The Impact of Helminth Infection on the Incidence of Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

re: double century

Co-evolving over millions of years, it only makes sense that parasitic worms (helminths) would have a role to play in the human body, including a symbiosis of sorts (in addition to causing problems too).

The Impact of Helminth Infection on the Incidence of Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021-08-12

...is growing support for the idea that controlled infection with live parasitic worms offers a novel strategy for the treatment of metabolic disorders caused by the chronic inflammation induced by obesity...

...Currently the benefit of live helminth infection to individuals with central obesity and at least one MetS risk factor is being assessed in a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Patients will be infected with 40 larvae of the human hookworm Necator americanus and changes in insulin sensitivity, body mass index and waist circumference will be measured over a 2-year period (ACTRN12617000818336) (38). Despite the limitations of our meta-analysis, the overall results clearly showed that infection with intestinal worms, such as hookworm, was less efficacious than the tissue dwelling parasites S. mansoniand O. viverrini.

... Despite the limitations of our meta-analysis, the overall results clearly showed that infection with intestinal worms, such as hookworm, was less efficacious than the tissue dwelling parasites S. mansoniand O. viverrini. In all cases where an outcome could be compared, the impact of intestinal parasites was underwhelming, with no effect on HbAIc (50, 54, 56) or HOMA-IR (26, 56), only a modest effect on fasting blood glucose (26), and except for one study (47), either no effect or an increase in T2D (48, 49). In contrast, for every outcome, infection with S. mansoni, resulted in a significant positive effect (51).

The choice of hookworm [Necator americanus] for a clinical trial is based primarily on the lack of pathology that results from infection with this parasite. Other than a mild itch as the larval worms enter the body through the skin, for doses of up to 40 larvae, no discomfort has been reported in previous human safety trials (73–75). This parasite resides in the intestine of its human host where it attaches to the intestinal epithelium and feeds on blood. For a low dose/controlled infection, this has little pathological consequence, unlike with high doses where intestinal hemorrhage and iron deficiency anemia are common (76). Although S. mansoni also infects its human hosts through the skin, it resides in the mesenteric blood vessels, where the adult male and female worms mate to produce eggs that are then excreted from the body in order for the life cycle of the parasite to continue. While infection is rarely fatal, it can result in significant morbidities and loss of quality-of-life (77). Eggs that are not correctly secreted from the body can become trapped in the liver leading to the formation of granulomas and fibrosis which can result in portal hypertension and congestive splenomegaly (78). Liver enlargement and periportal fibrosis are commonly associated with advanced chronic infection. Children that are repeatedly infected can develop anemia and malnutrition which lead to significant developmental defects. Such outcomes clearly preclude the consideration of this parasite for live helminth therapy.

...

Combining these observations with the current meta-analysis, strongly support the proposal that helminth parasites have the capacity to regulate obesity driven inflammation to mediate a positive effect on metabolic outcomes. However, consideration for the variations between different parasites and a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved is required before helminth-based therapies can progress to the clinic. This advancement would be greatly supported if future studies in the field included an accurate diagnosis of the parasite infection, information on the immunological and inflammatory status of patients, and consistent measures of metabolic outcomes. As this type of information is expanded and underscored with enhanced knowledge of the biochemistry and function of parasite-derived molecules, there is every possibility that helminth-derived therapy will be a clinical reality for patients with MetS.

WIND: would like you some hookworms (Necator americanus) with your Metformin? Because blood flukes create some issues.

Origins of the Alta Alpine 8-Pass Challenge Double Century: The Mad Dog Death March Documentary

re: double century

Michael Bayer, ride director of Alta Alpina Challenge writes:

Looking for inspiration? Curious about the origins of the Alta Alpina Challenge?

Check out this epic documentary from 1982 that’s now on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/_iJZQtzx5PQ

The whole documentary is awesome, but coverage of the big event itself starts at 27:25 with a map and overview of the “spider like course” at 29:00. In 1982 riders started at Turtle Rock Park and rode Kingsbury Grade, Luther Pass, Carson Pass, before returning to Turtle Rock Park for Lunch. The southern half of the ride continued with the west side of Monitor Pass and the east side of Ebbetts pass with the finish at Turtle Rock Park.

To make the Alta Alpina 8 Pass Challenge the ultimate ride we added Blue Lakes Road (which wasn’t paved in 1982) to the north half and added the back-sides of Monitor and Ebbetts to the south half. We also made Monitor the last pass for safety.

Not ready to ride all 8 passes? You can choose your favorite combination of passes. Want to give the original 1982 set a try? Sign up for Kingsbury-Luther-Carson-Ebbetts-Monitor. Want to try the classic 5 pass combination? Sign up for Carson-Ebbetts-Ebbetts-Monitor-Monitor. Planning to ride the new Death Ride route this year? Sign up for the Brush-with-Death combination as the perfect training ride with Ebbetts-Ebbetts-Monitor-Monitor.

Register today at:
https://www.altaalpina.org/challenge/registration.html

See you on June 25!

Michael Bayer,
Ride Director

WIND: if you’ve done cycling centuries, move up to a double this year! But perhaps don’t start with the full 8 passes of Alta Alpina. Do a few other doubles first for experience and to work out the issues, because a double century is three times harder than a century.

I won’t be riding any double centuries this year, because it looks like some months of training remain to close the 20% performance gap and 10% weight increase gap vs 2019.

But the 20500 feet of climbing over 198 miles in the Alta Alpina 8-Pass Challenge remains one of my favorites. To get in good enough condition to do it again will be a challenge of its own—working on it for next year.

Is Sunscreen and Reducing Sun Exposure a Crackpot Medical Goof? And is Sunlight Racist?

re: follow the money
re: ethics in medicine
re: photobiomodulation
re: risk assessment
re: Vitamin D

In the “everything you thought you knew turned out to be wrong” category... which here in 2022 is turning out to be a lot of stuff in a lot of areas.

My bias upfront: the idea that we evolved with sunlight and that it’s some sort of input we must avoid like salmonella—that’s a crackpot hypothesis driven by follow the money, and no credible science can say otherwise.

Outside: Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?

2019-01-10, by Rowan Jacobsen. Emphasis added.

These are dark days for supplements. Although they are a $30-plus billion market in the United States alone, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, beta-carotene, glucosamine, chondroitin, and fish oil have now flopped in study after study.

If there was one supplement that seemed sure to survive the rigorous tests, it was vitamin D. People with low levels of vitamin D in their blood have significantly higher rates of virtually every disease and disorder you can think of: cancer, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, heart attack, stroke, depression, cognitive impairment, autoimmune conditions, and more. The vitamin is required for calcium absorption and is thus essential for bone health, but as evidence mounted that lower levels of vitamin D were associated with so many diseases, health experts began suspecting that it was involved in many other biological processes as well.

But today most of us have indoor jobs, and when we do go outside, we’ve been taught to protect ourselves from dangerous UV rays, which can cause skin cancer. Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills.

Yet vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials. Five years ago, researchers were already warning that it showed zero benefit, and the evidence has only grown stronger. In November, one of the largest and most rigorous trials of the vitamin ever conducted—in which 25,871 participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke.

How did we get it so wrong? How could people with low vitamin D levels clearly suffer higher rates of so many diseases and yet not be helped by supplementation?

As it turns out, a rogue band of researchers has had an explanation all along. And if they’re right, it means that once again we have been epically misled.

These rebels argue that what made the people with high vitamin D levels so healthy was not the vitamin itself. That was just a marker. Their vitamin D levels were high because they were getting plenty of exposure to the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above.

