Fiona Havers resigned because she feared that RFK Jr. would suppress or manipulate CDC data. “A lot of Americans are going to die from vaccine-preventable diseases,” she warned.
On April 15, 2025, Dr. Fiona Havers, an epidemiologist at the CDC, presented her findings to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Havers led the respiratory diseases team at the CDC that assessed the impact of viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Havers’ presentation focused on the impact of Covid on children in the United States this past year. She found that at least 7,000 children were hospitalized with Covid. About 20 percent of those hospitalized were admitted to the intensive care unit, half were previously healthy, virtually none had been vaccinated, and 152 had died, most less than 4 years of age. The conclusion was clear; all children in the United States, whether they were previously healthy or not, should receive the primary series of Covid vaccines. For these reasons, the CDC recommended the Covid vaccine for all children.
Six weeks later, on May 27, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), made a surprise announcement. In a video posted on X, he said that Covid vaccines would no longer be recommended for healthy children. “I couldn’t be more pleased,” enthused Kennedy. “We’re now one step closer to realizing President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.” Almost immediately, the CDC’s Childhood Immunization Schedule changed to reflect RFK Jr.’s unilateral, unsupportable, behind-closed-doors decision to leave children vulnerable to Covid. Rather, then clearly recommending the vaccine, the CDC weakened its recommendation to “shared clinical decision making.” Parents should now discuss with their physician whether the Covid vaccine was right for their child, suggesting that a choice not to vaccinate a child who had neither been vaccinated nor naturally infected was a reasonable one. When it wasn’t. Several facts were indisputable: 1) SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to circulate in the United States and the world; 2) all children will be fully susceptible to the virus by the time they are 6 months of age ; and 3) children are still being hospitalized and killed by Covid.
On June 16, devastated by RFK Jr.’s inexplicable decision to put children at unnecessary risk, Fiona Havers, a 13-year veteran, quit the CDC. “I no longer have confidence that these data will be objectively evaluated with appropriate scientific rigor to make evidence-based vaccine policy decisions,” she wrote to a colleague. Later, she told the New York Times, “CDC processes are being corrupted in a way that I have never seen before. If it isn’t stopped, and some of this isn’t reversed, like, immediately, a lot of Americans are going to die from vaccine-preventable diseases.”
The week before Fiona Havers quit, on June 9, RFK Jr. fired all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with several people who, like him, had disdain for vaccines. Many had either testified for him as expert witnesses against vaccine makers, lobbied states to remove all vaccine school requirements, published critically flawed papers about vaccine harms, or lacked any expertise or experience in vaccines. The public health community responded by setting up parallel committees to advise the country about vaccines. But they were ignoring one important fact. Advice is based on data presented by the CDC. If those data are manipulated or suppressed, their advice will be ill-informed.
The CDC’s collection and reporting on the impact of various diseases is “a very transparent, rigorous process,” said Havers. “And they have just taken a sledgehammer to it in the last several weeks.” The CDC is one of the country’s largest data-gathering organizations. If we can’t trust data coming out of the CDC, we can’t trust advice based on those data. That’s why the resignation of Fiona Havers is particularly frightening.
Yesterday masked and heavily armed National Guard members and federal immigration agents swept through MacArthur Park in Los Angeles. “They came with horses and armored vehicles,” journalists reported, “carrying rifles and in tactical gear in the middle of what is the heart of immigrant Los Angeles.” Mayor Karen Bass decried the assault. “It’s the way a city looks before a coup.”
This followed last week’s presidential visit to what officials call “Alligator Alcatraz.” It is a camp to . . . ahem, concentrate people who are detained as part of immigration proceedings. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt crowed, “It is isolated and surrounded by dangerous wildlife and unforgiving terrain.” All the more difficult to consult a lawyer or pursue due process.
This is a summer of brute force and performative cruelty.
And now a chilling fact sinks in: The new budget law includes $150 billion for immigration detention, border security, and enforcement. There is no precedent in peacetime history for such a massive increase in the security services in the United States. As my colleague Lauren-Brooke Eisen describes, “The bill funds a giant immigration detention apparatus that would likely be difficult to dismantle under future presidents.”
