 Nearly 75% of US adults are overweight or obese, and 40% have pre-diabetes or diabetes. This widespread issue has led to increased interest in medications like Ozempic (Semaglutide), a GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonist. Ozempic mimics the hormone GLP-1, which regulates blood sugar by stimulating insulin secretion and inhibiting glucagon release. It also slows digestion, increasing feelings of fullness and reducing caloric intake. This dual action helps improve glycemic control and can aid in weight loss. Efficacy varies among individuals; about 20% of users may not lose weight or may even gain weight. This is likely due to the fact that while for many people Ozempic reduces appetite, for some individuals Ozempic may lead to blood sugar that is too low, a condition known as hypoglycemia, which can increase cravings for carbohydrates and sugar. ozempic side effectsOzempic has shown significant benefits for many, but it is not without risks. Known side effects include kidney damage, gastroparesis, gallbladder issues, muscle loss, nutrient deficiencies, thyroid cancer, and mental health concerns, including depression and increased suicidal ideation. Importantly, Ozempic is FDA-approved only for Type 2 Diabetes, not for weight loss. When discontinuing Ozempic, rapid weight gain, often termed "Ozempic rebound," is common. Studies show that within a year of stopping, two-thirds of users regain the lost weight, often ending up with a higher body fat percentage due to muscle loss (leads to lowered metabolic rate), poor dietary and lifestyle factors, and metabolic inhibition due to calorie restriction. "With...[GLP-1]...treatments, there is a concomitant reduction in lean body mass, which seems to be in the range of 25%–40% of total weight loss." In other words, studies show that upwards of 40% of the weight lost on Ozempic isn’t the fat you’re hoping to bid adieu to – it’s muscle! Additional Risks of Ozempic
Safety trial duration on Ozempic lasted only 30-68 weeks, so safety for use beyond this timeframe has not been evaluated. The Real Culprits of ObesityThe obesity crisis is not due to a lack of injectable medications. The primary contributors are:
Natural Alternatives to GLP-1 agonistsFor those seeking alternatives or aiming to prevent post-Ozempic weight gain, lifestyle changes are crucial. Natural ways to boost GLP-1 include:
Peptides for Weight Loss and Muscle GainFor those seeking more advanced methods, peptides can be a powerful tool with fewer side effects than GLP-1 agonists. Some effective peptides include:
For injectable peptides, I recommend the companies Limitless Life or Peptide Sciences. If you're looking for quality oral peptide formulations, check out LVLUP Health. Also, it’s important to understand that the best effects from any of the peptides listed above come via pairing them with a consistent weight training routine, adequate protein intake, and a physically active lifestyle. While Ozempic has been demonstrated to mitigate blood sugar control and weight management, it's essential to weigh these against potential risks and side effects. Incorporating lifestyle changes and considering natural alternatives can help mitigate these risks and support long-term health. Natural alternatives and peptides can provide effective, safer options for achieving weight loss and muscle gain. Combining these with lifestyle changes is crucial for long-term success. Addressing the root causes of obesity through lifestyle changes is crucial for long-term health. Prioritizing physical activity, a balanced diet, reducing exposure to toxins, managing stress, and ensuring adequate sleep can significantly impact overall well-being and weight management. referencesWadden, Thomas A. et al. “The Role of Lifestyle Modification with Second-Generation Anti-obesity Medications: Comparisons, Questions, and Clinical Opportunities.” Current Obesity Reports 12 (2023): 453 - 473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-023-00534-z.
Castellanos, Vanessa, et al. “Semaglutide-Induced Lupus Erythematosus with Multiorgan Involvement.” Cureus, vol. 16, no. 3, 1 Mar. 2024, p. e55324, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38559525/, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.55324. Billings, Sabrina A., et al. “Rhabdomyolysis Associated with Semaglutide Therapy: A Case Report.” Cureus, vol. 15, no. 12, 1 Dec. 2023, p. e50227, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38192938/, https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.50227. Li, J, et al. “Case Report: Semaglutide-Associated Depression: A Report of Two Cases.” Frontiers in Psychiatry, vol. 14, 29 Aug. 2023, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495976/#:~:text=At%20present%2C%20most%20reported%20adverse, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1238353. Casella, Sarah, and Katelyn Galli. “Appendicitis: A Hidden Danger of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists?” ˜the œJournal of Pharmacy Technology, vol. 40, no. 2, 7 Dec. 2023, pp. 108–111, https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225231216638. Challa, Tenagne Delessa, et al. “Regulation of Adipocyte Formation by GLP-1/GLP-1R Signaling.” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 287, no. 9, Feb. 2012, pp. 6421–6430, https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m111.310342. Willoughby, Darryn, et al. “Body Composition Changes in Weight Loss: Strategies and Supplementation for Maintaining Lean Body Mass, a Brief Review.” Nutrients, vol. 10, no. 12, 3 Dec. 2018, p. 1876, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315740/, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121876. Wilding, John P. H., et al. “Weight Regain and Cardiometabolic Effects after Withdrawal of Semaglutide: The STEP 1 Trial Extension.” Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, vol. 24, no. 8, 19 May 2022, pp. 1553–1564, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35441470/, https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14725. Leehey, David J., et al. “Acute Kidney Injury Associated with Semaglutide.” Kidney Medicine, vol. 3, no. 2, Mar. 2021, pp. 282–285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2020.10.008. Bezin, Julien, et al. “GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and the Risk of Thyroid Cancer.” Diabetes Care, vol. 46, no. 2, 10 Nov. 2022, https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-1148.