One of the leaders of this rebellion is a mild-mannered dermatologist at the University of Edinburgh named Richard Weller... Weller’s doubts began around 2010, when he was researching nitric oxide, a molecule produced in the body that dilates blood vessels and lowers blood pressure. He discovered a previously unknown biological pathway by which the skin uses sunlight to make nitric oxide... Sure enough, when he exposed volunteers to the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight without sunscreen, their nitric oxide levels went up and their blood pressure went down. Because of its connection to heart disease and strokes, blood pressure is the leading cause of premature death and disease in the world, and the reduction was of a magnitude large enough to prevent millions of deaths on a global level.

Wouldn’t all those rays also raise rates of skin cancer? Yes, but skin cancer kills surprisingly few people: less than 3 per 100,000 in the U.S. each year. For every person who dies of skin cancer, more than 100 die from cardiovascular diseases.

... People don’t realize this because several different diseases are lumped together under the term “skin cancer.” The most common by far are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. In fact, says Weller, “When I diagnose a basal-cell skin cancer in a patient, the first thing I say is congratulations, because you’re walking out of my office with a longer life expectancy than when you walked in.” That’s probably because people who get carcinomas, which are strongly linked to sun exposure, tend to be healthy types that are outside getting plenty of exercise and sunlight.

Melanoma, the deadly type of skin cancer, is much rarer, accounting for only 1 to 3 percent of new skin cancers. And perplexingly, outdoor workers have half the melanoma rate of indoor workers. Tanned people have lower rates in general. “The risk factor for melanoma appears to be intermittent sunshine and sunburn, especially when you’re young,” says Weller. “But there’s evidence that long-term sun exposure associates with less melanoma.”

...So Lindqvist decided to look at overall mortality rates, and the results were shocking. Over the 20 years of the study, sun avoiders were twice as likely to die as sun worshippers.

...Weller’s largest study yet is due to be published later in 2019. For three years, his team tracked the blood pressure of 340,000 people in 2,000 spots around the U.S., adjusting for variables such as age and skin type. The results clearly showed that the reason people in sunnier climes have lower blood pressure is as simple as light hitting skin.

When I spoke with Weller, I made the mistake of characterizing this notion as counterintuitive. “It’s entirely intuitive,” he responded. “Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. Until the industrial revolution, we lived outside. How did we get through the Neolithic Era without sunscreen? Actually, perfectly well. What’s counterintuitive is that dermatologists run around saying, ‘Don’t go outside, you might die.’”

...Meanwhile, that big picture just keeps getting more interesting. Vitamin D now looks like the tip of the solar iceberg. Sunlight triggers the release of a number of other important compounds in the body, not only nitric oxide but also serotonin and endorphins. It reduces the risk of prostate, breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. It improves circadian rhythms. It reduces inflammation and dampens autoimmune responses. It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. And it’s free.

...current U.S. sun-exposure guidelines were written for the whitest people on earth... Africans in Britain and America are told to avoid the sun.”... [WIND: racism at work at least in the form of white-centric medicine?] People of color rarely get melanoma. The rate is 26 per 100,000 in Caucasians, 5 per 100,000 in Hispanics, and 1 per 100,000 in African Americans... At the same time, African Americans suffer high rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, internal cancers, and other diseases that seem to improve in the presence of sunlight... they have much to gain from the sun and little to fear.

WIND: photobiomodulation is a thing. Stick with the conventional if you wish—FUD sure sells well and how can you . But I’ll be getting my daily dose of sunlight.

Ask your dermatologist about sun exposure. Any intellectually honest one that can do even rudimentary risk assessment should have serious reservations about denying yourself sunlight each day in an amount appropriate for you skin, time of year, altitude, etc. IMO, a doctor who advises avoiding the sun at all costs is a crackpot. Ask them about photobiomodulation, a field barely studied but with more and more being discovered. And all the scientific evidence is against them! But “trained” doctors are just that—intellectual curiousity and objective inquiry are quite another.

Think about that “protect your skin from the sun every day” advice. That is is more about follow the money than any credible science should obvious because of its absolutism, particularly its abominable take on people of color (more on that below).

What exactly happens to your skin when you avoid all sun, and then one fine day, you get a bad burn because your skin has not seen an UV in ages? Versus getting some exposure every day and never burning? Tanning is as natural as anything could be, it’s what we evolved to do. No surface organism exists that has not had to deal with the sun, and with millions of years get the formula right it is outrageous hubris to assret otherwise.

Then there is the “feel good” part. There is so much real evidence that photobiomodulation is how the human organism evolved and that sunlight should be thought of more like a nutrient.

I’ve long felt that right around April I feel better and better as I get more sun exposure. Always, by late April (northern hemisphere), everything just perks up like magic. Just when I am getting a lot more sun. Like clockwork. I’ll be damned if I’m going to slather up with some chemical (or worse, those nasty nanoparticle oxides that cannote be removed from sun things).

I have a deep skepticism of sunscreen, but I do use it to keep from burning (nose and face mostly), but only to avoid excessive sun (altitude, time, granite or snow, etc). Hats and clothing take care of it, excepting the face.

The hype around skin cancers fails to account for the tiny proportion of deadly melanoma. Or nasty stuff like crap-grade-food-in = bad-health-and-cancer-out—things like PUFAs and processed foods and magnesium deficiency, all of which are just too many insults for the body to tolerate.

If the following isn’t blatant malpractice and crackpot medicine to the detriment of people of color, I don’t know what is:

When I asked the American Academy of Dermatology for clarification on its position on dark-skinned people and the sun, it pointed me back to the official line on its website: “The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that all people, regardless of skin color, protect themselves from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and using a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher.”

Same story, different details

We’ve heard this story (crackpot ideas held up as “science”) from the medical establishment before:

Am I willing to entertain the notion that current guidelines are inadvertently advocating a lifestyle that is killing us?

...Eventually, better science revealed that the trans fats created by the hydrogenation process were far worse for our arteries than the natural fats in butter. In 1994, Harvard researchers estimated that 30,000 people per year were dying unnecessarily thanks to trans fats. Yet they weren’t banned in the U.S. until 2015.

...early sunscreen formulations were disastrous, shielding users from the UVB rays that cause sunburn but not the UVA rays that cause skin cancer. Even today, SPF ratings refer only to UVB rays, so many users may be absorbing far more UVA radiation than they realize. Meanwhile, many common sunscreen ingredients have been found to be hormone disruptors that can be detected in users’ blood and breast milk. The worst offender, oxybenzone, also mutates the DNA of corals and is believed to be killing coral reefs...

I remember the nasty sunscreen I was using in the 1980's and 1990's. Probably disposed me to skin cancer!

The Normalization of Child Abuse by COVID Policy

re: COVID-19
re: follow the money
re: ethics in medicine
re: Martin Kulldorff

If you have children, no matter your political stripe or “team” affiliation, shouldn’t you at least open your mind a little bit to the idea of giving a brand-new and minimally-tested vaccine to your own children? One which has no RCT proving its worth, let alone any risk assessment.

Or are you so committed to your “truth” you heard on CNN/MSNBC/FOX that you choose to be a child abuser by willful ignorance of the issues? Turning a blind eye is criminally unethical. But you’d be in good company with most doctors, apparently.

If you know someone with children, print out the Brownstone article and give it to them.

Martin Kulldorff — Epidemiologist. Biostatistician. Infectious disease outbreaks. Vaccine safety. Free SaTScan/TreeScan/RSequential software. Former Harvard Professor of Medicine.

