Skip to main content


I once tried to convince a friend with heart disease of the benefits of a vegan diet. I told him studies had shown that high cholesterol levels, which cause plaque to form in the arteries, are associated with diets high in meat, whose saturated fat content causes cholesterol levels in the blood to go up. An avowed carnivore, not to mention one who likes a good debate, my friend came back at me with studies he claimed showed no association between saturated fat intake and cholesterol levels. The culprit, he said, was sugar intake, and so it was fruit he should avoid, not the turkey burgers and chicken breasts he so loved. I replied rather cheekily that for any study that shows x, you can find a study showing not x, and since life can be characterized as an experiment of one, and the habit of eating meat had left my friend with a clogged coronary artery, then he should ignore the contrasting results of these scientific studies and see firsthand what effect a plant-based approach had on him.

And it is true. More and more studies are coming out. Visit and see the dozens conducted on an endless variety of conditions and phenomena published every day. But the results of these studies - even the randomized, controlled, double-blinded type, said to be the gold standard of science - are less and less reliable.

Take reproducibility. If an experiment is reproducible, its results can be duplicated, either by the same researcher or by another group of scientists. Reproducibility is a hallmark feature of the scientific method. In other words, if a scientific experiment is not reproducible, if it yields different results each time it is performed, then it is pretty much worthless as far as proving or disproving anything goes.

Just how reproducible are the experiments getting performed these days? One former head of research at a major pharmaceutical company recently admitted that the company’s scientists were unable to replicate the results of 47 out of 53 papers that were instrumental in the launch of drug-discovery programs. In other words, of the over 50 experiments under review, only about 10% were reproducible. The other 90% a sheer waste of resources. Worse. Many products and foods are pushed on the public and backed by research from unreliable studies such as these.

It makes you wonder who you can believe. Why the deception? Greed, power, wealth are the usual culprits. Groups have vested interests. Companies want to make money, scientists want to get published. And the expense comes at your own health. You consume products that are of no benefit or are detrimental and pay a hefty dollar amount to boot.

So until the world becomes an honest one, trust your common sense, live simply, eat close to the source. Oh, and avoid arguments. Remember that any stance you take on any subject has a contradiction which in a confused and combative world can be just as vehemently championed, so the exercise is futile. Besides, arguing is bad for your health. And we don't need science to prove that.


Popular posts from this blog


I was watching the TV show Naked and Afraid last night as I sometimes do. The show teams together two strangers, a man and a woman, who attempt to survive on their own for a period of 21 days in some remote and isolated region. Some of the locales featured include the Australian Outback, the Amazonian rainforest and the African Savanna. The man may have a military background, or be an adventurist or deep sea fisherman. Sometimes he's an ordinary dude who lives with mom. The woman is a park ranger or extreme fitness enthusiast or "just a mom" herself. Sometimes the couple quarrel, sometimes one or both "tap out" (quit) in a fit of anger or illness. It is satisfying to see them actually make it through the challenge and reach their extraction point. The victors are usually exhausted, emaciated, begrimed and bare ass naked. 

Even more satisfying, at least for me, is the occasional ass shot, snuck in at strategic intervals to boost viewership, of course. It's co…


There is no such thing as screw-ups.

Case in point. My excellent friend Deej comes over to help me beautify the garden. He immediately dives in, crouching down on his knees and weed whacking with his bare hands. Before I can say yay or nay, he proceeds to remove a huge clump of daisy greens from the oblong patch of Earth adjacent to the driveway. The area instantly looks bare. Like the back of Woody Allen's head. Smoothing out the soil and shaking his head Deej mutters to himself "I fucked it up!" over and over again. We try everything. Planting succulents in the daisy's place. Covering it with rocks. But still the area looks barren. And every time you water it the water trickles down onto the sidewalk in the absence of roots to hold it in place. It's getting dark so we go back inside. The next day I return to the spot with a clear perspective and remove all the other daisies, leaving only rose bushes and the succulents that DJ planted, and depositing 10 bags of m…


This is not a commentary on the latest fitness fad. Because if it were, the little I'd have to say on the subject would be largely derogatory. I simply cannot see see how crouching in a stuffy, dark, cramped room surrounded by sweat-drenched strangers while expending a lot of energy and going nowhere deserves to be called fun, though aficionados tell me it is (fun). I tell these aficionados that if no pain no gain is your thing, discomfort can be had for a lot cheaper than $50 an hour. Try plucking your nose hairs. What we don't do for the sake of beauty. This endurance heir to the Stairmaster and elliptical is all hype. There's a name for the type who likes to run (or otherwise move) in place. It's called a hamster. 

This reminds me of a joke my father likes to tell, about what living with a woman turns a guy into. You go from a wolf to a sheep to a hamster. After nearly 40 years of married life, my dad has added cockroach to the zoological lineage. Which I'm sure …