0 Comments
Investigating the Potential Link Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neurodegenerative Diseases7/28/2024  The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced numerous challenges, including concerns about the potential side effects of vaccines. Recently, there has been increasing interest in understanding whether COVID-19 vaccination might be associated with neurodegenerative diseases, particularly Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and its prodromal state, mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A recent groundbreaking study published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians has investigated the potential association between COVID-19 vaccination and the onset of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. A nationwide, retrospective cohort design was utilized, leveraging data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The study focused on determining if there is a significant association between receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and the subsequent development of AD and MCI. Conducted in Seoul, South Korea, the study analyzed data from a random 50% sample of city residents aged 65 and above, totaling 558,017 individuals. Participants were divided into vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, with vaccinations including both mRNA and cDNA vaccines. Incidences of AD and MCI post-vaccination were identified using ICD-10 codes. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were employed to interpret the data, with patients having vascular dementia or Parkinson’s disease serving as control subjects. The study found an increased incidence of MCI and AD in vaccinated individuals, particularly those who received mRNA vaccines, within three months post-vaccination. Specifically, the mRNA vaccine group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of AD (odds ratio [OR]: 1.225; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.025–1.464; P = 0.026) and MCI (OR: 2.377; CI: 1.845–3.064; P < 0.001) compared to the unvaccinated group. However, no significant relationship was found with vascular dementia or Parkinson’s disease.  Mechanisms of NeurodegenerationThe potential mechanisms underlying these observations involve several pathways. One hypothesis is related to the interaction of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein with heparin and heparin-binding proteins in the brain, which are prone to self-assembly, aggregation, and fibrillation. Research suggests that the S1 region of the spike protein binds to these proteins, potentially acting as functional amyloid and forming toxic aggregates. These aggregates could seed the aggregation of misfolded brain proteins, leading to neurodegeneration.  Additionally, the spike protein's ability to cross the blood-brain barrier raises concerns. Free spike protein particles have been detected in various organs, including the brain, where they might contribute to pathological processes. The spike protein's interaction with the ACE2 receptor and subsequent cellular entry could disturb protein synthesis machinery, endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondrial function, and increase the accumulation of misfolded proteins. This cascade of events could activate protein aggregation, mitochondrial oxidative stress, apoptosis, and ultimately neurodegeneration. There is also evidence from studies on other viruses, such as HSV-1, that viral proteins can bind to heparin and increase the aggregation of amyloid β (Aβ42) peptides, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. Given that the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2's spike protein has several heparin-binding sites, a similar mechanism of neurodegeneration involving the aggregation of proteins like Aβ, α-synuclein, tau, prions, and TDP-43 could be at play in COVID-19. Preliminary evidence suggests a potential association between COVID-19 vaccination, especially with mRNA vaccines, and an increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. These findings highlight the need for further research to understand the mechanisms underlying this potential link, particularly focusing on vaccine-induced immune responses and their impact on neurodegenerative processes. Continuous monitoring and investigation into the long-term neurological impacts of COVID-19 vaccines are crucial to ensure comprehensive understanding and safety. referencesJee Hoon Roh, et al. “A Potential Association between COVID-19 Vaccination and Development of Alzheimer’s Disease.” QJM, 28 May 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcae103.
Grobbelaar, Lize M, et al. “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 Induces Fibrin(Ogen) Resistant to Fibrinolysis: Implications for Microclot Formation in COVID-19.” MedRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), 8 Mar. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252960. Idrees, Danish, and Vijay Kumar. “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Interactions with Amyloidogenic Proteins: Potential Clues to Neurodegeneration.” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 554, May 2021, pp. 94–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.03.100.  Prescription drugs have become a significant public health concern, with overtreatment and misuse leading to an alarming number of deaths. The increasing death rate from these drugs is particularly concerning given that many of these fatalities are preventable. The Scale of the ProblemIn 2013, it was estimated that prescription drugs were the third leading cause of death in the United States, following heart disease and cancer. By 2015, it was noted that psychiatric drugs alone also ranked as the third leading cause of death. However, some estimates place prescription drugs as the fourth leading cause, based on a 1998 meta-analysis that primarily considered in-hospital adverse drug reactions. This analysis likely underestimates the true extent of the problem since most drug-related deaths occur outside of hospitals and involve complications that are not always correctly attributed to drug use. Underreported and Misclassified DeathsMany deaths linked to prescription drugs are misclassified as natural or unknown causes. This issue is particularly prevalent with psychiatric drugs, where sudden deaths in young patients are often labeled as natural despite known risks of fatal heart arrhythmias from neuroleptics. Similarly, deaths from depression drugs in the elderly, caused by falls and fractures, often go unrecognized as drug-related. Specific Drug Categories and Risks
Increasing PolypharmacyPolypharmacy, the use of multiple medications by a single patient, has been on the rise, especially among the elderly. This trend increases the risk of adverse drug interactions and fatalities. For example, combining benzodiazepines with neuroleptics significantly raises mortality rates. Estimates of Annual Drug-Related DeathsCurrent estimates suggest that over 882,000 deaths in the United States annually can be attributed to prescription drugs. This figure includes hospital deaths, psychiatric drug fatalities, opioid overdoses, and deaths from NSAIDs. These numbers highlight the magnitude of the problem and the urgent need for intervention. The Role of Misguided Regulation and Lack of AwarenessThe pharmaceutical industry's influence on drug regulation has led to more permissive policies, exacerbating the issue. Many deaths could be prevented if drugs were prescribed more judiciously. For instance, neuroleptics and antidepressants often show minimal efficacy in trials, yet they are widely prescribed. Similarly, NSAIDs are commonly recommended despite their significant risks, often without sufficient consideration of safer alternatives. The pervasive issue of prescription drug-related deaths necessitates a reevaluation of current medical practices and regulatory policies. With most of these deaths being preventable, a more cautious approach to prescribing and better awareness of the risks associated with these medications could save countless lives. It is crucial for healthcare providers, regulators, and patients to acknowledge the dangers and work towards safer, more effective treatment strategies. In bed with big pharma: A $12 Billion RelationshipA comprehensive analysis by Yale University researchers has revealed that nearly six in ten doctors in the United States have received over $12 billion in payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies over the past decade. This study sheds light on the pervasive financial relationships between healthcare providers and the medical industry, highlighting potential conflicts of interest. Key Findings from the Study
Largest Recipients by SpecialtyOrthopedic surgeons topped the list, receiving the highest total sum of payments at $1.36 billion. They were followed by:
 most profitable Drugs and Devices
 most prescribed drugsEvery day, millions of people in the U.S. take prescribed drugs in an effort to help them live their lives. As our understanding of medicine has evolved, we’ve developed drugs to aid with some of the most common medical conditions—from pain and blood pressure drugs to asthma medication, thyroid treatments, and antidepressants. This analysis uses prescribed medicines data from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, released in 2021 for the 2019 calendar year. It also uses supporting drug and health information from MedlinePlus. Top 10 Most Prescribed Drugs in America (2019)
The most prescribed drug, atorvastatin (sold under the brand name Lipitor), was prescribed to 24.5 million people in the U.S. in 2019, or 7.5% of the population. It was one of many statin medications listed, which are claimed to prevent cardiovascular disease and treat abnormal lipid levels. Prevalent Conditions Treated Most of the top prescribed drugs are used to treat high blood pressure or symptoms of it. This is significant as 108 million, or nearly half of adults in the U.S., have hypertension or high blood pressure.
Combining the total patients for blood pressure and cholesterol medications covers 33% of the U.S. population. Pain and inflammation medications were the most frequent on the top 30 list, prescribed to 13.6% of people. Drug Spending in the U.S.A drug’s total number of patients doesn’t necessarily reflect its importance or cost. For example, levothyroxine, the fourth-most prescribed drug by total patients, was the second-most prescribed by total prescriptions with 102.6 million in 2019 at an average cost of $25.10 per prescription. More specialized medications like fluticasone had fewer total prescriptions (27.9 million) but a higher average cost of $97.68 per prescription. Prices are influenced by factors like demand, patent status, and healthcare system variations. Implications and ConcernsThe study underscores ongoing concerns about financial conflicts of interest in the medical field. Researchers noted that such payments might influence physician prescribing behavior and potentially undermine patient trust in medical professionals. Despite these concerns, the practice of accepting industry payments remains widespread.  Data Source and MethodologyThe study utilized data from the Open Payments platform, a national database where drug and medical device companies are required to disclose payments made to physicians. This platform aims to increase transparency and help patients make informed decisions about their healthcare providers. FDA recalls and safety concernsIn a related safety concern, the FDA recalled certain Impella devices in December due to a perforation risk that could cause serious injuries or death. This highlights the ongoing need for vigilance regarding the safety of medical devices widely used in clinical practice. ConclusionThis comprehensive analysis by Yale University researchers provides a clear picture of the substantial financial ties between US doctors and the medical industry, emphasizing the need for ongoing scrutiny and transparency. The relationship between healthcare providers and the medical industry is complex and often financially intertwined. While these financial interactions can support medical education and innovation, they also pose significant ethical and practical challenges. Ensuring transparency and addressing potential conflicts of interest are crucial steps toward maintaining the integrity of medical practice and patient trust. referencesGøtzsche PC. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Health Care. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2013.