Brownstone Institute: The Triumph of Natural Immunity

2022-05-06, by BY Martin Kulldorff. Emphasis added.

A new CDC study shows that around 75% of American children have already had covid. That means that they have strong natural immunity that protects them from covid infections as they get older. Despite this, the CDC, the FDA and other government agencies are pushing all of them to get vaccinated. 

...Given these numbers, why are the CDC, the FDA and the government pushing hard for all children to get vaccinated against covid? Why are some schools and universities mandating covid vaccines for children and young adults? The majority already have superior natural immunity. 

All of them are at minuscule risk from dying from covid even if they have not had it, a risk that is smaller than dying from any of a whole range of other causes such as motor vehicle accidents, drowning, homicide, suicide, drug overdoses or cancer. While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in covid mortality between older and younger people. 

To sell a drug or a vaccine, we require pharmaceutical companies to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to show that it works to prevent serious health outcomes or death. Pfizer and Moderna have not done that. For adults they only showed a reduction in symptomatic disease.

...For children, we do not even have this. The randomized covid vaccine trials show that they can prevent mild disease in children without a prior covid infection, but from observational studies we know that this protection wanes rapidly. The RCTs also show that the vaccines generate antibodies in children, but 75% of American children already have superior antibodies from natural infection. 

There are no RCTs that show the vaccine prevents deaths or provides any other tangible benefit to children, while there could be harms. All vaccines come with some risks of adverse reactions, and while we know that they cause an increased risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) in young people, we do not yet have a complete picture of the safety profile for these vaccines. 

The CDC, the FDA, schools, and universities are pushing covid vaccines without having shown any benefit to the majority of children who have already had covid. It is stunning how these institutions have abandoned 2,500 years of knowledge about natural immunity. For the minority of children without a prior covid infection, the RCTs only show a short-term reduction in mild disease. 

The CDC could instead focus on catching up with regular childhood vaccines for measles, polio, and other serious childhood diseases. Those vaccinations were severely disrupted during lockdowns, and we now see an increase in measles and polio worldwide. Yet more collateral damage from two years of disastrous public health policy.

The medical establishment used to push for evidence-based medicine as a counterweight to “alternative medicine.” It is tragic how that philosophy has now been thrown out the window. If Pfizer and Moderna want these vaccines to be given to children, they should first conduct a randomized controlled trial that shows that they reduce hospitalization and all-cause mortality. They failed to do so for adults. They should not get away with that for our children.

WIND: doctors giving this vaccine to children should be stripped of their medical license, extreme and thoroughly justified cases excepted.

The COVID Zombie, the Destruction of Science, the Sacrificing of Our Children, and Disinformation all Abound Together

re: COVID-19
re: follow the money
re: ethics in medicine

Various articles including lots of opinion pieces, just a tiny sampler.

Opinions are not facts, but they are often replete with pressing and uncomfortable questions that have gone unanswered and mostly unasked. A necessary and mostly (so far) feeble counterweight to the propaganda tank crushing everything in its path. No simple Javelin missile can take out the overwhelmingly powerful propaganda machine that is Big Medicine+Big Tec+Big Government—we all lose.

We can always expect politicians, parasites that they are, never doing things for us, but to us. But at least a predator that acts like a predator deserves some respect. So the worst of it is actually the scientists and medical professionals abdicating their professional and ethical obligations for money and influence, or at best, cowardice and irresponsibility.

The propaganda machine has destroyed the credibility of science and medicine

Science and medicine have zero credibility any more. Not that they did before for anyone but credulous people (eg most everyone). COVID has been a boon for exposing the false-front of science and medicine. But like most religions, there are still many true believers.

How Panic Spread: Covid in the Early Days

The Triumph of Natural Immunity

The Fragmented Trust in Public Health

Why the Silence on Lockdowns?

Things the CDC Does Not Know

The Political Hierarchy of Infection

A CDC Study Suggests Three-Fifths of Americans Have Been Infected by the Coronavirus

The Epoch times: Most Americans Don’t Want Those Shots

Choice Quotes from Bill Gates’s New Book

John Stuart Mill on Contagious Diseases and the Law

Won’t Get Fooled Again: After the pandemic, Americans should never let public-health authorities deprive them of their liberties

More and more vaccine side effects keep popping up

A lot of people have been badly damaged by the vaccines. Most of it is dismissd without proper scientific explanation—follow the money. The narrative cannot be wrong, so SHUT UP, disinformer! Just a few of the very latest concerns:

Explaining COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Autoimmunity, Hepatitis, and Healing

Increase in Reactivated Viruses Following COVID-19 Booster Shots: Dr. Richard Urso

While the vaccine fades so fast that deaths are rising massively among the vaccinated. Who did the risk assessment, or what it just not done and all based on follow the money assumptions and fantasies?

Growing Number of COVID-19 Deaths Among Vaccinated People: Reports

Scientific corruption

On the follow the money front, a massive scandal that the press ignores.

Science has been bought-off, with the NIH, NIAID, CDC, FDA, etc all wholly-owned subsidiaries of Big Pharma and Big Food. There is little or no independent objective science any more, it’s all 99% special interests driving at profits or power or agenda.

Nonprofit Watchdog Uncovers $350 Million in Secret Payments to Fauci, Collins, Others at NIH

Acting NIH Director Admits Appearance of Conflict of Interest in Secret Royalty Payments to Fauci, Scientists

SCANDALS IN THE NIH

Democrats Silent as Republicans Rip Into Secret Royalty Checks to Fauci, Hundreds of NIH Scientists

CORONAVIRUS Lockdown Advocate Admits Negative Impacts Were Never Considered

Fauci Sets New Records for Obfuscation

When big money is involved, the appearance of a conflict of interest is never just appearance.

Follow the money will never fail you in life as the best and only reliable starting point for evaluating claims of all kinds.

Sorry greenies, but climate science is even worse, being driven by money and power with no end-game other than suffering by design, making climate change worse (not better), even with the obvious solution at hand (4th gen nuclear plants)—which is doable, rational and can be done quickly. It’s as stupidly evil as COVID has been only worse and long-lasting harm to humanity.

The sacrificing of children

Government schools exist as jobs programs. Their primary and most important function is to destroy young minds, rendering tomorrow’s adults (in name only!) incapable of rational and empirical thought, let alone minds capable of scientific or mathematical or ethical inquiry. Still, there are vestiges of learning remaining, and now the government, ever the destroyer instead of protector of the good, has managed to crush that too.

COVID-19 Policies Wrecked Public School Enrollment and Student Outcomes

The Triumph of Natural Immunity

Coincidence?

The Mysterious Rise in Severe Diseases in Children

Disinformation supports all this

Supporting this cruel and vicious facade of science is the government and Big Tech. Overwhelmingly owerful forces are at play here, with the bulk of the public already under the sway of psyops campaigns. Now they’re making it so obvious that it’s right out of George Orwell’s 1984 @AMAZON—and people are still oblivious.

Homeland Security's "Disinformation Board" is Even More Pernicious Than it Seems

Taibbi: PayPal's IndyMedia Wipeout — A series of moves against media outlets by PayPal shows the next step in speech control: confiscation

CDC: No Documents Supporting Claim Vaccines Don’t Cause Variants

Alcohol is a Systemic Poison... I Like Wine with my Cornflakes

re: health, nutrition

The science is shaky on the alleged benefits of alcohol, with or without potential benefits of trivial amounts of resveratrol and various other compounds in wine, particularly red wine.

Of course, if your water supply is contaminated, it’s better than dying of cholera or dysentery.

