The saying goes ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’
Vaping seems to be an exception to that rule, as vapes, or e-cigarettes, use electricity rather than fire to convert vape liquid with substances like tobacco, nicotine, CBD and THC, into a vapor that can be smoked or inhaled.
But does this difference mean that vaping doesn’t increase your risk for lung cancer and other health problems caused by traditional cigarettes? Is vaping truly a case where there’s smoke but no fire?
Vapes differ from cigarettes, in part, because they heat liquids, not solids. Ostrin says cigarettes produce combusted plant matter that can deliver harmful chemicals directly to the lungs, leading to lung tissue destruction and lung cancer.
Still, while he says the vapor from e-cigarettes seems to be less harmful than tobacco smoking, he notes that the long-term health effects of vaping aren’t yet known.
“The effects aren’t really known and some of these epidemiological facts can take decades to really be noticed. We don’t have a great evidence basis because people haven’t been using these heavily for decades yet,” he says.
Another important distinction between traditional cigarettes and vape products is that vape products are not as regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ostrin says this can make it challenging for vape users to understand how much nicotine they are consuming and exactly what is in cannabis vape products like those containing THC and CBD.
Does vaping cause lung cancer?
We know that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for several types of cancer, including lung cancer, so it is natural to wonder if vaping poses similar risks.
Unfortunately, Ostrin says that it’s still too early to tell exactly how vaping impacts the lungs.
“We don’t really know what we’re delivering into the lungs yet,” he says. “If there are little bits of damage that build up over years, we may not see it for decades.”
Ostrin says there are many chemicals in tobacco smoking that can cause the lung’s epithelial cells to undergo mutations that may lead to cancer. While he notes that vape liquid contains far fewer of these chemicals, it does contain some that can damage cells. However, he says that this hasn’t been shown outside of a laboratory setting.
“Some of these have been shown in a petri dish to cause cells to become inflamed and maybe even undergo mutation, but we don’t have yet the observational and epidemiologic data to show that there are cancers associated with it,” he says.
Cancer risk is only one of the vaping topics researchers are tackling. Ostrin says others include biological questions about vape liquid components and their impact on long-term lung health, whether vaping triggers diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, and epidemiologic questions.
“I think there’s an entire spectrum of research that is now kicking off,” Ostrin says.
How else does vaping impact the lungs?
There are several other lung health risks associated with vaping including some that you may have heard about on the news.
The first is EVALI, or e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury. A large outbreak of EVALI occurred in 2019 when thousands were hospitalized with lung scarring and inflammation after using e-liquid thickened with Vitamin E acetate.
Ostrin says this tragedy is an example of how unregulated the vaping industry is.
“People can just go, ‘We’re going to add chemical X, Y, Z because it’s going to give more flavor, more quality,’ and they have no idea about the consequences and short- and long-term damage that these chemicals are causing,” he says.
Vaping has also been linked to a type of lung damage called bronchiolitis obliterans, or popcorn lung, which is caused by a chemical called diacetyl used to sweeten some vape liquids.
Additionally, because vape products are unregulated, they may have contaminants.
“Anybody can make this stuff and can refill these e-cigarettes,” Ostrin says. “We don’t know what sort of contaminants are in them, and there can be nasty stuff in there that can cause serious lung injury and body injury in general.”
Finally, many vape products contain nicotine. Ostrin says that it is concerning that young people who begin vaping could develop nicotine addictions and, subsequently, begin smoking cigarettes as vapes become more regulated and less available.
“Our biggest concern in terms of vaping affecting the lungs is that we’re going to be creating a new generation of nicotine addicts,” he says. “I don’t think we know that for certain, but it is certainly a worry.”
What should you do if you vape?
It may seem harmless to keep vaping, especially while research is still investigating exactly how it impacts the lungs, but quitting vapes and nicotine has concrete benefits.
“Quitting nicotine is going to save you money. It’s going to improve your lung health. It’s better for your heart,” Ostrin says.
He acknowledges that asking someone to quit nicotine is no small task.
“It’s one of the hardest things we ask our patients to do. It’s an incredibly addictive substance,” he says.
“I think the best thing that any pulmonologist would recommend is to not inhale anything except fresh air and medications prescribed to you. Anything delivered into your lungs is a big wildcard,” Ostrin says. “Delivering foreign substances into the lungs is nothing but harmful.”
As the criteria for depression has been loosened and the medications have been aggressively marketed to more and more people, the use of antidepressants, and the stronger drugs they feed into, in a just few decades has gone from a tiny minority of the population to almost 1 in 4 Americans.
Story at a glance:
After the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were developed, their manufacturers realized the population needed to be convinced they were suffering from depression so as many people as possible would buy their drugs.
The tricks the drug industry used to perform this were remarkable and have many parallels to how the predatory pharmaceutical industry pushes many other drugs on us.
While a minority of patients (about a third) benefit from antidepressant therapy, the majority do not (termed “treatment-resistant depression”), but unfortunately, until recently there have been minimal options available for these patients.
Much of this results from depression being viewed as a single illness, rather than a myriad of conditions with somewhat overlapping symptoms which each need to be treated differently (rather than simply all being given the same drug).
When you read history textbooks, you will frequently notice events of the past (and the society going along with them) being cast in a negative light.
Yet in many cases, when the same processes occur in the modern era, it is not cast in the same negative light — even when many prominent dissidents are actively explaining why what we are doing is completely insane.
In turn, the hope I and many others share is that in the not-too-distant future, the way our society handled COVID-19 (e.g., locking down the country, suppressing off-patent treatments, mandating a flawed vaccine and aggressively censoring anyone who spoke out against this) will be acknowledged as a profound mistake by the history books.
Remarkably, despite the propaganda apparatus doing everything it could to prop the COVID-19 vaccine up, both due to its immense danger and a dedicated group of online activists who exposed that danger, public opinion has soured on the vaccines and we are now beginning to see official proceedings looking into them.
Likewise, the hope I and many others hold is that the public becoming aware of the immense dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines will make them open to recognizing how many other unsafe and ineffective pharmaceuticals have been pushed onto the market despite an overwhelming degree of evidence arguing against their safety and efficacy.
In my eyes, one of the worst offenders is the SSRI and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or SNRI antidepressant drugs, which have many parallels to illicit stimulants (e.g., cocaine) and which I suspect in the future will be viewed by the history textbooks the same way they now look at how dangerous drugs like heroin, cocaine, opium and methamphetamine were freely available in pharmacies of the past.
Cause aggressive behavior, agitation, insomnia, anxiety or restlessness and Bipolar disorder.
Cause sexual dysfunction and numbs one to the experience of life (e.g., it takes away what gives you joy and the emotional reactions to a dangerous situation).
Cause birth defects.
Are extremely addictive (the process one must go through to withdraw from them is extremely unfair).
The above symptoms are frighteningly common (e.g., sexual dysfunction affects approximately half of SSRI users), and in addition to these, a variety of other concerning (but less common) side effects also occur.
However, despite the litany of evidence arguing against the wisdom of mass prescribing these drugs, a deluge of complaints to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (and public hearings) about the SSRIs, and numerous successful lawsuits filed against the manufacturers, nothing has been done about it.
Rather, the FDA has done everything it could to fight for the industry and suppress the evidence of SSRI harm from seeing the light of day.
In a recent article, I attempted to detail exactly how this transpired as I felt the corruption and malfeasance demonstrated throughout the process provided a poignant case study to explain the FDA’s otherwise inexplicable behavior we’ve all seen throughout the pandemic.
Furthermore, I believe these acts are representative of a broader trend — the march towards economic feudalism we have seen enacted over the last 50 years, where unaccountable corporations are enshrined as the fourth branch of government and the majority of the (increasingly impoverished) population are forced into economic servitude under these corporations.
I believe like the feudal system of the past, this system exists both to maximize the wealth of the upper class and to have an easy way to implement compliance throughout the entire population (e.g., by forcing people to get a vaccine they knew was extremely dangerous as otherwise they would be out of work).
Note: The relentless march to economic feudalism (e.g., how the lockdowns were a devastating assault on the working class) is discussed in further detail here. I believe that maintaining a perpetual state of physical and mental illness is one tool the upper class uses to control the populace (as being sick takes away your ability to act independently while simultaneously making you dependent on the system for medical care).
In turn, one of the most concerning aspects of the lockdowns was the huge spike in mental health issues they created, and likewise, psychiatric effects are a common side effect of the vaccines (e.g., an Israeli study found that about 26.4% of individuals with pre-existing anxiety or depression reported an exacerbation from the booster).
Unfortunately, while the psychiatric complications of the lockdowns are at last being discussed, the main solution being proposed to treat them is “more psychiatric care” (which means more drugs).
Halitosis
After Listerine was created in 1880, a variety of uses were proposed for it (e.g., as a surgical antiseptic or mouthwash) and the product had modest sales. Searching for a way to increase them, its marketing team eventually had an epiphany.
Taking the Latin word for breath (halitus), they added on “osis” to make it sound pathological and created a new disease that Listerine just so happened to “cure.”
Following this, an immense marketing campaign was made to familiarize the population with halitosis (bad breath) and to make them as fearful about it as possible.
“Who could forget Edna? The quintessential damsel with every trait that society admired — save for her unwitting battle with halitosis. Listerine’s gripping ad campaigns chronicled Edna’s heart-wrenching saga, emphasizing the social implications of bad breath [such as no one wanting to marry you].”
Note: At this time, many companies were profiting off of selling the emerging middle-class ways to cater to their social anxieties.
This campaign, in turn, was remarkably successful, earning it a permanent place in the history books:
“Listerine skyrocketed from modest annual sales of about $100,000 in 1921 to a whopping $4 million by 1927. To provide context, in today’s currency, that’s an astounding rise from $1.3 million to $57.5 million. By the late 1920s, Listerine stood tall as America’s third-highest print advertiser.”
What’s particularly interesting about the halitosis saga is that while it is widely disparaged since it revolved around the creation of a largely fictitious disease and preying on the insecurities of the public, it is simultaneously widely praised for its effectiveness.
