Despite medical advances, American life expectancy remained flat from 2012 to 2019 while European countries improved, indicating failed health institutions
Current research rewards individual fame and publication volume over collaboration, honesty about failures, and meaningful health breakthroughs
About half of biomedical research findings cannot be replicated, undermining scientific reliability due to emphasis on incentives
Lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine rollouts lacked scientific backing, created social division, and disproportionately harmed marginalized populations
The NIH aims to rebuild public confidence through transparency, open collaboration, honest communication about uncertainties, and refocusing on quality research
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) acts as the country’s “medical research agency.”1 In other words, their role is to fund and conduct experiments that help improve public health, but the COVID-19 pandemic has eroded the public’s trust in them.
Now, the new NIH director, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, discusses how the agency aims to repair that broken trust in a marathon interview with Andrew Huberman, Ph.D., a professor at Stanford School of Medicine.2
While the entire interview is over four hours long, it’s very much worth it. I recommend you listen to it in smaller parts to help you absorb all the information these two experts discussed. The insights they shared provide a hopeful view of the future for science to benefit humanity instead of the other way around.
Life Expectancy Plummets in America
Bhattacharya starts by discussing the fact that average life expectancy among Americans dropped during the pandemic. It has only returned to pre-pandemic levels, but did not even increase afterward:
• Life expectancy — Bhattacharya acknowledges the failure of America’s health institutions, which he intends to correct:
“Since 2012, there’s been no increase in American life expectancy. From 2012 to 2019, literally it was — well not literally — almost entirely flat life expectancy. And whereas the European countries had advances in life expectancy during that period. During the pandemic, life expectancy dropped very sharply in the United States …
Whatever those investments we’re making as a nation, in the research, are not actually translating into meeting the mission of the NIH, which is to advance health and longevity of American people.”
• Leadership didn’t listen to reason — During the COVID-19 pandemic, Bhattacharya was one of the biggest opponents of the lockdowns, even writing opinion pieces3 in mainstream media publications such as the Wall Street Journal:
“I was a very vocal advocate against the lockdowns, against the mask mandates, against the vaccine mandates and against the anti-scientific bent of public health throughout the pandemic.”
• We are now under a “sick care” system — Bhattacharya explains that health care nowadays is more reactionary than being proactive:
“The advances we’ve made have allowed people to stay sick longer. It hasn’t translated to a longer life, right?
There was a hope, I think, when I first started doing research in 2001, in population aging, there was this idea of a compression of morbidity that is, you live long, a long life, and the time you spent really sick and disabled was compressed at the very end of your life rather than spending a long time disabled and sick. And you die after having spending like a decade or more very sick.”
• The government needs to come clean with its involvement — One of Bhattacharya’s main criticisms of past NIH administrations is the secrecy surrounding their connection in SARS-CoV-2 research:
“I’ve also argued that the scientific institutions of this country should come clean about our involvement in very dangerous research that potentially caused the pandemic.”
Innovation and Incentive Crisis in Scientific Research
Currently, academic science rewards researchers based on metrics like citation counts and the H-index, which measure how often other researchers refer to their work. While this might sound logical, it often encourages scientists to produce quantity over quality.
• The current system favors a “rock star” scientist model — Individual researchers strive for personal fame rather than collaborative, meaningful breakthroughs:
“So, science is a collaborative process, but the incentives within science, for individual advance, can often lead to a sort of a structure that elevates careers without necessarily producing truth.”
• The flaw in peer review publications — Bhattacharya also criticizes the current peer review process. He points out its shortcomings below:
“The peer review actually doesn’t involve, as you know, the peer reviewers taking your data, rerunning your experiments. It doesn’t mean any of that. They just read your paper, looked for logical flaws, didn’t find any, and then they recommended the editor to be published.
So, the peer review is not a guarantee that it’s true. You have some significance that say that your data meet. Even with that, some percentage of the time, the published result is going to be false.”
• Collaboration is key — To address the current flaws in the scientific community, the NIH is now promoting collaborative lab clusters. These groups of scientists come together specifically to tackle complex, real-world health problems. Huberman recommends:
“The solution to this is collaboration. Instead of having independent investigators, you have clusters of laboratories hopefully distributed throughout the country, working on the same problems, collaborating. There are grants of this sort. But here’s the problem. As you point out, it’s a sociological issue.”
To rebuild public trust, scientific institutions will need to be honest about uncertainties and treat you, the public, as partners rather than passive subjects. This means openly communicating what science doesn’t yet know, alongside what it does.
• Publishing “constructive failures” — Research that doesn’t achieve expected results is also critical. This openness helps build credibility:
“[W]e reward scientists for the influence that they have, and we reward scientists for the volume of papers they publish. What we don’t reward scientists for is honesty about their failures. We don’t reward scientists for pro-social behavior.”
• Failure is a stepping stone to better results — Bhattacharya notes that scientific research doesn’t get much leeway when it comes to making mistakes compared to tech companies that learn from failed startups:
“In Silicon Valley, a failed startup doesn’t mean that you can’t get another draw at trying to make a successful startup, right? Silicon Valley does not punish failure that sharply and that is the key to its success. Whereas in biomedicine, the current version of it we have now, we punish failure way too sharply.”
• Previous regulations held research back from the public knowledge — To help change perception regarding the NIH, Bhattacharya wants to make all NIH-funded research free for public consumption because it’s paid by your taxes:
“[My] predecessor Monika Bertagnolli … made a decision, a really great decision, essentially to say if the NIH supports a scientist’s work, and then that work leads to a journal publication, that publication ought to be available free to the public immediately upon publication. You’re not allowed as an NIH-funded scientist to publish in a journal that doesn’t have that as a policy. That policy was due to go into effect in December of this year …
If the American taxpayer pays for the research, why shouldn’t the American taxpayer be able to read the research for free? Because they already paid for it. Why do they pay a second time on the back end after the research is published?”
• Cost is no longer a roadblock because research can be published online — Bhattacharya is now tapping into the benefits of posting research online, making it instantly accessible to people who want to read them:
“[T]he marginal cost of publishing now is effectively zero. You put it online, right? I mean, yeah, there’s some costs for maintaining the webpage and all that and there’s some editorial staff, but like the level of investments that the public had been making for the NIH to then be asked to pay 30, 50, 100 dollars for the papers itself that are published, I mean, it’s just insulting.
And actually, it impedes the progress of science because it makes it so that there’s this barrier where regular people can’t get access to the things that scientists are talking about, right?”
The Replication Crisis
One shocking truth in science today is that about half of all biomedical research findings cannot be replicated. Huberman and Bhattacharya discussed this topic in great detail:
• The flaws of the scientific method — The ability to replicate results among different researchers is important to solidify the findings of a topic, but Huberman states that this is not the case today:
“One of the major issues, I believe, that led to the so-called Replication Crisis is that it is very difficult, even with the best of intentions for two laboratories to do the same work in an identical way. Five minutes longer on a countertop at room temperature might change an antibody that could lead to a different outcome. I mean, there are so many variables.”
• Incentives have affected medical research — Monetary incentives to create groundbreaking research are creating loopholes in medical research, Bhattacharya says:
“So, a lot of what the things that we think we know, even with some fair degree of certainty, are probably not true … [T]the question is like, which half? Well, we don’t know the answer to that question …
And this is done even with pure goodwill and no fraud at all, right? And the reason is a combination of the fact that science is hard and the incentives we created for publication, right? Those two together mean that the biomedical scientific literature is not reliable.”
• Creating a collaborative community is imperative — The NIH is planning to create “pro-social” metrics to reward scientists who share data openly and willingly allow others to replicate their work:
“We don’t reward scientists for pro-social behavior … where you collaborate, you share your data openly and honestly. In fact, we punish scientists for that, right?
So, right now, if somebody comes to me and says, ‘Jay, I want to replicate your work.’ I’ve trained myself not to think this way, but it’s really hard not to, given the structure we’re in. I’m going to think of that as a threat. What if they don’t find what I’ve found, now I’m a failure, right?
The failure to replicate is seen as a failure of the scientist rather than the fact that science is hard and it’s difficult to get results that are true even with the best of will. And we punish scientists for that. So, we essentially reward scientists for a set of things that create incentives for the Replication Crisis to happen.”
COVID-19 Pandemic Lessons
COVID-19 revealed critical flaws in health policy decisions, notably around lockdowns, mask mandates, and blanket vaccine mandates. These policies often lacked strong scientific backing, causing unnecessary harm and division.
• The mandates created stigmatized groups — One of the disturbing effects of the various COVID-19 policies was shunning citizens who spoke out, Bhattacharya says. In turn, those affected have little reason to trust the government:
“Essentially, we created a class of unclean people as a matter of public policy. You can understand why people who went through that would say, ‘Given that the vaccine didn’t turn out to stop you from getting and spreading COVID, why should I trust you on anything else?’ That, that’s where we currently are.”
• Sweden got it right all along — Bhattacharya concedes that the lockdowns weren’t helpful in curbing deaths caused by the COVID-19 pandemic:
“If you ask which country had the lowest all-cause excess deaths in all of Europe … it turns out it’s Sweden, which didn’t follow the lockdowns. So, the lockdowns were not a necessary policy in order to protect human life. And they weren’t sufficient to protect human life either, right? So, you had sharply locked down countries like Peru that had tremendous deaths.”
• There was a concerted effort to control medical experts — Instead of fostering a collaborative environment between experts, those in power opted to censor and vilify doctors who went against mainstream advice:
“[T]here was essentially a groupthink at scale. It was impossible to organize a panel with the kind of diversity of opinion that was needed.
There were [a] million or more — I know this from the set of people who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, tens of thousands of scientists and doctors who disagreed, but they were afraid to stick their head up for fear of getting chopped off. It’s not an accident that Stanford didn’t allow a scientific panel with my point of view about the efficacy of lockdowns until 2024.”
• Lockdowns affected marginalized groups — While many employees were able to continue their jobs during the lockdowns, Bhattacharya noted that these policies greatly affected other groups:
“[I]t was very clear to me with my background in health policy that we were going to harm the poor. We were going to harm children, and we were going to harm the working class at scale. The lockdowns were a luxury of the laptop class.”
• The messaging was more important than saving lives — In an effort to look unified and keep the public’s hopes high, authorities focused on united messaging instead of being honest about the side effects of their policies:
“[T]he problem here is that the scientific community embraced an ethical norm about unity of messaging and then enforced it on fellow scientists. And then it cooperated with the Biden administration to put in place a censorship regime that made it impossible even for legitimate conversations to happen. So, after the vaccines, COVID vaccines came out, there are a community of people who were vaccine legitimately vaccine-injured.”
• The shots need to be fully investigated — Because of the devastation caused by the rolling out the shots to the public, Bhattacharya is calling for an investigation of what went wrong. But even if he is now the NIH director, he is still helpless because of more powerful players:
“I think these are the kind of things that ought to be investigated, but it’s very difficult to investigate just because of the political aura around vaccines where if you really do investigate it and find something the public health authorities don’t like, you’re going to have trouble. I don’t know the answer to that question from a scientific point of view.”
The Way Forward
In the wake of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s catastrophic tenure at the NIH, how does the new administration aim to recover? According to Bhattacharya, the answer involves being open and honest to the public.
• An open discussion and collaboration with the public — Bhattacharya says the NIH will work with the public more closely moving forward, allowing both parties to benefit from each other:
“The way forward isn’t to force people to say, ‘Look, you must acknowledge how great science is on these other things.’ The way forward is to be utterly honest about what we know and don’t know and treat people as partners rather than subjects.”
• Return to basics — The NIH aims to return to scientific research that will benefit public health, even if it means challenging beliefs that are hard to let go. Bhattacharya is hoping to fast track an open scientific competition to get to the bottom of autism:
“It includes basic science work, it includes epidemiological work, it’ll include environmental exposure work, and we’ll bring together data sets that we’ll make available to the researchers. We’ll have a competition among scientists, just like the normal NIH way with peer review panels, to ask who should get the awards. We’ll have a dozen or more scientific teams asking the question, ‘What is the etiology of autism?'”
• Honesty — To regain the public’s trust, the NIH aims to become more open to the pros and cons of the policies they recommend, especially when it comes to rolling out the shots. Bhattacharya believes that these contribute to the rise in autism but are not the sole reason for it.
“I want an honest conversation. I think that if you have an honest evaluation, you’re not going to find that the vaccines are the primary reason for the cause of the rise of autism. It’s going to be something much more fundamental and complicated.”
