symptomology

Excerpt from Never Be Sick Again by Raymond Francis:

Our society’s current understanding of disease is based on the concept of symptomology. Symptomology is about focusing on, identifying and categorizing symptoms—in other words, the effects produced by disease. In this manner, doctors supposedly can differentiate one disease from another. Because the entirety of modern medicine and everything we have ever learned about disease is based on symptomology, the concept of only one disease may seem unacceptably simplistic. Actually the symptomology concept is the flawed one.

Symptomology is based on a fundamental misconception, one held by virtually all medical establishments in Western society. The misconception is that thousands of different diseases exist, each with different symptoms, causes and treatments. This misconception stems from the many different ways that cells can malfunction, and therefore the thousands of different symptoms that can be produced. The modern medical treatment of almost all disease focuses on the management of these symptoms (the effects of disease), rather than eliminating the causes, which are deficiency and toxicity. People are told to take insulin to manage their blood sugar rather than eliminating their diabetes, or to take diuretics to treat their hypertension rather than normalizing their blood pressure. They are told to have a bypass operation rather than reversing their heart disease or to undergo chemotherapy rather than healing their cancer.

Diagnosis by symptoms is the process by which modern medicine gives each collection of symptoms a particular name. Medicine views symptoms as enemies, and physicians are trained to eliminate them, even if that means aggressively assaulting the body with dangerous toxins, radiation or invasive surgery. Symptomology leads the medical profession to look at symptoms individually, organize them into thousands of categories, label them as different diseases and then prescribe a currently accepted protocol to suppress those symptoms. This approach adds needless complexity, creates massive confusion and results in an inability to deal with disease in a meaningful way.

In truth, each collection of symptoms—each specific “disease”—is just a different expression of malfunctioning cells. However, with all of our different types of cells, and all of the different ways in which each cell can malfunction, the number of possible combinations of symptoms becomes vast. In other words, when cells malfunction, we may feel sick in many different ways.

revolutionary thoughts

One key fact about the revolutionary thoughts and practices brought about by the youth of the world is the fact is that the final brain region to fully mature (in terms of synapse number, myelination, and metabolism) is the frontal cortex, not going fully online until the midtwenties.

This has two screamingly important implications. First, no part of the adult brain is more shaped by adolescence than the frontal cortex. Second, nothing about adolescence can be understood outside the context of delayed frontocortical maturation. If by adolescence limbic, autonomic, and endocrine systems are going full blast while the frontal cortex is still working out the assembly instructions, we’ve just explained why adolescents are so frustrating, great, asinine, impulsive, inspiring, destructive, self-destructive, selfless, selfish, impossible, and world changing. Think about this—adolescence and early adulthood are the times when someone is most likely to kill, be killed, leave home forever, invent an art form, help overthrow a dictator, ethnically cleanse a village, devote themselves to the needy, become addicted, marry outside their group, transform physics, have hideous fashion taste, break their neck recreationally, commit their life to God, mug an old lady, or be convinced that all of history has converged to make this moment the most consequential, the most fraught with peril and promise, the most demanding that they get involved and make a difference. In other words, it’s the time of life of maximal risk taking, novelty seeking, and affiliation with peers. All because of that immature frontal cortex.

alternative energy creation

For most of the history of biology, plants and animals have been thought of as autotrophs and heterotrophs, respectively. “Autotrophs” are those organisms which provide their own food sources. Plants do this by capturing sunlight and doing a process called photosynthesis. (Carbon dioxide + Water → Carbohydrates + Oxygen) “Heterotrophs” are organisms which consume other organisms for food. Thus, whether animals are herbivores, omnivores or carnivores, they are eating other organisms to acquire their energy. 

For most of biology, we have generally classified organisms into these categories. But with some exceptions we have called “photoheterotrophs” or “mixotrophs.” Most corals, for example, can both synthesize energy from sunlight as well as consume organisms like plankton. Another example is the Venus flytrap and other insect-eating plants that can derive energy both from sunlight and from the organisms they consume. More examples include some types of non-sulfur bacteria, heliobacteria, many types of plankton, and even many types of insects. But of course, humans have always been conceptualized as purely “heterotrophs.” We need to eat plants and animals of various kinds to get our energy. 

