Immune System and Brain health, clarity, memory

October 31, 2014


Immune System Strength is Important

Your brain and immune system functioning well are key elements of quality of life.  I believe that my immune system was not good before I started taking supplements.  I admit I got sick frequently.  When I traveled it was especially noticeable.  If there was a cold going around on the plane I got it.  I had a lot of inflammation and runny nose.  It is totally different now.  This is the most obvious and clear impact of supplements I take other than the direct evidence from blood tests.

My personal experience in this matter is more subjective than other studies I have done on supplements because I am not aware of blood tests to determine a persons immune system strength.

Immune system health is incredibly important.  One of the primary causes of death is complications resulting from some relatively benign disease that overwhelms the immune system of the patient.  Older people are known to have a very low response to vaccines and so one of the primary defenses old people have for disease doesn’t work very well on them.   As a current example, people under 25 have the best chance of surviving Ebola.  People over just 45 years old have a 94% chance of dying!!!!!!!!!!!   Proof that most of us have immune system and recuperative powers decline dramatically even at a relatively young 45.

Flu Vaccine

I have personally found that the cold flu virus is a kind of problematic thing to do.   If you have a strong immune system then the flu vaccine will do nothing for you even if it does confer immunity for some versions of the flu you won’t get any flu and if you do it will be short painless duration.    If you have a weak immune system then the flu vaccine doesn’t help much.   The flu vaccine depends on you having a strong immune system that responds to virus injected in you.  If your immune system is strong then you don’t need it, if it is weak then it won’t stimulate it much.  The bottom line:  Get a strong immune system!

If you want to get the flu vaccine by all means go ahead.  I am NOT saying don’t take the flu vaccine.  However, my point is that if you get a strong immune system you will be protected against ALL flu viruses not just the 3 that they put into the vaccine.  You will also be protected from numerous other things that may harm you or kill you and possibly things that are creating cancer or might stir up a small plaque in an artery someplace and cause a stroke.   So I suggest a MORE IMPORTANT thing than getting the flu vaccine is learning how to strengthen your immune system fundamentally.


There is some evidence and some theories that suggest things like Cancer and Heart disease may fundamentally be caused by infections.  We know some heart attacks and strokes are caused by them and we know some cancers are caused.   The jury is out if all heart and cancer ultimately can be traced to some bugs.  However, no matter how you look at it having a strong immune system is a huge benefit no matter what else you do.


Vitamin D3:  1000-2000ucg.   Vitamin D3 is truly one of the most important supplements everybody should take.  The evidence behind its benefits in numerous studies is indisputable.  Many people think they get enough D3 in food and sun but the type of D in most foods is not D3 and many people simply do not get sun frequently enough or long enough to have a consistent high supply of it in the blood.  Also, getting it from the sun means potential skin damage and premature aging.   Most people should avoid as much sun exposure as they can.  Always use sunscreen and shades, however doing that will cut your d3 production.   There is so much evidence that sun damage is the primary way the skin deteriorates, looks old and causes skin cancer.   Protecting it at an early age and for your life is important.  So, taking a vitamin D3 supplement is also needed.

Pycnogenol (Pine Bark):  150mg – 300mg.   Numerous studies have come out on this interesting supplement.   I personally feel it is the strongest thing I take to improve my immune system based on my personal experience.   The studies have not been done on it to my knowledge for immune system however pycnogenol has dozens of other studies showing lots of positive effects on heart health.   I can’t explain why but I have noticed that pycnogenol has had a tremendous effect on my immunity system.   There are many reasons to take this supplement but I take it to help my immune system.   I believe it works for that even if the science doesn’t back that up yet.

Resveratrol, Pterostilbene, Vitamin C, Coq10, other antioxidants : studies have shown effects of all these vitamins on immune health and strength.   I don’t believe they are major contributors based on experience and the results of the studies seem vague and not as factual as some.  Nonetheless I take these supplements above for other reasons so they have the additional effect of helping the immune system, great!   Pterostilbene is an analog to Resveratrol in other fruits, i.e. blueberries.   Pterostilbene has numerous studies similar to resveratrol arguing the same effects.   Taking both (easy since the supplement I use for Resveratrol from Biotivia already has Pterostilbene in it.   I don’t consider it essential as resveratrol.

Biotivia Immuneedge:  I have once or twice used this product.  There is science behind some of the claims for some of the supplements included.  I haven’t felt it made much difference yet there is some science behind it.


Studies to read:

D3 5 Immunity–vdp020607.php Vitamin D3 provides skin with protection from harmful microbes
EGCG Immunity Mechanism discovered for health benefit of green tea, new approach to autoimmune disease
Resveratrol, Pterostilbene Immunity Red grapes, blueberries may enhance immune function
Vitamin C Immunity Vitamin C is beneficial against the common cold


How to make it easy to take supplements and proof supplements work reaffirmed

October 31, 2014


Continuing Proof that supplements work

I have been incredibly regular about taking my supplements over the 20 years or so I’ve been doing this.    This last period was an exception.  I wanted to see if I stopped taking the supplements as much would I do well?   Maybe I could take half as many supplements maybe every other day and do very well.  Maybe my results wouldn’t change much.    So, this last 6 months I have been taking roughly half my normal supplementation mixing up morning and evening sometime.   Well, I had my annual blood tests this last week and the results were conclusive that the supplements are still making a difference.  My HDL dropped to the mid 40s from the mid50s last year (bad).  My total cholesterol climbed to 180 (bad).   Even more disturbing is that I got the sniffles and a sore throat last night.   Very obvious that not taking the supplements as regularly has resulted in clear metabolic differences in my body.    I took the whole days packets last night (having missed them that morning and day) when I felt a little sniffles.  Sure enough during the night I needed to take a cold medicine and I actually felt a sore throat a little which I can’t remember feeling in years and years.  I feel great this morning but this experience between the blood tests and the sniffles last night makes it very clear to me that the supplements still make a difference.  Possibly this cold would have gone or been short without taking the supplements last night but I feel after taking them that my body was able to fight this better.     This is more proof to me that the vitamins and supplements do actually make a real difference in my quality of life whether or not they save me from cancer or whatever else that may be my destiny.    Even on a day to day basis I notice a benefit.

Is taking supplements evidence of a negative mindset?

I want to be clear I think almost never of my mortality.    First, my brother who got a near fatal cancer continues to live 12 years after the surgery and radiation therapy.  His continuing miracle reinvigorates me to continue along my path of seeing if I can have a life without such a massive thing happening to me.  Fingers crossed.  Also, I do feel healthy and young most of the time that I don’t think of the downside.   People always seem to comment on my apparent youth and it makes me feel like something is working.     The system I use to package my pills makes it easy to take them and I don’t think about my mortality or negative things.   I actually think of the positive things they give me.   I am amazed how I feel so healthy most of the time, so youthful and feel quite positive about the science behind what I am doing so I feel like it is a very positive thing.

I may be different than some people.   When I am challenged I take up the challenge with a very determined and systematic approach.   I see challenges as something I can conquer applying brain power and consistency.    I look for results and check back to make sure something hasn’t changed that makes my thinking wrong.

