The Scary Reason(s) You Might Want To Be Cautious With This Halloween Candy

from “Eat This, Not That”

The sweet stuff in your kids' trick-or-treat buckets may come with a bitter side effect. When eaten in large quantities (which in this case is anything over a mere 2 ounces, keep reading!), black licorice can cause serious health issues. This Halloween, you'll want to stay vigilant about the candy, whether you're looking out for your kids or just indulging your own sweet tooth.

"Consumed occasionally and in moderation, it's unlikely you would experience any detrimental effects from black licorice," explains GP clinical lead Dr. Daniel Atkinson at treated.com, a U.K.-based healthcare service. "But if you were to eat too much black licorice over a sustained period of time—more than 50 grams a day for two weeks straight, for example—then you are risking your health for a number of reasons."

Why is black licorice so dangerous? It all has to do with glycyrrhizin, licorice root's sweet compound. "Glycyrrhizin decreases potassium levels and increases sodium levels in the blood," Dr. Atkinson explains. And while you'd have to eat a good amount of licorice to get to that point, it could have some scary side effects.

A drop in potassium levels could lead to an abnormal heart rhythm in addition to heart failure, high blood pressure, edema, and lethargy, according to the FDA. "Potassium plays an important role in the body. It helps us better transmit nerve signals, aids normal muscle function, plays a role in the balance of fluids, and has a number of other functions, too," says Dr. Atkinson. "The term for low potassium levels is hypokalemia. This can lead to heart palpitations, irregular heartbeat, weakened muscle function, or even high blood pressure."

How much black licorice is too much? While 50 grams, or two ounces, might sound like a lot of candy, it's not actually that difficult an amount to reach, especially if you're a licorice lover. "This isn't actually as much as it sounds," Dr. Atkinson says. "A serving of 8-10 small pieces is probably between 40 and 50 grams."

Are certain people more at risk for the health risks black licorice poses? Adults over 40 and parents of young children will want to be especially careful of how much licorice they and their children are eating.

"Children have a smaller body surface area, which predisposes them to a higher risk than adults," explains Dr. Raj Singh, a Nevada-based nephrologist. The FDA also warns that several medical studies have linked licorice consumption with health problems in adults over 40.

In fact, a review in the journal Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism found that overconsumption of this polarizing candy is linked to high blood pressure and hypokalemic myopathy, or low-potassium-level–related metabolic muscle weakness.

"Individuals with high blood pressure, especially those taking diuretics or water pills such as HCTZ (hydrochlorothiazide), are at the most risk, as these medications force the kidneys to waste potassium in the urine, which can cause severe hypokalemia (low levels of potassium in the blood)," Dr. Singh explains. "Individuals with atrial fibrillation (a common cardiac arrhythmia) are at high risk as even minor fluctuation in blood potassium levels can trigger a fatal arrhythmia." If you have those particular conditions, you might want to check with your doctor about how much black licorice is safe in your case.

How can you prevent black licorice's adverse effects? Make sure to stay below the FDA's recommended limit of two ounces a day. Also, it never hurts to beef up your diet with some potassium-rich foods to make sure your body's potassium stores aren't depleted.

"Theoretically, consuming a diet high in potassium (vegetables, bananas) or drinking potassium-rich fluids such as coconut water or orange juice can protect against the potassium-lowering effects of black licorice and stabilize the cardiac membrane," says Dr. Singh.

If you do end up experiencing any licorice-induced symptoms, contact your doctor right away. Halloween candy is can be fun treat, but this is one variety you'll want to be wary of.

Respecting Nature, Respecting People

A Naturalist Model for Reducing Speciesism, Racism, and Bigotry

BY MARK W. MOFFETT

I find it ironic to be weathering out Covid-19 in Brooklyn given that I’m a biologist who thinks of rainforest as my native habitat. Still, I feel fortunate to be a witness to what appears to be a global sea change: The air has grown clearer until the sky can turn a crystalline blue typical of mountain vistas. The squirrels and now superabundant birds — even one fearless racoon — have stared at us through our 4^thfloor balcony window as if we were zoo animals. Already the stories are legend. Coyotes prowl San Francisco and mountain lions relax in downtown Boulder as if cities were their native habitat. Those who deny humanity’s footprint on nature point to the fact we can’t prove that people are the culprit behind climate change or species loss, but now it seems we’re actually doing the experiment. Can we turn our perceptions of nature around for good and put an end to the environmental crisis?

One way forward will be to recognize a fact of human psychology: Our abuse of nature is linked to the equally pressing concern of our age, social disintegration as a result of war, terrorism, and inequality. All are manifestations of a basic human drive to distinguish ingroups from outgroups. In this connection lies the key to deactivating the effects of both.

Kimberly Costello and Gordon Hodson, psychologists at Brock University, Ontario, Canada, had research participants read essays enumerating the humanlike traits of animals. Mere exposure to this perspective led even their subjects with the most entrenched prejudices to think more kindly not only of other species, but of immigrants — to regard them more as equals — despite the fact that the essays had mentioned nothing about humans.¹

I registered what appeared to be such a link myself when I traveled to Socotra, remote chunks of land, the largest 50 miles across, 250 miles off Yemen’s shore. Whereas the only other archipelagos with comparable biological diversity, the Galapagos and Hawaii, have experienced terrible species loss since human contact, there’s no sign that Socotra’s goat herders have driven species to extinction despite occupying those islands since the time of Christ.² Socotra has remained ecologically intact because of how tribal elders orchestrated the movements of people and goats to reduce habitat destruction. In Socotra, I was struck, always, by the spiritual connection between herder and goat. Herders, who knew their individual animals well, would cradle the animal to be slaughtered. They would caress it, sing to it. The goat’s sacrifice wasn’t taken lightly. To eat isn’t to be superior. As remarkable as the Socotran respect for animals and nature was their nonviolent behavior toward each other. While war devastates Yemen’s mainland, until very recently no weapons were permitted on the archipelago. […]