I’d like to think that alcohol in modest amounts is beneficial, but at this point in my life and learning, I’m going with this: alcohol is a systemic poison, a way to turn money into pee, degrade your brain and liver, a good way to do things you’ll regret, and for some a way to ruin your life and that of others (or kill them or yourself eg driving), and so on.

I recommend to my daughters to avoid alcohol and never develop the habit. But I wonder if this guy imbibes regularly.

So what do I drink for alcohol? Red wine and a little white wine and (very infrequently) Tequila. I used to be able to tolerate a whole bottle of champagne (after a day of hiking) over the course of 2-3 hours and hardly notice it—seems that my body soaked it up like a sports drink. No more.

Typically I would have two restaurant servings of red wine with dinner*. Which is really one serving IMO, isn’t it great to be able to rationalize like that?

And I can quit it at will**: whenever I travel, I go weeks or longer without it and have done so many times. It’s at home with a routine that it’s much easier to make it a habit.

* No, I don’t eat cornflakes, or substitute wine for milk with them.
** Quitting smoking is easy too, many people have done it hundreds of times.

The Epoch Times: Who’s in Charge of Your Drinking?

2022-05-13, by Jeff Perkin.

If you don't like your relationship to alcohol, here are some ways to fix it.

We know how serious alcohol abuse can become, but most casual drinkers feel that it isn’t really harming them.

The truth is that consistent use of alcohol, even at surprisingly low levels, can pave the way for serious health problems.
According to the NIAAA, a standard drink is one of the following:

• 12 ounces of regular beer (5 percent alcohol)
• 8 to 9 ounces of malt liquor (7 percent alcohol)
• 5 ounces of unfortified wine (12 percent alcohol)
• 1.5 ounces of 80-proof hard liquor (around 40 percent alcohol)

According to the Cleveland Clinic, about 90 percent of people who drink 1.5 to 2 ounces of alcohol per day, about two medium glasses of 12 percent wine, or less than two pints of regular strength beer, will develop fatty liver, the early stage of alcoholic liver disease.

“If you drink that much or more on most days of the week, you probably have fatty liver. Continued alcohol use leads to liver fibrosis, and finally, cirrhosis. The good news? Fatty liver is usually completely reversible in about four to six weeks if you completely abstain from drinking alcohol,” the Clinic writes.

...

WIND: I’m calling BS on the claims above: fatty liver already develops and/or predisposes most Americans from a shit-ton of soft drinks and processed food full of PUFAs and chemicals. But alcohol does activate the “survival switch @AMAZON” that causes all sorts of problems, including weight gain and fructose production by the body. So I’ll agree that alcohol is a really bad idea for most people.

Show me credible science that shows that fit people eating a diet free of processed foods and PUFAs, and getting 5+ hours of vigorous excercise will develop fatty liver from the claimed amounts of alcohol. I could be wrong.

See? I want to justify drinking wine because I am exercising again and last time I got down to serious race weight I had one (1) pound of visceral fat. Not that was younger, but even a few pounds is super lean compared to most. How am I doing on the rationalization front?

Reversing Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis? Energy Level Soars, Mental Attention Returns to Normal, Thyroid Peroxidase (TPO) Plunges

re: health, nutrition

Thank you god, The Simulation, myself, whatever.

For all those out there struggling with Long-Haul COVID or other mysterious ailment: hang in there.It was June of 2020 that things went to put for me, and here it is early May, 22 months later. So 22 months of a shitty disabled life, physically and mentally. Giving up and making a cognitive committment to being 'cooked' forever is no good—HANG IN THERE and be kind to yourself, because what’s the alternative? Eat whole unprocessed foods only and give your body the chance it needs to heal.

Thyroid Peroxidase (TPO) plummets from 877 to 63 in just 4 months

I am overjoyed to have my energy level soar in the past 10 days, and I’ve been able to ride my bike my full ride for 6 of 7 days (1000 Kj ride of 25.6 miles), albeit at low wattage compared to my 2019 condition. The other day was a rest day and heavy yard work. Most of my life I was a powerhouse of energy, so while this is just an appetizer, it feels awfully good. My mental focus has also sharpened-up considerably so that I feel pretty much normal.

• Physical strength up, able to do full workout at least 5 of 7 days and heavy yard work on the rest days.
• Mental focus back to normal including some late work nights even to 11-12 PM. Bad plan but I felt the urge to get things done.
• Motivation back—was insanely difficult to be motivated these past months
• Sleep needs dropped back to normal, from ~11-12 hours a day to ~9 hours, down two hours in spite of resuming training/cycling.

Were these all from thyroid auto-immune, or was something else at work? I sensed a change starting around 2 weeks ago, but did not resume cycling until 3-4 days of that had passed.

Will it last? I’ve had remissions before in the past two years, so we’ll see. It is why I took a rest day (well, I did some yard work even so!), and will continue to do so rather than overload. No hard training for a few months, not until I can steadily lose some body fat and get back to solid fitness.

Energy up because auto-immune is down?

For 20 months or so, I felt like a humidifier and dehumidifier draining the same battery and duking it out. Doesn’t leave much juice! This was after my apparent 2020 COVID infection and its sequelae of Epstein Barr Virus not long after which overnight slammed like a hammer (barely able to walk). Call it Long-Haul COVID if you like, who knows—doctors certainly do not.

However, this is the first time in 18 months that TPO levels have plunged (TPO refers to the antibodies that attack the thyroid, an auto-immune problem). From 877 to 63. That’s not as low as 32 back in 2017, but 63 is right at the cutoff of 60 for “normal”.

My working theory recently has been that pathetic energy level and cognitive murk have been from auto-immune and thyroid issues. If that’s true then my body declaring the end to the war on my thyroid might signal hope for gradually resuming my normal activities (eg double centuries)—maybe next year. As well as being able to work a normal day, instead of 1-3 hours only.

What did I do?

Purely speculation, but based on fact. As far as I know, all I did was to greatly increase my consumption of healthy saturated fats, e.g., grass-fed 6% milkfat milk, heavy cream, grass-fed beef, yogurt, etc. And saturated fats are crucial for repairing damaged tissues including brain and nerves (which relates to why statins are such a scourge).

More likely perhaps, maybe it was just time—I felt that my body was seriously damaged in some way back in 2020. Maybe it just took 20 months.

* Yes, IMO and by evidence amply demonstrating it, saturated fats can be very healthy, at least the ones I mention because the right ones contain Good Stuff You Need. Versus degeneration-inducing PUFAs and the garbage we are told to eat or worse yet, the low-fat diet. Make your own bet on your own life as you see fit—follow the science which doesn’t actually exist and crumbles under scrutiny by anyone with critical thinking skills.

Thyroid Peroxidase (TPO) plummets from 877 to 63 in just 4 months

Disturbing Research About Glyphosate aka “Roundup” in Numerous Common Food Products

re: health, nutrition

One more toxin in your food supply.

The Epoch Times: Saying No to Glyphosate in Our Foods, Environment

2022-05-02, BY MELISSA DIANE SMITH. Emphasis added.

As disturbing research about the weed killer comes to light, more people are trying to avoid it

Of all the pesticides in our food supply today, the most concerning to consumers is likely glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Roundup herbicide.

Residues of the well-known weed killer have been discovered in a wide range of staple food products sold in top grocery stores, meaning we are all at risk of inadvertent exposure from the foods we eat. Glyphosate has been at the center of a flood of lawsuits filed by individuals who used glyphosate products long-term in their jobs or on their lawns or gardens, and then developed cancer. However, research links glyphosate not to just cancer, but to other health problems, including reproductive issues, birth defects, and gut health concerns.