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will now be the biggest federal law enforcement agency, by far. Its budget will exceed that of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and U.S. Marshals Service combined. (It even has a bigger budget than the militaries of Brazil, Italy, and Israel.)
It will require a crash hiring spree for new ICE agents, with little training and oversight. Federal and local law enforcement officials will be pulled off their core duties in massive numbers to play the unfamiliar role of immigration enforcer. All this for an agency whose agents wear masks to avoid identification while grabbing people off the street, arresting political leaders, and choosing to sow terror.
And for all the claims that only the “worst of the worst” will be targeted, enforcement seems increasingly to be focused more on construction workers and landscapers with no criminal history than on drug traffickers or sex offenders.
Then there is the troublesome role for private prisons. Many of the new facilities will be built and run by private firms. Eisen is the author of the definitive book, Inside Private Prisons. She reports, “In May, the CEO of private prison company CoreCivic told investors, ‘Never in our 42-year company history have we had so much activity and demand for our services as we are seeing right now.’ This budget bill will solidify that vision for CoreCivic, GEO Group, and other firms that manage and own immigrant detention centers and transportation subsidiaries.”
The administration has rebuffed oversight by Congress. Federal law says that members of Congress and their staff must be permitted to “enter[], for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.” ICE is throwing up barriers and in some cases denying access outright.
And of course, the Brennan Center has documented the ways this current crackdown is being pursued in violation of the law. The misuse of the Alien Enemies Act, a discredited wartime statute the administration has used to deport migrants, is a vivid example.
Americans hold deeply conflicted views. We are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Americans want an orderly immigration system with appropriate enforcement. Scenes of chaos at the border provoke backlash, in the United States as in other countries. These were central to Donald Trump’s victory, with his growing support in many immigrant communities. They fueled xenophobic and racist false claims of widespread crime by migrants.
But many Americans still recoil from the ugly turn in the deportation drive. White House aide Stephen Miller has raged against the failure of immigration agents to arrest and deport more people. Hence the turn toward detaining — and terrorizing — immigrant families, many of whom have lived here for years, worked hard, paid taxes, and raised families. A callous disregard for children is a feature of Miller’s approach.
For decades, policymakers have postponed immigration reform. Its elements — strong border security, a path to citizenship, expanded legal immigration, fixing the broken asylum system — are unchanged. They once enjoyed bipartisan support. The political pendulum may swing again. But long after this administration is gone, the swollen and ominous enforcement apparatus will remain. Threats to civil liberties typically come during wartime. This time, we will have to restore the rule of law after a war on our communities.
Posted inGovernment, Immigration, Law|Comments Off on The dangerous billions building the infrastructure of ICE
Over the Independence Day weekend, catastrophic flooding hit six counties in central Texas, where, as of the most recent reports, at least 80 have been killed.
West of Austin, Kerrville and surrounding areas, like Ingram, Texas, are still at risk of further flash flooding, as search and rescue efforts continue.
Volunteers from Fundación 911 and Ciudad Acuña arrive in Texas. Photo courtesy of Fundación 911/Facebook
To help in recovery and relief efforts, firefighters and first responders from Mexico have arrived in Kerr County. More than 20 firefighters from Ciudad Acuña, Mexico and Fundación 911 arrived in the area Sunday morning and got right to work alongside the Mountain Home Fire Department.
“In close collaboration with Mountain Home Fire Dept. our elements actively participate in search and rescue efforts, reaffirming their commitment to serve where it is needed most, regardless of borders or distances,” the organization shared on Facebook in a statement that was auto-translated by the social media site.
“Our duty is with life, hope, and solidarity.”
Search and rescue volunteers in action. Photo courtesy of Civil Protection and Fire Department of Acuña, Coahuila/Facebook
We’ve recently noticed an increase in customers reporting fake emails about Amazon Prime membership subscriptions. We want to help you stay protected by sharing important information about these scams.
What’s happening: Scammers are sending fake emails claiming your Amazon Prime subscription will automatically renew at an unexpected price. The scammers might include personal information in the emails, obtained from other sources, in an attempt to appear legitimate. These emails may also include a “cancel subscription” button leading to a fake Amazon login page. Do not click on any links in these messages – scammers use fake websites to steal your Amazon login credentials and banking information.