Read the complete article

Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art

The common narrative of Neanderthals is that they were a group of dullard losers whose extinction 40,000 years ago was due to smarter competition and a little of interbreeding with our own forebears. Likening someone to a Neanderthal was and, most likely, still is a top-rate anthropological insult. But, in the past few decades, Neanderthal finds have greatly contradicted our perception of the species. In Kindred, Rebecca Wragg Sykes combs through the avalanche of scientific discoveries of the species and uses her experience at the cutting-edge of Paleolithic research to share our new understanding of Neanderthals, shoving aside cliches of rag-clad brutes in an icy wasteland. She reveals them to be curious, clever connoisseurs of their world, technologically inventive and ecologically adaptable. They ranged across vast tracts of tundra and steppe, but also stalked in dappled forests and waded in the Mediterranean Sea. Above all, they were successful survivors for more than 300,000 years, during times of massive climatic upheaval. Shermer and Sykes also discuss:

• the nature of species and if Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are one or two species,
• the deep time span of Neanderthals,
• the wide geography of Neanderthals,
• how archaeologists work today to discern Neanderthal lives and minds,
• Neanderthal DNA and what we have learned from it,
• Neanderthal bodies,
• Neanderthal brains and minds,
• Neanderthal tools and what they tell us about their lives,
• Neanderthal hunting/caloric needs,
• Neanderthal art,
• Neanderthal sex and love and social lives,
• Neanderthal death, burial, afterlife beliefs, and possible religious beliefs, and
• extinction: what happened to the Neanderthals?

Rebecca Wragg Sykes has been fascinated by the vanished worlds of the Pleistocene ice ages since childhood, and followed this interest through a career researching the most enigmatic characters of all, the Neanderthals. After a Ph.D. on the last Neanderthals living in Britain, she worked in France at the world-famous PACEA laboratory, Université de Bordeaux, on topics ranging from Neanderthal landscapes and territories in the Massif Central region of south-east France, to examining how they were the first ancient humans to produce a synthetic material and tools made of multiple parts. Alongside her academic activities, she has also earned a reputation for exceptional public engagement. The public can follow her research through a personal blog and Twitter account, and she frequently writes for the popular media, including the Scientific American and Guardian science blogs. Becky is passionate about sharing the privileged access scientists have to fascinating discoveries about the Neanderthals. She is also co-founder of the influential Trowelblazers project, which highlights women archaeologists, palaeontologists and geologists through innovative outreach and collaboration.

Listen now

A Report from the Paranormal Trenches

BY JAMES “THE AMAZING” RANDI

I am in a very peculiar business. I appear on stages around the world as a conjurer. Now the American term for it is magician. It’s not a good expression because if you look in the dictionary the strict definition of a magician is one who uses magic. And magic, at least by the definition I prefer from a leading dictionary, is the attempt to control nature by means of spells and incantations. Now, ladies and gentlemen, in my time, as you might have guessed, I have tried spells and incantations. No good. You can spell and incant all you want; the lady will still be on the couch, waiting patiently to float into the air or will be imprisoned in the box with the saw blade descending upon her unprotected midriff, and in some danger of being severely scratched, if not worse! Spells and incantations don’t work. You have to use skulduggery. And let me make it very clear what the magical trade—the conjuring trade—is with a precise definition: it is the approximation of the effect of a true magician using means of subterfuge and trickery.

The magician, in the American usage, is an actor playing the part of a wizard. We are entertainers. I don’t think that there are many folks — but there are some out there by David Copperfield’s own admission to me — who still believe that they really can do the things they purport to do. After a magical performance we’ve all undergone the same experience, all of us in the trade; you get people coming to you afterwards and saying: “I really enjoyed what you did; thank you so much for coming.” And you say, “Well, it’s great to be here. I’m happy that you were pleased with it.” Then they say, “You know, the business with the bottles that multiplied. Obviously, that’s a trick. And the one where you did the thing with the rings and the ropes. That’s a trick too. But the one where you told the lady what word she’d chosen out of the newspaper — that, of course, can’t be a trick.” I’d say, “Yes, that’s a trick, too, but it’s disguised as a miracle of a semi-religious nature.” And they wink at you and they say, “Sure.” Then they walk away and tell their friends afterwards, “Well, he won’t admit it, but we all know.”

There is a hunger, a very strong hunger, within us all to believe there is something more than what the laws of nature permit. I’m not just saying audiences that watch the magician. I mean within us all. We’d like to have a certain amount of fantasy in our lives, but it’s a very dangerous sort of temptation to immediately assume that it must be supernatural or occult or paranormal if we don’t have an explanation for it. I can tell you that in my life I’ve spent a great deal of time investigating and observing and carefully noting and making use of psychology. I am not a psychologist; I have no academic credentials whatsoever, so I come to you today absolutely unencumbered by any responsibilities of that nature. There is no dean who will call me on the carpet tomorrow morning and say, “You shouldn’t have said that.” You see, I’m in the business of giving opinions from an uninformed point of view, except from the point of view of a skeptical person who knows how people’s minds work and often don’t work.

It was mentioned in the introduction to this talk that at the current rate of scientific growth, in a certain number of years scientists will consist of every human being on earth, as well as all the animals — the donkeys, the burros, the whole thing. Well, my friend David Alexander remarked to me, in a cruel aside, that even today certain parts of certain horses have become scientists. And that is quite true; I have met many of them and though they have Ph.D.s, you’d hardly know it. I’ve just come back from a project that’s ongoing at the moment and I’ve seen that principle at work. I must share with you another thing in passing. I have a theory; this is only a theory, and it is at present unproven. But observations so far tend to support its possible validity, with my advance apologies to Ph.D.s in the room. I have a theory about Ph.D.s and the granting of the degree itself. I am outside the field, not an academic, so as a curious observer I have many times seen films of, and in a couple of cases actually attended ceremonies where Ph.D.s are created. They are created, you know. The Ph.D. itself is earned, of course, but then the person who has passed all the tests and done all the right things in the right way and has been approved doesn’t become a Ph.D. until one significant moment where a roll of paper, usually with a red or a blue ribbon around it, is pressed into his or her hand. At that moment that person becomes a very special class of being known as Ph.D.