I am very aware that my approach is not the way lots of people want to address problems.   I have no absolute proof that what I say will work in the end I may die of things either that my recipe won’t help with or in spite of supplements.   At least I know I am taking the most intelligent approach to reducing the chances.   Some people may prefer to just “eat” their way to health and given that many people live quite long this apparently will work for some people.  Some people don’t even bother to eat especially well and live to 100 and happy.   Others don’t.     I am doing an experiment and I don’t ask you to follow my experiment in the same way or at all.

I was quite private about all this although if anybody asked about my supplements I was happy to talk about them.  Recently I get asked more and more so I thought it would be useful to put my thoughts and what I do on paper.  Doing that also helps me clarify my thinking process whether anyone reads this stuff or not.

I think my recipe is pretty good.  I would love any challenge or questions but I will continue to do this as long as I believe it has benefit and is backed by science.  So far, the evidence keeps mounting that this is the right course.

Ways to simplify taking Supplements

pill containers41ugOiJoQoL

An important topic is the way you take supplements and when you take them.   Some supplements need to be taken with food, some not near food, some are best in the morning and give you energy that would be undesired during the evening and some seem to slow you down which you probably don’t want in the morning.

I have been using a system for decades now.   It is the only way I can imagine to make taking a lot of supplements practical and consistent.

1) I produce packets of my recipe for 3-6 months of morning and evening recipes.

2) I do this in 2 packets each day because the total number of pills is beyond a desirable number to take at one time and because some pills are better with food or without food and at night or in the morning.

3) I use a combination of hard containers which hold between 12 and 28 bunches of pills and soft containers little plastic bags that hold enough for one morning or evening dose.  I use the combination because the hard containers are easier to fill but that when I travel it is hard to take the bulky hard containers or at dinner with friends I don’t want to pull out a big container.  So, I have this system.   The soft containers are little plastic bags I have found at walgreens.  They sell 100 of them for a few bucks.

4) I research before each “restock” day the literature on supplements looking for new insights on how to change my recipe.    I keep a spreadsheet with the vitamins, prices and brands, how much I have and how much I will need.    The spreadsheet helps me order the vitamins I need to complete my packets for the next 3-6 months.   I will act on any hard evidence that a supplement is not effective or didn’t seem to make any difference by removing it.  This could come from literature or my own experience.    I compare vendors of supplements looking at a web site called: which I subscribe to for $30/year.   I believe everyone who takes supplements should belong to this organization.   They do amazing work to make sure that the supplements we take contain what they say they do.   I put into my spreadsheet whether the vitamin should be taken with food or morning and night so I can make the recipe for each packet.   Sometimes I split a particular supplement so I take it 2 times a day.

5) After researching brands and tradeoffs of multi-supplement packages and all the different ways I could meet my needs I order the appropriate supplements a couple weeks before my recipe will run out.     In some cases I will order multiple bottles or use Amazon subscription service or with Biotivia they have complex rules with a points program to complicate ordering things.  I keep the price of all my supplements under $100/month.    I feel $1200/year for the health I get is a good deal compared to the prices of medical insurance and the quality of life drop from not taking them.

6) I have paid my kids or my girlfriend to help me do my distribution of the pills into the chambers and packets I have.  It usually takes a couple hours and I can watch tv while doing it.  It is tedious and not fun but the great thing about doing 3 months or more is that you don’t have to do it for that time again.  This means I only have to do it a few times a year.  That’s not hard.   I use up the older bottles first of course.

7) I seal the unused containers and put them in either some air proof wrap and take the humidity packets that come with many vitamins and put them in the hard containers in various places to help keep them fresh.

8) I keep the containers easily available so if I spontaneously am out or about I always have access to containers.   When on trips I pack the number I will need and more to be sure I will have enough.

Such a system makes taking the vitamins a breeze and keeps me very consistent.    It also allows me to spend zero time most of the year dealing with this.  That’s important because I notice that many people may have the best intentions about eating well or taking supplements but fail because opening a bunch of bottles daily is hard, the vitamins/supplements are not available so people rapidly fail.   Having the packets also means I have them and somehow after working so hard and spending so much money buying so many and putting them in the containers it would seem stupid NOT to take them.   It’s motivation.


Cancer, the scariest disease and most difficult to know how to prevent

October 27, 2014

breast cancer cells

My brother, mother and father all got cancer.  My mother and father ultimately died from cancer.  My brother has survived.  This is practically a miracle.

Numerous things are associated by nutritionists with low cancer.  It is hard to know how good much of this information is.  A lot of it seems essentially “common sense” but is not backed by real science.   One of the early things people talked about was anti-oxidants.  This theory is very general and there are many anti-oxidants.  What I have learned is that there are numerous states that an ionized chemical goes through in the body to be “anti-oxidized.”    A Stanford professor explained that to me if you have too much of an anti-oxidant good for one stage of the process it can actually increase the problem if you don’t have the other anti-oxidants available.  He said that coq10 was the anti-oxidant used by the body in the last stage of getting rid of oxidized materials.  He said this is the one that is safest and most likely to be beneficial.  The science of these anti-oxidants isn’t that well supported by studies and one study showed early that Vitamin A was associated with increased cancer risk for smokers.   This confirms the Stanford professors theory that paradoxically some anti-oxidants can actually increase cancer risk or not help at all.

The good news is that there are some studies with other supplements that show dramatic cancer reduction and improvement of prognosis and longer life expectation.

Aspirin: 250-325mg (not more): Dramatic impact on cancer from Aspirin because the main cause of cancer is repeated insults from inflammation.  Numerous studies have shown this is one of the primary vectors for cancer.

Vitamin D3: 2000ucg (not more) has been shown to have incredible results on reducing cancer incidence and reappearance.  In several studies Vitamin D has been shown to reduce cancer by 30-50% and similar increase in the time or the incidence of repeat cancer.    This is probably the most important thing you can do.

Fish Oil (400-800mg EPA) – Omega 3 has been shown to have positive impact in numerous studies on cancer.   I use the green omega from Biotivia because it is made from Krill which studies have shown produces twice the blood level of EPA in the blood as Omega 3 from Fish.

Green Tea: (200mg ECGC) has been associated with reduced incidence of cancer along the entire gastrointestinal tract from mouth, throat, stomach, colon.

Calcium (200-600mg not more)  also has been associated with Vitamin D for reducing cancer incidence.

Resveratrol.  (200-500mg not more) Red Wine and Resveratrol is related to long life which is associated with lower cancer rates.  Resveratrol seems to stimulate genes which reduce the incidence of cancer somehow.

Rejuvenage 40+ Rainbow Light: Lutein, Circumin, Ginger and numerous anti-oxidants including COQ10.

I like Rainbow Lights multi-vitamin because it contains a wide variety of anti-oxidants and numerous other chemicals that are associated with brain, immunity and other diseases or problems.  For instance, this multi-vitamin includes Silymarin 32mg, Milk Thistle 40mg.  I highly recommend this multi-vitamin as a tremendous way to get a lot of the things I talk about in a set of pills.