• Focus on research — Above all, the NIH needs to focus on producing quality research that benefits public health, which includes encouraging new and upcoming scientists to participate:
“The key thing is the content of the research and the standards we hold ourselves doing the research. Those are the things I want restructured. That’s really the fundamental question for me, as NIH director.
If I can accomplish some of the things we’ve talked about during this podcast, having replicability be the core of deciding what scientific truth is, refocusing the portfolio so that we enable young, early career scientists to test their ideas out, that we aim big for trying to address and we address the key health problems that Americans face. If we can do those things, I’ll consider myself a success.”
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Decline of Trust in the NIH
Q: Why has public trust in the NIH declined?
A: Public trust in the NIH has declined primarily due to the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Controversial decisions around lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and lack of transparency regarding the NIH’s involvement in virus research led to widespread skepticism and mistrust.
Q: What is the NIH doing to address the replication crisis in medical research?
A: The NIH plans to encourage collaboration among scientists by rewarding transparency and data sharing. They will create incentives for replication studies, introduce new journals dedicated to publishing replication and negative results, and prioritize funding for projects that openly share methods and data.
Q: How is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya planning to restore transparency?
A: As the newly appointed NIH director, Dr. Bhattacharya will make NIH-funded research freely available online, eliminating paywalls that prevent public access. He advocates openly admitting uncertainties, publishing constructive failures, and actively involving citizens as partners in the scientific process.
Q: What lessons did the NIH learn from the COVID-19 pandemic?
A: The NIH recognized that lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates lacked strong scientific backing and disproportionately harmed marginalized groups. Policies created division rather than cooperation, demonstrating the critical need for transparent, evidence-based decisions, and open scientific debate.
Q: How does the NIH plan to improve research outcomes moving forward?
A: Going forward, the NIH will focus on supporting high-risk, high-reward research projects, creating collaborative lab clusters, and funding comprehensive studies like the autism initiative. Emphasis will be on replicability, transparency, collaboration, and involving early-career scientists to foster innovative and impactful research.
GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic and Wegovy, originally intended as diabetes medications, have gained popularity for weight loss, leading to global shortages despite having modest benefits
Research shows these drugs reduce seizures and substance addiction risks, but they increase the likelihood of 19 other health conditions, including fainting, kidney problems and pancreatic issues
Common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and abdominal pain, with potential risks of acute pancreatitis and thyroid cancer, making the trade-off dangerous for users
Ozempic’s manufacturer Novo Nordisk reported $40.6 billion in revenue, highlighting how the “magic pill” mentality and ultraprocessed food consumption create a profitable cycle for pharmaceutical companies and food manufacturers
Instead of relying on weight loss drugs, focus on optimizing cellular energy production through dietary changes, avoiding vegetable oils and supporting your gut and mitochondrial health
By now, most people around the world have heard of Ozempic and Wegovy, which are GLP-1 receptor agonists. These drugs, originally made for treating Type 2 diabetes, cause rapid weight loss, thus attracting individuals who have been struggling to lose weight for a long time. In fact, the effectiveness of these drugs has led to a global shortage.1 However, as with many other drugs that promise immediate results, there’s a catch.
Ozempic Hailed as a ‘Miracle Drug,’ but the Downsides Are Sinister
A report from The Epoch Times2 covered a study published in Nature Medicine,3 showing the impact of certain GLP-1 receptor agonists, sold under brand names such as Ozempic and Wegovy. As noted by The Epoch Times, “The media, patients, and even some doctors have dubbed the medications ‘miracle drugs’ because of their profound weight-loss effects.”4
In addition to weight loss, the study also noted that these drugs also lower the risk of “seizures and addiction to substances such as alcohol, cannabis, stimulants and opioids.”5 It’s believed that these drugs affect the brain’s neurological pathways related to reward and impulse control, explaining how these changes in behavior occur.6
Despite these benefits, the researchers caution potential, as there’s a dark side to these drugs that mainstream media and Big Pharma do not want you to see. According to the report, Ozempic increases your risk of developing a slew of other serious health conditions:7
“Researchers warn that these benefits come with an increased risk of 19 health conditions, such as syncope (fainting), arthritic disorders, and kidney and pancreatic problems.”
Similarly, a 2022 study found that commonly reported problems include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and abdominal pain. An increased risk for acute pancreatitis and thyroid cancer was also noted.8 Meanwhile, Nature Medicine claims the benefits are “modest” at best:9
“While GLP-1RA drugs display effectiveness against a wide array of health problems, the magnitude of associated benefits is modest — about a 10% to 20% reduction for most outcomes.”
A Closer Look at the Research
The Nature Medicine study analyzed 215,970 diabetics using GLP-1 receptor agonists and compared them to multiple control groups: 159,465 taking sulfonylureas, 117,989 using DPP-4 inhibitors, and 258,614 on SGLT2 inhibitors. An additional control group of 536,068 used all three medications, while a separate baseline group of 1,203,097 received only standard care.10
They then produced a master list of health outcomes related to GLP-1 agonist receptor usage. As noted by The Epoch Times, while these drugs produced benefits, there were also significant adverse health outcomes:11
“Compared to usual care, GLP-1RA use was associated with a reduced risk of substance use and psychotic disorders, seizures, neurocognitive disorders (including Alzheimer’s disease and dementia), coagulation disorders, cardiometabolic disorders, infectious illnesses and several respiratory conditions.
There was an increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders, hypotension, syncope, arthritic disorders, nephrolithiasis, interstitial nephritis and drug-induced pancreatitis associated with GLP-1RA use compared to usual care. The results provide insights into the benefits and risks of GLP-1RAs and may be useful for informing clinical care and guiding research agendas.”
In a report by GoodRx, Stacia Woodcock, PharmD., outlines the mechanisms that lead to weight loss and other supposed benefits related to taking these drugs:12
• They signal your pancreas to release more insulin — After a meal, your blood glucose levels go up. Usually, the pancreas releases insulin when this happens to lower blood glucose levels. But in Type 2 diabetics, the body doesn’t always release enough. Incretin mimetics work on the pancreas to help raise insulin levels after you eat, which then lowers your blood glucose level.
• They increase your body’s sensitivity to insulin — Your body may also not respond as well to insulin if you’re diabetic. Incretin mimetics help increase insulin sensitivity, so your body can respond better to insulin when it’s released.
• They tell your liver to stop making glucose — This helps stop the production of new glucose to keep blood levels down.
The Cycle of Ultraprocessed Food and Ozempic Wrecks Public Health
As the weight-loss effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists gained widespread attention, Big Pharma’s profits in this market skyrocketed. According to The New York Times, Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, reported $40.6 billion in revenue in 2024; this figure is expected to jump by 16% to 24% in 2025.13
In the Tucker Carlson Show interview featured above, Dr. Casey Means, a Stanford-educated surgeon now focusing on functional medicine, expounds on the idea that a “magic pill” that causes weight loss and other supposed benefits appeals to millions of users:14
“I think it’s very dark. It’s a stranglehold on the U.S. population. Almost like solidifying this idea that there is a magic pill — I mean, literally, the book by Johann Ari is called ‘Magic Pill’ — and convincing us that, you know, salvation from our chronic health issues is going to be found in a shot when we are living in a toxic stew that’s destroying our cellular biology.”
Elsewhere in the interview, Means shares how ultraprocessed food contributes to obesity, thus cycling back to taking drugs that cause weight loss. In the end, only Big Pharma and Big Food are the real winners here, as millions of adults struggle with the damage they cause:15
“We are the only species in the world that has an obesity and chronic disease epidemic, the only species in the world that has a chronic disease and obesity epidemic because of ultraprocessed food.
You think about every other animal in the wild — they’re eating real, natural foods except for domesticated animals, which are also getting chronic diseases just like humans because they’re eating our food. But every other animal, they’re able to regulate their satiety. They’re not eating themselves to death like we are. We’re literally eating ourselves to death …
This could be on track to be the most profitable medication ever in human history. It will be if the powers that be let it. And what the unfortunate part is that it doesn’t take our bodies out of the toxic stew that’s crushing our biology. Yes, we may melt some fat and muscle without changing any of the other levers that we just talked about that are crushing our biology. So, this is not the public health solution.”
Practical Ways to Address Underlying Metabolic Challenges
I believe the key to maintaining a healthy weight is optimizing your cellular energy production. This requires a multifaceted approach that takes effort to implement, but it leads to safer, healthier results — something GLP-1 receptor agonists don’t offer. With that in mind, here are my recommendations:
1. Avoid Ozempic and other GLP-1 agonist receptor drugs — The most obvious strategy is avoiding GLP-1 agonist receptors in the first place. If you’re tempted to start, you owe it to yourself to read the study to understand the dangers.
Pills and injections offer short-term relief, but they often mask deeper imbalances in how your cells produce and use energy. Real improvement happens when you remove the factors that strain your metabolism rather than rely on a drug to force quick weight loss.
2. Remove vegetable oils from your diet — If you regularly consume ultraprocessed foods, I recommend stopping right now and replacing them with real, whole foods. Processed foods contain linoleic acid-rich vegetable oils that disrupt your metabolic pathways and alter how your body stores fat. Instead, cook your meals using tallow, grass fed butter or coconut oil.
To protect your health from further damage, limit your intake of linoleic acid to less than 5 grams per day from all sources. I recommend using Cronometer, an online food tracker, so you don’t go over this recommended range.
3. Shift your carbohydrate sources gradually — Avoid making sudden dietary changes that can shock your system. If your gut is compromised, start by introducing easily digestible carbohydrates like whole fruit or white rice before incorporating more complex carbs.
For severe gut issues, sip dextrose water throughout the day as a temporary aid to support healing, but limit its use to about two weeks. The goal is to provide your cells with a steady source of easy-to-digest, healthy carbohydrates for energy.
4. Consider your protein and collagen intake — I suggest aiming for 0.8 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass and balancing that amount so that about one-third comes from collagen. Doing this supports muscle maintenance, tissue repair and hormone balance.
If you exercise frequently, you would probably do well with a higher intake, but take it slow and listen to how your body responds. Stable protein intake is foundational for regulating cravings and stabilizing energy.
5. Support your gut and mitochondrial health with other healthy habits — I recommend getting daily sunlight exposure while being mindful of timing. If your diet previously included vegetable oils, avoid intense midday sun for at least six months to reduce the risk of sunburn and skin damage. Additionally, grounding in low-EMF environments can be beneficial if available — oceans, particularly in North America, tend to be the safest option.
In addition, moderate-intensity movement, such as walking, supports cellular energy production and aids in weight management. Gradual, consistent effort in these areas strengthens your metabolism and leads to lasting health improvements. I believe this approach is far superior to relying on a so-called “magic” drug like Ozempic.
Boost Your GLP-1 Naturally with Akkermansia
The idea of a quick-fix pill may be tempting, but it comes at a long-term cost to your health. A better approach is to naturally boost your GLP-1 levels by supporting Akkermansia, a beneficial gut probiotic that produces a GLP-1-inducing protein. As noted in one study:16
“A. muciniphila increases thermogenesis and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) secretion in high-fat-diet (HFD)-induced C57BL/6J mice by induction of uncoupling protein 1 in brown adipose tissue and systemic GLP-1 secretion.”
Many people lack Akkermansia due to various reasons, such as impaired mitochondrial function or an environment that is inhospitable to beneficial gut bacteria. Ideally, Akkermansia should comprise 3% to 5% of your total gut microbiome and it plays many different roles aside from promoting GLP-1.
For example, Akkermansia has the ability to produce mucin, which is a thick, gel-like substance that protects the gut lining from harmful pathogens, irritation from stomach acid and enzymes, as well as mechanical damage. Moreover, mucin helps nourish the gut bacteria already existing in your gut.
To boost Akkermansia naturally, eat plenty of berries and inulin-rich foods such as garlic, asparagus, bananas and leeks. Note, however, that if your gut health is currently out of whack, introducing high amounts of dietary fiber in your system all at once can worsen your gastrointestinal symptoms. So, work on healing your gut first, then gradually increase fiber intake.
Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.
The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”
To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.
The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.
Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.
The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.
The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”
President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.
President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.
The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.
Articles by Brownstone Institute, a nonprofit organization founded in May of 2021 in support of a society that minimizes the role of violence in public life.