There is a hunger, a very strong hunger, within us all to believe there is something more than what the laws of nature permit. I’m not just saying audiences that watch the magician. I mean within us all.

Now, I have noted at those ceremonies, and perhaps you have observed it as well that the man who gives out those rolls of paper wears gloves. Why? Why would he want to wear gloves? Is the paper dirty? I don’t think so. Is there something about that roll of paper, or perhaps the ribbon, that he doesn’t want to contaminate him, and he doesn’t want to touch his skin? I’m going to postulate — just an idea — that perhaps there is a secret chemical that has been genetically engineered which is on the surface of that paper so that when the Ph.D. candidate receives that roll of paper this chemical is absorbed by the skin, goes into the bloodstream and is conducted directly to the brain. This is a very carefully engineered chemical which goes directly — please don’t laugh; this is science — goes directly to the speech center of the brain and paralyzes the brain in such a way that two sentences from then on, in any given language, are no longer possible to be pronounced by that person. Those two sentences are, “I don’t know” and “I was wrong”. […]

Read, Watch, or Listen

James Randi, Skeptic Extraordinaire

The skeptical world has lost a towering figure in James Randi, stage magician, lightning rod, and co-founder of the modern skeptical movement. In 1976, Randi joined philosopher Paul Kurtz, astronomer Carl Sagan, psychologist Ray Hyman, science writer Martin Gardner, and other motivated science advocates and critics of fringe claims to establish North America’s first formal skeptical organization, then known as CSICOP—the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (now called CSI, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry).

Randi may be the single most influential person in the history of skepticism from the 1970s through the first decade of the 21^st century. His classic book Flim-Flam! is a defining text for scientific skepticism. He pioneered many of skepticism’s investigative techniques, and many of the arguments and attitudes of skeptical activists. While much of the skeptical literature consists of historical sleuthing and critical analysis, Randi was known for his distinct activist approach to confronting paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. His dramatic public exposé of televangelist Peter Popoff remains one of the clearest modern examples of a fringe proponent unmasked by evidence gathered in the field. Most skeptics would describe Randi as a powerful inspiration for their own work, myself included.

As an activist and showman, Randi certainly stood out. He adopted an outspoken, confrontational public persona beloved by his fans and detested by critics. Sagan said Randi was “accurately self-described as an angry man.” Science fiction author Isaac Asimov wrote that “Randi strikes back and when the pseudoscientists howl, he knows he has hit the mark.” Beginning in 1964, Randi trumpeted a direct challenge to paranormal claimants: “perform anyparanormal feat of any kind under the proper observing conditions” mutually agreed in advance, and win $10,000. That prize eventually grew to $1 million, yet it went unclaimed. Though many were tested, no one ever succeeded in demonstrating any paranormal power whatsoever.

Randi leaves behind a husband and many devoted friends. I did not know Randi well, so I will leave it to his loved ones to eulogize him as a person. I’ve been asked instead to briefly consider his legacy as a “founding father” within the history of skepticism.

That question is complex because people are complex. Like Houdini and Barnum before him, Randi was a showman first. His public persona was larger than life, while his private life was largely unknown for most of his career. He crafted and curated his public persona, from his chosen legal name to his choice to come out as a gay man at age 81.

His activist work on the public stage is his most visible legacy. It would frankly be difficult to overstate the impact of his work upon organized skepticism. Randi’s contributions to skepticism were foundational and monumental. It’s likely that the worldwide network of skeptical organizations would never have happened without Randi’s energy and example.

At the same time, Randi’s greatest contributions were sometimes controversial. His Project Alpha, for example, sent magicians undercover into a parapsychology lab where they posed as psychics. The lab was fooled completely, and embarrassed when Randi revealed the truth. Similarly, Randi hoaxed Australian media into giving press coverage to a fake guru Randi had invented from whole cloth. These projects were widely celebrated by skeptics. They also forced skeptics to consider questions such as the ethics of using deception in our work (a discussion that skeptics and our critics continue to this day).

Magicians have been leaders and essential partners in the necessarily multidisciplinary study of paranormal claims since the days of Houdini. For decades, Randi was the preeminent skeptical magician. He approached paranormal claims with a vast store of specialized expert knowledge that scientists and journalists lack. No one was better qualified to expose, for example, the stage magic trickery of so-called “psychic surgeons” who preyed upon cancer patients for money. By the same token, Randi was not a scientist. He sometimes misspoke on scientific questions in which he was not an expert. (His doubts regarding climate science led me to argue in 2009 that there are “limits on the kinds of scientific arguments into which skeptics may responsibly wade.”)

How do we even begin to weigh such a long and extraordinary career? Randi helped to create the movement I love. All skeptics are indebted to his work. So too are the people rescued from swindlers by Randi’s debunking. Especially notable were his campaigns against the heartless frauds of psychic surgery and fake bomb detecting devices.

His work will be discussed for decades as we continue what Randi began. He was one of skepticism’s fiercest, most visible, and most influential advocates. The skeptical project will not be the same without him. His exit from this stage leaves us now to decide how the show must go on.

