undeather

Very Cool!

Based on a decade of understanding interpreting data I on my phone right now - so forgive me for not going to detail - but trust me it's nonsense! I might reply later with a more detailed analysis

Nothing about that graph is either accurate, scientific or in any sense useful! Those confidence intervals also do net reflect biological differences - it's an common artefact of survey studies.

What a meaningless graph. "Moderate Increase", lol. Look at those confidence intervals. Even at first glance, without checking it's source - I can guarantee you it's complete garbage. Let me check.... Yep, I was right: This is a lightly photoshopped version of the "Memory Chart" from a study that used self-reported data from the r/nootropics subreddit. https://darktka.github.io/ - and that survey wasnt event about IQ. Thank god someone edited "Source: Israel institute of medical Science" into it - so it comes across as more believeable to clueless readers on social media.

Depends ... By taking capsules, most of your side effect profile will affect your gastrointestinal system (especially diarrhea). You will only absorp a fraction - meaining that much less of that will actually end up in your blood stream (i.v VitC can be much more "problematic") That said, you will still peak at several 100 micromol/L. If you are healthy and don't have any underlying condition (like glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase defieciency) or kidney issues, you should be fine. If you have a family history of kidney stones or problems with iron storage (hemchromatosis), I would not recommend playing around with such high dosages.

Hey guys, Few days ago, Robert Lawrence Kuhn (known from: Closer to truth) released a paper which explores all the diverse theories of consciousness and aims to categorize these explanations to understand their broader implications. The paper addresses various perspectives on consciousness, including physicalist, non-physicalist, materialist, quantum, and neurobiological viewpoints. Even though I have a very particular view of conciousness, which was mainly influenced by personal experiences, this is a god-tier piece of literature which gives you a great overview of all the different options on the table. I really enjoyed reading it and I think many of you will feel the same. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610723001128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003 Enjoy

Check out the youtube-channel of my cherished friend Anoop Kumar, MD. He has his own, conciousness first, framework of what constitutes "healing" and interviews those who apparently cured their chronic and sometimes fatal conditions: Also, check out his interview with Jeff Redeiger, author of the book "CURED".

Why has it been only fear mongering without context from your side lately? Every drug or medical intervention is associated with a whole array of potential side effects - this includes mainstream pharmaceuticals, plant-based "natural" alternatives, as well as acupuncture, chiropractic/osteopathic practices & even homeopathy. Everyone knows that. Going back to "no drugs" is of course inconceivable at this point, since we don't want grandma to drop dead at 60 from a simple pneunomia. The job of good scientific medicine is to approximate risks with benefits. In general, we do a pretty decent job at this - most side effects in commonly used drugs are reversible and subside after stopping treatment. Of course, we don't have a perfect system - so due to the complexity of the human biology, we will always find extreme cases where one treatment leads to life-destroying consquences. That's the game we play and it kinda sucks - but the alternative is way worse. Now, most doctors are of course aware of the unfavorable side effect profile in ciprofloxacin. It's one of the first things you learn about antibiotic drugs in medschool. That's why we don't use it as first line-therapy anymore. Not using ciprofloxacin has been good medical practice since at least 10 years now - and the FDA has even warned about the side effects since the early 2000s. You rarely see this drug anymore, because there are just safer alternatives - the reason we still need it is because if other antibiotics won't work (due to resistance for example) and the patients life is at risk, you always have it as a backup (second/thrid line) option. Of course you will always find a doctors who uses the drug as first line regardless, but that's not because of evdience based medicine, but because they are shitty physicians. So your assertions are wrong. Science has told us about the side effects for a very long time - and we based our decisions to turn away from ciprofloxacin on said scientific data. There are so many good arguments to be had about science being too slow to adapt or financial incentives playing a big role in this game - and I would gadly agree with those. But how about we consider the often complex & nuanced nature of such dynamics instead of falling in those boring "medicine bad"-narratives?

The conversion-rate of ALA to DHA/EPA is highly individual and influenced by a truckload of factors (such as genetic polymorphisms, Omega-6-consumption (esp. lineloic acid), sex, certain diseases, fluctiations in hormone levels (estrogen)..etc.). In general, it's pretty low. I am not aware that there are any strong correlations between ALA and arrythmias - most studies looking into that connection are focused on fish-oil supplements, which are high in EPA/DHA. That said, 50g flaxseed is quite a lot - and this will most likely significantly increase your conversion - as shown in this study. I personally would not worry too much tbh - if you are not supplementing with fish oil as well, then your body will adapt and take what it needs. If you are worried, you can get a omega-3 profile, which will give you a decent approximation.

