#medicalscience — Public Fediverse posts

#Cholesterol #HeartDisease #Statins #LDLCholesterol #Inflammation #CardiovascularHealth #HealthFacts #MedicalScience #biohacking #biohacker #biohackingsecrets #biohackers #biohacks #biohackinglife #ScientificDebate #HealthDiscussion https://mastodon.social/@biohackingpathway/116580430132699770

#Cholesterol #HeartDisease #Statins #LDLCholesterol #Inflammation #CardiovascularHealth #HealthFacts #MedicalScience #biohacking #biohacker #biohackingsecrets #biohackers #biohacks #biohackinglife #ScientificDebate #HealthDiscussion https://mastodon.social/@biohackingpathway/116580430132699770

RFK JR ON THE ALLERGY EPIDEMIC NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT

The EXPLOSION of lifelong allergies in our kids: ALUMINUM ADJUVANTS in VACCINES.

Aluminum doesn’t “boost” immunity — it provokes a permanent allergic response to ANY protein it’s injected with.

Vaccines are loaded with proteins from:

• Egg
• Beef
• Pork
• Dairy (casein)

Mix those with ALUMINUM… and you get lifelong allergies to those exact foods.

They’ve even done it deliberately in labs: aluminum from the Hep B vaccine + latex molecule = rats with permanent latex allergy. Same with peanuts, dairy — you name it.

Even worse? Whatever is floating in the environment the day your child gets the shot becomes a lifelong trigger. Pollen. Dust. Mold. Pet dander. Peanut particles in the air. It doesn’t matter. Aluminum locks it in.

This is why we suddenly have a generation of kids allergic to everything. The studies RFK Jr. cites show vaccinated kids have 30X higher rates of allergic rhinitis. The food allergy epidemic tracks exactly with the rollout of aluminum-containing shots.

We’ve been conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on our children — and the result is an entire generation hooked on EpiPens, inhalers, and avoidance diets.

If you are still pro-vaccine, you are anti-science because the truth is out.

The allergy explosion isn’t random. It was engineered into the shots.

link

One Rare Condition Seems to Protect The Brain From Schizophrenia. Via @sciencealert #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology

One Rare Condition Seems to Pr...

Обычно путь от лабораторного открытия до аптечного прилавка занимает **10–15 лет**, но история знает исключения, когда научный прорыв внедрялся в практику с невероятной скоростью.
Ниже приведены примеры самых быстрых «прыжков» из лаборатории в клинику:
### 1. Вакцины против COVID-19 (2020) — **~11 месяцев**
Это абсолютный рекорд в истории современной медицины.
* **Событие:** С момента публикации генетического кода вируса SARS-CoV-2 (январь 2020) до одобрения первой вакцины (декабрь 2020) прошло менее года.
* **Почему так быстро:** Использование готовых платформ мРНК, огромные инвестиции и совмещение фаз клинических испытаний.
### 2. Инсулин (1921–1922) — **~8 месяцев**
Один из самых драматичных и быстрых примеров спасения жизней.
* **Открытие:** Фредерик Бантинг и Чарльз Бест выделили инсулин летом 1921 года.
* **Внедрение:** Уже в январе 1922 года первую инъекцию получил 14-летний Леонард Томпсон, находившийся при смерти. Массовое производство началось практически сразу.
### 3. Пенициллин (во время Второй мировой войны) — **~3–4 года**
Хотя Александр Флеминг открыл его в 1928 году, вещество оставалось «лабораторным курьезом» более 10 лет.
* **Рывок:** В 1940 году группа Флори и Чейна доказала эффективность на мышах. К 1943–1944 годам, под давлением нужд фронта, США развернули промышленное производство, превратив научную статью в стандарт лечения инфекций за считанные годы.
### 4. Современные таргетные препараты (Осимертиниб) — **~2.7 года**
В сфере онкологии обычно всё очень долго, но препарат **Osimertinib** (для лечения рака легких) прошел путь от первых тестов на людях до одобрения FDA невероятно быстро.
* **Срок:** Первая фаза испытаний началась в марте 2013 года, а ускоренное одобрение было получено уже в ноябре 2015 года (всего **984 дня**).
### 5. Диэтиловый эфир (анестезия, 1846) — **несколько недель**
Пример того, как открытие распространялось до появления жесткого регулирования.
* **Событие:** 16 октября 1846 года Уильям Мортон публично продемонстрировал эфирный наркоз.
* **Внедрение:** Уже через несколько месяцев операции под наркозом начали проводить по всему миру, включая Европу и Российскую империю (Николай Пирогов применил его в полевых условиях уже в 1847 году).
### Что мешает делать это быстрее сегодня?
Сегодня средний срок в 12 лет обусловлен не медлительностью ученых, а **безопасностью**:
1. **Клинические фазы:** Проверка на токсичность, эффективность и отдаленные последствия.
2. **Регуляция:** Бюрократические фильтры (FDA, EMA), которые отсеивают до 90% кандидатов на стадии испытаний.
3. **«Долина смерти»:** Проблема финансирования этапа между лабораторным успехом и началом дорогих испытаний на людях.
**Будущее:** С применением **ИИ** (как в случае с антибиотиком *Halicin* или препаратом *DSP-1181*) этап поиска нужной молекулы сокращается с лет до месяцев, что в теории может ускорить весь цикл разработки лекарств в 2–3 раза.

https://bastyon.com/post?s=b530c136beac197caf8f416557ba78ffc85e915679476de17b5d025a908d7b26&ref=PJ51iZCUEtcVrCj4Wof8Am7FbKLgbAJ7PS

Вот подборка хэштегов, разделенных по тематикам, которые соответствуют контексту медицинских прорывов и технологий:
### Основные (на русском)
#медицина #наука #здоровье #технологии #инновации #открытия #биотехнологии #будущее #врачи #фармацевтика
### Профессиональные и узкие
#medicalscience #biotech #Rnd #клиническиеисследования #мРНК #геннаяинженерия #фарма #medtech
### Тренды и ИИ
#AIinMedicine #ИИвмедицине #цифроваямедицина #HealthTech #Biohacking #биохакинг
### Исторический контекст
#историямедицины #научныйпрорыв #пенициллин #инсулин #научныйфакт
### Для охватов (на английском)
#medicine #science #breakthrough #innovation #healthcare #futureofmedicine #medicaldiscovery
**Совет:** Если вы планируете пост в Telegram или Instagram, лучше использовать 5–7 наиболее релевантных хэштегов (например, 2 широких, 2 тематических и 1–2 на английском), чтобы не перегружать текст и не попадать под фильтры спама.

Этот материал публикуется под лицензией **Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)**. Вы можете свободно копировать, изменять и использовать этот текст в любых целях (включая коммерческие). Обязательное условие — указание авторства и ссылки на источник.