Reflecting on Randi’s successful debunking, Sagan said, “it would be as dangerous to rely on him to expose all the quacks, humbugs, and bunkum in the world as it would be to believe those same charlatans.” Randi was one man. He couldn’t do everything, and he couldn’t do it forever. And yet, the work of James Randi and his pioneering colleagues actually did change the world, at least a little bit. They directed our notice to urgent problems ignored by mainstream society. Their attempts to grapple with those problems provide examples for us to learn from, adapt, and expand. It falls on us to accept that challenge. “If we don’t want to get taken,” Sagan said, “we need to do this job for ourselves.”

James Randi in Memoriam, 1928–2020

James Randi & the Skeptical Movement

In 1992 we founded the Skeptics Society and Skepticmagazine and publicly launched them on March 22 at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) with a lecture by James “The Amazing” Randi on “A Report from the Paranormal Trenches.” Randi’s talk started a tradition of monthly lectures at Caltech that continued through 2015 and now evolved into the Science Salon podcast, enabling us to reach orders of magnitude more people with our message on the value of science, reason, and skepticism.

That too was Randi’s life mission, so when he founded the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) we gladly gave him our mailing list so he could generate interest and support for his special brand of skepticism, and when JREF launched The Amazing Meeting (TAM) we once again supported it through our mailing list, advertising in Skeptic, and participation in nearly every single TAM over the years. In turn, for many years Randi penned a regular column in Skeptic (‘Twas Brillig) in which we gave him nearly free reign to talk about anything on his mind, which was almost always entertaining and educational. At age 92 Randi led a long life, and below Skeptic contributors and Junior SkepticEditor-in-Chief Daniel Loxton, an expert on the history of skepticism, puts Randi’s work into context. To that I would add a little more context, loosely based on passages from my book Why People Believe Weird Things, and a tribute I wrote to Paul Kurtz upon his passing in 2012.

Skepticism dates back to the ancient Greeks, well captured in Socrates’ famous quip that all he knows is that he knows nothing. Skepticism as nihilism, however, gets us nowhere and, thankfully, almost no one embraces it. The word “skeptic,” in fact, comes from the Greek skeptikos, for “thoughtful” — far from modern misconceptions of the word as meaning “cynical” or “nihilistic.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “skeptical” has also been used to mean “inquiring,” “reflective,” and, with variations in the ancient Greek, “watchman” or “mark to aim at.” What a glorious meaning for what we do! We are thoughtful, inquiring, and reflective, and in a way we are the watchmen who guard against bad ideas, consumer advocates of good thinking who, through the guidelines of science, establish a mark at which to aim.

The Enlightenment, on one level, was a century-long skeptical movement, for there were no beliefs or institutions that did not come under the critical scrutiny of such thinkers as Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Locke, Jefferson, and others. Immanuel Kant in Germany and David Hume in Scotland were skeptics’ skeptics at the birth of skepticism that was the foundation of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, and their influence continues unabated to this day. Closer to our time, Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley were skeptics par excellence, not only for the revolution they launched and carried on (respectively) against the dogma of creationism, but also for their stand against the burgeoning spiritualism movement that was sweeping across America, England, and the continent. Although Darwin was quiet about his skepticism of the new form of spiritualism spreading across the cultural landscape and worked behind the scenes, Huxley railed publicly against the movement, bemoaning in one of the great one-liners in the history of skepticism: “Better live a crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a ‘medium’ hired at a guinea a séance.”

In the late nineteenth century the “Great Agnostic” Robert Ingersoll carried the torch of reason to century’s end, which was picked up in the first half of the twentieth century by the likes of Bertrand Russell and Harry Houdini, who stand out as representatives of skeptical thinkers and doers (respectively), railing against the irrationality and hucksterism of their age. Skepticism in the second half of the century began with Martin Gardner’s Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, launching what we think of today as “the skeptical movement,” which James Randi, Paul Kurtz, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Carl Sagan and others so courageously organized and led to the end of the century, launching us into a new millennium of reason and science.

To that end, Randi’s talk that launched the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine at Caltech is a timeless talk that we are pleased to present in this issue of eSkeptic in video and audio formats, along with a transcript. And we intend this to start a new tradition of regular releases from our archives of the lectures that took place at Caltech, delivered by a pantheon of scientific luminaries and enlighteners, including Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, Stephen Jay Gould, Christof Koch, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, John McWhorter, Lisa Randal, Philip Zimbardo, Michio Kaku, Alison Gopnik, Leonard Mlodiow, Kevin Kelly, Sean Carroll, Kip Thorne, Nancy Segal, Patricia Churchland, Paul Churchland, Victor Stenger, Napoleon Chagnon, Donald Johanson, Susan Blackmore, Eugenie Scott, Jack Horner, Michael Ruse, Margaret Wertheim, Robert Zubrin, Seth Shostack, Gregory Benford, David Brin, Bill Nye, Paul MacCready, Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Crichton, Janna Levin, and many more.

Yikes! Is this the sharpest Democrat in Washington they have to offer and yet he's campaigning to be our president?

Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Suffers Numerous Breakdowns In Memory, Speech On Campaign Trail

5 Popular (& Natrual) Immune-Supportive Elements

 1. Ganoderma Lucidum (Reishi Mushroom): Reishi, or lingzhi, mushroom, is a large 

dark mushroom with a glossy exterior and a woody texture that has been called, "the mushroom of immortality," "the 10,000-year mushroom," and "the mushroom of spiritual potency." It typically grows on tree stumps and the base of trees such as the maple, but only on 2-3 trees out of 10,000, making it a pretty rare find in the wild.

It is easy to understand how this mushroom has come to be used in traditional practices as it has roughly 400 bioactive compounds, with the polysaccharides and triterpenes probably the most researched of them. Reishi is known to support both the innate and adaptive immune responses. It has the potential to strengthen those first-line defenses all the way through to the adaptive responses while still managing the body's response to stress.*

Ganoderma lucidum is found in tablet, capsule, powder, and liquid forms as a supplement, but don't forget that it is a food. To get all the goodness for your immune system out of the mushrooms, you have to break their cell walls, which means cooking them. It's the same for supplements. Just drying the mushrooms and powdering them to use in supplements may not have the health benefits reishi is known for. The mushroom must be processed using specific methods to ensure a high-quality supplement that actually works. You can find many recipes online for preparing Ganoderma lucidum, so have fun experimenting.