Pfizer-BioNTech did not disclose the deaths of two vaccinated participants in its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, according to a team of Daily Clout researchers who analyzed documents related to the Pfizer clinical trials.The deaths occurred before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine in December 2020. However, it wasn’t until September 2023, nearly three years later, that the FDA publicly released documents revealing the deaths of a 63-year-old Kansas woman and a 58-year-old Georgia woman who participated in the trials.
The revelations prompted Dr. Jeyanthi Kunadhasan — an Australian anesthesiologist and perioperative physician and one of the researchers analyzing the Pfizer documents on behalf of Daily Clout — to write to Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, requesting his office investigate the death of the 63-year-old Kansas woman.
“If the additional two deaths had been disclosed at the time of the EUA, it would have shown that the BNT162b2 mRNA COVIDvaccine intervention provided no reduction in deaths,” Kunadhasan wrote in her letter.
In June, Kobach sued Pfizer, alleging the company misled the public by marketing its COVID-19 vaccine as “safe and effective” while concealing known risks — including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths — and critical data on limited effectiveness.
Pfizer also did not disclose the deaths — both classified in the documents as “sudden cardiac death” unrelated to the victims’ vaccination — in a December 2020 New England Journal of Medicine paper touting the “safety and efficacy” of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
“The death highlighted in Kansas is significant as it occurred well within the reporting period considered for the EUA, and as my letter shows was not disclosed. There was every opportunity to disclose this death at the VRBPAC meeting.
“This death even had an autopsy, which I show was probably available before the VRBPAC meeting, and again was not disclosed.”
According to The Sentinel, “The fact that both participants died of heart attacks becomes more important when other studies showed risks of myocarditis and pericarditis — particularly after a second shot and particularly in young men under 25, but among other patients as well.”
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender the actions of Pfizer and the FDA are “duplicitous at best.” He said:
“All death data for clinical trials needed not only to be made available to the FDA but also to the public. Otherwise, informed consent is completely missing, regardless of whether the product is EUA or [fully] approved.
“It is also particularly devious that Pfizer lied about a reduction in deaths in the vaccination arm when, with these data, the opposite was true.”
Naomi Wolf, Ph.D., CEO of Daily Clout and author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity,” told The Defender the documents show that the “FDA covered up the unlawfully concealed deaths” of the trial participants and that these records “may well reveal a direct connection to the mRNA injection.”
“The details that Dr. Kunadhasan and her colleagues revealed about the death of this poor woman could theoretically allow Kobach to demand the autopsy reports and interview witnesses with information about her passing,” Wolf said.
Dr. Chris Flowers, a retired radiologist and member of the Daily Clout team that examined the Pfizer documents, told The Sentinel that the two undisclosed deaths should have been enough to halt the clinical trial.
“If you put it in context, yes, there’s a small number of deaths,” Flowers said. “Normally, the FDA calls a stop to those clinical trials until further investigation is done. And in many cases, [this] is sort of the death knell of that clinical trial.”
Noting that these deaths “would have at least made it more difficult” for the FDA to grant the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine an EUA, Hooker said that “to release this information over two years later, after the obvious damage has been done, is criminal. Pfizer should be held accountable.”
Wolf said that while she’s “not an attorney, fraud, negligence and manslaughter come to mind.”
“This was one of the most important clinical trials in modern medical history,” Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at CHD, told The Defender. “The people in political power chose to ‘trust the science,’ and they were wrong to do so.”
Undisclosed deaths may have led to FDA granting EUA ‘on incorrect premises’
In her letter, Kunadhasan said she wants to draw attention to “an undisclosed participant death from Kansas that occurred in the BNT162b2-vaccinated arm of Pfizer’s clinical trial.”
According to the documents Kunadhasan cited, the death of the Kansas woman occurred “well before the data cutoff date of November 14, 2020” and nearly a month before the December 2020 VRBPAC meeting.
She said there was a 37-day delay in reporting the results of the Kansas woman’s autopsy, which revealed “sudden cardiac death,” Kunadhasan noted.
“Notably, the omission of the deaths and autopsy report from the vaccinated arm of the study at this critical juncture of EUA issuance raises substantial concerns about the overall safety reporting of Pfizer’s clinical trial,” Kunadhasan stated in the letter.
Kunadhasan also told the attorney general that Pfizer’s clinical trial protocol required that serious adverse events be reported: “immediately upon awareness, and under no circumstances to exceed 24 hours … Pfizer-BioNTech’s own clinical trial protocol indicated that it should have been disclosed.”
Referring to the New England Journal of Medicine paper, Kunadhasan noted that the paper disclosed only six deaths — two among vaccinated clinical trial participants and four among participants in the placebo group.
FDA documents released in September 2023, however, “included information showing that Pfizer-BioNTech was, in fact, informed of two additional deaths in the BNT162b2 arm of the trial well before the EUA data cutoff and that those deaths were not disclosed to the FDA,” Kunadhasan wrote.
The documents showed that the 63-year-old Kansas woman signed up for the Pfizer-BioNTech trial at the Alliance for Multispecialty Research LLC, in Newton, Kansas. She received the two doses of the vaccine on Aug. 18, 2020, and Sept. 8, 2020, and “had appropriate follow-up tests” done on Oct. 7, 2020.
“There is no documentation of any untoward clinical events during these visits,” Kunadhasan wrote. But on Oct. 19, 2020, 41 days after her second dose and less than two weeks after her follow-up visit, the woman died. A subsequent autopsy found the cause of death to be “sudden cardiac death,” not related to the vaccine.
“It is extremely important to know … Why this death (which occurred well within the reporting period) and the autopsy results were not disclosed publicly at the December 10th, 2020, VRBPAC meeting,” Kunadhasan said in her letter.
The letter also highlighted the death of the 58-year-old Georgia woman, who received her two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Aug. 4, 2020, and Aug. 27, 2020. She died in her sleep on Nov. 7, 2020. Kunadhasan noted that her death was “not added to the data for 26 days.”
Kunadhasan told The Defender these discrepancies prompted her letter to Kobach.
“As a doctor, the non-disclosure of a death and autopsy of a clinical trial participant is a profound betrayal of medical ethics. I hope Kobach pays attention to this, and there can be accountability for this Kansan,” Kunadhasan said.
“Kansans should contact Kobach for action in regards to this letter and other AGs should follow suit with investigating Pfizer’s crimes in their states,” Wolf said.
Kobach’s office did not respond to a request from The Defender for comment as of press time.
Prominent cardiologist joins calls for suspension of mRNA COVID shots
Kunadhasan’s letter comes amid growing calls for a moratorium — or an outright ban — on the mRNA COVID-19 shots, and an independent investigation into their safety.
“There is overwhelming evidence that calls for the suspension of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (which, by technicality, is a genetic therapy) because of serious harms,” Malhotra wrote in the letter.
The letter was addressed to Charley Massey, CEO of the U.K.’s General Medical Council; Wes Streeting, the U.K.’s secretary of state for Health; Sir Christopher Whitty, the U.K.’s chief medical officer; and Lord Patrick Valance, the U.K.’s minister of state for Science Research and Innovation.
Malhotra wrote that these officials’ decision “to not support a pause and independent investigation of the safety of the vaccines is now untenable given accumulating evidence of harm and corrupt practices.”
The letter also referred to The Hope Accord — a petition Malhotra drafted earlier this year signed by over 64,000 people, including 1,900 medical doctors and over 2,000 scientists and academics.
The petition calls for the suspension of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, “comprehensive re-evaluation of the safety and efficacy of all COVID-19 vaccine products,” “immediate recognition and support for the vaccine-injured,” “restoration of ethical principles” and “addressing the root causes of our current predicament.”
Speaking on medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D.’s YouTube show on Dec. 11, Malhotra said evidence supporting withdrawal of the vaccines is “overwhelming.”
Explaining why he wrote to U.K. officials, Malhotra told Campbell, “Sunlight is a very powerful disinfectant for malodorous health policy,” and said that there may be an explosion of people in the near future who are currently asymptomatic but who may develop vaccine-related conditions.
“We’ve got a lot of asymptomatic people in the population who I feel are at risk of heart attack, stroke and cancer. Until we get that addressed full on, more people are going to be harmed from a vaccine they took three years ago,” Malhotra said.
“My conscience will not allow me to stay quiet and just do this behind the scenes. As healthcare professionals, we need to address it because it’s not going away.”
“What we need to do is create almost a culture … where people aren’t afraid to admit that things have changed or they’ve got things wrong and they can change their mind,” Malhotra said.
Low cholesterol levels are associated with increased mortality risk in older adults, challenging the “lower is better” paradigm
Cholesterol plays crucial roles in cell membrane structure, hormone production, vitamin D synthesis and nerve function. Adequate levels are essential for optimal health, especially in older individuals
Low cholesterol is linked to higher diabetes risk in older adults. Both very low and very high levels increase risk, with the lowest risk occurring at moderate levels
Maintaining adequate cholesterol levels is important for brain health, particularly in post-menopausal women. Low levels may disrupt lipid rafts and myelin production, potentially affecting cognitive function
Recent research indicates a relationship between low cholesterol and increased risk of blood cancers. Cholesterol has protective effects on immune function and regulation of cancer cell proliferation
You’ve likely heard that high cholesterol is bad for your health, however cholesterol is found in nearly every cell of your body and is vital for optimal functioning. If you have too little, your risk of health problems increases, including all-cause mortality.
Research published in Frontiers in Endocrinology found a revealing link between low total cholesterol (TC) levels and increased mortality risk in those aged 85 and above.1 This research challenges the conventional dogma that lower cholesterol is always better, especially for older adults.
The study, which analyzed data from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey, found that individuals with TC levels below 3.40 mmol/L (131 mg/dL) had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to those with higher levels.2 In fact, the mortality risk increased by 12% for every 1 mmol/L reduction in TC.3 These findings suggest that maintaining higher cholesterol levels may benefit longevity in your later years.
Why Low Cholesterol Is Harmful in Late Life
Cholesterol, often misunderstood as merely harmful, plays several crucial roles in maintaining bodily functions. This waxy substance serves as a fundamental building block for cell membranes, providing structural integrity and fluidity. It acts as a precursor for various essential hormones and is vital in the production of vitamin D when your skin is exposed to sunlight, contributing to bone health and immune function.
In your digestive system, cholesterol aids in the formation of bile acids, which are necessary for the absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins. Further, cholesterol is integral to myelin sheath formation, enhancing nerve signal transmission throughout your body. A balanced amount of cholesterol is indispensable for optimal health and plays a protective role as you age.
As for why low cholesterol increases risk of all-cause mortality in older adults, low TC levels may compromise cell function and increase your vulnerability to infections and other health problems. Additionally, cholesterol helps regulate inflammatory markers in your body. With lower TC levels, you might experience enhanced inflammation, which is associated with numerous age-related diseases.
The study found the protective effect of higher cholesterol is independent of nutritional status or chronic health conditions, suggesting a direct biological link between TC levels and longevity in advanced age. The researchers explained:4
“Although the biological pathways that link TC to mortality are poorly understood, several mechanisms may explain this inverse association. For example, blood lipids, which are an important component of cell membranes, may affect cell electrophysiology by modulating the distribution and function of some ion channels.
Low TC levels may contribute to the pathogenesis of some common diseases in older people, such as atrial fibrillation. Another potential mechanism is that TC may regulate inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and attenuate the biological response to inflammation. Therefore, individuals with low TC levels may be more vulnerable to physiological disorders because of enhanced inflammation.”
The study identified an optimal range for TC levels in those aged 85 years and over. Participants with TC levels between 3.40 and 4.39 mmol/L (131 to 170 mg/dL) and those with levels at or above 4.39 mmol/L (170 mg/dL) had significantly lower mortality risks compared to those with levels below 3.40 mmol/L.5
“Our findings contribute to the growing body of evidence challenging the ‘lower is better’ paradigm for cholesterol levels in older adults,” the researchers noted, proposing that the optimal TC range for older adults might lie between 3.40 and 5.18 mmol/L (131 to 200 mg/dL).6
Low Cholesterol Linked to Increased Diabetes Risk
Another important study of 3.26 million Chinese adults aged 65 and older also revealed the importance of properly optimizing your cholesterol. It found low cholesterol levels are associated with a higher risk of diabetes.7
The researchers observed a J-shaped relationship between total cholesterol and diabetes risk. This means that both very low and very high cholesterol levels were associated with increased diabetes risk, with the lowest risk occurring at moderate levels. Specifically, TC levels below 4.04 mmol/L (156 mg/dL) were linked to higher diabetes odds. This “cholesterol paradox” could further explain why low cholesterol contributes to increased mortality in late life.
