1st BATCH OF FILES AVAILABLE NOW!

Yesterday, STAT News, a health-focused news site linked to the Boston Globe, launched a new seven-part series called "The Deadliest Drug." You can probably guess which one the authors focus on. Emphasizing alcohol-related mortality, the project's landing page asks "why does the US ignore its most harmful substance use crisis?" Throughout, the reporters insist on calling the country's experience of alcohol-related harm as an "epidemic." But the data presented does not support such a rapidly rising emergency as the authors allege. The series landing page and a summary piece showcasing "6 takeaways" dangle the threat of industry influence, the explicit subject of later entries, "coming soon." But the focus is much broader than that. The alleged "epidemic is a generational failure of the medical and public health systems, of industry, and of government," according to these writers. And in total, the initial entries in the series offer a stronger indictment of our medical systems and infrastructure than of alcohol itself or the industry. Then too, the authors almost universally emphasize the harms of "heavy" or "excessive" drinking, not all drinking.The primary project of the Bloomberg-funded series appears to be drawing more attention to alcohol and away from opioids. But in service of that, the series both misstates and misrepresents mortality data from the CDC. It also rehashes older, inflated estimates for the "cost" of excessive drinking, while ignoring notable improvements and downplaying the positive experiences of most drinkers."Deadly" Data Missteps The very lengthy first part in STAT's series argues that "alcohol is wreaking havoc on US public health" by attempting to dig deep into various data sources and lay out the case that alcohol is the "deadliest drug." That basic contention depends on reading the term "deadliest" to mean the drug that causes the largest number of deaths. But it plays (or perhaps preys) on a different reading: that it's the drug that's most likely to be deadly. Since alcohol consumption is many times more common than the use of most other drugs, federal data supports the former reading. But the latter is patently false.That said, for a publication named STAT, the article plays a little fast and loose with data. Off the bat, the piece points to an analysis of emergency department visits to claim that "alcohol-related injuries, disease, and fatalities have spiked in recent years, starting in 2020." They also "nearly doubled" from 2003 to 2022, STAT reports. The latter point is true, rising from under 3 million in 2004 to 5.4 million in 2022. However, over 90% of that increase happened between 2004 and 2016, when figures steadily increased, the publication's chart shows, directly contradicting the assertion of a "spike." Ups and downs from 2018 and 2022, plus wider margins of error, further undercut the outlet's "epidemic" allegation.The second major dataset that STAT delves into is the CDC's most recent estimates that suggest excessive alcohol use can be linked to 178,000 deaths annually. STAT inaccurately presents this data as representative 2024 mortality rates, when in fact they are estimates for 2020 and 2021 that the agency has not updated further. Recall, 2/3 of that total are tied to chronic causes like heart disease, liver disease, cancer and more, for which alcohol's portion is estimated using a flat ratio ("Alcohol-Attributable Fractions"). So when total US heart disease mortality jumped 20% from 2019 to 2021 during the height of the pandemic, so too did the presumed number of alcohol-related deaths linked to heart disease.STAT acknowledges how alcohol-related deaths jumped 16% "during the pandemic" and "remain far above 2019 levels." But to support that, the article points to estimates published early this year suggesting far lower totals and a far faster pandemic-era increase. The study linked by the article shows that "alcohol-induced deaths" actually leapt 39% between 2019 and 2021 from about 39K to 54K, since tapering off by about 14% to fewer than 47K. That smaller figure only includes cases when alcohol was tied to the "underlying cause of death," not the far larger number of cases in which it is a "contributing cause."Again, STAT uses the larger totals to make its "deadliest" case for alcohol, directly comparing those (older, inflated) figures to allegedly comparable mortality data for opioids in 2024. The outlet claims 39K opioid-related deaths that year, with the majority, some 30K, tied to synthetic opioids (i.e. fentanyl). The comparison of 178K to 39K appears striking. But there are no comparable figures for the potential total impact of opioid use on chronic diseases, which again represents 2/3 of the cited alcohol-related deaths.Additionally, CDC data released in January counted about 40% more total opioid overdose deaths and 60% more synthetic opioid overdoses in 2024 than those presented by STAT. Current estimates suggest 79K total drug overdose deaths in 2024, down from over 105K in 2023, with 54K of them from opioids, including almost 48K from synthetics like fentanyl.Oddly, STAT links to this data elsewhere in the article, though its charts present smaller numbers. Note too that close to 90% of the 22K alcohol-related deaths caused by "poisonings" in 2020-2021 were actually overdoses of other drugs, mostly opioids, to which researchers assume alcohol "contributed." So the actual spike in synthetic opioid overdoses (basically doubling to 71K from 2019 to 2021) also pushed up those same alcohol-related mortality figures, which remain frozen at inflated levels during the height of the pandemic.Points to Drinking Declines, But Not Among Youth Noting the much-reported 2025 results of the annual Gallup poll about American alcohol use, the article repeatedly references declines in consumption. Still, 5 million underage Americans drank in 2024, the article emphasizes, citing results of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). However, STAT entirely omits that the figure fell by over 40% since 2014, from 8.7 million underage drinkers. That's also a near 10-point drop from 22.8 to 13.3% of 12-20 year olds.Those are stats for any monthly consumption. Yet the article emphasizes heavy use and binge drinking. When publishing results for 2024, NSDUH authors pointed out that the 7.6% of 12-20 year olds who reported binge drinking, 2.9 million of them, remained relatively flat since 2021. Compared to 2014, those figures dropped 45%, which