2. Artemisia Annua (Sweet Wormwood): Sweet wormwood, also known as Chinese wormwood, or qing hao, among other names, is an ancient herb that has traditional uses dating back as far as 168 B.C. It has been used for more than 2,000 years in Chinese culture. Note that not all Artemisia species have the same action. The reference here is specifically to the Artemisia annua variety.

Artemisia annua has a great reputation in modulating the immune system, meaning that it balances immune responses and prevents overstimulation and excessive inflammation. Its actions are very much directed at the adaptive immunity responses that usually kick in four days after you get an infection.* Wormwood has a bitter flavor and is used to brew liqueurs and other alcoholic beverages.

3. Ursolic Acid: Technically, ursolic acid is not an herb but an active compound found in apple peel and other fruit peels, rosemary, thyme, elder flower, and other herbs and plants. It has been shown to enhance interferon-gamma (IFN-g) production, which features in the cellular immune response in adaptive immunity.[1]  IFN-g is an important immune factor that switches on many other genes and proteins that help the immune system function at full capacity.*

Ursolic acid seems to have a strong mechanism for controlling the inflammatory response, which may be beneficial in helping your body properly respond to stress and intense exercise.[2] You would probably have to consume a lot of the above-mentioned foods to get the amount of used in these studies, but still, it is in food and food is good.*

4. Curcuma Longa (Turmeric Root): Turmeric is well-known as the orange-yellow spice used in curry powder, but turmeric, or curcumin, supplements are also among the top-selling herbal supplements in the U.S. Curcumin is best known for its association with a decreased inflammatory response to exercise, with many people using it for recovery from delayed-onset muscle soreness. In the past two decades, however, research has shown that curcumin is also a powerful immunomodulator. It specifically modulates the activation of T cells, B cells, and various other immune cells, all of the regular players that you find in both innate and adaptive immune responses.[3]*

Many turmeric supplements on the market focus on bioavailability and absorption by adding black pepper or changing it into liposomal or nanoparticle forms. However, the benefits to the immune system may come more from how your gut bacteria and turmeric interact inside the digestive tracts as opposed to absorption into the bloodstream. One study describes turmeric as having "prebiotic-like" effects on gut bacteria without being a prebiotic because it cannot provide energy for gut bacteria.[4] In fact, it seems to have more of an effect by changing the composition of the gut and increasing the richness of bacterial species.*

The gut wall contains 70 percent of the cells that make up your immune system, and a healthy gut microbiome houses bacterial species that have a host of beneficial effects. Compounds produced by gut bacteria through the processing of turmeric and other herbs can trigger the release of signaling molecules in the bloodstream that provide systemic benefits. That's the way a lot of herbs and foods support the immune system.*

5. Boswellia Serrata: Boswellia serrata, or Indian frankincense, is a very underrated herb. Technically speaking, it is not an herb but a resin from a large-sized branching tree of the family Burseraceae that grows in the dry mountainous regions of India. Its two main active ingredients are 11-keto-beta-boswellic acid (KBA) and acetyl-11-keto-beta-boswellic acid, and it has been used traditionally in supporting healthy immune and inflammatory action, mainly as a 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) inhibitor.[5] * Boswellia serrata is more than just an anti-inflammatory.

As part of the adaptive immune response, at lower doses it seems to enhance antibody production as part of humoral immunity and also increase B and T lymphocyte production as part of cellular immunity.[6] This is how it can boost the immune response when it's needed most, as well as help keep your inflammatory responses from getting out of control.* Boswellia serrata is pretty unpleasant to take as a liquid, and it will feel like it is stuck on your palate due to its high resin content. Definitely much better in a capsule form.

References:

1). Jang, Sun-Mi, et al. (2009). Ursolic acid enhances the cellular immune system and pancreatic beta-cell function in streptozotocin-induced diabetic mice fed a high-fat diet. International Immunopharmacology, 9(01), 113-119.

2). Chekcer, Rahul, et al. (2012). Potent anti-inflammatory activity of ursolic acid, a triterpenoid antioxidant, is mediated through suppression of NF-kB, AP-1 and NF-AT. Plos One, February 20.

3). Jagetia, Ganesh Chandra, & Aggarwal, Bharat B. (2007). "Spicing Up" of the immune system by curcumin. Journal of Clinical Immunology, 27(1), 19-35.

4). Peterson, Christine T., et al. (2018). Effects of turmeric and curcumin dietary supplementation on human gut microbiota: a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled pilot study. Journal of Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine, 23, 2515690X18790725

5). Gerbeth, Kathleen, et al. (2013). In vitro metabolism, permeation, and brain availability of six major boswellic acids from Boswellia serrata gum resins. Fitoterapia, 84, 99-106.

6). Ammon, H. P. T., (2010). Modulation of the immune system by Boswellia serrata extracts and boswellic acids. Phytomedicine, 11, 862-867

Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country & the film What Killed Michael Brown?

The United States today is hopelessly polarized; the political Right and Left have hardened into rigid and deeply antagonistic camps, preventing any sort of progress. Amid the bickering and inertia, the promise of the 1960s—when we came together as a nation to fight for equality and universal justice—remains unfulfilled.