The findings even held true for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, often labeled as the “bad” cholesterol. The study found a similar J-shaped relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and diabetes risk. LDL cholesterol levels below 2.33 mmol/L (90 mg/dL) were associated with higher diabetes odds. For every 1 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol below this threshold, there was a 12% decrease in diabetes risk.8
This again challenges the “lower is better” approach to LDL management, especially for older adults. The protective effect of moderately higher LDL cholesterol levels could be another piece of the puzzle in understanding increased late-life mortality associated with low cholesterol — your body needs a certain level of LDL cholesterol for optimal health throughout life, including in your later years.
The Protective Role of Cholesterol in Brain Health
Maintaining adequate cholesterol levels is also crucial for your brain health, especially as you age. Cholesterol plays a vital role in the production and maintenance of cell membranes in your brain and is essential for the formation of lipid rafts, specialized regions in cell membranes that are crucial for synaptic function and plasticity.9
These processes are fundamental for learning and memory. When your cholesterol levels are too low, it can disrupt these lipid rafts, potentially affecting your memory consolidation and cognitive function. Additionally, cholesterol is necessary for myelin production, the protective sheath around nerve fibers that enables efficient signal transmission in your brain.
Low cholesterol levels might interfere with the repair and regeneration of myelin, leading to impaired information processing and potentially contributing to cognitive decline. Further, research indicates that women have a higher lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease compared to men, and cholesterol levels may play a role in this difference.
The study focused specifically on post-menopausal women, finding that those with total cholesterol levels below 153 mg/dL had a significantly higher risk of developing dementia.10 Even women with cholesterol levels above 201 mg/dL had a reduced risk of developing dementia compared to those with the lowest levels.11
This suggests that maintaining adequate cholesterol levels may be particularly important for cognitive health in post-menopausal women. The researchers explained several reasons why low cholesterol may increase dementia risk in this population:12
“In neurons, lipid rafts are … believed to be involved in synaptic function and plasticity, which are essential for learning and memory processes. Low cholesterol caused by drugs or toxins may disrupt lipid rafts, subsequently affecting memory consolidation and cognitive function and finally resulting in dementia.
In addition to lipid raft disruption, demyelination caused by low cholesterol levels might also be another important factor that interferes with the regeneration of myeline; therefore, signal (information) transformation and consolidation become disrupted.
Several factors including hyperglycemia, hypertension, toxins, infections, and many other factors that induce free radicals, oxidation, and the inflammation of myeline results in the aging process or the destruction of myelin. In this situation, a higher cholesterol level might be a rate-limited process for repairment and remyelination.
Without intact functional lipid rafts and myeline, information in the brain for conduction, consolidation, or plasticity is not possible.”
Link Between Low Cholesterol and Blood Cancer Risk Unveiled
Recent research from the UK Biobank study has also uncovered an unexpected relationship between low cholesterol levels and an increased risk of plasma cell neoplasms, including multiple myeloma.13
This large-scale study followed 502,507 participants for up to 14 years, revealing that individuals with lower levels of total cholesterol, LDL, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoproteins had a higher likelihood of developing these blood cancers.14 While the exact mechanisms are not fully understood, this research points to the complex role of cholesterol in cellular health and immune function.
In the context of blood cancers, cholesterol appears to have protective effects. Higher levels of HDL and its associated apolipoprotein A have been linked to reduced inflammation and improved immune cell function. These lipids can regulate cancer cell proliferation and modify the function of macrophages and other immune cells.15
Additionally, cholesterol is crucial for the homeostasis of your hematopoietic system, which produces blood cells. The study suggests that very low cholesterol levels might disrupt this delicate balance, potentially increasing the risk of malignant transformations in plasma cells.16
The study found that the relationship between cholesterol and plasma cell neoplasms was particularly pronounced in males and individuals over 60 years old. The use of cholesterol-lowering medications didn’t reduce the risk of these blood cancers, suggesting that artificially lowering cholesterol levels does not provide the same protective effects as naturally occurring higher levels.
Statin cholesterol-lowering medications are among the most-prescribed drugs in the U.S., but the number of people taking them may soon decline significantly. Based on previous guidelines, 45.4 million adults meet the criteria to take statin drugs, but if updated guidelines from the American Heart Association are adopted, this will drop to 28.3 million.17
Optimizing Cholesterol Levels for Overall Health
Maintaining optimal cholesterol levels involves more than just focusing on the numbers. Your gut health plays a significant role in this complex equation. Oxygen-intolerant bacteria, which thrive in an oxygen-free gut environment, are vital for converting plant fibers into beneficial fats. However, modern lifestyle factors can disrupt this delicate balance, potentially leading to a shift toward oxygen-tolerant bacteria that produce more potent endotoxins.
This shift can have far-reaching implications for your health. Endotoxemia, often resulting from this bacterial imbalance, is a significant underlying cause of septic shock — a condition that may be more prevalent than commonly recognized.
In fact, it could be a leading cause of death, surpassing even heart disease and cancer in some estimations. Many cases of heart disease or heart failure might actually be triggered by endotoxemia, underscoring the interconnectedness of your gut health and cardiovascular system.
To truly optimize your cholesterol levels and overall health, it’s essential to look beyond conventional metrics and instead consider the following tests for a more comprehensive understanding of your heart disease risk:
Omega-3 index
HDL/total cholesterol ratio
Fasting insulin level
Fasting blood sugar level
Triglyceride/HDL ratio
Iron level
This personalized approach, combined with strategies to improve mitochondrial function and maintain a healthy gut ecosystem, offers a more holistic path to cardiovascular health. By addressing these underlying factors, you can naturally optimize your cholesterol levels while supporting your overall well-being.
Low testosterone affects up to 38.7% of men over 45, causing symptoms like low libido, fatigue and weight gain. It’s linked to increased risks of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease
Obesity and diabetes are closely connected to lower testosterone levels, creating a cycle that’s hard to break. Excess fat tissue interferes with testosterone production through various mechanisms
Low testosterone levels (below 213 ng/dL) are associated with higher all-cause mortality risk. Balanced hormone levels, including luteinizing hormone and estradiol, are crucial for overall health
Andropause, or male menopause, involves a gradual decline in testosterone levels starting around age 40. This affects cardiovascular health, body composition and increases risks of heart problems
Natural strategies to boost testosterone include KAATSU training, regular sun exposure and avoiding endocrine-disrupting chemicals
If you’re a man over 45, you may be experiencing symptoms like low libido, fatigue, mood changes or weight gain without realizing one common underlying cause — low testosterone. Up to 38.7% of men in this age group have insufficient testosterone levels.1
The American Urology Association considers levels below 350 ng/dL to be low, though some experts argue for a lower threshold of 250 ng/dL.2 Regardless of the exact number, it’s the combination of low levels and symptoms that matters.
Low testosterone isn’t just about sexual health. It can increase your risk of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease as you age. Symptoms may include obesity, Type 2 diabetes, osteoporotic fractures, generalized weakness and even facial hair loss.3 If you’re experiencing these signs, it’s worth investigating your testosterone levels.
Ideally, blood samples should be taken between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. when testosterone is highest. Don’t dismiss your symptoms just because you’re getting older — low testosterone is a treatable condition that can significantly impact your quality of life. While I don’t recommend testosterone supplements, there are multiple ways to increase your testosterone levels naturally.
The Testosterone-Obesity-Diabetes Connection
Your body composition plays a crucial role in testosterone production. Obesity and diabetes are closely linked to lower testosterone levels, creating a vicious cycle that can be hard to break. Excess fat tissue, especially around your abdomen, can interfere with testosterone production in several ways:4
1. Leptin resistance — Fat cells produce leptin, which can lead to central leptin resistance and reduce signals in your brain that stimulate testosterone production.
2. Increased estrogen — Fat tissue contains an enzyme that converts testosterone to estrogen, further lowering your testosterone levels.
3. Inflammation — Fat cells produce inflammatory cytokines that can interfere with testosterone production and reduce insulin sensitivity.
These mechanisms not only lower your testosterone but also contribute to insulin resistance, putting you at risk for Type 2 diabetes. Low testosterone can also lead to decreased muscle mass and increased fat accumulation, worsening the cycle. If you’re struggling with weight issues or diabetes, it’s essential to have your testosterone levels checked. Addressing low testosterone could be a key factor in improving your metabolic health and breaking this harmful cycle.
Low Testosterone May Increase Your Risk of All-Cause Mortality
There’s a strong relationship between sex hormones and mortality risk in men. A comprehensive meta-analysis of nine studies, covering more than 255,830 participant-years, has revealed some eye-opening insights.5 If your testosterone levels fall below 213 ng/dL, you may face a higher risk of all-cause mortality. Also concerning, testosterone levels below 153 ng/dL were associated with increased cardiovascular mortality risk.
But testosterone isn’t the only hormone you should be concerned about. The study found that men with luteinizing hormone (LH) levels above 10 IU/L or estradiol levels below 5.1 pmol/L also had a higher risk of all-cause mortality. These findings underscore the importance of maintaining balanced hormone levels as you age. It’s not just about feeling energetic or maintaining muscle mass — your hormone levels could be a matter of life and death.
While testosterone often takes center stage in discussions about male hormones, this research highlights the importance of often-overlooked players, including dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT, a potent form of testosterone responsible for the expression of male features, showed a nonlinear relationship with mortality risk.6
Both very low and very high levels were associated with increased risk. Men with DHT levels below 0.69 nmol/L had a 19% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 29% higher risk of cardiovascular mortality compared to those with levels around 2.45 nmol/L.7 However, risk also increased at DHT levels above 2.45 nmol/L. These findings underscore the complexity of hormonal health. It’s not always a case of “more is better” — balance is key.
While much of the research focused on mortality risk, the study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also provided valuable insights into the relationship between hormones and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Men with DHT concentrations below 0.59 nmol/L had an increased risk of incident cardiovascular events.8
The Link Between ‘Male Menopause’ and Cardiovascular Health
As you enter your 40s and beyond, you may be unaware of a silent threat to your heart health: andropause, also known as male menopause. While it’s not directly comparable to female menopause, there are some similarities and important differences to consider.
Unlike female menopause, which involves a relatively abrupt drop in hormone levels, men experience a gradual decline in testosterone levels as they age. This process typically begins around age 40 and continues throughout life. Men can experience a decrease in testosterone levels of about 1% per year after age 40.9
This gradual decline in testosterone levels doesn’t just affect your libido and muscle mass; it also impacts your cardiovascular system. Research has shown that men with lower testosterone levels are at higher risk for cardiac problems and mortality.10 In fact, a significant number of men with congestive heart failure have been found to have testosterone deficiency.11
Low testosterone levels can contribute to the accumulation of visceral fat, which is closely linked to insulin resistance and an unfavorable lipid profile. These factors can accelerate the hardening of your arteries, a process known as atherosclerosis. However, maintaining healthy testosterone levels can have protective effects on your heart. It can help shorten the heart-rate-corrected QT interval, improve glycemic control and induce vasodilation.12
Andropause and Body Composition: More Than Just Weight Gain
As you age and your testosterone levels decline, you might notice changes in your body composition that go beyond simply gaining a few pounds. Testosterone plays a crucial role in regulating your body’s fat distribution and muscle mass. When levels drop, you may experience a shift in where your body stores fat — from under your skin to deep in the abdomen (visceral fat).13
Visceral fat is metabolically active and can increase your risk of various health problems, including diabetes and heart disease. At the same time, lower testosterone can lead to a loss of muscle mass, a condition known as sarcopenia. This double whammy of increased fat and decreased muscle can significantly impact your strength, mobility and overall health.
The good news is that addressing low testosterone levels can help reverse these trends. Increasing testosterone levels has been shown to decrease visceral fat accumulation and increase lean body mass.14 It does this by activating androgen receptors, which initiate a fat-burning process and promote the differentiation of mesenchymal cells into muscle fibers rather than fat cells.
