Category: Recommended

More than 66 percent of the U.S. population drinks water with added fluoride,1 despite the fact that studies continue to question its safety and usefulness for its stated purpose: preventing cavities. A number of countries — including Germany, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, Finland and Israel — have already stopped this hazardous practice, but many Americans are still at risk.
In Canada, nearly 39 percent of the population also receives fluoridated drinking water (compared with only about 3 percent of Europeans).2 It’s been known for years that fluoridated water consumption is linked to thyroid dysfunction and behavioral problems like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and two new studies have added to the already apparent associations.
Exposure to Fluoridated Water May Disrupt Thyroid Functioning
Your thyroid gland, located in the front of your neck, influences almost every cell in your body. Thyroid hormones regulate your metabolism and are required for growth and development in children and nearly every physiological process in your body.
When your thyroid levels are unbalanced, it can lead to a cascade of problems throughout your body. In hypothyroidism, the most common thyroid disorder, your thyroid gland activity is suppressed.
Also known as underactive thyroid, many with this condition are unaware they have it, and another 4 to 10 percent of the U.S. population may suffer from subclinical hypothyroidism that is missed by testing yet associated with miscarriage, preterm birth and altered growth and neurodevelopment in babies.
Even moderately imbalanced thyroid levels may be associated with increased risk of metabolic syndrome, researchers noted in the journal Environment International, which is why “studying factors that contribute to low thyroid function, even at the subclinical level, is of high public health importance.”3
Notably, subclinical hypothyroidism is diagnosed by high serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations, and “fluoride in drinking water, even at levels as low as 0.3–0.5?mg/L, have predicted elevated TSH concentrations,” the researchers added. “Higher water fluoride concentrations have also predicted an increased likelihood of a hypothyroidism diagnosis among adults.”4
The latest study, which involved data from nearly 7 million Canadian adults not taking any thyroid-related medication, found that higher fluoride levels were not associated with higher TSH levels in the general population; however, when iodine status was accounted for, the results shifted.
Iodine Deficiency May Heighten the Risks of Fluoridated Water
Your body uses iodine across several organ systems, but it is most commonly known to synthesize thyroid hormones. Clinically low levels of iodine are associated with visible symptoms, such as a goiter (swelling of the thyroid gland), hypothyroidism or pregnancy-related problems. However, subclinical iodine deficiency can also interfere with your thyroid function.
Meanwhile, the Canadian study revealed that adults in Canada who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher fluoride levels tend to have higher TSH levels, which indicates they may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity.5
It’s a startling finding, considering nearly 2 billion people worldwide don’t get enough iodine in their diet.6 As the researchers of the featured study noted, this means that those with iodine deficiency may be at an even greater increased risk from drinking fluoridated water:7

“Iodine deficiency can contribute to decreased thyroid hormone production and exacerbate the thyroid-disrupting effects of certain chemicals, as well as fluoride …

Fluoride exposures of 0.05 to 0.13?mg/kg/day have been associated with adverse thyroid effects among iodine sufficient people, while lower fluoride exposures of 0.01 to 0.03?mg/kg/day have been associated with these effects among iodine deficient people.”

The effects were so worrying that lead study author Ashley Malin, a researcher at the department of environmental medicine and public health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told Environmental Health News:8

“I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure … And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years … We’re talking about potentially [more than] a million people at risk of an underactive thyroid due to fluoride exposure.”

In 2015, for instance, British researchers warned that 15,000 people may be afflicted with hypothyroidism in the U.K. as a result of drinking fluoridated water.9 In areas where fluoride levels in the water registered above 0.3 mg/l, the risk of having a high rate of hypothyroidism was 37 percent greater compared to areas that do not fluoridate.
Pregnant Women Drinking Fluoridated Water Have Higher Fluoride Levels
Fluoride exposure can occur from multiple sources, ranging from tea and processed foods to dental products, pharmaceuticals and fluoride-containing pesticides. However, research continues to show that drinking water remains a primary route of exposure, including in pregnant women.
In a study of more than 1,500 pregnant women living in Canada, those living in communities with fluoridated drinking water have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in nonfluoridated communities.10
“Research is urgently needed to determine whether prenatal exposure to fluoride contributes to neurodevelopmental outcomes in the offspring of these women,” researchers explained.11 In fact, research has previously revealed that women with higher levels of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy were more likely to have children with lower intelligence.
Specifically, each 0.5 milligram per liter increase in pregnant women’s fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children’s General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) scores, respectively.
Lead researcher Dr. Howard Hu, of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto in Canada, said in a news release:12

“Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure. It also suggests that the prenatal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children.”

The findings were groundbreaking, as the study, which spanned 12 years and received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), was one of the first and largest studies looking into this topic.
Prenatal Fluoride Exposure Is Linked to ADHD

The Canadian study on pregnant women living in fluoridated communities revealed levels of fluoride similar to those found in a study of pregnant women living in Mexico City, where the chemical is added to table salt. The same Mexican sample population has now been featured in another study, linking fluoride exposure to ADHD.13
The study, which involved more than 200 mother-children pairs, found that higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with higher measures of ADHD, including more symptoms of inattention, in the children at ages 6 to 12 years. “[The f]indings are consistent with the growing body of evidence suggesting neurotoxicity of early-life exposure to fluoride,” researchers explained.14
It’s also possible that fluoride may contribute to or exacerbate behavioral problems such as ADHD by way of pineal gland calcification. Despite its diminutive size, your pineal gland tends to accumulate significant amounts of fluoride, which eventually causes it to calcify.
Besides ADHD-like symptoms, pineal calcification may also play a role in Alzheimer’s and bipolar disease. According to Frank Granett, director of clinical pharmacy operations at Behavioral Center of Michigan Psychiatric Hospital:15

“Located deep within the brain below the corpus callosum, which is the circuit connector for the right and left brain hemispheres, the pineal gland is responsible for the secretion of melatonin, the human body’s biological time-clock hormone regulating normal sleep patterns.

More importantly, the pineal gland plays a critical role in the enzyme pathway for the production of brain neurotransmitters including serotonin and norepinephrine. Additionally, the body’s antioxidant defense system is optimized by healthy pineal tissue, which helps eliminate free-radical toxin accumulation in the body.”

A review in Lancet Neurology also classified fluoride as one of only 11 chemicals “known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in human beings,”16 alongside other known neurotoxins such as lead, methylmercury, arsenic and toluene. Among the proposed mechanisms of harm, studies have shown fluoride can:17

Interfere with basic functions of nerve cells in the brain
Reduce nicotinic acetylcholine receptors

Reduce lipid content in the brain
Damage the pineal gland through fluoride accumulation

Impair antioxidant defense systems
Damage the hippocampus

Damage Purkinje cells
Increase uptake of aluminum, which has neurotoxic effects

Encourage formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer’s disease)
Exacerbate lesions induced by iodine deficiency

Increase manganese absorption, which has also been linked lower IQ in children
Impair thyroid function, which can also affect brain development

Can Fluoride Be Removed From Drinking Water?

Effective 2015, the level of fluoride in U.S. drinking water was reduced to 0.7 mg/L from a previously recommended range of between 0.7 and 1.2 mg/L. If you live in the U.S. and want to know fluoride levels in your water, the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Tap Water Database can help.18 This is important for everyone, but pregnant women and households mixing formula for babies should take extra care to consume fluoride-free water. EWG notes:

“Even fluoride levels of 0.7 ppm, the amount of fluoride in drinking water recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, can result in too much fluoride for bottle-fed babies.
EWG recommends that caregivers mix baby formula with fluoride-free water. The National Toxicology Program is investigating the potential for low doses of fluoride to alter thyroid function and childhood brain development.”19

Unfortunately, fluoride is a very small molecule, making it tremendously difficult to filter out once added to your water supply. Any simple countertop carbon filter, like Brita, will not remove it.
If you have a house water carbon filtration system that has a large volume of carbon, then it may reduce the fluoride as fluoride removal is in direct proportion to the amount of fluoride and the time it’s in contact with the media. It’s just not going to get it all. Among the more effective filtering systems for fluoride removal are:

Reverse osmosis (RO). The drawback is that it will remove many valuable minerals and trace elements as well. RO systems also need frequent cleaning to avoid bacterial growth. So, use a tankless RO system with a compressor
Water distillation, which, like RO, gets everything out, including beneficial minerals. You then need to restructure the water
Bone char filters and biochar with activated charcoal

The simplest, most effective, most cost-effective strategy is to not put fluoride in the water to begin with.
Help End the Practice of Fluoridation
There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”
Furthermore, according to the CDC, 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why? The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place.
Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and visit the links below:

Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter and sign up for campaign alerts.
10 Facts About Fluoride: Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF.
Health Effects Database: FAN’s database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Tracker with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride’s effects on human health.

