In the news

Why a little bit of fat matters. Prepare to be offended.

            In the past couple of posts I have argued that one cannot be fit and fat and that the research that appears to support the idea that excess body fat is not a detriment to longevity has serious flaws. Obesity is a markedly complex issue that can hardly be discussed in depth in a blog as brief as this one but some recent news helps to clarify at least one issue, the high mortality of SARS-CoV-2 in obese persons and how that might apply to other health matters.

            Some caveats, comments and concessions: (1) the terms “overweight” and “obese” are somewhat arbitrary but necessarily so in order to form baselines in research. (2) Body Mass Index (BMI) is of limited usefulness for reasons noted in earlier Carvings blogs. (3) All body fat is not the same; subcutaneous fat is not by itself associated with diseases such as coronary artery disease, stroke, cancer and type 2 diabetes but visceral fat, which is interspersed within the abdomen is. (4) Genetic factors play a large role in the interaction between fat stores and disease. (5) Skeletal size and body type blur the definition of “overweight,” which demographers generally consider to be ten pounds over the actuarial norm but that is somewhat arbitrary.

            In an article at posted today, November 1, 2021, researchers from Stanford University analyzed autopsies of persons who died of COVID-19 and noted: “Infection of fat cells led to a marked inflammatory response, consistent with the type of immune response that is seen in severe cases of COVID-19.” The authors note that this may explain why obese persons do so poorly during infection with this virus.

            Perhaps this observation and a hypothetical illustration will explain why persons who have only a little more body fat than nature intends are not as healthy as they like to think they are.

            Let’s use the example of identical twin men (A and B) – which eliminates genetic influences — age 50 who live in adjoining homes. Both are engineers, work in the same company, have similar pastimes and physical activity and are married to twin sisters. Their diets are identical and the sisters are excellent cooks, follow the same recipes and like the same foods. However, Wife B has a talent for making her dishes look more appetizing so that Husband B eats just a little more than Husband A. Not much more, mind you, only about 7 or 8 calories per day more that he doesn’t burn off with exercise. (That’s a little less than a single bite of a banana or not even one-third of a teaspoon of sugar.) Unfortunately those few calories have allowed Husband B to gain a little less than one pound a year over 30 years so that he now weighs 20 pounds more than Husband A. (See below for the math.)

            What do those 20 pounds consist of? The answer is fat, most of which is (relatively harmless) subcutaneous fat but some is the nasty visceral type. That’s why Twin B, to his chagrin, has a waist size two inches or so bigger than Twin A. Hardly noticeable, right? But as noted above, visceral fat produces inflammatory chemicals that are associated with coronary artery disease, stroke, cancer and type 2 diabetes as well as several autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.

The conclusion: Twin B is not as healthy as Twin A. Not by a lot, and if he exercises regularly, he might live to a ripe old age. Maybe.

I’m quite aware that there is a gradation between normal, overweight and obese. The latter two categories, though not precisely defined, comprise more than 75 percent of the U.S. population. Of the fifteen leading causes of death in the U.S., most are directly or indirectly linked to obesity.

Curious about the math? Seven calories per day for 365 days equals 2555 calories. Over 30 years that’s 76,650 calories, equivalent to 21.3 pounds of fat. Isn’t that a bummer!

Carvings       October 15, 2021

In the news

Fit and fat – missing the point – again!

            Two weeks ago we wrote about about the misleading claim that one can be overweight or obese and be fit at the same time. Although carrying extra weight does not preclude the possibility of being free from the immediate risk of heart attack or stroke, or not having the markers of type 2 diabetes, longer follow-up studies uncover the dangers of extra weight in later years.

            In just the past few days, on October 12th, another such misleading article appeared in the San Diego Tribune, a reprint of an item that was published in the New York Times. I am no expert in human metabolism, obesity or type 2 diabetes but some of the errors made in these articles should be obvious to anyone with a minimal education in these areas.

            I remain puzzled about the overwhelming reference to the BMI (Body Mass Index) in so many studies. The BMI was devised more than 150 years ago by a French demographer who applied this tool in the analysis of populations. The BMI was never intended to be applied to individuals and I explained why, in detail, in the October 1st post.

