I always love your stuff, but was really disturbed by the social media information provided on this episode. I adamantly disagree with your guest and it goes against a ton of research and information by mental heath professionals. She called out The Anxious Generation book as being essentially bad information. I couldn’t disagree more.
I bring on guests that have done their research and make us think.
I personally don't think social media is the singular cause of (seemingly) declining mental health in kids and teens, but I also think it has likely had an influence.
I also think we need better research—most studies that find social media hurts kid/teen mental health are really bad, as the consensus report in the show notes pointed out.
I think one of Taylor's larger points is that blaming declining mental health on social media entirely could lead to policy changes that do more harm than good, which feels like an important thing to think about.
I think Lorenz raised some points that are worth engaging, but her cherry-picking was extreme.
Separately, I like that you plan on having a diverse range of guests. I would note that Lorenz lionized Luigi Mangione - this is a quote: "You’re gonna see women especially that feel like, ‘oh my God, here’s this man who’s a revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart, he’s a person that seems like this morally good man,’ which is hard to find." She said this on CNN, not in a DM with a rando. Although her opinion on when it's justifiable to murder someone by shooting them in the back of the head outside a hotel don't mean her views on social media are wrong, deep skepticism of anything she says is warranted.
Thanks for your response and perspective. It’s much appreciated and very nice that you take the time to respond to your readers/listeners.
I can agree that social media isn’t the only factor in the declining mental health of our society, but I think it’s a big one. I certainly don’t know what the answer is, but I agree with you that it would help a lot to be around people more and be outside!
Thanks for the content that you continue to put out. It’s always interesting and relevant, even when I don’t agree.
On a side note, The Comfort Crisis is one of my favorite books. I’ve read it a few times myself and also gifted it to family and friends. Excellent read.
I think it’s great that you have differing opinions on here, since people need to hear both sides.
On the alcohol topic - I appreciate Dean’s opinion, especially the end where he’s not saying everyone should add it back in if they are otherwise happy. He’s obviously someone that lives in cities, likes to bar hop, do adventurous things, and the inhibition lowering affect of alcohol does him a lot of good. He also might have given up on being sober too soon and never learned how to be more open and lower inhibition without needing alcohol to do so. Kids don’t meed alcohol to be goofy and have fun. Adults don’t either, but it takes time and effort to do so. If you’re not willing to work on that while sober, alcohol might be best for those people.
In Wendy Bounds book or other anecdotes of people opening up and lowering inhibition while drinking - it’s nice alcohol gives them that feeling of finally letting loose a little bit but there’s also a sadness there - that so many can’t do so without the help of alcohol. That’s not exactly healthy either.
The other issue is Dean and others act like they’re only having 1-2 drinks which is likely not the case. It’s more like 2-3 and 4-6+ on his bar hopping nights. If that’s once a month that’s fine but people struggle having just 1-2 drinks.
Most people have at least 50-100+ days/events a year (birthdays, holidays, weddings, parties, work happy hours, vacations, etc) where they will have a drink which usually ends up being 2-3 drinks. Thats a lot of days and therefore lot of nights with poor food choices and poor sleep. That adds up.
I feel like in an ideal world, kids would be more emotionally vulnerable and outgoing, and go into adulthood with 3rd places that don’t need drinking to get the much needed socialization and fun.
With screen time going up, that seems unlikely… so maybe they and a lot of us do need to drink a little more.
It seems like Dean ultimately likes fun in his life and he thinks alcohol helps him with that.
What is Catherine Price’s opinion on FUN without alcohol? Interviewing her and focusing on the nuance of alcohol vs non alcohol fun, and third places with or without alcohol would be an interesting conversation!