Hundreds of studies have now found that human cells—the mitochondria in our cells—do actually produce more ATP when exposed to red/NIR light! And it even goes further than that… A recent study has actually found that other organisms—including mammals that are biologically very similar to humans (like rodents and pigs)—have now been shown to be capable of taking up chlorophyll metabolites into their mitochondria, and using those metabolites to capture sunlight energy and amplify cellular energy production! 

The research suggests that some animals can use these chlorophyll metabolites to speed up the rate of energy production and increase the overall volume of ATP produced by fairly large amounts in many cases. This revolutionary discovery was published in 2014 in the Journal of Cell Science in a study titled “Light-harvesting chlorophyll pigments enable mammalian mitochondria to capture photonic energy and produce ATP.” 

Here is a chunk of the abstract from this fascinating study, where researchers succinctly summarized their findings: “Sunlight is the most abundant energy source on this planet. However, the ability to convert sunlight into biological energy in the form of adenosine-59-triphosphate (ATP) is thought to be limited to chlorophyll-containing chloroplasts in photosynthetic organisms. Here we show that mammalian mitochondria can also capture light and synthesize ATP when mixed with a light-capturing metabolite of chlorophyll.”

---

Ref: Sommer A.P. et al. (2015). Light Effect on Water Viscosity: Implication for ATP Biosynthesis

17 year gap

It takes an average of seventeen years for the data that exposes inefficacy and/or a signal of harm to trickle down into your doctor’s daily routine, a time lag problem that makes medicine’s standard of care evidence-based only in theory and not practice.

Z. S. Morris, S. Wooding, and J. Grant, “The Answer Is 17 Years, What Is the Question: Understanding Time Lags in Translational Research,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 104, no. 12 (December 2011): 510–20, doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180.)

sugar is bad for your brain

Scientists have known that sugar is bad for the brain since 1927, when a biochemist named Herbert Crabtree discovered that elevated glucose levels lower mitochondrial function... sugar has been shown to decrease the number of dopamine receptors in our brains... All forms of sugar are bad for your brain, but fructose — found in fruit, high-fructose corn syrup, and agave nectar — is the worst. Fructose creates oxidative stress and feeds the bad bacteria in your gut, leading to even more inflammation. Fructose is implicated in damaging mitochondria in skeletal muscle cells, harming the mitochondrial membrane, and impairing cellular respiration and energy metabolism. While your brain won’t suffer too much in you eat moderate amounts of whole, seasonal fruits, you should avoid consuming excessive amounts of fructose and completely stay away from fruit juice and foods that contain high-fructose corn syrup and agave nectar. Try to limit your intake to about 20 grams of fructose a day.

vegetarian Omega-3’s—healthy fat or not?

EPA and DHA are found exclusively in seafood and marine algae. Many vegetarians try to meet their omega-3 needs by supplementing with alpha linolenic acid (ALA), which is a precursor to both EPA and DHA. This means the your body uses ALA to make omega-3s… The problem with this is that your body is not very good at using ALA to make EPA or DHA. In fact, you convert less that 5% of the ALA you consume into EPA, and you convert even less (a mere .5%) into DHA... Your body uses iron to convert ALA into these small amounts of EPA and DHA, and many vegetarians and vegans are already low in iron. This depletes their iron stores even more.

just take a tylenol

Just take a Tylenol. This might as well be the American mantra. It’s the perspective that we have been indoctrinated to adopt—that our bodies are full of annoying symptoms that can be suppressed by drugs.