...But the weed killer is not just sprayed on GMO crops. It also is used as a pre-harvest drying agent on non-GMO crops such as wheat, barley, and oats.

It’s also important to understand that glyphosate isn’t just on the outside of plants—it is absorbed into plants—and glyphosate contamination can’t be removed by washing or eliminated by cooking or baking. [WIND: what does high heat from cooking do to such chemicals?!]

The two government agencies that are in charge of regulating the safety of our food, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), don’t test foods for glyphosate. But non-government, FDA-registered laboratory food testing found extremely high levels of glyphosate in some of America’s most iconic food products, such as Cheerios, Oreos, Doritos, and Ritz crackers.

Additional testing discovered the weed killer in a wide range of staple food products including whole wheat bread, chickpeas, and Quaker Oats. The worst offending products were found in top grocery stores, such as Hy-Vee, Whole Foods Market, and Walmart. Alarmingly, 18 of the 26 non-GMO labeled products tested contained glyphosate.

...Products that have a Glyphosate Residue Free label contain no glyphosate, meaning they’re at the bottom limit of detection for the chemical in laboratories, 10 parts per billion. The products are tested by an accredited laboratory at least three times per year, providing extra assurance against glyphosate exposure in foods that consumers buy. This certification is one of the fastest-growing in the United States...

DIGLLOYD: does it matter than much of the health harm is “unproven”? And who would fund proving it, anyway? And it’s notoriously difficult to separate out cause with just one item. But we eventually (after decades) all agreed that smoking causes lung cancer. Duh.

The chances of glyphosate being tested for or removed from foods, let alone banned from food... about nil. Thanks to the FDA and its political operatives. So we have to rely on market forces to make big food companies test for and eliminate the stuff. Consumer pressure works really well when it can be visible, and organized.

With things like this, follow the money. Our worse-than-worthless FDA is little more than a laundering front for Big Food and Big Pharma. Cancel the FDA and strengthen liabilty laws, and we’d all be freer and better off.

I’ve switch several years ago to whole unprocessed foods only. I eat virtually no prepared or packaged food—very rare and small exceptions. I hate spending on organic, but I hope that raises the odds of not getting poisons like glyphosate into my system.

North America Vegetable Oils Market

re: PUFAs
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: Is the cholesterol hypothesis dead?
re: Heart Healthy? Poly Unsaturated Fatty Acids (PUFAs) Really a Public Health Disaster?

Inflammation is the likely cause of heart disease and numerous other diseases*. It’s also a primary driver of COVID deaths. Linoleic acid is the primary component of PUFAs which dominate nearly all “vegetable oils”, and it is highly inflammatory.

This market analysis below is replete with the siren song of vegetable oils (PUFAs) being healthy, as if this were some scientific fact.

But the science suggests the opposite: PUFAs are almost certainly a major factor of the modern diet driving myriad health issues—human being never evolved to eat see oils. Together with sugar, the modern diet is a health disaster tsunami.

* The diet cholesterol hypothesis belongs to the trash heap of science history.

Check on your own fat types incorporated into body tissue with OmegaQuant Omega-3 Index Complete Fatty Acid Profile Blood Test Kit @AMAZON.

North America Vegetable Oils Market

by Fortune Business Insights, July 2019.

...

Amplifying demand for healthy edible oils, obtained from natural sources is propelling the growth of the vegetable oils market... Rising awareness regarding the adverse health effects of consumption of saturated and unrefined fat obtained from animal sources...

... health benefitting properties associated with the consumption of canola oil. Low cholesterol content and presence of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, along with the high presence of vitamin E in canola oil...

Vegetable oils being rich in omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants, particular vitamins, and various other macronutrients have the potential to aid cell growth, reduce the risk of heart diseases, and improve overall health, when consumed in regulated amount.

...

DIGLLOYD: ad nauseum. And the follow the money principle sustains this nasty industry. But there is hope as informed people turn back to healthy whole foods including eggs, butter meat (grass fed!).

Sebastian Rushworth MD: What defines a good drug?

re: follow the money
re: ethics in medicine
re: Do drug trials underestimate side effects?
re: The Dismal Anti-Science of Modern Medicine: “less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration”
re: Recommended Books for Health and Wellness
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD

Are you aware that prescription drugs are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US and Europe?

Sebastian Rushworth MD: What defines a good drug?

2022-04-14, by Sebastian Rushworth M.D. Emphasis added.

Most people will naturally assume that when a doctor prescribes them a drug, it’s because the doctor thinks they will receive a meaningful benefit from it. Most people have never heard the term NNT, which stands for Number Needed to Treat, or to put it another way, the number of people who need to take a drug for one person to see a noticeable benefit. It’s a bit of a counterintuitive concept for people outside medicine, since most people probably assume the NNT for all drugs is 1, right? If I’m getting this drug, it must be because it is going to help me. Well, wrong.

... Say you were suffering from depression, and there was a drug that could potentially improve your mood.... the drug has side effects, which you are likely to experience regardless of whether you get the benefits of the drug or not. This particular drug causes a reduction in sexual desire and increased difficulty achieving orgasm during sex... also causes subtle changes to your personality, making you more prone to take risks, less emotional, and less empathic. It increases your tendency to engage in addictive behaviours, and it’s been known to cause addictions to alcohol and gambling. Additionally, withdrawal is common, so many people have trouble getting off the drug once they’re on it... As many of you have probably guessed, the first drug I described is an SSRI... around 15% of adults in western countries take an SSRI every day.... So, what is the actual NNT for SSRI’s when used as a treatment for depression? It’s seven (7).

In other words, you need to treat seven people for one to experience a noticeable effect on their depression. The other six just get the side effects but no benefit. And when I say “effect”, I don’t mean that the depression resolved in the one person lucky enough to see a benefit. Far from it. I mean that on a certain numerical rating scale (MADRS, if you must know), they [one person!] experienced an improvement in mood that was just big enough to be detectable using statistical methods.

..Ok, next scenario. Say you’d had a heart attack, and there was a drug that could decrease your risk of another heart attack. But just as with the previous drug, there are no certainties that you will actually get any benefit from taking this drug. And this drug also has side effects. Many people who take the drug develop chronic aches and pains. The drug also causes noticeable cognitive impairment in a proportion of those taking it, and some even end up being diagnosed with dementia – how big the risk is unfortunately isn’t known, because proper studies haven’t been carried out that could answer that question. Additionally, the drug causes blood sugar levels to rise, resulting in type 2 diabetes in around 2% of those taking the drug – it is in fact one of the most common causes of type 2 diabetes.

The second drug, as many of you have probably also guessed, is a statin (examples include atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin). More than a quarter of adults over the age of 40 take a statin every day in western countries.

So, what is the NNT for statins? Well, if you’ve already had a heart attack, i.e. you’ve already been established to be at high risk for heart attacks, then the NNT over five years of treatment is 40. In other words, 39 of 40 people taking a high dose statin for five years after a heart attack won’t experience any noticeable benefit. But even if they’re not the lucky one in 40 who gets to avoid a heart attack, they’ll still have to contend with the side effects.
[DIGLLOYD: millions who have NOT had a heart attack take a statin. The NNT there is probably more like 5000 or so—4999 patients harmed for 1 benefited in some theoretical way]

...Doctors have been conditioned by the pharmaceutical industry to think that drugs that provide very low probability of benefit are effective. An NNT of 10 is often considered good, and an NNT of 5 is considered excellent. Even an NNT of over 100 is often considered acceptable! Patients are rarely informed that the odds of them getting any benefit from the new drug they’re being prescribed are far less than 50:50. And they’re rarely informed about what the harms are, and how likely they are to experience them.
[“conditioned’” = repetitive training, like you would train a dog. Along with financial incentives!]

