Moderate drinking midwittery in the Economist

The Economist ran an article about moderate drinking a couple of weeks ago. Tediously and predictably, it revived the 'sick quitter' zombie argument and quoted Tim Stockwell as if he were the arbiter of this fake controversy. I sent a letter which has been published in the current issue. Bored of explaining the epidemiology, I thought I would mention some real science that the likes of Stockwell prefer not to discuss.

 

You suggested that moderate drinkers live longer than teetotallers because some teetotallers are “sick quitters” who wrecked their health with booze in the past (“Hard-liquor truths”, January 11th). This argument was first made in the 1980s and has been repeatedly disproved, most recently in a wide-ranging review from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine that found moderate drinkers have a 16% lower rate of all-cause mortality than lifetime abstainers, which you mentioned in your leader.

One does not need to have blind faith in observational epidemiology to accept the truth of this. The review notes that randomised controlled trials have shown that “moderate drinking favourably affects HDL cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A-1”. It would be remarkable if this did not lead to lower heart disease and stroke risk, and it is this that explains most of the longevity gains enjoyed by moderate drinkers.

I've noticed the Economist descending into lower-midwittery recently. I can tolerate its relentless centrism and bed-wetting about 'populism' and Brexit, but I expect better from it than credulous reporting of Chris van Tulleken's claims about 'ultra-processed food' and the silly Texas sharpshooter theory about Lucy Letby. The magazine that identifies as a newspaper costs £9.99 now. Must try harder.

Share

Tweet