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve
In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Swallowing is a complex biological action that comprises more than 31 muscles and five cranial nerves1 all working together to facilitate nutrition. Its two main goals are to push food from the mouth into the stomach and to protect airways from foreign objects.2
The Process Model of Feeding was created to help people understand how swallowing works whenever solid foods and liquids are consumed:3

Stage 1 (Transport) — Once food enters the mouth, the tongue carries it to the post-canine region to the back of the mouth to begin chewing.
Food processing — In this stage, the food is softened by saliva for chewing until it reaches an optimal state for swallowing. When drinking liquids, the posterior oral cavity is sealed by the tongue-palate contact to prevent leaking.
Stage 2 (Transport) — Once food is ready to be swallowed, it is placed in the back of the tongue to be propelled into the esophagus.
Pharyngeal stage — This process occurs within a second upon swallowing. The soft palate elevates and contacts the lateral and posterior walls of the pharynx to help prevent food from going into the respiratory pathways.
Esophageal stage — Once past the throat, the chewed food (bolus) travels down into the esophagus and into the stomach for digestion.

When Your Swallowing Muscles Experience Problems, Dysphagia Occurs

Your throat and esophagus are prone to many diseases and when either of them is affected, you may experience dysphagia, a condition marked by difficulty swallowing.4 It can be caused by a multitude of factors and disorders, and may lead to complications such as dehydration, malnutrition, pneumonia or an airway obstruction.5 Aside being unable to swallow, other prominent symptoms of dysphagia include:6,7

Gagging, choking or coughing while swallowing food
Drooling or having difficulty controlling saliva in the mouth
Unexpectedly losing weight
Frequent heartburn

The feeling that something is stuck in your throat or chest
Regurgitation of food
Hoarse voice

Risk Factors Associated With Dysphagia

Aging is the one of the top risk factors connected to dysphagia.8 As people grow older, their ability to swallow becomes harder due to wear and tear on the throat and esophageal muscles. Elderly citizens also have a higher risk of developing diseases that can cause dysphagia, such as esophageal cancer, stroke, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.9,10
The onset of neurodegenerative diseases may also increase your risk of dysphagia.11 Stroke, for example, can cause paralysis that can affect any part of your body, including your throat, although it becomes minimal as time passes.12 In addition, those who suffer from cervical spinal cord injury13 and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD),14 a genetic disorder, may experience dysphagia as a side effect.15

Learn How to Manage and Avoid Dysphagia in This Guide

While the complications of dysphagia are very alarming, the disease is fortunately treatable via a variety of approaches. Consuming a healthy diet, getting regular exercise and avoiding unhealthy vices can all help mitigate the risk factors associated with the underlying causes of dysphagia. In the following pages, discover which methods work best and the best practices you can implement to safeguard your health.

MORE ABOUT DYSPHAGIA

Dysphagia: Introduction
What Is Dysphagia?
Dysphagia Symptoms

Dysphagia Causes
Dysphagia Treatment
Dysphagia Prevention

Dysphagia Diet
Dysphagia FAQ

Next >
What Is Dysphagia?

Next
What Is Dysphagia?

Osteoporosis is a condition of the bones in which bone mass is lost; this increases the risk of fracturing your wrists, hips and spine.1 Osteoporosis affects men and women. More than 53 million people in the U.S. already have the condition or are at risk for developing it. Risk factors are either fixed or modifiable. Those factors you cannot change include:2

Gender — Women have a greater risk of developing osteoporosis than men and lose their bone tissue faster with changes happening at menopause.
Age — As you grow older your bones may become thinner and weaker.
Ethnicity — African-American and Hispanic women have a lower risk, while white and Asian women are at higher risk.
Family history — If your parents have a history of osteoporotic fractures this may increase your risk.

While there are things you cannot change, there are certain ones over which you have control. Long term use of certain medications, having an inactive lifestyle or being on extended bed rest, along with smoking all increase your risk of bone loss.3 A diet low in calcium and vitamin D also increases your risk because both are necessary for your body to create dense bones.4
Bone is living tissue constantly undergoing the addition of new bone cells and the removal of old ones. New bone is added faster than old bone is removed until your late 20s.5 “Peak bone mass” is a term used to describe how large and strong our bones can get. Reaching peak bone mass typically occurs between the ages of 25 and 30, followed by greater resorption of bone than bone formation.
Anything having to do with nutrition affects bone formation, including the use of alcohol6 and having an eating disorder.7 Researchers8 have now linked the use of a commonly found antibacterial chemical with increased bone loss and a higher risk of osteoporosis.
Chemical in toothpaste increases risk of osteoporosis

The chemical triclosan, which was banned from hand sanitizers by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,9 may increase your risk of osteoporosis. Researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to look at the association between concentrations of triclosan in the urine with bone mineral density in women over age 20.10 In a press release, one researcher wrote:11

“Laboratory studies have demonstrated that triclosan may have potential to adversely affect the bone mineral density in cell lines or in animals. However, little is known about the relationship between triclosan and human bone health.

As far as we know, this is the first epidemiological study to investigate the association between triclosan exposure with bone mineral density and osteoporosis in a nationally representative sample from U.S. adult women.”

One-thousand, eight hundred forty-eight records were analyzed using data from 2005 to 2010. The measurements revealed the higher the concentration of triclosan in the urine, the greater the risk of bone mineral density decline and osteoporosis.12 This association was stronger in postmenopausal women than those who had not yet reached menopause.13
Data were adjusted for factors including hormonal use, diabetes, body mass index and physical activity level. The authors speculated there was a disruption in thyroid function caused by triclosan, leading to lower bone mineral density and other things, including possible estrogenic activity in older women.14
Cumulative effect of environmental toxins on your thyroid

Your thyroid gland is shaped like a butterfly and located in the front of your neck.15 It secretes hormones regulating heart and digestive functions, bone maintenance, metabolic rate, muscle control and mood. It may become overactive or underactive beginning at birth or developing after exposure to things in the environment. In their consumer update, the FDA wrote:16

“Triclosan can be found in many places today. It has been added to many consumer products — including clothing, kitchenware, furniture, and toys — to prevent bacterial contamination. Because of that, people’s long-term exposure to triclosan is higher than previously thought, raising concerns about the potential risks associated with the use of this ingredient over a lifetime.”

Triclosan is one of many environmental toxins affecting thyroid function. According to the American Thyroid Association,17 more than 12% in the U.S. will develop a thyroid condition during their lifetime and an estimated 20 million currently have some form of thyroid disease. However, symptoms are not always prominent, so up to 60% may be unaware that they have a problem.18
Biological and environmental toxins affect your thyroid gland. For instance, the Epstein-Barr virus, known to trigger infectious mononucleosis, is known to modify the host’s immune response and may trigger autoimmune thyroid disorders.19
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals fall under this category as well. These interfere with the function of the thyroid gland and may exhibit different symptoms based on levels of exposure, time of exposure and gender.20 The thyroid gland is sensitive to the action of these disruptors, and triclosan is one of them.21
Health hazards associated with exposure to triclosan are not limited to thyroid problems or a reduction in bone mineral density. According to the FDA,22 dangers associated with triclosan have not been fully established.
Many health hazards associated with triclosan

The FDA discussed three potential challenges, writing there isn’t enough evidence to determine the contribution of triclosan to antibiotic resistance. They also wrote that studies evaluating skin cancer risk and the potential breakdown of triclosan on the skin after exposure to UV light are ongoing.23 However, a consensus of 200 scientists and medical professionals24 expresses a different opinion.
They cite 10 reasons,25 including its prevalence in the environment and its detrimental effects on aquatic organisms. Also on the list are direct exposure through personal care products, food and drinking water. Triclosan affects the endocrine systems of humans and animals, which may contribute to increased sensitivity to allergens and potential to modify the human microbiome.
They find, based on extensive peer-reviewed research, the endocrine disruptor26 bioaccumulates and is toxic to humans and the ecosystem.
One meta-analysis also found evidence of exposure to triclosan may alter cancer risk.27 Another found that the amount absorbed through the skin is comparable to levels required for mitochondrial dysfunction. Researchers concluded:28

“Taking into consideration these significant findings, incorporation of this antimicrobial into readily available consumer products, not just in soap, needs to be re-evaluated, and biological effects of its breakdown products and metabolites need to be investigated.”