Cancer is scary because there is really no good measures or way to know you have it.  I can’t get a blood test today to say my “cancer cholesteral is high.”  So, I have no idea if the stuff I suggest in this article will in fact do anything.  I have no blood levels to see if I am making progress or really helping myself.  I may still die next year from cancer.    It is one of the two biggest killers and killed  my parents and threatened my brother already.    I don’t know if these things will work but it is the best science I have found and the best supplements I have found to impact the likelihood of prominent cancers.   Good luck.


 Articles you may find interesting related to supplements and cancer:


AITC/Wasabi 4/2011 Cancer Japanese Condiment Could Cure Cancer
Aspirin, Omega3 1 Cancer Aspirin and omega-3 fatty acids work together to fight inflammation
Caffeine 1 Cancer Researchers abuzz over caffeine as cancer-cell killer
Caffeine 8/2011 1.5 Cancer More evidence that caffeine lowers risk of skin cancer
Curcumin Cancer Prostate cancer: Curcumin curbs metastases
Curcumin Cancer WSU researcher documents links between nutrients, genes and cancer spread
Curcumin, Tumeric Cancer Ingredient in turmeric spice when combined with anti-nausea drug kills cancer cells
D3 5 Cancer Understanding the anti-cancer effects of vitamin D3
D3 Cancer–ssm082107.php Study shines more light on benefit of vitamin D in fighting cancer
ECGC Cancer consumerlabs Green tea prevents cancer in all parts of digestive tract
ECGC Cancer consumerlabs Green tea reduces fibroids in women by 32% in 4 weeks
ECGC Cancer Green Tea
ECGC Cancer Chemoprevention of human prostate cancer by oral administration of green tea catechins
EGCG Cancer Green tea found to reduce rate of some GI cancers
Lycopene Cancer Soy and tomato combo may be effective in preventing prostate cancer
Omega3 Cancer Omega-3s inhibit breast cancer tumor growth, study finds
Pterostilbene Cancer Blueberries contain chemical that may help prevent colon cancer
Resveratrol Cancer Compound in grapes, red wine could help treat multiple types of cancer, study finds
Resveratrol Cancer New evidence on how compound found in red wine can help prevent cancer
Resveratrol Cancer Compound in grapes, red wine could be key to fighting prostate cancer
Wasabi Cancer Wasabi inhibits cancer
Wasabi Cancer Wasabi inhibits cancer
Wasabi Cancer Wasabi stops bladder cancer
Wasabi Cancer AITC fights cancer
Wasabi Cancer Colon cancer proliferating desulfosinigrin in wasabi (Wasabia japonica).
Aspirin Cancer 50% reduction in Stomach and some other cancers. 10% reduction in stroke and heart attack death
Aspirin Cancer Significant reduction in metastases and survival breast cancer
Pomegranate Cancer Pomegranate is an effective anti-inflammatory


Heart Health, Raising your HDL, Stroke, Disease and Supplements

October 27, 2014


When I first got interested in supplements it was because of concerns for heart disease.  My father had cancer early but also a heart attack.  My mother eventually got one.  I learned that my HDL was ranging between 20-22 most of my life from blood tests I had done.  When I learned about the importance of the ratio of total cholesteral/HDL my ratio was 10:1.  I was running around 220 for total cholesteral and 20 for HDL.  This was scary.  I realized that unlike other people I was not predisposed with awesome genes.  I had a decision to make.  Either take things as they come and hope for the best or take an active role and see if I could change my outcome.  I knew going in that all my efforts might be for naught.  I might still die early but I couldn’t just hope for the best.  I wanted to at least try to improve my outcome.

The ways to raise HDL I found in the beginning consists of the following:

1) Niacin

2) Exercise

3) Red Wine

I started taking Niacin in the form of Niacin Inositol and Exercising more and continuing to drink wine.  This had a modest effect, but I soon started trying time release niacin and adding soluble fiber.  Through these efforts I got my total cholesterol down to 180 and HDL up to 40 or so.    Over the next several years I read articles which showed that the blood levels achieved with inositol niacin and time released niacin were a fraction of the blood levels with quick release niacinamide.     After making this switch and adding resveratrol I got my total cholesteral to 155/52 which was a 3:1 ratio more than 3 times better than my 11:1 ratio.    The dose of Niacin I take has been reduced by going to niacinamide.  I now take 1000mg / day and get good results compared to taking 3000mg of the other types of niacin that produced less results.   During this time my doctor knew about my supplements and was supportive.

Don’t forget to add Milk Thistle if you take niacin or statins

He noticed my liver enzymes were elevated by the niacin (normal) and we watched them.  I read that Milk Thistle could help the liver so I started taking those (included in Rejuvenage 40+) and my liver enzymes fell to completely normal levels.  Amazing – these things work folks.  At this point in 2010 or so my blood work was showing the best numbers for all my health parameters than I had ever had in my life!  Pretty good.


Early in my regime I had read numerous studies showing that Aspirin had a dramatic impact on strokes and heart attacks by reducing inflammation.   The theory of heart attacks evolved to an understanding that the most common way that heart attacks and strokes occurred was a disruption in a hardened plaque on a vessel wall.  The disruption was caused usually by inflammation from almost any source of infection (including bad teeth hygiene).   It has becomes obvious that inflammation is not only a tremendous problem for heart disease but also cancer.  Inflammation is implicated in Cancer by causing repeated damage to DNA eventually causing a mutation.    Focus turned to homocystiene and to CRP as indicators of heart disease.  A combination of supplements can help these indicators including Aspirin and Folate.  My CRP has maintained in a good zone since taking aspirin.   I did have some early results that were scary that may have been bad test results but fortunately my CRP has come into line.


Red Wine has been implicated in lower death rates overall for drinkers of this delicious beverage.  A substance in red wine called resveratrol has been associated with the same genetic activations that Red wine seems to stimulate.   Studies showed good results for Resveratrol but high doses didn’t show large increase in health results.   The ideal dose was around 200-250mg.  I have been a big believer in Resveratrol and especially from one or two different companies that seem to be the most science oriented.  Longevinex and Biotivia seem to produce the best Resveratrol supplements and science on this supplement.

Fish Oil, Fish and Vegetarianism

Some studies have shown less results for Resveratrol but I am a big believer in some obvious evidence about wine and fish.  We can say with some confidence that fish cannot be bad for you.  The reason is that the longest lived people on earth have a diet rich in fish.

If fish were bad for you this would not be the case.  It may not be what helps these societies to live long but the evidence seems indisputable that fish can’t be bad for you.  :)   The same for wine.  Many many studies and tests show that Red wine in particular improves longevity decreasing all mortality sources.    Other studies have shown a large benefit from Fish Oil, Omega 3s on cholesteral and reducing inflammation as well as other impacts on cancer, brain health.   I suggest taking Resveratrol and Fish oil supplements but I also drink red wine and eat fish and eschew red meat or any land animals including chicken and pork.

Calcium, Vitamin D, Plant Sterols

Other studies have come out showing that Calcium, Vitamin D and Plant Sterols have also been shown to have positive impacts on heart disease, strokes survivability and reduced incidence.  I have added these as well.   Several grams of Plant Sterols will reduce bad cholesterol and increase good cholesterol by about 8%.  It’s not huge but worth it for the small effort.

