How much sulforaphane is suitable for healthy people?

This post compares and contrasts two perspectives on how much sulforaphane is suitable for healthy people. One perspective was an October 2019 review from John Hopkins researchers who specialize in sulforaphane clinical trials:

Broccoli or Sulforaphane: Is It the Source or Dose That Matters?

Since these researchers didn’t give a consumer-practical answer, I’ve presented a concurrent commercial perspective to the same body of evidence via an October 2019 review from the Australian founder of a company that offers sulforaphane products:

Sulforaphane: Its “Coming of Age” as a Clinically Relevant Nutraceutical in the Prevention and Treatment of Chronic Disease


1. Taste from the clinical trial perspective:

“The harsh taste (a.k.a. back-of-the-throat burning sensation) that is noticed by most people who consume higher doses of sulforaphane, must be acknowledged and anticipated by investigators. This is particularly so at the higher limits of dosing with sulforaphane, and not so much of a concern when dosing with glucoraphanin, or even with glucoraphanin-plus-myrosinase.

The presence and/or enzymatic production of levels of sulforaphane in oral doses ranging above about 100 µmol, creates a burning taste that most consumers notice in the back of their throats rather than on the tongue. Higher doses of sulforaphane lead to an increased number of adverse event reports, primarily nausea, heartburn, or other gastrointestinal discomfort.”

Taste wasn’t mentioned in the commercial review. Adverse effects were mentioned in this context:

“Because SFN is derived from a commonly consumed vegetable, it is generally considered to lack adverse effects; the safety of broccoli sprouts has been confirmed. However, the use of a phytochemical in chemoprevention engages very different biochemical processes when using the same molecule in chemotherapy; the biochemical behaviour of cancer cells and normal cells is very different.”

2. Commercial products from the clinical trial perspective:

“Using a dietary supplement formulation of glucoraphanin plus myrosinase (Avmacol®) in tablet form, we observed a median 20% bioavailability with greatly dampened inter-individual variability. Fahey et al. have observed approximately 35% bioavailability with this supplement in a different population.”

Avmacol appeared to be the John Hopkins product of choice, as it was mentioned 15 times in the clinical trials table. A further investigation of Avmacol showed that its supplier for broccoli extract, TrueBroc, was cofounded by a John Hopkins coauthor! Yet the review stated:

“The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

Other products were downgraded with statements such as:

“5 or 10 g/d of BroccoPhane powder (BSP), reported to be rich in SF, daily x 4 wks (we have assayed previously and found this not to be the case).”

They also disclaimed:

“We have indicated clinical studies in which label results have been used rather than making dose measurements prior to or during intervention.”

No commercial products, not even the author’s own company’s, were directly mentioned in the commercial perspective.

3. Dosage from the clinical trial perspective:

“Reporting of administered dose of glucoraphanin and/or sulforaphane is a poor measure of the bioavailable / bioactive dose of sulforaphane. As a consequence, we propose that the excreted amount of sulforaphane metabolites (sulforaphane + sulforaphane cysteine-glycine + sulforaphane cysteine + sulforaphane N-acetylcysteine) in urine over 24 h (2–3 half-lives), which is a measure of “internal dose”, provides a more revealing and likely consistent view of the delivery of sulforaphane to study participants.

Only recently have there been attempts to define minimally effective doses in humans – an outcome made possible by the development of consistently formulated, stable, bioavailable broccoli-derived preparations.”

Dosage from the commercial perspective:

“Of the available SFN clinical trials associated with genes induced via Nrf2 activation, many demonstrate a linear dose-response. More recently, it has become apparent that SFN can behave hormetically with different effects responsive to different doses. This is in addition to its varying effects on different cell types and consequent to widely varying intracellular concentrations.

A 2017 clinical pilot study examined the effect of an oral dose of 100 μmol (17.3 mg) encapsulated SFN on GSH [reduced glutathione] induction in humans over 7 days. Pre- and postmeasurement of GSH in blood cells that included T cells, B cells, and NK cells showed an increase of 32%. The researchers found that in the pilot group of nine participants, age, sex, and race did not influence the outcome.

Clinical outcomes are achievable in conditions such as asthma with daily SFN doses of around 18 mg daily and from 27 to 40 mg in type 2 diabetes. The daily SFN dose found to achieve beneficial outcomes in most of the available clinical trials is around 20-40 mg.”

The author’s sulforaphane products are available in 100, 250, and 700 mg capsules of enzyme-active broccoli sprout powder. In correspondence, the author said:

“Each 700 mg capsules yields around 15mg sulforaphane.”

4. Let’s see how the perspectives treated a 2018 Spanish clinical trial published as Effects of long-term consumption of broccoli sprouts on inflammatory markers in overweight subjects.

