by Johnny Green
The Weed Blog
Jul 23, 2014
I like to exercise, especially playing basketball. Physical fitness is something that I have always tried to take seriously, although admittedly, I take it more serious at certain times compared to others. Currently, my physical fitness is not where it needs to be, but I’ll try to get that figured out sooner than later. A question I have received at TWB from time to time is ‘does marijuana help you exercise?’
I have lifted weights and played basketball after getting high, and it seems to put me in a zone that I don’t get into when sober. I feel more focused, and more in touch with my body. Marijuana doesn’t necessarily motivate me to workout, but once I’m at the gym, it helps me get a better workout, if that makes sense. Leafly recently published an article that talks more about marijuana and exercise. A few excerpts are below:
“It’s not news to the medical community that the human body stores tetrahydrocannabidiol (THC), the main psychoactive in cannabis, in fat. However, a study put out this August in Drug and Alcohol Dependence has shown that this storage process can give exercisers an extra boost, even up to 28 days after consumption.”
“Yet, contrary to popular thought, it’s not just the endorphins (the compounds which make you feel excited after activities such as exercise and sex) that make physical activity so great. A 2003 study found that exercise actually activates the endocannabinoid system in the same way that the cannabis plant does. The endocannabinoid system is a group of lipids (types of fats) and cell receptors that cannabinoids (compounds like THC and CBD) bind to inside the body. The endocannabinoid system is responsible for easing pain, controlling appetite, and influences mood and memory. ”
“A recent study published in the American Journal of Medicine has found that regular cannabis consumers have fasting insulin (insulin in your body before eating) levels 16% lower than non-consumers. The study also found that cannabis consumers had 17% lower insulin resistance levels and lower average waist circumferences.”
Next time, before you hit the gym, try getting high first. If that’s not your thing, then by all means don’t do it. But if you are looking to see how marijuana affects your workout, give it a try. Scientific studies suggest it could help you out!
by Elizabeth Renter
Jun 13, 2014
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataracts are relatively common vision problems in older adults. Often it’s just assumed that we will suffer from some vision loss as we age due to conditions like these, but that’s not always the case. You can prevent eye disease and keep your vision healthy.
The following 4 foods may be able to help stave off vision loss while promoting overall eye health.
Jun 16, 2014
By Kathryn Doyle
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Office workers who spend long hours looking at computer screens have changes in their tear fluid similar to people with the disease known as dry eye, according to a study from Japan.
The protein MUC5AC, secreted by cells in the upper eyelid, makes up part of the normally occurring mucus layer, or “tear film,” that keeps the eye moist. But study participants with the most screen time had MUC5AC levels nearing those of people with diagnosed dry eye.
“To understand patients’ eye strain, which is one of major symptoms of dry eye disease, it is important that ophthalmologist pay attention to MUC5AC concentration in tears,” said Dr. Yuichi Uchino, an author of the new study.
Uchino is an ophthalmologist at the School of Medicine at Keio University in Tokyo.
“When we stare at computers, our blinking times decreased compared to reading a book at the table,” he told Reuters Health by email.
People staring at screens also tend to open their eyelids wider than while doing other tasks, and the extra exposed surface area in addition to infrequent blinking can accelerate tear evaporation and is associated with dry eye disease, he said.
Dry eye may be chronic for some but can be managed with over the counter or prescription eye drops.
Past research suggests that up to 5 million men and women over age 50 in the United States suffer from dry eye disease, the researchers write in their report. In Japan, tens of millions of people report some dry eye symptoms, often associated with computer work, they add.
The study team tested the tears from both eyes of 96 Japanese office workers, about two-thirds of them men, and measured how much of the total protein content of the tears was MUC5AC.
by Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse Blog
May 7, 2014
The marriage rate in the United States has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded. So why is this happening? Well, the truth is that there are a lot of reasons why so many young people are choosing not to get married today. One big reason is money. Young adults in the U.S. are really struggling to find good jobs, and many are hesitant to take a big step like marriage without achieving a certain level of financial security first. And as you will see below, many young adults (especially women) do not even want to date someone that is not employed. In this harsh economic environment, money makes a big difference in the world of romance. Another big reason for the decline of marriage in America is a seismic shift in cultural attitudes. Americans (especially young people) do not place the same kind of importance on marriage and having children that they once did. Instead, more Americans are choosing to “move in together” than ever before. But if the percentage of Americans that choose to get married continues to decline, what is that going to mean for our future, and what is our country going to look like moving forward?
According to a startling new study conducted at Bowling Green University, the marriage rate in America has fallen precipitously over the past 100 years.
That is not just a new all-time low, that is a colossal demographic earthquake.
That same study found that the marriage rate has fallen by an astounding 60 percent since 1970 alone.
As a result, U.S. households look far different today than they once did.
That is a very troubling sign if you consider the family to be one of the fundamental building blocks of society.
When young people are asked why they are delaying marriage today, one of the things that always seems to get brought up is money. There is a feeling (especially among men) that you should achieve a certain level of financial security before making the big plunge.
And it is a fact that the more money you have, the more likely you are to be married. Just check out the following stats about income and marriage from a recent Business Insider article…
83% of 30- to 50-year-old men in the top 10% of annual earnings are married today, whereas only 64% of median earners and half of those in the bottom 25th percentile are hitched.
Now, compare that to men in 1970, whose marriage rates were 95% (top earners), 91% (median earners), and 60% (bottom 25th percentile of earners), respectively.
A lot of people like to think that “love is the only thing that matters” when it comes to marriage, but the cold, hard numbers tell a different story. In fact, one very shocking survey discovered that 75 percent of all American women would have a problem even dating an unemployed man…
Of the 925 single women surveyed, 75 percent said they’d have a problem with dating someone without a job. Only 4 percent of respondents asked whether they would go out with an unemployed man answered “of course.”
“Not having a job will definitely make it harder for men to date someone they don’t already know,” Irene LaCota, a spokesperson for It’s Just Lunch, said in a press release. “This is the rare area, compared to other topics we’ve done surveys on, where women’s old-fashioned beliefs about sex roles seem to apply.”
Unfortunately for American men, there simply are not enough good jobs to go around. In fact, the number of working age Americans without a job has increased by 27 million since the year 2000, and businesses in the U.S. are being destroyed faster than they are being created.
Due to a lack of economic opportunities, a rising percentage of our young people have been giving up on the “real world” and have been moving back in with Mom and Dad. For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “29 Percent Of All U.S. Adults Under The Age Of 35 Are Living With Their Parents“. And when you break down the numbers, you find that young men are almost twice as likely to move back in with their parents as young women are.
