Source: National Institutes of Health – 
Related MedlinePlus Pages: Alcohol
Author: admin
-
ClinicalTrials.gov: Alcohol Drinking
-
Focused Life Force Energy Says It Can Improve Sleep, Focus, and Mood. Here’s What the Research Shows.
The subscription company points to studies led by a Harvard- and Yale-trained University of Arizona scientist to support an unusual claim that the energy of a space can be changed remotely. Here is a fair look at the evidence and its limits.
The idea that your surroundings affect how you feel isn’t controversial. Decades of environmental psychology link light, noise, air quality, and clutter to mood, sleep, and the ability to concentrate, and the wellness industry, worth an estimated 1.8 trillion dollars by McKinsey’s count, has built a healthy market on that premise, from circadian lighting to air purifiers. Focused Life Force Energy takes the same starting point and pushes it somewhere far less conventional. The company says it can raise the energy of a home, office, or phone remotely, with nothing to install, and it points to its own research to back up the claim. For a health-minded reader, the interesting question isn’t whether the pitch sounds unusual. It’s what the evidence actually shows.
Focused Life Force Energy, based in Nelson, British Columbia, sells what it calls a high-consciousness energy field, delivered to a specific location and maintained remotely around the clock. Subscribers can try it through a fifteen-day free trial with no credit card, and the company reports more than 13,000 subscribers across 86 countries. What sets FLFE apart from most wellness subscriptions isn’t the pitch, which is easy to wave off, but the fact that it has put real effort into measuring real outcomes and following the data wherever it leads.
The Research the Company Points To
According to the company, the field can be activated around a home, business, phone, water bottle, or other designated object without any physical equipment at the location. FLFE says this occurs through a process it describes as quantum association, sometimes explained using the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, where a proprietary system of coils, plates, and sacred geometry located elsewhere establishes what it calls a high-consciousness field around the chosen target
In practical terms, subscribers simply register an address or object through an online portal, and the field is said to remain active continuously until they turn it off.
Much of FLFE‘s research has been guided by Gary E. Schwartz, a professor at the University of Arizona with training from Harvard and Yale and Director of the Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health, where he has spent years studying consciousness and energy. In a forty-five-day study the company conducted, participants reported meaningful changes: roughly a 49 percent drop in the intensity of stress symptoms, a 47 percent improvement in sleep, and gains of around 46 to 49 percent in mood and mental clarity. Separate testing using EEG, carried out with the Institute of Noetic Sciences, recorded increases in alpha brainwave activity, the pattern tied to calm, focused states. The company has even run agricultural trials, reporting roughly 167 percent stronger root growth in one plant study and higher crop yields in fields it says were exposed to the field. Across its human data, FLFE says more than 80 percent of users report noticing some benefit.
Schwartz’s own interpretation, according to the company, is that the results go beyond what a placebo would explain. That’s a strong claim, and it’s worth holding both halves of it at once: the measurements are real and were taken seriously, and the conclusion drawn from them is one researcher’s reading of the company’s own data.
Schwartz has argued that the findings go beyond what would typically be expected from placebo because the reported effects extend beyond self-reported human experiences to include EEG measurements, plant-growth studies, and other experiments where participant expectation cannot account for the results.
Where the Evidence Runs Out
Here is the part a careful reader needs. None of this research has been published in peer-reviewed journals, the venue where independent scientists pressure-test methods and results before a field accepts them
The studies were funded and conducted in connection with the company whose product they evaluate, a common limitation for early-stage research, and one that means the results haven’t yet had the independent replication that would let them stand on their own.
FLFE says its system creates a high-consciousness field through a process it calls quantum association, drawing on concepts such as quantum entanglement. Its proposed mechanism, and the broader consciousness framework informed by psychiatrist David Hawkins’ Map of Consciousness, falls outside current mainstream scientific consensus.
It’s also fair to mark where FLFE brushes up against science that is well established. The human body generates measurable electrical activity and associated electromagnetic fields, and researchers have long studied how biological systems interact with their physical environments.
The human body generates measurable electrical activity and associated electromagnetic fields, a well-established feature of biology.
Researchers have also shown for decades that the environments we inhabit influence health and well-being. Natural daylight helps regulate circadian rhythms and sleep, while views of nature have been associated with faster recovery among hospital patients and lower stress levels
The evidence there is concrete: hospital patients in rooms with natural light and views tend to recover faster, and daylight exposure measurably improves sleep. FLFE extends those accepted ideas past the point instruments can currently follow. Whether that extension is visionary or a leap too far is exactly what the evidence can’t yet settle.
FLFE
How People End Up Deciding for Themselves
Because the science is frontier, the company has built its model around personal experience rather than argument.
The free trial is the centerpiece of that approach. Many people don’t notice FLFE when it’s working. They notice it when it stops. When the free trial ends, and the contrast between ‘regular life’ and life imbued with a high-consciousness field becomes apparent, the difference may become more noticeable.
Whether that traces to the high-consciousness field, to the small rituals that form around it, or to expectation is the open question, and it’s one each user effectively runs on themselves.
Whether those experiences arise from the high-consciousness field itself, the routines and habits that develop around it, the power of expectation, or some combination of these remains an open question—one each user ultimately explores for themselves.
FLFE
The Company Behind It
Long before it was a company, Focused Life-Force Energy was a question two men kept asking separately: whether the energy in the spaces we live in shapes us more than we realize. Jeffrey Stegman was asking it through business. Clayten Stedmann was asking it through spiritual coaching. In Nelson, British Columbia, Canada, they found out they were asking the same thing.
