Skip to content

Category: Health

One Man Wielded the Most Powerful Weapon Against the World

One Man Wielded the Most Powerful Weapon Against the World
One Man Wielded the Most Powerful Weapon Against the World

[ad_1]

As reviewed in “Why Government Health Care Kills More People Than It Helps,” the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention couldn’t have botched its COVID response any more if it tried.

August 17, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky even publicly admitted the agency’s failures, stating, “we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes from testing, to data, to communications.”1,2,3

To save face, Walensky is reorganizing the agency, but considering the extent to which CDC officials have lied, obfuscated and broken laws intended to protect public health, it is highly unlikely that the CDC will ever be able to recover their credibility.

Abolish the CDC

The CDC is corrupted beyond salvage, and as noted by Brownstone Institute founder and president Jeffrey Tucker,4 the only way to fix a captured bureaucracy is to get rid of it:

“Any serious effort to end the crisis must deal with the problem of the administrative state and the bureaucratic power thereof. Without that focus, no reform effort can get anywhere …

The reason is simple: a free and functioning society cannot coexist with an undemocratic beast like this on the loose, making its own laws and running roughshod over rights and liberties with zero oversight from elected leaders. Until the administrative state is defanged and disempowered, there will be no representative government and no hope for change.

It’s obvious that the bureaucracies will not reform themselves … The reform will be … cosmetic without reality. It will not deal with the central problem as plainly stated by Harvey Risch:5 ‘industry subservience and epidemiologic incompetence’ …

After Betsy DeVos left the Department of Education, and observing from the inside what a disaster it truly was, she said what needed to be said. Abolish it. Shut it down. Defund it completely. Forget about it. It does nothing useful. Everything it does can be performed better at the state level or private markets. All true.

What she says about the Department of Education is equally true of another hundred-plus agencies of the administrative state. People have been talking lately about abolishing the FBI. Great, do it. Same goes for the CDC. It’s time. Right now. Pull the plug on the whole thing and sell the real estate.

Truly there is no other option except continuing to do what we are doing now. The status quo is intolerable. If a serious reform-minded Congress comes to power, abolition and not reform and not cuts, needs to be the starting point of discussion …

There needs to be a to-be-abolished list and any federal government institution with the word agency, department, or bureau needs to be on it … Society itself, which is smarter than bureaucracy, can manage the rest.”

The Rise of the American Biosecurity State

To understand how and why the CDC has morphed into an agency that works against, instead of for, the public good, we need to take a look at the history of American biodefense. Two journalists have recently dedicated articles to this issue.

In an August 29, 2022, Unherd article,6 Ashley Rindsberg reviewed how Dr. Anthony Fauci rose to power as the highest paid federal employee, sitting at the “very top of America’s biodefense infrastructure,” with near-unlimited authority, at least as it pertains to science; what gets funded and what doesn’t.

“To understand the rise of Fauci … we must return to the first months of the 2000s, when a hawkish new administration was settling into power,” Rindsberg writes. George W. Bush came into office with Dick Cheney as vice president. Cheney had already served as defense secretary under George H.W. Bush.

According to Rindsberg, the Bush administration “came to power with biological weapons and infectious disease very much top of mind, with Cheney seeking to address the gaping hole in America’s national security left by the country’s lack of a coherent biodefense strategy.”

Biodefense became an even more prominent concern in the aftermath of 9/11, when letters containing anthrax were sent out to members of media and two U.S. senators. Of the 22 people infected with anthrax, five died. According to Rindsberg, Cheney “served as the political engine behind a paradigm shift that would soon take place in America’s biodefense strategy.”

Biodefense for the 21st Century

Just six days before 9/11, Joe Biden, then-chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had led a hearing on the threat of bioterrorism and the spread of infectious diseases.

Subsequent to that hearing, in June 2002, president Bush signed the “Biodefense for the 21st Century”7 directive, the aim of which was to advance a “comprehensive framework” for U.S. biodefense, based on the assumption that America could be devastated by a bioweapons attack.

The directive outlined “essential pillars” of the U.S. biodefense program, including threat awareness and vulnerability assessment, prevention and protection, surveillance and detection, response and recovery. The year before, in June 2001, senior policymakers had also performed a two-day tabletop simulation of a smallpox attack called Dark Winter.

“Intended … to expose vulnerabilities, the operation showed how quickly a public health disaster could lead to widespread chaos and social collapse. This was the stuff nightmares are made of — and, by all accounts, those were the nightmares that Dick Cheney was having,” Rindsberg writes. He continues:8

“Significant as it was, [Cheney’s] transformation of America’s biodefence framework was part of a much larger repositioning of long-term geopolitical strategy, an effort also led by Cheney.

In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse in the early Nineties, Cheney, then Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush, along with Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, began formulating a grand strategy for the post-Cold War era.

This plan, revealed in an infamous leaked memo,9 was rooted in a single strategic objective: America should permanently remain the world’s superpower. Its architects argued the US would do so only by preserving ‘strategic depth’ to ‘shape the security environment.’

The initial leaked memo was later reworked by Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who broadened the concept10 of ‘strategic depth’ to cover not only geographic reach but also an ability to wage war with weapons that could not only cripple an enemy’s military capabilities but disrupt its political, economic and social stability.”

How Biodefense Became Fauci’s Domain

In 2002, the Bush administration quintupled biodefense spending to $317 million. That same year, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), broke out in China, and in 2003, just as SARS was being contained, H5N1 avian influenza emerged.