In a review of the literature,29 researchers discussed how the widespread use of triclosan increased levels found in surface water, wastewater and drinking water. They concluded in areas with high densities of bacteria, like wastewater treatment plants, conditions were ripe for proliferation of bacteria and exchange of genetic material resulting in an abundance of antibiotic-resistant communities.
In one study,30 researchers used mice to determine how short exposure to triclosan may affect inflammation in the colon. They determined mice exposed to triclosan experienced a modification of their gut microbiota and increased inflammation. The triclosan also increased the severity of colitis and triggered greater colon cancer cell growth.
Long-term impact of osteoporosis

The degree of risk of osteoporosis rises as you age, in part based on your peak bone mass density achieved in your late 20s and early 30s. Osteoporotic fractures have a serious impact on health, quality of life and happiness. According to the International Osteoporosis Foundation,31 at least 33% of women and 20% of men over the age of 50 worldwide will suffer an osteoporotic fracture.
These fractures do not always heal well and may result in chronic pain, long-term disability and increasing dependence on others, and death.32 Other complications from hip fractures may include blood clots, pulmonary embolisms, pneumonia and postoperative infections when the hip must be surgically repaired.33
In another study,34 researchers found 6% of those living at home younger than 75 and 33% of those at home older than 85 were moved to a nursing home after a hip fracture. After fracturing a hip, 28% lost their ability to cook their own dinner.
According to the International Osteoporosis Foundation,35 after a hip fracture 40% of individuals will be unable to walk independently after one year and 33% will be totally dependent at home or in a residential care facility within the first year.
Although these outcomes are severe, in countries where there’s not as much access to care, people may not get the surgery they need, and this may result in permanent disability or death.36
For the first 10 years after fracture from osteoporosis, you’ll experience an increased mortality risk,37 with the first year38 being the most dangerous. For those over 75, the risk of other major or minor fractures will also increase. Hip fractures affect mobility and emotional health as well.39
What else is in toothpaste?

The presence of triclosan is not limited to just wastewater and personal care products: It’s also in certain kinds of toothpaste. Although some40 quote a lifetime use of toothpaste of 20 gallons, according to the Organized Pack Rat,41 a lifetime usage adds up to 11.3 gallons based on their calculation of the number of uses from a travel size tube of toothpaste. Regardless of how it’s calculated, though, a lifetime use of toothpaste adds up to a lot of chemicals in your mouth.
These chemicals enter your bloodstream through absorption in your mucous membranes. In a report from the Cornucopia Institute,42 an organic industry watchdog, there are a number of potential risks associated with certain ingredients in toothpaste.
Common over-the-counter toothpaste may contain chemicals known to have endocrine-disrupting, inflammatory or carcinogenic activity. Triclosan is only one of those chemicals. Fluoride is another neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor commonly added to toothpaste and water supplies. I discuss more about the dangers in my article, “Short film reveals the lunacy of water fluoridation.”
Some toothpastes also contain sodium lauryl sulfate and/or sodium lauryl ether sulfate, which cause the foaming action. Sodium lauryl sulfate, a registered pesticide to treat fleas and ticks,43 has been linked to skin irritation and canker sores.44 Additional ingredients may include:45

Saccharin — Researchers have found saccharin is carcinogenic in the urinary system of animals.46 It was banned in 1981 due to the history of causing bladder tumors but has been unbanned in more than 100 countries worldwide where it’s currently used as a sweetening additive.47
Carrageenan — While this product has no flavor or nutritional value, manufacturers use it to thicken or stabilize products, such as toothpaste. In animal studies, exposure to undegraded and degraded carrageenan is associated with intestinal ulcerations and neoplasms.48
Pyrophosphates — This helps reduce plaque but also demineralizes saliva, which prevents the natural remineralization of teeth and may affect the health of your teeth over time.49
Phosphate salts — Inorganic phosphate salts are effectively absorbed and may elevate serum concentrations. This may be especially damaging to those with chronic kidney disease. The main problems caused by phosphate salts are vascular damage and calcification.50

Make your toothpaste at home — cheaper, safer and healthier

If you’re frustrated by a lack of toothpaste options at the grocery store, it may be time to start making your own. This recipe, adapted from SimpleGreenSmoothies, is simple and easy.51 Its coconut oil base has been shown to attack oral bacteria that are responsible for dental decay and cavities.52

Natural Coconut Toothpaste

Ingredients

6 tablespoons coconut oil
6 tablespoons baking soda
25 drops of essential oil (peppermint, cinnamon or other mint, for example)
1 teaspoon stevia (to taste)

Instructions

Mix all ingredients together in a bowl until creamy.
Pour into a Mason jar and seal until ready to use.
SimpleGreenSmoothies notes that since it may be a challenge to get the mixture out of the jar, a fruit pop stick can help scoop out just enough to put on your toothbrush.

Your entire body takes direction from your hormones. Hormones are secreted by your endocrine system and are responsible for telling your organs what to do and when to do it.1 They are essentially chemical messengers that travel throughout your bloodstream, working slowly over time to affect processes like growth and development, metabolism and reproduction.
Sometimes, these chemical messengers may get out of balance, and this leads to chronic disorders such as Type 2 diabetes, weak bones and infertility.2 Hormones may be secreted by your adrenal glands, endocrine-related organs, hypothalamus, sex glands and other organs.3
Progesterone is important to fertility and supporting a pregnancy. It’s a steroid hormone secreted by the corpus luteum and then by the placenta if you become pregnant.4 In some cases, when couples suffer from infertility, they choose in vitro fertilization (IVF).
This is a complex series of procedures in which eggs are retrieved from the ovaries, fertilized by sperm in a lab and then transferred into the uterus.5 One full cycle can take up to three weeks6 and cost $12,000.7 In response to her struggles with infertility, Amy Galliher-Beckley, Ph.D.,8 co-founded MFB Fertility and the progesterone test Proov.9
The Estrogen and Progesterone Relationship
Each of your bodily systems maintains a balance to help you maintain optimal health. Your reproductive system is no different. For a woman, there are several hormones affecting a complex system to mature an egg follicle and release an egg where it travels to the uterus. If fertilized, the egg must implant into the uterus, called the endometrium, where it begins to develop into a baby.
These events are controlled by hormones secreted from several sources in the body. The ovaries produce the eggs and are the main source of estrogen. The adrenal glands sit on top of each kidney and also make a small amount. Estrogen plays a role in physical changes during puberty; it also controls the menstrual cycle, protects bone health and affects your mood.10
The second hormone essential to fertility is progesterone, a steroid hormone that is first secreted by the corpus luteum. After the egg is released, the corpus luteum is left attached to the ovary, which functions as a temporary gland.11 These two hormones are controlled by the release of other hormones.
During the menstrual cycle gonadotropin-releasing hormone is secreted from the hypothalamus, triggering the secretion of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the pituitary gland.12 This begins follicle development and triggers a rise in estrogen.
Luteinizing hormone (LH), also secreted by the pituitary gland, supports the maturation of the follicle and a trigger to cause the egg to be released. When estrogen levels get sufficiently high it signals a sudden release of LH, around mid-cycle, which triggers a set of events that ultimately release the mature egg from the follicle.13
Once released, the empty follicle becomes the corpus luteum, which produces progesterone. The release of progesterone triggers the uterus to develop a highly vascularized bed suitable for implantation of a fertilized egg.
Without fertilization, the corpus luteum begins to degenerate, the secretion of progesterone drops off and menstruation occurs. If pregnancy occurs then the corpus luteum produces progesterone for the first 10 weeks until production is taken over by the placenta.14,15
Not About Getting Pregnant, but Staying Pregnant
As Beckley explains in her interview with Forbes magazine,16 her test is not about getting pregnant, but rather staying pregnant. Progesterone not only prepares the uterus for the egg to implant; it also protects the endometrium from degeneration and menstruation. While the body is producing high levels of progesterone during a pregnancy, a second egg will not mature.17
In order to maintain a pregnancy, the corpus luteum must continue to secrete progesterone. This maintains the blood vessels in the endometrium to feed the growing baby. It is in these early weeks that women with low levels of progesterone may have difficulty, both conceiving and developing the right environment for a fertilized egg to grow.
Some women who do get pregnant are at a high risk for miscarriage.18 The test Beckley developed comes with sticks used in much the same way ovulation and pregnancy tests are used. These sticks measure the amount of progesterone metabolites excreted in the urine. To date, this is the first at-home, over-the-counter test used to evaluate a woman’s ability to produce progesterone.19 Beckley explains:20

“Low progesterone is the number one cause of unexplained infertility. Women who go through IVF protocols all are offered progesterone. If you are not going through IVF, most doctors don’t talk about progesterone, they don’t offer progesterone, they don’t test for progesterone. When your progesterone crashes too quickly, it is called a luteal phase defect.”

