Sibiriak

Study Estimates Two-Thirds of COVID-19 Hospitalizations Due to Four Conditions

Arnold's never felt better, after multiple heart surgeries.

I believe longer fasts (3+ days) would very likely provide benefits not obtainable by shorter fasts. Once a week would be excessive. Once a month would be an intensive program. Two or three times a year would a maintenance regime. Valter Longo: Go here to see short video of autophagy expert Guido Kroemer stating that based on his studies, it takes 3-4 days of fasting to induce serious autophagy in humans. You could do that, but personally I wouldn't worry about it for a very short fast, if you are basically healthy.

FWIW, according to Valter Longo, during a water fast or FMD, stem cells are increased while immune cells are reduced (weakening the immune system somewhat), but after re-feeding stem cells generate newer and healthier immune cells (The Longevity Diet, p.203).

Niacin's cholesterol lowering effects (but increasing HDL) are well-established-- but only at fairly high doses.

The censorship level is indeed unprecedented ( in peacetime), hitting insane levels previously unimaginable. And totally unacceptable. Hey, in Russia the internet is basically wide open. Navalny's group posts a video and tens of millions of Russians view it. It's not blocked. It's not censored. It spreads all through the social media without the slightest impediment. (Nothing like China). Sure there's repression. But in terms of censorship and cancel culture, US Big Tech and the Liberal Establishment are leading the way. What I don't entirely get is why every Republican, every conservative, every true liberal that understands the importance of free speech and the dangers of institutionalized censorship, especially censorship by colossal autocratic, undemocratic, seemingly unaccountable corporate entities--- why aren't they totally up in arms, why aren't they in total rebellion against this looming totalitarianism?

Posted earlier in this thread: Michael Rae: https://www.crsociety.org/topic/11708-blood-testing-lef-super-sale-—-ends-june-13th/?tab=comments#comment-19478 Posted November 9, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [...] the whole point of getting both [ IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 tests] is to assess the biological activity of your IGF-1: a higher level of IGFBP-3 at a given IGF-1 level (hence, a lower IGF-1:IGFBP-3) means less free IGF-1 and lower biological activity. (Note that this is not the case for IGFBP-1, which has a more complex role in the pathway). IAC, there is an additional and important underlying question, which is the way these tests are reported in American labs. The sensible way to report both IGF-1 and IGFBP3 is in (nano)moles per unit volume, which then tells you about biological relationships between the functions of the proteins.This is why every country in the world except the United States uses molar units. Unfortunately, the US reports them as mass per unit volume, which skews everything because of the different molar masses of the different analates. You can convert your reported values to molar values and ratio as follows: IGF-1 (molar concentration) = [iGF-1 [ng/mL] x 0.130 IGFBP-3 (molar concentration) = IGFBP-3 [ng/mL] x 0.036 IGF-1:IGFBP-3 = [iGF-1 [ng/mL] x 0.130]/[iGFBP-3 [ng/mL] x 0.036]. (Incidentally: altho' IGFBP-3 isn't on it, the AMA has a good calculator to convert American lab test units to SI units). Importantly, the key Aging Cell paper (1) on protein intake and IGF-1 in human CR practitioners, which is probably our best guide on CR-specific reference ranges, uses molar units: The "low protein" group in these graphs is a vegan group not intentionally CRed; the "low Calorie" group is the original data from the full CR cohort, including the majority who were getting protein intakes were well in excess of the RDA. We presumably want an IGF-1 level in line with the CR group after reducing their protein intake to RDAish levels (0.95 mg/kg), which was 152 ± 41 ng/mL; or possibly low-normal IGF-1 either for a young person or for our age group. Whatever range of IGF-1 one targets. we presumably want an IGF-1:IGFBP-3 in line with the "low protein" group above. Reference 1: Fontana L, Weiss EP, Villareal DT, Klein S, Holloszy JO. Long-term effects of calorie or protein restriction on serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentration in humans. Aging Cell. 2008 Oct;7(5):681-7. PubMed PMID: 18843793; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2673798. Edited April 17, 2019 by Sibiriak See also Fontana's Effects of 2‐year calorie restriction on circulating levels of IGF‐1, IGF‐binding proteins and cortisol in nonobese men and women: a randomized clinical trial (2016)

But that's not the question here. The question is: over the next twenty, thirty or forty plus years of your life, would you better off having moderately low cholesterol levels rather than extremely low levels so as to better protected against cancer, infectious diseases etc.? (especially since you do not have any cardiovascular risk factors, afaik.) That's is an open question. Cholesterol is a double-edged sword.

Dammit-all!! I suppose chorizo is out as well. What about straw? (Good post , Mike. Sums up the issue well. )

Well, that's pretty strong scientific evidence. Just about settles the question of optimal LDL levels. Thanks.

Perhaps more straw...

I'm not so interested in question of high LDL (I think its quite risky for most people), but rather the question if moderate-low LDL is better than very low LDL. I'm leaning toward the moderate side based on my research, but it's an open question.

Facebook Update on February 8, 2021 Removing More False Claims About COVID-19 and Vaccines Today, we are expanding our efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general during the pandemic. Since December, we’ve removed false claims about COVID-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts. Today, following consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), we are expanding the list of false claims we will remove to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines. This includes claims such as: COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured Vaccines are not effective at preventing the disease they are meant to protect against It’s safer to get the disease than to get the vaccine Vaccines are toxic, dangerous or cause autism The full list of claims is available here, and we already prohibit these claims in ads. These new policies will help us continue to take aggressive action against misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. We will begin enforcing this policy immediately, with a particular focus on Pages, groups and accounts that violate these rules, and we’ll continue to expand our enforcement over the coming weeks. Groups, Pages and accounts on Facebook and Instagram that repeatedly share these debunked claims may be removed altogether [...] * * * * 31. Vaccine Discouragement Policy Ads must not discourage people from vaccination or advocate against vaccines. Examples [Okay] Ads that discuss vaccine legislation [Not Okay] Ads claiming that vaccinations are unsafe, unhealthy or will result in death or injury [Not Okay] Ads that are inconsistent with health authorities (including local health authorities) guidance on vaccination

! 😈

Thanks Mike. I wasn't actually suggesting chamomile tea (potency varying as well with chamomile amount used and extraction method), but rather standardized chamomile extracts. And not as a an alternative to dried parsley, but as a supplemental source, keeping in mind that chamomile has a lot of potential health benefits and medicinal uses apart from the effects of its modest apigenin content. But I see you're aiming at a mega-dose of at least 288mg apigenin /day (71 kg person)-- translating straight from mice studies. Chamomile wouldn't be much help in that case, you're right. Of course, as you point out, the efficacy of that dosage remains highly speculative until backed by human trials as well. Most importantly, such a potent dose would require human studies to verify long-term safety. It would be extremely surprising to find out that apigenin was not a double-edged sword like most other polyphenols such as resveratrol and many others. Compare the lurking potential dangers in ursolic acid supplementation: https://www.crsociety.org/topic/11395-prostate-cancer-prevention/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-22324