In 1924, Johns Hopkins biologist Raymond Pearl published a U-shaped graph showing high death rates for heavy drinkers and abstainers, and lower death rates among moderate drinkers.

Since then, hundreds of observational studies have confirmed the association and suggested reasons for it.

The juice is purported to reduce coronary disease, for example, because it increases HDL cholesterol and has anti-clotting effects.

Moderate alcohol consumption is also associated with slower cognitive decline in the mildly impaired elderly and improved bone mineral density in elderly women. In addition, light drinkers tend not to develop diabetes, and that those with diabetes tend not to develop coronary disease.

Could all this research be wrong?

“The moderate drinkers tend to do everything right — they exercise, they don’t smoke, they eat right and they drink moderately,” affirmed Kaye Fillmore, a retired sociologist from UCSF. “It’s hard to disentangle all of that, and that’s a problem.”

And alcohol consumption, even at moderate levels, has a dark side. It has been linked to multiple cancers, fatal accidents, neuropathies and of course, liver disease.

That’s why health guidelines on the matter walk a fine line. The American Heart Association warns that people should not start drinking to protect themselves from cardiac disease. And the US dietary guidelines hedge goes something like this: “alcohol may have beneficial effects when consumed in moderation.”

A confounding factor is that at least some studies showing a beneficial association were funded by the alcohol industry.

A few years ago for example, BU physician Curtis Ellison hosted a conference on the subject and published a summary one year later. The summary indicated the attendees had reached a “consensus” that moderate drinking “has predominantly beneficial effects on health.”

The meeting, as well as much of Ellison’s work, was partially financed by the industry, according to the New York Times. And the summary itself was co-authored by Marjana Martinic, a senior VP for the International Center for Alcohol Policies, an industry-supported group. Yeesh!

The Food and Drug Administration is mad as hell about illegal products marketed over the Internet claiming to diagnose, prevent, mitigate, treat or cure the 2009 H1N1 (Swine) flu virus.

And it’s not going to take it anymore.

The FDA has warned consumers to stay away from Swine flu products that it has not approved, cleared, or authorized, and beginning in May, it warned more than 50 offending Web site operators to cut it out (see full list here).

Approximately 66% of them did so.

That wasn’t good enough for FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. In a press release last week she said “we are committed to pursuing those who attempt to take advantage of a public health emergency by promoting and marketing unapproved, or unauthorized products. We will (continue) our efforts to protect consumers from these fraudulent, potentially dangerous products.”

The bogus products targeted by the FDA include:
- A shampoo claiming to protect against H1N1,
- A dietary supplement claiming to protect infants and children from H1N1,
- A supplement claiming to cure H1N1 in 4-8 hours,
- A spray claiming to leave a layer of ionic silver on one’s hands that killes the virus
- Several tests claiming to detect the virus, and
- An electronic instrument costing thousands of dollars claiming to use “photobiotic energy” and “deeply penetrating mega-frequency life-force energy waves” to strengthen the immune system and prevent symptoms associated with H1N1.

The scammers were discovered during Internet sweeps undertaken by the several FDA departments and other agencies.

The FDA has threatened to take civil or criminal enforcement action against vendors that fail to comply with the marching orders.