Luteal Phase Defect Increases Chances of Miscarriage
The luteal phase in a woman’s cycle begins after ovulation and represents the second half of the menstrual cycle. The luteal phase is named after the corpus luteum. Luteal Phase Defect (LPD) results in an abnormal endometrial growth that may not support a pregnancy.21,22
While researchers struggle to identify the underlying dysfunction and efficacy of LPD in supporting fertility, experts report women undergoing IVF always have LPD present.23 LPD is marked with a luteal phase less than 11 days. However, not all physicians believe the condition exists; reliable tests are lacking.24
Beckley developed the Proov urine test to help women identify a reduction in progesterone during their cycle. According to Beckley,25 her test gives women more knowledge about how their body works and provides a foundation for asking their infertility doctors better questions.
The test measures the presence of metabolites in the urine that should increase and remain elevated after ovulation. It may be used to confirm ovulation and confirm levels of progesterone afterward. A single negative test before ovulation followed by a single positive test will confirm ovulation for women trying to get pregnant.26
For women trying to conceive, the test is recommended four days after peak fertility and then for continued testing 10 days past ovulation.27 When questions arise about levels of progesterone to maintain a pregnancy, they recommend testing six days after peak fertility and as needed during the pregnancy since the test should remain positive.
Other Functions of Progesterone
Although LPD has a significant impact on a woman’s ability to carry a pregnancy, it is the subject of debate.28 In some cases, the ovaries release enough progesterone but the uterine lining does not respond.29 LPD has been linked to other health conditions, including:30

Anorexia
Endometriosis

High levels of exercise
Obesity

Thyroid disorders
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)

High levels of prolactinemia (the hormone responsible for breast milk)

In some circumstances, when these conditions are treated, the LPD resolves.31 Later in life, if levels of progesterone decline, a woman’s period may become irregular, heavier and longer,32 increasing her chance of experiencing anemia, depending on the amount and length of her period.33
Variations in hormone levels after menopause may also influence cognition and mood.34 In a study of 643 healthy postmenopausal women, researchers found that while estrogen had little effect on tests of executive function or global cognition, progesterone concentrations were associated with verbal memory. The researchers suggest this positive association merits additional study.
Bioidentical progesterone, also known as micronized progesterone in the oral form, has been successful in helping relieve hot flashes and night sweats during menopause. Dr. Jerilynn Prior from the University of British Columbia Vancouver presented her study at an endocrine society meeting during which she compared the use of progesterone to placebo.35
The study assigned 114 postmenopausal women into one of two groups, a placebo group and another who took 300 mg of micronized oral progesterone daily. To be eligible for the study, the women had to be off hormone therapy for at least six months.36
At the end of the 12-week study, researchers found that the group taking micronized progesterone demonstrated a 56% decrease in a score reflecting the number and intensity of symptoms, while the women taking the placebo reported a 28% decrease.37
Age Does Affect Hormone Balance
As is borne out by the number of women struggling with hormonal imbalances as they age and those requiring fertility assistance to become pregnant after 40,38 Beckley is vocal about the difficulty women may have supporting a pregnancy after she turns 40.39
Beckley says,40 “The closer a woman gets to menopause, the least likely her body is going to be able to support a pregnancy.” Much of this is related to the imbalance of hormones required to successfully support a pregnancy that occurs as women age.
Her research in designing the progesterone urine test led Beckley to believe 30% to 40% of women who undergo IVF treatment to become pregnant ultimately do not need IVF.41 Instead, they may require progesterone to develop a healthy endometrial lining and support early pregnancy.
Overall Fertility Is on the Decline
Couples experience infertility for a number of reasons. In a study42 released in 2017, researchers evaluated 38 years of information and found sperm counts declined significantly between 1973 and 2011. The sperm counts declined 52% to 59% in men located in North America, Europe and Australia.
The Australian Department of Health reports 1 in every 6 Australian couples suffers from fertility problems, which they attribute to the decision to have children later in life as well as declining sperm count. Quality and lifestyle factors such as smoking, not eating healthfully, consuming excessive amounts of alcohol and not having a healthy BMI also affect fertility.43
In May 2019, the Pew Research Center reported that for the fourth year in a row, key fertility indicators for U.S. couples declined, reaching a record low.44 Two of the three indicators used to determine fertility reflected a decline in numbers.
The total fertility rate, or the estimation of the number of children a woman would have in her lifetime, was 1.73 children in 2018. This was lower than the estimate of 1.74 from the mid-1970s.45
Research suggests men’s fertility is affected by environmental toxins and chemicals you may find in your own home, which I discuss in a past article, “50 Percent Fertility Reduction Because of These Household Chemicals.”
Additionally, as described in the past article, “Birth Rate Reaches Record Low as Premature Deliveries Rise,” statistics from the CDC show the number of new births was down 2% in 2018 as compared to 2017, but the number of premature births was rising. Infertility and pregnancy are complex conditions that likely need a comprehensive approach to experience a successful outcome.

More evidence has been uncovered that Alzheimer’s disease may actually be a third form of diabetes, according to researchers from Northwestern University. Insulin and insulin receptors in your brain are crucial for learning and memory, and it’s known that these components are lower in people with Alzheimer’s disease. In your brain, insulin binds to an insulin receptor at a synapse, which triggers a mechanism that allows nerve cells to survive and memories to form.The Northwestern University researchers have found that a toxic protein in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients — called ADDL for “amyloid ß-derived diffusible ligand” — removes insulin receptors from nerve cells, and renders those neurons insulin resistant.The findings suggest that ADDLs accumulate at the beginning of Alzheimer’s disease and thereby block memory function. The process is currently thought to be reversible.The researchers speculated that drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes, which also causes insulin resistance, may “supercede currently available Alzheimer’s drugs.”The FASEB Journal August 24, 2007Physorg.com September 26, 2007

By Dr. Mercola

If you think your birth control pill is the best pregnancy prevention tool there is, you may be surprised by new research looking into its failure rates.
Compared to other forms of protection, the Pill failed miserably, which only adds to the myriad of reasons why you should heavily question its use.

The Pill Fails 20 Times More Often

About 99 percent of sexually active women use at least one method of birth control, the most common of which is the birth control pill (oral contraceptives). The Pill was used by nearly 11 million U.S. women from 2006-2008.i
Meanwhile, nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.ii Certainly not all of these are due to a birth control failure, but some of them — estimates suggest about half — undoubtedly are. Which brings me to a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.iii Out of the 7,500 women in the study, who used various forms of birth control including an intrauterine device (IUD), implant, birth control pills, patch, ring and contraceptive injection, 334 became pregnant, 156 of which were due to birth control failure.
The contraceptive failure rate among pills, patch or ring was 4.55 percent, compared to 0.27 percent among participants using reversible contraception such as intrauterine devices. The effectiveness—or non-effectiveness—was no different in adolescents or young women. The implications—that birth control pills are 20 times more likely to fail than IUDs—should give some women a pause to think about the method of contraception they want to use.
As for the varying degrees of effectiveness, the Pill must be taken daily, preferably around the same time for it to work its best. Study author Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, noted:iv

“This study is the best evidence we have that long-acting reversible methods are far superior to the birth control pill, patch and ring. IUDs and implants are more effective because women can forget about them after clinicians put the devices in place … If there were a drug for cancer, heart disease or diabetes that was 20 times more effective, we would recommend it first.”

Hormone-Based Contraceptives Have Steep Risks

Unintended pregnancy is clearly a big one, but artificially manipulating your hormones using oral contraceptives, the patch or ring, or an injection like Depo-Provera is also a very risky proposition. Most birth control pills are a combination of the derivatives of the hormones estrogen and a synthetic progesterone(progestin). They work by disrupting the hormones in your body, essentially fooling your intricate hormonal reproductive system into producing the following effects:

Preventing your ovaries from releasing eggs
Thickening your cervical mucus to help block sperm from fertilizing an egg
Thinning the lining of your uterus, which would make it difficult for an egg to implant, should it become fertilized

However, it is naive to believe that these are the only impacts the synthetic hormones are having. Your reproductive system does not exist in a bubble … it is connected to all of your other bodily systems as well. The Pill, too, does not only influence your reproductive status; it’s capable of altering much more.

