In partnership with

Hello everyone.

Greetings from Montecito.

Supposedly a bomb cyclone of a storm is headed our way, but you couldn’t prove it by the weather today. Not a cloud in the sky and no wind to speak of. Heard from a friend in Oregon this morning, and they’re getting rain there. But not here. Yet.

Some interesting comments and questions, so let’s get to them.

Comments, Poll Responses, & Emails

Anthony Fauci and Vaccines

After rating last week’s Arrow as Totally sucks, a reader added:

This reader is obviously new to The Arrow. I have a major axe to grind with Fauci. And I have major issues with all vaccines now.

Fauci has lied through his teeth about just about everything throughout the entire pandemic. He rounded up a bunch of scientists—almost all of whom had voiced skepticism over the notion that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a wet market, and most of whom expressed suspicion that the virus came from a lab leak—and brow beat them into co-authoring a paper Fauci guaranteed would get published saying the opposite. It was the infamous Proximal Origins paper. Fauci had funded gain-of-function research when he shouldn’t have, and was apparently worried he would be called out on it. He wanted to cover his tracks.

In the beginning of the pandemic, Fauci told people not to bother wearing masks, as they didn’t work against aerosol viruses. Then, a few months later, he began vigorously pushing masking, even double masking. He promoted the idiotic social distancing, when there was no evidence such actions accomplished anything. He, along with Francis Collins, bad mouthed Drs.Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford), Martin Kulldorff (Harvard), and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), who are real epidemiologists as “fringe” epidemiologists. All three ended up being correct, while Fauci and Collins ended up being wrong. (Collins was at least man enough to admit it.)

Fauci was a prime mover in the vaccine mandates and in the denial that other drugs might work against Covid. And this after his group authored a paper saying chloroquine worked for SARS-CoV-1. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

The entire pandemic and all its assorted players became enmeshed in politics. Something that should never happen in science. Still despite all this, there are those who think Fauci was wonderful. I just don’t happen to be one of them.

I had heard all the far left folks have been migrating to a social media site called Bluesky, where they can be one big happy echo chamber. They used to love Twitter, because dissenting voices were muted. Now, under new ownership, people with opposing viewpoints can he heard and fight back. Many don’t like it, so they’ve skedaddled to a better home where they won’t get pushback for their views.

I went to Bluesky and took a look. Here’s what I found re Fauci.

The people who believe the above have never read anything about Dr. Fauci other than his own press releases.

As to vaccines, all of you who have been around for a while know my take on them. But I’ll summarize for those new readers.

I used to be totally pro-vaccines. It’s what I learned in medical school. Which, to be honest, is not exactly true. We didn’t really learn about vaccines; everyone just took it as fact that they were wonderful. I don’t know what they teach now, but when I was in med school there were only a few vaccines, not the 70 or 80 or 90 (I can’t keep up) recommended for children today.

Even those few vaccines caused enough issues that the pharmaceutical companies making them were inundated with lawsuits. So many, in fact, that the companies making the vaccines threatened to quit making them because they spent more money fighting lawsuits than they made on the vaccines they were producing. This threat caused a major scare, since, like me at that time, most people thought vaccines were essential.

Consequently, congress passed a bill removing liability for the manufacture of vaccines and Ronald Reagan signed it in 1986. Since that time, the number of vaccines has exploded from the five (I think) to the 80 or 90 we have now.

None of these vaccines have been tested against placebo. They are all tested against other vaccines. Why? Because of the halo effect of vaccines in general. Vaccine manufacturers make the case that it would be unethical to put subjects in a placebo group, so as an alternative, they test against an earlier version of the vaccine, or against a version that contains adjuvants, which, themselves are known to cause issues.

As you can see from the chart below (which I have posted before), virtually all the deaths from the diseases shown were almost non-existent at the time the specific vaccines were put in use.

Look at the red line in the graph above. It represents deaths from scarlet fever. As you can see, scarlet fever killed more people than any infectious agent and deaths from it dropped to nothing. There has never been a vaccine for scarlet fever.

Improved sanitation and nutrition have reduced the immune burden and reduced the death toll to virtually nothing. When you see a headline about an explosion (a word the media loves to use) in measles deaths, it’s always in some impoverished part of the world where there is no sanitation and malnutrition is rampant.

