Health

Mercury in Your Hot Dog? Vaccine Skeptics Face Their Limits at Crucial CDC Meeting

Published

2 months ago

September 28, 2025

Kaiser Health News

By Arthur Allen and Renuka Rayasam

ATLANTA — Public health officials watched with dread as a panel shaped by the Trump administration took up an agenda to begin dismantling six decades of vaccination development and progress.

But while the result seemed foretold, the debate was far from unanimous.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, met at a satellite campus of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because the agency’s headquarters were still smashed up from a deadly gun attack last month by a man who said the covid vaccine had made him depressed and suicidal.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made it clear he wants the panel to change the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule, which establishes, sometimes with legal authority, which vaccines are to be mandated, paid for, and administered by states, insurers, and doctors across the country.

Kennedy fired the 17-member panel in June and has so far restocked it with 12 people, including outspoken critics of vaccination. On Sept. 18, the new panel’s discussions reflected its thin expertise and ignorance of how the vaccination schedule came to be. Scientific questions answered decades ago were asked as if they were brand-new.

“We are rookies,” said biostatistician Martin Kulldorff, the committee’s chair, noting many “technical issues that we might not grasp as of yet.”

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, watched the telecast anxiously.

“It reminds me when as children we would have a mock United Nations meeting,” he said. “This would be like that, except we would have actually made decisions for the United Nations.”

Kennedy’s CDC accomplished what 30 years of public health attempts to fight anti-vaccine sentiment hadn’t: a head-to-head comparison of evidence and arguments. But while the winner was clear in the eyes of most experts, some doubted the result would be good.

“The whole purpose of the people on this committee is to circulate these old recycled anti-vax talking points,” said Sean O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado who previously was a liaison from the American Academy of Pediatrics to ACIP. On Friday morning, he said, a colleague had a mother in his practice who refused the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine “because she heard something bad in the news about it last night.”

Until now, public health owned places like ACIP, while vaccine foes and skeptics dominated social media. At this meeting, the skeptics had moved onto public health’s turf — where sometimes flimsy arguments and expertise were exposed.

Pharmacist Hillary Blackburn, for example, asked why children needed two measles, mumps, and rubella shots. ACIP began recommending a second shot in 1989 during a deadly measles outbreak. The two-shot regimen provided more than 95% immunity and led to the virtual elimination of measles from the United States. This year under the Trump administration more than 1,400 cases have been reported, mostly in unvaccinated people.

In one noteworthy gaffe, ACIP member Retsef Levi, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology operations management professor, misinterpreted data from a graph showing declines in hepatitis B in the United States since the 1980s. While rates had fallen in older groups, Levi said, cases in babies hadn’t declined substantially since 2005, when he inaccurately said a birth dose was first recommended.

“Where’s the argument to vaccinate even younger children at all,” he said. “Where is the benefit?”

In fact, the recommendation for a newborn shot began in 1991 and was reinforced and expanded in 2005. The first generation of hepatitis B-vaccinated babies are well into their 30s now.

“As time goes on,” CDC scientist Adam Langer patiently explained, “the people who benefited from the change in policy at the very beginning of the policy are moving into different age groups.”

Kulldorff, Levi, and committee member Evelyn Griffin, a gynecologist, also suggested that vaccines shouldn’t be recommended unless they are tested in placebo trials, which would require certain children not to be vaccinated — a practice considered unethical.

Kulldorff began the meeting defiantly. He did not mention the CDC shooting, but disparaged former agency officials Kennedy had forced out and challenged nine former CDC directors to a debate.

He also asked if anyone in the audience would eat a hot dog laced with thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative the committee banned from influenza vaccines at its last meeting. (No one has ever offered thimerosal as a condiment, but years of study showed the minuscule amounts in vaccines did no harm).

At the June meeting, HHS censored a CDC appraisal of thimerosal while inviting an anti-vaccine activist to present an error-filled criticism of the substance. But on Sept. 18 the panel got what looked like straight science from CDC professionals.