            Of the several articles that I have reviewed, the concept of Normal Weight Obese has not been addressed. Simply stated, a person whose weight is normal according to standard actuarial tables but whose level of body fat exceeds normal is considered NWO. In a study from a major medical center, twenty percent of women whose weight was normal by the usual standards were carrying extra body fat. The scale says that they are normal but the tape measure does not; they almost always have large waists, indicating the presence of visceral fat. A personal anecdote illustrates the problem. At a book signing at my alma mater – my 50th college reunion – a classmate came by and said “Phil, life just isn’t fair. I weigh the same as I did when you and I graduated 50 years ago but I have diabetes.” I had to bite my lip to keep from saying “You might weigh the same, but you’re not shaped the same.” In that half-century he lost muscle mass but replaced it with fat. Since fat takes up more space than muscle does, he needed a bigger belt. Further, muscle burns sugar but fat does not.

            The article that argued that being overweight or obese can allow a person to remain healthy cited a grossly misleading reference. Persons undergoing liposuction with the removal of several pounds of fat had no improvement in their markers of heart disease. Of course not! Subcutaneous fat is not associated with heart disease and stroke but visceral fat – that which accumulates around the loops of intestine and that is overwhelmingly associated with cardiovascular disease, is left in place during fat removal.

            The authors of that misleading study gave another example that they claimed “underscored the futility of workouts for weight loss.” Among women who walked 30 minutes a day three times a week: “After 12 weeks a few of them had shed some body fat, but 55 percent of them had gained weight.” Ninety minutes of walking in a week is a paltry figure; hunter-gatherer women are documented to walk an average of nine miles a day, often carrying an infant as well as the day’s harvest. Please!!

            Also cited was the claim that losing weight does not lower the risk of heart disease, stroke or early death. Examples included the loss of up to 5 percent of body weight among exercisers. Unnoticed is the fact that a 250-pound person who loses even 25 pounds – ten percent, not five – is still grossly overweight and likely to have type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

            In summary, carrying excess weight is detrimental to health and there are hundreds of well-conducted studies that show that this is so. It’s correct that exercise by itself leads to little weight loss but it does increase muscle mass, helps to control blood sugar levels and reduces the risk of heart disease and stroke.


You probably already know the difference between aerobic and resistance exercise, but most people that I talk to don’t do both! That’s unfortunate because nature has programmed our bodies to have both – every day. Luckily, we can get by very well by exercising about 4 or 5 days a week, provided that it’s varied and that each session lasts 30 minutes or more.

            There are plenty of forms of aerobic exercise. Heck, even pushing around a vacuum cleaner for 45 minutes counts! So does yard work – which might also involve some resistance exercise. Walking, biking, swimming and tennis are great. (Sorry – golf is just so-so!) The important point is that we need to do aerobic exercise to keep our heart and lungs in good shape, and resistance exercise that will work every muscle group at least a couple of times a week to maintain balance and bone strength, as well as give both our immune system and our brain a boost.

Carvings     October 1, 2021

In the news

The myth of fit and fat: the last nails in the coffin

            When a team of researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated that being overweight was not only unrelated to heart disease but that such persons had a longer lifespan, media journalists (most of whom happen to be just as overweight or obese as their fellow Americans) rejoiced. By the time the director of the NIH held a news conference to disavow the findings the damage had been done. For the next couple of decades the iconoclasts continued to claim that it was OK to be overweight as long as your blood pressure and blood sugar remained at normal values. Similar studies followed with the same misinformation.

            Studies from six countries have finally demolished that myth. It turns out that the spurious studies just didn’t last long enough – some only for five years. A decade or two later those fit and fat – the medical term is Metabolically Healthy Obese — were headed toward stroke centers and coronary care units.

            Research based on several million persons from six countries (U.S., U.K., Denmark, Canada, France and Scotland) verify what many of us have maintained: carrying extra fat puts one at higher risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and a shortened lifespan. The reports claiming the opposite suffered from several flaws, including that persons with congestive heart failure tend to lose weight as their illness progresses, and so do persons with type 2 diabetes. Some trials were done among selected groups and others relied on self-reporting, a notoriously error-prone method.

            The message is clear: overweight persons who are “metabolically healthy” do not remain so.