Blood Pressure and Diabetes

Some other factors to look at related to heart disease are blood pressure and diabetes.   I consider diabetes very serious disease.  I have a number of friends with later onset Diabetes 2.  I think this is tragic because it is preventable with a few supplements I believe.  There are numerous things which can affect blood pressure and diabetes.  I have a separate category for diabetes.  Fish Oil, Resveratrol, Red Wine are all related to lower blood pressure.  Cialis and Viagra were designed initially to be blood pressure reduction medications.  These drugs have turned out to have a lot of positive effects.  Both will reduce your blood pressure.   They have other positive benefits.  Cialis is helpful for increasing urine flow for men.  This really works.   Viagra has been shown to help with jetlag.  It is true that these drugs can be dangerous if you have low blood pressure already and / or take other blood pressure medications.  The majority of people have the opposite problem which is blood pressure that is too high.  So, these drugs can be beneficial for these people.  I believe I have good blood pressure for a lot of reasons including exercise and other supplements listed here but viagra doesn’t hurt or cialis.  My blood pressure has remained constant for decades at 110/70 roughly.  I am very grateful that my glucose has remained at the 95 level for decades.

I don’t limit my sugar intake or otherwise control my diet precisely which is a huge benefit of taking supplements.   Some have suggested all these supplements can be avoided if you just eat “healthy.”   In my experience it is almost impossible to eat consistently healthy and it is no great fun to constantly avoid wonderful tasting foods.  I don’t believe that simply avoiding bad foods is enough.  You have to give the body the nutrients it needs and then it can handle insults of occasional bad things.

I don’t believe in diets

I think one of the misconceptions of many people about eating is that by restricting certain food groups or foods you are doing your body good.  It may be effective to lose weight but in the process it is also one of the most dangerous things you can do.  Dieting involves restricting from the body the variety of chemicals it needs to repair and studies have shown that you have very high mortality risk during the time of dieting.  It is literally dangerous to diet.  I don’t believe in diets.  I decided long ago I didn’t have the willpower to diet and I love the pleasure of good tasting food and drink.

I have found a way to eat that is healthy and is permanent.  My position is that if you can’t live all the rest of your life on the diet you choose then there is no point in trying to lose weight in a flash.    It is dangerous to diet and if you don’t make the change permanent and gain weight and diet again and gain weight and diet you will kill yourself and stress your body out tremendously.   For me it is relatively easy to see this as the only answer.  Whatever I do I need to make it permanent or the constant stress of changing weight will kill you or cause diabetes.  I had a friend who never was fat who got Type 2 for this reason.   Studies I have read show this as well that you don’t have to be fat to get Type 2.  If you go up and down in weight you will damage your body.

One thing I have done is removing land animals from my diet.  This has clealy not had a bad effect on my waistline, blood results and frankly I almost never miss it.  I started by eating these things less and eventually I have not made it a religious thing but I rarely eat meat unless there is no other choice.   I am not 100% sure that red meat or land animals are bad for you but my experience is that there doesn’t seem to be anything my body is missing from them either.  This may be because I take so many supplements but I believe if I started eating land animals again my health signs would deteriorate.

The best recipe for heart disease in my opinion is therefore:

Niacin:  1000mg niacinamide

Fish Oil:  400mg EPA

Resveratrol: 250mg

Red WIne:  1-2 glasses/night

Aspirin: 250-325mg (Ecotrin or Excedrin)

Vitamin D: 2000ucg

Cholestoff (plant sterols): 2000mg – 4000mg/day

Calcium:  200-600mg

Cialis: 20mg daily or 100mg viagra

There are other things obviously that affect heart disease that are more basic that there are millions of articles on:

1) Don’t smoke

2) Eat as good as you can

3) Don’t eat too much

4) You may have congenital issues not covered here that need specific help not covered here

5) Exercise regularly

Articles you may find interesting related to supplements and heart disease:

B vitamins (not B12) 9/2013 2 Heart Vitamin B supplementation, homocysteine levels, and the risk of cerebrovascular disease
Calcium 10/2013 1.5 Heart–mso101713.php Making sense of conflicting advice on calcium intake
Calcium 2/2013 1.5 Heart High supplemental calcium intake may increase risk of cardiovascular disease death in men
Calcium 2/2013 -2 Heart Study questions value of calcium and vitamin D supplements
Calcium Heart over 900mg calcium not helpful, maybe damaging, up to 900mg 3.8% reduction in death among women
Coq10 Heart First drug to improve heart failure mortality in over a decade
D3 Heart Vitamin D targets thrombosis in cancer patients
ECGC Heart 10% reduction in heart disease from 1 cup of green tea/day, most studies showing higher benefit up to 650mg /day
EGCG Heart–gbt022009.php Green, black tea can reduce stroke risk
Ginger Heart Latest research on ingredients that make chocolate, olive oil, tea healthful foods
L-argenine Heart The Effects of a Sustained-Release
Niacin Heart
Omega3 Heart Omega-3 fatty acids may help heal a broken heart
Omega3 Heart Omega-3s from fish vs. fish oil pills better at maintaining blood pressure in mouse model
Omega3 Heart Omega-3 lipid emulsions markedly protect brain after stroke in mouse study
Omega3 Heart Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation not associated with lower risk of major CVD events
Omega3 Heart Omega-3 lowers inflammation in overweight older adults
Pectin Heart Study: An apple a day lowers level of blood chemical linked to hardening of the arteries
Pterostilbene Heart Blueberry compound shows promise of lowering cholesterol as effectively as drug
Pterostilbene, ECGC Heart Blueberry and green tea containing supplement protects against stroke damage
Pycnogenol Heart Study shows pine bark naturally improves heart function
Pycnogenol Heart Study shows pine bark naturally improves kidney function in patients with metabolic …
Pycnogenol Heart Study demonstrates the anti-inflammatory properties of pine bark extract
Pycnogenol Heart Pine bark reduces inflammatory marker CRP in osteoarthritis
Pycnogenol Heart New study: pine bark extract boosts nitric oxide production
Pycnogenol Heart New study: Pycnogenol reduces heart failure
Pycnogenol, Coq10 Heart Study shows pine bark naturally improves heart function
Resveratol Heart Mount Sinai researchers identify protein that keeps blood stem cells healthy as they age
Resveratrol Heart Red wine, fruit compound could help block fat cell formation
Soluble Fiber Heart Study strengthens link between low dietary fiber intake and increased cardiovascular risk
Testosterone Heart Increased cardiovascular risk in men using testosterone therapy prompts warning
Vitamin C Heart Increase in RDA for vitamin C could help reduce heart disease, stroke, cancer
Vitamin C Heart Big doses of vitamin C may lower blood pressure

Is climate science a “science?”

October 27, 2014



    “A lot of people don’t seem to realise that there were several proposed fingerprints to look for:
    a. significant heat gained by the top layers of the sea outside of natural variation
    b. stratospheric cooling.
    c. troposheric warming.
    d. dominant manmade CO2 precludes any significant pause in near surface temperature rise beyond the enso fluctuation.
    e. The poles should both warm.
    f. outgoing radiation reduces.