The Role of Biomarkers in Diagnosing Andropause
Recognizing andropause isn’t always straightforward, but certain biomarkers can provide valuable insights into your hormonal health. While testosterone is the primary hormone associated with andropause, it’s not the only one to consider. Other hormones and proteins in your body can offer a more complete picture of your endocrine health.15
For instance, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels tend to increase with age, which can affect the amount of free testosterone available in your body. Estradiol, a form of estrogen, also plays a role. The ratio of testosterone to estradiol can be a useful indicator of andropause, with lower ratios associated with more severe symptoms.16
Other biomarkers to consider include dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), a precursor to testosterone that also declines with age, and prolactin, which tends to increase in older men and can contribute to symptoms like decreased libido. Even your thyroid hormone (thyroxine) and sleep hormone (melatonin) levels can provide clues about your andropause status.17
Obesity and Sleep Apnea: A Double Threat to Testosterone Levels
If you’re carrying excess weight, particularly around your midsection, you may be facing a double threat to your testosterone levels. A study of severely obese men revealed that obstructive sleep apnea (OSAS) is strongly associated with lower testosterone, independent of age and body mass index.18 OSAS, characterized by repeated breathing pauses during sleep, affected a staggering 96.2% of the study participants.
The more severe the sleep apnea, as measured by frequency of breathing disruptions and oxygen desaturation, the lower the total and free testosterone levels tended to be. This relationship held true even after accounting for other factors like metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions including high blood pressure, high blood sugar and abnormal cholesterol levels.
The findings suggest that poor sleep quality and intermittent nighttime oxygen deprivation may be directly impacting your body’s ability to produce testosterone, beyond the known effects of excess body fat. Your overall metabolic health also plays a crucial role in maintaining healthy testosterone levels. Both total and free testosterone showed negative correlations with various metabolic factors, including waist circumference, blood pressure and fasting glucose levels.
Interestingly, the researchers used a continuous metabolic syndrome score to quantify overall metabolic health, finding that higher scores (indicating poorer metabolic health) were linked to lower testosterone levels.19 This underscores the importance of addressing not just weight, but also the underlying metabolic imbalances that often accompany obesity, to support your hormonal health.
Testosterone Therapy: No Increased Heart Risk for Men
While I don’t recommend testosterone supplements, concerns about testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and heart health may be unfounded, according to a comprehensive study published in Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases.20 This meta-analysis of 30 randomized controlled trials, involving 11,502 patients, suggests that TRT does not increase your risk of heart problems or death.21
The researchers examined various cardiovascular outcomes, including overall cardiovascular events, stroke, heart attack and death from any cause. They found no significant difference between men receiving testosterone therapy and those given a placebo. This held true across all measured outcomes, with similar rates of events in both groups.
These findings challenge the 2015 U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning about potential cardiovascular risks associated with testosterone products.22 This information could be particularly relevant if you’re over 50, as the average age of participants in the analyzed studies ranged from 61 to 62 years old.
However, it’s important to note that this research doesn’t mean TRT is risk-free or suitable for everyone. The study focused specifically on men with diagnosed hypogonadism, not those using testosterone for other reasons.
Strategies to Raise Testosterone Naturally
There are only four hormones I believe many adults can benefit from — progesterone, thyroid hormone T3, DHEA and pregnenolone. However, if you have low testosterone, there are several evidence-based strategies you can use to boost your levels naturally.
One innovative approach gaining attention is KAATSU training, also known as blood flow restriction training. This technique involves using specialized bands to partially restrict blood flow to your limbs during exercise, tricking your body into thinking it’s working harder than it actually is. Research suggests this can lead to increased growth hormone and testosterone production.23
Avoiding endocrine-disrupting chemicals, such as phthalates, bisphenol A and PFOAs is also important, as these chemicals affect testosterone levels.24 Regular sun exposure is another strategy; if you get sufficient sun exposure it will increase your testosterone levels.25
While a gradual decline in testosterone levels is a common part of aging, it’s important to recognize that significant drops can lead to serious health consequences. To optimize your levels, work with a holistic health care provider to develop a personalized approach, as hormone balance is complex and individual. By staying informed and proactive about hormonal health, men can take steps to maintain their vitality and reduce health risks as they age.
Last but not least, it’s also important to recognize that excess estrogen will impair testosterone levels and functions as well. To address estrogen dominance, I recommend using a natural anti-estrogen compound hormone like progesterone. Progesterone also helps address problems with endocrine-disrupting chemicals from plastics and other environmental sources that activate estrogen receptors.
How to Use Progesterone
Before you consider using progesterone, it is important to understand that it is not a magic bullet, and that you get the most benefit by implementing a Bioenergetic diet approach that allows you to effectively burn glucose as your primary fuel without backing up electrons in your mitochondria that reduces your energy production. My new book, “Cellular Health: The Unified Theory of All Disease for Ultimate Longevity and Joy” comes out very soon and covers this process in great detail.
Once you have dialed in your diet, an effective strategy that can help counteract estrogen excess is to take transmucosal progesterone (i.e., applied to your gums, not oral or transdermal), which is a natural estrogen antagonist. Progesterone is one of only four hormones I believe many adults can benefit from. (The other three are thyroid hormone T3, DHEA and pregnenolone.)
I do not recommend transdermal progesterone, as your skin expresses high levels of 5-alpha reductase enzyme, which causes a significant portion of the progesterone you’re taking to be irreversibly converted primarily into allopregnanolone and cannot be converted back into progesterone.
Ideal Way to Administer Progesterone
Please note that when progesterone is used transmucosally on your gums as I advise, the FDA believes that somehow converts it into a drug and prohibits any company from advising that on its label. This is why companies like Health Natura promotes their progesterone products as “topical.”
However, please understand that it is perfectly legal for any physician to recommend an off-label indication for a drug to their patient. In this case, progesterone is a natural hormone and not a drug and is very safe even in high doses. This is unlike synthetic progesterone called progestins that are used by drug companies, but frequently, and incorrectly, referred.
Dr. Ray Peat has done the seminal work in progesterone and probably was the world’s greatest expert on progesterone. He wrote his Ph.D. on estrogen in 1982 and spent most of his professional career documenting the need to counteract the dangers of excess estrogen with low LA diets and transmucosal progesterone supplementation.
He determined that most solvents do not dissolve progesterone well and discovered that vitamin E is the best solvent to optimally provide progesterone in your tissue. Vitamin E also protects you against damage from LA. You just need to be very careful about which vitamin E you use as most supplemental vitamin E on the market is worse than worthless and will cause you harm not benefit.
It is imperative to avoid using any synthetic vitamin E (alpha tocopherol acetate — the acetate indicates that it’s synthetic). Natural vitamin E will be labeled “d alpha tocopherol.” This is the pure D isomer, which is what your body can use.
There are also other vitamin E isomers, and you want the complete spectrum of tocopherols and tocotrienols, specifically the beta, gamma, and delta types, in the effective D isomer. As an example of an ideal vitamin E, you can look at the label on our vitamin E in our store. You can use any brand that has a similar label.
You can purchase pharmaceutical grade bioidentical progesterone as Progesterone Powder, Bioidentical Micronized Powder, 10 grams for about $40 on many online stores like Amazon. That is nearly a year’s supply, depending on the dose you choose.
However, you will need to purchase some small stainless steel measuring spoons as you will need a 1/64 tsp, which is 25 mg and a 1/32 tsp, which is 50 mg. A normal dose is typically 25-50 mg and is taken 30 minutes before bed, as it has an anti-cortisol function and will increase GABA levels for a good night’s sleep.
Unfortunately, this vendor frequently runs out of product, and if that’s the case, then you can use Simply Progesterone by Health Natura. It’s premixed with vitamin E and MCT oil. Again, while Health Natura states that its product is for “topical use only,” I recommend applying it transmucosally, by rubbing it on your gums.
If you are a menstruating woman, you should take the progesterone during the luteal phase or the last half of your cycle, which can be determined by starting 10 days after the first day of your period and stopping the progesterone when your period starts.
If you are a male or non-menstruating woman, you can take the progesterone every day for four to six months and then cycle off for one week. The best time of day to take progesterone is 30 minutes before bed as it has an anti-cortisol function and will increase GABA levels for a good night’s sleep.
This is what I have been personally doing for over a year with very good results. I am a physician so do not have any problems doing this. If you aren’t a physician, you should consult one before using this therapy, as transmucosal progesterone therapy requires a doctor’s prescription.
Aspirin offers benefits beyond heart health, including cancer prevention, improved pregnancy outcomes during influenza infection and treatment for fatty liver disease and pulmonary fibrosis
Long-term low-dose aspirin use (over 10 years) may reduce the risk of dementia, particularly in people with pre-existing coronary heart disease
Aspirin can enhance glucose utilization, reduce fatty acid release, lower cortisol levels and increase metabolic rate, potentially aiding in weight loss and hormone balance
Studies suggest aspirin may improve survival rates in intensive care units, slow the progression of abdominal aortic aneurysms and reduce the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes
When considering aspirin use, opt for immediate-release, uncoated versions. The suggested dosage is dependent on your circumstances 82 mg to 325 mg tablet daily with your largest meal
For years, you’ve probably heard that a daily low-dose aspirin can help prevent heart attacks and strokes. Now, suddenly, health authorities are backpedaling on this advice.1
Why the change? They claim it’s about bleeding risks, but there’s more to the story. Look at the timing — this shift comes as newer, far more expensive blood thinners flood the market. These drugs can cost up to $550 a month,2 while aspirin sets you back just $1.50.3
It’s a pattern we’ve seen before with drugs like ivermectin. Safe, effective and cheap medicines get pushed aside to make way for pricier alternatives. The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of this, dating back to when nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were introduced in the 1970s.
They’re telling you to avoid aspirin, but are they telling you the whole truth? As always, I encourage you to look beyond the headlines and consider who benefits from these changing guidelines. Your health — and your wallet — may depend on it.
For decades, aspirin has been a cornerstone in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). A comprehensive review of 13 primary prevention trials recently revealed that low-dose aspirin is associated with small but statistically significant reductions in major CVD events, such as heart attack and stroke.4
The absolute risk reduction can be up to 2.5%, which means that for every 1,000 people taking aspirin, up to 25 fewer may experience a major CVD event. But the truth is, aspirin offers numerous health advantages beyond heart health that are rarely talked about. Learning about these benefits can help you take control of your health.
Aspirin’s Role in Cancer Prevention
Recent studies have shed light on aspirin’s potential to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) and other types of cancer. Taking at least 75 milligrams (mg) of aspirin daily for several years has been shown to reduce the long-term incidence and death from CRC,5 with the greatest benefit seen for proximal colon cancers, which are malignancies that occur in the first and middle sections of the colon, also known as the right side of the colon.
In fact, in women, aspirin use for over 20 years was associated with a 35% reduction in CRC incidence.6 The effect appears to be dose-dependent, with longer duration of use linked to greater benefits. Aspirin may also improve survival rates after a CRC diagnosis, with regular users showing reductions in CRC mortality of 29% and overall mortality of 21%.7
Interestingly, the benefits of aspirin use in CRC may extend to other cancer types as well. An analysis of eight trials found that the 20-year risk of any cancer death was reduced by 20%, and gastrointestinal cancer deaths by 35%. These findings suggest that low-dose aspirin use over multiple years could be a valuable tool in your cancer prevention strategy.
Research has also uncovered a role for aspirin in treating certain types of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), or liver cancer. A case study revealed that aspirin effectively controlled disease progression in a patient with HCC caused by adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) mutations.8 These mutations, which activate the Wnt pathway, were identified as the primary driver of the patient’s cancer.
By administering high-dose aspirin (300 mg daily), doctors achieved disease control for nearly five years. The effectiveness of aspirin in this HCC case is linked to its ability to inhibit the Wnt pathway, which plays a crucial role in cancer development. In patients with APC mutations, the Wnt pathway becomes overactivated, promoting tumor growth.
Aspirin works by activating glycogen synthase kinase 3 beta (GSK3β), which in turn increases the phosphorylation and degradation of β-catenin, a key protein in the Wnt pathway.
This mechanism effectively counteracts the effects of the APC mutation. Additionally, aspirin’s action as a cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2) inhibitor may contribute to its anticancer effects. This case demonstrates how a common, inexpensive drug like aspirin could be repurposed for targeted cancer therapy based on specific genetic profiles.
Aspirin Improves Pregnancy Outcomes During Influenza Infection
Low-dose aspirin may also offer benefits during influenza infection in pregnancy.9 A study using a mouse model found that aspirin treatment significantly improved vascular function in pregnant mice infected with influenza A virus.10 The infected mice showed impaired blood vessel relaxation, but aspirin treatment restored normal vascular function.