Gøtzsche PC. Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial. Copenhagen: People’s Press; 2015. Schroeder MO. Death by Prescription: By one estimate, taking prescribed medications is the fourth leading cause of death among Americans. US News 2016; Sept 27. Light DW, Lexchin J, Darrow JJ. Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. J Law Med Ethics 2013;41:590-600. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200–5. FAERS Reporting by Patient Outcomes by Year. FDA 2015;Nov 10. Gøtzsche PC. Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal From Psychiatric Drugs. Ann Arbor: L H Press; 2022. Hubbard R, Farrington P, Smith C, et al. Exposure to tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and the risk of hip fracture. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:77-84. Thapa PB, Gideon P, Cost TW, et al. Antidepressants and the risk of falls among nursing home residents. N Engl J Med 1998;339:875-82. Ebbesen J, Buajordet I, Erikssen J, et al. Drug-related deaths in a department of internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2317–23. James JTA. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf 2013;9:122-8. Ho JY. Life Course Patterns of Prescription Drug Use in the United States. Demography 2023;60:1549-79. Gøtzsche PC. Long-term use of antipsychotics and antidepressants is not evidence-based. Int J Risk Saf Med 2020;31:37-42. Gøtzsche PC. Long-Term Use of Benzodiazepines, Stimulants and Lithium is Not Evidence-Based. Clin Neuropsychiatry 2020;17:281-3. Forbruget af antipsykotika blandt 18-64 årige patienter, med skizofreni, mani eller bipolar affektiv sindslidelse. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2006. Hughes S, Cohen D, Jaggi R. Differences in reporting serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005535. Schneider LS, Dagerman KS, Insel P. Risk of death with atypical antipsychotic drug treatment for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. JAMA 2005;294:1934–43. FDA package insert for Risperdal (risperidone). Accessed 30 May 2022. Koponen M, Taipale H, Lavikainen P, et al. Risk of Mortality Associated with Antipsychotic Monotherapy and Polypharmacy Among Community-Dwelling Persons with Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2017;56:107-18. Whitaker R. Lure of Riches Fuels Testing. Boston Globe 1998; Nov 17. Whitaker R. Mad in America: Bad science, Bad medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge: Perseus Books Group; 2002:page 269. Vanderburg DG, Batzar E, Fogel I, et al. A pooled analysis of suicidality in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sertraline in adults. J Clin Psychiatry 2009;70:674-83. Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials: a Re-Analysis of the FDA Database. Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:247-8. Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Reply to the Letter to the Editor: “Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk: Thoughts on Hengartner and Plöderl’s ReAnalysis.” Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:373-4. Weich S, Pearce HL, Croft P, et al. Effect of anxiolytic and hypnotic drug prescriptions on mortality hazards: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2014;348:g1996. Kripke DF, Langer RD, Kline LE. Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000850. Coupland C, Dhiman P, Morriss R, et al. Antidepressant use and risk of adverse outcomes in older people: population based cohort study. BMJ 2011;343:d4551. Smoller JW, Allison M, Cochrane BB, et al. Antidepressant use and risk of incident cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2128-39. O’Neill A. Age distribution in the United States from 2012 to 2022. Statista 2024;Jan 25. Olfson M, King M, Schoenbaum M. Antipsychotic Treatment of Adults in the United States. Psychiatrist.com 2015;Oct 21. Maust DT, Lin LA, Blow FC. Benzodiazepine Use and Misuse Among Adults in the United States. Psychiatr Serv 2019;70:97-106. Brody DJ, Gu Q. Antidepressant Use Among Adults: United States, 2015-2018. CDC 2020; Sept. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Leading Causes of Death. 2024; Jan 17. Drug Overdose Deaths. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2023; Aug 22. Davis JS, Lee HY, Kim J, et al. Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in US adults: changes over time and by demographic. Open Heart 2017;4:e000550. Conaghan PG. A turbulent decade for NSAIDs: update on current concepts of classification, epidemiology, comparative efficacy, and toxicity. Rheumatol Int 2012;32:1491-502. Bally M, Dendukuri N, Rich B, et al. Risk of acute myocardial infarction with NSAIDs in real world use: bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMJ 2017;357:j1909. Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, et al. Cardiovascular Events Associated with Rofecoxib in a Colorectal Adenoma Chemoprevention Trial. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1092-102. Blower AL, Brooks A, Fenn GC, et al. Emergency admissions for upper gastrointestinal disease and their relation to NSAID use. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997;11:283–91. Davis C, Lexchin J, Jefferson T, Gøtzsche P, McKee M. “Adaptive pathways” to drug authorisation: adapting to industry? BMJ 2016;354:i4437. van der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, et al. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Drug Saf 2006;29:161-8. Gøtzsche PC. Big marketing hoax: Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not anti-inflammatory. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom 2022;Nov 10. Perlis R. The time has come for over-the-counter antidepressants. Stat News 2024;April 8. Gøtzsche PC. Critical Psychiatry Textbook. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2022. Freely available. Tilley, Caitlin. “Corruption Fears as Report Finds US Doctors Received Record $12bn.” Mail Online, 3 Apr. 2024, www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13268371/Corruption-doctors-received-pharma-payments.html. Tanne, Janice Hopkins. “US Doctors Received More than $12bn in Industry Payments between 2013 and 2022, Study Shows.” BMJ, vol. 385, 2 Apr. 2024, p. q781, www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q781.full, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q781.  Since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020, over 13.5 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide. This remarkable achievement in vaccine distribution highlights the urgent need for comprehensive vaccine safety monitoring, as very rare adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines may only become apparent after widespread administration. To address this need, the Safety Platform for Emergency Vaccines (SPEAC) initiative formulated a list of potential COVID-19 vaccine adverse events of special interest (AESI) in 2020. These AESI were selected based on various factors, including their associations with immunization, vaccine platforms, or adjuvants, as well as theoretical concerns related to immunopathogenesis. One flexible approach for assessing AESI is the comparison of observed AESI rates following vaccine introduction with expected rates based on historical periods pre-vaccine rollout. This method, known as observed vs. expected (OE) analysis, can rapidly detect potential vaccine safety signals. For example, OE analysis played a crucial role in identifying thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) as a safety signal, prompting the suspension of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in certain countries. To further enhance vaccine safety monitoring, a global cohort study was conducted as part of the Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project. This project, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), involves multiple nations and aims to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety on a global scale. Thirteen AESI were selected for evaluation, including neurological, hematologic, and cardiovascular conditions, which are as follows:
The study analyzed data from 10 sites across eight countries, comprising a total vaccinated population of 99,068,901 individuals. Notable findings include a statistically significant increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) cases following the administration of the ChAdOx1 (India) vaccine and an increased risk of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) after the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna). Hematologic conditions such as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) also showed elevated risk ratios following certain vaccine doses. Similarly, cardiovascular conditions like myocarditis and pericarditis demonstrated increased risk ratios, particularly after mRNA vaccine doses (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca). Here is the raw data collected from the study: Here is a chart summarizing the raw data collected in the study:  Overall, these findings underscore the importance of ongoing vaccine safety monitoring and highlight the value of global collaboration in assessing vaccine-related adverse events. By leveraging methodologies such as OE analysis and conducting comprehensive cohort studies, public health agencies can swiftly detect and respond to potential vaccine safety signals, ensuring the continued safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination efforts worldwide. referencesK. Faksova, et al. “COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events of Special Interest: A Multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) Cohort Study of 99 Million Vaccinated Individuals.” Vaccine, 1 Feb. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.01.100.
