From the paper itself:
"Forty-eight curves (908 182 subjects and 86 941 deaths) were adjusted at least for age; among them, 28 were adjusted for social status too, and 10 for social status and dietary markers."
This is adjusting for 1-4 confounders out of many possible confounders. Even doing so they lost half of the association. Note that the scientists themselves do not claim a causal effect, but only association. It's reasonable to take their word for this.
I personally would not change dietary habits just based on studies like this.
Note that the scientists themselves do not claim a causal effect, but only association.
They claim causation in several places, albeit sprinkled with perhapses and maybes. From the abstract:
potential windows of alcohol intake that may confer a net beneficial effect
From the Comment section:
......the benefit of light to moderate drinking remained in a range of undoubted public health value (15%-18%)...
...the maximum protection conferred by light to moderate drinking...
...the “real” (maximum) protection against total mortality associated with low levels
My roommate recently sent me a review article that LW might find interesting:
Personal observation says that LWers tend not to drink very much or often. Perhaps that should change, to the degree suggested by the article?
Full article here.