What you should do: Scams can typically be ignored with no action. However, here are some suggested actions that may be applicable: If you want to verify your Prime membership, open your Amazon mobile app or go directly to Amazon.com. Select “Prime” from the main menu to view your membership status, renewal dates, and plan details. If you clicked on any suspicious links, monitor your credit/debit card statements for unfamiliar charges and contact your bank immediately about any unauthorised transactions. Report suspicious communications to amazon.com/reportascam.
Best practices to protect against scams: Always access Amazon directly through our mobile app or by typing amazon.com in your browser. To find out if a message is really from Amazon, visit the Message Center under “Your Account.” Legitimate messages from Amazon will appear there. Enable two-step verification for your Amazon account through the Login & Security settings or visit amazon.com/2SV.
Posted inScams, Shopping|Comments Off on Fake emails about Amazon Prime membership subscriptions
Spectators gathered on the cobblestone streets of Madrid’s Chueca neighborhood this week to watch one of Spain’s most curious races: the “Carrera de Tacones,” or heel race.
Ed note: Pete Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, and John Denver (and of course Peter, Paul & Mary) all recorded the “Garden Song”, though they were not the first. Seeger was known for performing it live and helped popularize the song within folk circles after David Mallett wrote it in 1975 (Click here for his classic recording). Seeger’s version kept the folk spirit alive and resonated with audiences who appreciated simple, nature-based, and socially-conscious music. Below Arlo Guthrie gives his own take and adds his usual wandering commentary plus a verse for anti-gardeners!
Inch by inch, row by row Gonna make this garden grow All it takes is a rake and a hoe And a piece of fertile ground
Inch by inch, row by row Someone bless these seeds I sow Someone warm them from below Till the rain comes tumblin’ down
Pullin’ weeds and pickin’ stones Man is made of dreams and bones Feel the need to grow my own ‘Cause the time is close at hand
Rainful rain, sun and rain Find my way in nature’s chain Tune my body and my brain To the music from the land
Plant your rows straight and long Temper them with prayer and song Mother Earth will make you strong If you give her love and care
Old crow watchin’ hungrily From his perch in yonder tree In my garden I’m as free As that feathered thief up there
Inch by inch, row by row Gonna make this garden grow All it takes is a rake and a hoe And a piece of fertile ground
An inch by inch, row by row Someone bless these seeds I sow Someone warm them from below Till the rain comes tumblin’ down
Posted inGardening, Music|Comments Off on The Garden Song
Louis Menand July 4, 2019 in the New Yorker (thanks to Ann M.)
On September 2, 1945, in a grassy field in Hanoi known as Ba Dinh Square, a fifty-five-year-old man wearing a worn khaki tunic and white rubber sandals gave the speech that launched the Vietnam War. The man, who would be long dead when that war finally ended, was Ho Chi Minh, and the speech that he gave was, essentially, the American Declaration of Independence in Vietnamese.
He did not just begin by quoting its most famous words—“All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”—his whole speech was copied from the Declaration. Ho enumerated the ways that a colonial power (France) had abused the rights of the Vietnamese, and he ended with another echo of Thomas Jefferson: “The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.”
It was part of Ho’s intention, when he gave the speech, to solicit the support of the United States in driving the French out of his country. (That plan did not work out so well.) But Ho was also a student of political history, and he knew that he was not the first leader of a national liberation movement to appropriate the Declaration of Independence. In fact, according to the historian David Armitage, Vietnam was something like the fifty-fifth country to do so. The Declaration created, as Armitage puts it, “a new genre.” It provided a template for claims of national sovereignty that, in the years since 1776, has been used by more than a hundred countries, from Flanders (1790) and Haiti (1804) to Bulgaria (1908), Finland (1917), and Ireland (1919) to Abkhazia (1992) and Eritrea (1993).
The Declaration is both an appeal to reason and a justification of force. The appeal to reason rests on the “all men are created equal” part. Today, we read that as a statement about race and gender equality, but that is not what Jefferson meant. He meant that no man is above the law: governors must govern by the consent of the governed. But Jefferson’s language was broader than his intention, and it allowed Frederick Douglass to point out, in his famous Fourth of July oration, in 1852, that, though Americans had declared before the world that all men are created equal, “yet you hold securely in a bondage . . . a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country.” In the long run, and thanks in great measure to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates “equal protection of the laws,” and the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the vote, the equality ideal of the Declaration was incorporated into our Constitutional structure. But what most attracted the the countries that produced their own declarations of independence was the Declaration’s justification of force. When you have diagnosed that a boot is on your neck, Jefferson says, you have the right to throw it off by any means necessary. And that right is God-given.