But economic factors alone certainly do not account for the tremendous decline in the marriage rate that we have witnessed in this country. Shifting cultural attitudes also play a huge role.
A whole host of opinion polls and surveys show that Americans simply do not value marriage and having children as much as they once did. For example, the Pew Research Center has found that the younger you are, the more likely you are to believe that “marriage is becoming obsolete” and that “children don’t need a mother and a father to grow up happily”.
In fact, an astounding 44 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket now believe that “marriage is becoming obsolete”.
And why should they get married? Our movies and television shows constantly tell them that they can have the benefits of being married without ever having to make a lifelong commitment.
This sounds particularly good to men, since they can run around and have sex with lots of different women without ever having to “settle down”.
But there are most definitely consequences for this behavior. The “sexual revolution” has left behind countless broken hearts, shattered dreams, unintended pregnancies and devastated families.
In addition, the U.S. has become a world leader when it comes to sexually-transmitted disease.
It is hard to believe this number, but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention approximately one-third of the entire population of the United States (110 million people) currently has a sexually transmitted disease.
So nobody should claim that the “sexual revolution” has not had any consequences.
But most Americans don’t actually run around and sleep with lots of different people at the same time. Instead, most Americans seem to have adopted a form of “serial monogamy“.
In America today, most people only sleep with one person at a time, and “living together” is being called “the new marriage”.
According to the CDC, 74 percent of all 30-year-old women in the U.S. say that they have cohabitated with a romantic partner without being married to them, and it has been estimated that 65 percent of all couples that get married in the United States live together first.
Many believe that by “trying out” the other person first that it will give them a much better chance of making marriage work if they eventually do choose to go down that path. Unfortunately, that does not seem to work out very well in practice. In fact, the divorce rate for couples that live together first is significantly higher than for those that do not.
And when it comes to divorce, America is the king.
For years, the U.S. has had the highest divorce rate in the developed world.
But it wasn’t always this way. Back in 1920, less than one percent of all women in the United States were currently divorced or separated. Today, approximately 15 percent of all women in the United States are currently divorced or separated.
So why are so many people getting divorced?
Of course there are a lot of factors involved (including money), but a big one is cheating. According to one survey, 41 percent of all spouses admit to infidelity. Many Americans simply find it very difficult to stay committed to one person for an extended period of time.
As a result of what I have discussed so far, it is easy to see why people in our society are so lonely and so isolated. Less people are getting married, more divorces are happening and couples are having fewer children. This means that our households are smaller and we have far fewer family connections than we once did.
100 years ago, 4.52 people were living in the average U.S. household, but now the average U.S. household only consists of 2.59 people.
That is an astounding figure.
And the United States has the highest percentage of one person households on the entire planet.
But we weren’t meant to live alone. We were meant to love and to be loved.
Often, those that are being hurt the most by our choices as a society are the children. They need strong, stable homes to grow up in, and we are not providing that for millions upon millions of them.
When you look at just women under the age of 30 in the United States, more than half of all babies are being born out of wedlock.
That would have been unimaginable 100 years ago.
And of course when there is no marriage involved, a lot of times the guy does not stick around. At this point, approximately one out of every three children in the United States lives in a home without a father, and in many impoverished areas of the country the rate is well over 50 percent.
In addition, women are waiting much longer to have children than they once did.
The biggest reason for this, once again, is money…
In the United States, three-quarters of people surveyed by Gallup last year said the main reason couples weren’t having more children was a lack of money or fear of the economy.
The trend emerges as a key gauge of future economic health — the growth in the pool of potential workers, ages 20-64 — is signaling trouble ahead. This labor pool had expanded for decades, thanks to the vast generation of baby boomers. Now the boomers are retiring, and there are barely enough new workers to replace them, let alone add to their numbers.
We are waiting longer to have children and having fewer of them, but those children are needed for the economic future of this country.
Fifteen years from now, one out of every five Americans will be over the age of 65. All of those elderly Americans are going to want the rest of us to keep the financial promises that were made to them. But that is going to turn out to be quite impossible. We simply do not have enough people.
In the end, the economics of marriage does not just affect those that are thinking of getting married or those that are already married.
The truth is that the economics of marriage affects all of us.
So what do you think is in store for the future of the institution of marriage in this country?
Please feel free to share what you believe by posting a comment below…
The Truther Girls’ Blog
Apr 16, 2014
I recently found my friends posting the following article about a meta-analysis ‘proving’ that homeopathy doesn’t work. This was followed by comments like ‘I love science’ and ‘surprise, surprise’, and equating a degree in homeopathy with a degree in baloney. But what has this meta-analysis really proven and where is the real baloney?
The conclusions of the meta-analysis were that:
‘“No good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than a substance with no effect on the health condition (placebo), or that homeopathy caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment,” the report’s summary states.
Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/meta-study-confirms-homeopathy-doesnt-work#JbvdfGJSQxZ17fMD.99
HP versus Pharma: Two Very Different Approaches to Medicine
One key issue here may be what the allopathic scientific community considers to be ‘good quality, well designed studies’. The standard one-size-fits-all methodology used for testing pharmaceutical drugs would inherently be inadequate for a study on any homeopathic drug except for commercial preparations sold for specific ailments, which are known to be the least effective homeopathic treatments.
This is because homeopathy is an entirely different system of medicine, with an approach that is opposite to that of chemical pharmaceutical treatments. Confused? I will try to explain.
In standard clinical trials with pharmaceutical agents, a specific chemical drug is tested in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. This is necessary to determine the specific effectiveness of that product for any given ailment, while eliminating bias in the recipients and those administering the drug. It must be tested against a placebo because the simple act of believing you are taking a remedy can have an effect on your physical condition, so that aspect has to be factored in for consideration. The person administering the drug and studying its effects must not know who has taken it and who has taken a placebo, or they may be subject to biased reporting. It is understood that each drug is being studied for a specific desired effect which, if it is effective, it should have on a substantial proportion of recipients. Everyone gets the same drug for the same illness. It’s a one-size-fits-all approach.
Homeopathy is fundamentally different in that treatment takes into consideration not only a specific, targeted ailment, but also the person as a whole: their constitution, their life and medical history, physical traits, personality, temperament, habits and tendencies and anything else that can be used to build as complete a picture of the individual as possible. There are thousands of remedies to choose from, made from everything in nature from minerals, to plant materials, to animal sources. Many remedies can be used to address a specific ailment such as a skin problem or anxiety, but the homeopath chooses the one that is best matched to the person as a whole. For example, a person whose anxiety comes on with dizziness would receive a different remedy than a person whose attacks come on with sweating. A person with a social, sanguine disposition would receive a different remedy than a shy, withdrawn individual.