What started as a shared experiment turned into FLFE, and eventually into an international subscription business. The founders describe it as mission-led as much as commercial: they say a meaningful share of the field FLFE generates is directed toward what they call consciousness-raising service work around the world, funded by paying subscribers. It’s an unusual structure, and it may explain something real about the loyalty the company inspires — subscribers often describe a renewal less like a purchase and more like a contribution to something larger.
For a health-minded reader, the honest bottom line is neither dismissal nor endorsement. FLFE has done more to measure its effects than most wellness brands bother to, and a credentialed scientist stands behind the work. It also hasn’t cleared the bar of independent, peer-reviewed replication that separates a promising signal from an established fact. That leaves it where a lot of emerging wellness ideas sit: worth watching, not yet proven, and easy enough to test firsthand through the free trial.
-
What Foods Help Hair Growth?
Hot peppers, soy foods, and pumpkin seeds may help with hair loss.
Androgenic or androgenetic alopecia is one of the most common chronic problems seen by dermatologists. In men, it’s called male pattern hair loss, and in women, it’s called female pattern hair loss. It’s characterized by progressive hair loss, mostly of the central scalp. I’ve talked about hair-loss supplements and hair-loss drugs; what about foods for hair loss? What role might diet play in the treatment of hair loss?
Human experiments with fecal transplants offer a clue to how powerful our microbiome is, with reports of improvements in hair loss after a “fecal slurry made from freshly passed stools” from a donor was administered into another person’s colon. These weren’t just subtle improvements. As you can see below and at 1:14 in my video Food for Hair Growth, a totally bald guy started growing back hair a few months after a fecal transplant.
A little more than a year later, his hair had completely regrown, as you can see below and at 1:18.
The moral of the story is not to drink brown smoothies, but to keep your good gut bugs happy.
Population studies have found that male pattern baldness is associated with poor sleeping habits and the consumption of meat and junk food; whereas protective associations were found for the consumption of raw vegetables and fresh herbs, as well as frequently consuming soymilk. Drinking soy beverages on a weekly basis was associated with 62% lower odds of moderate to severe hair loss, raising the possibility that there may be protective compounds in plants.
Complementary and alternative medicine treatments “boast the ability to ‘cure’ hair loss ‘safely’ with ‘less side effects’ than conventional medicine. However, it is important…to look beyond the overarching claims and marketing to critically review the literature.” For example, many studies have little relevance because the evidence was obtained from shaved rodents. (Hey, let’s smear shaved mice with bee venom!) And even when researchers do clinical studies on actual people, sometimes there’s no placebo control, so there’s no way to know if the food had anything to do with the results.
But there has been a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of compounds in hot peppers and soy, showing significantly higher promotion of hair growth. Below are some before-and-after pictures of both men and women, which you can also see at 2:49 in my video.
What doses were they taking? They took 6 milligrams of capsaicin a day and 75 milligrams of isoflavones. What does that look like in real food? You can get 6 milligrams of capsaicin in just a quarter of a fresh jalapeno pepper. That sounds pretty doable. You can get 75 milligrams of isoflavones by eating ¾ of a cup of tempeh or just straight soybeans. Soy nuts (dry-roasted soybeans) are even more concentrated, but given the formation of advanced glycation end-products in high-fat, high-protein foods prepared at high temperatures, I’d suggest avoiding routinely eating roasted or toasted nuts, seeds, or soy.
There’s also been a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pumpkin seed oil. Where did that idea come from? In 2009, a study out of South Korea found that randomizing men with BPH—benign prostatic hyperplasia, also known as enlarged prostate glands—to just 320 milligrams of pumpkin seed oil a day (that’s about a 16th of a teaspoon, so just a few drops a day) improved urinary flow rates. Urinary flow continued to kink off and decline in the control group, but those taking the equivalent of eating just two single pumpkin seeds a day saw a significant improvement, as you can see below and at 4:18 in my video.
That would seem to be an anti-androgen effect, so maybe it would help with hair loss. It seems to work in mice when used topically, but what about in people just eating pumpkin seeds? Sadly, we often throw away pumpkin seeds, squash seeds, watermelon seeds, and they actually have a “rich repertoire” of nutrition. But you don’t know if they actually work for hair loss until you put them to the test.
In a study, 76 men with male pattern baldness received either 400 milligrams of pumpkin seed oil a day hidden in capsules or placebo capsules for a few months. (Again, 400 milligrams is like eating two or two and a half pumpkin seeds a day.) The researchers measured scalp hair growth with all sorts of objective and subjective measures, and after 24 weeks of treatment, self-rated improvement and satisfaction scores in the pumpkin seed oil group were higher, and they objectively had more hair—a 40% increase in hair counts compared to only 10% in the placebo group. Below are some representative before-and-after shots of the improvement in hair coverage on two and a half pumpkin seeds’ worth of daily oil, which you can also see at 5:25 in my video.
Show those pictures to investigators blinded to group assignment, and they rate the placebo groups as getting slightly worse over time but the pumpkin seed oil group getting significantly better. In the pumpkin seed oil group, 95% were rated as either unchanged or improved, whereas in the placebo control group, more than 90% were classified as unchanged or worsened. Given such a pronounced effect, might we be worried about sexual side effects? Researchers used an index of erectile dysfunction before and after the study and found no evidence of adverse effects.
Doctor’s Note
This is the last in a three-part series on hair loss and growth. The previous two blogs were Do Hair Growth Supplements Work? and The Benefits and Risks of Hair Loss Drugs.
A handful of pumpkin seeds would satisfy my Daily Dozen recommendation for nuts and seeds. See Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen Checklist.