Ten years ago, in 2002, one of the largest and best-designed federal studies of hormone replacement therapy was halted because women taking these synthetic hormones had a such a higher risk of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke and blood clots that continuing forward with the study would have been unethical. The news made headlines because millions of women were already taking these synthetic hormones, but fortunately it prompted many of them to quit. And what do you think happened a year after millions of women quit taking hormone replacement therapy? Incidents of breast cancer fell dramatically — by 7 percent!

What does this have to do with the Pill? Birth control pills contain the SAME type of synthetic hormones — estrogen and progestin — that were used in the ill-fated study!

That’s just one risk. Oral contraceptives have been linked to more than two dozen conditions, including heart disease, liver cancer, deep vein thrombosis and inflammatory bowel disease.v Research suggests they are not only carcinogenic (cancer-causing) but also cardiotoxic (toxic to your heart) and endocrine disrupting.

Why I Advise Most Women to Stop Hormonal Contraceptives

Birth control pills are rarely, if ever, necessary or beneficial. In exchange for the convenience of preventing pregnancy (which you can do naturally perhaps even more effectively, and I’ll explain how below), you are putting yourself at risk of a myriad of health issues.

A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that several types of hormone-based birth control methods increased women’s risk of heart attack and stroke.vi The link was found between oral contraceptives as well as contraceptive patches and the vaginal ring. Women using the ring were found to have a 2.5 times greater risk of stroke compared to those not using hormonal contraceptives, whereas the other methods increased the risk to varying degrees.

Other known health risks of hormone-based birth control include:

Cancer: Women who take birth control pills increase their risk of cervical and breast cancers, and possibly liver cancer as well.
Fatal blood clots: All birth control pills increase your risk of blood clots and subsequent stroke.
Thinner bones: Women who take birth control pills have lower bone mineral density (BMD) than women who have never used oral contraceptives.
Impaired muscle gains: A study found that oral contraceptive use impairs muscle gains from resistance exercise training in women.vii

Long-term sexual dysfunction: The Pill may limit the availability and/or action of testosterone, leading to long-term sexual dysfunction, including decreased desire and arousal.
Heart disease: Long-term use of birth control pills may increase the buildup of arterial plaque, which may raise your risk of heart disease and cardiac mortality.viii
Migraines and nausea
Weight gain and mood changes

Irregular bleeding or spotting
Breast tenderness
Yeast overgrowth
Yeast infection

The other hormonal-based options are not much better. Birth control patches (Ortho Evra) have resulted in an avalanche of lawsuits over the past several years due to the overwhelming health problems women have experienced from using them. One of the reasons the patch is so risky is that you absorb up to 60 percent more synthetic estrogen than if you were taking an oral contraceptive. Side effects of the patch include:

Raised risk of heart attack and stroke
Irregular bleeding
Problems wearing contact lenses
Fluid retention or raised blood pressure

Nausea
Headache
Breast tenderness
Mood changes

Menstrual cramps
Abdominal pain
Skin irritation or rashes at site of patch
 

As far as injections like Depo-Provera, or depo medroxyprogesterone (DMPA), go, this synthetic analogue of natural progesterone known as a progestin interferes with hormone signaling to prevent your ovaries from releasing eggs. Progestins carry with them a vast array of negative side effects, including:

Side Effects of Depo-Provera

Weight gain
Headaches
Breast swelling and tenderness
Decreased sexual desire
Depression
Bloating
Swelling of the hands and feet
Nervousness
Abdominal cramps
Dizziness
Weakness of fatigue
Leg cramps
Nausea
Vaginal discharge or irritation

Backache
Insomnia
Acne
Pelvic pain
Lack of hair growth or excessive hair loss
Rashes
Hot flashes
Joint pain
Convulsions
Jaundice
Urinary tract infections
Allergic reactions
Fainting
Paralysis
Osteoporosis

Lack of return to fertility
Deep vein thrombosis
Pulmonary embolus
Breast and cervical cancers
Abnormal menstrual bleeding
Increased risk for STDs
Unexpected breast milk production
Changes in speech, coordination, or vision
Swelling of face, ankles or feet
Mood changes
Unusual fatigue

Is an IUD a Better Option?

Intrauterine devices are small, plastic, T-shaped sticks with a string attached to the end. The IUD is placed inside the uterus and prevents pregnancy by rendering the sperm unable to fertilize an egg, and by changing the lining of the uterus so that it is less supportive for an embryo. It also works by releasing hormones into your body, specifically a progestin hormone called levonorgestrel, which is often used in birth control pills.
One of its major advantages, and what contributes to its increased effectiveness rate, is that it essentially eliminates the compliance failure issue as all you do is insert it once. There is no daily task to remember to do. However, it, too, carries significant risks, including some that are unique to a foreign body being placed inside your uterus. Among them:

Pelvic infection: IUDs may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, a serious infection
The device may attach to or go through the wall of the uterus
Pregnancy while using an IUD can be life threatening, and may result in loss of the pregnancy or fertility
Ovarian cysts may occur
Bleeding and spotting

Take Charge of Your Body Using Natural Birth Control Methods

You may not be aware that there are many effective and safe methods for preventing pregnancy. Some of the more common, barrier methods are:

Male condoms: Condoms have a 98 percent effectiveness rate when used correctly. A water-based lubricant will increase the effectiveness; do not use an oil-based lubricant, however, as they break the latex and usually are petrochemical in origin.
Female condoms: These thin, soft polyurethane pouches fitted inside the vagina before sex are 95 percent effective. Female condoms are less likely to tear than male condoms.
Diaphragm: Diaphragms, which must be fitted by a doctor, act as a barrier to sperm. When used correctly with spermicidal jellies, they are 92 to 98 percent effective.
Cervical cap: This heavy rubber cap fits tightly against the cervix and can be left in place for 48 hours. Like the diaphragm, a doctor must fit the cap. Proper fitting enhances the effectiveness above 91 percent.
Cervical sponges: The sponge, made of polyurethane foam, is moistened with water and inserted into the vagina prior to sex. It works as a barrier between sperm and the cervix, both trapping and absorbing sperm and releasing a spermicide to kill them. It can be left in for up to 24 hours at a time. When used correctly, the sponge is about 89-91 percent effective.

Many people are familiar with these barrier methods, and less familiar with natural family planning (NFP) tools, which a woman uses to track when she is ovulating, and then avoid sex during that time (or does so only using a back-up barrier method). Many women feel empowered by NFP because it allows them to get in touch with their fertility cycle.
Some of the most popular methods include:

Calendar Method: Abstention from sex during the week the woman is ovulating. This technique works best when a woman’s menstrual cycle is very regular. The calendar method doesn’t work very well for couples who use it by itself (about a 75 percent success rate), but it can be effective when combined with the temperature and mucus methods described below.
The Temperature Method: This is a way to pinpoint the day of ovulation so that sex can be avoided for a few days before and after. It involves taking your basal body temperature (your temperature upon first waking) each morning with an accurate “basal” thermometer, and noting the rise in temperature that occurs after ovulation.

Illness or lack of sleep can change your body temperature and make this method unreliable by itself, but when it is combined with the mucus method, it can be an accurate way of assessing fertility. The two methods combined can have a success rate as high as 98 percent.
The Mucus Method: This involves tracking changes in the amount and texture of vaginal discharge, which reflect rising levels of estrogen in your body. For the first few days after your period, there is often no discharge, but there will be a cloudy, tacky mucus as estrogen starts to rise. When the discharge starts to increase in volume and becomes clear and stringy, ovulation is near. A return to the tacky, cloudy mucus or no discharge means that ovulation has passed.

I encourage you to become actively involved in fertility awareness, and embrace natural family planning or barrier methods that will not interfere with your hormones and health. Some excellent reading to get you started on this path include:

The Ovulation Method: Natural Family Planning, by John J. Billings
Taking Charge of Your Fertility: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health, by Toni Weschler

Honoring Our Cycles: A Natural Family Planning Workbook, by Katie Singer

References:

i See All References

Everything You HAVE TO KNOW about Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods from Jeffrey Smith on Vimeo. A study demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, according to the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering.

“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized … Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” said Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation.

The researchers based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations.