There are homeopathic remedies known as ‘specifics’, which are used to treat specific ailments such as cocculus for nausea or aconite for fever, but even in the cases where these are used, dosing strength (potency) and frequency are tailored to the individual based on their constitution. A person with a frail constitution would receive a lower potency than a person with a robust one. Some pharmaceutical medications interfere with the effectiveness of HP remedies, and some people do not respond to HP or take longer to respond. Once you understand how this system works, it is easy to see how it would be impossible to judge the value of homeopathy as a whole with a standard one-size-fits all approach for any given homeopathic remedy or administration procedure.
Now let’s look at the new meta-analysis, which you can see here:
The above meta-analysis reviewed a number of meta-analyses and a number of individual conditions for which these had reviewed the effectiveness of HP.
Evidence Shows Homeopathy for Ottitis Media As Effective as Standard Treatment and Better than Placebo- But That’s Still Not Proof Enough
If you look at the data on HP treatment of otitis media (ear infections), you will find that the results were that:
In all studies with comparison to standard treatment with antibiotics, there was found to be no difference in treatment outcomes for pain, duration of illness, and improvement in hearing loss. In other words, HP was as effective as standard treatment. In studies against placebo, evidence was found in favor of homeopathic treatment. Evidence was also found in favor of HP versus standard treatment when it came to a couple of specific outcome measures.
Still, it was concluded that there is not enough evidence to recommend HP treatment. This is not the same as having proven that homeopathy does not work.
Let’s look at one of the contibuting meta-analyses that did not find evidence in favor of HP. Altunc et al (2007) which examined HP treatment of ‘childhood and adolescent ailments’ including ADHD (section 4.2.4 in the document), and concluded that “the evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition”. (Altunc et al (2007)
What did they actually analyze? They looked at data from 16 studies on nine different ailments and noted that ‘with the exception of ADHD and diarrhoea (three primary studies each), no condition was assessed in more than two double-blind Level II studies.’ In other words, they took together data from studies on nine different conditions, on the majority of which no more than one or two studies had been done, lumped them all together, and concluded that there was not enough convincing evidence that homeopathic practice was effective. It seems to me that, from the outset, the design of this study was bound to fail to produce conclusive results of any kind.
There was one study included each on warts, conjunctivitis, otitis media, post-operative pain-agitation syndrome, two each on asthma, recurrent URTI (upper respiratory tract infections) and adenoid vegetation, and three on asthma and ADHD.
Can you imagine if a meta-analysis examined this number of studies on this number of various conditions, treated with different pharmaceutical agents, and concluded that there is not enough evidence to convince them that pharmaceutical drugs have any effect? It would be laughable.
Let’s look at the data they included on studies with ADHD, which was one of the two condition for which three studies were considered (although I would hardly call an examination of three studies a meta-analysis). These include Frei et al, 2005, Freitas et al, 1995, and Jacobs et al, 2005. Two out of three of these studies showed intergroup differences in favor of the effectiveness of HP over placebo.
Jacobs et al, 2005: This study found no intergroup differences and included ‘43 children with conﬁrmed ADHD diagnosis (computerised Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children) with mean age of 9 years. 9 participants were already taking
stimulant medication but still displaying symptoms (n=5 active, n=4 placebo)’. Description is from Cochrane Review.
Stimulants are well-known to interfere with the action of homeopathic treatment for ADHD. Even if the child is not presently on stimulants, having previously been treated with them can affect how well they will respond and how long it will take to get a response. Including some kids who were on Ritalin during the trial would be a bit like including subjects who are on Suboxone in a trial on opiate painkillers, the effects of which this medication is known to nullify.
by Raw Michelle
Apr 19, 2014
(NaturalNews) “We may have identified a new tool that can help people quit smoking,” says Jeffrey P. Haibach, MPH, research author and graduate research assistant in the University at Buffalo Department of Community Health and Health Behavior.
Turns out, those “tools” are sitting right in the kitchens of people everywhere. They are none other than fresh fruits and vegetables. According to research conducted by the university, 1,000 people 25 years of age and older were surveyed about their smoking habits as it related to their fruit and vegetable intake.
There was a clear correlation between people who ate more of these foods and the fact that they smoked less. In fact, smokers who consumed the most fruit and vegetables were three times more likely to not smoke tobacco compared to individuals consuming the lowest amounts of fruits and vegetables.
Not only did smokers who ate more of these foods have fewer cigarettes on a daily basis, but there was also more of a delay in the amount of time they waited before having the first cigarette of the day.
Why fruits and vegetables may quell the urge to smoke
The experts behind the study suggest that the fiber in such foods creates a feeling of fullness that may cancel out a smoker’s desire to fill up on something.
Furthermore, its thought that fruits and vegetables do not enhance the flavor of tobacco, which makes smokers less inclined to light up when ingesting the likes of apples and carrots. Duke University psychologist Joseph McClernon discovered this notion, concluding that fruits, vegetables and dairy products make cigarettes taste bad while other foods like coffee and meat enhance their flavor.
Beyond staving off the urge to smoke, eating fruits and vegetables also helps heal a smoker’s damaged body. Since smoking robs the body of vitamins C and B levels, which means it’s getting sub-par lung, cancer and nervous system protection, it’s important to build the body’s immunity.
Specifically, foods like kiwis, oranges, bananas and leafy greens are essential to help restore health to a smoker’s body.
Sources for this article include:
About the author:
Raw Michelle is a natural health blogger and researcher, sharing her passions with others, using the Internet as her medium. She discusses topics in a straight forward way in hopes to help people from all walks of life achieve optimal health and well-being. She has authored and published hundreds of articles on topics such as the raw food diet and green living in general.
Before It’s News
Apr 10, 2014
Terence Newton, Staff Writer
One of the latest trends in manufacturing for today’s consumer products is the use of engineered nano-particles (ENP’s), yet, most people have no idea that they are consuming and absorbing ENP’s. Research is discovering that certain ENP’s may be toxic and extremely harmful to human health, causing cell and DNA damage, potentially leading to the development of cancers.
Nano-particles are microscopically sized particles with at least one dimension less than 100 nano-meters (nm). To put this in perspective, a sheet of paper is about 100,000 nm thick, and a strand of human DNA is about 2.5 nm thick. A current trend in research and development, ENP’s are generating widespread interest for their potential to enhance consumer materials and food products, and for their potential applications in the electronic, optical and biomedical fields. “Nanoparticles are of great scientific interest as they are effectively a bridge between bulk materials and atomic or molecular structures.” 