 The human gut is teeming with a diverse array of bacteria collectively known as the gut microbiota. Among its many functions, one of the most vital is colonization resistance—the ability to prevent harmful pathogens from taking up residence in the gut and causing disease. However, understanding which microbiota communities are protective and which allow pathogens to thrive has long been a challenge. In a groundbreaking study led by Spragge et al., researchers shed light on the complex dynamics of gut microbiota and their role in colonization resistance against two significant bacterial pathogens: Klebsiella pneumoniae and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Their findings, published in Science, unveil the critical importance of microbiome diversity in safeguarding against pathogenic invasion. Traditionally, it was believed that certain individual bacterial species might confer colonization resistance. However, Spragge et al. discovered that the true protective power lies in the collective diversity of the microbiota. They conducted meticulous experiments both in vitro and in gnotobiotic mice (mice that have been raised in a controlled environment where the microbial composition of their gut is precisely known and controlled), evaluating the ability of single bacterial species and increasingly diverse microbiota communities to resist pathogen colonization. Surprisingly, the researchers found that single species alone provided limited protection against the pathogens. It was only when these species were combined into diverse communities consisting of up to 50 different species that colonization resistance was significantly enhanced. This underscores the importance of ecological diversity in promoting gut health. Moreover, the study identified certain key species within these diverse communities that played a pivotal role in bolstering colonization resistance, even though they offered little protection on their own. These key species acted by consuming nutrients required by the pathogens, thereby depriving them of essential resources for growth and establishment in the host. Importantly, Spragge et al. demonstrated that microbiome diversity not only increases the probability of protection against pathogens but also enhances the overlap in nutrient utilization profiles between the microbiota community and the pathogen. This nutrient blocking mechanism serves as a potent defense strategy against pathogenic invasion. The implications of these findings are profound. They provide compelling evidence for the health benefits of a diverse gut microbiome and offer insights into the rational design of pathogen-resistant microbiota communities. By harnessing the protective power of microbiome diversity, we may pave the way for innovative strategies to combat infectious diseases and promote overall gut health. In conclusion, Spragge et al.'s study unveils the intricate interplay between microbiome diversity and colonization resistance, highlighting the collective strength of diverse bacterial communities in defending against pathogenic threats. This research not only expands our understanding of gut microbiota dynamics but also holds promise for the development of novel therapeutics aimed at fortifying the body's natural defenses against infections. referencesSpragge, Frances, et al. “Microbiome Diversity Protects against Pathogens by Nutrient Blocking.” Science, vol. 382, no. 6676, 15 Dec. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj3502.
 In recent years, researchers have uncovered a surprising trend in human physiology: a decline in body temperature over the past two centuries. Contrary to the long-standing belief that the normal body temperature is 37°C (98.6°F), studies spanning multiple cohorts and time periods have revealed a consistent decrease in average body temperature, suggesting a real physiological change rather than a mere artifact of measurement bias. A groundbreaking study analyzed data from three cohorts spanning 157 years (over 600,000 data inputs), including Union Army Veterans of the Civil War, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I, and the Stanford Translational Research Integrated Database Environment. The findings revealed a monotonic decrease in body temperature, with men born in the early 19th century having temperatures 0.59°C higher than men today. A similar decline was observed in women, indicating a significant shift in human physiology over time. While some may attribute these findings to changes in measurement methods or biases, the study's authors argue that the observed drop in temperature reflects real physiological differences. Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate. These findings of a decrease in body temperature indicate a decrease in metabolic rate, which is supported in the literature when comparing modern experimental data to those from 1919. Resting metabolic rate, a key component of daily energy expenditure, has been linked to body temperature and longevity. The observed decrease in body temperature suggests a corresponding decline in metabolic rate, independent of changes in body size. This likely has implications for human health and longevity, as metabolic health underlies all vital organ functions.  Additionally, changes in ambient temperature and the widespread adoption of heating and cooling systems in modern times may have influenced body temperature trends. Increased time spent in thermoneutral zones, where minimal energy is expended to maintain body temperature, could contribute to the observed decline in resting metabolic rate and body temperature. In conclusion, body temperature has declined, implying lower metabolic rates (since heat is generated as a byproduct of energy production). This declining trend in human body temperature over the past two centuries offers valuable insights into the complex interplay between physiology, environment, and health. As researchers continue to unravel the mysteries of human biology, these findings pave the way for a deeper understanding of our species' evolution and resilience in the face of changing environments and lifestyles. referencesProtsiv, Myroslava, et al. “Decreasing Human Body Temperature in the United States since the Industrial Revolution.” ELife, vol. 9, 7 Jan. 2020, p. e49555, elifesciences.org/articles/49555, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49555.