Up until about a year ago I would have said I was a “moderate” drinker. Then I started counting my drinks. Nope: not moderate. Immoderate! And as I got older (I’m 61) I felt the costs of drinking more and more, especially the day after. So I’ve cut my consumption dramatically. Most days I don’t drink, though I still enjoy a beer with my buddies from time to time. I feel immeasurably better physically when I’m not drinking. And I experience no “social” cost as Dean reports … but I wonder if that’s because at my age, I just am who I am and it doesn’t take alcohol to open the door to fun Tom. I’m fun Tom all the time (my wife would love this one!). I’d suggest the answer is not to go back to drinking but to work on accessing your fun self whenever you want.
I do appreciate the nuanced approach regarding alcohol consumption. Rarely is anything 100% evil or 100% good. However, I think we have to be very cautious with the “it makes me happy, therefore it is good for me” fallacy. Using the same logic one could reasonably argue that cigarettes can be net positive because you go out on smoke breaks, and spend time chatting with friend.
The data are pretty clear that alcohol is a carcinogen. The number of deaths due to DUIs and other alcohol related accidents are also entirely preventable, and not always necessarily associated with regular problematic use. Infidelity, sexual assault, domestic abuse, and other acts of violence are also linked to the inhibitory effect of alcohol. Most people who develop alcohol use disorder started off with “moderate use.“ To quote Rich Roll, “First it was fun. Then it was fun with problems. Then it was just problems.”
Now, I am not going to completely demonize and say that there is no benefit to alcohol. I do think that the inhibitory effects of alcohol do make it easier to socialize. However, I think that some of this is complicated by the fact that we live in a very alcohol dominant society, where there are few alternatives to going out and drinking. How much of the relaxed environment of a bar is related to the alcohol, and how much of it is related to the fact that we have collectively decided when you are in a bar you are there to socialize and relax? In my opinion, it would be much easier for people to obtain the social benefits of alcohol without alcohol if there was a cultural shift towards increasing sober third spaces. As someone who has been sober for four years, one of the most frustrating things for me is the lack of places to meet up with people that do not involve alcohol. I agree that bars are not fun if you are not drinking. What would it be like if there was a readily available sober bar for me to go to where nobody was drinking and we could meet up?
Because our culture promotes alcohol as the means to socialize, I think it is difficult for people to conceptualize what socializing looks like without alcohol.
So, do I think alcohol is the ultimate bogeyman? No. I do not. However, I have seen far too many lives ruined by alcohol, even when consumed in what is considered to be responsible levels, for me to justify it as a net positive for most people. Rather than trying to justify why it’s ok to drink, I think most people would be best served to reflect on why they believe they do need to drink, and try to build a culture that better supports people trying to socialize and let loose without the need for alcohol.
I hate to tell Dean, but as a physician with over 50 years of clinical experience and an interest in neuroscience, I can assure you that any amount of alcohol is neurotoxic--period! The best dose is indeed zero.
I think that's exactly what the episode said: If you look at alcohol from a singular health/medical lens, you'll probably find it's entirely bad. But if you zoom out, you can make larger considerations about your tradeoffs, your life, and how you want to live it. And that might allow you to make personal decisions that improve your overall health.
Yet I can't imagine a world where alcohol improves your overall health in any way. Along with ultra-processed food, it is also a prime driver of diet-induced brain dysfunction or CARB syndrome: https://carbsyndrome.com/
I gave up alcohol years ago, and my quality of life has never been better!
I enjoyed the podcast, especially since it involved hearing "the other side" of the discussion on some of these topics.
I did want to comment on Dean's discussion about resuming drinking, and I offer this up as one that was a multi-decade moderate drinker that did not have a problem with alcohol that gave it up. While I understand that he was speaking honestly and meaningfully from his own experience, I was baffled that so much consideration was being given to one that only quit alcohol for three months. That is simply not enough time to learn to adapt to either the the different behaviors that such a major change brings about in our life, let alone the physical changes that occur to our brains from even moderate alcohol use to fully unwind (researchers say the brain changes can take six months or more before we hit a "new normal" level).