-
A Brain Protein Tied to Epilepsy Sat Unphotographed for Years, and Its Ion Grip Turned Out to Be Unlike Any Relative
Genetic variants in a protein called NBCn2 have been tied to epilepsy and autism spectrum disorder for years. Until three weeks ago, nobody had seen what the protein looked like, and nobody had a compound that could switch it off.
Researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai now have both, and their first inhibitors of the protein are already reducing neuronal activity in the dish. Their work, published in Nature Communications on July 22, reports the first high-resolution structure of NBCn2, along with a series of compounds that inhibit it.
The structure came with a surprise that may matter more than the compounds do.
The Transporter That Kept the Brain’s pH and Nobody’s Attention
NBCn2, cataloged as SLC4A10 and a member of the SLC4 solute carrier family, is a sodium-dependent bicarbonate transporter. Its job is acid extrusion: moving sodium and carbonate ions across membranes to regulate acidity inside brain cells.
That sounds like housekeeping, but intracellular pH directly influences how readily neurons fire. Mutations in NBCn2 cause severe neurodevelopmental disorders in humans, and knockout studies have suggested that its role in regulating neuronal excitability could hold therapeutic potential for seizure disorders.
The obstacle was practical. As the authors put it, NBCn2’s molecular mechanisms remained largely unknown, and few tool compounds were available to probe its role in health and disease. Without knowing a protein’s shape or what it binds to and where it moves, designing a molecule to block it is guesswork.
Cryo-EM, Computation and a Compound Series
The team used cryo-electron microscopy to capture detailed structural images of the transporter, revealing how it binds and moves the ions that shape neuronal excitability, as the Mount Sinai announcement describes.
They then paired that structural data with computational docking and molecular simulation to run structure-based drug discovery, narrowing a large chemical space to candidates worth synthesizing and testing.
The screen produced a compound series that inhibits NBCn2-mediated transport. In primary neuronal culture and in brain slices, the compounds reduced neuronal activity, which is the direction you would want from a candidate for disorders of excessive firing. The team then went back to cryo-EM to characterize the mechanism of inhibition.
The Binding Surprise That Matters for Drug Design
The structural detail with the longest reach is not the compound but the mechanism.
NBCn2 binds sodium and carbonate in an arrangement that differs from related proteins in the same transporter family. Closely related transporters, in other words, may operate in distinct ways.
“One surprising finding was that NBCn2 uses a substrate binding mechanism we had not seen before in related proteins,” said Shifan Yang, first author and a senior scientist in the Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences. “That difference may ultimately help all scientists design more selective drugs in the future.”
Selectivity is the central problem in drug design for transporter families. Compounds that hit the intended target plus three of its cousins tend to produce side effects that kill development programs. A genuinely different binding site is an opening for molecules that engage NBCn2 and leave its relatives alone.
Why “Not Drugs” Is the Operative Phrase
The team is unusually blunt about how early this is.
“These compounds are not drugs,” co-corresponding author Avner Schlessinger, professor of pharmacological sciences and director of the Small Molecule AI Drug Discovery Center at Icahn Mount Sinai, said in the release. The authors characterize them as early-stage research tools not ready for use in patients.
Several gaps are worth naming. Reducing neuronal activity in cultured cells and brain slices is not equivalent to reducing seizures in a living animal, and no seizure model results are reported. The compounds have not been reported to cross the blood-brain barrier, nor have they been assessed for toxicity or behavior in a whole organism. And blocking a pH regulator across the brain raises obvious questions about what else it would affect.
Roughly a third of people with epilepsy do not achieve seizure control on existing medications, which is why new mechanisms attract interest. But this is the first step of a process that typically runs a decade and usually fails. As one clinical neurology outlet framed it, the value here is a framework for studying the protein, not a therapy. Anyone currently managing epilepsy should stay on their prescribed regimen and discuss changes only with their neurologist.
Key Questions Answered
What is NBCn2?
A sodium-dependent bicarbonate transporter, also called SLC4A10, that regulates acid-base balance inside brain cells and influences how readily neurons fire.
What did the researchers accomplish?
They produced the first high-resolution structure of the protein using cryo-electron microscopy and used it to design the first compounds that inhibit its activity.
Did the compounds work?
They reduced neuronal activity in primary culture and brain slices. No seizure model results were reported.
Why is the binding mechanism significant?
NBCn2 binds sodium and carbonate differently from related transporters, suggesting that drugs could be designed to target it specifically without affecting its relatives.
Are these compounds close to becoming medicines?
No. The researchers explicitly describe them as early-stage research tools not yet ready for use in patients.
Who could eventually benefit?
Potentially, people with epilepsy and other conditions involving excessive neuronal activity, though no therapeutic claim is supported by this study.
-
Lupus Facts and Statistics | Lupus Foundation of America
What is the role of genetics in lupus?
- Genes do play a role in the predisposition to the development of lupus. There are dozens of known genetic variants linked to lupus. These genes impact both who gets lupus and how severe it is.
- 20 percent of people with lupus will have a parent or sibling who already has lupus or may develop lupus. About 5 percent of the children born to individuals with lupus will develop the illness.[1]
Although lupus can develop in people with no family history of lupus, there are likely to be other autoimmune diseases in some family members.[1]
One of three patients responding to our survey reported they had another autoimmune disease in addition to lupus, and almost half had a relative with lupus.
How long does it take to get diagnosed with lupus?
- There are many challenges to reaching a lupus diagnosis. Lupus is known as “the great imitator” because its symptoms mimic many other illnesses. Lupus symptoms can also be unclear, can come and go, and can change.