The Argo floats went in search of a and found only a heating plateau (after adjusting the initial cooling upwards), b stopped in     1995, c never happened at all, d also went the opposite to predictions, with e only one of the poles warmed and the other cooled and f, according to Lindzen, is demonstrably untrue.

The above was written by the above author.  I respond with more points along a similar line:

There were several more “proofs” which are:

g. increasing humidity as a result of warming
h. evidence of downwelling radiation from CO2

All the models assume that increasing temperatures will increase humidity which will lead to more warming since water vapor is a hugely more significant greenhouse gas. Study after study has been unable to identify increasing humidity. In fact humidity has been declining in some parts of the atmosphere according to satellite measurements and balloon measurements.

A recent study from Australia and some other places was unable to identify the increasing downwelling radiation from CO2 that was expected. I understand a satellite is going to be launched soon which will be able to directly measure the radiation from CO2. This will be awesome to have this proof as trivial as it should be, for this to become a real science in my opinion they need to establish ground that is solid below this otherwise this will remain a political discussion more than a scientific discussion.

These fingerprints above are in some cases “required” fingerprints, i.e. the lack of them disproves the theory.  Astonishingly, in spite of the fact the data frequently contradict the “settled science” of Climate Science the proponents continue to argue that all is right in the climate science world.    I honestly believe I am an objective observer of this and I did believe them in the beginning.  I have only become more and more concerned about the “science” as I’ve learned more and more facts.

I can only say that if the CAGW scientists have some secrets why their theories are valid even though these statistics all contradict their theory then I would like to know it.

I’ve seen the data has frequently been to “disprove” the models but the theorists frequently have come up with some way to get out of jail, usually a re-analysis of the data that confirms the theory.   This reminds me of a physicist,Joseph Weber back 50 years ago  who claimed he had found “gravitational waves”.  He had all this data to back up his claims and when people found flaws with his data he always found a way around it, a re-analysis.   He said he saw the expected result with his re-analysis and when somebody pointed out the waves should come in 6 hour spikes not 24hr he found 6 hour spikes.  When it should come from this direction rather than that he showed he got the spikes in that direction too.  In the end he was totally discredited.  I believe that the climate science community is on a similar precipice.  The data frequently seems to just look completely wrong and they come up with re-analysis after re-analysis, fidget after fidget and in the end I think we all are losing faith that this theory has really got legs.

My problem with this whole “science” has been from the beginning there has been NO doubt that CO2 absorbs radiation. This is raw unassailable physics. However, to prove that the first thing they need to do to confirm the “science” in climate science is to prove the fundamentals so if you teach a course just like you teach a chemistry or physics class that you show a theory and then demonstrate the effect with real measurements. This gets back to the “markers” that the writer JamesG pointed out and I added to above.

In my opinion the science should “reset” and start back at the basics.  Prove those first principals.    The lack of ability to do this for any aspect of the theories that I have been able to see is worrisome. All the proxies are fine if they are solid but many, like tree rings and some of the others are suspect. Tree rings for instance can be large or small for a large number of reasons besides temperature. Experiments in a closed environment may be compelling. Set up a large dome and simulate the environment in small ways to show how these things are true. Show that if you have a climate system in this dome with an existing biotic situation that if you raise the radiation you get the effects expected. Basic science is the most compelling way to build legitimacy to these theories and understanding.

Instead where we are is that we are still largely depending on models that are too complex that have all kinds of interdependencies of different parameters that you cannot isolate the different assumptions to prove.  So they are left with trying to prove the whole model which is extremely difficult and with so many assumptions unlikely to be correct. Statistical analysis of the models has shown time and time again severe problems with their efficaciousness. One statistical analysis showed no model is better than another in more than one time period to another. If the models had some part of them right you would expect that model would get certain scenarios right better than other models. In general you would expect one model to outperform another whose underlying science was better. Instead one model good for one time period is just as likely as any other model to be good in a different time period. This argues the models do not have fundamentally accurate physical processes modeled correctly and that they are acting more like fits to data. A fit would be fine but if they do not have physical basis in fact then numerous issues arise from that.

Another big point I have tried to make repeatedly is that given the models lack of proof of basic assumptions it is necessary to back the models veracity up with “new” data that is unsoiled by being prior known data. As in any science there is too much risk that scientists will be modifying their theories to correspond with existing data sets (creating “fits”) as I describe above. This means that the data cannot be used to verify the models correctness.  It becomes circular logic.  The only thing that can be used is “new” data. New means data since you built the model that you didn’t know about in advance. Unfortunately as we all know the NEW data shows no warming for 16-20 years depending on the series you use. In my scientific understanding this means the models are disproven. Some will say that the data has NOT fallen outside the error bars, so they aren’t disproven.  However, the lack of correspondence puts the models in a precarious position at least. It must be acknowledged that the models are more and more unlikely if not disproven. From what I understand the models are at 5% or less probability. Given that prior data cannot be used to bolster the models proof points this means to me that the models are only 5% correct.   I would like somebody to explain to me how the data can be interpreted any other way.

Normally in science when the data doesn’t confirm there is an explosion of alternative theories as theorists rush to come up with the “reason.” Maybe that is happening. I don’t see it.  It seems to be mostly, wait it will come back to the norm.  There do seem to be some new ideas but surprisingly few and the new theories seem to be striving almost to the point of ridiculousness to retain the basic elements of the original theory rather than presenting truly compelling alternatives. Anybody proposing anything significantly different is called a “denier” and lambasted and otherwise cajoled. This is contrary to the way science works to me. As I have said before the way climate scientists handle debate and the way they crush debate seems more like a religion than a scientific process. At least that’s my perception coming from it as an outsider.

When I have questions in a physics class I expect the professor to explain with theory and known facts what happens and why. I realize climate science isn’t at that point in many cases but instead when questioned most of the time the response is “you are a denier.” When I ask, how could the MWP be a local phenomenon? Have there been other periods or places where regions of the earth have been warmer or colder than others for hundreds of years? Has the variation been as large?   If they cannot go back to real known facts like the CO2 absorbing radiation from physics for each assumption and data and experiments then the theory is not science.   I believe they will never be able to end debate on the basic truth of what they are doing and will forever be calling out denier and heretic until they can point to real scientific basis for their theories based on experiment, data on each part of their theories.  They need to abandon for now the goal of “models” until they have more basis for the assumptions in the models.

IPCC claimed “certainty” but it is clearly provable that 10 years later certainty is still not the case

October 27, 2014

It is such a pleasure to read a truly objective thought process on this topic. I really thank you for bringing Matt’s article to us to read. It is clarifying and allows us to see where the flaws in the current process have been better. The logic of the IPCC is a mathematical logic executed in a vacuum. What I mean by that is that significant amounts of information remain highly uncertain that could have a tremendous effect. If the true purpose of the IPCC and climate scientists were to characterize the amount of heat that is attributable to CO2 the first thing would be (assuming a model could not be constructed that was shown to be trivially robust and powerful) would be to put bounds on all the other possibilities. The IPCC itself admits that clouds, oceans and a few other things are very unknown and have considerable possible input. However, I don’t see the focus in the documents of the IPCC or climate scientists in estimating these variables. Possibly this is because the data about these phenomenon are not available prior to 2000 in some cases and 1980 in others or not available at all even now.