From the commercial perspective:

“In a recent study using 30 grams of fresh broccoli sprouts incorporated daily into the diet, two key inflammatory cytokines were measured at four time points in forty healthy overweight [BMI 24.9 – 29.9] people. The levels of both interleukin-6 (Il-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP) declined over the 70 days during which the sprouts were ingested.

These biomarkers were measured again at day 90, wherein it was found that Il-6 continued to decline, whereas CRP climbed again. When the final measurement was taken at day 160, CRP, although climbing, had not returned to its baseline value. Il-6 remained significantly below the baseline level at day 160.

The sprouts contained approximately 51 mg (117 μmol) GRN [glucoraphanin], and plasma and urinary SFN metabolites were measured to confirm that SFN had been produced when the sprouts were ingested.”


The clinical trial perspective added that the study glucoraphanin dosage was “1.67 (GR) μmol/kg BW.” This wasn’t accurate, however. It was assumed into existence by:

“In cases where the authors did not indicate dosage in μmol/kg body weight (BW), we have made those calculations using the a priori assumption of a 70 kg BW.”

117 μmol / 1.67 μmol/kg = 70 kg.

The study provided the subjects’ mean weight in Table 1 as “85.8 ± 16.7 kg.” So the study’s actual average glucoraphanin dosage per kg body weight was 117 μmol / 85.8 kg = 1.36 μmol/kg. Was making an accurate calculation too difficult?

The clinical trial review included the study in the informative Section “3.2. Clinical Studies with Broccoli-Based Preparations: Efficacy” subsection “3.2.8. Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome, and Related Disorders.” However, this was somewhat misleading, as it was grouped with studies such as the 2012 Iranian Effects of broccoli sprout with high sulforaphane concentration on inflammatory markers in type 2 diabetic patients: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial (not freely available).

The commercial perspective pointed out substantial differences between the two studies:

“Where the study described above by Lopez-Chillon et al. investigated healthy overweight people to assess the effects of SFN-yielding broccoli sprout homogenate on biomarkers of inflammation, Mirmiran et al. in 2012 had used a SFN-yielding supplement in T2DM patients. Although the data are not directly comparable, the latter study using the powdered supplement resulted in significant lowering of Il-6, hs-CRP, and TNF-α over just 4 weeks.

It is not possible to further compare the two studies due to the vastly different time periods over which each was conducted.”


The commercial perspective impressed as more balanced than the clinical trial perspective. The clinical trial perspective also had an undisclosed conflict of interest!

A. The commercial perspective didn’t specifically mention any commercial products. The clinical trial perspective:

– Effectively promoted one commercial product whose supplier was associated with a coauthor;

– Downgraded several other commercial products; and

– Tried to shift responsibility for the lack of “minimally effective doses in humans” to commercial products with:

“Only recently have there been attempts to define minimally effective doses in humans – an outcome made possible by the development of consistently formulated, stable, bioavailable broccoli-derived preparations.”

Unless four years previous is “recently,” using commercial products to excuse slow research progress can be dismissed. A coauthor of the clinical trial perspective was John Hopkins’ lead researcher for the November 2015 Sulforaphane Bioavailability from Glucoraphanin-Rich Broccoli: Control by Active Endogenous Myrosinase, which commended “high quality, commercially available broccoli supplements” per:

“We have now discontinued making BSE [broccoli sprout extract], because there are several high quality, commercially available broccoli supplements on the market.”

B. The commercial perspective didn’t address taste, which may be a consumer acceptance problem.

C. The commercial perspective provided practical dosage recommendations, reflecting their consumer orientation. These recommendations didn’t address how much sulforaphane is suitable for healthy people, though.

Practical dosage recommendations are what the clinical trial perspective will eventually have do after they stop dodging their audience – which includes clinicians trying to apply clinical trial data – with unhelpful statements such as:

“Reporting of administered dose of glucoraphanin and/or sulforaphane is a poor measure of the bioavailable / bioactive dose of sulforaphane.”

How practical was their “internal dose” recommendation for non-researcher readers?


Here’s what I’m doing to answer how much sulforaphane is suitable for healthy people.

I’d like to posthumously credit my high school literature teachers Dorothy Jasiecki and Martin Obrentz for this post’s compare-and-contrast approach. They both required their students to read at least two books monthly, then minimally handwrite a 3-page (single-spaced) paper comparing and contrasting the two books.

You can see from their linked testimonials that their approach was in a bygone era, back when some teachers considered the desired outcome of public education to be that each individual learned to think for themself. My younger brother contributed:

“I can still remember everything Mr. Obrentz ever assigned for me to read. He was the epitome of what a teacher should be.”