In turn, countless groups have copied Listerine’s tactic of using fear to sell an unneeded product, but as time has moved forward, fewer and fewer people called out those fear-based campaigns.
Recognizing how problematic it is when pharmaceutical companies have a blank check to push their products on the public, governments around the world wisely made advertising pharmaceuticals directly to consumers illegal.
Since the primary expenditure in the pharmaceutical industry is not drug development or production, but rather advertising, this change opened the floodgates to them buying out the American media (which is essentially why the mass media stopped discussing any dangerous drug on the market).
Note: This news article discusses Kim Witczak’s work to stop direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.
Disease branding
Within the pharmaceutical industry, the process of creating a new disease or increasing the public’s awareness of an existing condition is known as “disease branding,” and is one of the most common steps taken when attempting to sell a pharmaceutical.
While sometimes subtle, in many cases, these campaigns are blatant enough that many can spot them (e.g., consider how much fear the media stirred up about COVID-19 in 2020 while simultaneously constantly telling us that a miraculous vaccine that could end all of that was right around the corner).
Note: Presently, many believe one of the most egregious examples of the medical industry creating a new disease to push its products is the sudden widespread emergence of “gender dysphoria.”
Mental health is a particularly unfortunate area for disease branding to enter into as virtually anything can be turned into a disease and sold with the same marketing tactics pioneered for Listerine:
“Patty Duke provided the 2008 American Psychiatric Association meeting with its celebrity patient story. AstraZeneca sponsored her talk and the company spokesman who introduced her.
“The Oscar-winning actress, clad in a pumpkin orange dress, told of how she had suffered from undiagnosed bipolar illness for twenty years, during which time she drank excessively and was sexually promiscuous.
“Diagnosis and medication ‘made me marriage material,’ she said, and whenever she speaks to patient groups around the country, she hammers this point home. ‘I tell them, ‘Take your medicines!” she said. The drugs fix the disease ‘with very little downside!’
“We are beyond blessed to have people like you who have chosen to take care of us and to lead us to a balanced life … I get my information from you and NAMI [National Alliance on Mental Illness], and if I resisted such information, I would deserve to have a net thrown over me. When I hear someone say, at one of my talks, ‘I don’t need the medication, I don’t take it,’ I tell them to ‘sit down, you are making a fool of yourself.’”
Note: While this presentation was met with thunderous applause by the attending psychiatrists, many safety issues exist with “Patty’s” medications, and I frequently observe them triggering personality changes which make it quite challenging for the individuals to have intimate relationships.
One of the most poignant examples of how depression was branded to the world comes from Japan, and is discussed within the documentary “Does Your Soul Have a Cold?”
“By following the lives of five Japanese individuals this documentary explores the problem of depression in Japan and how the marketing of anti-depressant drugs has changed the way the Japanese view depression.
“Marketing of anti-depressants did not begin in Japan until the late 1990s and prior to this, depression was not widely recognized as a problem by the Japanese public. Since then, use of anti-depressants has sky-rocketed and use of the Japanese word ‘utsu’ to describe depression has become commonplace, having previously been used only by psychiatric professionals.
“This new awareness was greatly influenced by Western pharmaceutical companies’ advertising or ‘educational campaigns,’ which included the slogan ‘Does Your Soul Have A Cold?’ The film is an intimate and purposely unresolved look at five young people taking antidepressants in Tokyo. It is a meditation on the issues of globalism, pharmacology, and social shame towards mental illness, as seen through the everyday lives of these people.
“The film does not feature any ‘specialists’ of ‘experts’ and instead foregrounds the experiences of the people who are suffering from depression and trying to find a way out.”
Creating depression
When Prozac was first created, Eli Lilly had no intention of using it to treat depression.
Rather to quote John Virapen, the executive who was responsible for getting it on the market:
“For some time, they had been doing research for an antidepressant, which influenced serotonin levels. Starting in the 1960s, research had been carried out on these substances, to find out what role they had played in sensory perception or emotional perception.
“One consideration was to suppose there was a certain balance of serotonin levels, which was good. Imbalance on the other hand would lead to depression, to hyperactivity and much more.
“Fluoxetine [Prozac] was a new active ingredient from Eli Lilly’s laboratory … which turns the regulating switch of the serotonin balance and supposedly restores the balanced, ideal state. But we were in the 1980s and at that time, only those receiving clinical treatment [e.g., those in mental hospitals] took psychotropic drugs.
“Nevertheless, while studying fluoxetine, an interesting side effect occurred, which the company bosses deemed to be much more lucrative. Some of the test subjects had lost weight while taking the new active ingredient.
“If being overweight had only been a problem for a small amount of people, it wouldn’t have interested the medical industry. Their increasing number makes overweight people interesting. Furthermore, overweight people are in more developed and rich countries. In terms of marketing, that is good.
“What is even bigger than the number of people is the number of people, who think they are fat, just like the number of those who can be talked into being fat.
“This group became, and still is become part of their clientele by means of teaching. Teaching aids: the ideal of beauty, which is shaped by the so-called ultra-thin models and actresses.
“Put both of those groups together — now that is a market. Sick people and those who are talked into being sick — that’s what the blockbuster needs.
“In short: fat people are a very good sales market. The only snag is to get the active ingredient approved as a weight-reducing drug since further extensive studies and tests would be necessary. But Eli Lilly was in a hurry. Every day without the wonder drug on the market was costing them money. So they decided to aim for approval of the active ingredient, Fluoxetine, as an antidepressant.
“Then, once it had been approved, it is easier to extend the approval to other therapeutic indications. That’s normal and a valuable trick of the pharmaceutical industry, which you can see over and over again. Once the regulatory authority has said, ‘yes’ it is more difficult to justify a ‘no’ the second time.”
Unfortunately, the data on Prozac was abysmal (it failed to benefit patients and frequently harmed them), to the point most psychiatrists Virapen consulted burst into laughter at the thought he was seeking approval.
Knowing his career depended on it, Virapen eventually located a key “independent” expert responsible for Prozac’s approval in Sweden who happily accepted a (now proven) bribe.
After receiving tentative approval for Prozac, Virapen was contacted by Sweden’s health authority to begin negotiating the price for their drug.
Being an excellent salesman, he was able to negotiate a much higher target price for Prozac than either Lilly or Virapen expected to earn, $1.20 per dose of a 20 milligram (mg) tablet (approximately $3.36 in today’s dollars). What followed provides a remarkable window into how the current status quo came to be.
Note: My time in medicine has more and more led me to conclude that business considerations rather than scientific ones frequently determine what the eventual standard care of is.
Virapen continued:
“The price I’d negotiated for an incompletely tested, faulty product, which droves and still drives a lot of people crazy or to their death, was the basis for gaining approval, throughout the world. The connection between dose and price is still the basis for medical recommendations, around the world. You cannot take less than that dose; you always take more than that amount.
“The director of [Sweden’s] medical review board is recognized worldwide as an expert, had reported from her own clinical studies, that, with as little as a quarter of the dose, i.e., 5 mg, there had been difficulties and patients had tried to commit suicide … it was this highly respectable figure who then managed to prevent the approval of Prozac in Sweden.
“She simply refused to approve a 20 mg dose, if a 5 mg dose wouldn’t be offered at the same time, as well. Eli Lilly didn’t like that. The price for a 20 mg dose had been determined. A 5 mg dose would have meant a loss in turnover of 75 percent. Lilly was very sensitive to that since this loss in value would have consequences for other countries, where they were still negotiating.
“For instance, Lilly could say in a short timeframe in negotiations in the other countries: ‘You want to nail us down to one dollar? In Sweden, the price is $1.20.’”
Note: A key reason why SSRIs are so addictive is because their dose is far higher than what patients need, hence making them very challenging to safely withdraw from.
“In the end, the active ingredient didn’t get approval in Sweden. Which probably shows clearly that, at no time whatsoever, was Eli Lilly interested in the well-being of their patients but was only out for Profit.
“And in that regard, it had been worth it. Fluoxetine became a large commercial success — especially in the United States and Great Britain — like there had never been before in the history of the pharmaceutical industry with its 20mg dose and ‘my’ price.
“Marketing made it a fashionable drug. Then, there weren’t many depressed people. Fluoxetine was marketed as a mood lifter.
“Fluoxetine supposedly conveyed a positive attitude toward life. And who wouldn’t like to have that?
“A turnaround had been achieved with fluoxetine. Headache pills are a part of daily life for many — but only to curb the pain. But a pill that provides you with a good attitude toward life — you don’t even need to be ill or be in pain. You can always take it. You could always do with a positive outlook on life.”
Note: One of the original goals with the COVID-19 vaccines was to make them become an annual shot everyone took (hence guaranteeing the recurring sales that drive the pharmaceutical industry) and it is only because there has been so much pushback against this that the medical establishment has at last started to back off on that goal.
Prozac is born
As an insider, Virapen had many insightful things to share about how Prozac was marketed:
“‘Flu-o-xe-tine’ is difficult to pronounce, even more difficult to remember, and it sounds, if anything, like toothpaste. No, it had to be something trendy. The name was to be on everyone’s lips, within the shortest possible time. After all, that’s where the pills were going to go, too.
“Eli Lilly paid a company, specializing in branding, hundreds of thousands of dollars to crack this hard nut … The company, commission to create the name, was Interbrand. The new pills, with the active ingredient, fluoxetine, were to be sold as Prozac. The name givers claim, and not without pride that this abstract name cleverly combines the positive association of ‘pro,’ derived from the Greek/Latin with a short, effective sounding suffix.
“Since that doesn’t sound quite as favorable in German as it does in English, the same active ingredient was marketed in Germany under the name Fluctin, as it sounds like the German ‘flutscht’s?’ — Does it slide down well?”
Note: I always found it ironic that this name was chosen since one of the characteristic side-effects of SSRIs is the “brain zaps” one experiences when withdrawing from them.
Likewise, Prozac (and its successors) were sold on the myth that depression is due to a chemical imbalance (of serotonin) in the brain.