Just in case you think I’m picking on a few particularly ineffective drugs with my two examples, I’m not. NNT’s of five or worse are typical for many of the most commonly prescribed drugs.

What that means is that the average 70 year old who is on five drugs continuously will probably at best only benefit in any measurable way from one of those drugs. The other four are not providing any benefit, they’re just contributing to side effects (which become increasingly likely, and increasingly deadly, the older you get). Things get even worse when you consider that drugs interact in unpredictable ways to increase the risk of side effects, so the risk of harms increases exponentially with each additional drug added. Which is why it used to be considered bad form to have a patient on more than five drugs simultaneously.

... The decision whether or not to take a certain drug requires a deep understanding of the drug (provided by the physician) and a deep understanding of personal values and wishes (provided by the patient). It requires a holistic perspective and a meeting of two minds that is literally the opposite of what doctors are asked to practice today, where we’re continuously pestered with various treatment guidelines and targets that turn physicians in to unthinking automatons and patients in to featureless blobs.

WIND: whatever happened to “first, do no harm”?

Veterans cemetery tombstones and flags

Visualize a million tombstones in the largest cemetery you can imagine extending as far as you can see. That’s how many Americans alone die every 5 years from prescription drugs.

For the vast majority of people, a prescription drug will not help and is likely to cause at least some harm, up to and including death. Re-read that first sentence above!

The vast majority of people taking prescription drugs are HARMED so that a very few can be helped. It’s an insanely bad proposition for most of us.

Has our medical profession gone insane, with its “first, do harm” modus operandi of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, with its “one symptom, one diagnosis, one drug” paint-by-numbers assembly line medicine?

There are of course exceptions: short-term use, drugs that can be seen to have immediate or short-term demonstrable benefits, any drug with NNT=1. Everything else might just be bad judgment from a public health perspective.

IMO, even an NNT=2 is too high unless the benefits can be seen and/or the side effects are known to be rare/minimal (but that is almost impossible to know, such information being actively suppressed).

Why?

Most doctors are incompetent at statistics, so they harm their patients with meds that cause harm, for dubious benefit. Presumably this is done only out of ignorance but that’s no excuse. And the risks grow exponentially as the number of meds increases, so we have the sad fact now that prescription drugs are the 3rd leading cause of death.

Even setting aside the massive financial cost to society, how any ethical doctor sign up for this awesome abuse of rational thought? Yet most all do—it’s called “standard of care”. Which is really the “standard of abuse”, stemming from follow the money, at all levels of the medical industrial complex.

Marty Makary: “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care - and How to Fix It”

re: follow the money
re: Marty Makary MD
re: “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won't Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care”
re: Overdiagnosis is Damaging Health and Happiness America

For the first time, I feel like I have a real grasp of how the medical industry is so broken; I had no idea of the numerous structural con games that cause health care to cost vastly more than it ought.

The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care - and How to Fix It, by Marty Makary @AMAZON

Marty Makary website, and Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H. at Johns Hopkins

Read it (even skim it) if only for your own self-interest in avoiding life crushing medical costs, which many of us face at some point. It might pay for for itself 10000 times over, if not for you then your family or someone you know.

Anyone who has been alive for 4-5 decades has a high probability of having been screwed by the medical system (financially and/or direct harm). A lot of us have been exploited, and had to battle powerful organizations price-gouging and thereby causing massive harm. Even if we were lucky enough to not have suffered direct harm.

The structural fixes to the broken sytem are in many cases not at all complicated. But the political will to fix things can only come from knowledge, and in that regard a copy of this book ought to be read by every member of Congress. Maybe enough would actually care to act? Well... maybe not. But there is a non-zero chance. Plenty of wealthy people out there like to virture signal with conventional charitable gifts—here’s your chance to do real and systemic good.

With so many non profits out there allegedly working for public health (eg Gates Foundation and many others), why don’t they “run” with a book like this (with tons of research behind it)... perhaps because their mission is less than genuine?

I pity the many good-hearted and ethical doctors who work in this corrupt and venal system, most of whom have no idea they are in bed with exploiters of humanity. But that’s on them, because willful ignorance is a choice. IMO, a doctor who does not understand or have interest in costs is a doctor willfuly harming patients. Rationalizations to the contrary are irresponsible because if you sign up to help people, you ought to do that.

Also by Marty Makary: “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won't Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care”

The Anatomy Of Big Pharma's Political Reach

re: follow the money

Long and fascinatingly detailed read.

Would surely red-pill most Americans. You could accept 1/10 of it and still be dismayed/depressed at the depravity of the medical industry.

The Anatomy Of Big Pharma's Political Reach

2022-02-16. viz ZeroHedge.com, authored by Rebecca Strong via Medium.com.

They keep telling us to “trust the science.” But who paid for it?

...

WIND: one thing you can count on in life: follow the money.

How Much Money Does Your Doctor Receive From Drug and Medical Device Companies?

re: The Anatomy Of Big Pharma's Political Reach

How much money does your doctor receive from drug and medical device companies? You can look it up using the link below..

How complete is the data? Probably lots of way to hide stuff.

I looked up several of my doctors and was pleasantly surprised to see all of them at under $1000 per year vs the mean of $3500 or so (would be helpful to know the median and standard deviation but that is not shown).

As with most things in life, it is the outliers that matter eg the coin-operated doctors that bring disrepute to the profession in so many profitable ways.

https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov

Open Payments is a national transparency program that collects and publishes information about financial relationships between the drug and device companies (referred to as "reporting entities") and certain health care providers (referred to as "covered recipients"). These relationships may involve payments to providers for things such as research, meals, travel, gifts, or speaking fees. One of the ways that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provides data to the public is through this search tool, which allows the public to search for covered recipients receiving payments, as well as reporting entities that have made payments.

The purpose of the program is to provide the public with a more transparent health care system. All information available on the Open Payments database is open to personal interpretation and if there are questions about what the data means, patients and their advocates should speak directly to the health care provider for a better understanding.

WIND: there ought to be far more sunlight shown on the industry. But politicians are unlikely to move on it.

WSJ: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date + FLCCC Rebuttal

Was this a trial designed to fail, as so many are when Big Pharma wants it to?

See the rebuttal from the Critical Care Alliance, but how is the average person (or even doctors!) to know who is credible and who is not?

WSJ: Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date

2022-04-01. Emphasis added.

Patients who got the antiparasitic drug didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo

Researchers testing repurposed drugs against Covid-19 found that ivermectin didn’t reduce hospital admissions, in the largest trial yet of the effect of the antiparasitic on the disease driving the pandemic.

Ivermectin has received a lot of attention as a potential treatment for Covid-19 including from celebrities such as podcast host Joe Rogan. Most evidence has shown it to be ineffective against Covid-19 or has relied on data of poor quality, infectious-disease researchers said. Public-health authorities and researchers have for months said the drug hasn’t shown any benefit in treating the disease. Taking large doses of the drug is dangerous, the Food and Drug Administration has said. 

The latest trial, of nearly 1,400 Covid-19 patients at risk of severe disease, is the largest to show that those who received ivermectin as a treatment didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo.

“There was no indication that ivermectin is clinically useful,” said Edward Mills, one of the study’s lead researchers and a professor of health sciences at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. Dr. Mills on Friday plans to present the findings, which have been accepted for publication in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, at a public forum sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

...