People will say that’s because everyone in the US is vaccinated, so they’re not going to get measles and die. Well, what about in 1964, four years before the measles vaccine was made available? I was alive then and in high school. There were almost no deaths from measles then.

Since then there have been no placebo-controlled trials on these vaccines, researchers have scouted out children and teenagers who have not been vaccinated and compared their medical records to those who have been vaccinated. The data show that those who are unvaccinated have fewer doctor visits, fewer visits to ERs or urgent care clinics, and miss fewer days of school than those who are vaccinated.

But these studies are not the same as a randomized, placebo-controlled study. We don’t know if people who don’t allow their children to get vaccinated have different lifestyles and habits as compared to those who do allow their children to be vaccinated. Maybe the parents who don’t are wealthier, or have happier families, or better nutrition, or any number of factors. These factors are completely eliminated in a controlled trial. Since there have not been any, it’s the best data we have. And it seems to tilt in the favor of not being vaccinated.

I could go on and on about vaccines, but most readers have already heard it all from me, so I’ll stop here. Those of you who are new readers and have not heard all this, I would encourage to read my two favorite books on the vaccine situation: Turtles All The Way Down (the title will make sense when you read it) and Dissolving Illusions. I’ve read just about every book on vaccines out there, and these two provide the most comprehensive coverage.

Lumen Recommendation Changes

I got an email from a long-time reader telling me

Yes, I have some knowledge. In my opinion they are not correct on this.

The Lumen is a great device to tell you what you’re burning at any given time. For those of you who don’t know about it, Lumen is a company that makes a device that reads out your respiratory quotient, which is a fairly accurate measure of the ratio of fat to carbohydrate that you’re burning.

The people at Lumen seem to feel that you need to fluctuate between burning carb and burning fat to have what is called metabolic flexibility, which means being able to burn whatever macronutrient you eat.

When we were all kids, we had good metabolic flexibility. Almost no matter what we ate, we could metabolize it perfectly. Not so much as we get older. With age, we tend to develop a little glucose intolerance. Probably because we ate so many carbs when we were younger.

If we eat a lot of carbs, we tend to drive our insulin up (which is normal) and keep it up (which isn’t). The elevated insulin levels run the fat we eat along with the carbs into the fat cells. We can also run the fat into the muscle tissue, which makes us even more insulin resistant.

If we eat fat and protein and not so much carb, we keep insulin levels down and burn the fat along with the small amount of carb.

The best way to follow this would be with a continuous insulin meter, but one is not available yet. The second best way would be with a continuous ketone monitor. We know we don’t make ketones if insulin levels are high, so a reading showing nutritional ketosis most of the time would tell us we’re burning mainly fat and that our insulin levels are down. But there is no continuous ketone meter available in the US. There is one available in Europe, but not yet in the US. (If anyone in Europe has used this device, let me know how it works, and I’ll pass it along.)

The third best thing would be the Lumen.

I would prefer my Lumen reading to be mainly fat most of the time. In my view, the body more or less considers glucose to be toxic, so it tries to rid itself of the carbs first. As long as you’re burning a lot of carbs, you’re not going to be burning as much fat.

It doesn’t take a lot of carbs to throw you out of fat burning. Let me show you what happened to me today. The first picture below is my morning test on the Lumen. I’d not had anything to eat since dinner last night, which was lamb chops with a little slaw.

I didn’t eat anything until about 1:00 pm, which is normal for me. MD rustled up a charcuterie plate for us. It was a couple of kinds of salami, some liverwurst, a small amount of hard cheese, and two sardines (I know that’s not the typical charcuterie plate, but my wife isn’t typical), a couple of olives and two small pickles. She also sliced an apple, which we split, for dessert. An apple contains ~25 g of carb, when you subtract the fiber, which is ~4g, you’re left with 21 grams of available carb. So, assuming I got the larger half of the apple, I ate 11 grams of carb. Here is my Lumen reading an hour and a half later.

You can see how just a little carb intake will shut down fat burning in an effort to get rid of the carbs. It really tells you all you need to know. If you don’t eat carbs, you’ll burn fat. If you eat even a little bit of carb, you shut down a lot of fat burning. If you want to lose fat, eat carbs sparingly. In case you were wondering, I had nothing at all to drink with my lunch. No alcoholic libations, no water, no tea or coffee, nothing. So, no interference there.

How Is Excess Protein Metabolized?

I receive the email below asking this question.