In the market place, nano-particles can be found in sunscreens, toys, clothing, food, drugs, candy, cosmetics, ceramics, paints, and many other common products, and are already a ubiquitous part of our toxic consumer environment. Some food activists have already called attention to the dangers of the commonly used nano-particle titanium dioxide, noting that the “form of the common ‘whitening’ agent known as titanium dioxide is capable of inducing “tumor-like” changes in exposed human cells.” 
“Nanotitanium is found in products produced by Jello, Nestlé, M&M’s, Mother’s, Mentos, Albertson’s, Hostess and Kool Aid.” 
Previous concerns have largely been focused on cell damage in the human body, however, a new study from MIT and the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) indicates that certain ENP’s may in fact directly damage human DNA, a concern that should have manufacturers and regulators immediately halting the use of nano-particles in consumer products.
“The researchers found that zinc oxide nanoparticles, often used in sunscreen to block ultraviolet rays, significantly damage DNA. Nanoscale silver, which has been added to toys, toothpaste, clothing, and other products for its antimicrobial properties, also produces substantial DNA damage, they found.” 
As worldwide cancer rates continue to rise, these results are extremely alarming, especially in light of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recent prediction that human cancer rates will rise a staggering 57% in just the next 20 years. 
The MIT And HSPH study zeroed in on just five commonly used nano-particles, shedding some light on how these particles cause disruption and mutations to human DNA:
“The researchers focused on five types of engineered nanoparticles—silver, zinc oxide, iron oxide, cerium oxide, and silicon dioxide (also known as amorphous silica)—that are used industrially. Some of these nanomaterials can produce free radicals called reactive oxygen species, which can alter DNA. Once these particles get into the body, they may accumulate in tissues, causing more damage.” 
The study noted that the zinc oxide, used most often in sunscreens, and nano-silver produced the greatest DNA damage:
“…the MIT and HSPH researchers tested the nanoparticles’ effects on two types of cells that are commonly used for toxicity studies: a type of human blood cells called lymphoblastoids, and an immortalized line of Chinese hamster ovary cells.
Zinc oxide and silver produced the greatest DNA damage in both cell lines. At a concentration of 10 micrograms per milliliter—a dose not high enough to kill all of the cells—these generated a large number of single-stranded DNA breaks.
Silicon dioxide, which is commonly added during food and drug production, generated very low levels of DNA damage. Iron oxide and cerium oxide also showed low genotoxicity.” 
This study is adds a new dimension to the growing concerns over the use of nano-particles because most prior research has been focused on cell damage, not on the effects that these particles have on DNA.
“Until now, most studies of nanoparticle toxicity have focused on cell survival after exposure. Very few have examined genotoxicity, or the ability to damage DNA—a phenomenon that may not necessarily kill a cell, but one that can lead to cancerous mutations if the damage is not repaired.” 
Some researchers, including the author of the MIT/HSPH study paper, are exhibiting concern over the potential of toxic, unregulated nano-particles:
“It’s essential to monitor and evaluate the toxicity or the hazards that these materials may possess. There are so many variations of these materials, in different sizes and shapes, and they’re being incorporated into so many products,” says Christa Watson, a postdoc at HSPH and the paper’s lead author.” 
Since nano-particles are already being deployed in many common foods, drugs and products, and we now know that they cause damage to DNA, is simply monitoring and evaluating their toxicity a responsible way to approach this?
Just as with genetically engineered foods, which are already being consumed worldwide, researchers have determined that they can be damaging to human health, yet the status quo for bringing products to market and for removing products from market permits their widespread consumption even in the face of credible research that indicates their dangers.
About the Author
Terence Newton is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com, interested primarily with issues related to science, the human mind, and human consciousness.
This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.
~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…
The post Nano-Particles in Consumer Products Damage DNA Leading to Cancer appeared first on Waking Times.
by Elizabeth Renter
Apr 14, 2014
Smoking causes health problems—we know this; it’s common knowledge. The dangers of secondhand smoke are similarly understood, but when we start to talk about thirdhand smoke, there is much that we need to learn. A recent talk at the 247th National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society indicated that thirdhand smoke isn’t only dangerous, but could lead to DNA changes and even cancer.
The talk was presented by Bo Hang, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who published a study on the topic, “Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage in human cells”, in a 2013 issue of the journal Mutagenesis.
According to Hang, thirdhand smoke—or the residue from smoking found on surfaces and in dust in a room or area where someone previously smoked—can produce toxicants that undergo chemical changes when they encounter compounds in the air. One of these compounds created by thirdhand smoke is 4-(Methylnitrosamino)-4-(3-pyridyl)-butanal, or “NNA”.
NNA, says Hang and his colleagues, can attach itself to DNA and create a cancer-causing chemical, according to MedicalNewsToday.
NNA and another compound known as NNK break down DNA, damaging it in such a way that leads to uncontrolled cell growth and the possible formation of tumors.
While Hang’s research is still in its early stages, he says we have only begun to understand the full damage that thirdhand smoke can cause. Babies and toddlers may be most at risk of these dangers because they are still developing and because they are most likely to swallow, touch, and inhale these compounds as they crawl around, touching everything in their path and frequently putting their hands in their mouths.
This isn’t the first such troubling research on the topic. A previous study said that secondhand smoke isn’t the only culprit in sickening children with parents who smoke. Thirdhand smoke, researchers from the University of California-Riverside said, could be as dangerous as firsthand smoke.
“In detail, the thirdhand smoke increased lipid levels and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which is a forerunner to cirrhosis, cancer and cardiovascular disease. It also increased collagen production and inflammatory cytokine levels in the lungs, which has implications for fibrosis, pulmonary disease and asthma.” - MedicalNewsToday
Just as it took decades for us to understand the risks of smoking, and decades more to discover how dangerous secondhand smoke was, it will take time for the real effects of thirdhand smoke to become apparent.
“There is still much to learn about the specific mechanisms by which cigarette smoke residues harm non-smokers, but that there is such an effect is now clear,” remarked Professor Manuela Martins-Green of the UCR study.
by Arpana Sagwal Chaudhary, Ph.D.
Mar 26, 2014
(NaturalNews) Caffeine is a psychoactive drug that is widely used on a daily basis. We know of caffeine as a brain stimulant and consume it to stay active and wakeful. However, lesser known effects of caffeine on memory and cognition have confounded researchers for years. New research has disclosed some interesting and previously unknown influences of caffeine on the human brain.