Обычно путь от лабораторного открытия до аптечного прилавка занимает **10–15 лет**, но история знает исключения, когда научный прорыв внедрялся в практику с невероятной скоростью.
Ниже приведены примеры самых быстрых «прыжков» из лаборатории в клинику:
### 1. Вакцины против COVID-19 (2020) — **~11 месяцев**
Это абсолютный рекорд в истории современной медицины.
* **Событие:** С момента публикации генетического кода вируса SARS-CoV-2 (январь 2020) до одобрения первой вакцины (декабрь 2020) прошло менее года.
* **Почему так быстро:** Использование готовых платформ мРНК, огромные инвестиции и совмещение фаз клинических испытаний.
### 2. Инсулин (1921–1922) — **~8 месяцев**
Один из самых драматичных и быстрых примеров спасения жизней.
* **Открытие:** Фредерик Бантинг и Чарльз Бест выделили инсулин летом 1921 года.
* **Внедрение:** Уже в январе 1922 года первую инъекцию получил 14-летний Леонард Томпсон, находившийся при смерти. Массовое производство началось практически сразу.
### 3. Пенициллин (во время Второй мировой войны) — **~3–4 года**
Хотя Александр Флеминг открыл его в 1928 году, вещество оставалось «лабораторным курьезом» более 10 лет.
* **Рывок:** В 1940 году группа Флори и Чейна доказала эффективность на мышах. К 1943–1944 годам, под давлением нужд фронта, США развернули промышленное производство, превратив научную статью в стандарт лечения инфекций за считанные годы.
### 4. Современные таргетные препараты (Осимертиниб) — **~2.7 года**
В сфере онкологии обычно всё очень долго, но препарат **Osimertinib** (для лечения рака легких) прошел путь от первых тестов на людях до одобрения FDA невероятно быстро.
* **Срок:** Первая фаза испытаний началась в марте 2013 года, а ускоренное одобрение было получено уже в ноябре 2015 года (всего **984 дня**).
### 5. Диэтиловый эфир (анестезия, 1846) — **несколько недель**
Пример того, как открытие распространялось до появления жесткого регулирования.
* **Событие:** 16 октября 1846 года Уильям Мортон публично продемонстрировал эфирный наркоз.
* **Внедрение:** Уже через несколько месяцев операции под наркозом начали проводить по всему миру, включая Европу и Российскую империю (Николай Пирогов применил его в полевых условиях уже в 1847 году).
### Что мешает делать это быстрее сегодня?
Сегодня средний срок в 12 лет обусловлен не медлительностью ученых, а **безопасностью**:
1. **Клинические фазы:** Проверка на токсичность, эффективность и отдаленные последствия.
2. **Регуляция:** Бюрократические фильтры (FDA, EMA), которые отсеивают до 90% кандидатов на стадии испытаний.
3. **«Долина смерти»:** Проблема финансирования этапа между лабораторным успехом и началом дорогих испытаний на людях.
**Будущее:** С применением **ИИ** (как в случае с антибиотиком *Halicin* или препаратом *DSP-1181*) этап поиска нужной молекулы сокращается с лет до месяцев, что в теории может ускорить весь цикл разработки лекарств в 2–3 раза.

https://bastyon.com/post?s=b530c136beac197caf8f416557ba78ffc85e915679476de17b5d025a908d7b26&ref=PJ51iZCUEtcVrCj4Wof8Am7FbKLgbAJ7PS

Вот подборка хэштегов, разделенных по тематикам, которые соответствуют контексту медицинских прорывов и технологий:
### Основные (на русском)
#медицина #наука #здоровье #технологии #инновации #открытия #биотехнологии #будущее #врачи #фармацевтика
### Профессиональные и узкие
#medicalscience #biotech #Rnd #клиническиеисследования #мРНК #геннаяинженерия #фарма #medtech
### Тренды и ИИ
#AIinMedicine #ИИвмедицине #цифроваямедицина #HealthTech #Biohacking #биохакинг
### Исторический контекст
#историямедицины #научныйпрорыв #пенициллин #инсулин #научныйфакт
### Для охватов (на английском)
#medicine #science #breakthrough #innovation #healthcare #futureofmedicine #medicaldiscovery
**Совет:** Если вы планируете пост в Telegram или Instagram, лучше использовать 5–7 наиболее релевантных хэштегов (например, 2 широких, 2 тематических и 1–2 на английском), чтобы не перегружать текст и не попадать под фильтры спама.

Этот материал публикуется под лицензией **Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)**. Вы можете свободно копировать, изменять и использовать этот текст в любых целях (включая коммерческие). Обязательное условие — указание авторства и ссылки на источник.

Обычно путь от лабораторного открытия до аптечного прилавка занимает **10–15 лет**, но история знает исключения, когда научный прорыв внедрялся в практику с невероятной скоростью.
Ниже приведены примеры самых быстрых «прыжков» из лаборатории в клинику:
### 1. Вакцины против COVID-19 (2020) — **~11 месяцев**
Это абсолютный рекорд в истории современной медицины.
* **Событие:** С момента публикации генетического кода вируса SARS-CoV-2 (январь 2020) до одобрения первой вакцины (декабрь 2020) прошло менее года.
* **Почему так быстро:** Использование готовых платформ мРНК, огромные инвестиции и совмещение фаз клинических испытаний.
### 2. Инсулин (1921–1922) — **~8 месяцев**
Один из самых драматичных и быстрых примеров спасения жизней.
* **Открытие:** Фредерик Бантинг и Чарльз Бест выделили инсулин летом 1921 года.
* **Внедрение:** Уже в январе 1922 года первую инъекцию получил 14-летний Леонард Томпсон, находившийся при смерти. Массовое производство началось практически сразу.
### 3. Пенициллин (во время Второй мировой войны) — **~3–4 года**
Хотя Александр Флеминг открыл его в 1928 году, вещество оставалось «лабораторным курьезом» более 10 лет.
* **Рывок:** В 1940 году группа Флори и Чейна доказала эффективность на мышах. К 1943–1944 годам, под давлением нужд фронта, США развернули промышленное производство, превратив научную статью в стандарт лечения инфекций за считанные годы.
### 4. Современные таргетные препараты (Осимертиниб) — **~2.7 года**
В сфере онкологии обычно всё очень долго, но препарат **Osimertinib** (для лечения рака легких) прошел путь от первых тестов на людях до одобрения FDA невероятно быстро.
* **Срок:** Первая фаза испытаний началась в марте 2013 года, а ускоренное одобрение было получено уже в ноябре 2015 года (всего **984 дня**).
### 5. Диэтиловый эфир (анестезия, 1846) — **несколько недель**
Пример того, как открытие распространялось до появления жесткого регулирования.
* **Событие:** 16 октября 1846 года Уильям Мортон публично продемонстрировал эфирный наркоз.
* **Внедрение:** Уже через несколько месяцев операции под наркозом начали проводить по всему миру, включая Европу и Российскую империю (Николай Пирогов применил его в полевых условиях уже в 1847 году).
### Что мешает делать это быстрее сегодня?
Сегодня средний срок в 12 лет обусловлен не медлительностью ученых, а **безопасностью**:
1. **Клинические фазы:** Проверка на токсичность, эффективность и отдаленные последствия.
2. **Регуляция:** Бюрократические фильтры (FDA, EMA), которые отсеивают до 90% кандидатов на стадии испытаний.
3. **«Долина смерти»:** Проблема финансирования этапа между лабораторным успехом и началом дорогих испытаний на людях.
**Будущее:** С применением **ИИ** (как в случае с антибиотиком *Halicin* или препаратом *DSP-1181*) этап поиска нужной молекулы сокращается с лет до месяцев, что в теории может ускорить весь цикл разработки лекарств в 2–3 раза.