While this was a catchy marketing slogan, it was never proven (e.g., cerebral spinal fluid measurements of serotonin consistently disproved this hypothesis) and for years honest psychiatrists tried to protest against it.
Fortunately, as more and more data has emerged that argues against the chemical imbalance theory, the psychiatric field has gradually moved towards identifying the (highly damaging) neural rewiring as the actual mechanism of the drugs (e.g., this explains why SSRIs often don’t work for the first few weeks of treatment as the brain has not yet rewired itself).
I frequently cite this story to illustrate how speculative many of the mechanisms the practice of medicine is built around actually are.
Note: Lilly was fully aware from the start that this was the actual mechanism of action of the drugs (as their scientists had discovered it in their research between 1975 and 1981).
The success of Prozac catapulted the whole family of SSRIs to the top of the best-selling pharmaceuticals.
In 2006, the active ingredient, fluoxetine was still at number 18 for the amount of packages sold, although the patent for it ran out in August 2001. Let’s now take a look at exactly how Lilly (and the other pharmaceutical companies) did that.
Softening diagnostic boundaries
Before its approval, one approach Virapen used to market the drug was to conduct seeding trials where patients were recruited to “test” the drug — a tried and true method for making doctors who participated in the trials open to prescribing the drug once it was approved.
“That wasn’t bad — but not what we wanted to achieve. Fluoxetine was now being used in many clinics — but we weren’t much interested in the sick (if we supposed that people who visit a hospital for psychic problems or those who are referred there by force, are ill).
“The blockbuster is characterized by the fact, that it blurs the boundary between sick and healthy, that it is used uniformly, because only then can it achieve its extraordinary sales record.”
Note: Keep in mind how the COVID-19 vaccine sales market kept on being expanded (e.g., to people who had already had COVID-19, and then to healthy children who were at no risk of dying from COVID-19, and then to boosting people over and over again).
When Lilly initially tried to get Prozac approved in Germany, it was rejected because they had concluded Lilly could neither prove what Fluoxetine did nor could Lilly show which clinical picture Lilly was using to diagnose depression (as it did not correlate to either Germany’s or the WHO’s definitions).
To “fix” this issue (and be able to sell to far more people), the pharmaceutical industry banded together to expand the definition of depression and over the years sponsored a variety of initiatives and patient groups to do so (e.g., England’s national “Defeat Depression Campaign” which encouraged general practitioners to treat far more patients for depression and aggressively do so with SSRIs).
Many of these were spearheaded by “patient” groups, which were sponsored by the drug industry (this is another common sales tactic we see over and over).
Likewise, the industry also worked to formally expand the definition of depression:
“Even amongst experts, the definition of depression isn’t clear. Attempts are being made to expel this vagueness by adding further definitions, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to clarity. The international standard is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association.
“The first issue of the DSM in 1952 had defined a good 100 distinguishable manifestations of depression. In the fifth edition (DSM-IV, 1994), the number of definitions had increased three-fold.
“The major change in DSM-III from 1980 was the introduction of a symptom-based approach for diagnosis. It has been criticised for creating diseases and for classifying normal life distress and sadness as mental disease in need of drugs.
“Expected reactions to a situational context, for example, the loss of a beloved person, divorce, serious disease or loss of job, are no longer mentioned as exclusion criteria when making the diagnosis.
“These changes, which are so generous towards the drug industry, could be related to the fact that all the DSM-IV panel members on mood disorders had financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.”
In case you are wondering how that came to be:
“DSM IV is produced by the consensus of a group of psychiatrists. 56% of its authors had or still have financial connections to pharmaceutical companies, with 100% of those on the committee for ‘mood disorders’ and ‘schizophrenia’ having those conflicts.”
In turn, a variety of normal behaviors have been relabeled as being pathologic, many of which the patient would never have noticed had they not been pointed out to them.
For example:
“If you asked the people you know, ‘Do you sometimes feel one way and then another?’ — Most will probably reply yes. Mood swings are completely normal. If you treat mood swings as a sign of depression, the number of people with depression increases to include [almost all] of the population.”
Similarly:
“In 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that 9% of the interviewed adults met the DSM-IV criteria for current depression.
However, very little is required. You are depressed if you have had little interest or pleasure in doing things for eight days over the past two weeks plus one additional symptom, which can be many things, for example:
Trouble falling asleep.
Poor appetite or overeating.
Being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual.”
Pharmaceutical sales funnels
Much of business revolves around creating sales funnels where you initially start with an innocuous offer that can reach a lot of people, and then from that filter out a pool of people who can be sold a more expensive product, and then often repeat that process multiple times, allowing the large funnel to gradually get smaller and more profitable.
However, while this sounds fairly reasonable from a marketing perspective, once you mix it with medical products bad things can happen.
For example, in a recent article, I showed how many patients with chronic neck or back pain, rather than having their pain treated, get fed into a sales funnel that results in them getting (incredibly profitable) spinal surgeries that typically fail to fix the issue and frequently leaves them with significant chronic complications.
One of the most depressing pharmaceutical sales funnels I’ve seen happens to young girls throughout America. It goes as follows:
Young girls are told a variety of normal symptoms they are experiencing (e.g., painful menstrual cramps and mood swings during their cycle) need to be treated with birth control pills (which are also pushed on girls who might become sexually active).
One of the common side effects of birth control pills is mood alterations (e.g., anxiety or depression), issues girls already struggle with due to the confusing changes in their bodies that accompany puberty and the challenging social environment our society raises its women in.
Once those psychiatric side effects emerge, their doctors immediately advocate for treating them with SSRIs.
Those SSRIs then cause a variety of other emotional problems (e.g., anxiety or bipolar disorder).
Note: Certain other neurotoxic pharmaceuticals like the HPV vaccine (which is pushed on adolescent girls across America) can also create these issues or accelerate their progression.
Those more severe psychiatric issues are treated with mood stabilizers and anti-psychotics, both of which are very powerful medications that frequently leave the individual with permanent psychiatric and cognitive damage.
I share this example because of just how many women I’ve seen have their lives ruined by it, and likewise how much this massive consumption of psychiatric medication has been normalized (e.g., many young adults now heavily identify with their addictive medications).
Screening for depression
One of the most common sales funnels you see in medicine is a program being put into place (often due to pharmaceutical lobbying) to screen large numbers of people for a condition.
Some of these are quite helpful — for example, the invention and mass implementation of the pap smear has saved a lot of women from dying from cervical cancer.
Unfortunately, many other common screenings don’t benefit those who receive them (e.g., Peter Gøtzsche, one of the primary sources for this series whom I quoted throughout this article, also wrote an excellent book, “Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy,” that proved that giving routine mammograms to women without signs of cancer is more likely to harm than help them).
Most frequently, mass screening programs are created to find eligible candidates to sell drugs to, and time and time again, you will notice more and more people become eligible for the drug.
For example:
The cut-off for “high blood pressure” (which is measured at every medical visit) has been lowered again and again (to the point we now over-medicate the elderly who, due to an aging vascular system, need a higher blood pressure to supply the brain in turn frequently experience a variety of severe complications like falls from light-headedness induced by blood pressure reducing medications).
Once an effective way was found to lower cholesterol (with the statins), the “normal” cholesterol level kept on getting lowered — which made a lot of money but also caused many patients to experience severe side effects from their toxicity.
Many psychiatric diagnostic criteria have likewise gradually had their scope broadened. For example, bereavement (grief over a loss such as a death or divorce) in DSM-III was only considered to be a depressive disorder if you still felt bad a year later, while in DSM-IV it was shortened to two months, and in DSM-V (in 2013) it was shortened to two weeks.
In turn, there have been numerous cases of children who felt distraught because they had just broken up with their romantic partner and were immediately put on an SSRI who then had a disastrous suicide — whereas had they simply been given a month to process the breakup, they likely would have been fine.
So as you might imagine, the pharmaceutical industry has concocted many different methods (using the infinitely flexible criteria granted by the DSM) to screen patients for depression and get them the (pharmaceutical) treatment they “need.”
One of the most memorable ones occurred in 2010 on WebMD (an “authoritative” website that comes up near the top of most health-related searches on Google).
WebMD featured a “free” survey (which I suspect was prominently featured on the website) that users could take to see if they were depressed.
Eventually (since so many people were taking it) some of them figured out that even if you answered that you did not have any symptoms of depression, the survey always stated that you either had major depression or were at risk for it, and to consider calling a doctor right away.
After this was exposed, the language was softened but still implied you could be depressed even if you had none of the symptoms.
Note: This is similar to a heart attack risk calculator doctors across America are trained to utilize (e.g., medical board exams ask about it and current practice guidelines revolve around it).
After it came out, I noticed it almost always said the patient had a significantly elevated risk of a heart attack (or stroke), and that my colleagues would immediately use its results to push statins on their patient so they “wouldn’t die.”
I was thus immensely grateful to learn that in 2016, Kaiser studied this by looking at the electronic health care records of 307,591 Americans and discovered that the calculator was overestimating the risk of a heart attack or stroke by between 5 to 6 times.
As you might imagine, Kaiser’s results have not been incorporated into the calculator.
Sadly, while the WebMD example seems absurd, in real life, due to the wide definition afforded to depression, many who are subject to the various screening programs that exist likewise come up as “having depression.”
This in turn leads to tragedy after tragedy (a few of which were documented by Gøtzsche) where someone was put on an SSRI despite there being no valid reason to start it and that individual then committed suicide as a result of the drug’s side effects.
Note: One of the things that bothered me about working in medical clinics that took insurance was that “quality” metrics would always be introduced that required us to do a “necessary” procedure (e.g., pushing a statin, screening for depression, or pushing a flu shot) on most of our patients. Since the penalty for not meeting those metrics was lowered reimbursements, administrators would often scold physicians who failed to meet them.
Likewise, I believe one of the biggest issues with primary care is that so much of each (already short) visit is taken up by essentially mandatory things (e.g., those screenings or checking boxes for insurance reimbursement), that not much time is left to actually focus on what the patient needs.
