Re: Reproducibility crisis in science.
"What this is here is not "a reproduction of previous studies". It's a regurgitation of previous studies. A metastudy does not reproduce the results of previous studies. It does no new research."
Well firstly, you clearly didn't actually look at the study, or even read the article properly. The study the article refers to absolutely is a new study that has just been published. In your desperation to find something to complain about, you've apparently got confused by the fact that the article also briefly refers to an entirely different metastudy published nearly a decade ago. In any case, while whining about metastudies is common when people don't like the results, simply saying something is a metastudy is in no way a valid reason to dismiss it.
"If the original studies are shit, guess what, so is the metastudy."
The key word there being "studies". As in plural. You originally complained that the problem was a lack of replication. Now it's been pointed out that there actually are lots of studies replicating the same results in this case you've moved the goalposts to complain that some of those multiple studies might not have been good ones. While that is also true, it's both irrelevant to your original point and entirely unsupported by any evidence. If you can point to actual problems with any of these studies, feel free to do so, but bringing up red herrings to divert from the original claim isn't going to help your case. Ironically, if you'd bothered to actually read the article properly and checked your sources, you'd have noticed that the link referring to the metastudy in question was actually a rather critical Reg article pointing to numerous potential issues with it. Not enough to dismiss it out of hand, but certainly enough that it probably should not, and indeed clearly has not, be taken as a final authoritative answer.
"So, one out of five didn't. Why's that then?"
Because that's how science works. Not all studies will always agree with each other in every respect, for a huge variety of reasons ranging from experimental error to biological variability to simple chance. That's precisely why replication is so important, which was supposed to be the thing you were worried about in the first place. We look at the same thing over and over again, hopefully in a variety of different ways, and then come to a conclusion based on the balance of evidence. As things stand, that balance currently suggests that moderate drinking has health benefits over not drinking at all. Jumping around from complaining that the results haven't been replicated to complaining that many replications over the course of decades hasn't given a perfectly proven unanimous result is just silly, and rather suggests an unwillingness to accept the result rather than any actual issue with the method of getting there.