As Shelby Steele reveals in Shame, the roots of this impasse can be traced back to that decade of protest, when in the act of uncovering and dismantling our national hypocrisies—racism, sexism, militarism—liberals internalized the idea that there was something inauthentic, if not evil, in the America character. Since then, liberalism has been wholly concerned with redeeming modern America from the sins of the past, and has derived its political legitimacy from the premise of a morally bankrupt America. The result has been a half-century of well-intentioned but ineffective social programs, such as Affirmative Action. Steele reveals that not only have these programs failed, but they have in almost every case actively harmed America’s minorities and poor. Ultimately, Steele argues, post-60s liberalism has utterly failed to achieve its stated aim: true equality. Liberals, intending to atone for our past sins, have ironically perpetuated the exploitation of this country’s least fortunate citizens. Approaching political polarization from a wholly new perspective, Steele offers a rigorous critique of the failures of liberalism and a cogent argument for the relevance and power of conservatism.

Shermer and Steele discuss:

• 30^th anniversary of his book The Content of Our Character, and what has changed in race relations in America in those 30 years,

• Steele’s response to President Johnson’s famous quote:

  “Freedom is not enough. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him; bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”

• why “The promised land guarantees nothing. It is only an opportunity, not a deliverance.”,

• literal truths vs. poetic truths and power:

  “What actually happened was that liberalism turned to poetic truth when America’s past sins were no longer literally true enough to support liberal policies and the liberal claim on power. The poetic truth of black victimization seeks to compensate for America’s moral evolution. It tries to keep alive the justification for liberal power even as that justification has been greatly nullified by America’s moral development.”

• political correctness is the enforcement arm of poetic truth,
• black families & fatherless homes,
• white guilt,
• race fatigue,
• reparations,
• anti-racism,
• achievement gap,
• Princeton racism letter,
• race and IQ,
• SAT tests,
• BLM and the nuclear family,
• training and sensitivity programs.

Shermer and Steele also discuss his new film, produced with his son Eli Steele, titled What Killed Michael Brown?

Steele:

“We human beings never use race except as a means to power. Race is never an end. It is always a means, and it has no role in human affairs except as a corruption.”

“America’s original sin is not slavery. It is simply the use of race as a means to power. Whether for good or ill, race is a corruption. Always. And it always turns one group into the convenience of another group.”

“Liberalism’s great sin was to steal responsibility for black problems away from black people, leaving them vulnerable to destructive social forces, such as the drug epidemic of the 70s and 80s. It was the suffering of blacks that justified liberalism’s demand for power, but this only relegates blacks to permanent victimhood and alienates them from the power to uplift themselves.”

Shelby Steele is the Robert J. and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Winner of the Bradley Prize and a National Humanities Medal and the author of the National Book Critics Circle award-winning The Content of Our Character, Steele lives in the Central Coast of California.

Listen now

Growing Young: How Friendship, Optimism, and Kindness Can Help You Live to 100

From the day her daughter was born, science journalist Marta Zaraska fretted about what she and her family were eating. She fasted, considered adopting the keto diet, and ran a half-marathon. She bought goji berries and chia seeds and ate organic food. But then her research brought her to read countless scientific papers and to interview dozens of experts in various fields of study, including molecular biochemistry, epidemiology and neuroscience. What Marta discovered shattered her long-held beliefs about aging and longevity. A strong support network of family and friends, she learned, lowers mortality risk by about 45 percent, while exercise only lowers it by about 23 percent. Volunteering your free time lowers it by 22 percent or so, while certain health fads like turmeric haven’t been shown to help at all. These revelations led Marta Zaraska to a simple conclusion: In addition to healthy nutrition and physical activity, deepening friendships, practicing empathy and contemplating your purpose in life can improve your lifespan. Shermer and Zaraska also discuss:

• diet, nutrition, and supplements: what works, what doesn’t, and what about meat?
• exercise: how much, what type, and when?
• the causal mechanisms behind how relationships and marriage effect health,
• how friendships and community effect longevity,
• how religion makes people healthier and longer lived,
• why we need others and why handshakes and hugs will return after COVID-19,
• the harmful effects of loneliness and isolation,
• the deleterious effects of stress, and
• how leading a purposeful and meaningful life leads to longevity.

Marta Zaraska is a Canadian-Polish science journalist. She has written about nutrition and psychology for the Washington Post, Scientific American, The Atlantic, The Los Angeles Times, New Scientist, and several other publications. She is the author of Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5-Million-Year Obsession with Meat (Basic Books, 2016), which has been translated into Japanese, Korean, simplified Chinese, Spanish and Polish, and chosen by the journal Nature as one of “the best science picks” in March 2016. Meathooked has also been praised in The Wall Street Journal, Discover Magazine, Time, The Washington Post, Kirkus Reviews, Natural History Magazine, etc. She has also contributed a chapter to the recently published The Reducetarian Solution(TarcherPerigee, 2017) alongside Mark Bittman, Michael Shermer, and Peter Singer.

Listen now

Boosting Immunity Through Herbs & Nutrition

from BodyBuilding.com 

Depending on the hemisphere you live in, you may be entering either winter or summer. Many pathogens become more prevalent in winter, with the cold and flu being common examples. Sickness can occur at any time, however, and people with a suppressed immune system, such as the elderly, the highly stressed, and even those who exercise at a high intensity on a regular basis, may be more vulnerable. There are many natural herbs and nutrients that may support immune function during these times and give your body everything it needs to stay at full capacity so you can continue your life’s journey unimpeded.

Meet Your Immune System:  Innate vs. Adaptive Immune Response: The innate immune response is the very first line of defense when an intruder makes contact with the immune system. It could be a harmful organism (bacteria or virus, for example) or a food component that gets through the gut wall as part of leaky gut. The immune system acts swiftly to remove the intruder within four days of getting infected. At the same time, the immune cells also send chemical signals to start recruiting more forces to come and help with the invasion.

The chemical signaling molecules produced during this first line of defense include histamine, bradykinin, serotonin, leukotrienes, and prostaglandins. They all produce inflammation, which is what creates redness, swelling, heat, and pain. Think of the swelling inside your nose and the increased mucous production when you get a cold or the fever you get with viral infections such as the flu. These inflammatory products are what make you feel miserable when you are sick, not the bacteria or the virus itself. Bacteria and viruses merely act as the trigger.