https://bastyon.com/post?s=b530c136beac197caf8f416557ba78ffc85e915679476de17b5d025a908d7b26&ref=PJ51iZCUEtcVrCj4Wof8Am7FbKLgbAJ7PS

Вот подборка хэштегов, разделенных по тематикам, которые соответствуют контексту медицинских прорывов и технологий:
### Основные (на русском)
#медицина #наука #здоровье #технологии #инновации #открытия #биотехнологии #будущее #врачи #фармацевтика
### Профессиональные и узкие
#medicalscience #biotech #Rnd #клиническиеисследования #мРНК #геннаяинженерия #фарма #medtech
### Тренды и ИИ
#AIinMedicine #ИИвмедицине #цифроваямедицина #HealthTech #Biohacking #биохакинг
### Исторический контекст
#историямедицины #научныйпрорыв #пенициллин #инсулин #научныйфакт
### Для охватов (на английском)
#medicine #science #breakthrough #innovation #healthcare #futureofmedicine #medicaldiscovery
**Совет:** Если вы планируете пост в Telegram или Instagram, лучше использовать 5–7 наиболее релевантных хэштегов (например, 2 широких, 2 тематических и 1–2 на английском), чтобы не перегружать текст и не попадать под фильтры спама.

Этот материал публикуется под лицензией **Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)**. Вы можете свободно копировать, изменять и использовать этот текст в любых целях (включая коммерческие). Обязательное условие — указание авторства и ссылки на источник.

Обычно путь от лабораторного открытия до аптечного прилавка занимает **10–15 лет**, но история знает исключения, когда научный прорыв внедрялся в практику с невероятной скоростью.
Ниже приведены примеры самых быстрых «прыжков» из лаборатории в клинику:
### 1. Вакцины против COVID-19 (2020) — **~11 месяцев**
Это абсолютный рекорд в истории современной медицины.
* **Событие:** С момента публикации генетического кода вируса SARS-CoV-2 (январь 2020) до одобрения первой вакцины (декабрь 2020) прошло менее года.
* **Почему так быстро:** Использование готовых платформ мРНК, огромные инвестиции и совмещение фаз клинических испытаний.
### 2. Инсулин (1921–1922) — **~8 месяцев**
Один из самых драматичных и быстрых примеров спасения жизней.
* **Открытие:** Фредерик Бантинг и Чарльз Бест выделили инсулин летом 1921 года.
* **Внедрение:** Уже в январе 1922 года первую инъекцию получил 14-летний Леонард Томпсон, находившийся при смерти. Массовое производство началось практически сразу.
### 3. Пенициллин (во время Второй мировой войны) — **~3–4 года**
Хотя Александр Флеминг открыл его в 1928 году, вещество оставалось «лабораторным курьезом» более 10 лет.
* **Рывок:** В 1940 году группа Флори и Чейна доказала эффективность на мышах. К 1943–1944 годам, под давлением нужд фронта, США развернули промышленное производство, превратив научную статью в стандарт лечения инфекций за считанные годы.
### 4. Современные таргетные препараты (Осимертиниб) — **~2.7 года**
В сфере онкологии обычно всё очень долго, но препарат **Osimertinib** (для лечения рака легких) прошел путь от первых тестов на людях до одобрения FDA невероятно быстро.
* **Срок:** Первая фаза испытаний началась в марте 2013 года, а ускоренное одобрение было получено уже в ноябре 2015 года (всего **984 дня**).
### 5. Диэтиловый эфир (анестезия, 1846) — **несколько недель**
Пример того, как открытие распространялось до появления жесткого регулирования.
* **Событие:** 16 октября 1846 года Уильям Мортон публично продемонстрировал эфирный наркоз.
* **Внедрение:** Уже через несколько месяцев операции под наркозом начали проводить по всему миру, включая Европу и Российскую империю (Николай Пирогов применил его в полевых условиях уже в 1847 году).
### Что мешает делать это быстрее сегодня?
Сегодня средний срок в 12 лет обусловлен не медлительностью ученых, а **безопасностью**:
1. **Клинические фазы:** Проверка на токсичность, эффективность и отдаленные последствия.
2. **Регуляция:** Бюрократические фильтры (FDA, EMA), которые отсеивают до 90% кандидатов на стадии испытаний.
3. **«Долина смерти»:** Проблема финансирования этапа между лабораторным успехом и началом дорогих испытаний на людях.
**Будущее:** С применением **ИИ** (как в случае с антибиотиком *Halicin* или препаратом *DSP-1181*) этап поиска нужной молекулы сокращается с лет до месяцев, что в теории может ускорить весь цикл разработки лекарств в 2–3 раза.

https://bastyon.com/post?s=b530c136beac197caf8f416557ba78ffc85e915679476de17b5d025a908d7b26&ref=PJ51iZCUEtcVrCj4Wof8Am7FbKLgbAJ7PS

Вот подборка хэштегов, разделенных по тематикам, которые соответствуют контексту медицинских прорывов и технологий:
### Основные (на русском)
#медицина #наука #здоровье #технологии #инновации #открытия #биотехнологии #будущее #врачи #фармацевтика
### Профессиональные и узкие
#medicalscience #biotech #Rnd #клиническиеисследования #мРНК #геннаяинженерия #фарма #medtech
### Тренды и ИИ
#AIinMedicine #ИИвмедицине #цифроваямедицина #HealthTech #Biohacking #биохакинг
### Исторический контекст
#историямедицины #научныйпрорыв #пенициллин #инсулин #научныйфакт
### Для охватов (на английском)
#medicine #science #breakthrough #innovation #healthcare #futureofmedicine #medicaldiscovery
**Совет:** Если вы планируете пост в Telegram или Instagram, лучше использовать 5–7 наиболее релевантных хэштегов (например, 2 широких, 2 тематических и 1–2 на английском), чтобы не перегружать текст и не попадать под фильтры спама.

Этот материал публикуется под лицензией **Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)**. Вы можете свободно копировать, изменять и использовать этот текст в любых целях (включая коммерческие). Обязательное условие — указание авторства и ссылки на источник.