As the committee prepared to debate ending a 34-year-old ACIP recommendation for babies to get a dose of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, CDC career scientists Langer and John Su presented evidence of the vaccine’s safety and benefits.

Langer also laid out the history of the fight against hepatitis B — including the failed effort to control the disease by vaccinating people most at risk, including people who use drugs, sex workers, and pregnant women who tested positive for the virus. Years of trial and error showed that in the U.S., at least, it was necessary to vaccinate newborns to really knock down the disease.

Levi, who frequently mentions the vaccination status of his own six children, challenged the idea that a healthy baby from a “normal” household — one with no history of drug use or prostitution — needed the vaccine.

Cody Meissner, one of three panel members who put up a spirited defense of the status quo in the hepatitis debate, noted that when it comes to vaccination campaigns, “the more we try and define a target group to vaccinate, the less successful we are.” Meissner, a Dartmouth College professor, has published studies of vaccines and the diseases they fight since the 1970s.

Long-observed tropes of vaccine skepticism were abundant on the first day of the meeting. Levi praised a 2004 study from Guinea-Bissau, an outlier that suggested that babies, especially females, were more likely to die if they got a hepatitis B shot. Other panelists said the study, performed in a poor country with high infant mortality where children got an outdated vaccine, wasn’t relevant. But more studies were needed in general, Levi said. “We sit here with very lousy evidence,” he said.

Nurse Vicky Pebsworth of the National Vaccine Information Center, which opposes all vaccine mandates, frequently brought her own selective research into the meeting. She read off the names of studies other panelists hadn’t received to back her arguments that vaccines under discussion were not safe.

But while “too many, too soon” is a common anti-vaccine refrain, Judith Shlay from the National Association of County and City Health Officials, which had a nonvoting chair at the meeting, used it to support the current schedule. She pointed out that the panel’s debate over a combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella shot for children would result in a separate shot for the virus that causes chickenpox, adding to the number of inoculations on the childhood schedule.

“Some parents want to have fewer injections,” she said.

With an 8-3 vote at the end of the day, the committee nonetheless recommended separate vaccinations for MMR and chickenpox.

Everyone seemed puzzled about what had transpired with an ensuing vote on whether the Vaccines for Children Program, which pays for more than half of childhood vaccinations, should respond to ACIP’s new recommendation. The panel revoted on the issue on Sept. 19.

Nor could anyone provide a clear answer as to what prompted the committee’s discussion and planned vote on the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine, since there was no new evidence suggesting any harm from it.

Two of Kennedy’s senior aides, both vaccine skeptics, pushed the hepatitis B discussion onto the ACIP schedule, according to testimony at a Sept. 17 Senate hearing by former CDC chief medical officer Debra Houry, who resigned to protest administration policies.

ACIP member Robert Malone, who has claimed that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, said hepatitis B was on the agenda because it is given to newborns at birth and of special concern to parents newly awakened to vaccine doubt. He appeared to nod off during a CDC staff presentation on the safety of the hepatitis B shot.

Vaccination of babies has always triggered parents. The 19th-century poet Alexander Hope Hume described evil vaccinators who turned “the rosy darling” who “crows with glee” into “a wailing infant” whose every vein “ferments with poison.”

The agenda item was not really about the merit of the hepatitis B vaccine, Malone acknowledged.

“The signal that is prompting this is not one of safety; it’s one of trust,” he said.

But in the end, the committee reconsidered what would have been its first drastic move to reverse a successful U.S. vaccination campaign. It postponed its vote on the hepatitis B birth dose.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

—

Previously Published on kffhealthnews.org

***

If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.

All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.

Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.

On Substack? Connect with us there.
—

Photo credit: unsplash

Source link

Up Next

Easy-to-Use Robot Intubation Tool Could Save Lives

Don't Miss

Ultimate Halloween Recipe Round-Up – SHK

Click to comment

Health

New Pee Test Could Identify Prostate Cancer

Published

1 month ago

October 4, 2025

Futurity

By Johns Hopkins University

This new approach could significantly reduce the need for invasive, often painful biopsies.