After about four days, the adaptive immune response kicks in. This is the second line of defense and a bit more specialized. The immune system adapts to become more specific to the pathogen intruder. Sometimes, however, things can go wrong and other cells get in the firing line when pathogens are being killed, which is how autoimmune disease can start.

The adaptive immune response employs T and B lymphocytes as part of the immune system and can clone them very quickly when an infection is present. Each new cell that is produced will be exactly the same as the cell it came from and will target the exact same pathogen. So, if you get the flu, your immune system will make millions of T and B lymphocytes that will specifically kill the flu virus only.

Hunoral vs. Cellular Immunity: The immune system uses two adaptive mechanisms to protect from foreign invaders, namely cellular and humoral immunity. Humoral immunity is all about making antibodies, whereas cellular immunity is about destroying infected cells. Both mechanisms produce inflammation that needs to be managed. Chronic inflammation that is left uncontrolled can damage healthy cells and contribute to bigger health problems than just having an infection.

Humoral immunity occurs when the body makes antibodies against something that is outside the cells and moving around freely in bodily fluids such as blood or mucous. T-helper cells help the B cells change into more specific cells that then bind to antigens on the outside of the invader organisms and neutralize them through a process called phagocytosis (literally, the eating of the cell), during which B cells are cloned with a memory of the particular antigen on the harmful organism. It's like taking a mug shot or fingerprints. The memory B cells remain inactive but hang around and will instantly recognize the organism if they encounter it again, hastening the process of eliminating the threat the next time around.

Cellular immunity becomes involved when the pathogenic organisms are already inside the cells. Viruses cannot make you sick unless they get inside your cells where they can replicate. The cell-mediated response is the most effective response when it comes to removing virus-infected cells. T-helper cells release inflammatory factors that help the T cells transform into cytotoxic T cells, which can then destroy the infected cell by triggering apoptosis, or cell-suicide.

It is important to support both humoral and cellular immunity in the adaptive response so the immune system can get rid of infected cells, but at the same time you want to make sure that the adaptive responses do not go into overdrive and cause massive inflammation and cellular damage. It's all about maintaining balance.

Definitions: Before we get to our top five herbs for bolstering the immune system, here are a few key definitions:

Immunostimulatory describes something that stimulates the immune system by activating it or increasing its activity. Stimulation means more B and T lymphocytes and more immune cells, but also more inflammation.

Immunosuppression is something that prevents the immune system from reacting to antigens and launching an attack. Sometimes this is necessary, such as in the case of organ transplants, where you don't want the immune system to attack the new organs.

Immunomodulation is modulation of the immune system, bringing it to back to normal levels where it self-regulates. Basically, something that is immunomodulatory will calm down an overactive immune system, protecting you from your own defense mechanisms without suppressing an underactive immune system. In other words, it provides balance.

Surprise! 12 Vegetables That Are Actually Healthier When Cooked

 by Rebecca Strong, for Eat This, Not That!

Eating vegetables raw isn't always the most nutritious option. These vegetables are actually healthier (and more nutritious) after they are cooked.

     You're well aware that vegetables are good for you—but did you know that their nutritional value depends on how you prepare them? The raw food diet has definitely generated a lot of hype in recent years, due to the fact that some naturally-occurring vitamins and phytonutrients are destroyed once certain foods are cooked. But as it turns out, there are some vegetables that are healthier cooked. Why? Because cooking vegetables often makes it easier for you to absorb the important nutrients that they contain.

    In fact, one study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition revealed that women who followed a wholesome nutrition diet (based on healthy dietary recommendations) absorbed more of the beta-carotene than the women who followed a raw food diet. In other words, even though women who adhered to a raw food diet consumed more of that crucial antioxidant, they reaped less of its benefits.

     The bottom line is, cooking certain vegetables makes many of their nutrients more accessible for your body to use—not to mention, they can be a little tastier and easier to digest. So, which ones should you be cooking? Consider turning up the heat on these 12 veggies that are more nutritious when cooked.

1). Tomatoes: According to the Department of Nutrition and Exercise Science at Bastyr University, tomatoes lose a lot of vitamin C when they're cooked. However, a 2002 study published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry found that cooked tomatoes have significantly higher levels of lycopene than raw ones, likely because the heat helps to break down the thick cell walls, which contain a number of important nutrients. That's worth noting because lycopene is one of the most powerful antioxidants available—and it's been linked to a lower risk of numerous chronic diseases, like cardiovascular disease and cancer.

As for how to cook them, lycopene is absorbed by your body more effectively when consumed with a healthy fat, so pair your roasted tomatoes with olives, or drizzle them with extra-virgin olive oil.

2). Asparagus: This springtime veggie is chock-full of cancer-fighting vitamins A, C, and E — and a 2009 study published in the International Journal of Food Science & Technology revealed that cooking it boosted its antioxidant activity by 16 to 25%. Meanwhile, another 2009 study published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that cooking asparagus increased its levels of phenolic acid, which is associated with a reduced risk of cancer. Note that because vitamins A and E are both fat-soluble, meaning they become easier for your body to absorb when they're paired with a fat source, you should consider cooking your asparagus in olive oil, or serving it with some toasted seeds.

3). Spinach: Ever noticed how this dark leafy green shrinks when you cook it? That means you're likely to eat more of it, and, of course, consuming more spinach means you'll reap more of its nutrients. But that's not all—a 2005 study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that steaming spinach can reduce the vegetable's oxalic acid—which interferes with your body's absorption of iron and calcium—by up to 53 percent. Plus, research has revealed that steaming this veggie ensures that it retains its levels of folate, an important B vitamin that not only plays a role in making DNA but can also reduce the risk of several types of cancer. And according to North Ohio Heart/Ohio Medical Group, cooked spinach packs more calcium, magnesium, and iron.