I have been off alcohol now for over six years. It started with a dry January in 2020. The first few weeks were really tough as my life so different without it, but by the last week I felt like I wanted to keep it going for a while longer to see how it progressed. Then COVID and the lockdowns hit, and I decided I was not going to start drinking again under those conditions. So before long it had become six months with no alcohol, but without the normal social interactions that usually accompany it (anyone remember the Zoom Happy Hours?), and I think that made it easier to stay off it. So by that point I was able to go out to restaurants and bars again but without drinking, but also without most of the brain chemistry issues. Even then, it felt very strange to not have a drink in those social settings - but as I did it more I realized that the "strangeness" was all an internal thing, and I really think my brain was still telling me to have that drink (but I resisted). I would say that by roughly the 8 month point I felt pretty normal again. And by about a year or so I was no longer thinking about how having a drink might be a nice thing - it really had that strong an impact on me.
After that point it became less and less of an issue. For the last several years I have no issue going to bars with friends that drink while I don't. As the event goes on, and if they have more than one drink they do become less and less inhibited while I stay pretty even keel - but I've learned that I can choose to lean in to being "less inhibited" as they become that way and all is good. But I have no interest in sticking around if people want to really drink more and more, and usually leave before things progress much into a third round - I tell them to be safe and head out.
The bottom line is that at the three month point I could easily have taken the same perspective and actions that Dean did. But I think the full journey was worth it and I am much better off now than I was before when I was a moderate drinker (or after only three months of not drinking). I just don't think he gave it long enough to really adapt to the huge change that it really ends up being to our life. And as such I don't feel that his story falls into the category of good advice - I mean no ill will in saying that and respect his decision for him, but I don't think it changes that fact that it really is not great advice for most that otherwise might consider getting off alcohol.
It would be like having a lifelong sedentary, heavily overweight person decide to start exercising, but then decide after three months that they did not like it and thus decide revert back to a sedentary life. Would anyone serious in the health space say to them that that is really OK and praise and advocate that decision? And maybe say something like "it's OK- at least you tried it and it wasn't right for you"? I get that Dean has many other healthy habits (as I do too, as a Two Percent-er), but in the end getting fully though the changes a habit requires us to make and master is the only place where one can know if the change is "worth it" or not for them - before that point they are just quitting too soon to really know, just like for the sedentary exerciser.
Some changes that improve our lives simply take longer to fully make, and to fully appreciate.
Do I agree with everything that was said? No. But that’s kind of the point isn’t it?
There was a lot of good thought provoking discussion all around and I did notice a theme. MODERATION. This or that (alcohol, social media, even Diet Coke) is all actually just fine in moderation (for most people). I feel like we could add just about anything to the list too. I love trail running but I can actually take that too far and begin to harm my body, relationships and even budget if I exceed the point of moderation.
When I saw that Taylor Lorenz was one of the guests, my first instinct was simply not to listen to someone whom I already despised, but I thought, well, maybe Michael will be able to show me a different side of her, maybe I need to step out of my bubble a little, maybe I've only heard her in curated soundbites that make her look crazy. I was wrong. She really is crazy after all. For starters, why would anyone take advice about mental health from someone who clearly has serious mental health issues of her own? It's 2026, and she's still insisting on wearing a mask in public. Beyond that, she condemns the kind of censorship she sees coming from the right (sorry, "the far right", it's always the "far right" from Lorenz and her teammates), but she simply wants to replace it with censorship of her own. She was one of the biggest advocates for suppressing what she smeared as "disinformation" about COVID, pretty much all of which turned out to be true. Listening to her in long form unfortunately confirmed all of my worst suspicions.
Of course, you're going to invite whomever you want on the podcast, but relying on "experts" like her makes me wonder about the caliber of the other people you claim to be experts.