The back-to-back outbreaks acted as fuel for the erection of a biosecurity state, and in 2003, the Bush administration increased the annual biodefense budget to $2 billion — a staggering sum at the time. Bush also earmarked another $6 billion for the development and stockpiling of vaccines over the next decade.

But funding was only part of the challenge. To truly prepare for a bioweapons attack, research had to be conducted and coordinated, and to that end, Cheney brought all biodefense research programs under the purview of a single entity — the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Fauci.

So, since 2003, Fauci has been responsible for “civilian biodefense research with a focus on research and early development of medical countermeasures against terrorist threats from infectious diseases and radiation exposures.”11

What’s more, as explained by Rindsberg, “as far as NIAID was concerned, there was no meaningful administrative distinction between biodefense and scientific research. With the stroke of Cheney’s pen, all United States biodefense efforts, classified or unclassified, were placed under the aegis of Anthony Fauci.”

This, in a nutshell, explains Fauci’s power. As the head of the biodefense infrastructure, Fauci has, for decades, had an open channel straight into the top office of the White House. He’s also exempt from oversight. For all these years, he’s had carte blanche to approve and run whatever biodefense research he wanted, without anyone telling him otherwise.

It also explains why he’s the highest paid employee in the federal government, making more than the president himself. A significant portion of Fauci’s $417,600 annual salary12 is compensation for his biodefense research leadership.

COVID-19 Is Fauci’s Grandest Failure

As top dog of biodefense research, it was Fauci’s job to prevent COVID-19 from devastating the U.S. Instead, in 2017, he confidently announced that then-president Trump would “no doubt” have to face a “surprise infectious disease outbreak,”13 and then went on to issue a never-ending series of conflicting recommendations as head of the White House Coronavirus Response team.

Fauci also led efforts to suppress discussion about the origin of COVID-19, as detailed in “Liars, Propagandists and The Great Reset.”

In January 2022, House Oversight Committee Republicans released National Institutes of Health emails showing Fauci and now-former NIH director Francis Collins spearheaded the effort to bury the lab leak theory, even though the consensus in early February 2020 was that the virus likely leaked from the Wuhan lab — and that it appeared to have been genetically engineered.

February 4, 2020, Fauci and Collins received a draft of the article, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” later published in Nature Medicine.14 The original draft has never been released to the public, but we do have an email reply from Fauci, in which he objected to the inclusion of serial passaging through humanized mice.

In its final form, the Nature Medicine article roundly dismissed the idea that the virus originated in a lab, proposing instead that it must have evolved naturally, even though no actual evidence for that existed.

The Dangers of Biodefense Research Are Obvious

For years, a number of critics have warned that biodefense research could result in the very thing we’re trying to avoid, namely an infectious disease outbreak, as even the highest-security laboratories are prone to leaks and accidents.

One such critic is Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University. In 2003, he warned that the burgeoning biodefense endeavor, while well-intentioned, “may perversely have exactly the opposite effect.”15

Fauci, ever the defender of risky research (and as we now understand, for selfish reasons), dismissed Ebright’s concerns as “spurious.” Today, Fauci’s dismissal rings hollow, as documents obtained through various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show he and Collins appear to have been more than a little nervous about people discovering they funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.16 As reported by U.S. Right To Know (USRTK):17

“In the earliest days of the pandemic, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins emailed about coronaviruses under study at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and about whether they had steered money to the lab, an email obtained by U.S. Right to Know shows.

Collins … and Fauci … exchanged emails on February 1, 2020, about a preprint18 authored by Zhengli Shi, director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases. The preprint described bat coronaviruses under study at the lab, including a coronavirus 96% genetically similar to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

The emails show that Collins and Fauci were concerned about links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and NIH. ‘In case you haven’t seen this preprint from one week ago,’ Collins said in a February 1, 2020, email to Fauci. ‘No evidence this work was supported by NIH’ …

About two hours after the email exchange, Collins and Fauci would join a secret teleconference with a group of virologists who were closely examining the novel coronavirus. The teleconference touched off a high-profile push to discredit the lab leak hypothesis.

The revelation that Collins and Fauci were discussing whether NIH had funded work on coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 at the Wuhan lab in the hours before suggests that politics may have been at play.”

How Cheney Tricked Us Into War

The second article19 to take a deep dive into the links between Cheney and Fauci was published by Sam Husseini, September 7, 2022. Husseini, however, throws his searchlight on the way both of these characters have used lies to further the biosecurity agenda:

“Twenty years ago, the ‘Cheney-Bush junta’ … launched its propaganda campaign to invade Iraq … Sept. 8, 2002, The New York Times ran on its front page the story ‘U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts’ …

That same day, then Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press … hyping the New York Times story as evidence that Hussein was attempting to acquire ‘the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.’ Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice followed Cheney’s lead on other shows.”

The problem, we now know, is that the “anonymous source” quoted by The New York Times lied. Worse, Cheney himself appears to have been that source. In other words, Cheney leaked the false story to the press, and then used that news coverage to support his recommendation to invade Iraq.

“Even the mainstream Bob Simon of CBS would later remark to Bill Moyers about Cheney: ‘You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that’s a remarkable thing to do,’” Husseini writes,20 adding: “Remarkable is actually an understatement. It’s engaging in a de facto conspiracy to deceive the U.S. public into war.”

Fauci Caught Employing the Same Trick

Taking a page straight out of Cheney’s handbook, Fauci used the exact same trick when, in April 2020, he was asked to address the suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade.

Fauci went on to cite “a study … where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

That paper was “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”21 that I just discussed above — the paper that Fauci and Collins edited prior to its publication in Nature Medicine. So, Fauci edited the paper22 and then he used that paper as “evidence” to support his irrational stance that the virus occurred naturally.