Dai, Dao-Fu, et al. “Mitochondrial Oxidative Stress in Aging and Healthspan.” Longevity & Healthspan, vol. 3, no. 1, 2014, p. 6, https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-2395-3-6.  In our modern world, where convenience often comes at a cost, the prevalence of obesogens – chemicals that disrupt the body's normal metabolism and contribute to weight gain – has emerged as a growing concern. From everyday products to industrial pollutants, obesogens permeate our environment, exerting subtle yet profound effects on our health and well-being. Commonly encountered obesogens Among the many obesogens encountered in daily life, several stand out for their widespread use and potential health impacts:
Mechanisms of ActionObesogens exert their effects through various mechanisms, including:
 Disruption of Metabolism via MitochondriaObesogens, through their pervasive presence in our environment, exert insidious effects on metabolic function, including the intricate workings of mitochondria – the cellular powerhouses responsible for energy production. By disrupting mitochondrial function, obesogens can contribute to metabolic dysregulation and, ultimately, weight gain. Mitochondria play a central role in energy metabolism, converting nutrients into adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the primary source of cellular energy. However, exposure to obesogens can impair mitochondrial function through various mechanisms, including:
The disruption of mitochondrial function by obesogens can have profound implications for metabolic health and contribute to obesity through several pathways:
causative relationship with health conditionsThe impact of obesogens on human health extends beyond weight gain, with associations documented with various health conditions, including:
Additionally, obesogens are highly related to the following health conditions and physiologic imbalances:
Unraveling the Role of Dysfunctional Adipose TissueRelatively little is known about the extent to which obesogen exposure programs dysfunctional adipose tissue that may store but not mobilize fat. However, emerging evidence suggests that obesogens may contribute to adipocyte dysfunction, leading to altered fat storage and metabolism. One potential underlying factor is suboptimal liver detoxification pathways due to inadequate micronutrient cofactors. Inadequate levels of essential micronutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, can impair liver detoxification pathways responsible for metabolizing and eliminating obesogens from the body. As a result, obesogens may accumulate in adipose tissue, disrupting metabolic function and contributing to weight gain. Additionally, micronutrient deficiencies can compromise mitochondrial function, further exacerbating metabolic dysfunction and obesity risk. A Layman's Overview of Obesogens: Redefining the Weight Loss ParadigmIn the quest for weight loss, many of us often find ourselves fixating on calorie counting, fad diets, or intense workout regimens. However, what if I told you that the key to achieving a healthy weight isn't solely about shedding pounds but rather fixing your metabolism? Enter obesogens – a lesser-known yet influential factor in the obesity epidemic. As mentioned, obesogens are chemicals found in our environment, ranging from pesticides and plastics to food additives and personal care products. These substances have the uncanny ability to disrupt our body's natural weight-regulating mechanisms, leading to weight gain and metabolic dysfunction. Instead of solely blaming calories in versus calories out, it's essential to recognize the role obesogens play in shaping our metabolism. The Better Question: Fixing MetabolismRather than constantly asking ourselves, "How do I lose weight?" a more pertinent question would be: "How do I fix my metabolism?" Fixing metabolism involves addressing the root cause of weight gain – obesogen exposure and metabolic disruption. By eliminating or reducing our exposure to obesogens and ensuring our bodies receive essential micronutrients, we can optimize metabolic function and promote overall health. The Two-Fold SolutionTo achieve optimal health and maintain a healthy weight, a two-fold approach is necessary: 1. Reduce Toxin Exposure: Minimize exposure to obesogens by making conscious choices in our daily lives. This includes opting for organic produce, using natural cleaning and personal care products, and avoiding plastic containers and food packaging whenever possible. By participating in a structured evidenced-based detoxification program, we in turn lower our toxic burden, and we can mitigate the adverse effects of obesogens on our metabolism. 2. Consume Micronutrients: Vital micronutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, serve as essential cofactors in metabolic pathways. Ensuring adequate intake of these micronutrients through a balanced diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins can support optimal metabolic function. Additionally, supplementation may be necessary to address any deficiencies and promote metabolic health. The conventional approach to weight loss often overlooks the critical role obesogens play in metabolic dysfunction. Instead of solely focusing on calorie restriction or intense exercise, shifting our focus to fixing metabolism through toxin reduction and micronutrient consumption offers a more holistic and sustainable solution to achieving optimal health. By addressing the underlying factors contributing to metabolic disruption, we can pave the way for lasting weight management and overall well-being. the harm of environmental toxinsThe disruption of metabolic and mitochondrial function by obesogens represents a significant public health concern, with implications for obesity and metabolic disease. By understanding the mechanisms through which obesogens impair mitochondrial function and contribute to weight gain, researchers can develop targeted interventions to mitigate their adverse effects on metabolic health. Moreover, addressing underlying factors such as suboptimal liver detoxification pathways and micronutrient deficiencies is essential in combating the detrimental impact of obesogens on metabolic function and obesity prevalence. The pervasive presence of obesogens in our environment underscores the need for greater awareness and regulation of these harmful chemicals. By minimizing exposure to obesogens and advocating for safer alternatives, we can mitigate their adverse effects on human health and combat the rising tide of obesity and metabolic disease. As we navigate the complexities of modern living, vigilance and informed consumer choices are essential in safeguarding our health and well-being against the hidden threats of obesogens. Taking Action: The Integral Wellness ProgramFor those seeking tangible solutions to combat the effects of obesogens and improve their overall well-being, the Integral Wellness Program offers a comprehensive approach to optimizing health and vitality. This flagship service provides personalized guidance and support in key areas of movement, nutrition, and lifestyle to directly enhance quality of life. Online/In-Person Guidance One of the standout features of the Integral Wellness Program is its flexibility, offering both online and in-person consultations tailored to individual preferences and needs. Whether you prefer the convenience of virtual sessions or the hands-on approach of in-person coaching, our team of experienced wellness professionals is dedicated to supporting you every step of the way. Movement, Nutrition, and Lifestyle The Integral Wellness Program takes a holistic approach to health, addressing modifiable factors and behaviors in three core areas:
Augmenting the Health Process By participating in the Integral Wellness Program, you'll not only gain valuable knowledge and skills to navigate the challenges of modern living but also receive ongoing support and accountability to stay on track towards your health goals. Through targeted interventions aimed at eliminating obesogen exposure and promoting healthy behaviors, you can unlock your body's full potential and thrive in all aspects of life. The Integral Wellness Program offers a transformative journey towards optimal health and vitality. By prioritizing movement, nutrition, and lifestyle modifications, participants can take proactive steps to combat the effects of obesogens and reclaim control over their well-being. With the guidance and support of our dedicated wellness professionals, you'll embark on a path of self-discovery, empowerment, and lasting transformation. references This article challenges the conventional understanding of heart disease, particularly the widely accepted theory that attributes its cause primarily to events occurring in the coronary arteries. Instead, a paradigm shift is proposed, contending that a deeper understanding of heart disease, encompassing angina, unstable angina, and myocardial infarction (heart attack), necessitates a focus on events within the myocardium, the muscular tissue of the heart. Over the past decades, the prevailing belief in the coronary artery theory has led to costly surgical interventions, widespread medication use with questionable benefits, and dietary recommendations that may exacerbate rather than alleviate the problem. By delving into the precise pathophysiological events that underlie heart attacks, we can uncover alternative approaches to prevention and treatment, such as adopting a "Nourishing Traditions"-style diet and utilizing safe and affordable medicines like g-strophanthin. Furthermore, this shift in perspective prompts us to confront broader issues, including the impact of modern lifestyles on human health, the need for a new medical paradigm, and the importance of ecological consciousness. Ultimately, reexamining the root causes of heart disease offers a pathway to addressing this pervasive health challenge and forging a healthier future for all. The information is summarized based on the work of Dr. Thomas Cowan, vice president of the Physicians Association for Anthroposophical Medicine and is a founding