Microwave broccoli to increase sulforaphane levels

This 2020 Chinese/USDA study investigated effects on sulforaphane amount from heating broccoli in water and microwaving at different power settings to different temperatures:

“Microwave treatment causes a sudden collapse of cell structure due to the increase in osmotic pressure difference over vacuole membrane. Mild heating could increase SFR [sulforaphane] level, possibly explained by the increased activity of MYR [the enzyme myrosinase] which can hydrolyze GLR [glucoraphanin] into SFR at high temperature (up to 60°C).

Microwave‐cooked broccoli had higher levels of these two compounds compared to broccoli heated in water. The broccoli sample without cooking as a control showed the least amount of GLR, indicating that microwave heating did help to release more GLR from the cell.

In the temperature range of 50–60°C, a positive correlation was observed between GLR or SFR contents and temperature. However, these two physiochemical contents were negatively correlated with temperature when it increased to 70°C.

The glucoraphanin (GLR) and sulforaphane (SFR) contents (μmol/g DW) in florets of broccoli during microwaving at 40, 50, 60, and 70°C using low power level (LL) or high power level (HL). Data are reported as the mean ± SD (n = 3). Values with different letters are significantly (p < .05) different.

[For example, sulforaphane levels of the control (raw), LL40, LL70, and HL40 conditions weren’t significantly different, and the HL70 level was significantly lower than those levels]. The microwave using high level at 60°C showed the greatest SFR level (2.45 µmol/g DW).”

Table S1 from the supporting material:

Temperature

(°C)

Time

(S)

Power level

(W)

Heating in water 40 185 NA
50 230
60 262
70 290
Microwave (HL) 40 65 950
50 90
60 108
70 120
Microwave (LL) 40 115 475
50 148
60 178
70 200

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.1493 “Microwave cooking increases sulforaphane level in broccoli”


The researchers demonstrated a more effective method of increasing sulforaphane than did the cited and widely discussed 2004 Heating decreases epithiospecifier protein activity and increases sulforaphane formation in broccoli (not freely available). The older study methods were difficult to implement in kitchens, and evaluated heating temperature as the only factor.

The present study added microwave power level irradiation effects as a factor, and simplified heating temperature implementation. People can use Table S1 to maximize broccoli floret sulforaphane content in their kitchens. See Week 2 of Changing an inflammatory phenotype with broccoli sprouts for changes.

The study provided an optimal sulforaphane end result of “(2.45 µmol/g DW)”. I asked a study author for additional data, and they replied:

“The control GLR and SLR amount was 2.18 and 0.22 µmol/g DW, respectively, while the HL60 GLR amount was 2.78 µmol/g DW.”

Microwaving 10 grams of broccoli florets to 60°C (140°F) increased the sulforaphane amount by 1,114% (2.45 / .22)! That also increased the glucoraphanin amount by 27% (2.78 / 2.18) for further processing into sulforaphane after eating.

I replied: That’s an exciting result, increasing sulforaphane more than 11 times, while also increasing glucoraphanin! I haven’t found similar experiments with broccoli sprouts. Would you expect similar results?

The study author responded:

“We didn’t expect this result, and think microwave irradiation might help to release more conjugated forms of glucosinolates and then get hydrolyzed by released myrosinase. Further studies are being carried out.”


The study also measured broccoli stems:

“GLR and SFR were hardly detected in stems. Less than 52% of GLR was detected in the [50/50] mixture of florets and stems compared to florets.

Microwaved at 60°C, the florets had a concentration of GLR and SFR at 2.78 and 2.45 µmol/g DW, respectively, which was significantly higher than the levels detected in mixture of florets and stems (1.21 and 0.82 µmol/g DW, respectively).”

The 50% florets / 50% stems mixture’s glucoraphanin amount of 1.21 µmol was roughly comparable with the 1.08 µmol glucoraphanin amount of mature broccoli extract in item 2 below.

Reminders from Eat broccoli sprouts today:

  1. A 1 mg sulforaphane weight equals a 5.64 μmol sulforaphane amount.
  2. “Content of glucoraphanin in extract from broccoli sprouts was 16.6 μmol per gram of fresh weight. In contrast, mature broccoli extract contained 1.08 μmol per gram of fresh weight.”
  3. The bioavailability of sulforaphane in a broccoli sprout extract with the myrosinase enzyme 100 μmol gelcap was 36.1% which weighed 6.4 mg.
  4. The question of how much sulforaphane is suitable for healthy people remains unanswered.

The evidence says..