Just as Cheney engaged in a “de facto conspiracy to deceive the U.S. public into war,” Fauci engaged in a de facto conspiracy to trick the public into giving up our freedoms and livelihoods in the name of biosecurity. So, as noted by Husseini,23 “One thing that should be kept in mind as one parses through the claims and ‘exposés’ is that some are de facto cover stories.”

‘Biodefense’ Has Become a War Machine Against the Public

Now, nearly three years into the COVID debacle, it’s clear that this is indeed a war. It’s a war against the American public, for the purpose of forcing us into a New World Order, a One World Government run by a globalist cabal, where “biosecurity” is the justification for the removal of Constitutional rights and freedoms.

The same war is being waged by governments across the globe, against their own citizens, for the same reason and with the same aim. Fauci like Cheney before him, is responsible for getting us into this war, and for keeping us in it, using lies and propaganda.

The Iraq war — launched under false pretenses — lasted for eight years. No doubt, COVID could be strung out for that long as well, unless the truth is finally recognized by the masses.

And, to circle back to where we started, the institutions that facilitated this war on the American public must be abolished and dismantled, and the individuals responsible within them held to account for their roles. This includes not only Fauci and Walensky, but a host of others as well.



[ad_2]

Source link

6 Benefits of Eating Nuts Everyday Types of nuts Healthy nuts

6 Benefits of Eating Nuts Everyday Types of nuts Healthy nuts
6 Benefits of Eating Nuts Everyday Types of nuts Healthy nuts

[ad_1]

Contributed by: Rachna Arya

Nuts are recognized as a nutritionally rich superfood that can contribute towards a range of health benefits when eaten regularly. Apart from the fact that they are delicious, easy to store and easy to pack when you’re on the go, nuts are enriched with many health-benefiting nutrients and phytochemicals that are essential for optimum wellness.

Nuts include:

  • almonds
  • Brazil nuts
  • cashew nuts
  • hazelnuts
  • macadamias
  • pecans
  • pine nuts
  • pistachios
  • walnuts

Nutritionists frequently advise incorporating nuts in your breakfast, the first meal of the day. This is due to the fact that nuts are a wholesome food and filling snacks that are packed with important nutrients. Almost all nuts offer a special set of advantages to your health and well-being. 

In this blog, we will highlight the lesser-known health benefits of eating nuts.  

What’s a healthy serving of nuts?

By incorporating nuts into your diet, wide-ranging changes to health can occur. This section will highlight a number of benefits associated with consuming nuts regularly, in moderation.

Nuts Contain Healthy Fats

There have been many studies conducted on the benefits of consuming nuts. Consistently, results have indicated that nuts are especially high in monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, which are fats that have been linked with a number of health benefits.

The body uses these “good” fats to produce energy, absorb important vitamins and minerals, maintain immunological and neurological system health, insulate the body, control blood pressure, and prevent blood clotting. Additionally, nuts are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which are healthy fatty acids. Thus eating them frequently can guarantee that the body performs at its best.

Consuming Nuts Improve Heart Health

Out of the many health benefits that nuts can offer, one of the most important benefits of nuts is keeping your cardiovascular health in check. Studies have shown that regular consumption of nuts can help reduce the levels of LDL, or dangerous cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the bloodstream which avoids serious cardiovascular issues.

Facilitates Weight Loss

Despite being high in fat and calories, nuts are incredibly nutritious. Regularly eating nuts as part of a balanced diet may bring about positive changes in body weight. According to some studies, nuts increase the oxidation of fats and thermogenesis, helping turn calories into energy at a faster rate. Additionally, nuts are high in fibre, which can lengthen satiety and delay stomach emptying, so reducing appetite and prolonging the sense of fullness.

Nuts are packed with micronutrients

Nuts contain a vast range of micronutrients such as phosphorus, potassium, vitamin E, calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, folate, and zinc. Therefore, consuming these bite-sized snacks can significantly help in maintaining good health. 

Rich in Antioxidants

Several nuts, such as walnuts, pecans, and chestnuts, contain an extremely vast number of antioxidants that prevent damage from occurring at a cellular level. and may, therefore, be useful in preventing a number of these diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.

High in Fiber Contents

Various studies have indicated that by consuming nuts regularly, you can increase the amount of fibre that you consume each day thus consequently improving your digestive health and reducing the risk of a range of digestive issues such as constipation, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and diverticulitis.

Given their immense health benefits, there is every reason that nuts should make it onto your plate regularly as a nutritious snack. From your heart to your waistline, eating nuts may improve health, and generally prove beneficial for your body. Therefore, it is absolutely recommended to add nuts to everything from milkshakes to smoothies, or as toppings on a salad or sandwich. Having said that, it is recommended to be conscious of portion sizes and choose unsalted or unsweetened nuts. 

Furthermore, you should also frequently opt for preventive health checkups.

These health checks provide you with a comprehensive insight into your health, allowing you to take necessary precautions to stay at the top of your health.

Book The Full Body Good Health Test Today!

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?

n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;

n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;

t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,

document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);

fbq(‘init’, ‘1713453968920369’ ); fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);

[ad_2]

Source link

What’s Best For Weight Loss

What’s Best For Weight Loss
What’s Best For Weight Loss

[ad_1]

Contributed by: Anjali Sharma 

Introduction 

Cardio was considered to be the best exercise for weight loss for many years. When it came to boosting your metabolism and raising your resting metabolic rate, strength training quickly gained popularity. 