This is important because vascular dysfunction during pregnancy can lead to complications like preeclampsia and restricted fetal growth. The study also found that aspirin reduced inflammation in the blood vessels and decreased viral spread from the lungs to other tissues. Most notably, aspirin treatment improved outcomes for the offspring, including better survival rates and higher birth weights.
These findings suggest that the vascular protective effects of aspirin may help support a healthier pregnancy even in the face of influenza infection. The dosage used in the study was comparable to the low doses of aspirin already safely prescribed to some high-risk pregnant women to prevent preeclampsia. This suggests the treatment could be readily translatable to clinical use. However, as Georgi Dinkov notes:11
“The even better news is that these findings do not apply only to flu and/or only to pregnancy. COVID-19, as well as most other viral infections, cause similar systemic state of inflammation, which affects primarily the vascular system. As such, the study … suggests that aspirin may be a viable prophylactic and treatment intervention for all other viral conditions as well.”
Aspirin Therapy Shows Promise for Fatty Liver Disease
A daily aspirin regimen may offer more benefits than you realize. A study presented at the 2023 meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases12 revealed that low-dose aspirin could be an effective treatment for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), a condition previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
The terminology shift aims to more accurately reflect the underlying metabolic dysfunction associated with the condition, emphasizing the metabolic risk factors and pathophysiology rather than just the absence of alcohol consumption. In a groundbreaking trial, researchers found that taking 81mg of aspirin daily led to significant improvements in liver health for patients with MASLD.13
Over a six-month period, participants who took aspirin experienced a substantial reduction in liver fat content compared to those who received a placebo. This decrease in liver fat was accompanied by improvements in other markers of liver health, including inflammation and fibrosis.
The study’s findings are particularly exciting because they demonstrate aspirin’s ability to address multiple aspects of liver health. Not only did aspirin reduce the amount of fat in the liver, but it also showed promise in tackling inflammation and fibrosis — two key factors in the progression of liver disease.
Participants who took aspirin saw a 17.3% decrease in intrahepatic lipid content — the amount of fat stored within liver cells — while those in the placebo group experienced a 30.3% increase. This striking difference suggests that aspirin could potentially halt or even reverse the accumulation of fat in the liver, a hallmark of MASLD.
Additionally, the aspirin group showed improvements in liver enzyme levels and other markers of liver health, indicating a broader positive impact on liver function.
Aspirin Improves Mortality Rates in the ICU
While the previous study focused on aspirin’s benefits for fatty liver disease, new research suggests its potential extends to critical care settings. A large-scale study involving 146,191 intensive care unit (ICU) patients found that aspirin use during ICU stays was associated with a significant reduction in 28-day mortality rates.14
This effect was particularly notable in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) symptoms but without sepsis. The findings add another layer of understanding of aspirin’s many health benefits. Not only might it help protect your liver from fat accumulation and inflammation, but it could also improve your chances of survival if you ever find yourself in intensive care.
Aspirin’s Role in Preventing Diabetes and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
Aspirin also has a protective effect against Type 2 diabetes. An analysis of the ASPREE trial, which involved 16,209 adults aged 65 and older, revealed that those taking low-dose aspirin (100 mg daily) had a 15% lower risk of developing diabetes compared to those on placebo.15 This finding adds a new dimension to the potential benefits of aspirin therapy, especially for older adults.
The study also found that aspirin use was associated with a slower increase in fasting plasma glucose levels over time, revealing that aspirin might help maintain better blood sugar control, even in individuals who don’t develop full-blown diabetes.
A large cohort study involving 3,435 patients also revealed that aspirin use is associated with slower progression of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), particularly in men and nonsmokers.16 This reveals even more about aspirin’s potential benefits, extending beyond heart health and diabetes prevention.
AAAs are a serious vascular condition that can lead to life-threatening ruptures if left unchecked. The study found that patients taking aspirin had a 36% lower odds of rapid aneurysm progression compared to those not taking aspirin. While aspirin didn’t significantly impact long-term mortality or major bleeding risks, its potential to slow AAA growth could be a game-changer in managing this condition.
Aspirin’s Impressive Anti-Fibrotic Effects
Aspirin could also be useful as a treatment for pulmonary fibrosis,17 a lung disease that occurs when lung tissue becomes damaged and scarred. This thickening and stiffening of the tissue make it difficult for your lungs to work properly, leading to a decline in lung function.
Aspirin may help combat lung scarring. A study found that aspirin significantly inhibited the differentiation and migration of lung fibroblasts, which are key drivers of fibrosis, or scarring.18 When researchers treated fibrotic lung cells with aspirin, it markedly decreased the expression of proteins associated with fibrosis like collagen, fibronectin, and alpha-smooth muscle actin.
In a mouse model of pulmonary fibrosis, aspirin treatment reduced collagen deposition and lung fibrosis compared to untreated mice. These findings suggest aspirin may help prevent the excessive scarring and tissue remodeling seen in pulmonary fibrosis. Given aspirin’s wide availability, low cost and established safety profile, it presents an intriguing option for pulmonary fibrosis treatment.
The study also sheds light on how aspirin might combat pulmonary fibrosis — by enhancing a cellular process called autophagy. Autophagy is your cells’ way of recycling damaged components and maintaining homeostasis. Interestingly, insufficient autophagy has been observed in lung tissue from patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
The research found that aspirin treatment increased markers of autophagy in fibrotic lung cells and tissues. Using electron microscopy, the researchers also observed more autophagosomes (structures involved in autophagy) in aspirin-treated samples. When autophagy was blocked using inhibitors, it reversed aspirin’s anti-fibrotic effects. This suggests that aspirin may work by activating autophagy to clear out damaged proteins and prevent the build-up of scar tissue.
By promoting this natural cellular cleaning process, aspirin could potentially slow down or even reverse the progression of pulmonary fibrosis, adding to aspirin’s diverse health benefits and opening up new possibilities for its therapeutic use.
Long-Term Aspirin Use Offers Cognitive Benefits
While previous research on aspirin’s cognitive benefits has been mixed, research published in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy highlights the importance of long-term use.19 The analysis found that taking low-dose aspirin for more than 10 years was critical for detecting a protective effect against dementia.
This suggests that starting aspirin use in middle age and continuing it for at least a decade may offer cognitive benefits. Aspirin’s protective effects for dementia were mainly seen in people with pre-existing coronary heart disease (CHD).
Among CHD patients, low-dose aspirin use was associated with a 31% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease, 69% reduced risk of vascular dementia and 54% reduced risk of all-cause dementia. If you have CHD, it’s therefore possible that low-dose aspirin could provide dual benefits for your cardiovascular and cognitive health.
Aspirin’s Metabolic Magic: From Fat Burning to Hormone Balance
Aspirin also enhances your body’s use of glucose for energy while reducing the release of fatty acids from fat cells, particularly linoleic acid (LA), an omega-6 fat that’s a significant contributor to chronic disease.
This is crucial because most Americans have excess LA in their tissues, and it takes seven years of a low-LA diet to reduce it to healthy levels. Therefore, you want to avoid increasing LA release from fat stores into your body. It’s preferable to release LA gradually, allowing your liver to process it. Being water-soluble, you can eliminate it through urine without it being converted into inflammatory prostaglandins.
Notably, aspirin also lowers your baseline cortisol — indirectly by reducing inflammation, and directly by inhibiting an enzyme that converts inactive cortisone to active cortisol. Aspirin decreases stress-induced aldosterone production, potentially helping to lower blood pressure.
It increases your carbon dioxide and progesterone levels while inhibiting a major inflammatory pathway, NF kappa-B, which can help your body naturally boost the production of two important hormones: testosterone and progesterone.
Aspirin also uncouples mitochondria. This uncoupling of mitochondrial oxidative metabolism from ATP production can help increase your metabolic rate and aid in weight loss. Dinitrophenol (DNP), like aspirin, uncouples mitochondrial metabolism and causes significant weight loss. However, DNP’s effective dose is dangerously close to its toxic dose, making it too risky for clinical use and no longer available in the U.S.
Aspirin Purchasing Guidelines
If you decide to use aspirin, avoid coated extended-release versions due to their additives. Opt for immediate-release aspirin, which can be found on Amazon. Check the inactive ingredients list carefully — corn starch should be the only one listed. After thorough research, I found a product meeting these criteria. The suggested dosage is dependent on your circumstances 82 mg to 325 mg tablet daily with your largest meal.
I’m convinced of aspirin’s preventive value and now take 111 mg daily using Health Natura’s USP grade 60 gram aspirin powder for under $20. However, I use a 99% pure USP aspirin version that’s not in tablet form. I find its prometabolic, antilipolytic, anti-inflammatory, anticortisol, and anti-estrogen effects appealing, and its safety is well-established.
If you’re sensitive to aspirin, consider using a salicylic acid or willow bark supplement instead. When you take aspirin, your body metabolizes the acetylsalicylic acid into salicylic acid, which is responsible for aspirin’s anti-inflammatory, pain-relieving and antithrombotic effects. This compound is naturally found in willow bark.
Overall, aspirin is a versatile and underappreciated medication with a wide array of health benefits beyond its well-known cardiovascular applications. From cancer prevention and improved pregnancy outcomes to potential treatments for liver disease and cognitive decline, aspirin’s diverse effects warrant further research and consideration.
Its metabolic impacts and potential to influence hormone balance add another layer to its therapeutic potential. The breadth of aspirin’s potential benefits suggests that this common, inexpensive medication may have more to offer than health authorities are acknowledging in supporting overall health and preventing various chronic conditions.
Dr. Stanley Plotkin co-authored a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine admitting significant gaps in vaccine safety research, contradicting decades of claims that vaccines are thoroughly studied and safe
The paper acknowledges inadequacies in prelicensure clinical trials and reveals a lack of dedicated funding for post-approval vaccine safety studies in the U.S.
Over 76% of vaccine-related health outcomes examined by the Institute of Medicine lacked sufficient evidence to determine causality, challenging assertions that vaccine safety is settled science
A study by Dr. Paul Thomas found higher rates of various health issues in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children, highlighting the need for more independent research
Critics argue the authors’ proposed solutions and motivations suggest an attempt to boost public confidence in vaccines rather than critically examine vaccine safety concerns
In a stunning reversal, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, widely regarded as the godfather of modern vaccinology, has co-authored a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine1 (NEJM) acknowledging significant gaps in vaccine safety research and calling for increased funding to address these shortcomings.
This admission comes after decades of the medical establishment insisting that vaccines are among the most thoroughly studied and safest medical interventions. In the paper, titled “Funding Postauthorization Vaccine-Safety Science,”2 they make a series of revelations that validate concerns long raised by vaccine safety advocates. In a commentary, Aaron Siri, managing partner of New York law firm Siri & Glimstad, writes:3
“Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.
They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied — neither prelicensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, ‘prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations’ and that ‘there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.'”
Key Admissions Shine Light on Lack of Vaccine Safety Studies
One of the most striking admissions in the paper is the acknowledgment that prelicensure clinical trials for vaccines are inadequate for assessing safety. The authors state:4
“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow-up durations, and population heterogeneity. It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”
This contradicts previous claims by vaccine proponents that clinical trials provide robust evidence of safety prior to approval. The admission that these trials have limited follow-up periods is particularly notable, as critics have long argued that potential long-term effects of vaccines are not adequately studied before they are approved and recommended for widespread use.
“Let me translate,” Siri writes, “the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value.”5
The NEJM paper goes on to reveal that there is currently no dedicated funding stream for post-approval vaccine safety studies in the U.S. The authors write: “Although the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”6
This lack of consistent, dedicated funding is one reason why many important safety questions remain unanswered years or even decades after vaccines have been introduced. The authors admit that “Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow,” citing delayed epidemiological evidence and incomplete understanding of biological mechanisms as key factors.7 But as Siri notes:8
“Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist … [and] shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this [funding] issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.”
‘Not Enough Evidence’ to Determine if 76% of Vaccine-Related Health Outcomes Are Linked to Shots
In a particularly revealing passage, the paper states, “In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”9
This statistic is astounding — for over three-quarters of vaccine-related health outcomes examined by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine), there was not enough evidence to determine whether vaccines were causally linked or not. This flies in the face of repeated assurances that vaccine safety is settled science.
The paper also notes that even for known adverse reactions to vaccines, the biological mechanisms are not understood. This includes serious conditions like Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with influenza vaccines and myocarditis linked to mRNA COVID-19 shots.