November 5, 2020, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), an investigative public health nonprofit group, filed a lawsuit1 against the National Institutes of Health after the agency failed to respond to its July 10, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The USRTK’s lawsuit sought access to nonexempt records of gain-of-function experiments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the EcoHealth Alliance, which partnered with and funded the Wuhan Institute.2
In a November 18, 2020, article,3,4 USRTK reports that emails obtained prove EcoHealth Alliance employees were behind the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by issuing a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory”:

“Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that a statement5 in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin’ was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit group that has received millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The emails obtained via public records requests show that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet statement, and that he intended it to ‘not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person’6 but rather to be seen as ‘simply a letter from leading scientists.’7 Daszak wrote that he wanted ‘to avoid the appearance of a political statement.’8

The scientists’ letter appeared in The Lancet on February 18, just one week after the World Health Organization announced that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus would be named COVID-19.

The 27 authors ‘strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,’ and reported that scientists from multiple countries ‘overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.’

The letter included no scientific references to refute a lab-origin theory of the virus. One scientist, Linda Saif, asked via email whether it would be useful ‘to add just one or 2 statements in support of why nCOV is not a lab generated virus and is naturally occuring? Seems critical to scientifically refute such claims!’9 Daszak responded, ‘I think we should probably stick to a broad statement.’10”

USRTK points out that several of the authors of that Lancet statement also have direct ties to the EcoHealth Alliance that were not disclosed as conflicts of interest.

“Rita Colwell and James Hughes are members of the Board of Directors of EcoHealth Alliance, William Karesh is the group’s Executive Vice President for Health and Policy, and Hume Field is Science and Policy Advisor,” USRTK writes.11

Daszak Leads Lancet Investigation Into SARS-CoV-2 Origin

This bombshell finding is all the more important in light of the fact that Daszak is now leading The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission charged with getting to the bottom of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.12
The nomination was suspect from the start, for no other reason than EcoHealth Alliance has received numerous grants from the National Institutes of Health for coronavirus research that was then subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Daszak had also gone on the record stating he’s convinced that the virus is natural in origin. With that, his conflicts of interest were already crystal clear, but the finding that he orchestrated The Lancet statement condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” means The Lancet Commission’s investigation is little more than a cover-up operation.
If they want to maintain any semblance of credibility going forward, Daszak would need to be replaced with someone less tainted by conflicts and personal gain potential. Five other members of The Lancet Commission also signed the February 18, 2020, statement in The Lancet,13 which puts their credibility in question as well.
Daszak has every reason to make sure SARS-CoV-2 ends up being declared natural, because if it turns out to be a lab-creation, his livelihood is at stake. It would be naïve to believe that safeguarding the continuation of dangerous gain-of-function research wouldn’t be a powerful motivator to preserve the zoonotic origin narrative.
If you want to see just how deeply the mainstream media is in complete collusion with Daszak and is being used to bolster this fake narrative, you can view the “60 Minutes” interview with him below that was broadcast earlier this year.

Lab Escapes Are Commonplace
For the past decade, there have been red flags raised in the scientific community about biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world.14
There were legitimate fears that a lab-created superflu might escape the confines of biosecurity labs where researchers are conducting experiments. It’s certainly a reasonable fear, considering the many biosafety breaches on record.15,16,17,18 For example, in 2014, six glass vials of smallpox virus were accidentally found in a storeroom in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s lab at the National Institutes of Health.19
It was the second time in one month mishandling of potential deadly infectious agents was exposed. One month before this shocking discovery, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention20 realized as many as 84, and possibly 86, of its scientists had been exposed to live anthrax.21,22
The live pathogen had been sent from another, higher-security facility, which failed to follow biosafety protocols. The anthrax sample was supposed to have been inactivated prior to transfer, but for a variety of reasons it wasn’t dead on arrival.
The next year, in 2015, the Pentagon realized a Dugway Proving Ground laboratory had been sending incompletely inactivated anthrax (meaning it was still live) to 200 laboratories around the world for the past 12 years. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report23 issued in August 2016, incompletely inactivated anthrax was sent out on at least 21 occasions between 2003 and 2015.
In 2017, the BSL 4 lab on Galveston Island was hit by a massive storm and severe flooding, raising questions about what might happen were some of the pathogens kept there to get out.24 As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.25
Between October 2014 and December 2017, a moratorium on dangerous gain-of-function experiments was in effect in the U.S.26,27 The moratorium was initially issued after a rash of “high-profile lab mishaps” at the CDC and “extremely controversial flu experiments” in which the bird flu virus was engineered to become more lethal and contagious between ferrets.
The goal was to see if it could mutate and become more lethal and contagious between humans, causing future pandemics.
According to Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the West Africa Ebola pandemic likely originated out of a BSL-4 facility in Sierra Leone. He believes they were testing a live Ebola vaccine, thereby causing the outbreak.
Asia Times28 lists several other examples of safety breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 labs, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,29 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine30 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.31
SARS Lab Escapes

The Medium article,32 written by Gilles Demaneuf, reviews SARS lab escapes specifically. No less than three out of four reappearances of SARS have been attributed to safety breaches. In the first incident, which took place in September 2003 in Singapore, an inexperienced doctoral student was infected with SARS. The case was blamed on “inappropriate laboratory standards” and cross-contamination.33
Other shortcomings that contributed included “inadequate record-keeping procedures, totally inadequate training, inexistent virus stock inventory, patchy maintenance records plus a variety of structural problems including the absence of gauges to indicate the pressure differentials, the lack of a freezer to store samples, problems with HEPA filters and air supply, and other equipment deficiencies.”34
As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will always be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from gain-of-function research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if these creations are released.
The second accident took place in December 2003 at the Level 4 lab at the Taiwan Military Institute of Preventive Medical Research (IPMR) of the National Defense University.
A lieutenant-colonel working with SARS was infected as a result of negligence when disinfecting an accidental spill. The third incidence took place between February and April 2004 in Beijing, resulting in nearly 1,000 people being medically quarantined.
Why Tracking Down Origin of SARS-CoV-2 Is Crucial

As noted by the National Review,35 getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic to erupt in the future:

“If it originated from a person eating bat or pangolin at a wet market, then we need to take steps to ensure that bat and pangolin consumption and trade stops everywhere in the world … Bat guano is used as fertilizer in many countries, and that guano can be full of viruses … If this is the source of the virus, we need to get people to stop going into caves and using the guano as fertilizer …
In a strange way, the ‘lab accident’ scenario is one of the most reassuring explanations. It means that if we want to ensure we never experience this again, we simply need to get every lab in the world working on contagious viruses to ensure 100 percent compliance with safety protocols, all the time.”

We’re told gain-of-function research is necessary in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of viruses. A pathogen that mutates and jumps species, for example, may end up posing a severe threat to mankind. However, by manipulating pathogens, turning nonlethal viruses into lethal ones, for example, we are creating the very risk we’re supposedly trying to avoid.
And, as long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will always be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if these creations are released. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.36,37,38,39
Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.
U.S. biowarfare programs employ some 13,000 scientists,40 all of whom are hard at work creating ever-deadlier pathogens, while the public is simply told to trust that these pathogens will never be released, either involuntarily or voluntarily.
Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of millions.
Considering safety breaches at these labs number in the hundreds, it’s only a matter of time before something really nasty gets out. Consider the ramifications if a souped-up Ebola or Spanish flu were to get out, for example. Is SARS-CoV-2 the product of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? It might be. There’s certainly compelling evidence to suggest it.
But even if such suspicions turn out be wrong, we must ask the question and do a proper investigation. We absolutely need to know how this virus came about, and if it was a lab creation, how it got out.
Naturally, there will be resistance. As mentioned, many thousands of researchers stand to lose their careers were this kind of research to be banned. As Antonio Regalado, biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, told Boston Magazine,41 “If it turned out COVID-19 came from a lab it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”
Some might be looking at an even worse fate. With sufficient evidence, certain researchers and public health authorities could face life behind bars for their involvement, which is the penalty for bioterrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act. All things considered, there’s virtually no benefit to gain-of-function research, but plenty of risk.