But excessive cardio training also has been said to affect your heart health adversely. So is it recommended to entirely be dependent on one type of exercise regimen if you are planning weight loss? Or should a combination of cardio and strength training be adopted?

Over the years many fitness experts have researched and practised various types of exercises that work effectively for weight loss and muscle building. 

Here we are going to explain the difference between cardio and strength training and how they are best for different individuals, putting a lot of those speculations to rest. 

The difference between cardio and strength training

Strength training and cardio are obviously two different types of exercise, but what happens within your body is what actually differentiates them.

Strength training

Strength or weight training is an anaerobic exercise, often known as strength training, weight training, or resistance training. This involves using weights or lifting free weights like barbells, dumbbells, and kettlebells.

Unlike cardio, anaerobic activities use the breakdown of glucose for energy instead of oxygen. More energy is used more quickly.

Cardio training 

Cardio, which stands for ‘cardiovascular conditioning,’ is an aerobic workout that speeds up your breathing and heart rate by using oxygen. 

Running is perhaps the most divisive exercise in the cardio category, but any activity that makes you breathe more quickly and forcefully and raises your heart rate qualifies.

You can get moving if you’re a cardio person by doing things like jogging, cycling, swimming, or even taking a Zumba class, to name a few

What are the best cardio exercises and strength training?

Some of the most common cardio exercises are:

  • Brisk walking
  • Running
  • Cycling
  • Swimming
  • Rowing, and cross-country skiing. 
  • Cardio machines 
  • Treadmill
  • Elliptical trainer
  • Stationary cycle
  • Stepping machine
  • Rowing machine
  • Ski trainer

Some of the most common strength training exercises are:

  • Squat 
  • Bicep curl
  • Leg extension
  • Leg curl
  • Chest press
  • Overhead 
  • Lateral raise
  • Plank
  • Push-ups 
  • Reverse lunge 

How often should you do cardio or weights for weight loss?

Less than 150 minutes per week of moderate to strenuous physical activity, such as cardio, is generally considered  by the health and fitness experts as being insufficient for weight loss.

However, they claim that for most people, more than 150 minutes of this kind of physical exercise each week is adequate to aid in weight loss.

Additionally, studies demonstrate that individuals tend to lose more body weight when they engage in higher amounts of physical exercise.

Therefore, if you just choose one cardio activity, your weekly plan can be like this:

  • 2-4 times a week for weight training
  • Cardio with low intensity: 5-7 times per week
  • Cardio at moderate intensity: 3–4 times a week
  • Cardio with high intensity: 1-3 times per week

Is too much cardio bad for your heart health?

Chronic cardio has been linked to the formation of plaque, artery stiffening, and potentially heart malfunction. 

Chronic cardio is a long-duration, repetitive cardiovascular training that exceeds the aerobic point and increases heart rate up to 80 to 85 per cent. 

This was discovered in a study of arduous runners competing in triathlons and ultramarathons. Numerous of these endurance athletes have cardiac (heart) problems, one of which was a weak right ventricle.

The conclusion reached was that prolonged, intensive cardio can be harmful to the way our hearts operate, creating considerable physical stress when pushing them too hard through demanding endurance training, even if recovery was seen a week after their races.

Is cardio more effective than strength training for weight loss?

Both cardio and weightlifting have advantages and disadvantages, and different people will get different outcomes from them.

There is proof that weightlifting burns calories and produces longer-lasting effects. However, a person’s objectives, level of physical fitness, and ability ultimately determine the best kind of exercise for them.

The majority of fitness experts advise combining the two for general fitness and wellness.

When compared to aerobics, lifting weights often results in higher EPOC (Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) levels and more muscle breakdown. This implies that even after a weightlifting session is over, the body continues to burn calories.

How to avoid the risk of heart failure?

Final thoughts 

Cardio and weight training may both make you fitter and healthier.

Calories are burned more efficiently by aerobic exercises than by weightlifting.

However, lifting weights as compared to cardio training is better for muscle growth. But on the other hand your metabolism may remain raised for longer after weights than after cardio.

Therefore, an exercise regime that combines both aerobic and weight training is optimal for enhancing health and body composition. To accomplish both is ideal.

As an add-on, make a habit of taking preventive health checkups as they can help you in getting a complete insight into your health. This will also help you with taking measures to promote your overall well-being. 

Book The Full Body Good Health Test Today!

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?

n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;

n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;

t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,

document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);

fbq(‘init’, ‘1713453968920369’ ); fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);

[ad_2]

Source link

5 Protein-packed Foods for Vegetarians

5 Protein-packed Foods for Vegetarians
5 Protein-packed Foods for Vegetarians

[ad_1]

Contributed by Harleen kaur  

Introduction 

Did you know vegetarians tend to have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and also have reduced rates of type 2 diabetes and hypertension compared to meat eaters?

Additionally, being vegetarian also reduces the risk of chronic diseases and overall health problems.

It’s a common misconception that non-vegetarians or meat eaters are at an advantage over vegetarians when it comes to getting a diet rich in protein.  However, research has proved that vegetarians can also add a variety of foods to their diet that is in fact a higher source of protein than meat.

 It’s a known fact nowadays that a well-planned vegetarian diet may provide you with all the nutrients your body requires. 

Vegetarian foods usually have fewer calories than meat products, helping you achieve your weight loss goals more easily at the same time are excellent sources of nutrition that give you the overall energy you need to keep active throughout the day, helping you to stay strong and healthy in the longer run. 

Here, we offer you the top 5 veggie options that are both highly nourishing and have proven to be consistently the better alternative.