Three items to follow up yesterday’s The UK downgraded COVID-19 a week ago:

1. From March 24, 2020:

Oxford Epidemiologist: Here’s Why That Doomsday Model Is Likely Way Off

“Fewer than one in a thousand who’ve been infected with COVID-19 become sick enough to need hospitalization, leaving the vast majority with mild cases or free of symptoms.”

However, that was based on “my model’s better than yours” arguments rather than sufficient evidence.

2. From March 26, 2020:

Dr. Deborah Birx Shreds Media For Salacious Claims: ‘We Don’t Have Evidence Of That’

“Birx began by highlighting the study in the U.K. that dramatically revised its projections of the total number of deaths projected in the U.K. from ‘half a million to 20,000.’

‘When people start talking about 20% of a population getting infected,’ Birx later added. ‘It’s very scary, but we don’t have data that matches that based on the experience.'”

3. From March 25, 2020: the panic model’s lead researcher offered a long non-apology to UK Parliament, which they accepted uncritically:

Witness: Professor Neil Ferguson, Director, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London


Still don’t know exactly who is herding the US population. We wait at home for headlines to emphasize evidence.

The UK downgraded COVID-19 a week ago

From https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid:

“As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK.

The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID.  Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

Definition of HCID

  • acute infectious disease
  • typically has a high case-fatality rate
  • may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment
  • often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly
  • ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings
  • requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely.”

Who is herding the US population, with demands that businesses be shut down, for a disease that the UK recognizes as not the most serious health threat?

Will their scorched earth agenda not be satisfied until the remains of US businesses are in a pile like this?

Image from Rare Historical Photos

Waiting to be officially denied

Three items to follow up yesterday’s What’s next?:

1. A view from a Singapore gold dealer:

LBMA colludes with the COMEX – To lockdown the global gold market?

“LBMA [London Bullion Market Association] market-makers have a duty and obligation to make a market in gold. So where were these market makers as the spot price seized up, and why would these market makers not be making a market and providing liquidity for gold?

Is it just a management of perceptions exercise with no gold bars involved, to try to coax back the spot and futures prices by telegraphing that the gold that is backing the spot price (which is actually unallocated non-existent gold) is now also backing COMEX gold futures. While neither of the two can be delivered, the same non-gold now backs both, so voila, there is no need for any price divergence!”

2. Concurrently, from the Wall Street Journal, a new form of US currency may or may not be part of the coronavirus bailout package:

Fed Digital Dollars Are Part of Debate Over Coronavirus Stimulus

“While it may not make it to the finished coronavirus economic stimulus and support package now being weighed in Congress, there is a push from some legislators to give the Federal Reserve a new tool some believe could radically reshape how it conducts monetary policy.

At issue are so-called digital dollars and the accounts that would hold them.”

3. Private equity eyes industries crippled by coronavirus: ‘They have been waiting for this’

“‘Vulture investors, especially in private equity, are waiting in the wings to scoop up scores of struggling businesses on the cheap,’ tweeted Rohit Chopra, an FTC commissioner.”


Still no idea about exactly who are the herders. Getting a better picture of who benefits from the herd’s demise.


Charles M. Russell “Driving Buffalo Over the Cliff” 1914

Eat broccoli sprouts today!

This 2020 Korean letter to a journal editor cited 23 recent papers in support of sulforaphane’s positive effects, mainly in anti-cancer treatments:

“Gene expression is mediated by chromatin epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation, histone modifications, promoter-enhancer interactions, and non-coding RNA (microRNA and long non-coding RNA)-mediated regulation. Approximately 50% of all tumor suppressor genes are inactivated through epigenetic modifications, rather than by genetic mechanisms, in sporadic cancers. Accumulating evidence suggests that epigenetic modulators are important tools to improve the efficacy of disease prevention strategies.

Because sulforaphane (SFN) induces the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2)-antioxidant response element pathway that induces the cellular defense against oxidative stress, SFN has received increased attention because it acts as an antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer agent.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068201/ “A recent overview on sulforaphane as a dietary epigenetic modulator”


Letters to the editor aren’t peer-reviewed, though. One of the cited papers was a 2018 Czech mini-review that included metabolism, preparation and processing evidence:

“Sulforaphane is a phytochemical that occurs in plants in the form of biological inactive precursor glucoraphanin. This precursor belongs to the group of phytochemicals – glucosinolates – that are rapidly converted to the appropriate isothiocyanate by the enzyme called myrosinase.

The process of transformation takes place after a disruption of plant tissues by biting, chewing, slicing, and other destruction of tissues, when the enzyme myrosinase is released from plant tissues. When the enzyme myrosinase is destroyed during meal preparation (during cooking, steam cooking, or microwave treatment), a likely source of isothiocyanates is the microbial degradation of glucosinolates by the intestinal microflora. However, the hydrolysis by the microflora has been reported to be not very efficient, and in humans it is very diverse and variable.

