate consumption are stronger, enough so that overall mortality is reduced (at least according to the available scientific evidence, which I admit may not tell the whole story).