STAT also ignores.Old Inflated Cost Estimates Repeated STAT also reprints the familiar claim that the "cost" of "excessive alcohol consumption" to the US was a quarter trillion, $249 bil, way back in 2010 (without even taking the obvious step of attempting to adjust for inflation). As always with these cost analyses, estimates for "lost productivity" comprise the biggest chunk of the total, over 70% at a whopping $177 bil. That purports to represent all the money that isn't earned when people miss work or die prematurely because of their excessive drinking. But they're not costs that are actually paid to or by anyone, so they're not easily (or perhaps appropriately) compared to tax revenue the way STAT and other sources assert."Social and Cultural Benefits" Downplayed "Alcohol's harms are well documented, but the scope and severity of the epidemic are often invisible," STAT claims. Harm tied to binge drinking, use disorders and (still surprisingly) common consumption during pregnancy "are overshadowed by the vast majority of those who drink without experiencing significant harm," the outlet acknowledges. Indeed, "alcohol is central to American life because of its social and cultural benefits to the many people who drink without issue," authors write.Yet they still seem puzzled why alcohol misuse "is not seen as a public health emergency" after "centuries" when it has "destroyed lives, torn apart families, stunted the economy, and caused millions of deaths." But they mean millennia, not merely centuries. Humans have been aware of the potential harms of alcohol on both personal and societal levels since humans formed complex societies. We've also long understood and respected the economic power it can bring, far from seeing it as something that "stunts" the economy. Is there really any wonder folks rarely use words like "emergency" or "epidemic"?Bemoaning Lack of Presidential, Public Attention Most presidents have paid little-to-no attention to alcohol, STAT complains. In early 2025, the cancer-focused Surgeon General's Advisory was "alcohol's brief moment in the spotlight," it comments. But it should be a bigger focus for President Trump and Health Secretary Kennedy, the outlet argues, since both have been "touched by the ravages of drinking."This is another area of special attention for the writers, who return again and again to the "unique opportunity" of MAHA interest in wellness. The outlet frames alcohol guidance in the new edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans as "loosened" and broadly critiques the administration for large scale cuts to public health infrastructure. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services described both claims as "baseless."The writers for STAT also take an over-the-top tone to describe what they view as "societal denial: Americans have bought into the idea that widespread harm and even death is a price we must pay in order for people to drink at all." They claim that "the public isn't aware" of corporate relationships with lawmakers, extensive lobbying spends or industry caucuses in Congress. Much of that is public and all of it stretches far beyond the alcohol industry. And though industry advocacy is in part blamed for "quashing proposals for higher taxes or stricter regulation," STAT also notes that "many Americans balk, too," at tax hikes. That's another pretty good reason why elected officials shy away from the idea; most folks don't like paying more for something they enjoy without experiencing any harm.Series Funded by Bloomberg Grant Here, during the brief discussion of tax hikes, STAT acknowledges that the publication "received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies," which actively advocates for higher taxes on alcohol. Each article closes with a note that STAT's coverage of chronic health issues is "supported by a grant from" the foundation. Recall that Bloomberg is one of if not the biggest global funder of anti-industry advocacy, including its support of the work by Movendi Intl. But fear not, STAT says: "our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism." Natch.Next Entries Emphasize Systemic Failings Untouched by Key Policy Proposals STAT's authors offer the following brief diagnosis: "the nation is falling short in key areas, including screening for unhealthy alcohol use and potentially deadly liver disease, and treating alcohol addiction." These are subjects of other entire articles in the series, either just published or forthcoming. Part 2 focuses on "inconsistent detection" and the trouble with screening for potential alcohol problems during regular doctor visits. Today's entry is dedicated to what the summary post describes as "a new kind of liver crisis" and a "twin epidemic of alcohol and metabolic disease." Future stories will look at how treatment options are lacking or lagging and how more resources are needed for "certain groups, such as pregnant people," who "face particularly steep odds of getting help."All of these speak to the alleged failings of medical and public health systems, none of which would be directly addressed by the most common public policy proposals. Higher taxes could raise funds for treatment and prevention, but those systems may not be prepared for the kind of cash infusions contemplated by most proposals, brief summaries imply. The outlet's emphasis on heavy drinking also undermines the population-level focus on most preferred public health policies.Countdown to Industry in the Crosshairs Though industry advocacy plays only a minor role in STAT's first few stories, it's likely to be pushed into the spotlight later on. The industry's "influence" is the publication's final "takeaway" in its summary piece and the first full article claims that "the industry's reach goes further than previously known." Industry groups have sought "close proximity to key medical societies and large nonprofit organizations," while working "to influence public health guidelines," according to STAT.The closing entry in the series ("coming soon," perhaps next week) is set to be titled "Booze Schmooze: The alcohol industry, frazzled by headwinds, wields its power behind the scenes." But not before part 6 attempts to explain "How the Trump administration derailed alcohol research and prevention." So buckle up for a rehash of the ICCPUD drama and the subsequent gutting of staff and researchers at HHS. Should be a hoot.Cheers,

STAT Stretches the Stats to Claim "Epidemic" of Alcohol Harm in New Series

Publishing Info