You are not a doctor, but you’re bright and insightful. When I am with a patient, I do offer expert guideline-based recommendations, but then try to give a sense of both relative and absolute risks. For an individual, it is challenging (but possible) to do so, to some degree. In general, with pieces pointing out the perils of this, that, or the other, we end up with estimates for a population. Your estimate overall is not that far off the mark, which brings me back to how I have these dialogs: If chemo decreases the risk of death by one-third for any given disease, I immediately think yes, I need chemo. But one-third of what? 30 percent? Count me in. 3 percent? Perhaps not. And so it all comes down to how YOU interpret risk. For something as complex as blood pressure, models will become increasingly sophisticated in providing individualized estimates, but we are not really there yet. Moreover, primary physicians are often pushed into 10 to 15 minute appointment times, at least in the USA. My piece is misguided only if you do not do as you should: Use it as a broad, general guide while relying on your valued healthcare provider to sort the fine details for you as an individual. One final point, your objection leads one to believe that the only perils of alcohol are stroke, and not also heart attack, and cancer, and… well you get the point. Simple lesson: Moderation is key. Ultimately, it comes down to how you interpret risk for you. I simply want folks to think. I look forward to your comments going forward and thank you for joining. You also remind me to, wherever possible, give absolute risks (and not relative ones). Thank you!