gts > "...the Bristol researchers presented no evidence to support their
conjecture that non-drinkers are more likely than moderate drinkers to be
sickly people with shorter life-expectancies. In fact the opposite seems
just as likely to be true: it's certainly possible if not likely that
sickly people tend to drink to compensate for the pain and misery of their
illnesses."

Finally, you're answering the question!  You do not find the conjecture
convincing.  Thanks for answering my question.

gts > "I understand that a lot of people are determined to believe
whatever they want to believe, evidence be damned."

But Gordon, we have evidence in the form of a study which you've agreed is
everything one would want vis a vis scientific rigor.  And that study
shows no health benefit whatsoever in moderate alcohol consumption.  I've
quite reasonably called for caution in your repeated pronouncements that
two glasses of wine a day are good for you.  Really now, who's ignoring
evidence?

The truth is, the evidence is inconclusive. The Bristol study calls in
question the previous findings that moderate drinking is good for you.
Problem is, in the absence of solid scientific fact, we still have to go
on about our lives and make choices about what to consume to improve or
maintain our health.   So what do we do?  We use common sense.  And common
sense tells me that pre-Neolithic man and his predecessors were not
consuming alcohol at near the levels you recommend.