Flying under the radar, so to speak, during the media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, is the rollout of a hyperfast speed 5G wireless network. As millions of Americans are suddenly working remotely, it has proven to be a powerful opportunity for regulators to move 5G forward. Yet, in the face of expanding wireless connections, a landmark study recommends reducing exposure.
Despite concern by many experts, the implementation is moving forward under the guise of bringing a faster and more efficient internet, at any cost. The term 5G stands for the fifth generation of wireless access, which Jonathon Adelstein, head of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, characterizes as “4G on steroids.”1 The association represents nearly 200 companies in the telecommunications industry.2
However, Adelstein’s characterization of 4G on steroids is not quite accurate. While the 4G network uses under 6 gigahertz (GHz) on the radio frequency spectrum, 5G will occupy from 30 GHz to 300 GHz, which are shorter millimeter wavelengths.3 The health effects of consistent exposure to pulses of these wavelengths have not been thoroughly studied, but the initial evidence shows it is likely dangerous.
If faster speed and reliability are truly the end goals, then fiber optic connections are a far better and safer way forward. It’s not the faster speeds of 5G that are of concern to scientists but, rather, the distribution of wireless data when in most cases it could be routed more easily and less expensively over fiber optic cables.
Newest Data Confirms Past Evidence

Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed.4 The commission was engaged to “study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.”5
The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions, including:6

Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology
Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries
Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen
Why, when the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation, nothing has been done

The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants. The commission wrote:7

“There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum. The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized.”

Their first recommendation was “an independent review of the current RF standards of the electromagnetic radiation in the 300MHz to 300GHz microwave spectrum” to assess the health risks that were linked to cellular communications.8
The remaining recommendations included those that would reduce an individual’s exposure to the 5G network and increase the public’s knowledge and awareness of their exposure.
Included was a shorter minority report written by the business and industry representative and the telecommunications representative, who were not in agreement with the majority of experts. The EMF Safety Network wrote, “This minority report parrots the language of the telecommunications industry and exposes their agenda to ignore science and continue to confuse the public.”9
Safety Is Taking a Backseat to Speed

In much the same way the tobacco industry convinced the public that smoking was not dangerous, so is the telecommunications industry selling the public on speed over safety. In the interview above with Greater Earth Media, IT professional Jon Humphrey made the glaringly obvious comparison between the actions of telecommunication, tobacco and leaded gas industries, saying:10

“So, they know the technology is dangerous and that’s why they’re just trying to get as much of it out there as they can before they’re finally held accountable. Sadly, we’ve seen this all before.

We saw it with big tobacco, we saw it with leaded gas and in every single case the big corporations did what they always do — they lied and then they paid off politicians and they paid scientists and they silenced people and discredited them and sadly they did get away with a lot of it and that’s what we need to make sure doesn’t happen with 5G.”

The promise is that speeds will be from 10 to 100 times faster than 4G running primarily on millimeter-wave (MMW) bandwidth. According to EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell, the signals will likely be weaker since the wavelengths do not penetrate buildings and tend to be incorporated into rain and plants. To adjust, the 5G network will use:11

“… smaller cell stations (and the technology of beamforming) that’ll scramble/unscramble and redirect packets of data on a no-interference path back to us. This could mean wireless antennas on every lamp post, utility pole, home and business throughout entire neighborhoods, towns and cities.”

This requires a new infrastructure mounting 5G cell stations on existing structures, such as utility poles. During U.S. Senate hearings on the topic, when asked about the safety studies on these small cell stations, representatives from the industry stated they were not aware if any such studies existed.12
This led Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to say, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here.” An article published in Scientific American by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., director for the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, identified another challenge:13

“5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.”

How Is 5G Different From 4G?

As explained in this video by IEEE Spectrum, part of a large organization devoted to engineering, there are several differences between 4G and 5G technology. Considering there are already many who struggle with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, saturating cities and suburban areas with additional radio frequencies will only add to this once rare affliction.
One of the significant problems with the technology is that it relies primarily on MMW, which is known to penetrate human tissue up to 2 millimeters, where it is absorbed by the surface of the cornea and is conducted by sweat glands within the skin.14 Each of these factors leads to an association with a number of potential health problems.
For example, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is using MMW in crowd control weapons called the Active Denial System because it produces a severe burning sensation. The DOD writes, “The Active Denial System generates a focused and very directional millimeter-wave radio frequency beam.”15
MMW is also known to suppress your immune function16 and increase cellular stress, harmful free radicals, learning deficits17 and, potentially, bacterial antibiotic resistance.18 There is nothing to suggest that 5G will produce less harm than the current technology, and there are thousands of studies demonstrating the harmful effects from that.
Research by Martin Pall, Ph.D., details how excessive oxidative stress triggered by microwave exposure from wireless technology can lead to reproductive harm and neurological disorders, such as anxiety, depression, autism and Alzheimer’s.19
Without the Choice to Opt-Out, What Can You Do?

Once it’s installed in your neighborhood, you won’t have a choice to opt out of 5G exposure. “5G will be virtually everywhere, with the options of being able to simply “get away from it” being very limited as millions of small cell devices are rolled out,” Humphrey says.20
There’s no doubt in my mind that microwave radiation from wireless technologies is a significant health hazard that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health. Unfortunately, the rollout of 5G will make remedial action difficult, which is why we all need to get involved and do what we can to prevent it in the first place, such as contacting your local lawmakers and signing local petitions.
Below are several suggestions to help reduce your exposure and mitigate the damage from wireless technology. In addition, you can download a free chapter from my book, “EMF*D,” that summarizes many of the major recommendations. This is handy to keep on your desktop as a reference as you’re making changes in your home.

Identify major sources of EMF in your home, such as your cellphone, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and other Bluetooth-equipped items, wireless mice, keyboards, smart thermostats, baby monitors, smart meters and the microwave in your kitchen. Ideally, address each source and determine how you can best limit their use.
Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cellphone or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cellphone radiation than adults due to having thinner skull bones and developing immune systems and brains.
Research also demonstrates that infants under the age of 1 do not effectively learn language from videos, and do not transfer what they learn from the iPad to the real world, so it’s a mistake to think electronic devices provide valuable educational experiences.21

Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

Avoid using wireless chargers for your cellphone, as they too will increase EMFs throughout your home. Wireless charging is also far less energy efficient than using a dongle attached to a power plug, as it draws continuous power (and emits EMF) whether you’re using it or not.

Shut off the electricity to your bedroom at night. This typically works to reduce electrical fields from the wires in your wall unless there is an adjoining room next to your bedroom. If that is the case, you will need to use a meter to determine if you also need to turn off power in the adjacent room.

Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.22

If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This includes all new “smart” TVs as they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

Refuse a smart meter on your home as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation as much as 98%.23

Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.

Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.24

When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

Avoid using your cellphone and other electronic devices at least an hour (preferably several hours) before bed, as the blue light from the screen and EMFs both inhibit melatonin production.25,26 If you must use your phone make sure you have the blue light filters activated and have it in dark mode.

The effects of EMFs are reduced by calcium-channel blockers, so make sure you’re getting enough magnesium. Most people are deficient in magnesium, which will worsen the impact of EMFs.

Pall has published a paper suggesting that raising your level of Nrf2 may help ameliorate EMF damage.27 One simple way to activate Nrf2 is to consume Nrf2-boosting foods, such as cruciferous vegetables and fermented foods and beverages.28
Exercise, calorie restriction (such as intermittent fasting) and activating the nitric oxide signaling pathway (one way of doing that is the Nitric Oxide Dump exercise) will also raise Nrf2.

Muscle mass decreases with age, a phenomenon known as sarcopenia. After the age of 30, most people experience muscle mass decreases of about 3% to 8% per decade, with the rate of decline increasing further after age 60.1 This isn’t set in stone, however, and you can influence muscle loss, slowing down its progress significantly, via lifestyle factors like diet and exercise.
Luc van Loon, a professor of exercise physiology and nutrition at Maastricht University in The Netherlands, has been studying muscle loss for years, revealing the importance of diet to your muscle health. Every day, 1% to 2% of your muscle is broken down and rebuilt, according to van Loon, which means that your muscle is rebuilt every two to three months.2
Amino acids from protein are particularly important in this process, acting as the raw material or “building blocks” of your muscle while also playing a role in new muscle growth. Leucine, in particular, has been established as an amino acid with greater anabolic properties.3
The richest source of leucine, which helps regulate the turnover of protein in your muscle, is whey protein. Older people not only have accelerated muscle loss, but also require greater protein intake to stimulate maximum muscle protein synthesis compared to younger people.4
For instance, while the muscle protein synthesis rate of healthy young adults increases by about 75% following intake of 20 grams of protein, older adults require about 40 grams of protein to experience a similar increase.5
Without whey, it can be difficult to achieve enough leucine to maintain body protein from diet alone. Fortunately, whey, in combination with exercise, represents a simple option for older adults looking to maintain their muscle mass.
‘You Are What You Just Ate’

In 2015, van Loon and colleagues published a comprehensive overview of how the body handles protein after a meal, including details such as protein digestion, amino acid absorption and muscle protein synthesis rates.6 The study’s title, “You Are What You Just Ate,” hints at the findings, which revealed that when 12 young men ingested 20 grams (g) of protein, 55.3% of it was released into their circulation within five hours.
After consuming the protein, muscle protein synthesis rates also increased significantly and a rise in plasma essential amino acid also occurred, translating into improved leg muscle protein balance. According to the study:7

“Ingestion of a single meal-like amount of protein allows ~55% of the protein derived amino acids to become available in the circulation, thereby improving whole-body and leg protein balance.