To quote Gøtzsche (as he has done so much to expose the harms of misguided screening programs):
“A notorious programme in the United States was TeenScreen, which came up with the result that one in five children suffer from a mental disorder, leading to a flurry of discussions about a ‘crisis’ in children’s mental health.
“The screening test recommended by the World Health Organization is so poor that for every 100,000 healthy people screened, 36,000 will get a false diagnosis of depression.
“The Cochrane Review on screening for depression recommends firmly against it, after having examined 12 trials with 6,000 participants. Nonetheless, the Danish National Board of Health recommends screening for depression.”
Note: One of the common responses Gøtzsche receives from psychiatrists when he tries to highlight that mass-screening for depression results in many healthy people unnecessarily receiving antidepressants is that it “didn’t matter because antidepressants have no side-effects.”
Two of the most unfortunate groups that are subject to mass screening are the elderly and pregnant women. In the case of the elderly, while some do suffer from depression, they are also quite likely to suffer severe consequences from the drugs.
“With regard to SSRIs, a U.K. cohort study of 60,746 patients older than 65 showed that they led to falls more often than the older antidepressants or if the depression isn’t treated, and that the drugs kill 3.6% of patients treated for one year.”
Note: One of the less appreciated consequences of SSRIs is their tendency to cause low blood sodium levels (they increase the risk of it by two to eight times). This condition can be very dangerous as it massively increases the chance of dying in the hospital and the risk of death in the years following hospitalization.
Before the hospitalization stage, hyponatremia will cause dizziness, light-headedness and muscle weakness — which I believe is a key reason why SSRIs increase the risk of (often devastating) falls.
In the case of the elderly, this is particularly tragic because they frequently lack the ability to refuse a prescription offered to them or to recognize its negative effects, while the majority of doctors (who are not geriatricians) likewise cannot do so.
Note: One memorable study found that withdrawing older adults from all unnecessary drugs (which averaged 2.8 out of the 7.8 drugs they were taking) reduced their risk of dying by 23% and hospitalization by 18.2% (along with saving a lot of money).
In the case of pregnant women, it is particularly tragic because not only does it hurt the mother, but also (as discussed above) the child as well. This brief skit by Gøtzsche illustrates the absurdity of those screening programs.
Everyone’s on it
As the criteria for depression have been loosened and the pills have been aggressively marketed to more and more people, the use of antidepressants (and the stronger drugs they feed into) in a just few decades has gone from a tiny minority of the population to almost 1 in 4 Americans.
Note: This figure is partly due to a massive increase from COVID-19 (e.g., in just the year 2021, the number of people on psychiatric medications increased by 20% nationally and by 10-50% depending on the state).
Many in turn have noticed this concerning trend. Consider for example this song by an English pop star:
Sadly, the psychiatric profession has not.
“With such an approach to diagnosis, it is not surprising that the prevalence of depression has increased dramatically since the days when we didn’t have antidepressant pills. And there is a substantial risk of circular evidence in all this.
“If a new class of drugs affects mood, appetite and sleep patterns, depression may be defined by industry-supported psychiatrists as a disease that consists of just that; problems with mood, appetite and sleep patterns.
“The skyrocketing use of antidepressants should make everybody’s alarm bells ring, but when the TV host asked us during a panel discussion how we could reduce the high consumption and expressly pointed out that we should not discuss whether the consumption was too high, Professor Lars Kessing didn’t reply to the question but said the consumption wasn’t too high because the prevalence of depression had increased greatly during the last 50 years.
“I have listened to many pseudo-academic discussions where people [e.g., psychiatrists] have tried to explain why there are more depressed people now than previously. The usual explanation is that our society has become more hectic and puts greater demands on people.
“As far as I can see, we are more privileged than ever before, our lives are less stressful, social security is far better, and there are far fewer poor people. It is more reliable to estimate whether the prevalence of severe depression has increased, and psychiatrists constantly tell me that this is not the case.”
Do antidepressants ‘work’
In a previous article, I cited a study that showed that doctors tend to perceive their drugs benefit a patient more than the patient does and much more than the patient’s family.
Since there are so many subjective metrics involved in mental illness, this is an area that is particularly prone to (conscious and unconscious) biases from either the patient or the doctor overestimating an antidepressant’s benefit.
This bias in turn is why we have placebo-controlled trials. Unfortunately, while there is a good justification for them, in practice, these trials in reality simply reinforce the status quo.
This is because independent parties can almost never afford to conduct those trials (they cost a lot of money), while the pharmaceutical companies that typically conduct them always find ways to cheat and get the result they want from the start.
Note: In a previous article I discussed how this was done (with the FDA’s tacit approval) throughout the SSRI clinical trials and likewise mentioned how a whistleblower disclosed that Pfizer’s trial was not blinded (which likely invalided the trial’s results), but after the FDA was notified, they did nothing except tell her supervisors (who promptly fired her).
Since the antidepressant’s margin of benefit is relatively small, I think it is helpful to look at a few studies that tried to assess if the same results were gotten when it was not possible to know who was receiving the drugs.
“Hróbjartsson recently published another important study. He wanted to see to what extent observers who had not been blinded to the treatment patients received exaggerated the effect, and he collected all trials that had both a blinded and a non-blinded observer.
“He included 21 trials for a variety of diseases and found that the treatment effect was overestimated by 36% on average when the non-blinded observer assessed the effect compared to the blinded observer. Most of the studies had used subjective outcomes, and as the effect of antidepressants is also assessed on subjective scales (e.g. the Hamilton scale).
“Many years ago, trials were performed with tricyclic antidepressants that were adequately blinded, as the placebo contained atropine. This substance causes dryness in the mouth and other side effects similar to those seen with antidepressants, and the trials are therefore much more reliable than those using conventional placebos.
“The mouth can become so dry on an antidepressant that one can hear the tongue scraping and clicking, which is an important reason that some patients lose their teeth because of caries. A Cochrane review of nine trials (751 patients) with atropine in the placebo, failed to demonstrate an effect of tricyclic antidepressants.”
Note: Since SSRIs have significant side effects, these can be immediately recognized during the trial, making the “blinding” a farce. Furthermore, this has been a longstanding problem with numerous classes of psychiatric medications.
For example, a 1993 paper reviewing this issue concluded “The time has come to give up the illusion that most previous research dealing with the efficacy of psychotropic drugs has been adequately shielded against bias.”
What does this translate to in larger studies?
“An analysis of a prescription database showed that after only two months half the patients had stopped taking the drug. Nonetheless, the psychiatrists love the pills and often say they work in 70-80% of patients, which is mathematically impossible when only 50% continue taking the drug after two months.
“The FDA found in a meta-analysis of randomised trials with 100,000 patients, half of whom were depressed, that about 50% got better on an antidepressant and 40% on a placebo. A Cochrane review of depressed patients in primary care reported slightly higher benefits, but didn’t include the unpublished trials, which have much smaller effects than the published ones.”
In parallel with branding depression to the world, the pharmaceutical industry has made us forget how many of these conditions would naturally go away on their own:
“Most doctors call the 40% in the placebo group a placebo effect, which it isn’t. Most patients would have gotten better without a placebo pill, as this is the natural course of an untreated depression. Therefore, when doctors and patients say they have experienced that the treatment worked, we must say that such experiences aren’t reliable, as the patients might have fared equally well without treatment.”
Note: The most insidious thing about this is that in many cases, SSRIs turn a temporary psychiatric condition into a permanent one.
Who benefits from SRRIs?
(Besides the pharmaceutical industry.) While I typically find antidepressants do not help people, it is also important for me to acknowledge that in some cases, they do help a minority of the patients who are put on them.
Specifically, I tend to find the following to be true:
Typically patients have much better results if they are prescribed SSRIs by a psychiatrist than if they are prescribed them by a general practitioner (as the psychiatrist is better able to recognize who is a good candidate for the drug and simultaneously is more likely to recognize if a patient is having a bad reaction to the drug).
“Primary care providers prescribe 79% of antidepressant medications and see 60% of people being treated for depression in the United States, and they do that with little support from specialist services.”
This, in turn, I believe is the primary reason why there are so many patients who are on multiple (often harmful) psychiatric medications.
There are psychiatrists with advanced expertise in psychopharmacology who can get excellent results for their patients (including for otherwise difficult cases). Unfortunately, doctors like this are quite rare to find and typically expensive to see (as they run cash-pay practices).
Most importantly, they’ve shared with me that there are many patients they nonetheless cannot help, and for those that they do help, in some cases, it is also necessary for them to utilize integrative modalities.
Metabolic variations (which are often genetic) play a huge role in determining who will have a positive or negative response to an antidepressant.
If there is an underlying issue (be it physical or non-physical) causing the depression, I find it is often a bad idea to treat the issue with medications. In turn, I frequently find this allows the underlying issue (e.g., an infection or an abusive dynamic) to fester and worsen (which in turn frequently makes it much harder to treat the psychiatric condition caused by that unaddressed issue).
Note: A foundational principle within natural medicine is Hering’s Law of Cure, which states that “disease” first enters the body superficially and then goes deeper into the body (or the mind and then spirit) as it worsens.
Hering’s Law hence argues that the correct way to treat many illnesses is to encourage their superficial manifestations (symptoms) so it can exit the body, rather than suppressing them (which is what much of modern medicine does).
In turn, many remarkable historical examples of this exist. For example, early medical journals consistently reported giving aspirin to suppress fevers significantly increased the likelihood of dying from the 1918 Influenza, and I strongly suspect that the observations of the pathology of the smallpox vaccines (and how that was successfully treated) played a key role is developing this law.
Likewise, throughout my career, I’ve seen many tragic cases that remarkably embodied Herring’s Law of Cure.
These include cases where some type of emotional or spiritual process was trying to express itself, which was then treated with (progressively stronger) psychiatric medications, which both suppressed but simultaneously intensified and worsened the underlying process.
Conclusion
One of my longstanding beliefs has been that “no industry (or group) can be relied upon to solve a problem if it benefits from the problem continuing.”