Lentils 

Lentils are the most common thing that is present in every household and are high in fibre which can help your body excrete extra waste through your digestive system, moreover, aiding in reducing constipation. 

Lentils, whether red or green, are a great source of protein, fibre, and essential vitamins and minerals including potassium and iron. 

One bowl of lentils can provide you with a lot of energy. Lentils are more nutritious than meat, providing you with a variety of minerals, energy, and fibre while being low in calories and fat.

Yoghurt 

Yoghurt contains millions of good bacteria that are necessary for strong immunity and the digestive system. Furthermore, the bacteria present in yoghurt aid in the breakdown and absorption of essential nutrients. The calcium and protein in yoghurt help in the development of strong bones. Adding almonds to the yoghurt can be your ultimate on-the-go snack. 

Besides, yoghurt is a superior substitute for people who avoid animal products or have allergies or intolerances. You can also get different flavoured yoghurts in the market based on your taste preferences.

Oats

One of the healthiest grains is oats and it’s the quickest option to increase your protein in the diet. 

Studies indicate that having oats may offer several advantages for your health, from a stronger immune system to a lower risk of obesity, heart disease, and cholesterol levels, to name a few. 

Moreover, consuming oats may also help in healthy weight management and reduce blood sugar levels.

Chia seeds 

Chia seeds are nutritious and provide immense benefits to the body in terms of balanced nutrients. Due to the abundance of nutrients, they possess that support the development of a healthy body, many fitness professionals advise taking chia seeds. 

Chia seeds can provide about 18% of your daily calcium requirements in a single serving. As these seeds are fibre-rich, it is believed that they will keep you fuller for longer. As a result, they might help avoid overeating.

Nuts 

Nuts are a great source of fibre, protein, good fats, vitamins, and minerals that also help in weight loss and the burning of belly fat. 

Almonds and walnuts are the best sources of nutrients for building muscle strength and help in maintaining the levels of unsaturated fats (healthy fats) within the body.

It’s recommended that nuts should always be consumed raw to retain their nutritional benefits rather than roasting them.

Final thoughts 

Many vegetarians wonder how they will obtain adequate protein. You’ll be happy to know that consuming a range of vegetarian meals that are high in protein will provide you with more than enough nutrients, particularly protein, to meet your daily requirements.

A number of vegetarian diet options are available nowadays that can provide your body with a significant amount of protein and minerals. 

The greatest way to ensure your body gets an adequate amount of nutrients is through a balanced diet. Numerous medical disorders can be caused by nutritional deficiency, and hence it is important to eat wholesome foods that suit your body and taste. 

In addition to this, you can also opt for health screening tests to keep track of your health and body vitals. Genetic testing is also a good option if you want to know about any predisposed medical conditions which are asymptomatic or showing acute symptoms.

Book The Full Body Good Health Test Today!

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?

n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;

n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;

t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,

document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);

fbq(‘init’, ‘1713453968920369’ ); fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);

[ad_2]

Source link

What to Know About Health Anxiety

What to Know About Health Anxiety
What to Know About Health Anxiety

[ad_1]

Is that sniffle a sign of seasonal allergies or COVID-19? It’s a question you’ve likely asked yourself at least once—and perhaps lots of times—over the last few years.

Especially during a pandemic, it’s normal to analyze your health. But for some people, those thoughts can cross a line into more problematic territory. At least 4% of the U.S. population lives with what’s known as health anxiety, or an excessive preoccupation with health and illness—and symptoms of the condition may have emerged or worsened for certain people during these virus-dominated recent years, experts say.

“Health anxiety, to a certain extent, is normal during the pandemic,” says Michelle Patriquin, director of research at the Menninger Clinic, a mental health treatment center in Texas.

In 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders retired the term “hypochondriasis,” which many people found belittling and inadequate. Since then, health anxiety has been formally known as “illness anxiety disorder” and is characterized by excessive worry about having or developing a serious disease, often even if tests don’t show anything wrong. People with this condition frequently become fixated on mild or routine physical sensations—fearing that a headache could be an early sign of a brain tumor, for example.

Health anxiety overlaps with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and panic disorder, explains Paul Salkovskis, a clinical psychologist in the U.K. who has studied health anxiety for decades. People with both health anxiety and OCD may engage in behaviors like frequent hand-washing or temperature-taking. And, similar to panic attacks, health anxiety can manifest physically through symptoms like shortness of breath, dizziness, and elevated heart rate. People with health anxiety often misinterpret these sensations as a sign that something is physically wrong, in the future if not in the moment. They may believe a racing heart is the first sign of developing cardiovascular disease.

Everyone worries about their health from time to time. But when that worry interferes with daily life or spirals into behaviors like obsessively researching symptoms online (what some researchers call “cyberchondria”), it could be health anxiety.

The pandemic has understandably added fuel to the fire, Patriquin says. Due to valid fears of catching and spreading COVID-19, isolation, political unrest, and upticks in substance use, it’s no surprise that many people have experienced psychological distress over the past few years, she says. Rates of anxiety and depression have increased worldwide since the pandemic began, and Menninger Clinic research shows that symptoms worsened for many people with preexisting mental health issues.

For some, the COVID-19 pandemic may have prompted or exacerbated symptoms of health anxiety due to legitimate fears of illness and 24/7 news coverage about health and disease, among other factors, according to a 2021 study published in the International Journal of Cognitive Therapy. The fact that the virus is highly transmissible and can be spread even by people without symptoms can also fuel anxiety, the paper adds.