Content of glucoraphanin in extract from broccoli sprouts was 16.6 μmol per gram of fresh weight. In contrast, mature broccoli extract contained 1.08 μmol per gram of fresh weight. The total amount of glucosinolates in the young broccoli sprouts is 22.7 μmol per gram of fresh weight and 3.37 μmol per gram of fresh weight for mature broccoli.

Percentage amount of sulforaphane formed from its precursor glucoraphanin in broccoli which had not been heat treated and had been lyophilized [freeze-dried] was 22.8%. Broccoli steaming (5 min) and its lyophilization decrease the amount of sulforaphane formed to 4.2%.”

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/jmf.2018.0024 “Isothiocyanate from Broccoli, Sulforaphane, and Its Properties (not freely available)


Information about 43 completed sulforaphane clinical trials is here. Among them, the 2014 Effect of Broccoli Sprouts on Nasal Response to Live Attenuated Influenza Virus in Smokers: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study was of particular interest, stating:

“Nutritional interventions aimed at boosting antioxidants may be most effective in individuals who are relatively antioxidant-deficient at baseline, a condition likely to be more prevalent in smokers.”

I didn’t notice regular supplement dosage studies. Maybe I didn’t read the control group information carefully enough?


https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sulforaphane lists sulforaphane’s molecular weight as 177.3 g/mol. A 1 mg sulforaphane capsule weight equals a 5.64 μmol sulforaphane amount (.001 / 177.3).

From the 2015 Sulforaphane Bioavailability from Glucoraphanin-Rich Broccoli: Control by Active Endogenous Myrosinase:

  • Figure 4 showed the bioavailability of sulforaphane in a broccoli sprout extract with the myrosinase enzyme 100 μmol gelcap was 36.1% which weighed 6.4 mg (36.1 / 5.64).
  • Figure 3 showed that the bioavailability of sulforaphane in freeze-dried broccoli sprouts in pineapple-lime juice was 40.5% in 50, 100, and 200 μmol amounts and 33.8% with 100 μmol gel caps. You do the weight math.
  • Figure 2 showed that if the broccoli sprout extract didn’t have the enzyme, the bioavailability of sulforaphane was 10.4% whether the amount was 69 or 230 μmol, weighing 1.27 mg (69 x .104) / 5.64 and 4.24 mg (230 x .104) / 5.64.

Bioavailability ranged from the worst case of Figure 2’s 10.4% to the best case of Figure 4’s 36.1%. The question of how much sulforaphane is suitable for healthy people remains unanswered.


Deaths in Italy attributed to COVID-19

Why have so many coronavirus patients died in Italy? from the Telegraph today:

“According to Prof Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health, the country’s mortality rate is far higher due to demographics – the nation has the second oldest population worldwide – and the manner in which hospitals record deaths.

‘The age of our patients in hospitals is substantially older – the median is 67, while in China it was 46,’ Prof Ricciardi says. ‘So essentially the age distribution of our patients is squeezed to an older age and this is substantial in increasing the lethality.

But Prof Ricciardi added that Italy’s death rate may also appear high because of how doctors record fatalities.

‘The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.

On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three,’ he says.”


Refactoring the current 4,825 deaths in Italy attributed to COVID-19 equals 579 (4,825 x .12). That number places Italy slightly above France’s 562 current total.

Evidence-based statements wouldn’t sufficiently frighten the herd, though. The article continued on to include now-obligatory, hyperbolic, unscientific WHO statements referencing a “miracle.”

Image from “Culture Audits: We Have Been Asking the Wrong Question”

Humans individually evolve by..?

This 2020 UK evolutionary biology article was part of a “Fifty years of the Price equation” issue:

“Genetic and non-genetic inheritance usually produce a phenotype [the composite of an organism’s characteristics, including its developmental, biophysical, and behavioral traits] through a highly complex developmental process that also relies on many features of the world over which the parents have little, if any, control. As a consequence, the relationship between the phenotypes of parents and offspring, the offspring–parent distribution, can take on many forms and vary from one place or time to another.

The extension of transmission and quantitative genetic models retain the assumption that the relationship between inheritance and phenotypic variation is such that it is sufficient to focus on the transmissibility of inherited variants or additive variance rather than phenotype development.

The concept of heredity as a developmental process is a more significant departure from traditional notions of inheritance. The mechanisms of non-genetic inheritance, such as parental behaviour, do not only affect the parent–offspring resemblance, but also the generation of variation and individual fitness.