And so, on December 24, 1860, the state of South Carolina passed a Declaration of Secession, which included ample reference to the Declaration of Independence, and, a little less than four months later, Rebel forces attacked Fort Sumter, a federal installation in Charleston Harbor. The legislators of South Carolina did not believe that all men are created equal. They did believe that their rights were being suppressed (including their right to suppress others) and that they therefore had the right to overthrow their oppressors.
And so, on the principle that what goes around comes around, on May 15, 1967, the Black Panthers published their manifesto, the Ten-Point Program. The tenth and final demand, bearing the title “We Want Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice, and Peace,” consists entirely of a quotation from the Declaration of Independence, ending with the words “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” The Panthers did believe that all men are created equal. But they also believed that, if push were to come to shove, they, too, had the right to overthrow their oppressors.
Still, it is a valuable feature of our country that we do not mark its birth by a celebrating a triumph of force. On what day did the Revolutionary War begin? When did the British surrender at Yorktown? What date was the Treaty of Paris signed? Unless you make your living teaching American history or playing “Jeopardy,” you probably don’t know the answers to these questions. But you do know when the Declaration of Independence was written.
The Declaration did not create a nation. It created only the idea of a nation, and that idea, as its scope and meaning have evolved over time, is what we annually pay our respects to. All who live here are equal. All who live here have the same rights. None who lives here is above the law. In some years, loyalty to those principles seems like something we can take for granted. This year, on the two hundred and forty-third birthday of our founding document, not so much.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Declaration did not create a nation
This week’s Torah portion, Chukat, brings to a close a narrative arc that defines the distinct and significant differences between a broader understanding of the qualities of successful leadership and the Jewish way.
In the last few weeks, we’ve encountered a primer on the essential virtues of leadership embodied by Moses: humility, courageous vision and faith in oneself, and an intention to serve others rather than serving one’s own narcissism and aggrandizement. After establishing Moses’ bona fides as a Jewish leader, the Torah reflects the risks and costs of such an exalted status.
The people clamor and complain for water. God devises a plan for Moses to speak to a desert rock that would miraculously spew water, thus affirming God’s power and presence for the people. Moses approaches the rock with his staff as bidden by God (why the staff?!?), and as the people mock him, he responds with anger and bitterness, striking the rock rather than speaking to it. Water cascades, but Moses is chided for both giving in to anger and for undermining God as the source of the miracle. He is punished harshly with a decree that he will not be permitted to enter the Promised Land, the ultimate objective of his life’s work.
We learn that leaders are held (or should be held—especially in our current moment) to a higher standard of attitude and behavior. Thus, their fall descends from greater heights to lower depths.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Two Minutes of Torah | Chukat | Numbers 19:1−22:1
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to break from a leader who governs with cruelty, contempt, and corruption, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all people are created equal, endowed with inherent dignity and unalienable rights—among these are life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of justice.
That to secure these rights, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When a leader becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right and duty of the people to refuse allegiance and to stand united in the defense of their freedoms.
The current holder of high office has shown himself to be unfit to lead a free and just society.
* He disrespects women, mocking survivors of violence and stripping away their rights.
* He fuels racism and white supremacy, scapegoating communities of color and denying their equality.
* He assaults free speech, attacking the press, punishing dissent, and spreading disinformation.
* He exploits public office for private gain, enriching himself and the billionaire class while abandoning the poor and working people.
* He undermines justice, ignores the rule of law, and places himself above accountability.
* He disregards science, endangering lives in times of crisis and sacrificing the planet for profit.
* He fans division and incites violence to maintain power, wielding fear as a weapon against the people.
Time and again, we have protested peacefully, spoken truthfully, and appealed to our shared humanity. We have been met with indifference, hostility, and violence. A leader who governs through hatred and greed is unfit to govern at all.
Therefore, we, the people of conscience and conviction, do solemnly declare our independence from this tyrant and all he represents.
We withdraw our consent.