There is a myth circulating out there that excess protein can be converted to glucose and run blood glucose up. As with many myths, there is a hint of truth to this one as those with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) can indeed see their blood sugar go up if they eat protein. Insulin drives amino acids into cells just like it does glucose. Those with T1DM have to make allowances for that in their insulin-dosage calculations. Those who don’t have T1DM do not have to worry about it.

Excess protein, or non-excess protein for that matter, can be converted to glucose if needed. If needed, not just because the excess protein exists. That’s what I mean about a pull phenomenon. If your body needs glucose, it can “pull” it from protein via a process called gluconeogenesis, (literally, the making of new glucose). Not every amino acid can be used in gluconeogenesis, but a number of them can be. In non-T1DM subjects, excess protein is not “pushed” into the formation of glucose.

Glucose is oxidized (or metabolized) first by going through glycolysis, which produces two pyruvate molecules. These two pyruvates end up as acetyl CoA, kind of the basic energy-carrying agent that enters the Krebs cycle. Once in the Krebs cycle, the acetyl CoA throws off high energy electrons that drive the electron transport chain and ultimately generate ATP, the currency of life.

Fat is first broken down in a process called beta-oxidation in a stepwise fashion, two carbons at a time. These two carbon chains that are broken off of the larger fatty acid chain are fed into the Krebs cycle, which ends up generating high energy electrons just like glucose does. But fat generates a lot more.

Protein is metabolized in a much more complicated process. Multiple processes, in fact. Unlike fat and carbohydrate, which are primarily fuels, protein is basically used to rebuild and repair protein structures, such as muscle. It is used in the synthesis of enzymes, which are made of amino acids. Bones contain a lot of protein, so it is used there.

The body’s various structures have first dibs on any incoming protein. What is left over is simply oxidized or metabolized in the same way fat and carbs are: by being fed into the Krebs cycle.

Certain amino acids are converted to what are called keto acids (not the ketones or ketone bodies we all think of as in nutritional ketosis) in a process called transamination. These keto acids can enter the Krebs cycle at different points depending upon the structure of the keto acid. This allows the former amino acid, now changed to a keto acid, to be converted to energy.

The carbon skeletons of the various other amino acids are stripped of their -NH₃ (ammonia) component via a process called oxidative deamination. The -NH₃ is then gotten rid of via conversion to urea, which is then excreted in the urine.

By undergoing these processes, the different amino acids end up in the Krebs cycle and are oxidized just like fats and glucose. Some even end up going up the chain to convert to sugar. These are known as the gluconeogenic amino acids.

All of these processes are energy expensive, which is why protein is energetically costly to convert to glucose. In diet studies in which protein is substituted for either fat or glucose, subjects on the high protein tend to lose more weight. Even though protein contains ~4 kcal/g, a good portion of that is eaten up in the conversion to glucose. This increased energy used to convert protein to sugar and/or to get amino acids into the Krebs cycle makes up the lion’s share of what is called the thermic effect of food.

Here is a graphic showing where the individual amino acids enter the various pathways.

The Sleep App That Forbes' Rated 5 Stars 😱

The app Forbes’ said helps "users achieve high-quality sleep by creating and maintaining effective sleep routines.” is back with new sounds and features!

Now featuring over 300 unique sounds to build to fall asleep to, a personalized sleep tracker and more. It’s no wonder over 65 million people have downloaded this app for better sleep.

Try it tonight 👇

Get BetterSleep!

Omega-3 and Omega-6 Fats In Meat

I had a lot of comments and poll responses about the variations of omega-3 and omega-6 content in grass-fed vs grain-fed beef. I think I made more of a deal out of it in my last post than was warranted since neither grass-fed nor grain-fed beef had very much of either.

I got some slides from my good friend Peter Ballerstedt, who is a forage agronomist. He gives lectures all over the world on this subject, and he just happened to have the very slides I need to drive the O-3/O-6 message home.

Let’s look at his first slide.

This is the kind of chart you usually see. It shows the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. If you looked at this chart and nothing else, you would assume that a pork chop would give you more omega-6 than drinking soybean oil. But this is the kind of chart that is always bandied about by people wanting to show that meat contains high levels of omega-6 fat. By God, there’s more in a skinless chicken breast than in a glass of soybean oil. So don’t bash the soybean oil, bash the chicken.