Обычно путь от лабораторного открытия до аптечного прилавка занимает **10–15 лет**, но история знает исключения, когда научный прорыв внедрялся в практику с невероятной скоростью.
Ниже приведены примеры самых быстрых «прыжков» из лаборатории в клинику:
### 1. Вакцины против COVID-19 (2020) — **~11 месяцев**
Это абсолютный рекорд в истории современной медицины.
* **Событие:** С момента публикации генетического кода вируса SARS-CoV-2 (январь 2020) до одобрения первой вакцины (декабрь 2020) прошло менее года.
* **Почему так быстро:** Использование готовых платформ мРНК, огромные инвестиции и совмещение фаз клинических испытаний.
### 2. Инсулин (1921–1922) — **~8 месяцев**
Один из самых драматичных и быстрых примеров спасения жизней.
* **Открытие:** Фредерик Бантинг и Чарльз Бест выделили инсулин летом 1921 года.
* **Внедрение:** Уже в январе 1922 года первую инъекцию получил 14-летний Леонард Томпсон, находившийся при смерти. Массовое производство началось практически сразу.
### 3. Пенициллин (во время Второй мировой войны) — **~3–4 года**
Хотя Александр Флеминг открыл его в 1928 году, вещество оставалось «лабораторным курьезом» более 10 лет.
* **Рывок:** В 1940 году группа Флори и Чейна доказала эффективность на мышах. К 1943–1944 годам, под давлением нужд фронта, США развернули промышленное производство, превратив научную статью в стандарт лечения инфекций за считанные годы.
### 4. Современные таргетные препараты (Осимертиниб) — **~2.7 года**
В сфере онкологии обычно всё очень долго, но препарат **Osimertinib** (для лечения рака легких) прошел путь от первых тестов на людях до одобрения FDA невероятно быстро.
* **Срок:** Первая фаза испытаний началась в марте 2013 года, а ускоренное одобрение было получено уже в ноябре 2015 года (всего **984 дня**).
### 5. Диэтиловый эфир (анестезия, 1846) — **несколько недель**
Пример того, как открытие распространялось до появления жесткого регулирования.
* **Событие:** 16 октября 1846 года Уильям Мортон публично продемонстрировал эфирный наркоз.
* **Внедрение:** Уже через несколько месяцев операции под наркозом начали проводить по всему миру, включая Европу и Российскую империю (Николай Пирогов применил его в полевых условиях уже в 1847 году).
### Что мешает делать это быстрее сегодня?
Сегодня средний срок в 12 лет обусловлен не медлительностью ученых, а **безопасностью**:
1. **Клинические фазы:** Проверка на токсичность, эффективность и отдаленные последствия.
2. **Регуляция:** Бюрократические фильтры (FDA, EMA), которые отсеивают до 90% кандидатов на стадии испытаний.
3. **«Долина смерти»:** Проблема финансирования этапа между лабораторным успехом и началом дорогих испытаний на людях.
**Будущее:** С применением **ИИ** (как в случае с антибиотиком *Halicin* или препаратом *DSP-1181*) этап поиска нужной молекулы сокращается с лет до месяцев, что в теории может ускорить весь цикл разработки лекарств в 2–3 раза.

https://bastyon.com/post?s=b530c136beac197caf8f416557ba78ffc85e915679476de17b5d025a908d7b26&ref=PJ51iZCUEtcVrCj4Wof8Am7FbKLgbAJ7PS

Вот подборка хэштегов, разделенных по тематикам, которые соответствуют контексту медицинских прорывов и технологий:
### Основные (на русском)
#медицина #наука #здоровье #технологии #инновации #открытия #биотехнологии #будущее #врачи #фармацевтика
### Профессиональные и узкие
#medicalscience #biotech #Rnd #клиническиеисследования #мРНК #геннаяинженерия #фарма #medtech
### Тренды и ИИ
#AIinMedicine #ИИвмедицине #цифроваямедицина #HealthTech #Biohacking #биохакинг
### Исторический контекст
#историямедицины #научныйпрорыв #пенициллин #инсулин #научныйфакт
### Для охватов (на английском)
#medicine #science #breakthrough #innovation #healthcare #futureofmedicine #medicaldiscovery
**Совет:** Если вы планируете пост в Telegram или Instagram, лучше использовать 5–7 наиболее релевантных хэштегов (например, 2 широких, 2 тематических и 1–2 на английском), чтобы не перегружать текст и не попадать под фильтры спама.

Этот материал публикуется под лицензией **Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)**. Вы можете свободно копировать, изменять и использовать этот текст в любых целях (включая коммерческие). Обязательное условие — указание авторства и ссылки на источник.

Serotonin, a history of lies — Chris Masterjohn

Until the concept of reuptake inhibition is recognized fundamentally as propaganda instead of science, no one is going to understand why these drugs cause birth defects and alterations to fetal brain development or why they stop you from being able to feel your genitals and nipples or why tapering from long-term use causes catastrophic new-onset syndromes that have little to do with why anyone took them in the first place.

Serotonin was first named “enteramine” in 1935 meaning “an amino acid derivative present in the gut.”

It was named “serotonin” in 1948, meaning “substance in the blood (sero- for serum) that increases vasoconstriction (-tonin for vascular tone).

In 1952, it was established that entermaine and serotonin were the same compound.

Had serotonin research not been completely perverted by Pharma, it would have become rapidly apparent that these are deeply connected: serotonin’s one role in the entire body is to coordinate mitochondrial function in response to variation in the supply and demand of oxygen. It regulates motility in the gut to prevent local hypoxia. It coordinates blood flow to maximize efficiency of oxygen delivery.

But when SSRIs were released in 1986, Pharma solidified the destruction of these lines of inquiry by selecting a thread started by the influence of LSD in the 1950s that claimed serotonin was a lever to be pulled to manipulate the state of the brain.

The “R” in SSRIs is an insidious lie.

It implies that SSRIs specifically inhibit “reuptake” of serotonin, a phenomenon only relevant to the first neuron of a synapse.

This created the total mythology that the one thing they do is keep serotonin in the synapse longer to have greater activity on the receiving neuron.

They knew this was false.

They knew these are generic inhibitors of the serotonin transporter, which is not primarily found in the brain and is not primarily found in neurons.

Its has tremendous expression in the gut, lungs, and reproductive organs.

It’s found inside cells, most likely mediating the established direct transport of serotonin into mitochondria.

On a cellular basis the highest expression is in enterocytes, not in enteric neurons, and in the placenta.

The word “SSRI” is pure propaganda meant to cut out almost all of the relevant serotonin research in the way that Stalin cut out Trotsky from all the pictures of the two of them with Lenin to paint himself as Lenin’s true successor.

They are “serotonin transporter inhibitors.”

Until the concept of reuptake inhibition is recognized fundamentally as propaganda instead of science, no one is going to understand why these drugs cause birth defects and alterations to fetal brain development or why they stop you from being able to feel your genitals and nipples or why tapering from long-term use causes catastrophic new-onset syndromes that have little to do with why anyone took them in the first place.

link

Some gene therapies no longer require clinical trials, thanks to new FDA rule. Is this safe, and who will it help?. Via @live_science #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #Science #CRISPR 🔭🔬🧪🥼🧑‍🔬

Some gene therapies no longer ...

Some gene therapies no longer require clinical trials, thanks to new FDA rule. Is this safe, and who will it help?. Via @live_science #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #Science #CRISPR 🔭🔬🧪🥼🧑‍🔬

Some gene therapies no longer ...

Some gene therapies no longer require clinical trials, thanks to new FDA rule. Is this safe, and who will it help?. Via @live_science #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #Science #CRISPR 🔭🔬🧪🥼🧑‍🔬

Some gene therapies no longer ...

Some gene therapies no longer require clinical trials, thanks to new FDA rule. Is this safe, and who will it help?. Via @live_science #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #Science #CRISPR 🔭🔬🧪🥼🧑‍🔬

Some gene therapies no longer ...

A Single Dose of Psilocybin Induces Lasting Brain Changes, New Study Suggests. Via @sciencealert #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology

A Single Dose of Psilocybin In...