By analyzing urine samples from prostate cancer patients before and after prostate-removal surgery, as well as samples from healthy individuals, researchers identified a panel of three biomarkers—TTC3, H4C5, and EPCAM—that robustly detected the presence of prostate cancer.

These biomarkers were detectable in patients prior to surgery but were nearly absent post-surgery, confirming that they originated in prostate tissue.

The results appear in eBioMedicine.

Prostate cancer, one of the leading causes of death in men in the United States, is typically detected by blood tests to measure PSA, a protein produced by cancerous and noncancerous tissue in the prostate. In most men, a PSA level above 4.0 nanograms per milliliter is considered abnormal and may result in a recommendation for prostate biopsy, in which multiple samples of tissue are collected through small needles.

However, the PSA test is not very specific, meaning prostate biopsies are often needed to confirm a cancer diagnosis, says senior study author Ranjan Perera, director of the Center for RNA Biology at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida, and a professor of oncology and neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. In many cases, these biopsies are negative and can result in unintended complications, Perera says. PSA tests also can lead to unnecessary treatment for very low-grade prostate cancers that are very unlikely to grow and spread over a short period of time.

“This new biomarker panel offers a promising, sensitive, and specific, noninvasive diagnostic test for prostate cancer,” Perera says.

“It has the potential to accurately detect prostate cancer, reduce unnecessary biopsies, improve diagnostic accuracy in PSA-negative patients, and serve as the foundation for both laboratory-developed and in vitro diagnostic assays.”

The panel was found to be able to detect prostate cancer even when PSA was in the normal range and could distinguish prostate cancer from conditions like prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate) and an enlarged prostate, a condition known as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

“There is a real need for non-PSA-based biomarkers for prostate cancer, and urine is quite easy to collect in the clinic,” says study coauthor Christian Pavlovich, a professor of urologic oncology at Johns Hopkins and program director for the Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Program.

“Most urologists feel that an accurate urinary biomarker would be a valuable addition to our current diagnostic armamentarium.”

During the study, investigators studied biomarkers in urine samples from healthy individuals as well as from patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer undergoing prostate-removal surgeries at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, or AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute in Celebration, Florida.

They studied 341 urine specimens (107 from healthy individuals, 136 from patients with prostate cancer before surgery, and 98 after surgery) during the development of their urine test and an additional 1,055 specimens (162 from healthy individuals, 484 from patients with prostate cancer before surgery, and 409 after surgery) to validate the test.

During the performance evaluation phase of testing, the scientists also studied samples from patients with BPH or prostatitis, and healthy controls, from Johns Hopkins Hospital from 2022 to 2025.

Investigators extracted RNA from prostate cells shed in 50-ml urine samples and analyzed them using RNA sequencing and also real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to study gene expression. They also used immunohistochemistry to study biomarkers in samples from cancerous prostate tissue and healthy adjacent tissue, and statistical analyses to compare biomarkers found in the urine and tissue samples.

From an initial 815 prostate-specific genes identified in urine from men with prostate cancers, the investigators prioritized the top 50 genes, then the top nine, and from there selected the three top performers—TTC3, H4C5, and EPCAM—for further analysis.

Overall, expression levels of the three biomarkers were significantly higher in urine samples from individuals with prostate cancers than in urine from the healthy controls. The expression of each biomarker diminished to low or undetectable levels in samples taken after surgery. A greater proportion of patients with prostate cancer tested positive for the three biomarkers than for PCA3, another biomarker associated with prostate cancers, in both the development study and the validation study.

“This test has the potential to help physicians improve diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer, reducing unnecessary interventions while allowing early treatment for those who need it,” says study coauthor Vipul Patel, director of urologic oncology at AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Celebration, Florida. Patel also is medical director of global robotics for AdventHealth’s Global Robotics Institute, and founder of the International Prostate Cancer Foundation.