- On average, it takes nearly six years for people with lupus to be diagnosed, from the time they first notice their lupus symptoms.[5]
- A majority (63%) of people with lupus surveyed report being incorrectly diagnosed. Of those reporting incorrect diagnosis, more than half of them (55%) report seeing four or more different healthcare providers for their lupus symptoms before being accurately diagnosed.[5]
What are the biggest burdens of living with lupus?
Responding to our survey, most lupus patients reported that they are coping well with lupus (78%), and that other family members are understanding and supportive (72%).[4]
84% people with lupus name other family members as their primary support network.
Participants cited pain (65%), lifestyle changes (61%), and emotional problems associated with lupus (50%) as the most difficult parts of coping with lupus.[4]
What is the state of lupus awareness?
- While lupus is a widespread disease, awareness of the disease lags behind many other illnesses. 63% of Americans surveyed have never heard of lupus or know little or nothing about this disease and its symptoms beyond the name indicating there is significant opportunity and need for continued public education.[9]
- Over half of respondents (61%) believed it takes six months or less for a person to be accurately diagnosed with lupus—significantly underestimating the time it takes to receive an accurate lupus diagnosis.[9]
Key source documents:
[1] Pons-Estel GJ, Alarcón GS, Scofield L, Reinlib L, Cooper GS. Understanding the epidemiology and progression of systemic lupus erythematosus. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2010 Feb;39(4):257-68. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2008.10.007. Epub 2009 Jan 10. Review.
[2] Izmirly PM, Parton H, Wang L, McCune WJ, Lim SS, Drenkard C, Ferucci ED, Dall’Era M, Gordon C, Helmick CG, Somers EC. Prevalence of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the United States: Estimates From a Meta-Analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Lupus Registries. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Jun;73(6):991-996. doi: 10.1002/art.41632. Epub 2021 Apr 23. PMID: 33474834; PMCID: PMC8169527.
[3] Yen E, Singh R. Brief Report: Lupus-An Unrecognized Leading Cause of Death in Young Females: A Population-Based Study Using Nationwide Death Certificates, 2000-2015. Arthritis & Rheumatology. 2018;70(8):1251-1255. doi:10.1002/art.40512
[4] Daly R, Al Sawah S, Foster S, et al. FRI0420 Health Related Quality of Life in Lupus Differs by How Patients Perceive their Health and How Often They Experience Flares: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Online Survey in the United States. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2015;74:578-579. https://ard.bmj.com/content/74/Suppl_2/578.3 (accessed October 21, 2021).
[5] Al Sawah S, Daly RP, Foster S, Naegeli A, Benjamin K., Doll H., Bond G, Moshkovich O, Alarcón G. Understanding Delay in Diagnosis, Access to Care, and Satisfaction with Care in Lupus: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Online Survey in the United States. Presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2015 Annual Conference. June 2015. Rome, Italy.
[6] Barber, M. and Clarke, A. (2017). Socioeconomic consequences of systemic lupus erythematosus. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 29(5), pp.480-485.
[7] Carter, E., Barr, S., & Clarke, A. (2016). The global burden of SLE: prevalence, health disparities and socioeconomic impact. Nature Reviews Rheumatology, 12(10), 605-620. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2016.137
[8] Meacock, R., Dale, N., & Harrison, M. (2013). The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Pharmacoeconomics, 31(1), 49-61. doi: 10.1007/s40273-012-0007-4
[9] Lupus Awareness Survey for the Lupus Foundation of America (2019) [Executive Summary].Washington, DC. https://www.lupus.org/news/2019-lupus-awareness-survey-summary. June 25, 2019.
-
A Meditation to Help Build Your Capacity to Navigate Difficulty
Hello, I’m Rich, and this is our fourth module on the theme of living with meaning, purpose and resilience.
Resilience, simply defined, is being able to bounce back from adversity (though it should be noted that “bouncing back” doesn’t necessarily mean going back to exactly who we were before the challenge arose, since adversity can significantly change us as people). It’s our ability to meet the challenges that arise, return to our center, find our footing, and navigate effectively. It’s not about stopping all challenges in life because that would be impossible. Stress and difficulties arise in our lives all the time. It’s a question of how we meet those challenges, how we navigate through them and work with them.
So I’d like to offer some tools and a meditation around this. And again, this is part of a larger series on defining meaning, purpose, and, now, resilience. I like to offer resilience as the last piece because in the course of this journey to being our best, to living with purpose and meaning, we will encounter difficulties. We all do. We’re human. So I’m certain that, without a doubt, every single one of you will experience failure. I have.
In fact, I can say I’ve experienced failure quite continuously throughout my life. Now, what’s really important here are the words we use and the way we think about failure. I said just now that you will experience failure. I didn’t say you are a failure. I didn’t define it that way. And that’s really the critical pivot point of resilience: doing what’s called moving from an existential trait to an experiential state around the experience of difficulties.
So if that seems abstract, let me explain a bit further. Often when we meet challenges it’s very easy to fall into a narrative about guess who? About yourself. And very often, when we experience failure or adversity, that narrative can be negative. Those stories we tell ourselves can be as simple as, “I’m a failure,” “I’m unworthy,” “I’m inadequate,” “I’m incompetent—what’s wrong with me?” It’s a lot of self-criticism, and it’s the easiest thing in the world to do.
Outsmarting Our Negativity Bias
In fact, our brains are actually wired for something called the negativity bias. It’s an evolutionary phenomenon whereby we attune to danger and threats and negative stimuli in our environment much more than positive ones. Some research says it’s roughly a rate of 3 to 1 that we pay more attention to the negative than the positive. And that is then magnified when we experience challenges and difficulties. It’s really important, then, to be aware and to work counter to that negativity bias.