How a vision-restoring gene therapy proved that we can treat inherited diseases. Via @scientific_american #Science 🔭🔬🧪🥼🧑‍🔬 #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷

How a vision-restoring gene th...

World ‘unprepared’ for next pandemic as countries fail to agree on sharing information, tests and vaccines. Via @guardian #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷

World ‘unprepared’ for next pa...

What My Father’s Experience Taught Me About Memory and the Brain. Via @nytimes #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology

nytimes.com/2026/05/07/sci...

The brain's memory center doesn't start as a blank slate, study suggests. Via @live_science #Science 🔭🔬🧪🥼🧑‍🔬 #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology

The brain's memory center does...

Johnson & Johnson completes clinical study for OTTAVA robotic surgical system - Via @therobotreport #AI #ArtificialIntelligence 💻 🧠 #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #Robotics 🤖

Johnson & Johnson completes cl...

An AI Just Beat Doctors at Diagnosing ER Patients. Via @singularityhub #AI #ArtificialIntelligence 💻 🤖 🧠 #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷

An AI Just Beat Doctors at Dia...

Why the vitamin K injection at birth is misguided — Dr Colleen Huber

This article is misleading and is dangerous to infants.

It ignores the hazards of injecting newborns with toxins such as propylene glycol, polysorbate 80, benzyl alcohol and highly neurotoxic aluminum in vitamin K shots given hours after birth.

It fails to acknowledge the high vitamin K in colostrum, available to infants as soon as born, the earliest breast milk.

It fails to acknowledge much safer vitamin K orally to the mother within the days before birth.

Blood needs to be thinner at birth, and cord-cutting needs to be delayed a few minutes so blood shunted back to the placenta in birth canal can return to the infant with the infant’s own stem cells for lifelong benefit.

But pharma-allied Pro Publica hides all that in their shameful and dangerous propaganda piece, because there is huge $$ for stealing cord blood and placenta from mother and baby, to sell for profit to the “anti-aging” industry.

link

Some Signs of Depression May Show Up in Blood, Study Finds. Via @sciencealert #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology #MentalHealth

Some Signs of Depression May S...

Seattle Statement on Glyphosate and Public Health

This statement was finalized and adopted at the Seattle Glyphosate Symposium, which took place 25-26 March, 2026 in Seattle, Washington. The statement’s authors are listed below.

Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide (plant killer) typically marketed as Roundup, is the world’s most widely used pesticide. The diversity and magnitude of glyphosate uses in agriculture, in forestry and in industrial, commercial, residential and municipal settings have grown dramatically since first approval in 1974. 

Humans are exposed to glyphosate through direct spraying and other skin contact, through occupational or residential proximity to sprayed areas, through exposure to dust and through consumption of food and water contaminated with glyphosate residues. Food is the main route of exposure for most people while occupational exposures are typically the highest.

National and international biomonitoring surveys detect glyphosate in samples collected from 70-80% of all people examined, including children.

Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) harm human health and can cause cancer. The comprehensive evidence supports this conclusion, with the strongest epidemiological evidence linking exposure to increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system.

There is additional evidence from human and/or animal studies that glyphosate and GBHs increase the risk of multiple adverse health effects in addition to cancer, including diseases of the kidney and liver, and impacts to the reproductive, endocrine, neurological, and other metabolic systems. Children, infants and fetuses are the most susceptible. 

Further strong evidence finds that glyphosate and GBHs cause genetic damage, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruption — biological changes that can set disease in motion. Our understanding of glyphosate’s ability to cause these changes has developed from multiple lines of evidence in animal, human and in vitro studies.

Additional research is needed to better understand the full extent of glyphosate’s and GBH’s effects on human health and the underlying mechanisms involved, such as epigenetic alterations, microbiome disruption and endocrine effects. 

The evidence that glyphosate and GBHs harm human health at levels of current use is now so strong that no additional delays in regulation of glyphosate can be justified. Regulatory agencies in countries around the world should treat glyphosate and GBHs as hazardous, as some countries have started to do. Agencies should act without further delay to limit their use, or eliminate them if legally required, to protect public health. 

Preventive measures to reduce human exposures while handling and applying glyphosate are accessible, proven effective, and inexpensive. These actions should be implemented without delay while research continues.

Safeguards must be implemented to ensure that any reduction in glyphosate use does not result in regrettable increases in the use of other equally or more harmful pesticides, for example paraquat. 

Glyphosate is not the only pesticide that has been inadequately evaluated or regulated. The approval processes globally for all existing and new pesticides are weak and fail to protect human health, especially the health of infants and children. This system needs to be fundamentally revised. Regulatory agencies need to make pesticide approval decisions based on a more comprehensive and unbiased suite of health effects data. If pesticide use is approved, these agencies must closely monitor use, exposure data and harmful outcomes, especially for susceptible and highly exposed groups. The costs of obtaining such data must be borne by the pesticide industry, but the testing must be conducted by laboratories and organizations independent of the pesticide industry and free from financial conflicts of interest (COI), defined as funding from industries and trade associations that have a financial stake in the outcome.

Risk-assessment methods and processes used to evaluate pesticides must be updated to use best-available science, including: using transparent, consistent and unbiased approaches to evaluate all the evidence; accounting for human variability and susceptible populations such as fetuses, infants and children, and highly exposed populations such as farmworkers; accounting for cumulative exposures and risks for pesticides that contribute to common adverse health outcomes; and identifying adverse health effects and risks at all exposure levels. This is clearly not the case now.

All scientific evidence used in pesticide evaluations must be publicly available, not labeled proprietary or restricted to active ingredients, and must comply with laws protecting human subjects in research. Financial COI, which do not include government funding, must be addressed throughout the research and regulatory processes, including accounting for bias from industry-funded studies, and ensuring that individuals with financial COI are barred from participating in scientific advisory panels and other bodies that formally review scientific data.

Ultimately, pesticide use must be reduced overall, and eliminated to the extent possible. This is consistent with the United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework global target to reduce pesticide risks by 50% by 2030 relative to 2010–2020 and replace pesticides with safer, more sustainable pest control systems that rely more on prevention than treatment. This is imperative for the health of humans, ecosystems and future generations.

link

Signed by (Affiliations noted for identification purposes only)

Lianne Sheppard, PhD
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Nathan Donley, PhD
Center for Biological Diversity, Olympia, Washington

Cynthia Curl, MS, PhD
School of Public and Population Health, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho

Luoping Zhang, PhD, MS
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California

Rashmi Joglekar, PhD
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. Kurt Straif, MD, PhD
Boston College, Massachusetts, and ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain

Audrey E. Tran Lam, MPH
Center for Energy & Environmental Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa

Dr. Lee A. Evslin, MD, FAAP
Hawaii Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Kapaa, Hawaii

Alice Livingston-Ortolani, PhD
University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

Brenda Eskenazi, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Peter Clausing, PhD
Pesticide Action Network, Germany

Maryse F. Bouchard, PhD
Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Montréal, Canada

Robin Mesnage, PhD
King’s College London, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Germany

Naomi Oreskes, PhD
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Grant Hopkins
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Robert Gunier, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Naila Khalil, MBBS, MPH, PhD
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Amanda Claire Starbuck, MA
Food & Water Watch, Longmont, Colorado