I am a huge fan of yours, Michael, but I have to agree: I didn't find Taylor's arguments persuasive. She's clearly intelligent and passionate, but her perspective seemed too simplistic. It's like she thinks "everyone" thinks dopamine is bad and that "everyone" thinks social media is the only reason kids are in a decline, and is making arguments against that position. But people like Jonathan Haidt don't argue that; they think that social media is an important reason for mental and physical health declines but not the only culprit. So it didn't seem like she understood the other side well enough to convince me of her side. I also found some of her statements to be overly hyperbolic and honestly childish in some instances (like when she asked if snuggling a puppy for 10 hours would be bad). I answered yes because in my opinion, doing anything for 10 hours straight because it feels good would be bad. And it did seem like she was cherry picking her information. That big National Academies review report she cited, where all the scientists signed, didn't conclude that social media had no harm. In fact, that review acknowledged the potential for dysfunctional relationships with social media that could lead to depression, anxiety, etc. So that review was balanced and nuanced in going through the benefits and harms of social media, but she made it seem like the whole report said social media was ok. I appreciate you bringing on a diverse set of guests though, and it's always good to hear opposing thoughts. I just wasn't convinced by her arguments.
A growing body of evidence links alcohol consumption to cancer. More recently, the U.S. Surgeon General has gone further, explicitly stating that alcohol is a cause of cancer—stronger language than many prior studies have used.
This raises an uncomfortable question: what is the ethical role of physicians in contexts where alcohol consumption is actively promoted?
Consider a hypothetical scenario. Is it appropriate for a physician to lead a wine club in which drinking is not just present, but encouraged? At events where multiple glasses of wine are served over the course of a dinner, does participation align with the physician’s responsibility to promote health and reduce harm?
A useful comparison is smoking. Few physicians today would feel comfortable leading or endorsing a smoking club. If we accept the analogy—given the established carcinogenicity of both tobacco and alcohol—should similar standards apply?
The issue is not whether individuals can make personal choices about alcohol. Rather, it is whether physicians, as trusted stewards of public health, should play a role in normalizing or promoting behaviors that carry known cancer risks.
I always love your stuff, but was really disturbed by the social media information provided on this episode. I adamantly disagree with your guest and it goes against a ton of research and information by mental heath professionals. She called out The Anxious Generation book as being essentially bad information. I couldn’t disagree more.
I bring on guests that have done their research and make us think.
I personally don't think social media is the singular cause of (seemingly) declining mental health in kids and teens, but I also think it has likely had an influence.
I also think we need better research—most studies that find social media hurts kid/teen mental health are really bad, as the consensus report in the show notes pointed out.
I think one of Taylor's larger points is that blaming declining mental health on social media entirely could lead to policy changes that do more harm than good, which feels like an important thing to think about.
I think Lorenz raised some points that are worth engaging, but her cherry-picking was extreme.
Separately, I like that you plan on having a diverse range of guests. I would note that Lorenz lionized Luigi Mangione - this is a quote: "You’re gonna see women especially that feel like, ‘oh my God, here’s this man who’s a revolutionary, who’s famous, who’s handsome, who’s young, who’s smart, he’s a person that seems like this morally good man,’ which is hard to find." She said this on CNN, not in a DM with a rando. Although her opinion on when it's justifiable to murder someone by shooting them in the back of the head outside a hotel don't mean her views on social media are wrong, deep skepticism of anything she says is warranted.
Thanks for your response and perspective. It’s much appreciated and very nice that you take the time to respond to your readers/listeners.
I can agree that social media isn’t the only factor in the declining mental health of our society, but I think it’s a big one. I certainly don’t know what the answer is, but I agree with you that it would help a lot to be around people more and be outside!
Thanks for the content that you continue to put out. It’s always interesting and relevant, even when I don’t agree.
On a side note, The Comfort Crisis is one of my favorite books. I’ve read it a few times myself and also gifted it to family and friends. Excellent read.
I think it’s great that you have differing opinions on here, since people need to hear both sides.