board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation. During his career he has studied and written about many subjects in medicine. These include nutrition, homeopathy, anthroposophical medicine, and herbal medicine. Challenging the Conventional model: Revisiting the Causes of Heart AttacksThe traditional understanding of heart attacks, largely centered on arterial blockage due to plaque buildup, has faced challenges in recent years. Initially, it was believed that blockages in the major coronary arteries led to oxygen deficiency in the heart, causing chest pain (angina) and eventually progressing to a heart attack. This simplistic view prompted invasive procedures like angioplasty, stents, and coronary bypass surgery as standard treatments. However, clinical observations and research findings have cast doubts on this approach. Anecdotal evidence (admittedly low quality evidence) from a trial in rural Alabama revealed surprising outcomes among individuals with single artery blockages. Contrary to expectations, less than 10% of those who experienced heart attacks did so in the region of the heart supplied by the blocked artery. Similarly, a comprehensive study conducted by the Mayo Clinic highlighted the limited efficacy of bypass surgery in preventing future heart attacks. While the procedure offered relief from chest pain, it did not significantly reduce the risk of subsequent heart events, except in high-risk patients. Contrary to popular belief, blockages exceeding 90% are often compensated for by collateral blood vessels, which develop over time to ensure uninterrupted blood flow to the heart. This extensive network of collateral vessels serves as a natural bypass system, mitigating the impact of arterial blockages on blood circulation. However, diagnostic procedures like coronary angiograms, which rely on injecting heavy dye into the arteries, often fail to accurately assess the extent of blockages and the true blood flow in the heart. As a result, many patients undergo invasive treatments such as bypass surgery, stents, or angioplasty based on misleading information about the severity of their arterial blockages. Moreover, studies have shown that these procedures provide minimal benefit, if any, to patients, particularly those with minimally symptomatic blockages exceeding 90%. Despite the widespread use of these interventions, their efficacy in restoring blood flow and preventing heart attacks remains questionable. These revelations underscore the need for a reevaluation of conventional treatment strategies and a deeper exploration of the underlying mechanisms behind heart attacks. Rather than focusing solely on arterial blockages, a more holistic approach that considers factors beyond plaque buildup may offer greater insights into the prevention and management of heart disease. Beyond the Coronary Artery TheoryThe prevailing focus in cardiology has long been on the stable, progressing plaque within the coronary arteries, deemed responsible for heart attacks. However, recent insights challenge this notion, redirecting attention to the unpredictable nature of unstable plaques. Unlike their calcified counterparts, unstable plaques are soft and prone to rapid evolution, abruptly occluding arteries and triggering downstream oxygen deficits, angina, and ischemia. These vulnerable plaques are believed to be a blend of inflammatory buildup and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), the primary targets of statin drugs. Consequently, the widespread adoption of statin therapy is advocated as a preventive measure against heart attacks, fueled by angiogram studies purportedly showcasing the prevalence of unstable plaques as the leading cause of myocardial infarctions (MIs). Yet, autopsies and pathology studies present a different narrative. Thrombosis, deemed crucial in precipitating MIs, is found in only a fraction of cases upon meticulous examination. Furthermore, measurements of myocardial oxygen levels during MIs reveal no discernible deficit, challenging the conventional understanding of ischemia as the primary mechanism. While thrombosis does occur in conjunction with MIs, its occurrence in less than half of cases underscores the inadequacy of attributing MIs solely to arterial blockages. The timing of thrombosis, often post-MI, begs the question: what precipitated the event in the first place? These inconsistencies underscore the limitations of existing theories surrounding coronary artery involvement in MIs. As the spotlight shifts away from stable plaques, a pressing question emerges: What truly underlies the genesis of heart attacks? Unveiling the Autonomic Symphony: The Heart's Harmonious BalanceAn accurate understanding of myocardial ischemia necessitates consideration of the primary risk factors associated with heart disease, including gender, diabetes, smoking, and chronic psychological stress. Curiously, none of these risk factors directly implicate coronary artery pathology; instead, they impact capillary health or exert indirect effects. Over the past five decades, key medications in cardiology, such as beta-blockers, nitrates, aspirin, and statins, have demonstrated some benefits for heart patients. However, their mechanisms of action must be scrutinized within a comprehensive theory of myocardial ischemia. A groundbreaking revelation in heart disease prevention and treatment stems from the autonomic nervous system's role in ischemia genesis, as illuminated by heart-rate variability monitoring. The autonomic nervous system comprises two branches—the sympathetic and parasympathetic—responsible for regulating physiological responses. Imbalance between these branches emerges as a significant contributor to heart disease. Studies reveal a notable reduction in parasympathetic activity among patients with ischemic heart disease, particularly preceding ischemic events triggered by physical or emotional stressors. Conversely, abrupt increases in sympathetic activity rarely culminate in ischemia without antecedent parasympathetic decline. Notably, women exhibit stronger vagal activity than men, potentially influencing sex-based disparities in MI incidence. Multiple risk factors, including hypertension, smoking, diabetes, and stress, diminish parasympathetic activity, underscoring the pivotal role of the regenerative nervous system in heart health. Conversely, pharmacological interventions like nitrates, aspirin, and statins stimulate parasympathetic mediators, promoting ANS balance. In essence, while traditional risk factors and interventions influence plaque and stenosis development, their paramount impact lies in restoring ANS equilibrium. Thus, understanding the sequence of events leading to myocardial infarction demands a deeper exploration of autonomic nervous system dynamics. The Underlying pathophysiology of Myocardial IschemiaIn the vast majority of cases, the pathology leading to myocardial infarction (MI) begins with a decreased tonic activity of the parasympathetic nervous system (rest and digest), often exacerbated by physical or emotional stressors. This reduction prompts an increase in sympathetic nervous system activity, triggering heightened adrenaline production and directing myocardial cells to break down glucose via aerobic glycolysis, rather than their preferred fuel source of ketones and fatty acids (often explaining why patients report feeling tired before a MI). Remarkably, despite these metabolic shifts, no change in blood flow, as measured by the myocardial cell oxygen level (pO2), occurs. The shift towards glycolysis results in a surge of lactic acid production within myocardial cells, a phenomenon observed in nearly all MIs. This surge, coupled with localized tissue acidosis, impedes calcium entry into cells, compromising their contractility. Consequently, localized edema ensues, leading to hypokinesis—the hallmark of ischemic disease—and eventual tissue necrosis characteristic of an MI. Moreover, the ensuing tissue edema alters arterial hemodynamics, escalating sheer pressure and exacerbating plaque instability. This process elucidates the rupture of unstable plaques and their role in exacerbating arterial blockage during critical, acute scenarios. This explanation accounts for all the observable phenomena associated with heart disease. Understanding the etiology of heart disease holds profound implications beyond academic curiosity. It informs therapeutic strategies aimed at preserving parasympathetic activity, fostering holistic approaches to heart health, and challenging prevailing "civilized" industrial lifestyles. Central to this paradigm shift is the recognition of the vital role played by g-strophanthin—a hormone derived from the strophanthus plant. G-strophanthin is an endogenous hormone made in the adrenal cortex from cholesterol, whose production is inhibited by statin drugs, that does two things that are crucial for heart health and are done by no other medicine. G-strophanthin uniquely stimulates the production of acetylcholine, the primary neurotransmitter of the parasympathetic nervous system, while also converting lactic acid—the metabolic poison implicated in ischemic processes—into pyruvate, a preferred myocardial cell fuel. Perhaps this “magic” is why Chinese medicine practitioners say that the kidneys (i.e., adrenals, where ouabain is made) nourish the heart. Embracing this understanding not only guides therapeutic interventions but also underscores the imperative of dietary modifications. A diet abundant in healthful fats and fat-soluble nutrients, while low in processed carbohydrates and sugars, emerges as a cornerstone of heart health—a departure from the industrialized diets synonymous with modern civilization. In essence, unraveling the metabolic symphony orchestrating myocardial ischemia offers a transformative lens through which to perceive heart disease, fostering a holistic approach that transcends conventional paradigms and embraces the profound interconnectedness of mind, body, and environment. referencesGiorgio Baroldi. The Etiopathogenesis of Coronary Heart Disease. CRC Press EBooks, Informa, 20 Jan. 2004. Accessed 29 Mar. 2024.