A study published in journal Nature Neuroscience (Feb, 2014) demonstrated a fascinating effect of caffeine on long-term human memory. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Irvine, conducted a study to investigate the effects of caffeine administration on human learning by taking an uncommon approach. Caffeine was given to the subjects “after” their learning exercise in a double-blind study involving caffeine-naive subjects. Participants were asked to memorize images and then administered with caffeine; salivary samples were collected to analyze for caffeine metabolized products. The subjects were tested for memory performance after 24 hours and were asked to evaluate old/new and similar items as shown to them on previous day.
Caffeine enhanced memory retrieval performance in the test subjects, which means they were better able to recall the memory acquired on the previous day. Even more interesting, although “basic recognition memory” was unaltered, retrieval of memory improved. This means that the brain of caffeinated subjects programmed and stored the visuals/memories better than the placebo subjects, and they could thus recall better.
Furthermore, a high dosage (200 mg) of caffeine consolidates memory better than lower dosage (100 mg). The authors also concluded that 200 mg is an ideal amount for memory consolidation. However, dosages higher than 300 mg were not studied, and it cannot be said if the consolidating effects increase with dosage. Therefore, there is no evidence to believe that higher dosages necessarily increase memory consolidation. The exact mechanism by which caffeine does so has not yet been deciphered. Scientists believe that it could be due to the role played by caffeine in inhibiting the adenosine function, which has adverse effects on memory functioning.
Caffeine has also been scientifically proven to show neuroprotective effects.
Caffeine showed damage reversal in brain of type II diabetic mice (i.e. neurodegeneration reversal) and restored memory-based performance.
In old and sleep-deprived humans (as well as rodents), caffeine restores memory. Rodents with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) showed reduced dysfunctional memory after consuming caffeine.
Scientists have proposed that consuming caffeine may play a preventive as well as therapeutic role in AD and other memory-related problems.
It is equally important for caffeine lovers not to ignore its downside. Previous studies (covered on Natural News) have shown that caffeine puts adrenal glands in a fight or flight function and stimulates secretion of adrenaline and noradrenaline. It generates an emergency response in normal conditions, which stimulates the central nervous system and increases alertness but eventually leads to stress, exhaustion and fatigue.
Nonetheless, this latest research reveals interesting properties of caffeine — either a cognitive enhancer or a stabilizer. This also suggests the possibility of exploring caffeine or its derived molecules as a potential drug for Alzheimer disease.
Meanwhile, for us to enjoy a guilt-free morning cup of coffee, perhaps the trick lies in finding the right balance.
Sources for this article include:
About the author:
Dr. Sagwal has a Ph.D. in Medicinal chemistry. She has worked on the drug design and discovery of antimicrobial and anticancer agents and has published peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. With a fascination for science, nature and its medicinal powerhouse, it is her passion to share and spread the knowledge from latest scientific discoveries. The information is based upon scientific experiments, facts, analyses and peer-review. We could use it to stay healthy, keep fit, prevent diseases or simply be happy.
Dedicated to all those who want to live an aware and informed life. Cheers!!
Red Ice Creations
Apr 4, 2014
Not only are astronauts in danger from cosmic radiation, space junk, catastrophic equipment failure, and their fingernails falling off, they’ve also now got to risk heart attacks for daring to explore that final frontier.
Studies are finding that human hearts change shape and become spherical in space, and microgravity makes astronauts more prone to heart attacks.
Hearts Become Spherical When Astronauts Go To Space: Study
By Lawrence LeBlond | RedOrbit
[...]Previous studies have shown that astronauts are exposed to a range of health issues when taking prolonged trips into space, including losses in bone density and muscle mass and vision anomalies. The new heart health findings, based on a study of 12 astronauts, is to be presented at the upcoming American College of Cardiology’s 63rd Annual Scientific Session.
The new findings bolsters the evidence that even longer periods in space, as would occur on a mission to Mars, is associated with increased dangers on human health. The results of the astronaut study will help scientists better understand how a spaceflight lasting 18 months or longer could affect heart health.
“The heart doesn’t work as hard in space, which can cause a loss of muscle mass,” senior study author James Thomas, MD, Moore Chair of Cardiovascular Imaging and Lead Scientist for Ultrasound at NASA, said in a statement. “That can have serious consequences after the return to Earth, so we’re looking into whether there are measures that can be taken to prevent or counteract that loss.”
In order to keep the heart healthy in space, astronauts will need to know the amount and type of exercise they need to perform to guarantee their safety on prolonged spaceflights. Thomas noted that exercise regimens developed for astronauts could also help people on Earth who have physical limitations also maintain good heart health.
Thomas maintained that the spherical form is only temporary and returns to a normal shape shortly after astronauts return to Earth. But while in space, a spherical shape may mean the heart is performing less efficiently, although long-term health effects are currently unknown.
However, it has been previously found that some astronauts do suffer a variety of cardiac effects upon returning to Earth. Orthostatic hypotension, where the astronaut becomes lightheaded or passes out, occurs when the body experiences a sudden drop in blood pressure when an astronaut tries to stand up. Arrhythmias can also occur during space travel, and there is concern that radiation exposure may accelerate atherosclerosis.
Read the full article at: redorbit.com
Americans’ brains being fried by cell towers: New scientific evidence reveals shocking extent of electropollution damage
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Mar 26, 2014
(NaturalNews) Exposure to cell phone towers alters brain function in alarming ways, causing a lack of concentration, irritability, difficulty sleeping and lack of appetite. That’s the conclusion of a new study just published by the British Medical Journal.(1)
The study, authored by Professor Enrique A Navarro, concluded that the severity of such symptoms directly correlated to cell tower exposure levels. In other words, the closer a person lives to a cell tower, the greater the severity of their symptoms. This was true regardless of race, income level and other demographics.
Cell towers, of course, broadcast and receive electromagnetic switching signals. Human biology — and the brain in particular — relies on electro-biochemical pathways for healthy function. Many scientists have long suspected that chronic exposure to low levels of EMF pollution (electropollution) may interfere with healthy functioning of the brain and body. This latest research adds yet more support to that alarming idea.
It’s not your imagination: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is real
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity has long been dismissed as non-existent by some doctors and industry-funded scientists. After all, if EMF pollution from cell towers really does harm public health, then the implications are truly massive, both economically and in terms of human suffering.
But electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a genuine phenomenon. People are not “inventing” side effects or symptoms. As Navarro writes in the study:
The term electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been recently introduced in discussions attributing symptoms to exposure to EMFs. A review of this topic in 2010 found that 8 of the 10 studies evaluated through PubMed had reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 m from [cell phone towers].
Importantly, all these symptoms were recorded in people living near cell phone towers whose broadcast signal strength meets current safety guidelines. As the study author points out, this most likely means current government guidelines on cell phone towers are inadequate to protect the public. Revising such guidelines could have drastic implications for the nationwide telecommunications infrastructure.
By the way, people who live fewer than 500 meters from cell phone towers appear to be especially at risk of electromagnetic interference with brain function. Because electropollution strength is determined by the inverse square of the distance, a person who moves twice as close to a cell tower experiences four times the radiation.
190,000 cell phone towers and growing
There are currently over 190,000 cell phone towers across the United States.(2)
Their typical “maximum range” is over 21 miles, meaning their electromagnetic pollution extends in a sphere with a radius of over 21 miles. (In reality, this pollution extends indefinitely, but the intensity of it drops off with the square of the distance.)
The following map shows AT&T coverage areas in orange. If you live inside an orange area, you are currently exposed to cell tower radiation.
People who live within range of two or more cell phone towers experience electropollution from all the towers within a range of 21 miles. This electropollution effect is cumulative.
It is not known how many Americans live within 21 miles of at least one cell tower, but given that over half the U.S. population lives in urban areas, it’s safe to assume that at least 150 million — and more likely close to 300 million — Americans are exposed to EMF electropollution from cell towers.
by J.D. Heyes
Mar 1, 2014
(NaturalNews) If you’re looking to get the most out of your workouts, no matter what it is that you’re getting set to do — cardio, weightlifting or an intense crossfit session — you might first think about getting your groove on.
In fact, according to various studies, if the music that you listen to fits the rhythm and mood of the physical activity you’re performing, you tend to work out a little harder.
“The metronome aspect, the synchronization of movement to music, is the most important,” Carl Foster, director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin at Lacrosse, told The Washington Post.
He went on to say that the notion of synchronizing movement to some sort of beat is not a new concept; in Roman times, rowers aboard galleys moved in concert with the beat of a drum.
Finding what’s right for you
“But there is also the distraction and arousal that music brings,” Foster said, noting that both matter, it’s just not clear to what extent. “There’s definitely more buried in music that affects us. But we don’t know exactly how to tease it out.”
How do you know what the “right” music is for you?
As reported by the Post:
If you want to make a workout mix based on tempo — or BPM, for beats per minute — various Web sites, including www.songbpm.com, can help you determine the tempo of your favorite music to see whether it fits your intended activity. Or you can go to sites such as www.motiontraxx.com that offer playlists at a certain BPM for running and cycling as well as other activities. Other sites include www.workoutmusic.com and www.powermusic.com.
“Music is positive energy,” Deekron “the Fitness DJ” Krikorian, who produces fitness playlists for MotionTraxx, told the paper. “So when I put together playlists, I look for intensity, positive feeling and cohesiveness.”
He says that if he finds a song that feels good in terms of mood and intensity — but it just has the wrong tempo — he may edit it somewhat in order to change the beats per minute to fit the type of exercise.
“The beat becomes very important anytime there is repetitive movement,” Krikorian said. “Our instincts tell us to move to the beat. Our feet tell us to move to the beat.”
As far as what the ideal cadence is for running, that’s a hotly debated topic in the world of running. That’s because we’re not all built alike and we don’t run at the same tempo or stride. That means that finding what’s right for you could take a bit of trial and error.
Some experts say an eight-minute mile generally corresponds with 170 BPM; others say that figure is closer to 200 BPM. Still, others say the ideal running pace is somewhere between 170 and 180. And there are a few studies that indicate that a faster BPM may be better in terms of preventing injury.
Faster is better in some cases
Then again, you could just try some sort of group fitness class instead, such as step aerobics, cardio-kickboxing or cycling. Instructors have been conducting those kinds of classes to musical beats for years.
Ingrid Nelson, a cycling instructor who packs her tempo-driven classes at Washington, D.C.’s Biker Barre, told the Post that intensity, style and cadence are all important when putting together her playlists.
“I like a lot of ’90s hip-hop and usually stay in the range of 95 to 105 BPM,” she said. But she added that she could go as low as 80 BPM or even as high as 120 BPM if she is prescribing hill-climbing or sprints.
Harold Sanco, a group fitness director and instructor at Results gym in the nation’s capital, said that, for some fitness activities like step aerobics, the tempo usually rises to about 130 BPM.
“You have to pick music that is both safe and effective. If you are going too fast, you risk injury and you’re not working out effectively because you are not getting the full range of motion,” he said.
by Elizabeth Renter
Feb 20, 2014
(NaturalSociety) Although we don’t know exactly why, there is no question that sleep is crucial for brain and overall health. Without proper sleep, the chance of disease and stress increases notably. Now, researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) Center for Translational Neuromedicine have found that sleeping actually helps detoxify the brain, potentially offering clues into dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
The study, published in the journal Science, reveals that your brain has a unique method of removing toxic waste through ‘the glymphatic system’. Even more interesting, it seems that brain cells shrink by about 60% during sleep, allowing for waste to be removed more easily.
“Sleep changes the cellular structure of the brain,” said Maiken Nedergaard, co-author of the study. “It appears to be a completely different state.”
How Sleep Aids the Brain
The research looked at something called the glymphatic system of the brain. Injecting dye into the brains of mice, they watched the flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and found that the CSF flowed rapidly when the mice were unconscious (whether asleep or sedated) and barely moved when the mice were awake.
by Reuben Chow
Feb 6, 2014
(NaturalNews) A recent study carried out by researchers from Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and Foundation for Research Support of the State of Sao Paulo has revealed that melatonin, a hormone which regulates the body’s sleep-wake cycle, could help slow the growth of certain types of breast cancer tumors.
Published online in PLoS One, the study suggested that melatonin could inhibit tumor growth and cell production plus block new blood vessels in ER-negative breast cancer models from forming.
Melatonin is a hormone naturally made by the pineal gland, an endocrine gland in the brain. Production of melatonin takes place in the dark and is inhibited by light. Melatonin is also available in supplemental form.
Angiogenesis is the formation of new blood vessels, and one strategy used in slowing the spread of cancer is by blocking this process. For the study, the researchers looked at how melatonin affected angiogenesis in ER-negative breast cancer – they analyzed the association both in vitro and in vivo using mice.