Any feature of the parents, including their DNA sequence, physiology and behaviour can carry information about the conditions that the offspring will encounter. That this information content itself must be an evolving property is perhaps most evident when heredity is viewed as a developmental process; a developmental perspective is particularly useful when the aim is to study how the evolutionary process itself is evolving.”

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2019.0366 “Different perspectives on non-genetic inheritance illustrate the versatile utility of the Price equation in evolutionary biology”


This article and the “Fifty years of the Price equation” issue’s other articles had numerous mentions of individual evolution and behavior. They acknowledged “a diversity of perspectives” but I didn’t see my 2015 page’s perspective that it’s up to each individual to mold their own phenotype. In it, the Price equation prompted the question:

“How does a phenotype influence its own change?”

which I applied to a person individually evolving.

The article and the issue’s other articles tinkered with equations, and cited plant, animal, and human studies with frameworks that didn’t include investigating causes for the observed effects. These often wasted resources by providing solutions that addressed symptoms instead of addressing the uninvestigated causes.

For example, I didn’t see any mentions of how an individual’s pain may drive their phenotype. Pain induced by threats to survival are common parts of animal experiments that create and investigate phenotypes of epigenetic responses to stressors.

Regarding possible human applicability, how can a person remedy their undesirable traits and acquire desirable traits without addressing a root cause?

Unlike animals, people can therapeutically resolve underlying causes without the timing, duration, and intensity of efforts being externally determined. A human’s efforts to change their phenotype don’t have to mimic animal studies’ forcible approaches with drugs, etc., directed on someone else’s schedule. Addressing pain may be required for such efforts.


The article also promoted an outdated paradigm of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance:

“The transgenerational stability of some epigenetic states may fall within the same range as the stability of behaviours that are learnt from parents. Quantifying the environmental sensitivity and transgenerational stability of epigenetic variation has emerged as a major research focus over the past decade.”

As explained in Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of thyroid hormone sensitivity:

“Observing the same phenotype in each generation is NOT required for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to exist. Animal transgenerational studies have shown that epigenetic inheritance mechanisms may both express different phenotypes for each generation, and entirely skip a phenotype in one or more generations.”

Considering only “transgenerational stability of epigenetic variation” as proof will misinterpret this supporting evidence.

Aging as a disease

This 2020 interview was with UC Berkeley researchers:

“Lack of cure goes hand in hand with inability to accept that this [aging] is disease. For example, there was some resistance to accept tuberculosis as the actual disease. When there was no antibiotics or cure against it, people tended to discard it and said, oh, it’s just nerves, you need to go to a sanatorium and relax.

It used to be that, please do not diagnose that there’s bacterial meningitis, because there is no cure. Whatever else you can come up with, do it first. Now, diagnose it as fast as possible, so we can put patients on antibiotics immediately. My prediction is that the same will happen to aging.

We and others have demonstrated that you can, from the outside, either by some signal or blood therapy, parabiosis, something like that, some intervention, jump-start the aged resident stem cells in the tissue and get them to behave as, by whatever means you’re measuring it, young or a lot closer to young than they would normally be. The intrinsic capacity of them to act that way is there.

As we grow old, the environment of differentiated niche stem cells does not provide productive instruction. It provides counterproductive instruction, which, overall, tells them just to remain quiescent and do nothing.

It’s not a program to kill you. It’s the lack of a program to keep you young and healthy for longer than 90 years.

If your program was that whenever you’re a damaged, differentiated cell, you simply trigger apoptosis and activate stem cells to make new cells, we would live much longer and healthy. The program right now is to resist being dead and replaced as much as you can for as long as you can.

So cells produce too much TGF beta [transforming growth factor-β] because it helps them to keep functioning even when they’re damaged. That too much TGF beta, ironically, inhibits resident stem cells, so they are not replacing old cells with new ones. It’s almost like you have old bureaucrats that are running an organization and do not want to be replaced.

Our thoughts are probably different from most people, because we go to the data and the data show that they’re not really fully what authors wrote in the abstract or conclusion. When you look at that, my thought is that much more work needs to be done before it [partial cellular reprogramming] could be even thought to be commercialized.”

https://www.lifespan.io/news/apheresis-with-profs-irina-michael-conboy/ “Irina & Michael Conboy – Resetting Aged Blood to Restore Youth”


Keep in mind that although the interviewers’ organization had changed, their advocacy position as displayed in A blood plasma aging clock persisted. One of the interviewees is on the scientific advisory board of the interviewers’ organization, and they also have an interest in downgrading competing approaches.