About 20% of the dietary protein derived amino acids released in the circulation are taken up in skeletal muscle tissue following protein ingestion, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis rates and providing precursors for de novo muscle protein synthesis.”

The influence of protein on your muscle may be even more important post-exercise, especially in the elderly, but van Loon and colleagues found that even those who are frail benefit from protein supplementation after exercise.
In fact, their study involved 62 frail elderly subjects with an average age of 78 years, who engaged in progressive resistance exercise twice a week for 24 weeks. They received either a protein drink or a placebo beverage during the exercise.
Those in the protein group gained significant benefits, including an increase in lean body mass from 47.2 kilograms (104 pounds) to 48.5 kilograms (106.9 pounds), an effect that wasn’t seen in the placebo group. According to the researchers, “Dietary protein supplementation is required to allow muscle mass gain during exercise training in frail elderly people.”8
Protect Your Muscles During ‘Catabolic Crises’

While muscle mass does decline gradually over time, it’s also possible that a single event can trigger a catabolic crisis that acts as a tipping point, breaking down muscle to a point that’s difficult to recover from.
Even a brief period of bed rest, such as recovering from a surgery or illness, can initiate significant declines in muscle strength and it’s also known that muscle loss is accelerated during periods of bed rest while muscle protein synthesis declines.9
During typical daily life, consuming a moderate amount of high-quality protein with each meal, and exercising close to protein-containing meals, can help to limit losses of muscle mass and function in older adults.10 Protecting muscles during periods of inactivity, however, is crucial for older adults.
This can be achieved by consuming targeted nutritional support, including protein and amino acid supplementation, along with physical therapy. Van Loon also suggests that making small changes during bed rest can make a big difference. As Outside Online reported:11

“Van Loon advocates some simple fixes — like never, ever feed someone in a hospital bed unless it’s absolutely necessary. Make them get up, and ideally make them shuffle down the hallway to get food. Same for watching TV.

Even this tiny amount of muscle contraction, he says, will enhance muscle synthesis when the patient eats. Similarly, since you don’t eat as much when you’re in bed, the proportion of protein in the meal should be higher to ensure sufficient muscle synthesis signals.”

Protein Before Bed Increases Muscle Mass

I generally recommend avoiding food close to bedtime, and past research has linked eating close to night-time sleep to an increased risk of heart disease, obesity and diabetes. However, targeted nutritional therapy prior to sleep may have a different, beneficial effect, acting as an opportunity to support muscle reconditioning in the elderly or athletes, for instance.12
In a review by Van Loon and colleagues, they found that ingesting protein prior to sleep increases muscle protein synthesis rates while you sleep and may be useful following resistance exercise in both young and old adults:

“Protein ingested prior to sleep is effectively digested and absorbed during sleep, thereby increasing plasma amino acid availability and stimulating muscle protein synthesis during overnight sleep in both young and old. When pre-sleep protein intake is combined with exercise performed the same evening, overnight muscle protein synthesis rates will be further increased.13

Protein ingestion prior to sleep can be applied in combination with resistance type exercise training to further augment the gains in muscle mass and strength when compared to no protein supplementation …

Protein ingestion before sleep has been hypothesized to represent an effective nutritional strategy to increase daily protein intake and, as such, to attenuate muscle mass loss in hospitalized older adults.

In more clinically compromised older populations the combination with exercise or exercise mimetics (such as NMES [neuromuscular electrical stimulation]) may further increase the efficacy of pre-sleep protein ingestion to improve overnight muscle protein balance.”

Leucine as a Pharmaconutrient

Van Loon describes leucine as a pharmaconutrient that may be useful for preventing and treating sarcopenia and other conditions like Type 2 diabetes.14 Muscle protein synthesis may become blunted in response to amino acid or protein intake in the elderly, but free leucine ingestion may reverse this blunted response.15
Older adults may also have attenuated postexercise increases in muscle protein synthesis when they consume small amounts of protein compared to younger adults. This can also be improved via leucine, as research suggests that in older adults, consuming leucine along with protein boosts muscle protein synthesis rates after exercise compared to consuming protein alone.16
As far back as 1975, it’s been known that leucine may also “play a pivotal role in the protein-sparing effect of amino acids.”17 As explained in a more recent study, published in 2017, this is what makes whey such an efficient protein source:18

“Protein ingestion produces a strong anabolic stimulus that elevates muscle protein synthesis. The ability of a serving of protein to stimulate muscle protein synthesis (MPS) is dependent on absorption and blood kinetics of amino acids, amount of protein ingested, and the amino acid composition of the protein source.

Only the essential amino acids (EAA), especially leucine, initiate an immediate increase in MPS. Being a rapidly digested protein with a high leucine content, whey has been shown to stimulate MPS more than equal amounts of casein and soy in the first hours after exercise …

At the molecular level the mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and its substrates … are believed to largely be responsible for the protein synthetic response to resistance exercise and protein intake, with resistance exercise potentiating the effect of protein ingestion.”

How Much Leucine Is Best?
Ori Hofmekler, author of “Unlock Your Muscle Gene: Trigger the Biological Mechanisms That Transform Your Body and Extend Your Life,” is an expert on how to use food to build muscle and improve your health. He believes you need far higher amounts of leucine than the recommended daily allowance, as most leucine is used as a building block rather than an anabolic agent.
The typical requirement for leucine to maintain body protein is 1 to 3 grams daily. However, to optimize its anabolic pathway, Hofmekler believes you need somewhere between 8 and 16 grams of leucine per day, in divided doses.
Siim Land, author of “Metabolic Autophagy: Practice Intermittent Fasting and Resistance Training to Build Muscle and Promote Longevity,” also states that to activate mTOR and boost muscle protein synthesis, you need a significant quantity of leucine, at least 3 grams. In our August 2020 interview, he stated:

“Using leucine or HMB [hydroxy methylbutyrate, a metabolite of leucine] can be really useful for getting more protein synthesis from less protein. You can get away with eating less protein and still getting the benefits of the mTOR stimulation. But I would say that leucine itself could be better than HMB by itself.

HMB has some anticatabolic effects, but most of those effects are mediated by leucine and mTOR itself. You could use both, but if you want to get more benefits from the mTOR and muscle growth, then leucine is probably more important than HMB.”

More Frequent Protein Intake Useful for Muscle Building
Breaking the doses up into multiple meals may be especially beneficial, because if you eat twice, six hours apart, you can activate mTOR twice a day, thus allowing you to get better muscle-building benefits. As explained by Land:

“What determines your muscle growth throughout the 24-hour period is the balance between mTOR stimulation and autophagy. So, if you’re eating only once a day, then the amount of mTOR stimulation is relatively small compared to eating twice a day or three times a day.

That’s why if someone has the goal of increasing their muscle mass, maintaining muscle mass or preventing sarcopenia, then for them it is much wiser to incorporate more frequent meals. For them I would say that a 16-to-8 type of fasting where they eat twice a day is perfectly suitable, and is actually better than the one meal a day.

It becomes increasingly more difficult to maintain muscle mass if you’re already predisposed to sarcopenia and you’re eating once a day, because there’s a threshold of how much mTOR you can stimulate per meal, and how much muscle protein synthesis you can create per meal as well. It doesn’t have to mean that you start eating six times a day. Increasing the eating window is generally a better idea.

For most people, I would say that the 16-to-8 type of fasting, where they fast for 16 hours and eat within eight hours, is a really good balance between getting a daily stimulation in autophagy, while at the same time also stimulating enough mTOR and being able to build muscle.”

Getting large amounts of leucine from your regular diet may be difficult. For example, 4.6 eggs will provide you with 2.5 grams of leucine,19 which means you’d have to eat nearly 15 eggs to reach the 8-gram minimum. High-quality whey, on the other hand, contains about 10% leucine (10 grams of leucine per 100 grams of protein).20
So, 80 grams of whey protein will give you 8 grams of leucine. Whey derived from cheese manufacturing that uses raw grass fed milk is the highest quality whey available and one of the best sources of leucine around.