This encapsulates the idea that we have many parties who have been tasked with solving an issue (and often being given a lot of money to do so) but they completely fail to do so.
Rather each year the issue becomes a bigger and bigger problem, which the groups in turn use to plead for urgency to receive more money (or power).
In this series, I’ve tried to illustrate the sad SSRI saga which to review went as follows:
A bad drug was designed by a pharmaceutical company desperate to make money.
Since that drug was too bad to be approved, a variety of unscrupulous approaches had to be used to get it onto the market.
Once it started being sold to the public, its manufacturer realized the drug tapped into one of the most profitable markets in existence.
The manufacturer hence decided to do everything it could to convince as much of the population as possible that they were mentally unwell and “needed” this new drug.
The rest of the industry realized this was a gold mine and jumped in, before long making so much money be behind the SSRIs that the drugs were protected by almost every institution on the planet.
In turn, our society’s relationship with depression has been transformed, as we have pathologized the normal ups and downs of life, left countless individuals with permanent emotional dysfunction from these drugs, and prevented people from considering what is causing their unhappiness or how to address it.
Note: This is not all that different from how natural immunity has been replaced with the perpetual need to vaccinate for infectious organism after organism (and then boost once the vaccine fails — something analogous to the addiction and dependency SSRIs create, especially when SSRIs create further issues that are treated with additional psychiatric medications).
At the same time, however, for some people, depression is a very real condition they struggle with daily and which they do not get the needed help from the medical system to address.
In looking at this dilemma, I’ve found the following factors seem to appear again and again:
Giving a blanket label of “depression” to those conditions, while helpful for research and drug sales (since it makes it possible to cast a wide net that can show something reaches statistical significance in “treating” depression) does an immense disservice to “depressed” patients. This is because there are very different manifestations of “depression,” which often require very different types of management — and to that point, I must acknowledge that for the correct type of depression (which does not comprise the majority of cases) SSRIs are actually very helpful.
There are a variety of different causes of depression. If you can identify the applicable cause, this can inform you of which treatment is most likely to help (or harm). This is important because there are a variety of treatments that do really help 10-25% of depressed patients, but when those treatments are utilized, it is almost never considered if they are being matched to the patients likely to benefit them — which in turn forces patients to go through a variety of treatments until they find the one that matches them.
Because of the emphasis on (monetizable) pharmaceutical treatments for depression, many critically important non-pharmaceutical models of depression have been largely ignored.
In turn, I would argue that many of the challenges with depression ultimately from the fact a variety of symptoms that correlate with being “unhappy” (e.g., insomnia, low energy, poor sleep, anxiety) are all lumped under the single label of depression.
In reality, each of these symptoms is often representative of different issues within the body and I believe that if doctors were trained to view each psychiatric symptom as having a specific meaning tied to it (rather than being folded into these broad brush strokes) it would often become possible to determine what the root cause of a patient’s unwellness is (as opposed to it being deemed “depression” and just treated with an antidepressant).
Note: The approaches we have found frequently help each specific type of depression are discussed in further detail in the longer version of this article.
My sincere hope with COVID-19 would that it be such a shock to the public that it would make the populace begin to open to scrutinizing longstanding medical “truths” we all just assumed to have to be true (e.g., because the pharmaceutical industry spent a lot of money branding its profitable reality to the entire world).
While the events of the last three years have been incredibly tragic, it has simultaneously been extremely encouraging to see how many people are waking up to the degree that the pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine.
In turn, more and more people are now searching for physicians who can creatively provide integrative care that is customized to each individual patient to the patient’s specific symptoms.
I feel this shift has the power to be immensely transformative for society. As I have tried to show throughout this series, at the end of the day, money is often the thing that dictates how medicine is practiced.
Thus, often the most powerful thing we can do to shift this dysfunctional paradigm is to simply use our healthcare dollars to support the practice of medicine we believe needs to be followed and starve those that should not be.
A note from Dr. Mercola about the author
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them.
Some people claim that certain foods, such as soy, dairy, and specific fats, can lower testosterone levels in the body. However, research into testosterone-lowering foods is limited.
A person can also increase testosterone levels naturally by exercising regularly and maintaining a moderate weight.
The food an individual eats can affect many aspects of health. Food powers the cells and may affect some of the body’s other components, including hormones such as testosterone.
This article explores whether diet can lower testosterone and which foods may affect it.
A note about sex and gender
Sex and gender exist on spectrums. This article will use the terms “male,” “female,” or both to refer to sex assigned at birth. Click here to learn more.
Testosterone is one of the major sex hormones in the body. Although males produce more testosterone, it is also an important hormone for females. Testosterone promotes an increase in:
muscle mass
bone mass
body hair
Typically, the body does an effective job regulating the hormones and keeping levels of testosterone where they need to be.
Some individuals claim that an excess of certain foods may interfere with this process, resulting in a hormonal imbalance. People who have concerns about their testosterone levels might choose to limit the following foods.
However, it is important to note that the research regarding food’s ability to lower testosterone levels is limited. As the current evidence exists, it is not possible to draw strong conclusions about the following foods and testosterone levels.
Soy foods, such as tofu, edamame, and soy protein isolates, contain phytoestrogens. These compounds are physically similar to the estrogen in the body and function in a similar way.
An older 2014 paperTrusted Source noted that although scientists have conducted much research into soy, they still do not understand it fully.
The author notes that many studies have not found a connection between eating soy products and altered serum testosterone or estrogen levels.
In fact, a 2021 meta-analysis concludes that neither soy nor phytoestrogens have any effect on testosterone levels. A technical review the same year confirms there is no evidence supporting the claim that phytoestrogens disrupt the human endocrine system.
Anyone with concerns about their testosterone levels might also consider giving up or limiting alcohol. This may be especially true for males.
While some studies have found evidence that a small amount of alcohol increases testosterone levels in males, this is generally not the case. As a 2017 review notes, heavy drinking or regular drinking over long periods causes a decreaseTrusted Source in testosterone in men.
The paper also notes that alcohol consumption causes an increase in testosterone levels in females.
An older 2014 reviewTrusted Source also noted that there is some high quality evidence showing that mint lowers testosterone levels in women with PCOS.
However, there is not enough high quality evidence surrounding the effect of the herb in general, particularly on males who have concerns about their testosterone levels.
Most of the research on the topic focuses on animal models or females. Future studies should investigate the effects of mint on both sexes to get a better overall picture.
A 2018 studyTrusted Source linked a diet high in bread, pastries, and other desserts to low total testosterone levels in Taiwanese men. Additional factors included high dairy consumption, dining out regularly, and not eating enough dark green vegetables.
According to the research, these participants also had decreased muscle mass and increased body fat.
A 2018 studyTrusted Source references that licorice root can reduce testosterone in healthy women during menstrual cycles. Animal studies also show that licorice supplementation can lower testosterone levels.
Ideally, any future studies would look into the effects of licorice on both sexes to better understand how the herb acts in general.
The type of fat a person eats may also affect their testosterone levels and function. A 2017 study looked at the dietary patterns of young, healthy men in regard to their hormone levels and testicular function.
The research indicated that eating trans fats may lowerTrusted Source testosterone levels in the body. They also found that too many omega-6 fatty acids appear to reduce testicular size and function.
However, eating plenty of polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids may increase testicle size and improve function. The researchers called for more studies to confirm their findings, but people concerned about their testosterone levels may want to avoid trans fats and limit omega-6 fats.
Diet and exercise play an essential role in maintaining health and keeping the hormones balanced. Some people claim that certain foods — especially soy — may reduce testosterone levels in the body.
However, studies largely show a lack of evidence for these claims. Nevertheless, anyone concerned about their testosterone levels may want to limit these foods.
People may worry if they notice clots in their menstrual blood. however, blood clots during a period are normal and rarely a cause for concern.
Menstrual clots are a mixture of blood cells, tissue from the uterus lining, and proteins in the blood that help regulate its flow.
Some medical conditions can cause large blood clots, often alongside heavy menstrual bleeding or period pains. People should see a doctor if they have concerns about their menstrual clots.
Learn more about what blood clots in menstrual blood can mean and when to see a doctor.
It might be surprising to see a thick glob of menstrual blood, but passing small blood clots should not be a cause for concern in most cases. Small means that the clot is not larger than a quarter.
While passing smaller clots do not usually mean a problem, sometimes passing larger ones or clots (of any size) too often can be a sign of a health condition.
Blood clots are a natural part of the body’s defense mechanism. The thick, jelly-like texture of a menstrual clot helps prevent too much blood from escaping. The same clotting function happens elsewhere in the body in response to an injury to the tissue, such as a cut or laceration.
Menstrual clots generally occur when the flow is heavy. They are more common during the first 2 days of menstruation, typically the heaviest part of a period.
Clots can be bright in color or a darker, deeper red. More sizeable clots may look black. Menstrual blood begins to appear darker and more brown toward the end of each period as the blood is older and leaves the body less quickly.
During menstruation, the endometrial cells that line the uterus strip away and leave the body.
As this happens, the body releases proteins that cause the blood in the uterus to coagulate. This coagulation prevents the blood vessels in the uterine lining from continuing to bleed.
The blood that the body has already shed also contains these coagulation proteins.
When the flow is most substantial, the coagulation proteins within the blood may start to clump together, resulting in menstrual clots. This generally occurs when menstrual blood pools in the uterus or vagina before leaving the body.
Although it is normal to have clots in the blood during menstruation, this symptom can sometimes signal a medical issue.
It is advisable to seek medical advice if the clots:
are larger than a quarter in size
are very frequent
occur with an abnormally heavy flow that requires a person to change their pad or tampon at least every 1–2 hours
occur with significant pain
The following conditions may cause atypical menstrual clots:
1. Uterine polyps or fibroids
A blockage in the uterus may stop it from contracting as it should, meaning that it cannot force the blood out as quickly as usual. The blood will leave the body more slowly, giving it more time to pool and form clumps.
The blockage can also cause a heavier flow, which results in more blood pooling.
