Dear friends,
For several weeks a little music has been broadcast in the background in the major media: “Be careful, alcohol is dangerous for your health. »
A priorinothing new.
Except… listen carefully; until then we heard: “Be careful, abuse of alcohol is dangerous for your health.
And that’s not the same thing at all.
Until now the enemy of public authorities and media doctors, it was alcoholism ; today it is alcohol.
The difference is considerable. In the first case we warn of the well-documented dangers of excessive and addictive consumption (liver cirrhosis, ethyl coma, family violence, etc.); in the second, it is the product itself which is stigmatized as dangerous.
How did we get there?
From “Dry January” to the big bad red that stains
Table of Contents
This contemporary demonization of alcohol began in a soft way, if I dare say, with the Dry Januaryluck of revival healthy of the principle of prohibition, in the form of a challenge consisting of abstaining from all alcohol during the month following the end-of-year celebrations, which are generally well-watered.
I have already commented on this fashion imported from Great Britain[1].
But abstaining from drinking in January implies that it is permitted for the other eleven months of the year.
Now, here, the discourse becomes more radical: the slightest drop of alcohol, we are told, would be dangerous, all year long… all life!
Worse ! A doctor on set, Dr Gérald Kierzek, also medical director of the Doctissimo site, seems to have gone on a crusade against red wine.
Red wine, explains Dr. Kierzek on public service airwaves, is not only not good for health, but those who claim that it plays a protective role in cardiovascular health are wrong.[2] !
In France, country of Beaujolais Nouveau and Bordeaux Grands Crus, this type of definitive assertion is not received without emotion.
And all the more so since France is also known as the country of french paradoxthis observation according to which the high consumption of saturated fats in France was not accompanied by proportionally high coronary mortality, “protection” attributed to… the French habit of consuming red wine at the table.
“French paradox”: were we wrong?
In mainstream media, the french paradoxas long as this notion is familiar, has lived.
Some authors considered that the initial studies were biased and did not sufficiently take into account associated risk factors[3].
It is this “deconstruction” echoed by Gérald Kierzek, who repeatedly repeats that “red wine does not protect the arteries”, arguing in particular that in the United States, since this year, in the context of the prevention of hypertension, we now recommend stopping alcohol completely.
Dr. Kierzek, appearing on public service airwaves, has a considerable audience and his message must have been taken at face value by listeners.
A cardiologist who is an authority in the field, Dr. Michel de Lorgeril, responded directly to him, and points out that the protective effect of moderate consumption of red wine is confirmed in epidemiology, physiology and in studies on animal models.
And, above all, it reminds us that red wine cannot be presented as a “medicine”! We don’t “treat” ourselves to red wine, that would be absurd.
He emphasizes that it is in a healthy, well-chosen context, and in an approach of integrated pleasure, in moderate quantities, that the consumption of red wine has documented benefits.[4].
A new form of prohibition?
The fact remains that in recent years, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world, there has been an “anti-alcohol” movement that is reminiscent of the anti-alcohol leagues in the United States of the last century.
Last August, researchers from Stanford University published a quasi-manifesto in which they declared that the “belief” according to which moderate alcohol consumption can have health benefits is an “outdated” idea.[5].
According to them, the studies which, for decades, suggested that moderate alcohol consumption could protect the heart, reduce the risk of diabetes, and even prolong life, are simply… to be thrown in the trash.
Their main argument is that these older studies compared a group of “non-drinkers” (which may include people who stopped because they were already ill) to “moderate drinkers.” This type of bias, Stanford researchers explain, gives the impression of a protective effect.
The argument is interesting; but suspecting bias, real or forced, in a study is not normally enough to completely discredit the conclusions of said study.
However, according to them, not only does moderate alcohol consumption offer no health benefits, but drinking just one drink is enough to increase your risk of cancer, liver problems, neuropsychiatric effects.
Here again, this seems to me to quickly wipe out several other studies – not so old, like that of 2020 which revealed a protective effect of the consumption of red wine against Alzheimer’s.[6] !
In short, you understand: for the Stanford authors, the “right” dose of alcohol is… zero.
Or complete sobriety. There is a fine line between sobriety and abstinence; between abstinence and prohibition, there is only a difference – no pun intended – of degree.
Red wine is bad, alcohol is bad
The Stanford authors go quite far and, not content with denying the neurocardioprotective effect of moderate alcohol consumption, they go so far as to denounce the fact that the latter is “socially acceptable”.
Coming from researchers and doctors this is surprising, but coming from researchers Americans it’s less so.
In reality, I see quite little science and medicine behind this approach, but a lot of ideology.