“On behalf of physicians and patient globally, I advocate for further study and progress for these biomarkers.”

Investigators are considering how the biomarker panel could be used alone or combined with a PSA test to make a “super PSA,” Perera says. The next steps for the research are to have an independent trial of the test at another institution and to further develop the test for laboratory use in clinical settings, he says. The investigators have filed a patent, and Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures is helping the team to spin off a company.

Additional coauthors are from Johns Hopkins; Charles University in Prague; the University of Kansas; Orlando Health Medical Group Urology-Winter Park in Orlando, Florida; and AdventHealth Cancer Institute.

Support for the work came from the International Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, the Bankhead-Coley Cancer Research Program to Perera, and by the Maryland Innovation Initiative Grant to Pavlovich and Perera.

Bettegowda is a consultant for Haystack Oncology, Privo Technologies, and Bionaut Labs. He is a cofounder of OrisDx and Belay Diagnostics.

Source: Johns Hopkins University

Original Study DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105895

—

Previously Published on futurity.org with Creative Commons License

***

–

The world is changing fast. We help you keep up.

We’ll send you 1 post, 3x per week.

Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today.

All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.

—

Photo credit: iStock

Source link

Health

How Breath Affects Your Metabolism, Digestion, and Sleep

Published

1 month ago

October 4, 2025

Brian Comly

By Niraj Naik.

Breathing is often thought of as a simple, automatic act, but its impact extends far beyond the exchange of oxygen. The way we breathe directly influences how our body processes food, produces energy, and even rests at night. By understanding how breath affects digestion, metabolism, and sleep, we can tap into a natural, non-invasive method of supporting health.

Modern research is increasingly exploring the impact of intentional breathing techniques on gut health, metabolic balance, and sleep.

The Science of Breathing and the Nervous System

Breathing acts as a primary regulator of the autonomic nervous system, which governs involuntary functions such as heart rate, hormone release, and gastrointestinal motility. Shallow, rapid breathing typically activates the sympathetic “fight-or-flight” state, while slow diaphragmatic breathing stimulates the parasympathetic “rest-and-digest” mode. This is why breathwork and the nervous system are inseparably linked: breathing patterns signal whether the body should prioritize energy conservation, digestion, or alertness.

Emerging studies show that science-backed breath training can improve vagus nerve activity, reduce stress hormones like cortisol, and optimize gastrointestinal motility¹. This connection forms the foundation of why breathwork for metabolism, digestion, and sleep is increasingly being studied in clinical contexts.

Breath as a Metabolic Regulator

Metabolism depends on efficient oxygen delivery to cells for ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate, a molecule that serves as the primary energy carrier in cells) production, the energy currency of the body. If breathing is shallow or inefficient, oxygen supply decreases, shifting energy production toward less efficient anaerobic pathways. This leads to quicker fatigue, impaired fat utilization, and sluggish energy output.

Practicing breathing exercises for metabolism enhances diaphragmatic engagement, increasing oxygen saturation and improving the body’s ability to metabolize fat for fuel. For individuals trying to sustain a consistent gym routine, combining physical training with breathwork for metabolism supports endurance and recovery by ensuring cells are well-oxygenated.

Clinical research indicates that slow-paced, deep breathing helps regulate blood glucose and improves metabolic efficiency 2. By practicing daily breathwork for metabolism, people may complement their nutrition and fitness programs, creating a minimalist routine for better health that leverages both movement and controlled breath.

Diaphragmatic Breathing & Digestive Flow

The digestive process is strongly tied to the parasympathetic nervous system. Stress or anxiety often causes shallow breathing, which impairs gastric secretions and gut motility. This explains how breath affects digestion so profoundly: relaxed breathing enhances vagal tone, improving peristalsis and nutrient absorption.

Early studies and clinical observations suggest that practicing breathwork for digestion may reduce bloating, improve bowel regularity, and support digestive enzyme activity 3. Techniques such as diaphragmatic breathing increase abdominal pressure, gently massaging internal organs, and supporting blood flow to the digestive tract.