Blockages may occur as a result of growths in the uterus. These include uterine polyps and fibroids, which are not cancerous but can cause other health issues without proper management.
Uterine polyps and fibroids comprise endometrial or muscular tissue that grows in the uterine wall. They can cause symptoms such as:
In people with adenomyosis, the uterine lining grows into the muscular wall of the uterus.
This can make the endometrial lining and uterine wall much thicker, leading to a much heavier flow during a period. As a result, it is more likely that blood clots will appear in the menstrual blood.
4. Hormonal imbalances
The balance of hormones in the body is essential for maintaining a healthy uterus.
If the levels of specific hormones become unbalanced, many issues can occur, including heavy menstruation or clotting.
5. Pregnancy loss
During a miscarriage or pregnancy loss, a person will usually pass some large clots, depending on the stage of the pregnancy.
Pregnancy loss can sometimes occur before a person knows that they are pregnant, so they may mistake an early miscarriage for a regular menstrual cycle.
6. Enlarged uterus
After pregnancy, a person’s uterus often remains somewhat larger than it was before. An enlarged uterus can also be due to structural issues, such as fibroids.
There will be additional space for the blood to pool in, which could lead to further clotting before it exits the body.
7. Bleeding disorders
Some bleeding disorders may be responsible for heavy menstrual flow, as they can affect the coagulation proteins that the uterine lining needs to stop menstrual bleeding.
Disorders such as platelet function disorder or von Willebrand’s disease (VWD) may cause abnormally heavy menstruation.
People who are experiencing very heavy menstrual bleeding or have clots larger than a quarter in their menstrual blood should see a doctor, especially if they have any of the signs or symptoms of the conditions mentioned above.
What is a heavy flow?
A person with heavy menstruation may have to change their pad, tampon, or menstrual cup more than once every 2 hours for part of their period. They may also need two pads at a time and may miss out on everyday activities due to their menstrual flow.
People with very heavy periods have a higher risk of iron-deficiency anemia.
Anemia occurs when there are fewer red blood cells in the body than usual. Low iron levels can cause this because the body needs iron to make new healthy blood cells.
To diagnose the cause of atypical menstrual clots, a doctor may ask about signs and symptoms, order blood or imaging tests, carry out a physical examination, or a combination of these.
Finding out the cause will help determine the most appropriate course of treatment.
Doctors may advise taking an iron supplement if they believe someone is losing too much blood or may be at risk of anemia.
They may also suggest some actions that people can take at home, such as:
eating a healthful diet that includes iron-rich foods
doing regular physical activity
Medication
Doctors may prescribe hormonal medications to help balance the hormones and control heavy bleeding. They may suggest using or changing a birth control method. Intrauterine devices (IUDs) containing progestin may reduce blood flow, and some birth control pills may also help.
Doctors may recommend taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) during the period to help reduce symptoms, such as cramping, pain, and discomfort. NSAIDs may also help with excessive bleeding.
People who prefer not to use hormone treatments may wish to try medications that control blood clotting instead. It is best to speak to a doctor about this.
Menstrual clots are normal and usually a symptom of heavy menstrual flow. Clots happen when the uterine lining sheds increased amounts of blood. When the blood pools in the uterus or vagina, it begins to coagulate, much like it would on an open skin wound.
However, anyone who notices a pattern of heavy flow or heavy clotting alongside other symptoms should see a doctor.
There are a few different causes of atypical menstruation or experiencing larger clots. A doctor can help find effective ways to treat the underlying issues and control frequent or large menstrual clots.
Bacterial imbalances in the semen microbiome may cause a reduction in semen and sperm quality, according to a new study.
Semen has its own microbiome, and bacterial imbalances may impact sperm count and quality, according to a new study.
The researchers found unusually high levels of the bacteria Lactobacillus iners in males with low sperm motility.
The link between the health of the semen microbiome and gut microbiome remains unclear.
Experts say healthy lifestyle choices that promote a healthy gut could also support the health of the semen microbiome.
Globally, there is a reported decreaseTrusted Source in male sperm count or the number of viable sperm within semen.
Some research points toward pollution as a factor contributing to male infertility, but this does not explain why an estimated 30% of semen is considered abnormal.
A new reproductive study of semen examined the impact of the health of the semen microbiome on sperm motility, which is the sperm’s ability to swim successfully through the female reproductive system to reach and potentially fertilize an ovum or egg.
The study finds that high levels of the bacteria Lactobacillus iners (L. iners) are associated with low sperm motility.
This study represents the first time a distinct semen microbiome has been suggested and investigated, and the first in which L. iners has been linked to a lowering of sperm motility.
Along with “sperm helpers,” such as enzymes, fructose, and citric acid, there is a community of bacteria within semen.
In addition to L. iners, the most prominent bacteria found in semen include:
Enterococcus faecalis
Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum
Staphylococcus epidermidis
Finegoldia magna
For the study, the semen of 73 males seeking treatment for reproduction issues or vasectomies was analyzed.
The researchers found that 27 males with reproduction issues all exhibited higher amounts of L. iners compared to the 46 males seeking vasectomies who had already successfully reproduced and who had healthy semen.
The males with abnormal semen also had comparatively higher levels of the bacteria Pseudomonas stutzeri and Pseudomonas fluorescens. They had lower levels of Pseudomonas putida than those with normal semen.
The study’s first author, Dr. Vadim Osadchiy, an academic urologist specializing in men’s health and infertility, explained how the L. iners bacteria present in males and females may affect infertility:
In females, “this microbe can act as a symbiotic organism, meaning it helps maintain the healthy vaginal microbiome and prevents bad players from taking over,” Dr. Osadchiy said.
The relationship, if any, between the lesser-known semen microbiome and the gut microbiome is unclear, but experts have a few theories.
“I think the farther away you get from the reproductive tract, anatomically speaking, the more tenuous the relationship becomes between the semen microbiome and the various other microbiomes in our bodies,” Dr. Osadchiy suggested.
“We know there is an intimate relationship between the urinary and semen microbiome as the reproductive and urinary tract are interconnected [although] the two microbiomes are certainly distinct,” Dr. Osadchiy added.
Dr. Menka Gupta, a functional medicine doctor with NutraNourish, not involved in the study, suggested it may be possible to improve semen microbiome health but prioritizing gut health.
“I can potentially see a connection between the gut and the semen microbiome through lifestyle factors such as diet, level of stress, [and] exposure to toxins,” Dr. Gupta said.
Dr. Osadchiy noted it may be possible that a gut microbiome with inflammation could “result in conditions that favor a pro-inflammatory semen microbiome.”
“I’m not sure if there is too much definitive data on this yet, but that would be my hunch,” he said.
Dr. Gupta said further exploration of the role of the semen microbiome in fertility outcomes is needed, which could lead to “new treatments to improve sperm parameters and male fertility.”
Dr. Osadchiy agreed, noting there’s still much to learn about the body’s microbiomes in general, specifically the semen microbiome.
“We know that microbial community interactions can be just as important as the actions of individual players, so work to understand microbial communities in semen would help contextualize our findings. There are still so many questions related to the semen microbiome. More exploratory work but larger sample sizes and greater geographic diversity may help us better characterize what is expected variability since it’s likely there isn’t just one ‘good’ semen microbiome and not just one ‘bad’ microbiome.”
— Dr. Vadim Osadchiy, first study author
Dr. Osadchiy said a deeper understanding of the relationship between the semen microbiome and infertility is also needed, and researchers currently lack “a good sense of what sort of factors are under our control to positively (or negatively) impact the semen microbiome.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised if what is good for the body in general is also good for the semen microbiome,” Dr. Osadchiy added.
Despite the lack of understanding of the relationship between the semen and gut microbiome, both Dr. Osadchiy and Dr. Gupta recommended prioritizing healthy lifestyle choices to improve sperm quality and motility. These include:
The cerebellum is responsible for far more than coordinating movement. New techniques reveal that it is, in fact, a hub of sensory and emotional processing in the brain.
Introduction
In recent decades, neuroscience has seen some stunning advances, and yet a critical part of the brain remains a mystery. I am referring to the cerebellum, so named for the Latin for “little brain,” which is situated like a bun at the back of the brain. This is no small oversight: The cerebellum contains three-quarters of all the brain’s neurons, which are organized in an almost crystalline arrangement, in contrast to the tangled thicket of neurons found elsewhere.
Encyclopedia articles and textbooks underscore the fact that the cerebellum’s function is to control body movement. There is no question that the cerebellum has this function. But scientists now suspect that this long-standing view is myopic.
Or so I learned in November in Washington, D.C., while attending the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting, the largest meeting of neuroscientists in the world. There, a pair of neuroscientists organized a symposium on newly discovered functions of the cerebellum unrelated to motor control. New experimental techniques are showing that in addition to controlling movement, the cerebellum regulates complex behaviors, social interactions, aggression, working memory, learning, emotion and more.
A Crack in Dominant Wisdom
The connection between the cerebellum and movement has been known since the 19th century. Patients suffering trauma to the brain region had obvious difficulties with balance and movement, leaving no doubt that it was critical for coordinating motion. Over the decades, neuroscientists developed a detailed understanding of how the cerebellum’s unique neural circuitry controls motor function. The explanation of how the cerebellum worked seemed watertight.
Then, in 1998, in the journal Brain, neurologists reported on wide-ranging emotional and cognitive disabilities in patients with damage to the cerebellum. For example, in 1991, a 22-year-old female college student had fallen while ice skating; a CT scan revealed a tumor in her cerebellum. After it was removed surgically, she was a completely different person. The bright college student had lost her ability to write with proficiency, do mental arithmetic, name common objects or copy a simple diagram. Her mood flattened. She hid under covers and behaved inappropriately, undressing in the corridors and speaking in baby talk. Her social interactions, including recognizing familiar faces, were also impaired.
This and similar cases puzzled the authors. These high-level cognitive and emotional functions were understood to reside in the cerebral cortex and limbic system. “Precisely what that cerebellar role is, and how the cerebellum accomplishes it, is yet to be established,” they concluded.