The Anglo-Saxon world in general, and the United States in particular, are inhabited by a Manichean vision of the world: there is good and evil.
Alcohol, as an evil, had already been targeted, as I spoke to you about earlier, by the anti-alcoholic leagues which campaigned a century ago for a complete ban, which gave rise to prohibition; result: multiplication of clandestine bars, golden age of gangsterism, with Al Capone as the emblematic figure!
The cycle repeats itself: alcohol once again becomes, in Anglo-Saxon circles, the evil incarnate – I remind you that the Dry January comes from Great Britain – and the apparently very serious arguments of the Stanford academics serve as scientific support for a moralistic campaign which aims, nothing more, nothing less, to make you feel guilty because you drink a beer or a glass of wine.
If you think I’m going too far, read the Stanford academics’ report: it’s written there in full – and in emphasis! – that alcohol should be treated the same as tobacco.
Within five or ten years, if Americans follow this logic, alcohol bottle labels will carry the same intimidating and dire warnings as cigarette packages today.
What is at stake here is much more than whether it is “good” or “bad” to drink a glass of red wine.
This is a change in public health discourse, which abandons nuance to impose totalizing truths.
The intervention of Dr. Gérald Kierzek demonstrates that not only France is permeable to these moralizing discourses on a scientific basis orientedbut that the public media are ready to broadcast them en masse.
We know what’s good for you
We are slowly but surely moving from a discourse of prevention to a discourse of prescription. It’s no longer “you can choose, but be informed”, but: “you shouldn’t, because we know what’s good for you”.
Behind this shift lies a depressing conception of the individual: a vulnerable person, incapable of discernment, who must be supervised, monitored, corrected. We experienced it with Covid.
This infantilization, perhaps well-intentioned but intrusive, also produces a society of distrust, where we no longer regard our neighbor as an adult free to make their choices, but as a danger to himself and to others if he dares to transgress the line of virtue set by the health authorities.
Remember again the sideways glances in public spaces if you wear your mask incorrectly!
Did you forget?
Me not…
This is where ideology trumps science.
Clink glasses, or you will clink glasses
Because what does science really say? She says the effects of alcohol depend on quantities, context, genetics, lifestyle.
She says risk is a matter of probability, not certainty. She says moderation is often better than rigid abstinence.
On the other hand, it would be wrong to confine the question of alcohol consumption to medical science alone.
Alcohol is a social and cultural fact. It allows people to be linked, to disinhibit them, to cement a group, to share experiences; better yet, it is not unique to man, as I wrote to you last June since chimpanzees also gather around an “aperitif” made from fermented fruits at the end of the day[7] !
But this complexity does not sit well with simplistic public health slogans and speeches.
It is much more convenient for a doctor on stage or an activist for Dry Januaryto highlight the real, sometimes exaggerated, harms of alcohol on health to place its moralizing and controlling discourse.
This is how we simplify, we prohibit and tomorrow, perhaps, we criminalisera.
Who knows if in a few years, opening a bottle at the table will not make you a moral suspect, a future patient, a “non-aligned” person with regard to the new public health? It will be the return – and the import! – prohibition.
All this in the name of “good”. Of your property. Of the common good.
But an imposed good is not a shared good. It is an injunction.
And as always with injunctions, there are those who believe in them… and those who clink glasses.
I hope you’ll think about that as you raise a glass today!
Be well,
Rodolphe
[1] – Rodolphe Bacquet, “January dead on! », site ofAlternative Well-BeingJanuary 6, 2021
[2] – Gérald Kierzek, “Hypertension: end the myth of red wine protecting the heart”, show “Les conseils du Dr Kierzek”, France Bleu, September 3, 2025
[3] – Jean-Louis Schlienger, “What remains of the French paradox? The story of a double mistake”, in. Metabolic Disease Medicinemars 2025
[4] – Michel de Lorgeril, Patricia Jean, Thierry Corcos et al., « Is moderate drinking as effective as cholesterol lowering in reducing mortality in high-risk coronary patients », in. European Heart Journalflight. 29, issue 1, January 2008
[5] – « Is moderate drinking actually healthy ? Scientists say the idea is outdated », in Stanford ReportAugust 19, 2025
[6] – Klinedinst, B. S., Le, S. T., Larsen, B. et al. « Genetic Factors of Alzheimer’s Disease Modulate How Diet Is Associated with Long-Term Cognitive Trajectories: A UK Biobank Study », in. Journal of Alzheimer’s DiseaseOctober 26, 2020
[7] – Rodolphe Bacquet, “Apéritif”, websiteAlternative Well-BeingJune 22, 2025