The IPCC attempts to assert their models are robust and that therefore proves the CO2 hypothesis however, an objective look at the models would say that it seems unbelievable the models are robust on the face of them considering the computational complexity and errors in the numerical processes as well as the number of assumptions in the underlying formulas. Each of the assumptions in the models represents a testable experiment that has not been carried out to my knowledge. It is not possible to believe the models are robust by looking at the assumptions and approach.

One can punt on trying to prove the assumptions in the models (what seems to be the current approach of the IPCC)  one can take the position that the models are robust by looking at their results and seeing if it matches reality. This is a much weaker position as then we must look for close matching of new data to model data to be sure that the model is tracking the new data (not the data assumed to be incorporated into the models parameters.)   When the IPCC in 1997 came out they were very confident that their models matched the record so precisely that they said they had 95% certainty they had accounted for all the variables in the climate to a high precision.    Therefore they concluded since their models matched reality so closely they could say that all the warming from 1979-1998 was because of CO2.  This was a huge error.    It presumed a lot of things they were not clear about.

One approach is to  study of model facility given some of the input data used as parameters and then use data not included to see if the models are able to deal with “new” data but even under this approach the very known existence of the other data clouds the surety of the conclusions as the researchers clearly are aware of that data when they constructed the models. The best test is with new data that nobody has seen or could explain before.  Unfortunately the “new” data post the creation of most of the models is primarily since 2000 and this data does not show the models in good light. In fact it lends credence to the idea the models are seriously lacking fundamental missing behaviors or have miscalculated the parameters to underlying processes wrongly entirely as to the equations underlying the atmospheric response.

Watt above has clearly shown that an objective analysis cannot robustly conclude that CO2 is a root cause. There is way too much unknown to conclude we really have any idea why this excursion has happened. The models are not robust to provide any corroboration. Any objective analysis of them would have to be that they are deeply flawed and do not contribute to a solution at this time.

Saying we just don’t know may be politically unacceptable but it is the only objective possible answer. If people want to know the answer then they must invest more time and money in studying and collecting data and it may take decades to get sufficient amount of data to accurately state the relative contribution or even the majority cause.

Gavin Schmidt has said in posts to you, Judith Curry that he is 110% sure of the attribution of CO2 to the temperature variance. That is a bizarre statement to me. He seems to base this on the models predictions which clearly is a false way to calculate those probabilities. It has become clear the models were missing ocean capacitance and flows that if true which seems indisputable then the attribution of prior causes in the models starts to come apart. For instance, if ocean flows do represent some of the heat during the modern warming then it implies some of the cooling in the period prior was related to this and then some of the warming prior to that is because of this effect. This means the attributions of CO2, aerosols, methane, other things used to explain those variations was wrong. Therefore as you have pointed out that means that even using Gavins “model based” approach to certainty the probability CO2 is the 110% cause of the modern warming is drastically reduced.

The modelers have assumed the “hockey stick” and therefore they then conclude the model is robust except for possibly the recent 15 years. However, as Matt points out it is now clear that the LIA and MWP seem to be real events. The hockey stick has been disproven and the PDO and AMO disturbances clearly show that significant effects exist in cycles in the system in hidden un-modeled variables. This is a serious blow to the models as they must be shown to explain these prior variations before they can assume to robustly model what is happening today. This alone is enough to discount the models entirely. It is impossible to know how much each of these capacitance type or other type inputs have contributed to the results and we are left at the point of saying again it is impossible to ascribe with certainty any number.

I believe this is the only possible objective analysis. Matt has proven this to my satisfaction. It is possibly regretable and politically inconvenient that the result is unsatisfactory. It seems to me the only legitimate argument is that CO2 has some contribution and if we wish to avoid any human contribution then we should take measures to limit human impact. This is a reasonable argument and backed by facts that at least some effect is coming from co2.

Whether or not Global warming will be large or small I have a big problem anyway

October 27, 2014

The other side of this equation is “what to do?” Lomborg has attempted very rationally to ascribe some of the expected impacts and using various economic measures to calculate the rationality of making investments. My basic problem from the beginning in this debate has been that even assuming all the worst case climate predictions the predicted impacts were not believable. If climate models are hard to get right for 80 years in the future predicting food production in 80 years is similarly hard. We have had numerous predictions of food supply in the past that have proven to be wildly off. The ability of man to create solutions that have not been imagined before seriously puts an upper bound on predictions of this type. In the face of our exponential knowledge about genetics and chemistry, our growing wealth and ability to affect lifespan, disease, mitigate natural disasters it is unbelievable the consequences predicted. I am reminded how 16 years ago a heat wave in france killed 15,000 but a similar heat wave the next year killed 10. Simple measures like having a fan, drinking more water produced a 99% reduction in fatalities. A study i made of disasters in the 20th century showed that nearly 70% of deaths due to natural disasters occurred in the first 50 years of the century and only 30% in the last half. In fact, the death rate from natural disasters has fallen an astonishing 98% in the last century. If a similar fall in death rates happens in the 21st century then it won’t matter if storms do increase or whatever. Our ability to withstand mother nature is improving dramatically. Some will point out that rising sea levels will be not as easily mitigated but the fact is few buildings last 100 years. Over the course of the century numerous buildings will be replaced naturally irrespective of rising tides. The ability to see this gradual movement and plan accordingly is contrary to the idea these things will be “submerged” suddenly. Some places may be abandoned and some places may be changed but it is hard to argue we should pay today for the inconvenience of future coastal landowners.

I could get into a hundred topics here from extinction rates and storms and so many of the supposed impacts and show you there is tremendous uncertainties in these studies. Some are pathetic in their robustness. The bigger issue is that it is robustly unprovable or logical that so many negative effects will happen because of a change in temperature of even 2,3,4 degrees because as temperature has risen human life and other life seems to benefit from warmer climate. A case in point is that during the climactic maximum 5,000 years ago temperatures were more than 2C warmer than today. During this time as you know humans finally felt in places around the globe that life was good enough to become agricultural. Numerous available data point to the fact that life was indeed better then. Life was more prevalent and more robust. The nile was twice as big. Life existed where deserts exist today. While this is NOT proof that similar rises would produce good results it does put some doubt if the studies showing catastrophic effects from 2C change in doubt. Similar to climate studies for me there would have to be proof through the use of much more robust data and models that the environment would be affected in such negative ways. On the face of it, researchers are clearly motivated to make their articles inflammatory. I would guess that surveys would show a bias to people in academia that any change in the environment is negative. However, simple mathematics, probability, science would say this is unlikely. It is unlikely we are at the perfect temperature today. Maybe it is so, but I personally would need to see proof that any change is necessarily negative consequence. Yes, any change will be inconvenient to some but change is unstoppable even if we factor out all human change. Things happen. The more you learn about history it is sobering to realize that sh** happens, has happened and will undoubtedly continue to happen. Get prepared is the only rebuke. We are. We have reduced the death rate from natural disasters by 98% in one century. I believe we will have large improvements this century as well and natural disasters will be a minor concern by 2100.