Johann Zaller, PhD
BOKU University, Institute of Zoology, Vienna, Austria

Dr. Janet Perlman, MD, MPH, FAAP
University of California at San Francisco, Berkeley, California

Dr. Eve Shapiro, MD, MPH
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Dianne Glover, MD
Providence/Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington

Sun-Young Kim, PhD
National Cancer Center of Korea, Goyang, Korea

Muhammad Zahid, PhD, MPH
College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Andrew Smith, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer, Rodale Institute, Kutztown, Pennsylvania

Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, FAAP
Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts

Christopher J. Portier, PhD
Former Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Former Director, National Center for Environmental Health, Former Associate Director, National Toxicology Program, Thune, Switzerland

Dr. Daniele Mandrioli, MD, PhD
Secretary General, Collegium Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Charles Benbrook, PhD
Benbrook Consulting Services, Lakeville, Maine

Dr. Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, FSPH
University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

Alexandra Muñoz, MS, PhD
Independent Toxicologist, Miami, Florida

Anne Riederer, PhD
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Jennifer Fung, PhD
University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California

Catherine Hong
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Karie L. Knoke
Benbrook Consulting Service, Sandpoint, Idaho

Dr. Dennis D. Weisenburger, MD
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Alexander A. Kaurov, PhD
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Kelly Ryerson, MBA
American Regeneration, Miami, Florida

Yogi Hendlin, PhD
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Melinda Hemmelgarn, MS, RD
Beyond Pesticides, Columbia, Missouri

Kendra Klein, PhD
Friends of the Earth, Washington D.C.

Erik Millstone, PhD
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, England, United Kingdom

Noreen Mucha, MPA
Wisconsin Organics, Waukesha, Wisconsin

Dr. Kambria Beck Holder, MD
Family Physician, Kilauea, Hawaii

Dr. Stephanie Blount, MD
Pediatrician, West Palm Beach, Florida

Carsten A. Brühl, PhD
Technical University Kaiserslautern – Landau, Institute for Environmental Sciences, Landau, Germany

Dr. Ana M. Mora, MD, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Dr. Michael W. Schwartz, MD
Professor of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Seattle Statement on Glyphosate and Public Health

This statement was finalized and adopted at the Seattle Glyphosate Symposium, which took place 25-26 March, 2026 in Seattle, Washington. The statement’s authors are listed below.

Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide (plant killer) typically marketed as Roundup, is the world’s most widely used pesticide. The diversity and magnitude of glyphosate uses in agriculture, in forestry and in industrial, commercial, residential and municipal settings have grown dramatically since first approval in 1974. 

Humans are exposed to glyphosate through direct spraying and other skin contact, through occupational or residential proximity to sprayed areas, through exposure to dust and through consumption of food and water contaminated with glyphosate residues. Food is the main route of exposure for most people while occupational exposures are typically the highest.

National and international biomonitoring surveys detect glyphosate in samples collected from 70-80% of all people examined, including children.

Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) harm human health and can cause cancer. The comprehensive evidence supports this conclusion, with the strongest epidemiological evidence linking exposure to increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system.

There is additional evidence from human and/or animal studies that glyphosate and GBHs increase the risk of multiple adverse health effects in addition to cancer, including diseases of the kidney and liver, and impacts to the reproductive, endocrine, neurological, and other metabolic systems. Children, infants and fetuses are the most susceptible. 

Further strong evidence finds that glyphosate and GBHs cause genetic damage, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruption — biological changes that can set disease in motion. Our understanding of glyphosate’s ability to cause these changes has developed from multiple lines of evidence in animal, human and in vitro studies.

Additional research is needed to better understand the full extent of glyphosate’s and GBH’s effects on human health and the underlying mechanisms involved, such as epigenetic alterations, microbiome disruption and endocrine effects. 

The evidence that glyphosate and GBHs harm human health at levels of current use is now so strong that no additional delays in regulation of glyphosate can be justified. Regulatory agencies in countries around the world should treat glyphosate and GBHs as hazardous, as some countries have started to do. Agencies should act without further delay to limit their use, or eliminate them if legally required, to protect public health. 

Preventive measures to reduce human exposures while handling and applying glyphosate are accessible, proven effective, and inexpensive. These actions should be implemented without delay while research continues.

Safeguards must be implemented to ensure that any reduction in glyphosate use does not result in regrettable increases in the use of other equally or more harmful pesticides, for example paraquat. 

Glyphosate is not the only pesticide that has been inadequately evaluated or regulated. The approval processes globally for all existing and new pesticides are weak and fail to protect human health, especially the health of infants and children. This system needs to be fundamentally revised. Regulatory agencies need to make pesticide approval decisions based on a more comprehensive and unbiased suite of health effects data. If pesticide use is approved, these agencies must closely monitor use, exposure data and harmful outcomes, especially for susceptible and highly exposed groups. The costs of obtaining such data must be borne by the pesticide industry, but the testing must be conducted by laboratories and organizations independent of the pesticide industry and free from financial conflicts of interest (COI), defined as funding from industries and trade associations that have a financial stake in the outcome.

Risk-assessment methods and processes used to evaluate pesticides must be updated to use best-available science, including: using transparent, consistent and unbiased approaches to evaluate all the evidence; accounting for human variability and susceptible populations such as fetuses, infants and children, and highly exposed populations such as farmworkers; accounting for cumulative exposures and risks for pesticides that contribute to common adverse health outcomes; and identifying adverse health effects and risks at all exposure levels. This is clearly not the case now.

All scientific evidence used in pesticide evaluations must be publicly available, not labeled proprietary or restricted to active ingredients, and must comply with laws protecting human subjects in research. Financial COI, which do not include government funding, must be addressed throughout the research and regulatory processes, including accounting for bias from industry-funded studies, and ensuring that individuals with financial COI are barred from participating in scientific advisory panels and other bodies that formally review scientific data.

Ultimately, pesticide use must be reduced overall, and eliminated to the extent possible. This is consistent with the United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework global target to reduce pesticide risks by 50% by 2030 relative to 2010–2020 and replace pesticides with safer, more sustainable pest control systems that rely more on prevention than treatment. This is imperative for the health of humans, ecosystems and future generations.

link

Signed by (Affiliations noted for identification purposes only)

Lianne Sheppard, PhD
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Nathan Donley, PhD
Center for Biological Diversity, Olympia, Washington

Cynthia Curl, MS, PhD
School of Public and Population Health, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho

Luoping Zhang, PhD, MS
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California

Rashmi Joglekar, PhD
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. Kurt Straif, MD, PhD
Boston College, Massachusetts, and ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain

Audrey E. Tran Lam, MPH
Center for Energy & Environmental Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa

Dr. Lee A. Evslin, MD, FAAP
Hawaii Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Kapaa, Hawaii

Alice Livingston-Ortolani, PhD
University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

Brenda Eskenazi, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Peter Clausing, PhD
Pesticide Action Network, Germany

Maryse F. Bouchard, PhD
Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Montréal, Canada

Robin Mesnage, PhD
King’s College London, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Germany

Naomi Oreskes, PhD
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Grant Hopkins
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Robert Gunier, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Naila Khalil, MBBS, MPH, PhD
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Amanda Claire Starbuck, MA
Food & Water Watch, Longmont, Colorado

