This study seems small and with the effect being the opposite of that previously found it basically amounts to "What's going on here???" I did like this from the article, though:<p>In an accompanying editorial, Killian Welch, consultant neuropsychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital, says the findings "strengthen the argument that drinking habits many regard as normal have adverse consequences for health."<p>"This is important," he writes. "We all use rationalizations to justify persistence with behaviors not in our long term interest. With publication of this paper, justification of 'moderate' drinking on the grounds of brain health becomes a little harder."<p>---<p>In company with Ioannidis's article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"[1], I believe the rationalization effect is big in such studies. People want to believe that the things they already do are virtuous, thus there's a bias toward finding that chocolate, wine, etc., are all actually good for you. Not to mention respective industries that would benefit from such findings.<p>1: <a href="http://faculty.dbmi.pitt.edu/day/Bioinf2118/Bioinf-2118-2013/Ioannidis-journal.pmed.0020124.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://faculty.dbmi.pitt.edu/day/Bioinf2118/Bioinf-2118-2013...</a>