Despite the caveats, this interview was these researchers’ perspective in their decades-long investigations of aging. I included the graphic and below quote from Organismal aging and cellular senescence to note how their paradigm compared with other aging researchers:

“In our view, recent evidence that

  • Senescence is based on an unterminated developmental growth program and the finding that
  • The concept of post-mitotic senescence requires the activation of expansion, or ‘growth’ factors as a second hit,

favor the assumption that aging underlies a grating of genetic determination similarly to what is summarized above under the pseudo-programmed causative approach.”

Well done, WHO, carefully played

A follow up to The WHO has a financial incentive to declare COVID-19 a pandemic:

Today CNBC reported Investors in World Bank’s ‘pandemic bonds’ face big losses due to the coronavirus outbreak

“According to ratings agency DBRS Morningstar, investors who hold the riskier of the two bonds could be losing their entire principal amount soon, with the firm saying that the price should have dropped more than 80%.

According to the World Bank, the outbreak would need to last at least 12 weeks, and have more than 2,500 deaths for the riskier of the two bonds, and 250 deaths for the other. There must also be more than 20 deaths in a second country.

When all those conditions are fulfilled, it triggers a payout to selected countries in need of help to contain the outbreak, and investors lose some or all of their money. That date works out to be Mar. 24, going by the 12-week period, and the start date of the outbreak – Dec. 31, according to the WHO, said DBRS Morningstar.

The World Bank did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.”


Regarding WHO terminology, from The Cyclical Nature of Disease:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) made the announcement on Wednesday, March 11, 2020, that the Coronavirus is a “pandemic” which is actually not as bad as an Epidemic which is a term that describes any problem that has grown out of control. An epidemic is therefore defined as “an outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population.”

Consequently, an epidemic requires a high proportion of society to be infected and is an event in which a disease is actively spreading. That is clearly not the case with the coronavirus. since the proportion of society infected has not even reached 1/10th of one percent of the population.

In contrast, the term pandemic relates to geographic spread and is used to describe a disease that affects a whole country or the entire world. This has nothing to do with the proportion of the population that is infected.”


Regarding WHO timing, last week The Guardian reported:

First Covid-19 case happened in November, China government records show – report

“The first case of someone suffering from Covid-19 can be traced back to 17 November, according to media reports on unpublished Chinese government data.

The report, in the South China Morning Post, said Chinese authorities had identified at least 266 people who contracted the virus last year and who came under medical surveillance, and the earliest case was 17 November – weeks before authorities announced the emergence of the new virus.

The Chinese government was widely criticised over attempts to cover up the outbreak in the early weeks, including crackdowns on doctors who tried to warn colleagues about a new Sars-like virus which was emerging in the city of Wuhan in Hubei province.

The data obtained by the Post, which the Guardian has not been able to verify, said a 55-year-old from Hubei province could have been the first person to contract Covid-19. For about one month after that date there were one to five new cases reported each day, the report said, and by 20 December there were 60 confirmed cases.

Official statements by the Chinese government to the World Health Organisation reported that the first confirmed case had been diagnosed on 8 December.”


Looking past the headlines, we have time to ask cui bono questions while we’re sitting at home:

  • Who’s benefiting from (medical, economic, social, and political) reports on and actions taken with COVID-19?
  • Who’s suffering from these reports and actions?

Recover your sanity

Men, it has been well said:

  • Think in herds; it will be seen that
  • They go mad in herds, while
  • They only recover their senses slowly, one by one.

During the great plague, which ravaged all Europe, between the years 1345 and 1350, it was generally considered that the end of the world was at hand.

‘But the facts, my dear fellow,’ said his friend, ‘the facts do not agree with your theory.‘ ‘Don’t they?’ replied the philosopher, shrugging his shoulders, ‘then, tant pis pour les faits’ – so much the worse for the facts!”

Charles Mackay, 1841

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518 “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”

Alfred Jacob Miller “Hunting buffalo” 1837

“Establishing the hidden communication networks in large self-organized groups facilitates a quantitative understanding of behavioral contagion.

An individual will be more likely to respond (is more susceptible) if it:

  • Is strongly connected to the initiator (short path length), and if it
  • Has neighbors which are strongly connected to each other.”

Why is it so difficult to live your own life?

The WHO has a financial incentive to declare COVID-19 a pandemic

“The percent of the population being affected has not even reached 1/10th of one percent. When we look at this Coronavirus scare, it does not even compare to all the deaths taking place every single day from a host of other diseases nobody bothers to ever mention. This really makes me wonder just who is orchestrating this panic and is the purpose really to expand government powers?”

The Cyclical Nature of Disease

“The WHO has a financial incentive in declaring this a pandemic. It issued Pandemic Bonds paying 7% interest which now the WHO does not have to repay.”

Half-Billion $ Pandemic Derivatives

See Well done, WHO, carefully played to follow up.