The main ingredient in Tylenol is acetaminophen, which has been used in the United States for more than 70 years. It’s considered a benign over-the-counter medication, used reflexively for aches, pains, and fever, and is widely thought of as safe for pregnancy. About 23 percent of American adults (about 52 million people) use a medicine containing acetaminophen each week. It’s the most common drug ingredient in the United States, found in more than 600 medicines, but this “harmless drug” is linked to over 110,000 injuries and deaths per year.1

How can Tylenol, which is doled out like candy, be bad for you? Amazingly, no one really knows how acetaminophen works,2 but people do know that this drug gets to your brain. Tylenol in your brain is concerning because it depletes glutathione, an antioxidant that is especially necessary for brain health.3 Our bodies depend on antioxidants to balance oxidative damage and inflammation.

NSAIDs injure the small intestine; in one study, 71 percent of NSAID users showed small intestinal damage, compared to 10 percent of nonusers.4 Damaged intestines can lead to intestinal permeability, or “leaky gut” or gut permeability, which is linked to depression, ADHD, and allergies. NSAIDs can induce leaky gut and harm your microbiome, the inner ecology of organisms you rely on for wellness.5

1. T. Christian Miller and Jeff Gerth, “Behind the Numbers: We Explore the Data Behind Figures Showing How Many People Die from Overdosing on Acetaminophen, the Active Ingredient in Tylenol,” ProPublica, September 20, 2013. www.propublica.org/article/tylenol-mcneil-fda-behind-the-numbers.)

2. Carmen Drahl, “How Does Acetaminophen Work? Researchers Still Aren’t Sure,” Chemical and Engineering News 92, Issue 29 (July 21, 2014): 31–32. https://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i29/Does-Acetaminophen-Work-Researchers-Still.html.

3. John T. Slattery et al., “Dose-Dependent Pharmacokinetics of Acetaminophen: Evidence of Glutathione Depletion in Humans,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 41, no. 4 (April 1987): 413–18. doi:10.1038/clpt.1987.50.)

4. D. Y. Graham et al., “Visible Small-Intestinal Mucosal Injury in Chronic NSAID Users,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 3, no. 1 (January 2005): 55–59. PMID: 15645405.

5. G. Sigthorsson et al., “Intestinal Permeability and Inflammation in Patients on NSAIDs,” Gut 43, no. 4 (October 1998): 506–11. PMID: 9824578.

---

Now that you know the dangers of Tylenol and other NSAIDs, you’ll want to know what to take for headaches and other aches and pains. Turmeric, the yellow root found in curry powder that contains a powerful anti-inflammatory and pain reliever called curcumin. This has been used in Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine as a treatment for pain, digestive disorders, and wound healing for centuries. Many studies show the beneficial effects of curcumin: curcumin works as well as ibuprofen to alleviate pain from knee osteoarthritis1 and PMS.2

Next time you have a headache, reach for 1 to 2 grams of curcumin—or even tastier, a turmeric latte.

1. V. Kuptniratsaikul et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Curcuma domestica Extracts in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis,” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 15, no. 8 (August 2009): 891–97. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0186.

2. G. Ozgoli et al., “Comparison of Effects of Ginger, Mefenamic Acid, and Ibuprofen on Pain in Women with Primary Dysmenorrhea,” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 15, no. 2 (February 2009): 129–32. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0311.

questioning immunology

The preschool-level depictions of the immune system as a troop of soldiers fighting off the enemy germ invaders are indicative of a fundamental lack of understanding we have about immunology. In fact, the vast majority of immunology is thoroughly and completely devoted to vaccinology. 

Wait, vaccines must have beneficial effect if they produce antibodies, right? Antibodies have been deemed synonymous with disease protection, and we’ve even used a surrogate marker for claims that vaccines “work” in the laboratory setting, but is there actually any science for this? And do the antibodies produced upon vaccination actually bind to and inactivate disease-causing agents? What if antibodies are simply response elements that support the body’s reaction to the many toxic chemicals in vaccines, ranging from detergents like polysorbate 80 to formaldehyde?