This is one of the reasons Dr. Hulbert does not like and never uses the O-6/O-3 ratio. It is meaningless. In his book Omega Balance, he describes why he always uses what he calls the omega balance to determine the O-3 to O-6 status.

If you look at Dr. Ballerstedt’s next slide, you’ll see what I mean.

As you can see, if it is O-6 fats you want to avoid, you could eat 42 (3-ounce servings) of grain-fed beef before you would consume as much O-6 as you would get in one tablespoon of soybean oil. And you would have to drink 4 tablespoons of soybean oil to take in the same amount of O-6 fat you would get in 3 ounces of walnuts.

You shouldn’t agonize over whether to eat grass-fed vs grain-fed beef, since the difference in O-3 fat vs O-6 fat is minuscule. Especially if you’re going to have a salad as a side with some sort of commercially-prepared dressing. You will probably get 30 times more O-6 in the dressing than in the meat.

You can also see from the slide above that fish are a real bargain when looking to up your O-3 fats without getting a lot of O-6 fats at the same time.

In the first three fish listed, you would get about the same amount of O-6 fat in the fish as you would in the same size serving of grain-fed beef. But you would be getting a lot more O-3 fat along with it.

Always consider this second slide when you’re contemplating omega fats. It will tell you vastly more than the O-6/O-3 ratio.

The Long Memory of the Fat Cell

A paper just came out in Nature that will have a lot of people nodding their heads in agreement. The researchers determined that fat cells have a sort of memory. Unfortunately, It is a memory telling them they want to go back to being fat.

The article titled “Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss” argues that fat cells remember what it was like to be fat and want to return. A sad situation everyone who has lost weight and regained it all plus some understands.

Although this paper’s title is pretty easy to understand, the paper itself is quite technical. It is not for the lay reader. I had difficulty myself in wading through the thing, mainly because of the acronyms. I had to keep going back to see what they stood for. I should have made a list and kept it at hand. Like reading War and Peace and trying to keep all the characters straight with all their patronymics.

Before we get into what the study says, I’ve got to tell you—as the authors admit in the paper—the data generated do not prove causality. They are speculative. But they do provide a reasonable hypothesis for the rapid regain of lost weight so many of us have experienced.

The researchers looked at adipose tissue from people before and two years after undergoing by-pass surgery for obesity. They compared this tissue with that from individuals who had never been obese. The main interest was in how genes associated with obesity were expressed, even two years after weight loss surgery. They found many genes related to metabolism and fat cell function remained altered in those two years out from surgery. Compared to the subjects who had never been obese, the genes in the formerly obese still were altered even two years later.

What we’re talking about here are epigenetic changes, not changes in DNA. Epigenetics refers to chemical modifications to DNA and proteins that alter gene function without changing the underlying genetic code. These modifications can be thought of as switches that turn specific genes on or off, which will greatly affect how cells function.

Let’s say you have a book of instructions telling you how to assemble some sort of device that can have multiple functions. You’re reading along and you come to a point at which the instructions tell you to either do A or B as the next step, depending upon what function you want the device to perform.

You choose A and make a note of it. Then you follow the instructions down path A, and come to a point at which the manual tells you to do either C or D, depending upon the outcome you want. You choose D and go down that path. Then you come to another decision point—this time E or F. You choose E. The instructions continue on this way through a number of decision points. You make the choices and end up with the device functioning as you want it to.

A couple of years later, you want to build the device again, just like it was before. But you can’t find the manual. What you do find, however, are your notes telling you which choice to make at each decision point. With these notes, you decide you can go ahead and recreate the device. Which, after a little fumbling and bumbling you do.

The instruction book would be a metaphor for our DNA, and the notes we made would be a metaphor for our epigenetics.

This is the kind of memory the authors looked at in this paper. The notes, not the instruction manual.

In this case, the notes involved instruction to the adipose cells and their progenitors. And showed that they ramped up in obesity and in driving inflammation and fibrosis (kind of scar tissue). This is the work of the epigenetic material. And it works the same way, even in mice.

When the researchers made mice obese, then put them on strict diets to make them slim, they found the identical outcome. Their epigenetic material remained altered after the weight loss.

These findings, though speculative, could very well be the reason people who lose weight have such a difficult time keeping it off. There are doubtless other factors as well, but these have now been defined. I hope some other labs try to replicate this work.

How Many People Adhere to Low-Carb Diets?