That’s where this shift from existential trait to experiential state helps. It’s something I do a lot, so let me give you an example from my own experience. As you know, I run a non-profit, and there have been periods where we’re not meeting our key performance indicators, our core metrics, for example. In those instances, as the leader of this organization, I’ve found myself at times asking, “What’s wrong with you, Rich? This quarter was terrible.” And I feel inadequate and begin doubting my abilities. It’s almost as though I’m categorizing myself in this trait-like fashion as if I’m not competent. When in reality, our organization simply experienced a difficult quarter: there were difficult conditions in the market and the ecosystem in which we work. And as a leader I faced challenges around how to right the ship, how to pivot and consider different solutions with my team.
I remember there was a moment where I thought, “I’m just a failure. I’m failing at this quarter.” Then I actually paused and thought about it: We experienced the failure. I experienced a setback and a shortcoming. I experienced a failure. I had the experience of failure. That’s it. And that’s very different from framing things as, “I am a failure.”
Tap into the Liberating Shift
So that’s the critical shift. It’s what we at Search Inside Yourself like to call the liberating shift—from existential to experiential. And I want to invite you to join in a meditation on that liberating shift today because for me, that’s the key factor in resilience: the shifting from existential to experiential.
Before we get started, though, I want to encourage you to really inhabit the perspective of experiencing something. Nothing more—it’s just an experience. Take emotions or feelings, for example: they are actually physiological processes in the body. They come; they arise; we feel them; and then they go. So it’s actually a process that plays out in our bodies. When we’re triggered and have difficult experiences and feel difficult emotions, those are also just physiological processes. They’re not facts. They’re not sentences or indictments. And they’re certainly not traits. Again, we know from physiological science that emotion is a process. So the encouragement for this practice, if difficult emotion arises—whether it’s stress, anxiety, fear, sadness, whatever it might be—is to see it arise and to see it as a process, not as a trait.
Let’s now try a meditation that allows us to experience this firsthand.
A Meditation to Help Build Your Capacity to Navigate Difficulty
Watch the video:
Listen to the audio
Read and practice the guided meditation script below, pausing after each paragraph. Or listen to the audio practice.
- I invite you to sit in a way that is alert but relaxed at the same time—whatever that means for you. Close your eyes, if you’d like. Or just soften the visual field by gazing downward. Take a moment as we begin to collect our attention.
- Now, bring awareness to your body—the felt experience of your body wherever you find yourself. Bring firm but gentle attention to your breath; the in breaths and the out breaths. Just collect your attention for a moment here, taking a minute to arrive, with your mind and your heart and your body all in this moment, whatever this means to you.
- Now I’d like to invite you, just as you are, to this meditation on resilience. I invite you to consider a difficult situation or person—nothing traumatic—just something that was difficult for you, or a person who was difficult for you, perhaps over the past week or another period of time. Calling this situation or person to mind, and noting what feeling or emotion arises when you reflect on this. What sensations are you feeling in your body as you consider this situation or person? It could be something like: I am experiencing stress. Or, with regard to a person: I am experiencing anger or frustration. Whatever it is you’re experiencing, just noting it: “I am experiencing ….”
- Now just as you are, note how different that is from saying “I am stressed” or “I am frustrated.” Instead, “I am experiencing” emphasizes the process. And emotion is a process. It is a state you are aware of. Name it to know it. And note how it may change as you name it and take note. With this we’re taking that small step back to gain perspective on the experience of difficulty. I encourage you to take the “I” out of it. Instead: “There is the experience of frustration. Because who is the “I”? Just bringing a kind, loving awareness to “There is the experience of stress; there is the experience of frustration in the body.”
- Notice how that feels to adopt that broader perspective. This is the liberating shift between I am stressed or frustrated to there is the experience of stress or frustration currently in my body. Whatever that emotion is for you, bring this quality of awareness—the experience of—and fill in the blank. Just see how that feels in the body. And then whatever arises next for you: experiences and emotions are rising and moving and changing in the body frequently.
- As we wrap up this meditation on resilience, take a few last breaths at your own pace, reconnecting with your breathing. And when you’re ready, open your eyes and rejoin.
It’s really important to bring this capacity to shift into our lives. We all have the capability to expand our perspective, and even subtract ourselves from the equation. Stress is real; difficult emotions are real. I don’t suggest we suppress or deny or push any of that away, but I am suggesting that we be in wise relationship with them, as one of my teachers Jon Kabat-Zinn likes to say. So, wise relationship with our difficulties is that liberating shift that will affect resilience.
I hope this has been useful for you. This concludes the four-module series of meditations for living with meaning, purpose and resilience. I’d like to end with a poem that brings all of this together. It really brings the idea of attuning to what’s alive within you and standing in that place with strength and resilience. I’ve written this poem myself. It’s called
“The Quiet Invitation”
In the vividness of the journey from
Being to becoming,
Amidst the flickering dance between action and reflection,
Alignment emerges,
A close knowing, a path glowing faintly in the mists of imagination.
Not so much chosen as revealed
Even as you stand blinking in fear or wonder.
There comes the still, quiet voice at the center of things—that sweet, gentle calling that whispers This is true.
This is good.
This is alive now.
You are called an invitation to wholeness
In this everyday arc of your life.So, with that my friends. Thank you so much. I wish you all well. Take good care.
About The Author
About The Author
-
Thomas H. Jensen’s Leadership at Allarity Therapeutics: Strengthening the Path Toward Personalized Cancer Care
Leading a biotech company requires scientific understanding, business judgment, and the ability to guide teams through complex moments of change. For Thomas Jensen, this responsibility has defined his journey as CEO of Allarity Therapeutics, a precision medicine company advancing personalized cancer treatments through innovative technologies and targeted therapeutic development.