We refuse to be complicit in cruelty.
We reject the abuse of power for personal gain.
We stand for dignity, truth, equality, and justice for all people.
With firm reliance on each other and unwavering hope in our collective strength,
We pledge to resist oppression in all its forms,
To uphold the rights of the vulnerable,
And to build a future grounded in compassion, courage, and shared humanity.
Let this declaration be both a breaking and a beginning.
Posted inAdvocacy, Government, Law|Comments Off on A revisited Declaration of Independence
Desperate for some inspiration, I decided to reread the entire Declaration of Independence. We know it as an aspirational document (“We hold these truths…”). We understand it as a repudiation of tyranny (“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”). It is both those things, but it is also a compendium of complaints, a description of an autocrat’s offenses against a free people. And that was the part I found strangely relevant to our times.
The signers railed about exclusionary immigration policies that hurt the colonies (“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither”). They inveighed against barriers to trade (“cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world”). And they condemned imposing “Taxes on us without our Consent,” which, if we remember that unilaterally imposed tariffs are a consumer tax, also sounds familiar. Tyrants, then and now, seek to dominate and micromanage commerce to the detriment of ordinary people seeking a better life.
And notice the common problem, then and now, when a tyrant attempts to corrupt the rule of law by seeking to intimidate and threaten members of the judiciary (“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices”); seeks to impair due process (“depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”); and even ships people out of the country for punishment (“Transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences”). The tyrant playbook has not changed much in nearly 250 years.
Using the military improperly has always been a go-to move for tyrants. “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” (or in our case, the governor of California) and tried to make “the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” (by, among other things, threatening to deploy them to silence protests). “Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us” is still going on in Los Angeles. And “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us …”—or in Donald Trump’s case, incited violence, called it an insurrection and then used it as a pretext to send in the military.
Though our bill of particulars against Trump bears some resemblance to the Declaration’s list of grievances, it might be useful to include a few of Trump’s more recent offenses:
In a functional democracy with a vibrant, independent and conscientious Article I branch, the compendium of Trump’s offenses would serve as an outline for articles of impeachment. In the era of a pliant, quivering Republican House and Senate majorities, the litany of horrors should at least highlight the degree to which Trump has tried to assume the powers of a king. (It’s no coincidence he flocks the Oval Office in gold—décor long favored by monarchs, tyrants, and real estate developers with bad taste.)
Nearly 250 years ago, after listing the offenses against the colonies, the signers of the Declaration felt compelled to declare their break from Britain as the only means to unshackle themselves. We must not (as Trump has) resort to insurrection and/or violence. Thanks to the handiwork of the Constitution ratified 12 years after the Declaration, we have all the tools (e.g., elections, free speech) necessary to maintain our status as a “Free and Independent” people.
We all can use this Independence Day to rouse our fellow Americans from their stupor, recall for them the offenses of our modern tyrant, and summon them to embrace the spirit of the Declaration (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”).
We can remind them that generations of Americans have pledged their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor for the right to live as free citizens, not helpless subjects of a mad king. And we might then enlist them in the immense task of peacefully recapturing our democracy and reforming all branches of government. Then we might be worthy of the greatest inheritance one might receive: the privilege of being a free people in a country capable of transcending its faults.
I hope you have a meaningful, inspiring, and joyful Fourth of July!
After an astonishing concession to a sitting president, the country’s most popular television news program faces the prospect of new ownership and a chilled environment for the First Amendment.
The DealBook Newsletter Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them. Get it sent to your inbox.
For many veteran correspondents at “60 Minutes,” paying even $1 to settle a left-field lawsuit from an aggrieved president seemed too high a price.
At stake, they believed, was the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program, a journalistic institution since 1968 that prided itself on holding elected leaders to account.
Late Tuesday, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, concluded differently. It agreed to pay $16 million so President Trump would drop a lawsuit that essentially boiled down to a politician’s gripe: that “60 Minutes” had edited an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a manner that he did not like.
Many legal experts called Mr. Trump’s case frivolous and unwinnable, running counter to long-established First Amendment protections for the American press. On Wednesday, many journalists and First Amendment groups expressed dismay at the outcome.