The study team found that the tumors in the mice which were given melatonin for three weeks became significantly smaller and had less vascular growth, while the average tumor volume of the mice not given melatonin increased significantly. The in vitro studies revealed similar findings. In addition, the treated mice displayed excessive movement but neither aggressive behavior nor irritability. They also did not experience lethargy or weight loss.
The Mind Unleashed
Jan 24, 2014
The fascinating and recent discovery of a new, second DNA code last week further lends credence to what metaphysical scientists have been saying for millennia — the body speaks two different languages.
Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, researchers have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins.
But biologists have suspected for years that some kind of epigenetic inheritance occurs at the cellular level. The different kinds of cells in our bodies provide an example. Skin cells and brain cells have different forms and functions, despite having exactly the same DNA.
No Such Thing As Junk DNA
The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but it turns out that so-called junk DNA plays critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health and consciousness because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches.
As scientists delved into the “junk” — parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins — they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed. Another 15-17 percent has higher functions scientists are still decoding.
Recent findings in the journal Science may have big implications for how medical experts use the genomes of patients to interpret and diagnose diseases, researchers said.
The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. Dr Stamatoyannopoulos with co-authors were stunned to discover that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled.
The newfound genetic code within deoxyribonucleic acid, the hereditary material that exists in nearly every cell of the body, was written right on top of the DNA code scientists had already cracked.
by Cassius Methyl
Jan 30, 2014
Eduardo Schenberg, of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, recently published a piece in Sage Journals, detailing his belief that Ayahuasca has cancer-fighting abilities, essentially encouraging the legalization of research in the field.
He says, “There is enough available evidence that Ayahuasca’s active principles, especially DMT and harmine, have positive effects in some cell cultures used to study cancer, and in biochemical processes important in cancer treatment, both in vitro and in vivo,” and “Therefore, the few available reports of people benefiting from Ayahuasca in their cancer treatment experiences should be taken seriously, and the hypothesis presented here, fully testable by rigorous scientific experimentation, helps to understand the available cases and pave the way for new experiments.”
“In summary, it is hypothesized that the combined actions of β-carbolines and DMT present in Ayahuasca may diminish tumor blood supply, activate apoptotic pathways, diminish cell proliferation, and change the energetic metabolic imbalance of cancer cells, which is known as the Warburg effect,” Schenberg wrote. “Therefore, Ayahuasca may act on cancer hallmarks such as angiogenesis, apoptosis, and cell metabolism.”
“If Ayahuasca is scientifically proven to have the healing potentials long recorded by anthropologists, explorers, and ethnobotanists, outlawing Ayahuasca or its medical use and denying people adequate access to its curative effects could be perceived as an infringement on human rights, a serious issue that demands careful and thorough discussion.”
Similar to the way cancer has been successfully treated with cannabis oil, or vitamin B-17 from the apricot pit, it is emerging as a viable possibility that Ayahuasca is another herbal, ancient cure to disease found in abundance in the new world of synthetic consumption.
Ayahuasca, as many viewers of this article likely know, is a psychoactive, ancient, sacred ancient brew, with deep roots in South American shamanic practice. Since at least 500 BC, South American shamans have used Ayahuasca for ceremonial purposes, and as a medicine of many functions.
Many people believe that DMT is created in the pineal gland of human beings when we dream, when we are born, and when we die. Critics of this theory say there is no evidence to back up these claims, but as of 2013, studies from the University of Michigan have shown that indeed dimethyltryptamine is created in the pineal glands of rats, and with the biological similarities us mammals share, it is very likely that DMT is synthesized in our pineal glands as well. According to Dr. Rick Strassman, author of the critically acclaimed book DMT- The Spirit Molecule, the human body metabolizes DMT rapidly, almost eager to consume the substance. Seretonin, the primary source of pleasure for us human beings, created in our brains and bodies daily of course, is 5-hydroxytryptamine, almost chemically identical to dimethyltryptamine. Yet, the US government classifies this molecule that may be part of our very being, as a schedule I, highly illegal drug.
DMT is a very complex substance, with complex experiences had by those who consume it, complex origins, and many, many functions. One must do their own hard research on Ayahuasca and DMT, as explaining a good depth of it would be too much for this article. Many of you who have read this far, probably already know what you need to know about Ayahuasca/DMT, as the popularity of it is skyrocketing.
Adam Winstock, founder of the Global Drugs Survey, claims the drug has ‘a larger proportion of new users’ compared to these other powerful drugs.
He says this suggests ‘its popularity may increase’.
It should be noted that Ayahuasca/DMT has characteristics similar to almost no ‘drugs’ except perhaps psilocybin mushrooms. Psilocin (what psilocybin metabolizes into), is also almost identical to chemicals already in our brains, similarly metabolized quickly by the body, more characteristic of a vitamin than an intoxicant.
by Slayer Ji, Founder
Oct 7, 2012
With sales of foods labeled gluten free now reaching over 6 billion dollars a year, something truly profound is happening to the way in which Americans are perceiving the role of wheat in their diets. Once celebrated as the very poster-child of the health food movement, folks are increasingly rejecting this “king of grains,” and are now identifying it as being at the very root of their health problems.
Detractors claim that the movement is just a fad, or worse, that those who have embarked upon it without an official diagnosis are a bit crazy. After all, simply “feeling better” following gluten elimination is not considered to be proof of anything within the conventional medical system. Biopsies, antibody, and genetic tests later, if nothing is found, and you still think gluten – this ‘sacred,’ omnipresent grain – is a problem, you might just get referred to a psychiatrist.
But anecdotes and “subjective experience” aside, the type of clinical research that constitutes “Truth,” with a capital T, from the perspective of the dominant medical establishment, can be found on the National Library of Medicine’s biomedical database known as MEDLINE. This vast bibliographic archive contains over 21 million citation entries, which as of time of this writing, contains 9,776 references to gluten.
There has been a sharp increase in interest and research on the topic of “gluten intolerance” – although we prefer to label the subject “gluten toxicity,” in order to shift the focus away from the “victim” back to the “aggressor,” the gluten itself. In 1971, there were 71 studies listed on MEDLINE which referenced gluten. Last year in 2011, there were 514.
One of our many interests here at GreenMedInfo.com is to identify “Problem Substances,” which is why we have created an index by that name with 698 subjects listed from A-Z. If you navigate to WHEAT under the “W’s” you will find a list under “Advanced Topics” with 205 health conditions and/or adverse health effects associated with wheat consumption, all of which were determined solely through research in peer-reviewed and published medical journals indexed on MEDLINE.