Experts have long been calling for unbiased research in understanding the impact of vaccinations on children’s health, but the reality is that public health agencies and vaccine proponents have not been interested in learning the truth. Siri writes:10
“If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel which could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exists on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.
… Plotkin and company should welcome studies which can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).
And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are ‘rare.'”
Plotkin and his co-authors, while acknowledging significant gaps in vaccine safety science, propose increased funding by tapping into the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) trust fund. They note that this fund, generated by an excise tax on vaccines, has a surplus of $4.3 billion as of April 2023.11
However, it’s important to note the authors’ stated motivations for proposing these changes. They express concern about “widespread vaccine hesitancy” and argue that slow progress in vaccine safety science has “adversely affected vaccine acceptance.” In other words, their primary goal is increasing public confidence in vaccines — not critically examining safety issues with an open mind.
Failure to Admit Decades of Lies, Gaslighting and Fraud
Siri notes that the admissions in the NEJM paper directly contradict decades of assurances from the medical establishment. He writes:12
“For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, ‘I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.'”
But, Siri argues, parents of vaccine-injured children and others who raised concerns about inadequate safety studies were “shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies” for years. The paper is a belated acknowledgment of what these advocates have been saying all along, albeit with dubious motives behind it:13
“Plotkin and his disciples realize they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-op the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist.
But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.
… Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety, but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that, while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are ‘rare.’ But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that?”
Siri also points out that the authors ignore existing studies that have found evidence of harm from vaccines or their components.14 He argues that truly unbiased research would need to consider this body of evidence rather than starting from the assumption that serious adverse events are rare.
Study Shows Vaccinated Children Have Higher Rates of Disease
A study conducted by Dr. Paul Thomas and James Lyons-Weiler examined health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children over a 10-year period within a pediatric practice. Dr. Thomas had his medical license suspended due to his advocacy of informed consent for vaccinations.
The research, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,15 found that vaccinated children had higher rates of various health issues compared to unvaccinated children. These included:
Asthma
Allergies
Eczema
Sinusitis
Gastroenteritis
Respiratory infections
Middle ear infection
Conjunctivitis
Breathing issues
Behavioral issues
Notably, ADHD was observed in a small percentage of vaccinated children but not in any unvaccinated children. The study also reported lower rates of autism spectrum disorder and ADHD in the practice compared to national averages. The authors suggested that unvaccinated children in the practice were at least as healthy as, if not healthier than, their vaccinated counterparts.16
The researchers also emphasized the need for more independent studies on this topic, free from potential conflicts of interest with the vaccine industry, to better understand the relationship between vaccination and children’s health outcomes.
Proposed Solutions Raise Questions About True Motives
For years, those expressing concerns about vaccine safety have been dismissed as “anti-science” or accused of endangering public health. The NEJM paper demonstrates that their core critiques — including regarding inadequate safety studies — were well-founded.
The publication of this paper marks a significant shift in the public discourse around vaccine safety. By admitting to major gaps in safety studies and the slow progress of vaccine safety science, Plotkin and his co-authors have validated concerns that were previously dismissed by much of the medical establishment.
However, the proposed solutions and the authors’ stated motivations raise significant questions about whether this represents a genuine shift toward more critical examination of vaccine safety or merely an attempt to boost failing public confidence. Siri continues:17
“After making the a priori conclusion that harms are ‘rare,’ ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are ‘rare,’ while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.”
What is clear is that the oft-repeated claim that vaccines are “the most thoroughly studied medical intervention” can no longer be credibly made. As this paper demonstrates, there is still much to learn about vaccine safety, and acknowledging this fact is an important step toward informed consent and transparent vaccination policies.
Gavin de Becker is one of the leading security resource experts in the world; his private security firm protects about 70 well-known U.S. families and individuals, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In our interview, we discuss the importance of paying attention to your instincts and how to decipher between the two types of fear — true fear and unwarranted fear
You should always follow your gut instincts or inner wisdom — your intuition — including true fear telling you to avoid certain people or situations
Unwarranted fear is often used as an instrument of control, including in the context of COVID-19, the pandemic and COVID jabs
Two antidotes for fear include not watching television news and embracing the principle of subsidiarity, which means living as locally as possible
Gavin de Becker is one of the leading security resource experts in the world. His private security firm, Gavin de Becker and Associates, protects about 70 well-known U.S. families and individuals, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who are at risk of assassination or other violence but don’t have Secret Service coverage. However, he also engages in public education to help protect the general population:
“In my public education work, I write books, and that’s to take the strategies that are used to protect senators, congressmen, presidents, governors, and make them available on an accessible level to regular people. The reason being that a public figure in America is attacked about once every five years, but a woman is killed by a husband or boyfriend about once every five hours.
And so, I wanted to take what I had learned and say, ‘Well, what are the ways that there this crossover so that regular people who are subject to victimization and targeting can be safer?’”
In our interview, we discuss the importance of paying attention to your instincts, how to decipher between the two types of fear as well as how fear is used as an instrument of control, including in the context of COVID-19, the pandemic and COVID jabs.
What Triggered the 40% Rise in Deaths Among Young, Healthy Americans?
De Becker wrote the afterword to Ed Dowd’s book, “Cause Unknown,” which discusses the unexplained 40% spike in deaths that occurred among young athletes and other healthy Americans during the third and fourth quarters of 2021. A new edition, covering 2023 deaths, also came out in March 2024.
Media largely blamed the deaths — which they’re now referring to as sudden adult death syndrome, or SADS — on COVID-19, delayed diagnosis, suicide and other factors. But de Becker explains:
“Could it possibly be that a new vaccine product, mass vaccinated by compulsion on the population, could have anything to do with it? If you had 100 kids die, one of the questions you would ask is, what do they have in common? Did they all attend that same event where the air conditioning had a virus in it? Did they all take the same street drug, for example?
Well, in this case, we know that the overwhelming majority of young athletes were vaccinated [for COVID-19] and typically two or three vaccinations. And you can’t exclude that one possible cause when we know for an absolute fact that the mRNA vaccines do cause myocarditis and pericarditis, it’s acknowledged by the CDC.
… Interestingly, [CDC] just did release something for FOIA, a … 140-page report on myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the [COVID-19] vaccines. Every single page redacted, every single page … Why does the CDC ever have secrets? That’s supposed to be the organization that keeps us informed.”
De Becker describes “Cause Unknown” as a book to give to someone you love who needs to be awakened.
“That book is a book you can hand somebody you love who you’ve been unable to reach, and it’s just possible that they might choose not to vaccinate their 14-year-old kid or they might take a different attitude and not take all nine of these injections that are currently recommended by the CDC,” he says. “We are on injection number 10, will be the next one, currently recommended by the CDC for children.”
The Importance of Listening to Your Intuition
De Becker is the author of “The Gift of Fear,” which came out in 1998 and became a No. 1 national bestseller. It’s still the No. 1 bestseller in the world on violence to this day. The book empowers you to embrace your gut instincts or inner wisdom — your intuition. De Becker says:
“The word intuition … the root of it … means to guard and protect. And that’s what it does for us. It is the sense, we could say the sixth sense, that keeps us safe, sort of our nuclear defense system. And, indeed, the gut has lots of neurons — more than a dog has in fact.
And there’s a form of thought, if you will, or connection to the universe that when we just know something without knowing why, when we don’t use logic, we just say, go back to the house, call the house, move away from this person, get out of this underground parking lot, don’t call this person back, don’t date this person, don’t stay late with this manager of this restaurant when he asks you, whatever it may be.
Sometimes, the overwhelming majority of times, people are not sinister toward us and don’t mean us harm, but sometimes they do. And when you get that signal from intuition, it is very, very important to listen to it. And I say that intuition is always correct in at least two ways. One, it’s always about something. And number two, it always has your best interest at heart.
Now, it might be that the information that you deduce from an intuitive feeling of hesitation or fear or curiosity, maybe your interpretation will be wrong, but the fact that you listen and give it a hearing is very important.”
There are two distinct types of fear, according to de Becker — true fear and unwarranted fear. True fear is the instinctual response to an immediate threat, characterized by the physiological reactions that prepare your body to either confront or flee from danger.
This type of fear is an intuitive signal that warns you of genuine danger and helps preserve your safety. “What I call true fear is the automatic immediate reaction of the body,” de Becker says. “Something is wrong here. I see a snake or a tiger, right away I have a physical reaction. And that fear should always be listened to.”
Unwarranted fear, on the other hand, encompasses fears that are not directly linked to immediate threats. These can include anxieties and worries about potential future events that may never occur, often leading to unnecessary stress and precautionary behaviors that do not enhance personal safety.
Unwarranted fear can be influenced by societal factors, past experiences and individual perceptions of risk that may not accurately reflect actual danger. De Becker argues that understanding the distinction between these two types of fear is crucial for recognizing when fear is a helpful guide and when it is a hindrance to living a fulfilled life. He explains:
“The unwarranted fear, like the fear of I’m boarding a plane and I think, ‘Oh, this plane’s going to crash, don’t get on it.’ If that’s based on a news story I saw two weeks ago about a plane crash in Brazil, that’s going to be unwarranted fear in the category of anxiety.
But if it’s based on seeing the two pilots stumble out of the bar drunk at the airport, that’s something I might want to listen to. So, you at least ask yourself the question, what’s this about?
Many of us have had that feeling about don’t get on this airplane, for example. And sometimes, it’s hard to act upon, and sometimes it will be unnecessary or misinterpreted. But if you ask yourself if it’s based on memory or imagination, that is not true fear. If it’s based on something in your environment, something you see or smell or hear or feel, that is often true fear and should be listened to.
… Fear does have a gift for us and no animal in nature, even the strongest lion that’s suddenly afraid, will say, ‘Oh, it’s probably nothing.’ But we do that. A woman will be standing at an elevator in a building late at night, an office building and the elevator doors open up and there’s a man in there who causes her fear. We don’t know why only a human being will get into a steel soundproof chamber with someone who causes them fear.
An animal won’t do it. And so, we override, we prosecute our own intuitive feelings. And my life is full, and yours too, of people who said, I knew it, but I still did such and such. I knew I shouldn’t have, but I still hired that person or I knew I had a feeling about that environment and I stayed in it.”
Fear as an Instrument of Control
Fear isn’t only a tool you can harness to keep yourself out of harm’s way. In the interview, we also discussed how fear is used to control and manipulate populations.
“All governments and all leaders have used fear as an instrument of control. And all governments also benefit from division in their countries,” de Becker says. “And the reason that they benefit from division in their countries is … you want people to be energized in their focus on each other and not on those in power.”
De Becker describes some recent historical events that have used fear to gradually take a way freedom and liberty, from Y2K, when it was said all technology would stop functioning when it turned to the year 2000, to COVID-19:
“After 9/11, every big office building suddenly implemented security procedures where you had to show ID to get into the building. Now, we have to remember, you didn’t need ID to fly an airplane into the building. The security response was absolutely unequal to what had actually happened. Airplanes have been flown into buildings.
That’s one kind of thing, intruders trying to get in your building and documenting everybody and passes. And we became a national security state over fear of terrorism.
Then you have killer bees was another thing that was posted on the public. And terrorism is an interesting thing because you start with an enemy like a country. It’s a real country, there it is, it’s Russia, it’s China. Then you go to communists. Communists are the problem. Then you go to communism is the problem.
Now, you’re getting down to a very fine, almost talcum powder, and then you go to terrorists are the problem. Then you go to terrorism, which is an idea, is the problem. And finally, we have landed on the smallest possible particle, the virion, the virus. Virus is the problem.”
In early March 2020, de Becker did a report for clients on the actual risks of COVID and quickly learned the odds of dying from COVID were remote for healthy people. Still, fear was used to implement order and control.
“This was a war by governments on citizens. And it completely shifted the power … such that you could accomplish with words getting billions of people to stay in their homes, getting everybody in America to not go to work. Hundreds of thousands of businesses closed forever,” de Becker says. “… And what happens when you’re afraid is that you’ll take any train that’s leaving the station even if it’s not going where you want to go. And that’s what America did.” He adds:
“The reality is that very, very few people were in danger and it should not have been used to lock down societies and close schools and these things that were tremendously damaging to young people and ultimately to all people. So this was a power move. It will always be something, terrorism, communism, terrorists, Russia. It will always be something.”