Despite these clues from clinical studies that conventional wisdom was on the wrong track, leading authorities still insisted that the function of the cerebellum was to control movement and nothing more. “It is kind of sad because it has been 20 years [since these cases were reported],” said Diasynou Fioravante, a neurophysiologist at the University of California, Davis, who co-organized the conference symposium.
Other neurologists have noticed neuropsychiatric deficits in their patients all along, said the neuroscientist Stephanie Rudolph of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, who co-organized the symposium with Fioravante. However, there was no hard anatomical evidence for how the cerebellum’s unique neural circuitry could possibly regulate the reported psychological and emotional functions, so the clinical reports were overlooked.
Now, a better understanding of the cerebellum’s circuitry is proving those case studies right and dominant wisdom wrong.
Precision Wiring
The wiring pattern in the cerebellum is precisely organized and compacted to concentrate three-quarters of the brain’s neurons into a 4-inch lobe. The principal type of neuron in the cerebellum, called the Purkinje cell, is widely branching like a fan coral, yet flattened and nearly two-dimensional. The fan’s blades are the neuron’s dendrites, which receive incoming signals. These flat neurons are arranged in parallel, as if millions of fan corals were stacked atop each other in a tight bundle. Thousands of tiny neurons run axons — the brain’s transmission cables for electrical impulses — perpendicularly through the stack of dendrites, like threads in a loom. Each axon connects with the dendrites of tens of thousands of Purkinje cells
This level of interconnectivity gives the cerebellum’s 50 billion neurons an astonishing capacity for integration. This circuitry, unique to the cerebellum, can crunch enormous amounts of incoming data from the senses to regulate body movement. The fluid movement of a ballerina leaping across the stage requires the cerebellum to rapidly process information from all senses while tracking the changing positions of limbs, maintaining balance, and mapping the space through which the body is moving. The cerebellum uses that dynamic information to control muscles with precise timing, and to do so in the right social context, driven by emotion and motivation.
Fioravante and Rudolph told me that neuroscientists are now realizing that the powerful neural circuitry in the cerebellum that integrates information for body movement also equips it to handle complex mental processes and behaviors.
“For example, right now,” Rudolph explained as we talked before the symposium began, “you ask questions, and we give answers. That is a complex behavior.” She needed to comprehend my speech, formulate a response, and then use muscles to produce words. She also had to take in my body language and other subtle signals. “You are nodding right now, for example, so from this I can conclude that you are listening and interested,” she said.
I had not fully appreciated the complexity of the motor control required for speech before. The physicality includes not only the intricate gymnastics of tongue and lips — to produce sound as well as adjust pitch and volume — but also gesticulation. Our words are timed so we don’t talk over the other person, and they are regulated for the social context: infused with the proper emotion and driven by motivation, thought, anticipation and mood.
Coordinating these diverse functions requires tapping into nearly everything the brain does — from regulation of heart rate and blood pressure, performed in deep brain regions, to the processing of sensory and emotional information, performed by the limbic system. It also requires engaging with the highest-level cognitive functions of comprehension, inhibition and decision-making in the prefrontal cerebral cortex.
For the cerebellum to do that, it would have to have connections that span the entire brain. Until now, evidence for that was lacking, but new techniques are uncovering these pathways.
A Hub of Sensory Input
Mere decades ago, when neuroanatomists mapped the brain, they couldn’t find any direct connections from the cerebellum to brain regions that control emotion and cognition, such as the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex. That led them to believe that the cerebellum was somewhat isolated and uninvolved in these higher cognitive functions. But just as bandits might evade a tracker by changing vehicles, neural signals can leap from one neuron to the next. This undercover action threw neuroanatomists off the cerebellum’s trail.
New methods have enabled neuroanatomists to trace those pathways from the cerebellum across relay points, following them across the entire brain. Researchers can, for example, plant rabies viruses in neurons to see precisely which other neurons they contact. They’ve genetically engineered fluorescent proteins to flash when a neural impulse fires so they can see the flow of traffic in neural circuits. They can also track footprints left behind by neuronal traffic: The appearance of proteins produced when a neuron fires can help identify all the cells communicating in a neural network when a specific behavior is performed.
At the symposium, researchers shared a flurry of fascinating new findings revealed by these new methods that demonstrate their evolving understanding of the cerebellum.
Jessica Verpeut of Arizona State University reported data describing the intricate and expansive network of cerebellar connections that are activated throughout the brain in mice when they socialize or learn to negotiate a maze.
Rudolph shared experiments showing that maternal behavior, studied in female mice caring for their pups, was affected by hormones acting on the cerebellum, especially the hormone oxytocin, which promotes maternal bonding. When this mechanism was disrupted experimentally, the mother no longer cared for her pups
Yi-Mei Yang of the University of Minnesota showed that when she disrupted certain cerebellar neurons, mice lost interest in engaging with unfamiliar mice introduced into their cage. However, they had no difficulties interacting with and remembering novel inanimate objects. This indicated a deficit in complex social-recognition memory, similar to what autistic people experience.
In fact, the cerebellum is often smaller in autistic people, and Aleksandra Badura from Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam presented new data suggesting that the cerebellum is involved in autism because it is a hub of sensory input, especially for signals related to social contexts.
This new research goes beyond mouse studies. Andreas Thieme from University Hospital Essen in Germany presented a new clinical test used to accurately diagnose the emotional and cognitive impairments caused by cerebellar damage.
These new, groundbreaking studies show that in addition to controlling movement, the cerebellum regulates complex social and emotional behavior. To achieve this global influence, the cerebellum must be a data-crunching hub with connections throughout the brain. No wonder it has so many neurons. To accomplish this high-order command and control on its own, it must be, in fact, a little brain.
Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.
PALOMA-2 demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival with palbociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (ER+/HER2–) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we report results for the secondary end point overall survival (OS). Postmenopausal women (N = 666) with ER+/HER2– ABC without previous systemic therapy for ABC were randomly assigned 2:1 to palbociclib plus letrozole or placebo plus letrozole. After a median follow-up of 90.1 months, 405 deaths were observed and 155 patients were known to be alive. The median OS was 53.9 months (95% CI, 49.8 to 60.8) with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 51.2 months (95% CI, 43.7 to 58.9) with placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.18]; stratified one-sided P = .34). An imbalance in the number of patients with unknown survival outcome between the treatment arms (13.3% v 21.2%, respectively) limited interpretation of OS results. With recovered survival data, the median OS was 53.8 (95% CI, 49.8 to 59.2) versus 49.8 months (95% CI, 42.3 to 56.4), respectively (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.12]; one-sided P = .21). OS was not significantly improved with palbociclib plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole.
“Let food be thy medicine, thy medicine shall be thy food.”—Hippocrates
Good nutrition can play a crucial role in maintaining health, controlling weight, and recovering from illnesses. Good nutrition includes an adequate intake of necessary vitamins and minerals. Many healthy people, therefore, believe vitamin and mineral supplementation will boost their health. The issue of nutritional supplementation is of even higher priority for patients with cancer who want to do their part, eat right, and take supplements that may help them tolerate cancer treatment and reduce the risk of cancer recurrence. However, vitamin and mineral supplementation may help only at times and can even hurt under some circumstances. Therefore, high-quality guidelines are necessary for oncologists and health care providers to appropriately counsel patients on the value of adequate nutrition, weight control, and nutritional supplementation. In the article that accompanies this editorial, Haemmerle and Jatoi1 provide much-needed evidence-based guidelines that can inform dietary recommendations in oncology practices.
First and foremost, the authors highlight an important association between changes in body weight and oncological outcomes; weight loss at diagnosis and during cancer treatment as well as weight gain particularly in cancer survivors can negatively influence outcomes.2–4 Therefore, it is advisable to regularly evaluate patients for nutritional intake and weight changes; these assessments should preferably start at the time of diagnosis of cancer and continue through cancer treatment and afterward as a part of ongoing survivorship care. For patients with cancer, the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition guidelines recommend 1 g/kg/day of protein (if possible, up to 1.5 g/kg/day) and 25-30 kcal/kg/day of caloric intake.5 A dietician can be consulted to formulate a specific diet plan for each patient. However, adequate oral intake of healthy diet can be a challenge because of loss of appetite. As discussed by the authors, it is important to discuss with patients and their families that weight loss do not indicate their shortcomings in maintaining enough oral intake; rather, weight loss and poor appetite could be due to medical reasons. Such reasons include underlying cancer and cancer treatment or other causes of pain, nausea/vomiting, abnormal taste, or smell. Depression and bowel obstruction could also cause poor appetite and weight loss in some patients. Addressing these causes, whenever possible, may improve oral intake and weight.
Haemmerle and Jatoi1 discuss appetite stimulants that can be helpful to improve appetite in some patients but carry a risk of undesirable side effects and may not necessarily improve long-term outcomes.6 Commonly used appetite stimulants are megestrol acetate, a pregestational agent, and corticosteroids, which have similar efficacy, although corticosteroids usually have a higher risk of toxicities.7 In the recent years, olanzapine has been increasingly used as an option to prevent or treat chemotherapy-induced nausea. Additionally, in a randomized trial, the use of low-dose olanzapine was associated with improvement in appetite and weight gain in a significantly higher proportion of patients than placebo.8 Thus, low-dose olanzapine can offer a safe and effective option in many patients, who may benefit from antiemetic property of the medicine in addition to its value in improving appetite and weight.
Nutritional supplementation is another approach to preventing or reducing weight loss. Oral intake of calorie and protein dense supplements can be useful to prevent or reduce weight loss. Enteral nutritional supplementation through a feeding tube or through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube may be appropriate in some cases; however, parenteral nutrition has limited role, except for short-term use in select patients. Additionally, nutritional supplementation may not be helpful toward the end of life or in palliative care settings. In addition to nutritional supplementation, regular physical activity can be helpful to maintain lean muscle mass and muscle strength.9,10
Excessive weight gain and metabolic syndrome can have detrimental effects in cancer survivors. Obesity is known to increase the risk of cancer recurrence and reduce survival in patients with a history of breast and gastric cancers.4,11,12 For these reasons, cancer survivors should be advised to maintain a normal body weight as much as possible by adopting physically active lifestyle and eating diet rich in vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, and low in saturated fat, red meat, and alcohol. However, the authors do not recommend a specific diet, such as keto diet, for weight control, given a lack of high-quality evidence that keto diet improves outcomes or health-related quality of life in patients with cancer.