And what about contagion? It has never actually been proven that germs travel from one person to another and infect them. Germs as pathogens is a complex question that science has contributed an abundance of literature to in the past few decades. But with the dawn of the microbiome — our inner ecology that reveals not only our harmonious relationship to but our dependency on the very microbes we have demonized — everything about orthodox medicine should have changed. Including the discovery of so-called viruses embedded in our own genomic material, calling into question whether or not viruses actually exist in the way we have assumed.

Has a discrete virus, deemed unable to exist independently, ever been visualized under an electron microscope, or are we still inferring? Research into our inner ecology now speculates that up to 8% of what we call human DNA may have been viral in origin; this is called the virome. Viral, meaning nucleic acids in a protein coat that require cells to replicate, essentially nonliving agents of genetic information transfer. As we understand more about how genetic information is passed between living entities, we may come to question the vectors we empowered with causal roles. 

Transmission of effects can take many forms that we can understand when we step out of the body of conventional medicine. Does a yawn spread like germs supposedly do? What about women’s menstrual cycles syncing up when they live together? Or the spread of fear-induced illness, which is strikingly demonstrated in a study in which women who were convinced that they were inhaling “contaminated air” got sick when they saw others getting sick from it — despite the fact that there was nothing wrong with the air.[1] Then there are people who only get symptoms of a cold when they believe themselves to be unwell at baseline. All of these situations bring the simplistic theory of germs spreading by physical pathogens alone into question.

It seems that the symptoms of infection are evidence that the body knows how to, and needs too, eliminate. Vomiting, diarrhea, sweating, coughing, sneezing, and runny noses all have exudative elimination in common. This likely also explains why so many people develop cold after after pneumonia after cold after bronchitis during and after their taper process: their immune systems are finally able to begin to mobilize stored toxicants.

As we sit in even more curious territory, what other assumptions have we make that have been disproven or remain unproven to date? Science can be a beautiful tool for discovery, but only if it is allowed to dispassionately acknowledge when a more complete picture is emerging. Charles Eisenstein, wrote in Ascent of Humanity: “when we see germs as predators who seek to steal ‘resources’ from us for their own biological interest (survival and reproduction), then a rational response is to deny them those resources, to hide from the predators or fight them off — the fight-or-flight response… If I believe, on the contrary, that there is some reason specific to my own body why the flu has infected me and not you, then the program of control doesn’t make sense anymore.”

Sometimes all it takes is a friendly reminder that when you are aligned with your body — and truly make a truce with it — you can access limitless reservoirs of healing energy. This is the reclamation we should all be interested in. Once we understand that our symptoms and illness have meaning, that they are sending us a message, and we trust our body’s capacity to move through them when supported, we become unstoppable vessels of revolution in today’s bio-coontroled society. 

snacking is stupid

Prior to 1977, not only did we eat more dietary fat and fewer refined grains, we also ate less often. There were no official recommendations to change our eating patterns but we did, which probably has contributed to the obesity crisis. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study* in 1977 found that most people ate three times per day: breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If you wanted an after-school snack, your mom said, “No, you’ll ruin your dinner.” If you wanted a bedtime snack, she just said no. Snacking was considered neither necessary nor healthy. A snack was a treat, to be taken only very occasionally. Yet now, we are often told that eating more frequently will help weight loss. No scientific data supports this assumption, and it has gained respectability only through mindless repetition. At first glance, it sounds pretty stupid. And it sounds stupid because it is stupid.

---

Reference: *Popkin BM, Duffey KJ. Does hunger and satiety drive eating anymore? Am J Clin Nutr. 2010; 91: 1342–7.)

our bones impact insulin sensitivity

In 2007, groundbreaking research shocked the scientific community by revealing that our skeleton, via the vitamin K2–dependent protein osteocalcin, has a significant impact on our body's production and sensitivity to insulin. With that radical discovery, our perception of the skeleton makes a quantum leap from it being an inert scaffolding to it being a dynamic endocrine gland. Writing in the prestigious journal Cell, researchers explained that osteocalcin, produced within our bones, has the capacity to improve the body's glucose tolerance. And that makes vitamin K2 critical for preventing an illness of epidemic proportions: insulin-resistant diabetes.