WIND: and the Front Line Critical Care Alliance, which has actually been treating patients (!) for a lengthy period of time, responds. Emphasis added.

FLCCC Responds to Wall Street Journal Article on Results of TOGETHER TRIAL

On March 18, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled: ‘Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date’.

The results of this trial, which was predetermined to show ivermectin as ineffective, affirms the need for early treatment against COVID-19 and confirms that conflicted groups continue to influence competitor trials, ensuring they are designed to fail. Several organizations associated with the trial have a paid client relationship with Pfizer, which has secured Federal government contracts worth $5.3 billion for its antiviral treatment, Paxlovid. A full list of trial sponsors and associates can be found here.

It is therefore no surprise that the trial was designed to fail. In the medical community, it is common knowledge that COVID-19 becomes far more difficult to treat the longer a patient has had symptoms. Treating early is imperative. Yet the TOGETHER trial studied patients where they started treatment up to eight days after the onset of symptoms.

Furthermore, no qualified physician or scientist recommends treating COVID-19 with the low dosage of ivermectin used in the trial, nor treating a patient with ivermectin for only three days on an empty stomach, as TOGETHER did. FLCCC physicians have understood for nearly 18 months that ivermectin works best against COVID-19 when administered with a fatty meal and until symptoms resolve.

Our frontline physicians – who were treating COVID-19 with corticosteroids months before the NIH recommended them – have found ivermectin is most effective as part of a treatment protocol that includes other FDA-approved medications and supplements backed by clinical and observational evidence. The use of our I-MASK+, MATH+ and I-RECOVER protocols have all been proven to be effective at corresponding stages of the illness.

Trials of generic medicines that are funded and influenced by profit-driven pharmaceutical companies will always fail. We need to create an independent, well-funded government body dedicated to conducting well-designed trials and transparent research studies of repurposed generic treatments – not only for COVID-19, but for all diseases that may have safe and affordable remedies. The use of independent research is our only hope of understanding how these medicines can best be used to help patients.

WIND: I cannot take any trial funded by Big Pharma very seriously, particularly one that avoids the claimed optimal treatment protocol.

Alexandre Family Farm A2/A2 Milk

I gave up milk decades ago because it seemed to aggravate my asthma back then.

There is factory milk whichto me tastes like crap, and then there is the Good Stufff.

Alexandre Family Farm A2/A2 Milk is the only stuff I’ve found that satisfies.

The 6% milkfat vs the thin and runny stuff from cows not eating or mooing right is huge. The high fat content is a feature, not a bug—saturated fat of the right kind is the best kind of fat you can eat*. I love spooning off the cream top on a fresh bottle. Their A2/A2 heavy whipping cream is unbelievably good also, ditto for the yogurt.

Milk is a very efficient superfood.  It is a great source of protein, energy (from lactose), calcium, magnesium, phosphate, B vitamins iodine, and healthy fats, as well as all amino acids.  The protein in milk is made up of Whey (1-2%) and Casein (6-8%).

Traditionally, the beta casein in cow’s milk was the same as the primary protein in human milk:  A2 /A2 beta casein.  A2/A2 beta casein protein is most natural to the human body and easily absorbed. However, over time, there was a genetic mutation in cows and an A1 beta casein variation resulted in cows with two types of proteins – A1 and A2. Unfortunately, the A1 beta casein can be difficult for humans to digest and is linked to many health issues. 14 years ago, Stephanie and Blake Alexandre determined to breed the A1 beta casein gene out of their herd of cows. The result today is that we have 100% A2/A2 cows producing 100% A2/A2 organic milk (A1-free).

Maybe the Alexandre Family Farm A2/A2 100% Grass-Fed is even better, but it is much harder for me to find. Its cream content varies by season.

* Never mind the unhealthy fats the medical profession tells you are good, an anti-scientific standard decided many decades ago by politicians and lobbyists. Talk to your doctor before changing your diet if you like, who will almost certainly recommend the food pyramid recommended by your government, which loves you to death. Lots of PUFAs for happy lab rats!

Alexandre’s Family Farm A2/A2 Milk

From Switzerland, Maurizio writes:

First of all thanks for your research, it is a valuable source of information. I often find myself reading confirmations about the findings from our own experience (me, similar to you, my wife ICU nurse and a very good friend MD, not of the supply chain medicine kind).

Now that you touch the subject of milk, these are my 2 cents:

• Genetically, most cows produce some A1 casein (about 20%), which is quite tolerable
• Only (that I am aware of) one Irish breed produces 100% A2 casein
• The actual issue is that here in Switzerland they feed most cows with what they call the Concentrate (basically corn and other stuff)
  - The result is that the proportion of A1/A2 casein switches up to 80% A1.
  - A huge number of people become Lactose intolerant…
  - … or so they think
  - Milk becomes extremely inflammatory
  - The industry produces more fat and lactose free surrogate milk
• I learned how A1 casein was banned from artificial milk for babies. Nevertheless, no one cares about A1 for adults
• Most of the research about casein was done in South Korea and otters Far East countries, apparently they definitely do not tolerate A1 casein.

I discovered a few years back a few Swiss producers that only sell milk from grass eating horned cows (the number is growing steadily). Horns are a guarantee that the cows had the option to roam free and are not closed in a farm, otherwise they tend to fight and injure themselves. We even tried to ban cutting horns from cows in a public referendum… but you known, sadly, the majority of people hardly care about anything.

To make a long story short, I always loved milk, I risked not being able to drink it anymore and now I can have as much as I want.

WIND: most cows (slaughterhouse or milk producing) are fed corn and soy and produce a totally different nutritional output when consumed, whether it is the fat in the meat or the fat in the milk.

Cows were designed by nature to eat GRASS (and forbes and sedges perhaps), NOT corn and soy. Garbage in, garbage out.

IMO, feedlot aka “factory” meat should be avoided for its inflammatory Omega 6 fatty acid profile. That is why I eat only grass-fed beef, though sparingly since I cannot afford it often. But marketing frauds with grass-fed beef are legion—all you can hope for is avoiding the rampant fraud of grass-raised and corn/soy-finished which can still legally be called “grass fed”; you are eating fat that is mainly corn/soy derived. What you want is grass-fed and grass-finished beef that has never been fed corn or soy.

It gets harder to know with chickens and chicken eggs. Many so-called “free range” or “pasture” chickens are fed corn and allowed to wander out of the barn into a bare-dirt enclosure. Only true free-ranging chickens that can feed off bugs/worms/snails/etc can produce the eggs and meat I knew in my youth—a radically superior product in taste and nutrition.

WSJ: FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

re: ethics in medicine
re: follow the money
re: Marty Markary

The gravy train is hard to shut down.

Marty Makary is generally spot-on and well worth reading, and is the author of The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care and How to Fix It @AMAZON.

WSJ: FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

2022-04-03, by Mary Markary. Emphasis added.

Decisions like this only reinforce the perception that Covid policy is driven by groupthink and politics.

The Food and Drug Administration last week authorized Americans 50 and over to get a fourth Covid vaccine dose. Some of the FDA’s own experts disagree with the decision, but the agency simply ignored them. It will convene its advisory committee this Wednesday to discuss future vaccine needs. That’s like having lawyers present arguments to a judge who’s already issued a verdict.

Eric Rubin, editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, sits on the advisory committee. He told CNN last month that he hadn’t seen enough data to determine whether anyone needs a fourth dose whose immune system isn’t seriously deficient.

Another committee member, Cody Meissner, agrees. Dr. Meissner, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Children’s Hospital, told me last week that the fourth dose is “an unanswered scientific question for people with a normal immune system.” 