We agree with the authors that high-dose vitamin supplementation has not shown conclusive benefits in well-designed randomized trials. Whereas the guidelines recommend the use of long-chain N-3 fatty acids or fish oil on the basis of some positive studies, a systemic review reported no significant effect on cancer cachexia.13–15 Along the same line, although a supply of vitamins and minerals from a balanced diet is important, supplementation of regular dose vitamins and minerals is not of clear benefit, except for patients who lack adequate dietary intake or have malabsorption issues leading to micronutrient deficiencies. Importantly, the results from studies on beta carotene and vitamin E supplementation remind us that supplements at times can be harmful and can instead increase the incidence of lung cancer and prostate cancer.16–18
Future research should focus on confirmatory clinical trials to assess the benefits of nutritional supplementation and other interventions conducted on the basis of patients’ unique needs. Such trials should take into consideration various patient characteristics, including baseline nutritional status and cancer types, as such factors may influence the benefit of nutritional interventions. Head-to-head studies should compare the efficacy and side effects of different appetite stimulants. A phase III Alliance trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04939090), led by Dr Jatoi, will determine whether olanzapine is superior to megestrol acetate in improving appetite among patients with advanced cancer. Such confirmatory clinical trials are essential to advance the nutritional science and clinical practice in a data-driven approach. Various strategies for weight control, including personalized exercise regimens, behavioral interventions, and novel pharmaceutical approaches, are essential to mitigate obesity and metabolic syndrome in cancer survivors. While assessing the impact of dietary and weight interventions, it is important to incorporate outcomes, such as cancer recurrence rates, survival, and health-related quality of life, and to capture longer-term effects of the study intervention. Patient-centered research should also investigate the psychosocial impact of dietary and exercise interventions, ensuring a broader understanding of patient experiences and potential barriers to implementation. Gut microbiome research is another emerging area; the effects of specific diet or nutritional supplementation on gut microbiome may provide mechanistic insights on how diet, microbiome, and cancer outcomes are linked. To conduct such important research, an interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary between oncology and nurse scientists, nutrition and exercise scientists, and other researchers. Only with such collaboration and high-quality research, we can improve care of patients with cancer and answer the question of whether “thy food could be thy medicine.”
Fried eggs, a classic breakfast favorite and a versatile ingredient in numerous dishes, have been a subject of controversy when it comes to their potential health implications. While eggs are a rich source of essential nutrients and proteins, the cooking method used to prepare them can significantly impact their nutritional value and potential health risks. In this comprehensive article, we will delve into the pros and cons of consuming fried eggs, exploring their nutritional benefits, the effects of frying on their composition, and the potential negative aspects associated with excessive consumption or unhealthy frying practices.
The Nutritional Benefits of Eggs:
Eggs are considered a nutritional powerhouse, packed with essential nutrients that contribute to overall health. A single large egg contains essential vitamins, minerals, and proteins, including:
1. Protein: Eggs are an excellent source of complete protein, providing all nine essential amino acids that our bodies cannot produce on their own.
2. Vitamins: Eggs are rich in vitamins such as vitamin B12, vitamin D, vitamin A, and riboflavin (B2), which play vital roles in various bodily functions.
3. Minerals: Eggs contain minerals like iron, phosphorus, and selenium, which are essential for maintaining healthy bodily functions.
4. Choline: Eggs are one of the best sources of choline, a nutrient that supports brain health and is essential during pregnancy for fetal brain development.
5. Antioxidants: Eggs contain antioxidants such as lutein and zeaxanthin, which promote eye health and reduce the risk of age-related macular degeneration.
The Effects of Frying on Eggs:
Frying eggs involves cooking them in oil or butter at high temperatures, which can alter their nutritional composition. Here are some potential effects of frying on eggs:
1. Fat Content: Frying eggs in oil or butter significantly increases their fat content. While healthy fats are essential for the body, excessive consumption of fried eggs may lead to an increase in saturated and trans fats, which can contribute to heart disease and other health issues when consumed in large amounts.
2. Caloric Density: Fried eggs have a higher caloric density compared to boiled or poached eggs due to the added fats used for frying. This can be a concern for individuals trying to manage their weight or reduce calorie intake.
3. Oxidation: High-temperature frying can lead to the oxidation of fats in the eggs, forming harmful free radicals. These free radicals can contribute to oxidative stress in the body, potentially damaging cells and increasing the risk of chronic diseases.
4. Nutrient Loss: The high heat of frying can lead to a reduction in the nutrient content of eggs. For instance, water-soluble vitamins like vitamin B12 and folate can be sensitive to heat and may degrade during frying.
Potential Health Risks of Excessive Fried Egg Consumption:
While eggs, including fried eggs, can be a nutritious addition to a balanced diet when consumed in moderation, excessive consumption may have some potential health risks:
1. Cardiovascular Health: Consuming a diet high in saturated and trans fats from fried eggs and other fried foods can contribute to elevated cholesterol levels and increase the risk of heart disease.
2. Weight Management: Frequent consumption of fried eggs, which are higher in calories than other cooking methods, can contribute to weight gain when not balanced with other aspects of the diet and physical activity.
3. Type 2 Diabetes: A diet high in unhealthy fats, such as those found in fried eggs, has been associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
4. Acrylamide Formation: Frying eggs at high temperatures can lead to the formation of acrylamide, a chemical compound that has been classified as a potential carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
Healthy Cooking Alternatives:
To enjoy the nutritional benefits of eggs while minimizing potential health risks associated with frying, consider healthier cooking alternatives:
1. Boiled Eggs: Boiling eggs is a simple and nutritious cooking method that preserves most of their nutrients without the need for added fats.
2. Poached Eggs: Poaching eggs in water can provide a tasty alternative without the need for oil or butter.
3. Scrambled Eggs: If you prefer the texture of fried eggs, consider lightly scrambling them in a non-stick pan with minimal oil or butter.
4. Baking: Baking eggs in the oven can be a healthier option, as it reduces the need for added fats.
Conclusion:
Fried eggs, like any food, can be a part of a balanced diet when consumed in moderation. They offer an array of essential nutrients and can be prepared in healthier ways to minimize potential health risks. However, excessive consumption of fried eggs and other fried foods high in unhealthy fats may contribute to adverse health effects, particularly in the context of an overall unhealthy diet.
To enjoy the nutritional benefits of eggs while maintaining a healthy lifestyle, consider alternative cooking methods that reduce the use of added fats. As with any dietary choice, it is essential to strike a balance, practice moderation, and complement egg consumption with a variety of nutrient-dense foods and a healthy lifestyle. Consulting with a healthcare professional or registered dietitian can provide personalized guidance on incorporating fried eggs into a well-rounded diet that meets individual health needs and goals.
Researchers at the City University of Hong Kong (CityU) have found in a mouse study that the application of low-dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) such as X-ray radiation can reduce lesion size and reverse motor deficits in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and ischemic stroke. The method, reported in the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, could provide a significant improve in the treatment of these patients as nearly half currently experience lifelong motor impairments and disability.
“Usually, secondary brain damage worsens over time after primary injuries in TBI (mechanical insults such as a car accident or falls by older adults) and strokes (when blood flow to the brain is blocked), owing to the unfavorable and hostile neuroinflammatory environment in the brain,” explained Eddie Ma Chi-him, PhD, a professor in the department of Neuroscience at CityU, who led the research. “But there is still no effective treatment for repairing the central nervous system after brain injury.”
Ma Chi-him’s team at CityU built their study based on the history of low-dose X-ray irradiation which has been shown to enhance adaptive responses that include extending life expectancy, improving immune response, improved wound healing, cell growth stimulation, and neuroprotection in animal models of neurodegenerative diseases. They theorized that given these known attributes that LDIR could potentially also have beneficial effects for TBI and stroke therapy, by mitigating damage and promoting wound healing.
The results of the study showed that not only did low-dose ionizing radiation completely reverse motor deficits and restored brain activity in TBI and stroke mouse models, but that these effects were still observed when the treatment was provided eight hours after the injury. This second finding is especially significant for translating this treatment method to the clinical as it is likely many hour may pass for patients before they could be treated.
For this research, the mice were treated for whole-body X-ray irradiation after researchers induced a brain injury or ischemic stroke, who the control mice received no irradiation. Seven days post brain injury the treated mice showed lesion size reduction of 48%, MRI showed that the treatment significantly reduced the infarct volume of the stroke mice by 43% to 51% during the first week after the stroke was induced. Past clinical observations show that stroke patients with a lower infarct volume have improved outcomes.
The treated mice also exhibited significant improvements in motor function post-treatment in both the TBI and ischemic stroke mouse populations as measured by narrow beam walking and grip strength. These measured improves showed that the LDIR mice took less time to transverse the beam and had fewer slips, evidence of motor coordination and balance.
In addition to the observed physical and function improvements, the investigators conducted transcriptomic analysis of the mice and found that the genes upregulated in the LDIR mice were enriched in pathways related to inflammatory and immune responses involving microglia. Perhaps the most important finding was that LDIR promoted axonal projections—or brain rewiring—in the motor cortex and recovered brain activity as measured by EEG months after stroke.
“Our findings indicate that LDIR is a promising therapeutic strategy for TBI and stroke patients,” Ma Chi-him concluded. “X-ray irradiation equipment for medical use is commonly available in all major hospitals. We believe this strategy could be used to address unmet medical needs in accelerating motor function restoration within a limited therapeutic window after severe brain injury, like TBI and stroke, warranting further clinical studies for a potential treatment strategy for patients.”
ARYAN'S BLOG 