• Lee NK, Sowa H, Hinoi E, et al. Endocrine regulation of energy metabolism by the skeleton. Cell 2007, 130(3): 456–69.)

K2 deficiency might be written all over your face

Specifically, the severity of a postmenopausal woman's facial wrinkles predicts her risk of osteoporosis. Women with extensive facial wrinkles are much more likely than their peers to suffer from low bone mass, while those with firmer skin tend to have denser bones, regardless of age or body weight.1

In a similar example, Korean research published in the journal Nephrology in 2008 found that increased facial wrinkling is associated with a reduced kidney filtration rate (a measure of kidney function), independent of age and sex.2 American research published the following year demonstrated that decreased kidney filtration predicts an increase in inactive MGP—in other words, vitamin K2 deficiency.3 When it comes to skin, it seems that a K2 deficiency might be written all over your face.

---

1. Pal L, Kidwai N, Glockenberg K, et al. Skin wrinkling and rigidity are predictive of bone mineral density in early postmenopausal women. Endocr Rev 2011, 32(03_Meeting Abstracts): 3–126.)

2. Park BH, Lee S, Park JW, et al. Facial wrinkles as a predictor of decreased renal function. Nephrology 2008, 13(6): 522–27.

3. Parker BD, et al. Association of kidney function and uncarboxylated matrix gla protein: data from the Heart and Soul Study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009, 24(7): 2095–101, doi:10.1093/ndt/gfp024.)

vitamin K and osteoporosis

Misleading information about vitamin K is everywhere, including magazine articles that tout green leafy veggies as a “great source for bone-building vitamin K.” Yes, green leafy vegetables are a source of vitamin K, but not the kind that most efficiently prevents osteoporosis. Research shows that it takes 1,000 micrograms of a highly absorbable pharmacological preparation of K1 daily to activate osteocalcin. Unfortunately, humans are incapable of absorbing even one-fifth of that amount from food. On the other hand, we are able to absorb large amounts of vitamin K2 from foods. Studies done in the Netherlands indicate that vitamin K2 was three times more effective than vitamin K1 at raising activated osteocalcin numbers over a 40-day period. Most interesting was that the impact of vitamin K1 leveled off after only three days, while the effect of K2 increased every day of the study.

Reference: Schurgers LJ, Teunissen KJF, Hamulyák K, et al. Vitamin K–containing dietary supplements: comparison of synthetic vitamin K1 and natto-derived menaquinone-7. Blood 2007, 109: 3279–83.)

the power of placebo

Interesting research was conducted in the cardiac ward of a major American hospital with patients suffering from angina. Angina is a condition in which arteries supplying the heart become restricted, producing acute chest pain. The drug, digitalis (traditionally a derivative of the foxglove plant), is known to help with the acute symptoms of an angina attack. Once this drug is administered it generally brings fast relief. In this experiment, fifty percent of patients who suffered from an acute angina attack were given digitalis and the other fifty percent were given a placebo. Even though the second group were just given sugar tablets, a significantly high proportion responded favorably and their symptoms subsided.

Even more interesting was that half of the doctors who prescribed the placebo knew that they were doing so, while the other half thought that they were giving their patients the real drug. Surprisingly, the patients who received a placebo from doctors who were under the false impression they were prescribing the real drug responded much better than those patients who received a placebo from doctors who knew what they were prescribing. So, not only was the belief of the patient significant in their response, but so was the confidence of the doctor.

time isn’t linear

In July 2000, Israeli doctor Leonard Leibovici conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial involving 3,393 hospital patients, divided into a control group and an “intercession” group. He set out to see whether prayer could have an effect on their condition. Prayer experiments are great examples of mind affecting matter at a distance. But stay with me here, because everything is not always what it seems. Leibovici selected patients who had suffered sepsis (an infection) while hospitalized. He randomly designated half the patients to have prayers said for them, while the other half were not prayed for. He compared the results in three categories: how long fever lasted, length of hospital stay, and how many died as a result of the infection.