            Interestingly, only one of these studies acknowledged that BMI (Body Mass Index), the standard that has been used in scores of research protocols for decades, is an “inappropriate surrogate” for adiposity. The BMI was developed more than 150 years ago by a French demographer who used it to gather information about population groups. It was never intended to apply to individuals although it is typically used these days by physicians, nutritionists, fitness instructors and others in their research. The reason is simple and it should be obvious: it determines the ratio of weight to height and does not take into consideration the fact that two persons of equal weight and height, with the identical BMI, can have markedly different health profiles. As an example, a six-foot, 200-pound bodybuilder and a six-foot, 200-pound couch potato have the same BMI. But the former might have about 10 percent body fat, the latter perhaps 50 percent. Do you think that they will have the same health issues?

            Let’s hope that this myth will go to its grave early so that fewer of us will do likewise.


            Beware of any diet program that claims that you will lose 5 or 10 pounds per week. That’s possible, but it isn’t safe or wise. Your target should be about two pounds per week. After all, that’s about 50 pounds in six months, 100 pounds in a year, and there is no reason to go beyond that. You will still amaze your friends and we’re months away from bikini season!

            If you push your body into starvation mode you will lose a great deal of lean body mass, which includes muscle as well as tissue from other organs. There is also a much greater risk of gallbladder disease when weight loss exceeds 2 pounds per week.

            Cravings are inevitable when you cut calories drastically but by substituting calorie-sparse foods like fruits and vegetables for calorie-dense refined carbohydrates like anything made with white flour or any form of sugar, those cravings will disappear. Plant foods take up a lot of space, so feel free to snack on them throughout the day. Even though fruit has some sugar, it’s almost never more than about 75 calories – about one-third as much as there are in a bagel – without the cream cheese!

            Fatigue and irritability also accompany marked weight loss. The former will jeopardize your job and the latter your relationships. It just isn’t worth it.


Carvings       September 15, 2021

In the news

To boost or not to boost. Hamlet had an easier choice.

            As if the coronavirus hadn’t already scrambled our brains – literally or figuratively – the need for a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (or a second if you had the J&J vaccine) is the argument du jour and probably will be until sometime early in 2022.

            No matter what the stimulus might be, a natural infection or an artificial one like a vaccine, immunity always declines. The protection provided by a vaccine tends to be less long-lasting than that produced by natural infection but that’s not always the case. Natural tetanus can occur more than once yet developing tetanus after having received the vaccine is extremely rare. On the other hand, persons who have had natural mumps will never have a recurrence; some persons who have received two doses of the mumps vaccine might experience it again by the time they reach twenty. I mention these two very different responses to highlight the fact that the science of immunology is so complex that we should not be surprised if the experts are not sure of how to evaluate the need for boosters of the COVID vaccine.

            Expect even more confusion, considering these factors: there are many strains of coronavirus circulating around the world; there are already five different vaccines being given in various countries and scores more are under development; not everyone has the same quality of the immune system and not everyone responds the same way to an infection or to a vaccine; many among us have weakened or disordered immune systems because of an illness such as leukemia, chemotherapy, or even conditions such as obesity or diabetes. Whew!

            Be patient! Expect disagreement among the experts.

            At the moment it appears that not everyone needs to consider a booster dose of the vaccine but in my opinion, anyone over the age of 65 (just a convenient number that I picked because that’s when Medicare begins) and especially if they have a comorbidity such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension or disease of the heart, lungs or kidneys should consider a booster dose.

            Should you “mix and match”, i.e., should you get a different type of booster vaccine than your primary series? Studies are underway now to determine that.

            How long after your primary series should you get a booster? Probably at least 6 months.

            Can you expect even more side effects and/or discomfort after the booster than you had after the second dose? It probably depends on what your previous discomfort, if any, was like and what type of vaccine you get as a booster. Remember that if the artificial infection (the vaccine) ruined your day, the natural virus might have killed you or made you really sick.

            But in all of this, the most important thing is to get the vaccine!! I have recently read that MOST of the vaccine-refusers are opposed because fetal tissue was used in the vaccine development. My take: if it doesn’t bother the Pope it shouldn’t bother the rest of us. Those cells were harvested more than two generations ago and there is not a molecule of the original tissue in today’s cell cultures. Does it bother me that human fetuses were used to develop vaccines? Of course, but we can’t undo that.