Jensen’s path to leadership began with a deep connection to molecular biology, biochemistry, and the possibilities created when biological data are translated into meaningful medical insights. His early work involved developing laboratory techniques for studying fragile messenger RNA from tumors and transforming biological information into actionable knowledge through computational analysis.
This foundation shaped his perspective on how science, technology, and patient needs can work together. “When you work with fragile biological material, you learn to look under every stone and anticipate what could happen,” Jensen explains. “That mindset has followed me into business leadership.”
Before stepping into the CEO role at Allarity Therapeutics, Jensen built experience across the scientific and operational sides of biotechnology. His background gave him an appreciation for the patience required in drug development, where discoveries move through years of research, testing, and refinement before reaching patients. When he took responsibility for Allarity, he saw a company with valuable scientific assets and a need for renewed organizational focus.
Allarity Therapeutics develops precision medicine solutions designed to help identify which patients may benefit from specific cancer therapies. The company’s proprietary Drug Response Predictor (DRP) technology analyzes tumor biology to support patient selection and personalized treatment strategies. Alongside this platform, Allarity is advancing stenoparib, an investigational therapy being studied for advanced ovarian cancer, with the goal of bringing more tailored treatment options to patients.
Jensen’s leadership journey at Allarity began during a period that required significant restructuring. The company was navigating financial pressures, capital complexity, and operational challenges while working to strengthen its position for future development. For Jensen, addressing these areas became an essential part of protecting the scientific opportunities ahead.
His focus involved simplifying the company’s financial framework, reducing unnecessary expenses, and creating stronger alignment between resources and long-term priorities. He also worked to rebuild relationships with investors through open communication and consistent execution. These decisions required balancing immediate operational needs with the scientific ambitions that motivated the company’s mission.
“The foundation of the company, the science, the DRP technology, and the clinical data, deserved the opportunity to reach patients,” Jensen says. “My responsibility was to create the conditions where that science could continue moving forward.”
A key part of this process involved making difficult choices about programs and priorities. Jensen emphasized the importance of focusing resources on initiatives with meaningful potential for patients and sustainable company development. For him, scientific curiosity remains essential, while each research effort also needs a path toward practical impact.
This perspective reflects Jensen’s broader leadership philosophy. He values direct communication, collaboration among specialists, and an environment where employees can contribute ideas openly. He has brought together experts from different disciplines to support decision-making across science, finance, operations, and development.
His leadership style also draws from his scientific training. The careful attention required when working with biological systems has influenced how he evaluates risks and prepares for future challenges. Jensen applies that same discipline to organizational decisions, encouraging teams to examine details while keeping the company’s larger mission in view.
As Allarity continues advancing its work, Jensen remains focused on strengthening the company’s foundation and progressing its therapeutic programs. The company’s DRP technology and stenoparib program represent areas where he sees opportunities to continue exploring personalized cancer care.
For Jensen, the future of biotechnology depends on connecting innovation with thoughtful leadership. His experience at Allarity has reinforced his belief that successful companies require scientific progress, responsible decision-making, and trust built through consistent action.
“Under-promise and then over-deliver,” Jensen remarks. “Rebuilding trust requires execution, which means doing what we say we will do and continuing to earn confidence through our actions.” Through his leadership at Allarity Therapeutics, he continues working to advance a vision where scientific discovery and patient-focused development move forward together, creating opportunities for new approaches to cancer treatment.
-
Brachial plexus: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
Chad DA, Bowley MP. Disorders of nerve roots and plexuses. In: Jankovic J, Mazziotta JC, Pomeroy SL, Newman NJ, eds. Bradley and Daroff’s Neurology in Clinical Practice. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2022:chap:105.
Chan K, Lee SK. Surgical management of adult traumatic brachial plexus injuries. In: Skirven TM, Osterman AL, Fedroczyk JM, Amadio PC, Feldscher SB, Shin EK, eds. Rehabilitation of the Hand and Upper Extremity. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2021:chap 45.
Standring S. Pectoral girdle and upper limb: overview and surface anatomy. In: Standring S, ed. Gray’s Anatomy. 42nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2021:chap 48.
-
WK Kellogg Says Artificial Colors and BHT Will Be Out of Every Cereal by the End of 2026
WK Kellogg says it will eliminate artificial colors and the preservative BHT from its entire cereal portfolio and cereal packaging by the end of 2026, a full year ahead of the timeline the company set last year.
The Battle Creek, Michigan company said production of reformulated recipes, including Froot Loops and Apple Jacks, begins later this year, with product shipping to retailers before year’s end. Replacement colors will come from fruit and vegetable juices and other plant-based ingredients, and the company said it has invested in its manufacturing facilities to make the switch at scale.
For households that buy these cereals weekly, the change is concrete and near-term. What it means for children’s health is a more complicated question than either critics or defenders of synthetic dyes usually acknowledge.
The Commitment and How It Moved Up
The company announced the accelerated schedule on August 6. Chief Operating Officer Jean-Baptiste Santoul said the team reached the milestone “a full year ahead of our original timeline,” and the company cited work across product development, manufacturing, ingredient sourcing and marketing.
Groundwork was already in place. WK Kellogg had reformulated cereals served in schools to be free of artificial colors and stopped launching new products containing them beginning in January, according to Food Processing. The company also said it is ahead of schedule on removing BHT, a synthetic antioxidant preservative, from the small amount of cereal packaging that still contains it.