The prayed-for benefited from an earlier decrease in fever and a shorter hospitalization time; the difference in the number of deaths among the prayed-for and not-prayed-for groups was not statistically significant, although better in the prayed-for group. That’s a powerful demonstration of the benefits of prayer and how we can send an intention out into the quantum field through our thoughts and feelings. However, there’s one additional element to this story that you should know about.

Did it strike you as slightly odd that in July 2000, a hospital would have more than 3,000 cases of infection at once? Was it a very poorly sterilized place, or was some kind of contagion running rampant? Actually, those who were praying weren’t praying for patients who were infected in 2000. Instead, unbeknownst to them, they were praying for lists of people who had been in the hospital from 1990 to 1996—four to ten years prior to the experiment! The prayed-for patients actually got better during the 1990s from the experiment conducted years later. Let me say this another way: the patients who were prayed for in 2000 all showed measurable changes in health, but those changes took effect years before

Reference: Leibovici, Leonard, M.D., “Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial.” BMJ (British Medical Journal), vol. 323: 1450–1451 (22 December 2001

— via Breaking the Habit of Being Yourself

gene expression is based on context

The news continues to report that genes are the causes of this or that. Our first instinct is to label the particular gene as “good” or “bad” depending on what it is said to manifest. This gene causes alcoholism. That gene causes obesity. And that other gene causes depression. They’re just bad. Psychologists call this the “diathesis-stress model.” If you have a “bad” gene and encounter problems in life, you’re predisposed to end up with a disorder like depression, so pray you don’t have that terrible gene that can turn you into an anxiety ridden recluse. The problem is, this line of thought is wrong. 

Recent discoveries in genetics have turned the bad vs. good genetics model upside-down and everything is now pointing to environmental context. Psychologists call it “differential susceptibility hypothesis.” Those same genes that led to bad manifestations can be blunted or reversed by changing inputs stemming from your lifestyle. For example, the same knife that can be used to maliciously stab someone can also prepare food for you. Whether the knife is good or bad relies on the input.

More specifically, most people have a normal DRD4 gene, but some have a variant called DRD4-7R. That extra 7R has been associated with ADHD, alcoholism, and violence. It’s thought of as a “bad” gene. Yet, in a study done by Ariel Knafo that looked into which kids would share candy without be being asked, it was found that 3 year olds who had the 7R variant were more likely to share, than those without the “bad” variant. Why were the kids with the “bad” gene so inclined to help, even when they weren’t being asked? Because 7R isn’t inherently “bad”. Like the knife, it’s reliant on context. 7R kids who were raised in rough environments, who were abused or neglected, were more likely to become alcoholics and bullies. But 7R kids who received good parenting were seen kinder than kids who had the standard DRD4 gene. Context and environmental input can make all the difference. 

source: Barking up the Wrong Tree by Eric Barker

viruses are just information

Imagine a situation where the human community is confronted with a new toxin. The new toxin can be neutralized only by an enzyme that is not usually made by human beings. But one member of the community has a randomly generated mutation that allows her—and only her— to make the toxin-neutralizing enzyme. She does well, whereas others sicken and some die because this randomly generated mutation gives her an adaptive advantage. According to the theory of genetic mutation and natural selection, her genes will slowly spread throughout the population. But what if she is a sixty-year-old postmenopausal woman, or a man who does not have children? Then the helpful gene would die out. If we’re lucky, the carrier of the gene will be a thirty-year-old man about to get married. He and his wife have six children with three carrying the autosomal dominant mutation. One of those three dies in a car crash, the other becomes sterile following a Gardasil vaccine, and the third passes the adaptive gene on to her two children. In ten thousand years, that adaptive gene will have spread throughout the population through natural selection. Unfortunately, the toxin either has killed everyone off by then or is long gone, so the mutation is useless. It’s clear that the theory of natural selection following random mutations cannot explain how humans and animals adapt to new situations in time for these mutations to be useful.

