Jim > Their illness isn't caused by their failure to quaff a couple a day.
 It's the other way around,

gts > "My point, Jim, is that this statement above is pure speculation. It
is only after the fact that the researchers attempted to speculate about a
theory that would explain their anomalous results.

In other words it is not a tested hypothesis. It is a mere conjecture,
which
you are now stating as fact."

Gordon, I reread your message.  Sorry, I misunderstood your point.  You're
not questioning here the Bristol study finding that the graph is more J
than U shaped.  Your questioning their theory (not conjecture!) as to why
the difference between their findings and the U graph findings.

That theory states that previous researchers failed to take into account
the subgroup of the teetotaller group who were ill and did not drink
because of their illness.  I find this convincing.  Do you?  If not, how
else would you explain the Bristol findings?