On the alcohol topic - I appreciate Dean’s opinion, especially the end where he’s not saying everyone should add it back in if they are otherwise happy. He’s obviously someone that lives in cities, likes to bar hop, do adventurous things, and the inhibition lowering affect of alcohol does him a lot of good. He also might have given up on being sober too soon and never learned how to be more open and lower inhibition without needing alcohol to do so. Kids don’t meed alcohol to be goofy and have fun. Adults don’t either, but it takes time and effort to do so. If you’re not willing to work on that while sober, alcohol might be best for those people.
In Wendy Bounds book or other anecdotes of people opening up and lowering inhibition while drinking - it’s nice alcohol gives them that feeling of finally letting loose a little bit but there’s also a sadness there - that so many can’t do so without the help of alcohol. That’s not exactly healthy either.
The other issue is Dean and others act like they’re only having 1-2 drinks which is likely not the case. It’s more like 2-3 and 4-6+ on his bar hopping nights. If that’s once a month that’s fine but people struggle having just 1-2 drinks.
Most people have at least 50-100+ days/events a year (birthdays, holidays, weddings, parties, work happy hours, vacations, etc) where they will have a drink which usually ends up being 2-3 drinks. Thats a lot of days and therefore lot of nights with poor food choices and poor sleep. That adds up.
I feel like in an ideal world, kids would be more emotionally vulnerable and outgoing, and go into adulthood with 3rd places that don’t need drinking to get the much needed socialization and fun.
With screen time going up, that seems unlikely… so maybe they and a lot of us do need to drink a little more.
It seems like Dean ultimately likes fun in his life and he thinks alcohol helps him with that.
What is Catherine Price’s opinion on FUN without alcohol? Interviewing her and focusing on the nuance of alcohol vs non alcohol fun, and third places with or without alcohol would be an interesting conversation!
Up until about a year ago I would have said I was a “moderate” drinker. Then I started counting my drinks. Nope: not moderate. Immoderate! And as I got older (I’m 61) I felt the costs of drinking more and more, especially the day after. So I’ve cut my consumption dramatically. Most days I don’t drink, though I still enjoy a beer with my buddies from time to time. I feel immeasurably better physically when I’m not drinking. And I experience no “social” cost as Dean reports … but I wonder if that’s because at my age, I just am who I am and it doesn’t take alcohol to open the door to fun Tom. I’m fun Tom all the time (my wife would love this one!). I’d suggest the answer is not to go back to drinking but to work on accessing your fun self whenever you want.
I do appreciate the nuanced approach regarding alcohol consumption. Rarely is anything 100% evil or 100% good. However, I think we have to be very cautious with the “it makes me happy, therefore it is good for me” fallacy. Using the same logic one could reasonably argue that cigarettes can be net positive because you go out on smoke breaks, and spend time chatting with friend.
The data are pretty clear that alcohol is a carcinogen. The number of deaths due to DUIs and other alcohol related accidents are also entirely preventable, and not always necessarily associated with regular problematic use. Infidelity, sexual assault, domestic abuse, and other acts of violence are also linked to the inhibitory effect of alcohol. Most people who develop alcohol use disorder started off with “moderate use.“ To quote Rich Roll, “First it was fun. Then it was fun with problems. Then it was just problems.”
Now, I am not going to completely demonize and say that there is no benefit to alcohol. I do think that the inhibitory effects of alcohol do make it easier to socialize. However, I think that some of this is complicated by the fact that we live in a very alcohol dominant society, where there are few alternatives to going out and drinking. How much of the relaxed environment of a bar is related to the alcohol, and how much of it is related to the fact that we have collectively decided when you are in a bar you are there to socialize and relax? In my opinion, it would be much easier for people to obtain the social benefits of alcohol without alcohol if there was a cultural shift towards increasing sober third spaces. As someone who has been sober for four years, one of the most frustrating things for me is the lack of places to meet up with people that do not involve alcohol. I agree that bars are not fun if you are not drinking. What would it be like if there was a readily available sober bar for me to go to where nobody was drinking and we could meet up?
