Jim wrote:

> 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. 

Right, I'm not questioning their data. 

> Your questioning
> their theory (not conjecture!) as to why the difference
> between their findings and the U graph findings.

Their theory to explain their data IS conjecture.

> 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.  

The article you cited does not state that the Bristol study controlled for
this factor either.

> I find this
> convincing.  Do you?  If not, how else would you explain the
> Bristol findings?

Looks to me like the Bristol researchers were just throwing out a few
guesses after the conclusion of their study in an attempt to explain their
failure to find a statistically significant difference between non-drinkers
and moderate drinkers. And then the reporter at the BBC was all too eager to
sensationalize their speculations in order to make it seem like an
interesting news story. 

-gts