So how do we adapt? Our threatened cells produce exosomes containing DNA and RNA, which have a unique resonance. The pattern of this genetic material will quickly pass to others through resonance (especially if they are in close contact). This is the role of “viruses” in nature; they are physical-resonance forms of genetic material that code for changes happening in the environment. They provide real-time genetic adaption. It’s a totally ingenious system that we have missed by assuming that viruses are hostile and dangerous. A war on viruses is nothing more than a war on the forward evolution of humanity.

In other words… unlike bacteria (which you can grow in a petridish), viruses aren’t alive, they’re just pieces of information, instructing our genome to flip on or off certain switches (polymorphisms). In theory, if you get overtly sick, it’s because your body couldn’t handle the “download” of information OR the new instructions it was informed to carry out due to poor health and/or a mismatch with the way you live your life and the external environment you find yourself in. The role of “viruses” in nature is to recode genetic material for changes happening in the environment. They provide real time genetic adaptation.

glyphosate and sunburns

Melanoma rates have increased in step with the increased use of sunscreen. Though causality has not been proven, there is a strong correlation between sunscreen use and melanoma, which doesn’t make sense since sunscreen is supposed to protect you from the harmful sun’s rays. The connection is thought to start with glyphosate, the herbicide in Roundup, disrupts the skin’s natural ability to protect itself from the sun. Gut microbes normally produce tryptophan and tyrosine, amino acids that serve as precursors of melanin, the dark compound in tan or dark-skinned types. They are meant to soak up UV light and protect you from any damage it might cause. But when your food is exposed to glyphosate, it affects your gut microbes and they cannot produce enough of these amino acids. Your natural mechanisms for sun protection stop functioning. This contributes to dangerous sunburns and/or melanoma—not because of exposure to the sun itself but because of exposure to chemicals that kill off the bacteria you need to protect yourself from the sun. You also need plenty of polyphenols (compounds from brightly colored plants) in your diet for your skin to manufacture melanin because melanin is made out of cross-linked polyphenols.

be happy

Happy people are more successful than people who are less happy. That may seem like an exaggeration, but it’s not. Specifically, happy people on average have 31% higher productivity than their less happy peers, their sales are 37% higher, and their creativity is three times as high.

• Shawn Achor, “Positive Intelligence,” Harvard Business Review, January–February 2012; https://hbr.org/2012/01/positive-intelligence. Sonja Lyubomirsky, Laura King, and Ed Diener, “The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?,” Psychological Bulletin 131, no. 6 (November 2005): 803–55; https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-1316803.pdf.

phenylpiracetam for improved brain function

In studies, 400 milligrams of phenylpiracetam taken daily for a year significantly improved brain function and cognition in people recovering from a stroke;1 200 milligrams of phenylpiracetam taken for thirty days improved neurological function by 7 percent in people with brain damage2 and by 12 percent in people with epilepsy.3 In studies on rats, aniracitam improved memory and countered depression.4 A single small study of piracetam in healthy adults found that after fourteen days it significantly improved verbal learning.5

1. Robert C. Spencer, David M. Devilbiss, and Craig W. Berridge, “The Cognition-Enhancing Effects of Psychostimulants Involve Direct Action in the Prefrontal Cortex,” Biological Psychiatry 77, no. 11 (June 15, 2015): 940–50; https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(14)00712-4/fulltext.

2. Kenta Kimura, Makoto Ozeki, Lekh Raj Juneja, and Hideki Ohira, “L-Theanine Reduces Psychological and Physiological Stress Responses,” Biological Psychology 74, no. 1 (January 2007): 39–45; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051106001451?via%3Dihub.

3. Scott H. Kollins, “A Qualitative Review of Issues Arising in the Use of Psychostimulant Medications in Patients with ADHD and Comorbid Substance Use Disorders,” Current Medical Research and Opinion 24 (April 1, 2008): 1345–57; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1185/030079908X280707.