Train your immune system every day!

This 2019 US review subject was β-glucan:

“β-1,3-Glucans (hereafter referred to as glucan) are natural molecules able to significantly improve our health. In human studies, the tested (and suggested) daily dose remains in the range of 100–500 mg for stimulation of the immune system, whereas for a decrease in cholesterol levels a daily dose of 3 g is recommended.

Glucan does not represent essential nutrients, but it might be successfully used not only for:

  • Improvement of immune functions, but also to improve the general quality of life via
  • Improvements of immune status,
  • Lowering cholesterol,
  • Improving blood glucose levels and
  • Reduction of stress.

ClinicalTrials.gov summarizes 177 [now 207 with 110 completed] β-glucan clinical trials, mostly in cancer, gastrointestinal tract therapy, lowering cholesterol and improvements of immune reactions.

The question is not if glucans will move from food supplement to widely accepted drug, but how soon.

Reactions known to be influenced by glucan are represented in white, reactions where glucan has no confirmed effects are shown in black. The first defensive body response to infection results from formation of the anorexia cytokines (IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α).”

https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/24/7/1251/htm “Beta Glucan: Supplement or Drug? From Laboratory to Clinical Trials”

The review is also indexed at https://www.betaglucan.org/i-p/ under “Immunomodulator”


I’m curating this review on Day 12 of a self-quarantine after coming back from Milano, Italy, Monday, February 24, 2020. The previous Friday into Saturday I flew to Milano sitting with a group of elderly Italians who were returning from vacation.

On Saturday my wonderful woman and I used the Milano rail and crowded subway system to go downtown. On Sunday we used their crowded rail, crowded bus, and crowded ferry systems to visit Como, Bellagio, and Menaggio. I don’t think we could have mixed in more with people during transits, touristing, and Carnevale celebrations.

IMG_9539

After returning to our hotel Sunday evening, we heard about the coronavirus outbreak south of Milano and the closing of ten towns. We changed flights and departed for the US early Monday morning.

Neither of us have had any signature symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, shortness of breath, dry cough). Our daily diet the past few years included β-glucan from steel-cut oats (~3 g) and from a 1/3, 1/6 yeast supplement (400 mg).

Coincidence?

Each of our futures is also what each of us does Now to prepare.

Take responsibility for your one precious life.

Moonrise at sunrise with Venus

Wander into creativity?

This 2019 US study investigated the context of creative ideas:

“Creative inspiration routinely occurs during moments of mind wandering. Approximately 20% of ideas occurred in this manner.

Although ideas that occurred while participants were both on task and mind wandering did not differ in overall quality, there were several dimensions on which they did consistently differ. Ideas that occurred while mind wandering were reported to be experienced with a greater sense of ‘aha’ and were more likely to involve overcoming an impasse.

The present findings are consistent with the view that spontaneous task-independent mind wandering represents a source of the inventive ideas that individuals have each day. This potential function of mind wandering may help to explain why a mental state that can be associated with significant negative outcomes is nevertheless so ubiquitous.”

“Would you say the idea felt like an ‘aha!’ moment?” and “How creative do you feel the idea was?” were the closest items to emotional measures. “How important do you think this idea is?” and several months later “How important has the idea proven to be overall?” were used to measure importance.

https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/schooler/jonathan/sites/labs.psych.ucsb.edu.schooler.jonathan/files/pubs/0956797618820626.pdf “When the Muses Strike: Creative Ideas of Physicists and Writers Routinely Occur During Mind Wandering”

I came across this study from its reference in How Productivity Apps Can Make Us Less Productive (And Less Happy).


The study’s design missed opportunities to discover sources of creative ideas and feelings of importance. It focused on effects and intentionally disregarded causes, despite asserting that “mind wandering represents a source of inventive ideas.”

Experiments were subjectively biased for a framework that considered ideas as originating solely from a person’s thinking brain. A framework like Primal Therapy that demonstrated how ideas may arise as defenses against feelings wasn’t considered, although relevant.

Let’s use the finding “Ideas that occurred while mind wandering were more likely to involve overcoming an impasse” as an example for a Primal Therapy framework’s view:

  1. A person who has a seemingly unsolvable work problem probably encounters feelings of helplessness.
  2. Staying busy with tasks can distract them from these feelings.
  3. During times of less cognitive activity, though, these feelings can have more impetus.
  4. The resultant discomfort will trigger ideas to help ward off helpless feelings.

Regarding importance judgments, there are many needs a person develops and tries to satisfy as substitutes for real needs that weren’t fulfilled. I’ve focused on the need to feel important in blog posts such as Your need to feel important will run your life, and you’ll never feel satisfied.