“Today is a dark day for press freedom,” said Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation. He called Paramount’s decision “spineless” and “an invitation” for the president to target other news outlets. Two Democratic senators, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, referred to the settlement as a bribe and called for an investigation and possible criminal charges.
But Paramount’s leader, Shari Redstone, viewed the situation differently and encouraged her board to explore a settlement. She was in the midst of a multibillion-dollar deal to sell Paramount to a Hollywood studio, Skydance, and the Trump administration needed to sign off. (continued on page 2 here)
If you’ve heard that red wine is better for you than beer or liquor, or that clear liquor like vodka or gin is less harmful than dark liquor like rum or whiskey, we have bad news.
“Alcohol is alcohol,” said Jürgen Rehm, a senior scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. Drinking any type of alcohol, in any amount, is bad for health.
Still, experts say, it’s sometimes not reasonable or even practical for people to avoid alcohol entirely. So if you’re going to drink, there are some strategies you can take to reduce your risk, and to avoid some of the other unpleasant effects of drinking, like hangovers.
Why Alcohol Is So Harmful
When you have a drink, your body turns the ethanol that’s present in the alcoholic beverage into a “really nasty substance” called acetaldehyde, which can damage your DNA, said Timothy Stockwell, an alcohol researcher at the University of Victoria in Canada.
Many tissues in the body, including those in the mouth, throat, liver, colon and breasts, are susceptible to this harm. And when that DNA gets repaired, cancerous mutations may arise.
This is why drinking increases the risk for developing at least seven types of cancer, said Katherine Keyes, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University. Excessive alcohol use — which includes having eight or more drinks per week for women or 15 or more per week for men; or four or more drinks per occasion for women or five or more for men — is also linked with many other health conditions. These include heart and liver disease, depression, anxiety and memory problems, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The more ethanol in your drink, the more harmful it is, Dr. Keyes said. One way to assess this is to look at a drink’s alcohol by volume, or A.B.V., which manufacturers must list on product labels. If you’re choosing between two beers of the same size, for instance, and one is 4 percent A.B.V. and the other is 8 percent, the 4 percent beer will expose you to half as much ethanol.
In general, beer has less ethanol than wine per ounce, and wine has less than liquors like vodka and tequila, Dr. Keyes said. But there can be large variations within these categories, Dr. Stockwell said. Some strong beers, for instance, have A.B.V.s that are higher than those of some wines (or even some liquors, on the extreme end).
How to Drink Wisely
A good rule for reducing your exposure to ethanol is to generally choose drinks with lower A.B.V.s, the experts said. But it’s important to pay attention to how much you’re drinking as well.
A standard 12-ounce pour of a 5 percent A.B.V. beer typically has the same amount of ethanol as five ounces of a 12 percent wine or 1.5 ounces (or a shot) of a 40 percent liquor.
It can be tricky to calculate the A.B.V. of cocktails, said Dr. Peng-Sheng (Brian) Ting, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at the Tulane University School of Medicine, since they are often made with sodas, juices and sometimes multiple types of alcohol. For this reason, he recommends sticking with wine or beer in situations where you want to know exactly how much ethanol you’re consuming.
Some types of alcohol are also quite high in calories, which when consumed in excess can increase the risk of weight gain and obesity. And some cocktail mixers, like juices and sodas, can contain added sugars, also raising the risk for obesity and other health conditions like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
Dr. Keyes also recommended against consuming alcoholic drinks that are mixed with caffeine (like espresso martinis or vodka Red Bulls). The energy boost you get from them may make you feel less inebriated than you really are, potentially prompting you to drink more and to become more drunk, Dr. Keyes said.
And while there’s no evidence that darker liquors are more harmful to health than clear ones, there is limited research suggesting that some darker liquors can cause more severe hangovers, said Damaris Rohsenow, a professor at the Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies at Brown University. Darker alcohols (like bourbon, rum and brandy) tend to have higher levels of congeners, substances that are created during the fermentation process and contribute to a drink’s flavor, aroma and color. More congeners typically translates to worse hangovers, Dr. Rohsenow said.
There can be exceptions to the “clear is better” rule, however, Dr. Rohsenow added. Some tequilas, which can be clear or light-colored, for instance, can be high in congeners and may lead to worse hangovers.
Posted indrugs, Health|Comments Off on Is There a Least Bad Alcohol?
Loading…
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