Sroka K. On the genesis of myocardial ischemia. Z Kardiol. 2004 Oct;93(10):768-83. doi: 10.1007/s00392-004-0137-6. PMID: 15492892. Helfant, R. H., et al. “Coronary Heart Disease. Differential Hemodynamic, Metabolic, and Electrocardiographic Effects in Subjects with and without Angina Pectoris during Atrial Pacing.” Circulation, vol. 42, no. 4, 1 Oct. 1970, pp. 601–610, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11993303., https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.42.4.601. Takase, B., Kurita, A., Noritake, M., Uehata, A., Maruyama, T., Nagayoshi, H., ... & Nakamura, H. (1992). Heart rate variability in patients with diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and congestive heart failure. Journal of electrocardiology, 25(2), 79-88. Sroka, K., Peimann, C. J., & Seevers, H. (1997). Heart rate variability in myocardial ischemia during daily life. Journal of electrocardiology, 30(1), 45-56. Scheuer, J., & Brachfeld, N. (1966). Coronary insufficiency: relations between hemodynamic, electrical, and biochemical parameters. Circulation Research, 18(2), 178-189. Schmid, P. G., Greif, B. J., Lund, D. D., & Roskoski Jr, R. O. B. E. R. T. (1978). Regional choline acetyltransferase activity in the guinea pig heart. Circulation Research, 42(5), 657-660. Katz, A. M. (1971). Effects of ischemia on the cardiac contractile proteins. Cardiology, 56(1-6), 276-283. Manunta, Paolo, et al. “Endogenous Ouabain in Cardiovascular Function and Disease.” Journal of Hypertension, vol. 27, no. 1, 1 Jan. 2009, pp. 9–18, journals.lww.com/jhypertension/Abstract/2009/01000/Endogenous_ouabain_in_cardiovascular_function_and.3.aspx, https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e32831cf2c6. Doepp, Manfred. “May Strophanthin Be a Valuable Cardiac Drug ? .” American Journal of Medical and Clinical Research & Reviews, vol. 2, no. 9, 15 Sept. 2023, pp. 1–6, ajmcrr.com/index.php/pub/article/view/75/74, https://doi.org/10.58372/2835-6276.1069. Accessed 29 Mar. 2024. Thayer, J. F., Yamamoto, S. S., & Brosschot, J. F. (2010). The relationship of autonomic imbalance, heart rate variability and cardiovascular disease risk factors. International journal of cardiology, 141(2), 122-131.  Recent breakthrough studies have shone a light on the intriguing link between our microbiome – the diverse community of microorganisms residing in our gut and mouth – and the secret to a longer, healthier life. Scientists have long suspected that our genes, environment, and internal factors like the microbiome play a role in determining how long we live, but the specifics remained elusive. Now, thanks to cutting-edge research, we're getting closer to unraveling the mysteries of longevity. In this groundbreaking exploration, scientists employed a sophisticated approach called Mendelian randomization (MR) to delve into the intricate relationships between the human microbiome and longevity. By analyzing genetic data from large cohorts, they uncovered some compelling associations that shed light on the microbial players in the quest for a longer life. The Gut Chronicles: Microbial Superstars and CulpritsThe gut microbiome, a bustling metropolis of bacteria, has been a focal point in the quest for longevity. The study identified certain gut microbes as potential champions in the battle against aging. Microbial heroes like Coriobacteriaceae, Oxalobacter, and the probiotic Lactobacillus amylovorus were found to be positively linked to increased odds of longevity. On the flip side, a few gut microbes emerged as potential antagonists, with names like Fusobacterium nucleatum, Coprococcus, Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, and Neisseria negatively associated with longevity. These microbial foes might have a role in determining how gracefully we age. Oral Health: More Than Just a Pretty SmileThe study didn't stop at the gut; it extended its gaze to the oral microbiome, a less-explored but equally important realm. The findings suggested a fascinating connection between the oral microbiome and longevity. Specific oral bacteria were identified as potential influencers in the longevity game. Interestingly, the research hinted at a lower gut microbial diversity among centenarians (diversity appears to lower with age), but no significant difference in their oral microbiota. This finding underscores the importance of tracking the movements of these beneficial microbes across different parts of the body for a longer and healthier life. Decoding the Genetic Blueprint for LongevityThe study leveraged Mendelian randomization to unravel the causality between the microbiome and longevity. This approach, using genetic variants as tools, allowed scientists to explore the potential causal links between specific microbial features and the length of our lives. The bidirectional analyses provided a wealth of information, not only pinpointing specific microbes associated with longevity but also revealing the microbial preferences of genetically longevous individuals. For instance, genetic predisposition to longevity correlated with a higher abundance of Prevotella and a lower abundance of Bacteroides, suggesting a potential link between dietary choices and a longer life. Microbes and Diseases: Unraveling the We The study didn't just stop at longevity; it ventured into the realm of diseases. Certain microbes associated with longevity were found to have correlations with specific diseases. For example, Coriobacteriaceae, linked to longevity, was significantly reduced in patients with heart failure, suggesting a potential protective role against cardiovascular diseases. This "microbiota—disease—longevity" axis provides a nuanced understanding of how our microbial companions might influence not only our lifespan but also our susceptibility to various health conditions. What's Next in the Quest for a Longer LifeWhile the study opens exciting new avenues, there are some limitations to consider. The identified causalities didn't all reach statistical significance due to the vast number of microbial features tested. However, the robustness of the findings was supported by the replication of several identified causal links in independent datasets. Moving forward, researchers aim to collect more comprehensive individual-level data, including microbiome profiles, genetics, socio-economic factors, behaviors, and environmental influences. This holistic approach will help tease apart the individual contributions of these factors to longevity. In conclusion, this pioneering study, using Mendelian randomization, has provided us with a roadmap to explore the intricate connections between our microbiome and the quest for a longer, healthier life. As we unlock the secrets hidden in our genes and microbes, we inch closer to personalized approaches for healthy aging and interventions that could extend our time on this planet. referencesLiu, Xiaomin, et al. “Mendelian Randomization Analyses Reveal Causal Relationships between the Human Microbiome and Longevity.” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, 29 Mar. 2023, p. 5127, www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31115-8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31115-8.