Because our culture promotes alcohol as the means to socialize, I think it is difficult for people to conceptualize what socializing looks like without alcohol.
So, do I think alcohol is the ultimate bogeyman? No. I do not. However, I have seen far too many lives ruined by alcohol, even when consumed in what is considered to be responsible levels, for me to justify it as a net positive for most people. Rather than trying to justify why it’s ok to drink, I think most people would be best served to reflect on why they believe they do need to drink, and try to build a culture that better supports people trying to socialize and let loose without the need for alcohol.
I hate to tell Dean, but as a physician with over 50 years of clinical experience and an interest in neuroscience, I can assure you that any amount of alcohol is neurotoxic--period! The best dose is indeed zero.
I think that's exactly what the episode said: If you look at alcohol from a singular health/medical lens, you'll probably find it's entirely bad. But if you zoom out, you can make larger considerations about your tradeoffs, your life, and how you want to live it. And that might allow you to make personal decisions that improve your overall health.
Yet I can't imagine a world where alcohol improves your overall health in any way. Along with ultra-processed food, it is also a prime driver of diet-induced brain dysfunction or CARB syndrome: https://carbsyndrome.com/
I gave up alcohol years ago, and my quality of life has never been better!
I enjoyed the podcast, especially since it involved hearing "the other side" of the discussion on some of these topics.
I did want to comment on Dean's discussion about resuming drinking, and I offer this up as one that was a multi-decade moderate drinker that did not have a problem with alcohol that gave it up. While I understand that he was speaking honestly and meaningfully from his own experience, I was baffled that so much consideration was being given to one that only quit alcohol for three months. That is simply not enough time to learn to adapt to either the the different behaviors that such a major change brings about in our life, let alone the physical changes that occur to our brains from even moderate alcohol use to fully unwind (researchers say the brain changes can take six months or more before we hit a "new normal" level).
I have been off alcohol now for over six years. It started with a dry January in 2020. The first few weeks were really tough as my life so different without it, but by the last week I felt like I wanted to keep it going for a while longer to see how it progressed. Then COVID and the lockdowns hit, and I decided I was not going to start drinking again under those conditions. So before long it had become six months with no alcohol, but without the normal social interactions that usually accompany it (anyone remember the Zoom Happy Hours?), and I think that made it easier to stay off it. So by that point I was able to go out to restaurants and bars again but without drinking, but also without most of the brain chemistry issues. Even then, it felt very strange to not have a drink in those social settings - but as I did it more I realized that the "strangeness" was all an internal thing, and I really think my brain was still telling me to have that drink (but I resisted). I would say that by roughly the 8 month point I felt pretty normal again. And by about a year or so I was no longer thinking about how having a drink might be a nice thing - it really had that strong an impact on me.
After that point it became less and less of an issue. For the last several years I have no issue going to bars with friends that drink while I don't. As the event goes on, and if they have more than one drink they do become less and less inhibited while I stay pretty even keel - but I've learned that I can choose to lean in to being "less inhibited" as they become that way and all is good. But I have no interest in sticking around if people want to really drink more and more, and usually leave before things progress much into a third round - I tell them to be safe and head out.
The bottom line is that at the three month point I could easily have taken the same perspective and actions that Dean did. But I think the full journey was worth it and I am much better off now than I was before when I was a moderate drinker (or after only three months of not drinking). I just don't think he gave it long enough to really adapt to the huge change that it really ends up being to our life. And as such I don't feel that his story falls into the category of good advice - I mean no ill will in saying that and respect his decision for him, but I don't think it changes that fact that it really is not great advice for most that otherwise might consider getting off alcohol.
It would be like having a lifelong sedentary, heavily overweight person decide to start exercising, but then decide after three months that they did not like it and thus decide revert back to a sedentary life. Would anyone serious in the health space say to them that that is really OK and praise and advocate that decision? And maybe say something like "it's OK- at least you tried it and it wasn't right for you"? I get that Dean has many other healthy habits (as I do too, as a Two Percent-er), but in the end getting fully though the changes a habit requires us to make and master is the only place where one can know if the change is "worth it" or not for them - before that point they are just quitting too soon to really know, just like for the sedentary exerciser.