Such thoughts were evident to me from the beginning of this debate when I believed the temperatures would climb 2 or 3 degrees or more. It was never clear to me why such change should automatically be negative given that much of the world is covered under ice and snow there is clearly room for some warming to make more of the earth livable. Historical analysis shows that for large parts of evolution the earth was dramatically warmer and that it is relatively recent that we have had persistent long term ice ages that have covered the earth in snow and ice and left 50% or so of the surface of the earth harsh and deadly to life. Some will say that heating will naturally increase desert areas and lack of water however, all that melting ice and snow will raise sea levels over centuries causing disruption but it is much more likely that the environment would get wetter in general everywhere. This is common sense and backed by what we know about life at these warmer times looking at sediments and where life existed. It is just not robustly believable without significant additional proof that all these negatives are so obvious or given. All the focus has been on the models and the climate but for me just as equally suspect and poorly attributed is all the negatives.

I realize it is risky to just assume that change will be good too. The most prudent thing would be to minimize our impact and study. I suggest this for the time being cognizant that as we refine our knowledge of the environment and the consequences we may in fact learn that there is a net positive benefit to warming. The one thing that scares me is the ice age. It seems inevitable we will sink into one again. I doubt anyone can doubt this would be a terrible event for humans and life but we have sustained it before. The question would be would we take the experiment of modifying our climate to stop an ice age? It is a science fiction like scenario to be faced presumably by generations ahead but hopefully we will invest enough in knowledge by then to have a really good factual and scientific basis to understand how change will affect everything. Life is uncertain yet it has persisted on the earth.

Vitamins and Supplements – Part 2

October 13, 2014

Immune System

It’s critical to keep a strong immune system.  The supplements I think help a lot with giving you a strong immune system:





These things have made some difference in clarity and memory

Ginko Biloba – memory

Omega3 – blood flow / other

B12 – blood flow

ALA – mitochondrial health

Fisetin – helps build brain cells


BCAA – body building

ForgeMax – Testosterone and body building

Acetyl-L-Carnitine – mitochondrial health

General Longevity

Astralagus – Regulation of Telemerase

Schiff Megared – Joints


Supplements and Vitamins – HIstory, Heart and Cancer

October 13, 2014

Why I started down this path?

People have frequently asked me what are the best supplements I take.  I’ve been taking supplements for 20 years now.  I believe they have had a tremendous positive impact on my life.  20 years ago I discovered I had low HDL (the protective type of cholesteral) and realized that my parents, my brother were having problems and dying earlier.  I realized I didn’t have the best genes to start with.   Some people have parents that live into their 90s and they may be blessed with good genes.  In a way for people such as this they lack motivation and that can be a negative.   When I discovered this and saw my brother diagnosed with cancer at the same relatively young age as my father I came to the realization either I had to make an attempt to defeat my poor genetic legacy or live with what nature handed me.   I chose to try even if I had no guarantee or proof that it would make any difference.

I was highly motivated and I went on to change my eating and started taking a few supplements that I had researched and my doctor said could help.  These included Niacin, Omega-3 and Soluble Fiber.   My HDL climbed from the 20-22 range to the 30s 40s nearly doubling within a few years and my other cholesterol measurements improved as well.   I engaged in periodic bi and tri-yearly blood tests to monitor the effects.  I lost 25 lbs from 195 to 170 which may not seem like a lot for people who are very overweight but for me it was really the second diet I had taken in my life.  I switched to a pescatorian diet primarily and I also started engaging in exercise 4 times a week.  I think each of these things contributed to my health improvement.    I have been careful to work to isolate as much as I could what was causing what change in what blood test and if I made a change what impact it had on my results.


I have noticed since going on these supplements and changes in diet and exercise are profound and noticeable.  I have documentation in the form of 20 years of lab tests to back up the results.  Over the years I have fine tuned my recipes to keep improving them and to respond to the new data which in many cases invalidated prior supplementation.  I always back up my changes in my recipe with blood results to see if it is working.  I have noticed the following:

1) I continue to look young and remain largely uninjured and symptom free of any significant pains or problems (although recently I did get a small rotator cuff injury)

2) I have no sign of heart disease, my cholesterol was in the 150s and HDL in the 50s giving me a 3:1 ratio which is 3 times better than it was 20 years ago and I have maintained that.  Other measures of heart disease are also negligible.  Blood pressure is 110/70 consistently.  If it weren’t for my age I would be in the lowest level for heart risk according to the latest cardiac risk calculator.

3) I have no signs of cancer (crossing fingers) and my immune system is more powerful than ever.  I rarely get sick at all and if I do, it is a couple hours of not days or weeks.   I feel like I never get sick even when everyone around me gets sick.   Colon cancer results are clear.

4) My glucose level remains solid at 95 range.

5) My liver and metabolic signs all remain in optimal configurations

6) I work out regularly  and maintain a weight between 169-179 which is close to 25 BMI.  I can do 100 pushups.    My testosterone level is close to a person who is under 30 years old.

I say all this not to brag but to point out that my statement that I am doing well with all this supplement taking is backed by real results.

Since I have taken this recipe my resistance to disease has progressively gotten better and better.  I used to catch every cold, had a persistent and annoying drippy nose.  I took all kinds of medications when I had colds which was frequent and suffered them 5 or 10 times a year.  I had allergies too.  Sometimes it seemed like I had a cold more often than not.    I currently get at most 1 cold a year and they are so infrequent and so minimal I haven’t taken a day off for sickness in years and years.   If I get a cold it is usually measured in hours, literally a couple hours at most.  It’s amazing the difference.  My immune system seems supercharged.  This is such a dramatic change.  Further I have maintained a high quality of life in every aspect including personal.   People very frequently are shocked to find my age.  I have had strangers and others look at me in disbelief when they see my drivers license.    I don’t claim to be any great physical specimen but I have no doubt that my supplements are partly responsible for this effect.

How do we age?

My belief now is that the human body undergoes aging every day.  It is attacked every day.  Even when you try to eat good foods elements of them are not good for you.  Variety and consistency is more important than avoiding every potentially damaging thing.   Consistency is a key element of my program.  I believe the body needs the nutrients it needs daily and if you don’t give it those nutrients your body is unable to fix something that will later be much harder to fix.   It’s like anything that results in damage.  It’s always harder to fix something that is damaged than it is to keep it in good shape to start with.    Once I let my transmission lose oil and it burns up fixing it is much harder than keeping it well lubed.  If your body goes through daily insults and you get to the point you have a disease it means your body has sustained massive damage and the repair of whatever that damage is will never be as good as keeping it in shape to start with.   I believe our bodies need a vast number of chemicals to have what it needs to perform all the cleanup and maintenance functions.  Therefore I believe that taking supplements is really important.   This is buttressed by the facts above.

I want to emphasize that I am a scientist and I have validated the suggestions here with scientific studies, with my own bloodwork and experience.    I have become effectively my own test subject.  I wish there was better data but we have to face the fact we don’t have enough data.