            Finally, should children under age 19 get the vaccine? My opinion: only if they have a comorbidity, and that includes even being overweight.


            Aaaarghhh! The issue of eggs and cholesterol is back in the news and today’s argument, that we should have no more than a couple of eggs per week and even fewer if we have cholesterol problems is as inane as it was 40 years ago.

            Here’s the straight skinny: unless you are eating several eggs every day, the cholesterol in an egg (less than 200 milligrams) will not raise your cholesterol for one simple reason. The more cholesterol in your diet the less your liver will manufacture. However, if you are unlucky enough to have a genetic tendency to have a high LDL cholesterol, consider having them only occasionally. Eggs have too many healthy nutrients to give them up forever.

            BUT: it’s those “egg helpers” that raise cholesterol, the bacon, sausage, butter, hash browns, ham and Canadian bacon. Even then, an occasional (once a week) serving is not going to push you into an early grave. If you substitute those delicious but saturated fat-laden evil foods with a scoop of frozen mixed vegetables to make a great omelet, you’ll be getting all the benefits of eggs with no downside. Enjoy!

Carvings September 2, 2021

Upcoming presentations at Osher and OASIS plus a freebie

Osher Lifelong Learning at Cal State San Marcos campus. Register at or 760-750-4020

A day in the life of a Renaissance physician     Wednesday      September 15 1:00  $45 for the series

A day in the life of a California Gold rush physician                 September 22

A day in the life of an ancient Egypt physician                         September 29  

Temecula campus Immunizations: the good, the bad and the future   Friday, September 10, 9:30 $15

OASIS Adult Learning Center, Grossmont in La Mesa. Google San Diego OASIS or call 619-881-6262

Baby Boomer blindness                         Thursday          September 16   2:30      (Online only – no cost)

Probiotics, the germs that keep us alive Monday           September 20   1:00      in-person or online  $12

Wine in the time of Jesus    A brief presentation at St. Thomas More church, Parish Center. Lower level   

                                          1450 S. Melrose, Oceanside     Tuesday, September 6   7:30 p.m.  No charge 

In the news

Is it the end of the beginning?

            The pandemic that began about 21 months ago has been more deadly than any in this century and most of the previous one. Medical science has been rocked by the unpredictability of this virus and humbled by recurring waves of infection and deaths. But there have emerged some hopeful signs that we are, indeed, at the end of the beginning.

            Effective vaccines were developed in a nearly miraculous brief span of time, building on discoveries of more than 30 years ago (the mRNA vaccines), with even more new technological advances on the way that promise longer-lasting immunity, simpler storage requirements and elimination of the need for booster doses.

            Vaccine side effects can be serious, even fatal, but after more than five billion doses of vaccines administered around the world, the medical community is both surprised and gratified that the rate of such adverse effects is lower than what most had expected. From the birth of vaccines at the end of the 18th Century there has never been one with zero side effects. But let’s pause for a moment to recognize what is really happening. It’s quite possible, though impossible to prove, that serious symptoms from the mild artificial infection (the vaccine) are signs that the natural infection would have resulted in grave illness or death.

            Persons with allergic conditions are justifiably anxious about what might happen if they receive a vaccine but a study in Israel should provide significant comfort. Among 429 persons deemed to be at high risk because of multiple drug allergies, previous anaphylactic reaction to any drug or vaccine or a condition called mast dell disorder only two percent had an allergic response. Six had only minor symptoms (skin rash, cough, swollen tongue) and only three had an anaphylactic response that was controlled by treatment. To repeat – all were at high risk to begin with.

 “Breakthrough” infections are also not as deadly as had been feared. As I noted in the post on July 15th, there are several reasons why vaccines fail. Further, among those who suffered an infection after full vaccination, few have died, and those who did are overwhelmingly in high-risk groups that are older and afflicted with three or more comorbidities such as heart disease or diabetes. CDC data show that nearly a third had immunosuppressive conditions.

Another positive finding: in a study from Israel, persons who become infected after vaccination are found to have “significantly higher levels of antibodies afterward” than vaccinees who were not later infected.