Johann Zaller, PhD
BOKU University, Institute of Zoology, Vienna, Austria

Dr. Janet Perlman, MD, MPH, FAAP
University of California at San Francisco, Berkeley, California

Dr. Eve Shapiro, MD, MPH
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Dianne Glover, MD
Providence/Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington

Sun-Young Kim, PhD
National Cancer Center of Korea, Goyang, Korea

Muhammad Zahid, PhD, MPH
College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Andrew Smith, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer, Rodale Institute, Kutztown, Pennsylvania

Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, FAAP
Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts

Christopher J. Portier, PhD
Former Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Former Director, National Center for Environmental Health, Former Associate Director, National Toxicology Program, Thune, Switzerland

Dr. Daniele Mandrioli, MD, PhD
Secretary General, Collegium Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Charles Benbrook, PhD
Benbrook Consulting Services, Lakeville, Maine

Dr. Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, FSPH
University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

Alexandra Muñoz, MS, PhD
Independent Toxicologist, Miami, Florida

Anne Riederer, PhD
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Jennifer Fung, PhD
University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California

Catherine Hong
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Karie L. Knoke
Benbrook Consulting Service, Sandpoint, Idaho

Dr. Dennis D. Weisenburger, MD
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Alexander A. Kaurov, PhD
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Kelly Ryerson, MBA
American Regeneration, Miami, Florida

Yogi Hendlin, PhD
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Melinda Hemmelgarn, MS, RD
Beyond Pesticides, Columbia, Missouri

Kendra Klein, PhD
Friends of the Earth, Washington D.C.

Erik Millstone, PhD
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, England, United Kingdom

Noreen Mucha, MPA
Wisconsin Organics, Waukesha, Wisconsin

Dr. Kambria Beck Holder, MD
Family Physician, Kilauea, Hawaii

Dr. Stephanie Blount, MD
Pediatrician, West Palm Beach, Florida

Carsten A. Brühl, PhD
Technical University Kaiserslautern – Landau, Institute for Environmental Sciences, Landau, Germany

Dr. Ana M. Mora, MD, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Dr. Michael W. Schwartz, MD
Professor of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Seattle Statement on Glyphosate and Public Health

This statement was finalized and adopted at the Seattle Glyphosate Symposium, which took place 25-26 March, 2026 in Seattle, Washington. The statement’s authors are listed below.

Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide (plant killer) typically marketed as Roundup, is the world’s most widely used pesticide. The diversity and magnitude of glyphosate uses in agriculture, in forestry and in industrial, commercial, residential and municipal settings have grown dramatically since first approval in 1974. 

Humans are exposed to glyphosate through direct spraying and other skin contact, through occupational or residential proximity to sprayed areas, through exposure to dust and through consumption of food and water contaminated with glyphosate residues. Food is the main route of exposure for most people while occupational exposures are typically the highest.

National and international biomonitoring surveys detect glyphosate in samples collected from 70-80% of all people examined, including children.

Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) harm human health and can cause cancer. The comprehensive evidence supports this conclusion, with the strongest epidemiological evidence linking exposure to increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system.

There is additional evidence from human and/or animal studies that glyphosate and GBHs increase the risk of multiple adverse health effects in addition to cancer, including diseases of the kidney and liver, and impacts to the reproductive, endocrine, neurological, and other metabolic systems. Children, infants and fetuses are the most susceptible. 

Further strong evidence finds that glyphosate and GBHs cause genetic damage, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruption — biological changes that can set disease in motion. Our understanding of glyphosate’s ability to cause these changes has developed from multiple lines of evidence in animal, human and in vitro studies.

Additional research is needed to better understand the full extent of glyphosate’s and GBH’s effects on human health and the underlying mechanisms involved, such as epigenetic alterations, microbiome disruption and endocrine effects. 

The evidence that glyphosate and GBHs harm human health at levels of current use is now so strong that no additional delays in regulation of glyphosate can be justified. Regulatory agencies in countries around the world should treat glyphosate and GBHs as hazardous, as some countries have started to do. Agencies should act without further delay to limit their use, or eliminate them if legally required, to protect public health. 

Preventive measures to reduce human exposures while handling and applying glyphosate are accessible, proven effective, and inexpensive. These actions should be implemented without delay while research continues.

Safeguards must be implemented to ensure that any reduction in glyphosate use does not result in regrettable increases in the use of other equally or more harmful pesticides, for example paraquat. 

Glyphosate is not the only pesticide that has been inadequately evaluated or regulated. The approval processes globally for all existing and new pesticides are weak and fail to protect human health, especially the health of infants and children. This system needs to be fundamentally revised. Regulatory agencies need to make pesticide approval decisions based on a more comprehensive and unbiased suite of health effects data. If pesticide use is approved, these agencies must closely monitor use, exposure data and harmful outcomes, especially for susceptible and highly exposed groups. The costs of obtaining such data must be borne by the pesticide industry, but the testing must be conducted by laboratories and organizations independent of the pesticide industry and free from financial conflicts of interest (COI), defined as funding from industries and trade associations that have a financial stake in the outcome.

Risk-assessment methods and processes used to evaluate pesticides must be updated to use best-available science, including: using transparent, consistent and unbiased approaches to evaluate all the evidence; accounting for human variability and susceptible populations such as fetuses, infants and children, and highly exposed populations such as farmworkers; accounting for cumulative exposures and risks for pesticides that contribute to common adverse health outcomes; and identifying adverse health effects and risks at all exposure levels. This is clearly not the case now.

All scientific evidence used in pesticide evaluations must be publicly available, not labeled proprietary or restricted to active ingredients, and must comply with laws protecting human subjects in research. Financial COI, which do not include government funding, must be addressed throughout the research and regulatory processes, including accounting for bias from industry-funded studies, and ensuring that individuals with financial COI are barred from participating in scientific advisory panels and other bodies that formally review scientific data.

Ultimately, pesticide use must be reduced overall, and eliminated to the extent possible. This is consistent with the United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework global target to reduce pesticide risks by 50% by 2030 relative to 2010–2020 and replace pesticides with safer, more sustainable pest control systems that rely more on prevention than treatment. This is imperative for the health of humans, ecosystems and future generations.

link

Signed by (Affiliations noted for identification purposes only)

Lianne Sheppard, PhD
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Nathan Donley, PhD
Center for Biological Diversity, Olympia, Washington

Cynthia Curl, MS, PhD
School of Public and Population Health, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho

Luoping Zhang, PhD, MS
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California

Rashmi Joglekar, PhD
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. Kurt Straif, MD, PhD
Boston College, Massachusetts, and ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain

Audrey E. Tran Lam, MPH
Center for Energy & Environmental Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa

Dr. Lee A. Evslin, MD, FAAP
Hawaii Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Kapaa, Hawaii

Alice Livingston-Ortolani, PhD
University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

Brenda Eskenazi, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Peter Clausing, PhD
Pesticide Action Network, Germany

Maryse F. Bouchard, PhD
Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Montréal, Canada

Robin Mesnage, PhD
King’s College London, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Germany

Naomi Oreskes, PhD
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Grant Hopkins
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Robert Gunier, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Naila Khalil, MBBS, MPH, PhD
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Amanda Claire Starbuck, MA
Food & Water Watch, Longmont, Colorado