One of the mistakes many “scientists” make:

One thing I want to emphasize.  The fact that there is insufficient evidence to say for certain a supplement has an effect doesn’t mean it doesn’t have that effect.  Many doctors react with extreme skepticism about supplements arguing that there isn’t enough data.  The big mistake in this kind of reasoning is that frequently there is no evidence that some supplement doesn’t work.   Even the supplements that have been tested frequently have numerous problems in the studies that invalidate the results for some purposes.  For instance, they may test at the wrong dose or look at effects that were not the effects that are stipulated for the supplement.  For instance, Green Tea may be tested for heart disease but I have never thought Green Tea would help with heart disease so it is not surprising they didn’t find a significant effect.

I realize that frequently a supplement may be shown to be ineffective or even harmful.   When I saw that Vitamin A was implicated in higher cancer rates for smokers I realized the whole anti-oxidant theory had some flaws.  I stopped taking many of these until we could isolate what did work.


Let’s get to the meat of it.  What are the supplements?  First for the 2 biggest killers:

Heart Disease and Cancer

1. For Heart Disease – Aspirin, Pycnogenol, Niacin, Soluble Fiber, Omega3, Cholestoff, coq10, resveratrol, viagra and cialis


2. For Cancer –  Rainbow Light Rejuvenage 40+, D3, Resveratrol, Green Tea, Omega3, Calcium, Aspirin


There are a number of supplements in the Rainbow Light Rejuvenage that I like.  I like the company Rainbow Light because they use all whole foods in the processing of their vitamins.  Their multi-vitamins have good doses of many chemicals that are implicated in a lot of positive things.   I could go through and document each of them that I think is beneficial but I find that a lot of their recipes have numerous good things:  Example:  It contains Silymarin 32mg, Milk Thistle 40mg (both very good for the liver), probiotics (numerous very positive studies), Tumeric, Circumin, Resveratrol, herbal extracts, Acetyl carnitine, … It’s really a well designed blend of many things I would have to take individually and have before done.

My preferred Omega 3 and Resveratrol is from Biotivia.  Their Omega 3 is from krill and studies have shown it is 2 times as effective at raising blood levels of key chemicals.

Key elements of this recipe:  Niacin (quick release mandatory, will cause flushing 1000mg – 1500mg/day).  D3 is shown in many studies to dramatically lower cancer risk, improve immune system.  You should take between 1000-2000ucg.   Resveratrol has had numerous studies and is another key element.  Aspirin is a key element of the above.

It’s important not to take too much of any of these things as well.  It is not clear that D3 above 2000ucg is good for you.  Some studies have shown Resveratrol above 300mg is not effective.

Viagra and Cialis obviously have the caveats that come with these medications.  If you already take a blood pressure medication taking these will lower you blood pressure further and could result in bad consequences but in particular for viagra and cialis there have been numerous studies showing these things have beneficial effects beyond improving bedroom performance.  Cialis is especially good for men to improve flow and viagra is good for jetlag and blood pressure.

I started with variations on niacin but have since discovered nothing works besides straight quick release niacin.  The others simply don’t raise blood concentration of niacin and produced marginal benefit.  The aspirin works well in combination with niacin to reduce flushing.   If you decide to take niacin you should definitely get liver tests like if you were prescribed statin drugs.  Niacin works as well as Statin drugs and better in the case of low HDL like myself.  It is also cheaper and won’t impact your insurance the way a statin prescription will.


Further discoveries in biological usage of quantum computing

September 13, 2014

Just a little more research discovered the following as well:

Nanotubular structures similar to post-synaptic neurons (persistent and dynamic) have been discovered in immune T-cells in humans as well as in plant cells,  They are being called plant synapses and tcell or immune synapses by researchers.
How does the body recognize the thousands, hundreds of thousands of virus’s it must be able to attack?  How does it decide what to do in response to an attack?  Not a trivial activity.   It would be consistent with this theory that these junctions are a site for memory, decision making using quantum computing similar to brain neurons.
As a programmer I have always been amazed how much programming would be required to “operate” a human body.  The human body is not just like a robot.  A robot is programmed to do things if everything goes well.  If something fails on a robot it has no mechanism to repair itself, to discover environments that are dangerous or to learn to adapt to its environment.   A computer may be book smart but it is not able to deal with any physical attack on itself.
A human body has to persist to be able to pass on genetic material.  It has to be able to sustain all kinds of environmental conditions, all kinds of attacks, damage, different situations which lead to too much of this, too little of that, situations which need different responses.  As a programmer I have imagined the equivalent millions/billions of lines of code or “intelligence” that would be needed to have the monitoring system, the recognition, the response system.  If you understand software and you understand how complex it is to specify all these behaviors it is mind boggling.
It is much worse than that because this code must be changeable.  It’s not like you could discover the rules to keeping a body working, how to repair this or that and that’s it. Write the program and done.  No, you have to have a system that not only learns or knows the millions of scenarios and how to respond but it has to learn new ones as they come up.  Evolution by itself seems too clumsy.     It’s not surprising we would find that there is pattern recognition and decision matrixes like are at postsynaptic neurons in other parts of the body like the immune system.
Life has been present on the earth somewhere in the range of a billion years within an order of magnitude.  The average lifetime of a creature could be a year but let’s say to give evolution a chance we say that every day evolution could evolve.   That’s 300 billion opportunities for evolution to make a decision and kill something or not.   Of course for evolution to work there has to be more than one member of a species killed and there has to be new progeny and that progeny has to face the threats and survive.  If nature could take these decisions very carefully it gives nature maybe a few billion decision points.   This may seem like a lot but consider the complexity being proposed for evolution to figure out.  I am not at all a creationist but let’s face it numerically it doesn’t seem reasonable that the complexity of life we see around us could evolve in this number of cycles.   There were periods in this billion years when vast amounts of life were wiped out and where evolution wasn’t operating very rapidly.    It’s just not possible that everything is explained as evolution.   A quantum recognition system would lead to a much more rapid evolution possible.  I am not sure what the connection or ways in which a pattern recognition system could be linked with DNA and evolution but I am certain that there must be some synergy between them that enables a faster pace to evolution than can be obtained from the mechanism of killing off or enhancing reproduction on a binary basis.
It’s obvious to me that studying these nanotube structures in plants, animals, neurons, immune systems is a very important line of research.  Understanding exactly how nature figured out to do nano-quantum computers, to store patterns, to recognize patterns, to decide how to direct activity based on decoherence is going to take our understanding of nature and the world around us leaps and bounds forward.  It will also give us an idea how to build and advance quantum computing at a fantastic rate much faster than our clumsy approaches trying to understand basic physics and building them from basic principles.  Nature has obviously figured out how to build these cheaply, to leverage quantum computing at the billions of processors level.
In the book hyperion, the author had the idea that the computers used humans as computing vesicles to offload some of their processing.  The idea seemed stupid when I read it.  Now I see that it was prescient.  If the human body/brain has trillions of quantum computers leveraging them would be a quick and easy way to get lots of computation done.  However, presumably doing so would damage the normal function of those computers.  It’s not just a matter of stealing cycles from the mainframe.  Utilizing those synaptic junctions would also steal them permanently from the human body.
This leads to a different idea for a scifi book:
What if someone started leveraging human brains, i.e. obtained from babies or otherwise grown to build massive quantum computers for nefarious purposes?
That seems like it could be an interesting basis for a compelling book.  :)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.