Will this SARS-CoV-2 virus ever go away? Not likely. And it will continue to mutate. The biggest fear is that some future mutation (we’ll probably have to come up with more than the Greek alphabet, which has only 24 characters) will evade vaccine-induced immunity and be even more destructive. Call me a Pollyanna, but I don’t expect either of those things will happen. And if they do I believe that we’ll be able to handle them.

Carvings                 August 1, 2021

In the news

Your favorite drinks – coffee and cocoa — are looking better!

            Today’s Carvings format is a little different. Two items appeared in the news this week concerning lifestyle and I’m combining both sections. Most of us drink more coffee than cocoa so I’ll start with that one.

            Over several decades it’s been a bumpy road for coffee – sometimes a villain, sometimes a hero. Actually it’s a bit of both but not if you watch how much you drink. (Hmmm – doesn’t that sound like it might apply to red wine?)

            One benefit of coffee that I have mentioned in previous posts is that coffee is the single most common source of antioxidants in the U.S. That’s because most Americans have such a meager intake of fruits and vegetables, which for many millennia were the most abundant source of these inflammation-fighting nutrients.

            Overall, drinking one or two cups of coffee does have health benefits but the trouble begins with larger amounts. In a UK study of more than half a million (!) participants, it was found that drinking SIX or more cups of coffee a day is associated with smaller brain volume and a 53% increased risk of dementia. Other studies have shown an association between high intakes of coffee and Alzheimer’s disease – something to consider if you have a family history of that malady.

            A cup or two of coffee at breakfast and one or two cups with dinner won’t shrink your brain but most studies show that you’ll avoid some diseases and you’ll certainly be in a better mood most of the day.


            There’s nothing like a cup of hot chocolate after a day on the ski slopes (or after shoveling out your sidewalk and driveway of snow) but we’re in the middle of summer, many of us have forsworn cold norther climates and now enjoy life in sunny Southern California, Arizona or Texas. But here’s some good news.

            Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) limits one’s ability to walk and with the dramatic rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes it is increasing steadily in our population. There is some good news from Northwestern University in Chicago. The study was small, only 44 patients, but the researchers found that those who drank a flavanol-rich chocolate drink three times a day for six months improved their ability to walk over six minutes by about 50 feet. That doesn’t sound like much unless your lifestyle has been severely limited by PAD – so that now you can walk to the mailbox without pain.

            So can a dark chocolate bar have the same effect? The only study that I found said that it does not 😦 but they only gave the participants one and a half ounces of chocolate and only took measurements on two consecutive days. Maybe the results would have been different if the patients ate 1 ½ ounces of dark chocolate every day for six months, as in the cocoa trial. That hardly sounds like a great burden. And I’d bet that some research group could find lots of volunteers for that study!

Carvings July 16, 2021

In the news

Uh-Oh! Another variant. And what about those “breakthroughs”?

            We were told very early in the COVID-19 pandemic that we could expect mutations to arise and that some of these might carry severe consequences and might be able to evade any vaccine. The good news is that although some changes have occurred – a recent variant dubbed Delta does have the capacity to spread more easily – the three vaccines currently in use in the United States maintain their effectiveness.

            One of the most frustrating things about this virus is that it doesn’t seem to play by the rules. It causes symptoms and complications that no one anticipated. Even the vaccines – although they work much better than the most optimistic of us expected – cause serious, sometimes deadly side effects.

            As I noted in an earlier blog there are some individuals in whom the vaccine does not seem to have a protective effect – a vaccine failure. These failures are well known to immunologists and include improper storage or handling of the vaccines, patients who cannot mount an immune response because of obesity, diabetes, steroid therapy or chemotherapy, or even a genetic defect that affects the immune system. As of midsummer fewer than 200 vaccinated persons have died among the nearly three and a half billion persons who have received the vaccine. Every one of these is a tragedy to be sure, but these deaths pale in comparison to the four million persons who have died from the natural infection.

            As always, perspective matters.


          Don’t pass the salt, please!

                Taking in less sodium isn’t going to do much for weight loss but it will certainly improve your overall health.  Americans take in about 5 times (!) as much sodium as they need, contributing to the current epidemics of high blood pressure, heart disease and osteoporosis.

            Most of our daily sodium intake comes from packaged, processed food. That’s why it’s so important to read the Nutrition Facts label on every package. If the sodium content is over 500 mg. (milligrams) per serving, take a pass.