Two Strategies to Avoid Fear and Stay Safe
Even if you’re living in a society where fear is being used to manipulate the common narrative and impose control, you can opt out of the madness. One strategy to do so, de Becker says, is to not watch television news, including local news channels, which he says are nothing more than “40 hours a week of original content designed to get your attention with fear.”
Instead, he recommends seeking out your own information, particularly in the form of reading, which gives you knowledge without accompanying alarming images. De Becker explains:
“Reading allows you to decide what happens to your body. Whereas seeing something alarming does not allow you to decide what happens to your body. The body does not understand media. Meaning when I see a terrible thing on the news … I have no way of knowing whether it’s close or far away. I have no way of knowing whether it’s true or not true. And I have no way of knowing whether it’s dated or recent.
But in all cases, just like a movie, it will cause alarm. You’ll recoil from it. When you read something, even something alarming, you can decide how it is brought into your system and how you deal with it. So, I really encourage people to seek their own information when they’re curious and not allow television producers to decide what’s important in your life and much of what’s on the news.”
The second strategy de Becker recommends is embracing the principle of subsidiarity, which suggests matters be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. In essence, it’s a framework for decentralization that supports the empowerment of small, local units. By living as local as possible, de Becker suggests, we can all embrace autonomy and bow out of the fear around us:
“Another great gift that’s available to us is to work on subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a word I only learned in the last couple of years, but that is government at the most local level possible and living at the most local level possible. And somebody I read the other day, he called it the great nearby instead of the great beyond.
… I don’t live in a global relationship. I live in with the people in my life, the people in my community, the people I know, and the people I choose … it’s fine to think globally, but remember that every time there’s a global crisis that only lends itself to a global solution, that is power telling you what to do, because you can’t do anything about the global crisis or the global solution.
These are used to control conduct. And so, living as locally as we can is a very wonderful antidote for the fear that is being sprayed at us out of a fire hose 24 hours a day.”
Dr. Ahvie Herskowitz, a former UCSF professor, treats complex health issues by addressing root causes. He believes microbiome problems and leaky gut are fundamental to many diseases, including cancer and autoimmune disorders
Chronic diseases often result from accumulated toxicities and nutritional deficiencies. Herskowitz estimates 80%-90% of Americans have metabolic syndrome, largely due to processed foods and environmental toxins
“Nuisance symptoms” like toenail fungus or indigestion may indicate underlying health issues. Herskowitz found Alzheimer’s patients had 2.5 times more such symptoms compared to healthy individuals
To measure biological age, Herskowitz uses tests for oxidative stress, chronic immune function, mitochondrial function, and senescent cells. He also emphasizes the importance of monitoring serum ferritin levels
Herskowitz describes an innovative cancer test that analyzes tumor genomics to guide chemotherapy decisions. He believes this approach could revolutionize cancer treatment in the United States
I recently interviewed Dr. Ahvie Herskowitz, former clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and founder of Anatara Medicine, a multidisciplinary integrative center in San Francisco.1 Herskowitz, an internist, has a deep foundational knowledge and science background that’s ideal for treating complicated health care cases.
We may be collaborating on a project in the future, but in the meantime at his center, they’re using advanced techniques to help people restore their health, including strategies for longevity and treatments for very ill patients, including those with autoimmunity, gut problems, cancer and more.
Microbiome Issues, Leaky Gut Causing Failure to Thrive
Herskowitz treats illness by looking at the foundational causes of disease. We discussed that a leading cause of death is, in my view, endotoxemia resulting in septic shock. This occurs when you secrete endotoxin from facultative anaerobes, otherwise called oxygen-tolerant bacteria, which shouldn’t be in your gut.
These pathogenic bacteria secrete a very virulent form of endotoxin, also known as lipopolysaccharides (LPS), which can cause inflammation if they translocate across the compromised gut barrier into the systemic circulation. Leaky gut, or a disturbed microbiome, is therefore one of the foundational causes of all disease.
Herskowitz explains, “I think that everyone that’s doing poorly and failing to thrive has a biome issue and a leaky gut issue, almost 100% … And in the standard allopathic intensive care units, it’s not considered a foundational issue.” When Herskowitz treats cancer patients, he says, they’re often in a state of failure to thrive.
“They’ve gotten so burdened by so many different layers of toxicity, that their system cannot keep up anymore enough,” he says. “And … that’s eventually due to mitochondrial failure throughout the body.”
Patients Overwhelmed by Toxicity and Nutritionally Depleted
Chronic diseases often result due to a buildup of toxicities and a lack nutrition and healing in the body to compensate for them. “All these toxicities affect every cell of the body simultaneously,” Herskowitz says.
“So, we all have relative strengths and weaknesses. And that comes up as to what organ is going to be the most involved. But we all have to almost decide whether we’re going to release these toxins on a day-to-day basis, otherwise our concept of longevity is going to be badly estimated.”
Herskowitz estimates that 80% to 90% of the U.S. population has metabolic syndrome, which increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Obesity is another epidemic. Both are due to several factors, including toxicity that started more than 50 years ago as the food supply became increasingly processed. Herskowitz explains:
“This is where you get to the concept of an infinite number of toxicities, feeding a system that only has a finite way of cellular responses … it’s the seed oils [containing] linoleic acid, it’s the ultraprocessed foods and snacks. So, when you go to a general store today …
The overwhelming majority of the food that’s sold there is not to be for human consumption … and then the concept of our farming system has evolved toward efficiency … listen, industry is not our friend. It’s not our partner … their job is to sell more stuff, and to do so in an efficient way.
… I watched it over 45 years, I mean, ‘70s, ‘80s, 90s, this stuff is getting worse. Now the most difficult group to get an appointment with in the hospital is not the cardiology department, because it’s usually the largest department, but it’s endocrine and rheumatology, neurology.”
In other words, exposure to ultraprocessed foods and other toxicities is wreaking havoc in the body, leading to widespread chronic disease. “It causes havoc within the communications network, so that hormones go awry, inflammation goes awry and the detoxification system is overwhelmed,” Herskowitz explains.
“This leads to all the different disorders … it’s a straightforward thing … you have this nutrient depletion, which obviously … you’re more susceptible to everything. And then each of us is reaching our limit, so to speak.”
Why You Should Pay Attention to ‘Nuisance Symptoms’
Herskowitz often sees patients when they’re very ill — but they don’t start out this way. He often looks back into their medical records over 25 years to see their past medical history. People who end up with serious diseases like Alzheimer’s disease often have far more “nuisance symptoms” over the years. This includes symptoms such as toenail fungus, indigestion, occasional diarrhea, hyperactivity or even high blood pressure.
In Herskowitz’s experience, his Alzheimer’s patients had 2.5 times more nuisance symptoms compared to a control group that didn’t have Alzheimer’s. “It’s consistent with this toxicity type of concept,” he says. “When you’re toxic, you have all these little things going on, and you don’t pay attention to them, because they’re not severe.”
However, they’re clues that something is off balance in your body, which can likely be addressed in the early stages. Unfortunately, most physicians aren’t looking for these types of systemic problems.
Tests to Measure How Old You Really Are
One of the challenges facing longevity medicine is figuring out what to measure in order to get an idea of how old you really are — meaning your biological age, which is how well your body is functioning compared to your chronological age, the actual number of years you’ve been alive. Biological age can be younger or older than your chronological age depending on your lifestyle, environmental factors and genetics.
Herskowitz believes oxidative stress is one useful measure to show where you are in a given moment in time over time. At his center, they use a urine test called 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) as a biomarker for oxidative damage and they use the lipid peroxides as a marker. He also uses tests to measure chronic immune function, mitochondrial function and senescent cells.
Senescent cells are cells that have stopped dividing and entered a state of permanent growth arrest without undergoing cell death. These cells can no longer replicate, but they remain metabolically active.
Senescence is a natural part of the cellular lifecycle and serves as a mechanism to prevent the proliferation of damaged cells, which can lead to cancer. However, the accumulation of senescent cells over time can contribute to aging and various age-related diseases. According to Herskowitz:
“[We look for] concepts of the subtlety of how the immune system is being suppressed. And it’s not the current CBC [complete blood count]. It’s more on the chronic side. So how does it deal with biological toxins? And that’s more a journey into the complement immune cascade, which deals with chronic infection, chronic biological toxins and how to deal with it.
So, measures of complement cascades for autoimmunity as well. And then probably the biggest one, other than mitochondrial function and oxidative stress, to me is if we can measure the number of senescent cells we have in our body at any time. The higher it is, the worse you’re doing.”
Herskowitz also uses markers of metabolic pathways that measure glucose metabolism. “It’s not as simple as glucose,” he says. “It’s more inflammatory/metabolic/hormonal,” or the fact that patients are so nutrient deficient that their system isn’t generating sufficient energy. Further, on a day-to-day basis, Herskowitz uses serum ferritin level as an important marker of health.
I have also long stated that serum ferritin, which measures stored iron, is one of the most important tests that everyone should have done on a regular basis as part of a preventive, proactive health screen.
Innovative Test for Cancer Treatment
Meanwhile, Herskowitz described an innovative test for tumors that can improve treatment decisions. Many people with cancer capitulate to taking chemotherapy, either because of fear, their own choice or direction from loved ones or their oncologist.
Many alternative practitioners treating cancer patients say their biggest challenge is the fact that virtually no one comes to see them before they take chemotherapy, which often destroys their body’s healing abilities.
Herskowitz, who uses antioxidants, nutrition, photobiomodulation, intravenous therapies and other strategies for cancer, details a test he believes may change the way chemotherapy is given in the U.S.:
“There’s a new innovation you should be aware of. And that’s taking a slice of the tumor itself on the biopsy side, articulating the various genomic mutations, and looking for the same genomic mutations in the peripheral blood. Now, it’s not a new generation of circulating tumor cell counts, and this is all different generation. So, the goal here is, say, I’m on chemo.
I don’t want to be on it, unless it’s working. Whether it’s high dose chemo, or even low dose chemo, I want it to be working on my behalf. And unless these markers are going down, I’m going to switch. I can tell my oncologist to switch because the genomic data are universally accepted by any oncologist in any university setting.
And I think that’s going to change the way chemotherapy is given in the United States over time. These are approved tests for advanced cancers, and now they’re moving to get approvals for all cancers of any kind.”
Cellular Function Is Becoming Less Efficient
In his decades of clinical experience, Herskowitz says he’s seen our overall capacity for cellular function becoming less efficient. “Practicing now is just different,” he says. For instance, less than 2% of the population used to have autoimmunity, but now he believes it’s somewhere between 10% and 20% — and we may be reaching a tipping point.
“I don’t know where we’re going to be in 10 years … people are still functioning, which is remarkable … [but] I think that we’ve lost most of our reserves. Our reserve function is relatively gone So, maybe more than 50% of our reserve function has now gone over the last four decades,” he says, referring to not only biological resiliency but also metabolic and mitochondrial function. Fortunately, there’s still hope to turn health around.
“Mitochondrial biogenesis is possible, at some point, so I think we still have a lot of hope that right now we can reverse by going clean. And the cleaner you go, the better you’ll feel anyway,” Herskowitz explains. The fact is, your body has unbelievable resiliency provided you identify what’s causing your problems and address it, including by eliminating ultraprocessed foods from your diet and reducing your exposure to other toxicities.
You can find out more about Herskowitz’s strategies for longevity and chronic disease at his website Anataramedicine.com. As mentioned, we’re going to be working together in the future so Herskowitz can further direct his knowledge and insights into correcting the faults in the system. He adds:
“I can tell you one thing. I’ll end it like this. There’s a lot of secrets going on, there’s a lot of mystery. There’s a lot of things we don’t know very much about. And the worst thing a doctor can do is have an arrogant attitude. They understand everything. And I think that as long as we remain open and honest now, and remain lifelong learners, we will all be in better shape.”
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
This website uses cookies
Websites store cookies to enhance functionality and personalise your experience. You can manage your preferences, but blocking some cookies may impact site performance and services.
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
Name
Description
Duration
Cookie Preferences
This cookie is used to store the user's cookie consent preferences.
30 days
These cookies are needed for adding comments on this website.
Name
Description
Duration
comment_author_email
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
comment_author_url
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
comment_author
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
These cookies are used for managing login functionality on this website.
Name
Description
Duration
wordpress_logged_in
Used to store logged-in users.
Persistent
wordpress_sec
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
15 days
wordpress_test_cookie
Used to determine if cookies are enabled.
Session
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Clarity is a web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
Clarity is a web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