Before you read on, give it a guess. If you rounded up a diverse sample of American subjects from all walks of life, what percentage would you guess claim to be following some form of low-carb diet?

Once you’ve come up with your guess as to what percentage of this great amorphous mass of people who say they are on low-carb diets, what would your guess be as to what percentage rigidly adhere to a low-carb diet. Before you guess, let me define a low-carb diet as defined in the paper I’m about to describe. To be considered on a low-carb diet, subjects had to restrict their carb intake to 26 percent of calories or below.

So, how many people did you guess claim to be following a low-carb diet? And out of this group, how many were actually restricting their carbs to below 26 percent of calories?

I would have loved to have guessed at this myself, but I read the paper before I even thought about guessing. It’s difficult when you already know not to be influenced, but if put to the question, I would probably have guessed that maybe 10-15 percent of people were on low-carb diets, and that, of this percentage, probably 30 percent consumed less than 26 percent of their calories as carbs.

I would have been very, very wrong. And not in a good way.

I got a paper from Tucker Goodrich this morning that I was unaware of. The article by Kowalski et al titled “Are People Consuming the Diets They Say They Are? Self-Reported vs Estimated Adherence to Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2018” looked at this specific issue. If it is correct, it is mind blowing.

When you read the paper, it is mind blowing.

The data comes from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007-2018. NHANES is a monster nutritional study carried out periodically.

The researchers analyzed dietary data from 57,414 participants were acquired from NHANES, 2007-2018. Unfortunately, all they had to go on was a 2-day dietary recall study. These are always suspect, but not nearly as suspect as something like a one-year dietary recall with questions such as: How many times did you eat butter over the past year? I’m not kidding. They’re like that. The data is totally unreliable, utterly meaningless.

At least in this case people could probably remember what they had to eat over the previous two days, but still it’s prone to error. I could remember perfectly what I had yesterday, but was a little hazy as to what I had the day before. And was it representative of what I ate all year?

What these researchers found after analyzing the data was stunning,

Of all those almost 60 thousand subjects, 1.4 percent reported following a low-carbohydrate diet. 1.4 percent!

And of those 1.4 percent who claimed to be following a low-carb diet, a mere 4.1 percent were actually restricting their carb intake to below 26 percent of calories. Which really blows me away, because these are the people who reported that they were following a low-carb diet. Everyone knows—at least everyone who keeps up with the literature—that people fudge on dietary recall questionnaires all the time. They always underreport what they ate. One would think that if a subjects reported that they were following a low-cab, they would, if anything, underreport the number of carbs consumed.

I’m certain part of the problem is that many, many people, many more than one would expect, don’t really know what a carb is. Or what foods contain what carbs.

I can’t tell you how many times in looking at patient diet diaries, we would discover people eating bananas or drinking a lot of orange juice. When questioned, they would respond that they thought they needed potassium, so they were trying to get it by eating bananas and/or drinking orange juice.

If this report is accurate, it means that only 0.0064 percent of people in the US are following a true (or semi-true) low-carb diet. That’s under one percent.

No wonder the obesity rates are so high.

The researchers also looked at those following low-fat diets, defined as keeping fat intake below 30 percent of calories. They found that only 2 percent reported following a low-fat diet. And of those 2 percent who were following the low-fat diet, 23 percent reported being adherent, which is almost six times more adherent than with low-carb.

What this tells me is that people like carbs a lot. It reminds me of what I heard Harvard psychiatrist Chris Palmer say about ketogenic diets and Alzheimer’s disorder. They had done a pilot study showing those who adhered to the ketogenic diet had excellent cognitive results. When asked why they didn’t roll out a larger study, his response was that the NIH wouldn’t fund it because so many people had trouble adhering to the diet in the pilot study. They didn’t want to waste the money. Even if the study proved that the ketogenic diet worked miracles, who cared if no one was ever going to follow it.

A low-carb diet just isn’t all that difficult to stick to.

…

Okay, I have a bit more to write on this and another article to discuss, but it’s going to have to wait. All our power went out and I’ve spent time going back and forth with both Tesla and the power company, with both blaming the other. Finally the people from Tesla prevailed. The power company said a transformer blew that services our house only. And that someone would be out tonight—this has gone on forever.

Someone did come out, and he’s up on a pole trying to repair the transformer. We have no power and my phone, which I’ve been using for internet service, is about to go down. I need to save a little juice to be able to get this issue of The Arrow, such as it is, out.