4). Mushrooms: Antioxidants are heroic little substances that can protect your cells from damage, which may reduce your risk of certain chronic diseases. Mushrooms (which are technically fungi) happen to be packed with antioxidants, and a 2006 study published in the journal Food Chemistry discovered that exposing this veggie to heat drastically enhanced its overall antioxidant activities. As an added bonus, cooked mushrooms have higher levels of potassium, niacin, and zinc than raw ones, according to The U.S. Department of Agriculture's nutrient database reports.

Not only that, but certain types of raw mushrooms contain agaritine, a potentially cancer-causing substance—and cooking them helps to get rid of this toxin.

5). Celery: Before you go munching on some crudités, consider this: According to a 2009 study in the Journal of Food Science, celery becomes healthier when it's cooked. Note, however, that its antioxidant capacity only increased via certain cooking methods, including microwaving, pressure-cooking, griddling, frying, and baking. When boiled, this veggie actually lost 14 percent of its antioxidant activity.

6). Carrots: Beta-carotene is a substance called a carotenoid that the body converts into vitamin A, which plays a key part in supporting bone growth, enhancing your vision, and keeping the immune system in tip-top shape. It's also responsible for giving carrots their orange hue, and a 2000 study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry demonstrated that cooking this vegetable boosts its beta-carotene levels.

And that's not all—another 2009 study in the Journal of Food Science revealed that cooking carrots with the skins on can triple their overall antioxidant power. Whether you opt to roast them or boil them is up to you—just be sure to skip the frying pan, as this method reduced carotenoid levels by 13 percent. Also, given that a 2003 study in the International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research discovered much higher levels of phytonutrients in carrots that were cooked with less water, microwaving is an excellent option (because this method can heat the veggie quickly with minimal water needed).

7). Green Beans: Green beans are another one of the many vegetables that are healthier cooked. According to a 2007 study in Nutrition Research, steamed green beans may have greater cholesterol-lowering benefits than raw green beans. Still, the only way to reap these nutritional rewards is by cooking them the right way. Research published in the Journal of Food Science revealed that green beans have higher levels of antioxidants when they are baked, microwaved, griddled, or even fried—but not when they are boiled or pressure cooked. Who knew frying a veggie could actually be healthier than boiling it?

8). Kale: If chowing down on a bowl of raw kale doesn't sound all that appetizing to you, rejoice: This cruciferous veggie has some advantages when it's cooked. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, raw kale contains isothiocyanates, which prevent the body from using the iodine it needs for the thyroid (which helps to regulate the metabolism). However, cooking this veggie deactivates the enzymes that trigger that potentially harmful effect. That's why Harvard School of Public Health recommends lightly steaming your kale, which will help you to avoid this issue while minimizing antioxidant loss.

9). Eggplant: Odds are, you're more likely to cook your eggplant than eat it raw—but here's a little extra incentive to heat this vegetable. A 2007 study in Nutrition Research found that steaming eggplant allows its components to bind together with bile acids, allowing the liver to more easily break down cholesterol and reduce its presence in the bloodstream.

But not all cooking methods are created equal when it comes to eggplant. One 2016 study in Food Chemistry showed that when grilled, this veggie retained higher amounts of chlorogenic acid, which slows down the release of glucose into the bloodstream (thus potentially lowering your blood pressure and risk of diabetes). On the other hand, when the eggplant was boiled, it retained more of the antioxidant delphinidin. It's also worth mentioning that raw eggplant contains the toxin solanine—although you would need to consume a lot of it to experience its gastrointestinal effects.

10). Brussels Sprouts: Not a fan of raw Brussels? No problem. Because as it turns out, this cruciferous veggie produces indole—a compound that's been found to kill precancerous cells—when it's cooked. Cooking this particular vegetable also causes the glucosinolates to break down into compounds that are known for having cancer-fighting capabilities, according to Harvard Health. Besides, some of the sugars found in raw Brussels sprouts can prove difficult to digest, so cooking this veggie may help you to avoid bloating and gas.

11). Potatoes: It's pretty uncommon to consume potatoes raw, but in case you needed further reason to cook them, note that raw potatoes (especially green ones) can contain a high concentration of the toxin solanine. On top of that, raw potatoes have anti-nutrients, which are substances that prevent your body from absorbing the vegetable's key vitamins and minerals. Another solid reason to boil, roast, or bake this veggie is that the uncooked starch in raw potatoes can cause all kinds of digestive discomfort.

12). Artichokes: Did you know that artichokes are an antioxidant powerhouse? But in order to get the most bang for your buck in that regard, you'll need to cook it. One 2008 study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that steaming artichokes increased their antioxidant levels by 15-fold. Boiling them, meanwhile, only boosted them by 8-fold. Even popping them in the microwave can enhance their antioxidant content. The reason why boiling isn't the best option is that this cooking method can cause the vegetable to lose certain water-soluble vitamins in the water.

Joe Biden has been in Washington for more than four decades. NOW he wants to "fix" things.

I am not a big pro Donald Trump supporter. However I'm even less enthusiastic with Joe Biden and his anemic push for the presidency with Kamala Harris. His known personal chronicle of fabrication, compulsive plagiarism, and racial controversy are a danger to America.

Listen to these two Youtube clips for another view of the facts. 

One FOOLPROOF Way To Spot A CORRUPT Politician: Peter Schweizer

What Are Joe and Hunter Biden Hiding in China?

Even with all his bully and bluster, we are still better off with President Trump. 

Please vote, but do so without the emotion and the hype the media is feeding you. Look at the data and the issues. Do your own unbiased research and then decide for yourself. Attacking the opposition to earn support is not the way to win votes. 

If you chose Biden, list the reasons for yourself why you want him without mentioning Trump.