            There are plenty of tasty substitutes for salt but potassium chloride isn’t one of them. Most users complain about the taste. However, there are plenty of spices that you can use to pep up your menu. Just start experimenting.

            Speaking of substitutes, the best ones consist of unprocessed vegetables and fruits. They are naturally low in sodium and their potassium, fiber and generous supply of vitamins and antioxidants are what our bodies are designed for – not all that salt.

Carvings July 1, 2021

In the news

            A distressing report appeared a few days ago at the Medscape site: “ ‘Staggering’ doubling of type 2 diabetes in kids during the pandemic ”.

            Type 2 diabetes has become an epidemic throughout the world, especially First World countries. In the U.S. it now affects more than 12 percent of adults and an astonishing 60 percent in persons over the age of 65.

            In my 35 years of pediatric practice I managed several patients with type 1 diabetes but none with type 2 – the co-called “adult onset” version. Nearly half of new childhood diabetics are now type 2, and the number is even higher in metropolitan clinics.

            The recent news is extremely troubling. During 2020 the number of children hospitalized for type 2 diabetes doubled compared to 2019. Those with the severest form, ketoacidosis, a life-threatening condition, was nearly 6-fold higher!

            The majority of these children were African-American: 7 out of 8 in one study and 16 of 17 in another. The apparent reasons are numerous and I’ll address these in a future post.

            This is a global problem and it is especially serious in Asia. By coincidence I was reviewing a paper published in 2004, a harbinger of the current disaster: The global spread of type 2 diabetes mellitus in children and adolescents, in the Journal of Pediatrics.

            Can we do something about this? Perhaps, but it will be a long process. It begins with teaching our children and grandchildren about the importance of avoiding obesity and the need to be physically active. For example, in one study, 80 percent of kids with diabetes were obese.

            Our country – and the world – cannot afford to have half its people affected by a devastating life-long disease.


            Major controversies in the organic/conventional food battle: nutrition and the environment.

            It’s not easy to find wholly impartial observations in this area and the question of whether or not organic foods provide better quality nutrition is an example.

            A study published in the journal Environmental Health in 2017 noted that there was only a marginal increase in nutritional quality but persons who prefer organic produce tend to have healthier lifestyles as well, making a direct comparison of health effects difficult. In 2012 the Nutrition Action Healthletter observed that in about 60 percent of the studies, organic food is higher in some nutrients, in 30 to 35 percent there is no difference and in 5 to 10 percent of studies conventionally-grown foods have higher amounts of nutrients. That is not a ringing endorsement.

            Given that nutrient content varies by climate, soil type, plant variety, degree of ripeness, length of storage and other factors you can see why after decades of study there is no clear consensus. Theoretically since organically-grown plants have to provide their own, i.e., not helped by chemicals, defense mechanisms in the form of polyphenols and other phytonutrients, that should be a plus. It is, but not by much.

            In regard to the environment it’s obvious that runoff carrying nitrogen, antibiotics and other damaging chemicals into our waterways is a major problem to which organic farming contributes almost nothing. However, it takes many more people to control weeds and insects without the help of chemicals, and more people means more human waste, energy requirements, gasoline for transportation, etc. Organic foods also cost more, sometimes a great deal more.

            Buying from local farmers is not a solution unless you know that they use certified organic methods and they don’t simply stock their stands with produce trucked in from distant farms whose practices may or not be organic.

            In my opinion, organic foods are better for you and the environment and often taste better. Their health benefits, however, are less significant than those that we can obtain by eating more fruits and vegetables, eliminating sugar-containing foods, limiting calories in general and being more physically active.

Carvings June 15, 2021

In the news

                On June 11th Dr. Mark Sawyer, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Rady Children’s Hospital and the UCSD School of Medicine gave an excellent review of COVID vaccines, including observations on a newly-recognized complication associated with vaccination, myocarditis.

                Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle that occurs in about 10,000 persons a year, many of them young male adults. There has been a greater than expected incidence of this problem among recipients of the coronavirus vaccines, nearly 800 cases as of this writing. More are likely to be reported because the vaccines are now being given to persons over the age of 12, and there is greater awareness of the condition.