Some changes that improve our lives simply take longer to fully make, and to fully appreciate.
Really enjoyed this episode.
Do I agree with everything that was said? No. But that’s kind of the point isn’t it?
There was a lot of good thought provoking discussion all around and I did notice a theme. MODERATION. This or that (alcohol, social media, even Diet Coke) is all actually just fine in moderation (for most people). I feel like we could add just about anything to the list too. I love trail running but I can actually take that too far and begin to harm my body, relationships and even budget if I exceed the point of moderation.
Excellent episode, keep em coming!
When I saw that Taylor Lorenz was one of the guests, my first instinct was simply not to listen to someone whom I already despised, but I thought, well, maybe Michael will be able to show me a different side of her, maybe I need to step out of my bubble a little, maybe I've only heard her in curated soundbites that make her look crazy. I was wrong. She really is crazy after all. For starters, why would anyone take advice about mental health from someone who clearly has serious mental health issues of her own? It's 2026, and she's still insisting on wearing a mask in public. Beyond that, she condemns the kind of censorship she sees coming from the right (sorry, "the far right", it's always the "far right" from Lorenz and her teammates), but she simply wants to replace it with censorship of her own. She was one of the biggest advocates for suppressing what she smeared as "disinformation" about COVID, pretty much all of which turned out to be true. Listening to her in long form unfortunately confirmed all of my worst suspicions.
Of course, you're going to invite whomever you want on the podcast, but relying on "experts" like her makes me wonder about the caliber of the other people you claim to be experts.
I am a huge fan of yours, Michael, but I have to agree: I didn't find Taylor's arguments persuasive. She's clearly intelligent and passionate, but her perspective seemed too simplistic. It's like she thinks "everyone" thinks dopamine is bad and that "everyone" thinks social media is the only reason kids are in a decline, and is making arguments against that position. But people like Jonathan Haidt don't argue that; they think that social media is an important reason for mental and physical health declines but not the only culprit. So it didn't seem like she understood the other side well enough to convince me of her side. I also found some of her statements to be overly hyperbolic and honestly childish in some instances (like when she asked if snuggling a puppy for 10 hours would be bad). I answered yes because in my opinion, doing anything for 10 hours straight because it feels good would be bad. And it did seem like she was cherry picking her information. That big National Academies review report she cited, where all the scientists signed, didn't conclude that social media had no harm. In fact, that review acknowledged the potential for dysfunctional relationships with social media that could lead to depression, anxiety, etc. So that review was balanced and nuanced in going through the benefits and harms of social media, but she made it seem like the whole report said social media was ok. I appreciate you bringing on a diverse set of guests though, and it's always good to hear opposing thoughts. I just wasn't convinced by her arguments.
Alcohol, Cancer, and the Physician’s Role
A growing body of evidence links alcohol consumption to cancer. More recently, the U.S. Surgeon General has gone further, explicitly stating that alcohol is a cause of cancer—stronger language than many prior studies have used.
This raises an uncomfortable question: what is the ethical role of physicians in contexts where alcohol consumption is actively promoted?
Consider a hypothetical scenario. Is it appropriate for a physician to lead a wine club in which drinking is not just present, but encouraged? At events where multiple glasses of wine are served over the course of a dinner, does participation align with the physician’s responsibility to promote health and reduce harm?
A useful comparison is smoking. Few physicians today would feel comfortable leading or endorsing a smoking club. If we accept the analogy—given the established carcinogenicity of both tobacco and alcohol—should similar standards apply?
The issue is not whether individuals can make personal choices about alcohol. Rather, it is whether physicians, as trusted stewards of public health, should play a role in normalizing or promoting behaviors that carry known cancer risks.