For individuals struggling with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or stress-related gut issues, breathwork and the nervous system play an essential role in symptom management. Incorporating even five minutes of breathwork for digestion daily can significantly improve comfort and meal satisfaction.

How Breath Regulates Sleep

Poor breathing patterns are linked to insomnia, sleep apnea, and restless sleep cycles. Shallow breathing stimulates the sympathetic nervous system, keeping the body in a heightened state of alertness 4 . By contrast, deep nasal breathing supports relaxation and may indirectly influence sleep-promoting hormones and circadian readiness.

Techniques such as the 4-7-8 method, diaphragmatic breathing, or slow alternate nostril breathing have been validated as effective methods of breathing for better sleep. Practicing breathing exercises for metabolism during the day indirectly aids nighttime rest, as better oxygen use reduces cortisol levels and balances circadian rhythms.

Patients with sleep apnea demonstrate disrupted oxygen flow, highlighting how disordered breathing disrupts restorative rest cycles. By adopting breathing for better sleep strategies, individuals can improve both sleep onset and depth, making breathwork a cost-free complement to sleep hygiene practices. However, while breathwork may improve sleep quality in some individuals, clinical conditions such as sleep apnea require medical evaluation and treatment.

Integrating Breathwork Into Daily Life

Breathwork is most effective when woven into daily habits. For example:

Before meals: Practice 5 minutes of breathwork for digestion to prime the gut.
During workouts: Use diaphragmatic breathing to enhance oxygen efficiency and support breathwork for metabolism.
At night: End the day with breathing for better sleep to prepare the body for deep rest. Such integration creates sustainable benefits without requiring drastic lifestyle changes.

Whether one follows a structured training program or a minimalist routine for better health, the key is consistency.

Frequently Asked Questions on Breathwork

1. Can breathwork really improve my metabolism?

Evidence suggests that breathwork for metabolism can improve oxygen efficiency and cellular energy production. This may enhance fat utilization, exercise endurance, and recovery, especially when combined with a consistent fitness routine.

2. How does breathwork help digestion?

Practicing breathwork for digestion stimulates the vagus nerve, improves peristalsis, and reduces stress-related bloating. This explains how breath affects digestion directly and why relaxation-based breathing supports nutrient absorption.

3. What are the best techniques for sleep?

The most effective breathing techniques for better sleep include slow diaphragmatic breathing and the 4-7-8 method. These approaches lower heart rate, reduce cortisol, and promote relaxation before bed.

From Energy to Sleep: The Power of Intentional Breathing

Breathing may seem automatic, but the way we control it influences energy, digestion, and rest. Breathwork and the nervous system create pathways that impact everything from gut motility to mitochondrial efficiency. By incorporating breathwork for metabolism, breathwork for digestion, and breathing for better sleep into daily routines, individuals can unlock powerful improvements in overall health.

For those seeking practical and lasting results, the path does not require complex tools or expensive therapies. Instead, a minimalist routine for better health anchored in mindful breathing can provide profound, science-supported benefits.

References

1. Gerritsen, R. J. S., & Band, G. P. H. (2018). Breath of life: The respiratory vagal

stimulation model of contemplative activity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 397.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00397

2. Obaya, H. E., Abdeen, H. A., Salem, A. A., Shehata, M. A., Aldhahi, M. I., Muka, T.,

Marques-Sule, E., Taha, M. M., Gaber, M., & Atef, H. (2023). Effect of aerobic exercise,

slow deep breathing and mindfulness meditation on cortisol and glucose levels in

women with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in

Physiology, 14, 1186546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1186546

3. Liu J, Lv C, Wang W, Huang Y, Wang B, Tian J, Sun C, Yu Y. Slow, deep breathing

intervention improved symptoms and altered rectal sensitivity in patients with

constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Front Neurosci. 2022 Nov

4;16:1034547. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.1034547. PMID: 36408402; PMCID:

PMC9673479.