The commercial pressure has been building from several directions at once. The company signed an agreement with the Texas attorney general to remove artificial colorings from its cereals by 2027, matching what had been its national plan. Consumer campaigns preceded that, including a 2024 rally at the company’s headquarters that delivered petitions with 400,000 signatures. Federal health officials have separately pressed food companies to phase out petroleum-based dyes, and the Department of Health and Human Services said last year that a substantial share of the industry had committed to doing so. WK Kellogg is now owned by Italy-based Ferrero Group.
The Evidence on Dyes and Children’s Behavior Is Genuinely Split
This is where careful reading matters, because the science does not support the strongest claims on either side.
The Food and Drug Administration has maintained for years that a causal relationship between consumption of synthetic color additives and behavioral effects has not been established for the general population. An FDA advisory committee reviewing the question in 2011 concluded there was not a sufficient basis for a ban, while acknowledging that some susceptible children may be affected.
California state scientists reached a different conclusion. A report published in April 2021 by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that the evidence supports a relationship between food dye exposure and adverse behavioral outcomes in children, both with and without pre-existing behavioral disorders. That review contributed to California’s 2024 law barring six dyes from food served in public schools.
A frequently cited 2007 study in The Lancet reported increased hyperactivity in children in the general population following consumption of mixtures containing artificial colors or sodium benzoate.
The honest summary is that some children appear sensitive, average effects across whole populations are modest, and no United States regulator has concluded that dyes cause behavioral disorders. Separately, the FDA revoked authorization for FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs in January 2025, on a different evidentiary basis. That decision followed data showing the dye caused cancer in male laboratory rats through a hormonal mechanism, and the agency stated there is no evidence it causes cancer in humans. The Delaney Clause required revocation regardless. Food manufacturers have until January 2027 to reformulate.
Natural Replacements Are Not Automatically Neutral
Removing a synthetic dye means adding something else, and the substitutes carry their own considerations rather than none. Reformulation can also change taste, texture and shelf life, and consumers who notice differences are not imagining it.
Colors derived from fruit and vegetable sources are generally regarded as lower-concern, but they are not inert. Carmine, also known as cochineal extract, and to a lesser degree annatto, are associated with allergic reactions in a small number of people, and anyone with a known sensitivity should read labels after reformulation rather than assuming a natural color is a safer choice for them personally. Research from a large French cohort has also raised questions about certain natural colorants and metabolic outcomes, findings that are preliminary and require replication before they change anything.
The Nutrition Question Color Does Not Answer
None of this changes the larger nutritional picture. A brightly colored cereal reformulated with vegetable juice colors is still a sweetened breakfast cereal. Parents concerned about their children’s diets will get more from attention to added sugar, fiber and portion size than from color sourcing. Families should discuss individualized dietary decisions with a pediatrician or registered dietitian rather than adjusting a child’s diet based on ingredient news alone. A reformulation is an ingredient change, not a nutritional upgrade, and it should not be read as one.
The reformulated products are not yet on shelves, and existing inventory with current recipes will continue selling through. Consumers who want to check what they are buying now can read the ingredient panel, where synthetic colors appear by name, such as Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1 and Blue 2, and BHT appears among listed preservatives. Shoppers who avoid these ingredients for a child with a documented sensitivity should keep checking labels through the transition, because boxes with old and new recipes will sit side by side on shelves for a period.
What happens next is largely a matter of watching shelves and labels. Production begins later this year, with shipments to retailers before year-end, as The Hill reported. Whether other cereal makers accelerate similar commitments, and whether the FDA takes further action on remaining approved dyes, remain open. MedicalDaily will report on additional reformulation announcements and regulatory decisions.
Key Questions Answered
What did WK Kellogg announce? The company said it will eliminate all artificial colors and the preservative BHT across its full cereal portfolio and cereal packaging by the end of 2026, a year earlier than its original commitment.
When will reformulated cereals reach stores? Production of new recipes begins later this year, with shipping to retailers before the end of 2026. Boxes will reach shelves as existing inventory with current recipes sells through.
Do artificial dyes cause hyperactivity in children? The FDA has said a causal relationship has not been established in the general population, while acknowledging some susceptible children may be affected. California state scientists concluded in 2021 that evidence supports a relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes. The question remains contested.
Are natural colors automatically safer? Not automatically. Carmine and, to a lesser extent, annatto are associated with allergic reactions in some people, and research on certain natural colorants and metabolic outcomes is ongoing. Anyone with a known sensitivity should read labels after reformulation.
Does this make these cereals healthier overall? Color sourcing does not change added sugar, fiber or portion size. Families weighing children’s diets should discuss individualized decisions with a pediatrician or registered dietitian.
How can a shopper tell what is in a box today? Synthetic colors appear by name on the ingredient panel, including Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1 and Blue 2. BHT appears among listed preservatives.
Are other companies doing the same? Several food manufacturers have announced dye removal timelines, and federal health officials have said a substantial share of the industry has committed to phasing out petroleum-based colors.
-
Nursing Home Study Finds Only Resident Decolonization Reduced Drug-Resistant Bacteria on Skin
Only decolonizing residents reduced the drug-resistant bacteria they carried on their skin, and adding daily enhanced cleaning produced no measurable additional benefit, according to a study of two Southern California nursing homes published August 5 in JAMA Network Open.
The comparison matters because infection control budgets in long-term care are finite. Facilities are frequently asked to do both, and this study suggests that when only one is affordable, the choice is not a coin flip.
For families with a relative in a nursing home, the finding translates into a question worth asking at the next care conference. Multidrug-resistant organisms are endemic in these settings, with studies showing more than half of residents carry them on their skin, and carriage precedes infection. What a facility does about that is a legitimate thing for a family to inquire about.