Would you mind sharing your results please? Did they use "Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry" (ICP-MS) as a measurement-technique? Did you grow up or do you currently live in a war zone? Uranium oxide aerosols from so called "depleted uranium kinetic penetrators" can enter the body through inhalation or through depletion in food products (even though only tiny amounts get absorbed through the GI-tract) There aren't any well developed chelation protocols for uranium (as far is I know) - however, we have many animal studies looking at various potential chelators. DISCLAIMER: This is not medical advice and I do not recommend any of these. Sodium Citrate: Early dog-studies in the 1940s indicate that sodium citrate, administered either intravenously (230 mg/kg) or orally (1.15 g/kg), offer significant protection against uranium poisoning. It enhanced survival rates and mitigated renal damage in animal studies. It might not have a very strong chelation effect, but could counteract some of the negative effects supranormal concentrations might have on your organs. The acid can form stable complexes with uranium and promote excretion. Standard Compounds Tiron and Gallic Acid: Effective in increasing uranium excretion and reducing tissue uranium concentrations when administered shortly after uranium exposure. EDTA: Increases urinary excretion of uranyl ions but is less effective in mobilizing uranium bound to bone. DTPA: Standard chelating agent, though its efficacy is limited for uranium compared to other metals. 5-Aminosalicylic Acid and Ethylene Glycol Tetraacetic Acid (EGTA): Show promise in increasing survival rates and promoting uranium excretion. Newer Compounds: Hydroxypyridonate Compounds: Compounds like 3,4,3-LI(1,2-HOPO) and 5-LIO(Me-3,2-HOPO) show potential for broad-spectrum actinide chelation, demonstrating significant uranium excretion in animal studies. Bisphosphonates: Compounds such as HEDP and other bisphosphonate derivatives have been effective in rerouting uranium from kidneys and bones to the liver, enhancing excretion. My personal recommendations: Don't self-medicate with chelation compounds - only do thos under adequate supervision and with someone who know what they are doing. If you put in some work, you propably will find someone who can help you. First of all, definitely re-do your heavy metal test in the near future. It should use the best avaialble measurement protocol, which is ICP-MS. Until then, I would recommend increasing the levels of citric acid in your food. Also, avoid high amounts of sucrose & fructose (especially added variants) - since there is evidence that those substance might exacerbate the damaging effects of uranium. THis does not mean you should stop eating healthy fruits. Just be more concious about those ingredients and go easy on them. Here is a list of foods high in citric acid: I hope this helps

There is a wide variety of plastic free gum available.

+1

If you buy a fish oil/algae supplement, look for providers who regularly test the TOTOX-value ("total oxidation") of their products. A fascinating argument I tend to believe is that Omega-3 supplemetns show inconsistent study-results regarding their cardiovascular benefit because they usually don't/or half hazardly control for total-oxidation status. That might counteract some of the potential benefits.

If you stop the medication, your baseline feeling of satiety will return. So if you keep eating those small food-portions, you will experience severe sensations of hunger - and most people won't bare that for long. There are is small subset of patients who seem to keep the weight off, even after stopping the drug. But this usually always coincides with extreme lifestyle-changes. I wouldn't bet on it. Losing weight on Ozempic is different than using weight with changing someones diet-pattern & exercise.

I have seen multiple patients on Ozempic and the results are pretty insane. People who have struggled with their weight for years are suddenly able to lose weight and actually keep it off. Most side effects are mild - from my experinve, mostly slight stomach issues like nausea. Multiple studies have shown a very benign side effect profiles as well. That said, it's a pharmaceutical drug you need to keep talking for results. I think most people working in the medical field would agree that there is a certain group of patients who, for complex biopsychosocial reasons, are just not able to lose weight - and for that group, such drug is literally a miracle-cure. That said, nothing will ever beat the benefits of a persistent lifestyle change - meaning losing weight through diet & exercise. This should always be the #1 goal for every obese patient. However, it's always nice to know that you have the wonder-drug in the background.

Omega 3 from algae is the best way - Fish contain Omega-3 because they eat microalgae and plancton. That said, please don't overconsume Omega-3s - there is more and more evidence that large amounts of omega 3 might actually be pro-arrythmogenic. If you regularly eat fish-products, I would stay under 1,5mg (EPA/DHA)/day

If I had to bet, I would put my money on Bryan developing some sort of aggressively-growing, highly oncogenic form of cancer in the next, let's say 20 years. I would not wish that on him of course - but if you go by complex system principles, then this whole game is doomed to failure at some point. But let's see, maybe I am wrong!

If your symptoms emerge only 20-30 minutes after ingestion, then it has propably nothing to do with fiber, microbiome or caloric intake. My best guess from what I have read so far is propably some sort of intolerance/ IgE-mediated food hypersensitivity. Sometimes this will resolve itself once you cut out the affecetd foodgroups for a longer period of time and then reintroduce them slowly.

How about chickpeas, peas or beans? Same issue or nothing?

How quick? For how long? Does it gradually get worse until a certain point or is it more acute? Is it reproduceable? Do you take any supplements? Do you notice that with any other foods? Have you noticed this in the past?

Fallostatin blocks the effect of "myostatin" - a protein which is an important modulator of muscle-growth in the body. Meaning that you basically let go of one major hypertrophy-breaks, leading to increased muscle-growth in the process. There are actually people who have a (loss of function)-.mutation in these myostatin decoding genes, which lowers their total levels, and they come out as extraordinarily muscular in the process: Those children, as far as I know, do not suffer from any obvious side effect trade-offs. There are hints however, that it might effect the heart in later stages of life. I don't know what to think about this therapy yet - seems like a risky thing to play with such an important regulator - I would defeinitely not recommend it because I dont see the reward for a potentially life changing risk. But let's stay open minded!

It's interesting, but I would be very catious in taking those aspergeresque bay-area-prophecies at face value. If we have learned anything from past predictions, things will usually turn out unpredictably different. I think Hossenfelder made a good video about his claims:

Dave is good at debunking antiscientific nonsense in certain areas - but he does so in his typical arrogant, lecturing and "anyone who disagrees is an idiot"-type attitude. This is particularly painful when he speaks about topics he doesnt really have a deep understanding of - his episode on conciousness is pure cringe. His ideas about religion are just rehearsed New Atheist 101-talking points, which isn't really based on science. He is the most stage orange man on earth.

I feel exactly the same