 In an update to its 2007 scientific statement, the American Heart Association (AHA) emphasizes the significant and multifaceted benefits of resistance training (RT) on cardiovascular health. Contrary to the misconception that RT solely enhances muscle mass and strength, the statement highlights the favorable physiological and clinical effects of this form of exercise on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and associated risk factors. The scientific statement aims to provide comprehensive insights into the impact of RT, either alone or in combination with aerobic training, on traditional and nontraditional CVD risk factors. More is not always betterEpidemiological evidence suggests that RT is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and CVD morbidity and mortality. Adults who participate in RT have ≈15% lower risk of all-cause mortality and 17% lower risk of CVD, compared with adults who report no RT. Approximately 30 to 60 minutes per week of RT is associated with the maximum risk reduction for all-cause mortality and incident CVD.  Notice this "U" shape in the curve when examining the relationship between RT and morbidity and mortality. This curve suggests that some RT is clearly beneficial, but has the volume of RT increases past a certain point the benefits drop and it becomes harmful. The concept of a "biphasic response" is fundamental to understanding hormesis. It describes the characteristic dose-response relationship observed in hormetic processes, where a substance or stressor elicits opposite effects at low and high doses. The response can be visualized as a U-shaped or J-shaped curve, illustrating the beneficial effects at low doses and potential harm at higher doses.  Benefits of RT on Traditional CVD Risk FactorsThe AHA's scientific statement underscores the positive influence of RT on traditional CVD risk factors, including blood pressure (BP), glycemia, lipid profiles, and body composition. Numerous studies indicate that engaging in RT is associated with reduced resting BP, improved glycemic control, and favorable alterations in lipid profiles, contributing to a lower risk of all-cause mortality and CVD morbidity. Despite recommendations suggesting 2 days per week of RT, only 28% of U.S. adults adhere to this guideline, highlighting the need for increased awareness and promotion. RT and resting blood pressureRT has demonstrated the ability to reduce resting BP across diverse populations, with notable benefits observed in individuals with prehypertension and hypertension. The mechanisms behind these benefits include enhancements in endothelial function, vasodilatory capacity, and vascular conductance. The reductions in BP achieved through RT are comparable to those achieved with antihypertensive medications. RT and GlycemiaRT shows promise in improving glycemia and insulin resistance, leading to a lower incidence of diabetes. The evidence suggests a nonlinear dose-response association, with up to 60 minutes per week of RT associated with the maximum risk reduction for diabetes. RT and Lipid ProfilesWhile the effect on lipid profiles is modest, RT results in favorable changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. These improvements are more pronounced in older adults and those with elevated cardiometabolic risk. Rt, Body composition, and weightRT positively influences body composition by increasing lean body mass and reducing body fat percentage. It is particularly effective in overweight or obese individuals, contributing to increased metabolic rate and mitigating weight gain over time. Benefits of RT on Nontraditional CVD Risk FactorsIn addition to traditional risk factors, the scientific statement highlights the potential mechanisms by which RT positively affects nontraditional CVD risk factors. These include increased cardiorespiratory fitness, improved endothelial function, and potential benefits for sleep quality, psychological health, and well-being.    The AHA's updated scientific statement reinforces the pivotal role of resistance training in cardiovascular health, providing a comprehensive overview of its impact on both traditional and nontraditional risk factors. As the evidence supporting RT's benefits continues to grow, the statement serves as a valuable resource for clinicians and public health professionals, offering practical strategies for promoting and prescribing resistance training to enhance cardiovascular health in diverse populations. ReferencesPaluch, Amanda E, et al. “Resistance Exercise Training in Individuals with and without Cardiovascular Disease: 2023 Update: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association.” Circulation, 7 Dec. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.0000000000001189. Accessed 11 Dec. 2023.
Momma H, Kawakami R, Honda T, Sawada SS. Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Br J Sports Med. 2022 Jul;56(13):755-763. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-105061. Epub 2022 Feb 28. PMID: 35228201; PMCID: PMC9209691. We’ve built an entire economy, not just in the United States but the entire Western civilization, on healthcare. For thousands of years, real control over populations has been around their food. Today, with billions of souls on the planet, controlling food has become a massive business and a means of ultimate political control. Between 1982 and 2000, something changed in our environment, overwhelming the immune system of the population. Diseases in different organ systems started going epidemic simultaneously, challenging the notion of a thousand different diseases.
In the late 1800s, we changed the way we farmed, leading to a disrespect for crop rotation and soil health. This disrespect for soil health resulted in the Dust Bowl of the 1920s and 30s, pushing us to outsource our food production and rely on imported food. After World War II, with a surplus of petroleum, we started producing chemical-based fertilizers, leading to the Green Revolution. While plants turned green due to nitrogen and phosphorus, they lacked essential nutrients and medicine. This deficiency weakened plants, making them susceptible to diseases and pests. The chemical industry introduced pesticides and herbicides (including #Glyphosate), creating a co-dependent relationship between farmers and chemical solutions. Similarly, in healthcare, we’ve become dependent on drugs to manage symptoms, creating a cycle of side effects and more medications. The epidemic rise in diseases like autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and autoimmune disorders signals a deeper problem, challenging our understanding of the root cause of diseases. It’s time to reconsider our approach to health, starting with understanding the importance of soil health and nutrition. Just as respecting soil is crucial for healthy crops, prioritizing our body’s nutritional needs is fundamental for overall well-being. Let’s shift our focus from symptom management to addressing the root cause, promoting a holistic approach to health. Zach Bush, MD is triple board-certified physician specializing in internal medicine, endocrinology and hospice care. He is the founder of Seraphic Group, an organization devoted to developing root-cause solutions for human and ecological health in the sectors of big farming, big pharma, and Western Medicine at large. And he is also the founder of Farmers Footprint https://farmersfootprint.us/, a non-profit coalition of farmers, educators, doctors, scientists, and business leaders aiming to expose the deleterious human and environmental impacts of chemical farming and pesticide reliance - while simultaneously offering a path forward through regenerative agricultural practices. |
The Awareness domain contains research, news, information, observations, and ideas at the level of self in an effort to intellectualize health concepts.
The Lifestyle domain builds off intellectual concepts and offers practical applications.
Taking care of yourself is at the core of the other domains because the others depend on your health and wellness.
Archives
August 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