4. Irena P. Ilieva, Cayce J. Hook, and Martha J. Farah, “Prescription Stimulants’ Effects on Healthy Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, and Episodic Memory: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 27, no. 6 (June 2015): 1069–89; https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn_a_00776?url_ver=Z39.88-2003𝔯_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org𝔯_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed.

5. Anna C. Nobre, Anling Rao, and Gail N. Owen, “L-Theanine, a Natural Constituent in Tea, and Its Effect on Mental State,” Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 17 suppl. 1 (2008): 167–68; http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/17%20Suppl%201//167.pdf.)

energy needs of the body

The body needs a continuous supply of glucose to fuel energy metabolism. To maintain tight glucose homeostasis—stability within a corridor of about 70 to 90 mg/dl—the body converts digested nutrients into cellular energy from carbohydrates or synthesizes glucose in the liver from fatty and amino acids by means of gluconeogenesis. These processes complement and back each other up in case any one raw nutrient—carbohydrates, fats, or protein—is temporarily unavailable. While fasting and at relative rest, a 155 lbs (70 kg) individual requires approximately 200 g (7 oz) of glucose during a 24-hour period. The formula to calculate the demand for your particular weight is 2 mg of glucose per kg of body weight for each minute (2 mg/kg/min). These 200 g, are, of course, approximate. The actual number changes depending on the body and outside temperature, levels of additional physical and intellectual activity, and some other factors. “Additional” means above and beyond the body’s regular functionality, such as heart function, breathing, walking, vision, hearing, thoughts, etc. Obviously, the additional activities increase energy needs, and that’s why exercise, physical as well as intellectual, will accelerate commensurate weight loss. Beyond the glucose for energy metabolism, the body needs a continuous supply of fatty and amino acids to build new cells, synthesize hormones, enzymes, vitamins, and other critical substances. Those needs are called plastic, organic, or replacement, meaning to rebuild or to replace dead cells and the substances lost with feces, urine, perspiration, and exhaled air.

If you consume more than the 200 g glucose needed daily, the body will convert the excess into body fat. That’s how you gain fat. The rate of conversion is approximately 1 g of fat for 3 g of glucose. That’s 9 “fat” calories divided by 4 “carbs” calories plus a liberal allotment for the energy required for consumption, digestion, and conversion.

If you consume less than 200 g glucose, the body will “burn” fat to compensate for the shortage at a rate of about 1 gram of fat for every 2 grams of glucose. That’s how you lose fat. Dr. Atkins incorrectly called this process ketosis, because the ketones are the intermediary product of the biochemical reactions which convert fatty acids into cellular energy. The correct name is lipolysis.

• Before converting body fat into glucose, the body utilizes fatty acids derived from food. Thus, if you have too much fat in the diet, the body will not “burn” its own fat until disposing of all fat from food. That means consuming above 75 g of dietary fat stops the loss of body fat dead in its tracks.

• If you consume less than 75 g of fat, the body will “draw” its own fat to produce enzymes, hormones, vitamins, cell membranes, and other essential substances. That’s how you are losing fat.

• If you consume more than 75 g of fat, the body will dispatch the excess right under your skin. That’s how you gain fat.

• If you consume less than 53 g of protein, the body will break muscle tissue into the amino acids needed for building cells, neurotransmitters, hormones, digestive enzymes, and other essential structures and substances. The process is called “muscle wasting.” You certainly can lose weight this way, but, for obvious reasons, it isn’t a desirable weight loss, and it isn’t a loss of fat.

• If you consume more than 53 g proteins, the body will convert certain excesses into muscle tissue. The stronger the muscles, the more protein they will take. You gain weight that way, but this isn’t from fat, and it is a very desirable weight. However, if you don’t have strong muscles (just like most women and children), the excess will get converted into glucose, and the excess glucose will get converted into body fat. And that’s how you gain body fat from overeating protein.