4. Cowie, M. R., Linz, D., Redline, S., & et al. (2021). Sleep disordered breathing and

cardiovascular disease: JACC state-of-the-art review. Journal of the American College

of Cardiology, 78(6), 608–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.05.048

—

This post was previously published on Mind Body Dad.

***

If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.

All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.

Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.

Photo credit: iStock

Source link

Health

The Hidden Biology of Addiction and Cancer

Published

1 month ago

October 4, 2025

Jed Diamond Ph.D

I have worked in the healthcare field for more than fifty years. I began my career working in addiction medicine. After working with men and women suffering from addictions to drugs like alcohol, heroin, and cocaine, I began to realize that addiction is not just about drugs.

We know that people can have addictive relationships with food, work, and even sex and love. In my book, Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places: Overcoming Romantic and Sexual Addictions, I say,

When we find that our romantic relationships are a series of disappointments yet continue to pursue them, we are looking for love in all the wrong places. When we are overwhelmed by our physical attraction to a new person, when the chemistry feels fantastic, and we are sure that this time we have found someone who will make us whole, we are looking for love in all the wrong places.

In the book, I also quoted Dr. Stanton Peele, an authority on addiction who reminds us,

Many of us are addicts, only we don’t know it. We turn to each other out of the same needs that drive some people to drink and others to heroin. Interpersonal addiction — love addiction — is just about the most common yet least recognized form of addiction we know.

Now Dr. Raphael Cuomo has extended our understanding of addiction even further. In his book, Crave: The Hidden Biology of Addiction and Cancer, he says,

We live in a society saturated with addiction, but not just the kind that ends in emergency rooms or interventions. This is not only about heroin, meth, or alcohol. It is about the relentless cycle of stimulation and reward that defines ordinary life. Binge eating. Compulsive phone checking. Nightly glasses of wine. Doomscrolling. Sugar, caffeine, porn, social media validation, and manufactured outrage.

I had the opportunity to interview Dr. Cuomo. I asked him questions that I thought my readers would be most interested in learning about including the following:

What first got you interested in the cancer connection and why is this connection both hidden and important?

If you were talking to a group of guys, what are some of the things you would say to them about how the book could help them?

Tell us in what ways food is a drug and what do we need to know to keep from becoming hooked?

What is “Digital Dopamine” and why is it a hidden public health problem?

You can watch my full interview with Dr. Cuomo here.

Most of has have concerns about cancer, know someone who has been diagnosed with cancer, or have fears that we ignore or obsess about. Dr. Cuomo offers a new perspective I found very helpful. He says,

We often think of cancer as a genetic accident. A cell mutates, begins to divide uncontrollably, and escapes detection. The story is partially true. But it omits the most important questions:
What makes the body permissive to that escape?
Advertisement

Why does the immune system, which identifies and eliminates abnormal cells every day, begin to miss its targets?
Why do repair systems fail to correct damaged DNA?
Why does cellular growth shift from regulated to rebellious?

In ten, information-packed chapters, Dr. Cuomo answers these and many more questions that can help us understand the biology of addiction and cancer:

Molecular Scars
The Addicted Society
Craving is Chemical
Inflammation Nation
Food as a Drug
Digital Dopamine
Nicotine, Alcohol, and the Usual Suspects?
Beyond the Individual
Biology Can Change
The New Prevention

In his concluding chapter, Dr. Cuomo says,

Prevention, as commonly understood, has struggled to match the evolving reality of cancer. Cancer involves more than external exposure. It arises from internal conditions. Disease takes hold when the body’s environment shifts toward permissiveness, inflammation becomes persistent, immune surveillance weakens, insulin signaling grows erratic, and repair mechanisms fall behind damage. These issues arise collectively, resulting from behavioral, emotional, and structural patterns repeated consistently over time.

For more information about Dr. Cuomo and his work, you can visit him here: https://raphaelcuomo.com/

You can watch my interview with Dr. Cuomo here: https://youtu.be/GLuHclBPH4U

—

This post was previously published on Menalive.com.

—