A third member of the committee, Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the Atlantic that he advised his 20-something son to forgo the third shot, which the FDA recommends for everyone 12 and over.

...Two top FDA officials quit the agency in September complaining of undue pressure to authorize boosters...

Hours after the FDA authorized the fourth dose, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave its formal approval to the move—also without convening its external vaccine experts. Director Rochelle Walensky asserted that the additional doses are safe. But the jury is still out on vaccine-related complications. One of the most common reported adverse events is tinnitus, or ringing in the ears. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic Vaccine Research Group, developed a severe case while driving home after his second vaccine dose. He toldMedPage Today he believes tens of thousands of people may be affected in the U.S. and he thinks more research is needed. 

But neither the CDC nor the National Institutes of Health has made a priority of studying vaccine complications. The CDC isn’t even transparent about its investigations into young people who have died after Covid vaccination. A Seattle Children’s Hospitals study published in the Journal of Pediatrics March 25 found that 69% of children who presented with myocarditis after the vaccine had late gadolinium enhancement, a related abnormality, in an MRI three to eight months later.

...

Trust in public health is at an all-time low. When agencies bypass their own experts, it only reinforces the perception that health policy is driven by groupthink and politics. 

WIND: trusting the CDC or FDA is for children and idiots. Follow the money is the single best way to predict human behavior.

Tinnitus is a terrible problem (I have a mild case of it), a horrible and typically lifelong side effect. That alone should disqualify the vaccines for most of the population.

BMJ: The illusion of evidence based medicine

re: ethics in medicine
re: AEIR: What An Economist Knows About Crony Vaccines
re: Fauci’s War on Science: The Smoking Gun
re: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?
re: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)
re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Legislation could fix many of these problems overnight, but that is part of the problem.

See also: The Corruption of Evidence Based Medicine — Killing for Profit.
See also: Patients Can’t Be Categorized by Medical Algorithms

BMJ: The illusion of evidence based medicine

Opinion. 2022-03-22, by Jon Jureidini, research leader, Leemon B. McHenry, professor emeritus. Emphasis added.

The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented. Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.

...Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.

The pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity... university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products...

...In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry... KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the company’s products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drug’s performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as “product champions.”

Ironically, industry sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry, and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence... preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power; vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.

Regulators receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to “mark their own homework” rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system? Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.

Our proposals for reforms include: liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymised individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties... could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results. With the necessary changes to trial consent forms, participants could require trialists to make the data freely available.... Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway.

WIND: drastic changes need to be made if health matters.

Hair on fire? See also: The Corruption of Science by Money and Marxism.

Let them Eat Lentils? Humans were apex predators for two million years, study finds

Is it even credible that big-brained humans were running around digging up stringy roots and collecting berries and what-not, including over lean periods?

Science Daily: Humans were apex predators for two million years, study finds

2021-04-05. Emphasis added.

... "So far, attempts to reconstruct the diet of stone-age humans were mostly based on comparisons to 20th century hunter-gatherer societies," explains Dr. Ben-Dor. "This comparison is futile, however, because two million years ago hunter-gatherer societies could hunt and consume elephants and other large animals -- while today's hunter gatherers do not have access to such bounty. The entire ecosystem has changed, and conditions cannot be compared. We decided to use other methods to reconstruct the diet of stone-age humans: to examine the memory preserved in our own bodies, our metabolism, genetics and physical build. Human behavior changes rapidly, but evolution is slow. The body remembers."

"One prominent example is the acidity of the human stomach," says Dr. Ben-Dor. "The acidity in our stomach is high when compared to omnivores and even to other predators. Producing and maintaining strong acidity require large amounts of energy, and its existence is evidence for consuming animal products. Strong acidity provides protection from harmful bacteria found in meat, and prehistoric humans, hunting large animals whose meat sufficed for days or even weeks, often consumed old meat containing large quantities of bacteria, and thus needed to maintain a high level of acidity. Another indication of being predators is the structure of the fat cells in our bodies. In the bodies of omnivores, fat is stored in a relatively small number of large fat cells, while in predators, including humans, it's the other way around: we have a much larger number of smaller fat cells. Significant evidence for the evolution of humans as predators has also been found in our genome. For example, geneticists have concluded that "areas of the human genome were closed off to enable a fat-rich diet, while in chimpanzees, areas of the genome were opened to enable a sugar-rich diet."

Evidence from human biology was supplemented by archaeological evidence. For instance, research on stable isotopes in the bones of prehistoric humans, as well as hunting practices unique to humans, show that humans specialized in hunting large and medium-sized animals with high fat content. Comparing humans to large social predators of today, all of whom hunt large animals and obtain more than 70% of their energy from animal sources, reinforced the conclusion that humans specialized in hunting large animals and were in fact hypercarnivores.

..."Hunting large animals is not an afternoon hobby," says Dr. Ben-Dor. "It requires a great deal of knowledge, and lions and hyenas attain these abilities after long years of learning. Clearly, the remains of large animals found in countless archaeological sites are the result of humans' high expertise as hunters of large animals. Many researchers who study the extinction of the large animals agree that hunting by humans played a major role in this extinction -- and there is no better proof of humans' specialization in hunting large animals. Most probably, like in current-day predators, hunting itself was a focal human activity throughout most of human evolution. Other archaeological evidence -- like the fact that specialized tools for obtaining and processing vegetable foods only appeared in the later stages of human evolution -- also supports the centrality of large animals in the human diet, throughout most of human history."

..."Archaeological evidence does not overlook the fact that stone-age humans also consumed plants," adds Dr. Ben-Dor. "But according to the findings of this study plants only became a major component of the human diet toward the end of the era."

Evidence of genetic changes and the appearance of unique stone tools for processing plants led the researchers to conclude that, starting about 85,000 years ago in Africa, and about 40,000 years ago in Europe and Asia, a gradual rise occurred in the consumption of plant foods as well as dietary diversity -- in accordance with varying ecological conditions. This rise was accompanied by an increase in the local uniqueness of the stone tool culture, which is similar to the diversity of material cultures in 20th-century hunter-gatherer societies. In contrast, during the two million years when, according to the researchers, humans were apex predators, long periods of similarity and continuity were observed in stone tools, regardless of local ecological conditions.

"Our study addresses a very great current controversy -- both scientific and non-scientific," says Prof. Barkai. "For many people today, the Paleolithic diet is a critical issue, not only with regard to the past, but also concerning the present and future. It is hard to convince a devout vegetarian that his/her ancestors were not vegetarians, and people tend to confuse personal beliefs with scientific reality. Our study is both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. We propose a picture that is unprecedented in its inclusiveness and breadth, which clearly shows that humans were initially apex predators, who specialized in hunting large animals. As Darwin discovered, the adaptation of species to obtaining and digesting their food is the main source of evolutionary changes, and thus the claim that humans were apex predators throughout most of their development may provide a broad basis for fundamental insights on the biological and cultural evolution of humans."

DIGLLOYD: paleo diet, anyone? It would be interesting to use genetic approaches to see just what the human genome is designed to do best on.

You can bet this study will be hated by the trendy crowd that thinks plants are a great way to live and demands we eat all eat accordingly. The same people who slowly poison their dogs and cats slowly with grain-based foods.

One thing you can be certain of: the “science” of nutrition telling us to repudiate our genetics by not eating what we were designed to eat... is a steaming pile of manure.

We were not designed to eat seed oils containing massive doses of PUFAs. And probably never designed to eat lots of veggies and fruit either. See The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet @AMAZON.