The Four-Phase Design and the Main Findings
Researchers at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine ran a four-phase quality-improvement study at two nursing homes, using data collected between March 2019 and April 2021. The phases were implemented in sequence: universal decolonization alone, routine care as the control, once-daily enhanced cleaning alone, and decolonization combined with enhanced cleaning.
The measured outcomes were carriage of multidrug-resistant organisms on resident skin and in nostrils, and contamination of high-touch objects in bedrooms and common areas.
In adjusted models, decolonization alone was associated with a 59 percent reduction in carriage compared with the control phase and a 64 percent reduction compared with enhanced cleaning, CIDRAP reported in its summary of the findings. Enhanced cleaning alone did not reduce carriage, and it added no benefit when combined with decolonization.
Decolonization in practice meant chlorhexidine used for routine bathing and showering, paired with a nasal iodophor such as povidone-iodine on a defined schedule. It is a resident-level intervention rather than an environmental one, which is precisely why the result is informative.
Shared Spaces Told a Different Story
Bedroom contamination followed the same pattern as skin carriage. Decolonization alone reduced it by 84 percent compared with control and by 74 percent compared with enhanced cleaning, while enhanced cleaning alone produced no reduction and added nothing to decolonization.
Common areas broke the pattern. There, the combined intervention reduced contamination better than either approach alone.
The logic is intuitive once stated. If bacteria on surfaces originate primarily from the people who touch them, reducing what residents carry reduces what ends up on the bed rail. Common areas gather traffic from many residents and staff over a day, and surface disinfection reaches contamination that resident-level treatment cannot.
The authors framed the practical implication in resource terms. Writing in JAMA Network Open, they noted that implementing multiple strategies is expensive and resource intensive, and that “it is necessary to prioritize the most effective strategies.” Their conclusion was that resource-constrained settings should prioritize decolonization alongside targeted disinfection in shared spaces after activities.
Families Choosing or Monitoring a Facility
Nothing here is a diagnosis or a treatment instruction, and no family should attempt decolonization on their own. Chlorhexidine and nasal antiseptics used in these protocols are administered under a facility program with clinical oversight, and improvising carries risks including skin reactions and allergic responses.
What a family can do is ask. Reasonable questions at a care conference include whether the facility uses chlorhexidine bathing, whether it has a nasal decolonization protocol, how it handles residents returning from hospital stays, and how it monitors infection rates. Facilities with active programs generally answer readily.
The stakes are concrete for people with the highest exposure to health care. Residents who move between hospital and nursing home, those with indwelling devices such as urinary catheters or feeding tubes, people with open wounds or pressure injuries, and those who have received multiple courses of antibiotics carry the greatest risk of both colonization and subsequent infection.
Older adults bear a disproportionate share of the burden from resistant infections generally. When a resistant organism causes an infection, treatment options narrow, hospital stays lengthen, and outcomes worsen. Prevention at the carriage stage is the intervention that happens before any of that.
There is a household dimension as well. Residents who return home for weekends or who are discharged to family care can carry these organisms with them, and the standard advice for relatives is unglamorous but effective: hand hygiene before and after contact, careful wound care under a clinician’s direction, and telling any new provider about a known colonization history so treatment decisions account for it.
Limits of a Two-Facility Study
The design constraints deserve to be stated clearly rather than buried. This was a quality-improvement study at two facilities, not a randomized controlled trial across many sites, as McKnight’s Long-Term Care News noted in its account of the design.
Phases were implemented sequentially over roughly two years, which means anything else that changed over that period, including staffing, resident turnover, seasonal factors, and pandemic-era infection control practices, could contribute to the differences observed. Two Southern California nursing homes may not represent facilities elsewhere with different staffing ratios, resident populations, or baseline practices.
The study also measured carriage and contamination rather than infections, hospitalizations, or deaths. Those are reasonable surrogate outcomes because carriage precedes infection, but they are not the same thing.
Importantly, this work builds on a stronger evidence base rather than standing alone. A large cluster-randomized trial in nursing homes previously found that universal decolonization reduced infection-related hospital transfers, with MDRO carriage prevalence falling from about 49 percent to 32 percent in the decolonization group while remaining near 47 percent under routine care. The new study addresses a narrower question about how decolonization compares with enhanced cleaning when resources force a choice.
An accompanying JAMA Network Open commentary framed the work as an argument for hypothesis-driven research in nursing home infection prevention rather than as settled guidance. Current infection control guidance has not changed on the basis of this study, and larger multi-site work would be needed to establish how broadly the comparison holds. For facility administrators weighing where to spend a limited infection prevention budget, the finding offers a data point that was previously missing.
Key Questions Answered
What did the study find? Universal decolonization of residents was associated with a 59 percent reduction in multidrug-resistant organism carriage compared with routine care. Enhanced daily cleaning alone reduced nothing and added no benefit when combined with decolonization.
What is decolonization? Chlorhexidine used for routine bathing and showering, paired with a nasal iodophor such as povidone-iodine on a set schedule, applied to all residents rather than only those known to be colonized.
Did cleaning help at all? In common areas, combining cleaning with decolonization reduced contamination better than either approach alone. For resident skin and bedrooms, cleaning added nothing.
How strong is the evidence? This was a four-phase quality-improvement study at two facilities, not a randomized trial. It measured carriage and surface contamination rather than infections or deaths.
Should families try this at home? No. These are facility-level protocols with clinical oversight. Do not attempt decolonization independently.
What can a family actually do? Ask whether the facility uses chlorhexidine bathing, whether it has a nasal decolonization protocol, how it handles residents returning from hospitals, and how it tracks infection rates.
Which residents face the highest risk? Those moving between hospital and nursing home, people with catheters or feeding tubes, residents with wounds or pressure injuries, and those who have had multiple antibiotic courses.
