Don’t leave any battles for your children that you should have won

This is a perspective of a U. S. military member who refused to obey unlawful orders earlier this decade:

“Dr. Sam Sigoloff is one of the three US military doctors who, under whistleblower protection, reported on the Defense Medical Data Base (DMED data) that showed evidence of widespread injuries sustained by US active service members following the mandated covid 19 injections.

It’s illegal to tell me to take a EUA drug. It’s not a lawful order. The only lawful order is if they actually had Comirnaty, which doesn’t exist. We have seen no evidence that it exists.

Look this says, safe and effective. That’s a false statement. We know it’s not safe nor effective. And effective isn’t even the word that we should be looking for. We should be using the word efficacious. Efficacious means it does what it’s supposed to do, meaning what we expect it to do, as you and I expect it to stop disease. It doesn’t do that.

There is no justification that you have to give. If you don’t want to do it, you don’t do it. If you keep wearing a mask, this will never end.”

https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/195901.html “After Hours with Dr. Sigoloff”


Reversing hair greying, Part 2

Three papers that cited the 2021 Reversing hair greying study, starting with a 2024 rodent study:

“External treatment with luteolin, but not that with hesperetin or diosmetin, alleviated hair graying in model mice. Internal treatment with luteolin also mitigated hair graying.

Both treatments suppressed the increase in p16ink4a-positive cells in bulges [senescent keratinocyte stem cells (KSCs)]. Both treatments also suppressed decreases in expression levels of endothelins in KSCs and their receptor (Ednrb) in melanocyte stem cells (MSCs), and alleviated hair graying in mice.”

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/13/12/1549 “Anti-Graying Effects of External and Internal Treatments with Luteolin on Hair in Model Mice”

This study treated subjects internally and externally with luteolin and hesperetin, which are ranked #7 (effective treatment) and #14 (not an effective treatment) per Nrf2 activator rankings. I wonder what these researchers would have found if they used the #1 ranked Nrf2 activator, sulforaphane.


A 2024 review managed to cover the Nrf2 activation subject without mentioning sulforaphane:

“Certain types of hair graying can be prevented or treated by enhancing MSC maintenance or melanocyte function, reducing oxidative stress, and managing secretion and action of stress hormones.

Tactical approaches to pursue this goal may include a selective activation of the p38 MAPK–MITF axis, enhancing cellular antioxidant capacity through activating NRF2, and modulating the norepinephrine–β2AR–PKA signaling pathway.”

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/17/7450 “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors Associated with Hair Graying (Canities) and Therapeutic Potential of Plant Extracts and Phytochemicals”

This reviewer also avoided citing the 2021 Sulforaphane and hair loss, although hair loss was mentioned multiple times. I suspect that institutional politics was involved, as both papers are from South Korea.


Reference 32 of this review was a 2023 review that covered mainly unintentional hair greying reversal as a side effect noted when people had pharmaceutical treatments for various diseases:

“Hair graying is a common and visible sign of aging resulting from decreased or absence of melanogenesis. It has long been thought that reversal of gray hair on a large scale is rare. However, a recent study reported that individual gray hair darkening is a common phenomenon, suggesting the possibility of large-scale reversal of gray hair.

All these treatments rely on the presence of a sufficient population of active McSCs. Maintaining a healthy population of McSCs is also an urgent problem that needs to be addressed.”

https://www.ijbs.com/v19p4588.htm “Reversing Gray Hair: Inspiring the Development of New Therapies Through Research on Hair Pigmentation and Repigmentation Progress”


I published A hair color anecdote two months into eating broccoli sprouts every day when I first noticed dark hair growing in. Since it’s been over 4 years that I’ve continued eating broccoli sprouts daily, I think it’s alright to stop referring to my continuing reversal of hair greying as an anecdote.

But it was apparently too late to address hair loss, which started before I turned 30. So now you know what to do. 🙂

A sulforaphane review

Here’s a 2025 review where the lead author is a retired researcher whose words readers might interpret as Science. As a reminder, unlike study researchers, reviewers are free to:

  • Express their beliefs as facts;
  • Over/under emphasize study limitations; and
  • Disregard and misrepresent evidence as they see fit.

Reviewers also aren’t obligated to make post-publication corrections for their errors and distortions. For examples:

1. After the 7. Conclusions section, there’s an 8. Afterword: I3C and DIM section. The phrase “As detailed in our earliest work on broccoli sprouts..” indicated a belief carried over from last century of the low importance of those research subjects.

Then, contrary to uncited clinical trials such as Our model clinical trial for Changing to a youthful phenotype with broccoli sprouts and Eat broccoli sprouts for DIM, “Broccoli sprouts had next to no indole glucosinolates.” And in the middle of downplaying I3C and DIM research, they stated: “There are 149 clinical studies on DIM and 11 on I3C listed on clinicaltrials.gov, suggesting a good safety profile. Potential efficacy and mode of action in humans are a subject of intense current investigation, though definitive answers will not come for some time.” 🧐

2. In the 3. Sulforaphane section, they asserted: “Glucosinolates such as glucoraphanin are ‘activated’ or converted to isothiocyanates such as sulforaphane by an enzyme called myrosinase, which is present in that same plant tissue (e.g., seed, sprout, broccoli head, or microgreen) and/or in bacteria that all humans possess in their gastrointestinal tracts.” and cited a 2016 book they coauthored that I can’t access.

The first 2021 paper of Broccoli sprout compounds and gut microbiota didn’t assert that “all humans” had certain gut microbiota that converted glucosinolates to isothiocyanates. That paper instead stated: “Human feeding trials have shown inter-individual variations in gut microbiome composition coincides with variations in ITC absorption and excretion, and some bacteria produce ITCs from glucosinolates.”

3. Nearly half of their cited references were in vitro cancer papers. I rarely curate those types of studies because of their undisclosed human-irrelevant factors. For example, from the second paper of Polyphenol Nrf2 activators:

Bioavailability studies reveal that maximum concentrations in plasma typically do not exceed 1 µM following consumption of 10–100 mg of a single phenolic compound, with the maximum concentration occurring typically less than 2 h after ingestion, then dropping quickly thereafter. In the case of the in vitro studies assessed herein, and with few exceptions, most of the studies employed concentrations >10 µM with some studies involving concentrations in the several hundred µM range, with the duration of exposure typically in the range of 24–72 h, far longer duration than the very short time interval of a few minutes to several hours in human in vivo situations.

applsci-15-00522-g001-550

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/2/522 “The Impact of Sulforaphane on Sex-Specific Conditions and Hormone Balance: A Comprehensive Review”