You will also find, below the listed diseases, a “pharmacological actions” field set which lists 20 distinct ways in which wheat harms the body, e.g. nerve-damaging (neurotoxic), immune-damaging (immunoreactive), inflammatory, etc.
Dec 10, 2013
With evidence growing that training the mind or inducing certain modes of consciousness can have positive health effects, researchers have sought to understand how these practices physically affect the body. A new study by researchers in Wisconsin, Spain, and France reports the first evidence of specific molecular changes in the body following a period of intensive mindfulness practice.
The study investigated the effects of a day of intensive mindfulness practice in a group of experienced meditators, compared to a group of untrained control subjects who engaged in quiet non-meditative activities. After eight hours of mindfulness practice, the meditators showed a range of genetic and molecular differences, including altered levels of gene-regulating machinery and reduced levels of pro-inflammatory genes, which in turn correlated with faster physical recovery from a stressful situation.
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.
The study was published in the Journal Psychoneuroendocrinology.
Mindfulness-based trainings have shown beneficial effects on inflammatory disorders in prior clinical studies and are endorsed by the American Heart Association as a preventative intervention. The new results provide a possible biological mechanism for therapeutic effects.
[h/t: Wil Spencer]
Jan 26, 2014
In this video I discuss the growing body of evidence pointing to the dangerous effects of improper cellphone use.
For more information please visit the websites below or contact me directly at email@example.com
[Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) and Radiofrequency (RF): What are the Health Impacts?]
[EMF Testimony In Congress]
PODCAST / VIDEO — An Interview with David Asprey, pt. 1 – “Bulletproof Coffee: Revisiting Fat and Health” – #166 – Gnostic Media
May 26, 2013
This episode is with an interview with David Asprey, part 1, titled “Bulletproof Coffee: Revisiting Fat and Health” and is being released on Sunday, May 26, 2013. This interview with Burt and Tom was recorded on Wednesday, May 20, 2013.
Dave uses a combination of nutrition, nervous system training, and anti-aging technologies to improve the performance of the human body and mind.
Dave Asprey is a Silicon Valley investor, biohacker, and entrepreneur who spent 15 years and $250,000 to hack his own biology. He upgraded his brain by more than 20 IQ points, lowered his biological age, and lost 100 lbs without using calories or exercise.
The Financial Times calls him a “bio-hacker who takes self-quantification to the extreme of self-experimentation.”
His writing has been published by the New York Times and Fortune, and he’s presented at Wharton, the University of California, and Singularity University.
Dave has been covered on video on CNN, ABC News, Nightline, Forbes, and MSNBC. In print, he’s been featured in Men’s Health, Forbes, Fast Company, the Los Angeles Times, and Vogue.
Dave’s Bulletproof Executive blog was born out of a fifteen-year single-minded crusade to upgrade the human being using every available technology. It distills the knowledge of more than 120 world-class MDs, biochemists, Olympic nutritionists, meditation experts, and more than $250,000 spent on personal self-experiments.
From private brain EEG facilities hidden in a Canadian forest to remote monasteries in Tibet, from Silicon Valley to the Andes, high tech entrepreneur Dave Asprey used hacking techniques and tried everything himself, obsessively focused on discovering:
What are the simplest things you can do to be better at everything?
Knowing this leads to being bulletproof, the state of high performance where you take control of and improve your biochemistry, your body, and your mind so they work in unison, helping you execute at levels far beyond what you’d expect, without burning out, getting sick, or just acting like a stressed-out jerk. It used to take a lifetime to radically rewire the human body and mind this way. Technology has changed the rules.
Bullet Proof Coffee Recipe:
Bulletproof Coffee Recipe
- Start with 4-500 ml (2 mugs) of black coffee brewed with my mold-free Upgraded Coffee beans. (Why this is important)
- Add 2 Tbs (or more, up to 80 grams, about 2/3 of a standard stick of butter) of Kerry Gold or other UNSALTED grass-fed butter
- Add 30 grams of MCT oil for max energy, weight loss and brain function (this is 6 times stronger than coconut oil, your next best choice)
- Blend with a pre-heated hand blender, Magic Bullet, or (best) counter top blender until there is a creamy head of foam. (It doesn’t work well if you mix it with a spoon)
It’s really fast and easy to prepare. Realize salted coffee is a crime. Do not do this with salted butter. Bleah.
Kerrygold butter or another grass-fed brand of butter really matters because corn or soy-fed cows don’t make butter with the same fats. Those butters don’t blend well, don’t taste good, and don’t make you feel Bulletproof.
Grass-fed butter is much healthier than other butter. It doesn’t make cholesterol levels worse, it optimizes them! Starting your day with grass-fed butter will give you lots of energy and it will give your body healthy fats that it will use to make cell walls and hormones.
If you’re like most of my friends who try this, your body is so starved for healthy fats that you feel like you can’t get enough. It will take your body a week or two to fully turn on its fat digestion systems when you switch to a high healthy fat breakfast of Bulletproof coffee. If at first it is a little too rich, try using less butter at first and build up to the amount you like. Taking a betaine HCl or digestive enzyme supplement with your coffee will also help your body digest the butter.
Try this just once, with only 2 Tbs of butter, and have nothing else for breakfast. You will experience one of the best mornings of your life, with boundless energy and focus. It’s amazing.
After one drink of Bulletproof coffee, you’ll never be tempted to eat fat-free, insulin-raising, fat-storing toast and oatmeal breakfasts again!
P.S. If you benefit from this post, I’d really appreciate it if you tried my Upgraded Coffee beans. I created them for maximum mental performance and health, and they work, costing $2 more than Starbucks normal beans, and less than their “Reserve” coffee. The proceeds support the research that gets published on this site, and your brain really will notice the difference. Thank you.
P.S.S. Thanks for linking here if you write about Bulletproof Coffee! Bulletproof is a registered trademark for my small company. If you want to use it, just ask!
Jan 22, 2014
Marlene Leung, CTVNews.ca
Like an infectious disease that initially spreads and then abruptly dies, Facebook’s growth is set for a rapid decline within the next few years, according to a new study from Princeton University.
Researchers at Princeton’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering predict that Facebook will lose 80 per cent of its peak user base between 2015 and 2017.
The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, used epidemiological models used to track the spread of infectious diseases and publicly available Google search query data, to explain how users adopt and abandon online social networks.
July 12, 2013
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
[h/t: GeoEngineering Watch]
Jan 23, 2014
After being falsely accused of staging a hoax regarding Wheaties cereal containing metal fragments, Mike Adams the Health Ranger explains how PR Newswire and the mainstream media have become too stupid to understand basic science.