So, that’s my sad story of this Thursday night.

Odds and Ends

• Since just 3% of the world’s water supply is fresh, with the vast majority of that trapped in ice caps and glaciers or found underground, desalination has become a multibillion dollar business.

• Rats living in enriched environments learn to drive more quickly, supporting the idea that complex environments enhance neuroplasticity.

• Human sexual activity affects cognitive function, health, happiness and overall quality of life, and, obviously, reproduction. Yet humans are having less and less of it. At all ages.

• Even great scientists do it. An affair with a married man almost cost Marie Curie her second Nobel prize.

• According to the UK’s National Health Service, there has been a massive rise in strokes in middle-aged people. The rate is up 55 percent.

• In an amazing twist of fate, Jay Bhattacharya, an NIH critic, emerges as a top candidate to lead the agency. Another blow to Collins and Fauci.

• Analysis of a 2,000-year-old mug reveals that Ancient Egyptians drank hallucinogenic cocktails in various rituals. Press report. Science.

• Researchers have pulled the mummy of a three-week-old saber-toothed cat that died at least 35,000 years ago from Siberia's permafrost — and the kitten still has its whiskers and claws attached.

• Why do lithium-ion batteries occasionally burst into flame. And why is the fire so hot?

• Artificial intelligence I can ‘hear’ when a lithium-ion battery is about to catch fire. It makes a hiss when gasses escape.

• Texas woman sets record by donating 2,645.58 liters (698.9 gallons) of breast milk. That’s almost 13 55-gallon drums. As they say, everything is bigger in Texas.

• Talk about your über ultra-processed food… Scientists are combining AI machine learning with mechanical testing to improve plant-based meat.

• New research shows microbes in our cities are evolving to resist the very cleaners we use to eliminate them. That’s how evolution works.

• Fifty years later, Donald Johanson reflects on his discovery of the fossilized remains of the human ancestor he named Lucy, who altered the known human family tree. If you are at all interested in paleontology, you should read the book Lucy, about the discovery. It is riveting. It’s what primed me for my interest in the field.

• The great 80,000 pound Costco butter recall is not what it seems. Instead of a financial blow, it was an inexpensive marketing triumph.

• I’ve been reading about virtual try ons—which the fashion industry is hyped about—for a while. Looks like it’s getting closer to reality.

• Denisovan DNA may explain why for over 10,000 years Tibetan women thrive in low oxygen at high altitudes.

• Denmark has agreed on how to implement the world’s first tax on agricultural emissions, including flatulence by livestock. Denmark has morons on their team.

• Marine fossils found in a cave in northern Spain inhabited by Neanderthals suggests our extinct early ancestors may have been collectors.

• How to make peace—if that’s what you want to call it—with the weirdness of quantum mechanics.

Newsletter Recommendations

Video of the Week

I came across this video and figured I might as well share it. I’m giving away my age, but when I was a kid in a small town in the Missouri Ozarks, phones didn’t have dials. You just picked up the receiver and the operator asked, Number, Please? You would give her (it was always a her) the number, and she would connect you. In our town, you could just tell her who you wanted to call, and she would connect you. And, of course, all the lines were party lines. If you wanted to call someone and picked up the phone only to hear other people talking, you would hang up and try again in a few. How things have changed.

When they came out with rotary phones, it was a massive upgrade. People didn’t understand how they worked, so Bell Telephone created this video that had to be on television. Or maybe shown during intermission or at the start of a movie. It must have been at a movie, because it is in color. And there were definitely no color TVs then.

Enjoy this blast from the past.

Time for the poll, so you can grade my performance this week.

That’s about it for this week. Keep in good cheer, and I’ll be back next Thursday.

Please help me out by clicking the Like button, assuming, of course, that you like it.

This newsletter is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment and should never be relied upon for specific medical advice.

Thanks for reading all the way to the end. Really, thanks. If you got something out of it, please consider becoming a paid subscriber if you aren’t yet. I would really appreciate it.

Finally, don’t forget to take a look at what our kind sponsors have to offer. Dry Farm Wines, HLTH Code, Precision Health Reports, and Jaquish Biomedical.

And don’t forget my newest affiliate sponsor Lumen. Highly recommended to determine whether you’re burning fat or burning carbs.