To learn more about health anxiety in the general population, another team of researchers turned to Reddit. In January 2020, even before many countries began responding to the threat of COVID-19, they saw that activity in Reddit’s health anxiety forum began to spike—and as time went on, the language used in other mental health-related forums began to mirror that used in the health anxiety thread, with many posts using words like “virus,” “respirator,” and “vaccine,” they found.

Salkovskis, however, noticed something interesting in his practice: some people with contamination fears temporarily saw their symptoms improve early in the pandemic, because lots of people were taking disease precautions. “However, that’s kind of a holiday rather than a cure,” he says.

Indeed, by the spring of 2021, rates of psychological distress—including health anxiety—were elevated in high-income countries including the U.S., U.K., and Italy, according to research that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and was led by Marcantonio Spada, a professor of addictive behaviors and mental health at London South Bank University. Health anxiety was more common in countries, including the U.S., that took aggressive pandemic-management tactics like lockdowns, as compared to countries, including Sweden, that took more relaxed approaches, Spada says.

“You ask people to avoid situations, to mask, to monitor a threat,” Spada says. “Then you’re left with a collection of thinking patterns and behaviors that make you vulnerable next time there’s uncertainty.” Spada’s research also suggests that people who score highly on measures of neuroticism have been more likely to develop health anxiety during the pandemic, which is in turn correlated with the development of generalized anxiety and depression.

Three years of fear and rumination about COVID-19, however understandable, has caused an uptick in obsessive behaviors, like methodically wiping down groceries, as well as generalized anxiety, Salkovskis says. But not everyone with these symptoms meets the diagnostic criteria for illness anxiety disorder, he says. People with health anxiety believe they are ill and hold onto that belief for a long period of time, he says. Someone could think for years that they’re in the early stages of developing cancer or heart disease, and it’s hard to definitively prove them wrong. But it becomes clear fairly quickly whether or not someone has COVID-19, Salkovskis says.

It can be difficult to tell if your health concerns are normal in the COVID-19 era, when it’s natural to be on high alert about disease. Behaviors that otherwise might be red flags for health anxiety, like frequent hand-washing or mask-wearing, have become normal and recommended over the past few years. But Patriquin says there are still signs to look for. If you feel compelled to take virus precautions in very low-risk situations—such as wearing a mask when you’re at home, around only those you live with—or if your relationships and work are suffering as a result of your routine, speaking to a mental-health professional may be worthwhile.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the only treatment for health anxiety with strong evidence behind it, Salkovskis says. According to the Mayo Clinic, CBT can help people with health anxiety acknowledge and adjust their fears related to illness and physical sensations and develop coping strategies. Two-thirds of people with health anxiety saw a reduction in symptoms after being treated with CBT, and about half went into complete remission, according to a research review published in 2019.

Lifestyle remedies can also be useful for managing anxiety disorders, Patriquin says. Getting enough sleep can make a significant difference in symptoms, as can seeking social support, she says. Even socializing online can help buffer the negative consequences of health anxiety, one study published in 2021 found—so if you’re struggling with this condition, reaching out to both a mental-health professional and your loved ones is a good place to start.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME


Write to Jamie Ducharme at [email protected].

[ad_2]

Source link

China Quarantine Bus Crash Prompts Outcry Over ‘Zero COVID’

China Quarantine Bus Crash Prompts Outcry Over ‘Zero COVID’
China Quarantine Bus Crash Prompts Outcry Over ‘Zero COVID’

[ad_1]

TAIPEI, Taiwan — A nighttime bus crash that killed 27 people in southwest China this week has set off a storm of anger online over the harshness of the country’s strict COVID-19 policies.

The initial police report did not say who the passengers were and where they were going, but it later emerged they were headed to a quarantine location outside their city of Guiyang, the capital of Guizhou province.

The bus with 47 people on board crashed about 2:40 a.m. Sunday. City officials announced many hours later that the passengers were under “medical observation,” confirming reports they were being taken to quarantine.


More from TIME


Following public anger, Guiyang fired three officials in charge of Yunyan district, where the residents had been picked up, the provincial government said Monday. Guiyang’s deputy mayor apologized at a news conference, bowing and observing a moment of silence.

Online, many wondered at the logic behind transporting people outside of Guiyang, accusing the government of moving them so that the city would no longer report any new cases.

“Will this ever end? On the top searches (on social media), there’s all sorts of pandemic prevention situations every day, creating unnecessary panic and making people jittery,” one person wrote. “Is there scientific validity to hauling people to quarantine, one car after another?”

Guiyang officials had announced the city would achieve “societal zero-COVID” by Monday, one day after the crash.

The phrase means new infections are found only among people already under surveillance — such as those in a centralized quarantine facility or who are close contacts of existing patients — so the virus is no longer spreading in the community.

China has managed the pandemic through a series of measures known as “clearing to zero,” or “zero COVID,” maintained through strict lockdowns and mass testing.

The approach saved lives before vaccines were widely available, as people refrained from public gatherings and wore masks regularly. However, as other countries have opened up and loosened some of the most onerous restrictions, China has held steadfast to its zero-COVID strategy.

While China has cut down its quarantine time for overseas arrivals and said it would start issuing student visas, the policy remains strict at home. Officials are concerned about the potential death toll and the impact any loosening would have on the country’s stretched medical system.

Zero COVID also has become a political issue, and at one point was celebrated by many Chinese as signifying the superiority of their country over the U.S., which has had more than a million COVID deaths.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has cited China’s approach as a “major strategic success” and evidence of the “significant advantages” of its political system over Western liberal democracies.

Yet, even as other countries open up, the humanitarian costs to China’s pandemic approach has grown.

