Search results

We are well into the flu season, and people have different strategies for preventing or treating viral infections. Of course, some people choose dietary supplements instead of a flu shot. Lately, many have been choosing elderberry products. Let's go back to the 1970s and compare elderberries to Laetrile, perhaps the most infamous case of alternative medicine.

Chocolate is proof that life’s sweetest indulgences come with strings attached. Just when you thought you could justify a dark chocolate candy bar as “preventative care,” here comes another study to complicate things. Dark chocolate might “possibly” lower your risk of type 2 diabetes, but only if you pair it with kale, a Peloton, and healthy living.

The Lancet Commission has declared obesity a disease. With enough controversy to fill a buffet table, their new definition is sparking heated debates in science, media, and beyond. But does this really change anything?

On January 16, the FDA banned the use of red dye #3 in food and ingested drugs, stating that it causes cancer in male rats but not in humans. This is being hailed as a victory for the Healthy Foods Movement. Red dye #3 is being banned because of an outdated law, the Delaney Clause, which needs to be amended or repealed.

Hormonal
health and hormone balancing are all the wellness rage these days, with
influencers, health coaches, nutritionists, etc. claiming to specialize in it.
With plenty of people offering hot takes, questionable advice, and sketchy
products, it's important to understand this latest trend.

The surge in the “medical freedom” movement has thrust the tension between individual liberty and public health into the spotlight. At its core, this debate questions whether personal autonomy can — or should — supersede collective responsibility, especially in the face of public health crises. As courts increasingly favor individual rights, bioethics offers a framework for analysis. But does it provide real answers or simply muddy the waters further?

Cacio e Pepe, "How hard could it be?" But traumatized home cooks will tell you this creamy dream requires a magician's finesse and an Italian grandmother's patience. Can science make a better Cacio?

Let’s ponder life's great mysteries: What’s in a name? Why does RFK Jr. believe he’s the Socrates of vaccines? Can public health officials stop making nutrition mistakes long enough to determine why Double Stuf Oreos are more appealing than kale? Spoiler: it’s not because Oreos are cheaper; it’s because kale is kale.

Fourteen years ago, Michael Pollan offered us Food Rules. Today, researchers armed with machine learning and 50,000 grocery items are trying to turn Pollan’s “wisdom” into science. The findings suggest your shopping cart is less a Whole Foods utopia and more an ultra-processed dystopia.

Who could imagine a world without plasma TV screens? Or a blood test without measurements of key electrolytes, sodium, and potassium? Both technologies rely on the fields of radiometry and flame spectroscopy. But one scientist – a woman - who pioneered work in both areas is almost unknown.

USDA's Thrifty Food Plan aims to help low-income Americans eat well without breaking their modest budgets. It's an altruistic attempt to promote public health. But this bureaucratic project to promote nutrition lacks what so many other government programs do: the ability to incentivize healthy living at scale.

Avian flu is rampant in poultry farms and in wild birds in the U.S. Every mutation brings the virus one step closer to the brink of human-to-human transmission, but predicting whether a virus will cross that threshold remains an uncertain science.

By now, you have surely seen many images of planes dropping a red liquid on the Los Angeles fires. It's not just water. A chemical within the liquid suppresses burning by a series of simple reactions.

The First Amendment's guarantees are not absolute. A person cannot “shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater” and put the lives of others in imminent danger. As Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

In fall 2024, Andrea Love, PhD, and Katie Suleta, DHSc, MPH, MS, wrote an op-ed on how the growth of the wellness industry is a double-edged sword, offering both benefits and risks for public health. Now, with President-elect Donald Trump nominating unconventional leaders for U.S. health agencies, Love and Suleta revisited the topic to discuss their concerns for health and wellness under the incoming administration.

History has a funny way of repeating itself. The latest concern by the Surgeon General regarding alcohol, framed as a health rather than a moral issue, readily reminds us of Prohibition. However, the sin tax on alcohol dates back further to 1794 to pay our national debt of $80 million: a move sparking outrage, insurrection, and the birth of new federal powers. Pour yourself a drink, and let’s delve into how whiskey helped shape America’s federal government while sealing the fate of one of its most ambitious Founding Fathers.

Sugar-sweetened beverages, the liquid delight promising a moment of joy and delivering a lifetime (?) of regret. Positioned as a public health disaster by some, how much blame can we pin on SSBs? With so many other lifestyle culprits in play, it’s worth asking: Are they the real villain or just the easiest scapegoat in our quest for better health?

California is ablaze — again. While the headlines scream about immediate threats, the real inferno lies in what's not being discussed: fast fires that outrun containment, and toxic smoke. And an insurance industry that may well be going up in smoke.

Tasked with protecting the environment and human health, the EPA is a perennial ping-pong ball for every incoming administration. With yet another leadership shuffle on the horizon, the question isn't "What will change?" but "How fast can we undo the last four years?" The issue du jour? The meaning of "unreasonable risk" under the Chemical Safety Act, which Congress thoughtfully left undefined. Why bother writing clear laws when you can leave it up to a revolving door of bureaucrats and lawsuits?

January is the month of fresh starts, diet promises, and a deluge of emails trying to convince you that this is your year to get organized. Meanwhile, the thought leaders of the world are firing on all cylinders, doling out insights. Let’s dive into what I’ve been reading, where Paul Krugman has traded his NYT perch for a blog, ancient alchemy gets a modern remix, and the Farm Bill remains a Rorschach test for anyone still clinging to the “Make America Healthy Again” dream.

Just what we don't need. Yet another study claiming that Advil plus Tylenol outperforms Vicodin. Lost in the sauce is that Vicodin was given in the lowest therapeutic dose while Advil and Tylenol were administered by steam shovel. Yawn.

In the "futuristic" dystopian sci-fi novel Brave New World, children were created ("bred") according to an intellectual caste system that dictated their futures. Most readers agreed this was a very bad idea. That future is here, and we are not fully cognizant of the disaster it portends, let alone be able to control it.

Dr. Vivek Murthy's advisory on alcohol wants us to consider the cancer risks hiding in our happy hours. With 20,000 cancer deaths linked to booze annually, is this the start of a new temperance movement? Or instead, another well-meaning government nudge destined to get drowned out by lobbying dollars and political wine tastings? Let’s uncork this debate.

Gatorade is selling "electrolyte-infused" alkaline water. Save your money ... and your groin. It's a stupid ripoff with implied health benefits. Please.

The U.S. Surgeon General has unveiled a plan to put cancer warning labels on alcoholic beverages. Does the science support this or is it just another hyped-up scare? And, even if the labels make perfect sense, will we ever see them?