                Dozens of common viruses can cause myocarditis. Although there is no live virus in any of the ten currently available vaccines the association is significant. It’s important to note that so far there have been no reported deaths due to vaccine-associated myocarditis and that full recovery is the rule.

                More than 2 billion doses of COVID vaccines have been given to date and that number will probably reach 3 billion before the end of the year. The level of protection is more than 90 percent and the various mutations do not seem to have been a problem so far.


Organic – part two

                The organic-vs.-conventional food issue is extremely complex and decades of research have failed to give us definitive answers. Major issues concern the effect of pesticides, the nutritional value of organic vs. conventionally-raised foods and environmental and economic issues.

                 Pesticide residues are found in organic foods, ranging in some studies from 7 percent to more than 20 percent, but none in amounts exceeding allowable limits. Those that did have higher amounts were found only in countries of the European Union.

                The American Cancer Society has stated that the small amounts of pesticides in conventional foods have not been associated with the development of cancer and that there is no research that shows organic foods to reduce the risk of cancer when compared to conventional foods.

                Although there may be several days’ delay between harvesting and marketing plant products this allows time for the natural breakdown of pesticide residues. The cook who washes or at least rinses vegetables prior to serving also removes some pesticide residues. Peeling prior to cooking or serving removes even more.

                The conclusion is that pesticides that are applied to plants in the field do not cause disease in persons who consume them. Although chemicals that are used in agriculture can cause serious disease in those who face heavy exposure, including farm workers and their families, that is an entirely different matter.

                We’ll address nutritional and environmental matters in future posts.

Carvings May 15, 2021

What will your life be like in 2022?

            We are finally beginning to enter a post-COVID era.  What will life be like a year from now?

            It will take a long time for us to be less wary of crowds, concerts and even church services. Not only because of COVID but because we have become aware that nasty germs lurk everywhere and the next pandemic might be just around the corner. There will be a certain amount of complacency, of course as the threat of becoming infected becomes a memory. Most Americans will have been vaccinated against this quirky coronavirus by year’s end but there will be a smoldering fear that will linger for many months. Even the scientists who developed these vaccines don’t know how long true protection will last.

            Will you wear a mask when away from home, or at least have one available in pocket, purse or your car’s console? Will you unconsciously maintain social distancing, as if by habit? Will you frequent your favorite venues – restaurants, theaters, and clubs – less frequently?

            Here are some positive things to consider. First, we know that the coronavirus vaccines prevent serious disease and the need for hospitalization, even though some are rookies in the sense that they have no long track record.

            A second “positive” is that the enormous effort to come up with a vaccine has spawned a treasure trove of vaccine-related knowledge that will certainly lead to a long-lasting influenza vaccine, vaccines that we will take in our favorite drink or snack, childhood vaccines so effective that first-graders will be spared a plethora of booster shots, vaccines against cancer, heart disease, even obesity.

            When the next pandemic arrives – and there certainly will be more in the coming decades – health authorities ought to have their act together so that there will be no need to bring nations’ economies to their knees with draconian shutdowns.

            Let’s hope that the new normal will be a blessing, not a burden.


            What’s the skinny on organic? There’s no good answer. In its wisdom, the government has established five different kinds of organic food, and trying to remember which is which is a real challenge.

            The argument continues to rage over whether organic food is nutritionally superior or tastes better – or both. This is never going to be settled! There are too many zealots/moneyed interests/dumb regulations (take your pick). Judging from the paucity of publications on this topic in the past few years the scientific community doesn’t seem to consider the organic issue worth pursuing.

            A few studies have shown that there isn’t much difference between the amount of leftover pesticides on organic and “regular” produce, partly because of government regulation and partly because lots of that stuff is removed or evaporates by the time it gets to you. Some pesticides drift over onto organic fields from the “regular” farms.

            There is some increased risk of cancer to farm workers who handle pesticides and fertilizers but the amount that the average buyer ingests is not really a great threat. There is lots more risk from tobacco smoke, even for non-smokers.

            If taste is what really matters to you, grow your own fruits and vegetables or shop at your nearest farmer’s market, where the produce isn’t picked long before it’s ripe and doesn’t have to be shipped hundreds of miles, stored in warehouses and gassed to keep it looking fresh.