Earlier this year in Shanghai, desperate residents complained of being unable to get medicines or even groceries during the city’s two-month lockdown, while some died in hospitals from lack of medical care as the city restricted movement. Last week, residents in the western region of Xinjiang said they went hungry under a more than 40-day lockdown.

According to FreeWeibo, a website that tracks censored posts on the popular social media platform, three of top 10 searches on Weibo related to the bus accident.

Many fixated on images of the bus shared by social media users. One photo showed the bus after it had been retrieved from the accident site. Its roof was crushed and portions missing. Another photo allegedly showed the driver decked out in a full white protective suit.

Users online questioned how a driver could see properly when his face was covered up, and why he was driving so late at night. Many comments were censored but some that expressed discontent with the current approach to the pandemic did remain up.

“I hope that the price of this pain can push for change faster, but if it’s possible, I don’t want to pay such a high price for such change,” said the comment with the most likes on an online report about the accident by state broadcaster CCTV. “Condolences.”

One of the passengers on the bus said her whole building had been taken for central quarantine, according to a report by Caixin, a business news outlet. Yet her apartment building had not reported a single case, according to a friend who shared their text conversation with Caixin.

Another popular comment quoted a proverb, “These human lives are like straw.”

On Tuesday, Guizhou reported 41 new COVID-19 cases in the entire province. The province has been on high alert in the past few weeks after discovering one case at the end of August. It has locked down its capital city, using the euphemistic “quiet period” to describe the move, which means people are not allowed to leave their homes.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME


Contact us at [email protected].

[ad_2]

Source link

The Black Men Who Became America’s First Paramedics

The Black Men Who Became America’s First Paramedics
The Black Men Who Became America’s First Paramedics

[ad_1]

Paramedics are lifelines in U.S communities, responding to all kinds of medical emergencies. And yet, the history of the emergency medical services (EMS) is little-known.

In American Sirens: The Incredible Story of the Black Men Who Became America’s First Paramedics, author Kevin Hazzard, a former paramedic, spotlights the Black men in Pittsburgh who pioneered the profession and formed a model for emergency medical services that other cities copied.

In 1966, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a white paper that was a damning indictment of the nation’s emergency response system. “Essentially, paramedics weren’t plentiful enough to be there when you needed them and then weren’t well trained enough to be of much use when they were there,” Hazzard says.

Ambulances were, in some cases, hearses that were driven by undertakers from the funeral home that would later plan the patient’s funeral. In other situations, the sick and injured might be tended to by police officers or volunteer firefighters who were not trained to provide emergency care. Americans were more likely to survive a gunshot wound in the Vietnam War than on the homefront, according to the NAS report, because at least injured soldiers are accompanied by trained medics. “In 1965, 52 million accidental injuries killed 107,000, temporarily disabled over 10 million and permanently impaired 400,000 American citizens at a cost of approximately $18 billion,” the report said. “It is the leading cause of death in the first half of life’s span.”

Read more: Emergency Medical Workers Are Integral to the Fight Against Coronavirus. Just a Few Decades Ago, America’s EMS System Didn’t Even Exist

This lack of emergency care hit home for Peter Safar, an Austrian-born anesthesiologist at the University of Pittsburgh and a pioneer of CPR who helped to develop the modern hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU). He lost his daughter in 1966 to an asthma attack because she didn’t get the right help between her house and the hospital. So he coped with the loss by designing the modern ambulance—including the equipment inside, plus its paint scheme. Perhaps most crucially, he also designed the world’s first comprehensive course to train paramedics.

The first people to take the course in 1967 were a group of Black men who were in Freedom House, an organization that originally provided jobs delivering vegetables to needy Black Americans. At first the idea was to switch the delivery service from delivering food to driving people to medical appointments. But, within eight months, the drivers were trained to handle emergencies including heart attacks, seizures, childbirth, and choking. Their first calls took place during the uprising following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968.

And data showed that the training worked. One 1972 study of 1,400 patients transported to area hospitals by Freedom House over two months found the paramedics delivered the correct care to critical patients 89% of the time. By contrast, the study found police and volunteer ambulance services delivered the right care only 38% and 13% of the time, respectively. One Freedom House member, Nancy Caroline, wrote a textbook on EMS training that became the national standard.

Despite the success of Freedom House, the city nixed the program in 1975. Pittsburgh Mayor Peter Flaherty thought he could create a better system and replaced Freedom House with an all-white paramedic corps. Hazzard tells TIME that he believes racism was at play. As he puts it, “What other reason could he have for not wanting this organization, which was so successful and was a model around the country and around the world, other than the fact that they were an almost entirely Black organization.”

The real story “doesn’t make the city look good,” Hazzard says, so that’s why he thinks the story of the nation’s first paramedics is not better known. But Hazzard believes there are lessons in this story that are useful for all professions, not just paramedics. Many of the Freedom House participants went on to get master’s degrees, Ph.D.s, or medical degrees—or pursued careers in politics or the upper echelons of police, EMS, and fire departments.

“These were really successful people who came from nowhere and where it all began was an opportunity in 1967,” Hazzard says. “All it took for a group of young men that the world had written off was one opportunity, and they never looked back from that point. Anyone can reach great heights. They just simply need a single opportunity.”

More Must-Read Stories From TIME


Write to Olivia B. Waxman at [email protected].

[ad_2]

Source link

Lyfegen raises $8M for value-based contracting platform and more digital health fundings

Lyfegen raises $8M for value-based contracting platform and more digital health fundings
Lyfegen raises M for value-based contracting platform and more digital health fundings

[ad_1]

Lyfegen, which offers a platform for value-based contracting for high-cost drugs, announced it had raised $8 million in Series A funding.

The round was led by aMoon, with participation from APEX Ventures and other investors. The startup, which is headquartered in Switzerland and the U.S., offers software that aims to help pharma companies, payers, providers and medical technology companies adopt value-based contracts. It includes a library of contracts, tools to simulate how models will work before implementing them, and data collection to track performance and outcomes.

“We currently work with leading government payers and health insurance companies in Europe, the U.S. and the Middle East, and some of the world’s largest pharma companies,” Girisha Fernando, CEO and founder of Lyfegen, said in a statement.

“Our plan now is to further expand our presence in the U.S., partnering with both private and public healthcare insurance companies. The move away from volume-based healthcare has never been more needed, and we are happy to play an important role in the shift to value-based contracting.”


Smart stethoscope company Eko received a $2.7 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to develop a machine learning algorithm that detects and classifies pulmonary hypertension.

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Direct Phase II grant will go toward an algorithm that uses phonocardiogram (PCG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) data collected by Eko’s stethoscopes to find pulmonary hypertension, or high blood pressure, that affects arteries in the lungs and the right side of heart.

Eko has previously partnered with Lifespan Health System’s Cardiovascular Institute to collect real-world PCG and ECG data that will be part of the algorithm’s development. 

“The major goal of this study is to determine whether an Eko algorithm based on phonocardiography coupled with electrocardiography can identify the presence and severity of pulmonary hypertension when compared to the current gold standard,” said Dr. Gaurav Choudhary, principal investigator and director of cardiovascular research at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute.

“This machine learning algorithm has the potential to be a low cost, easily implementable and sustainable medical technology that assists healthcare professionals in identifying more patients with pulmonary hypertension.”

Eko said this is their fourth SBIR grant. The company recently received FDA 510(k) clearance for an algorithm that detects and characterizes heart murmurs in adult and pediatric patients.


Halo, which offers a platform that aims to connect companies and scientists for research and development, raised $2.6 million in seed funding. 

Participants in the round include Asymmetric Capital Partners, Village Global, AirAngels, 23andMe cofounder and CEO Anne Wojcicki, cofounder and CTO of email client Superhuman Conrad Irwin, and Rachel Hepworth, head of marketing at organizational software company Notion.

The platform allows biopharma, medical device, consumer goods and agriculture companies to post requests for proposals for specific needs or open calls around general research interests. Scientists can then respond with their proposals, and companies can select researchers for partnerships.

Halo plans to use the seed to hire new workers, develop new collaboration features on the platform and expand its network of scientists.

“Collaborating in R&D is just as much about relationships as it is about the research itself. However, companies still rely on practices that don’t scale, like hearing a talk at a conference or reading a journal article. This limits businesses to a handful of existing relationships and pure happenstance,” Kevin Leland, founder and CEO of Halo, said in a statement.

“Halo connects corporate R&D teams directly with scientists. Through our platform, we engineer serendipity so companies can quickly and easily scout for new technologies, expand their networks globally and build relationships with scientists year round.”

[ad_2]

Source link

Study: Digital, face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy both effective for depression

Study: Digital, face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy both effective for depression
Study: Digital, face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy both effective for depression

[ad_1]

Both digital and face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) “may be suitable interventions for patients with more severe forms of depression,” according to a review published in npj Digital Medicine.

“Overall, our results indicate that after controlling for a number of potential confounders, face-to-face and digital CBT might be comparable in terms of clinical effectiveness for treating depression. We identify a number of relevant factors that moderate the treatment response such as the duration of the intervention, baseline severity, adherence and the level of human guidance in digital CBT interventions,” the study notes.

Guided digital CBT was more effective than unguided digital CBT in decreasing depressive symptoms and psychosocial functioning. Researchers found no superiority regarding adherence between guided and unguided digital CBT. 

No distinctions existed between face-to-face CBT, guided digital CBT and unguided digital CBT regarding anxiety symptoms.

Interestingly, the results of the study differed compared to earlier findings. Upon initial evaluation of the literature, face-to-face treatment appeared to outweigh the effectiveness of guided digital CBT in improving depressive symptoms and psychosocial functioning, and in ensuring treatment adherence.

After accounting for confounders like depression severity and the use of antidepressants, researchers stated their “analyses revealed no significant differences between the face-to-face and digital interventions, suggesting that these approaches might have more comparable clinical effectiveness when accounting for moderators.”

Results were based on a systematic literature search in the PubMed database, where researchers compared 106 studies and over 11,000 adult patients published until January 11, 2021.

The study notes that a previous meta-analysis of CBT treatment effectiveness via face-to-face interactions versus digital means revealed only minor effects. Still, the study in npj Digital Medicine underlines the importance of treatment intensity.

Researchers found a higher number of sessions was a positive predictor of the success of digital therapeutic interventions. In contrast, treatment intensity (the number of sessions per week) showed more significant promise with traditional face-to-face methods. 

WHY IT MATTERS

The number of digital health platforms offering CBT or other mental health interventions has increased immensely over the past few years, especially since the pandemic’s beginning. These platforms can hold numerous potential advantages, such as cost-effectiveness and improved access to evidence-based care, especially for people living in remote communities. 

Though several platforms materialized since the emergence of COVID-19, many are not regulated by the FDA, and some make claims not yet substantiated by clinical research. 

Studying the effectiveness of digital health tools versus traditional face-to-face interventions is vital to ensuring the safety and efficacy of these newly minted digital models in healthcare offerings.

[ad_2]

Source link