Johann Zaller, PhD
BOKU University, Institute of Zoology, Vienna, Austria

Dr. Janet Perlman, MD, MPH, FAAP
University of California at San Francisco, Berkeley, California

Dr. Eve Shapiro, MD, MPH
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Dianne Glover, MD
Providence/Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington

Sun-Young Kim, PhD
National Cancer Center of Korea, Goyang, Korea

Muhammad Zahid, PhD, MPH
College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Andrew Smith, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer, Rodale Institute, Kutztown, Pennsylvania

Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, FAAP
Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts

Christopher J. Portier, PhD
Former Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Former Director, National Center for Environmental Health, Former Associate Director, National Toxicology Program, Thune, Switzerland

Dr. Daniele Mandrioli, MD, PhD
Secretary General, Collegium Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Charles Benbrook, PhD
Benbrook Consulting Services, Lakeville, Maine

Dr. Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, FSPH
University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

Alexandra Muñoz, MS, PhD
Independent Toxicologist, Miami, Florida

Anne Riederer, PhD
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Jennifer Fung, PhD
University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California

Catherine Hong
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Karie L. Knoke
Benbrook Consulting Service, Sandpoint, Idaho

Dr. Dennis D. Weisenburger, MD
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Alexander A. Kaurov, PhD
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Kelly Ryerson, MBA
American Regeneration, Miami, Florida

Yogi Hendlin, PhD
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Melinda Hemmelgarn, MS, RD
Beyond Pesticides, Columbia, Missouri

Kendra Klein, PhD
Friends of the Earth, Washington D.C.

Erik Millstone, PhD
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, England, United Kingdom

Noreen Mucha, MPA
Wisconsin Organics, Waukesha, Wisconsin

Dr. Kambria Beck Holder, MD
Family Physician, Kilauea, Hawaii

Dr. Stephanie Blount, MD
Pediatrician, West Palm Beach, Florida

Carsten A. Brühl, PhD
Technical University Kaiserslautern – Landau, Institute for Environmental Sciences, Landau, Germany

Dr. Ana M. Mora, MD, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Dr. Michael W. Schwartz, MD
Professor of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Seattle Statement on Glyphosate and Public Health

This statement was finalized and adopted at the Seattle Glyphosate Symposium, which took place 25-26 March, 2026 in Seattle, Washington. The statement’s authors are listed below.

Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide (plant killer) typically marketed as Roundup, is the world’s most widely used pesticide. The diversity and magnitude of glyphosate uses in agriculture, in forestry and in industrial, commercial, residential and municipal settings have grown dramatically since first approval in 1974. 

Humans are exposed to glyphosate through direct spraying and other skin contact, through occupational or residential proximity to sprayed areas, through exposure to dust and through consumption of food and water contaminated with glyphosate residues. Food is the main route of exposure for most people while occupational exposures are typically the highest.

National and international biomonitoring surveys detect glyphosate in samples collected from 70-80% of all people examined, including children.

Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) harm human health and can cause cancer. The comprehensive evidence supports this conclusion, with the strongest epidemiological evidence linking exposure to increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system.

There is additional evidence from human and/or animal studies that glyphosate and GBHs increase the risk of multiple adverse health effects in addition to cancer, including diseases of the kidney and liver, and impacts to the reproductive, endocrine, neurological, and other metabolic systems. Children, infants and fetuses are the most susceptible. 

Further strong evidence finds that glyphosate and GBHs cause genetic damage, oxidative stress, and hormonal disruption — biological changes that can set disease in motion. Our understanding of glyphosate’s ability to cause these changes has developed from multiple lines of evidence in animal, human and in vitro studies.

Additional research is needed to better understand the full extent of glyphosate’s and GBH’s effects on human health and the underlying mechanisms involved, such as epigenetic alterations, microbiome disruption and endocrine effects. 

The evidence that glyphosate and GBHs harm human health at levels of current use is now so strong that no additional delays in regulation of glyphosate can be justified. Regulatory agencies in countries around the world should treat glyphosate and GBHs as hazardous, as some countries have started to do. Agencies should act without further delay to limit their use, or eliminate them if legally required, to protect public health. 

Preventive measures to reduce human exposures while handling and applying glyphosate are accessible, proven effective, and inexpensive. These actions should be implemented without delay while research continues.

Safeguards must be implemented to ensure that any reduction in glyphosate use does not result in regrettable increases in the use of other equally or more harmful pesticides, for example paraquat. 

Glyphosate is not the only pesticide that has been inadequately evaluated or regulated. The approval processes globally for all existing and new pesticides are weak and fail to protect human health, especially the health of infants and children. This system needs to be fundamentally revised. Regulatory agencies need to make pesticide approval decisions based on a more comprehensive and unbiased suite of health effects data. If pesticide use is approved, these agencies must closely monitor use, exposure data and harmful outcomes, especially for susceptible and highly exposed groups. The costs of obtaining such data must be borne by the pesticide industry, but the testing must be conducted by laboratories and organizations independent of the pesticide industry and free from financial conflicts of interest (COI), defined as funding from industries and trade associations that have a financial stake in the outcome.

Risk-assessment methods and processes used to evaluate pesticides must be updated to use best-available science, including: using transparent, consistent and unbiased approaches to evaluate all the evidence; accounting for human variability and susceptible populations such as fetuses, infants and children, and highly exposed populations such as farmworkers; accounting for cumulative exposures and risks for pesticides that contribute to common adverse health outcomes; and identifying adverse health effects and risks at all exposure levels. This is clearly not the case now.

All scientific evidence used in pesticide evaluations must be publicly available, not labeled proprietary or restricted to active ingredients, and must comply with laws protecting human subjects in research. Financial COI, which do not include government funding, must be addressed throughout the research and regulatory processes, including accounting for bias from industry-funded studies, and ensuring that individuals with financial COI are barred from participating in scientific advisory panels and other bodies that formally review scientific data.

Ultimately, pesticide use must be reduced overall, and eliminated to the extent possible. This is consistent with the United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework global target to reduce pesticide risks by 50% by 2030 relative to 2010–2020 and replace pesticides with safer, more sustainable pest control systems that rely more on prevention than treatment. This is imperative for the health of humans, ecosystems and future generations.

link

Signed by (Affiliations noted for identification purposes only)

Lianne Sheppard, PhD
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Nathan Donley, PhD
Center for Biological Diversity, Olympia, Washington

Cynthia Curl, MS, PhD
School of Public and Population Health, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho

Luoping Zhang, PhD, MS
School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California

Rashmi Joglekar, PhD
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. Kurt Straif, MD, PhD
Boston College, Massachusetts, and ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain

Audrey E. Tran Lam, MPH
Center for Energy & Environmental Education, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa

Dr. Lee A. Evslin, MD, FAAP
Hawaii Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Kapaa, Hawaii

Alice Livingston-Ortolani, PhD
University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

Brenda Eskenazi, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Peter Clausing, PhD
Pesticide Action Network, Germany

Maryse F. Bouchard, PhD
Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Montréal, Canada

Robin Mesnage, PhD
King’s College London, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Germany

Naomi Oreskes, PhD
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Grant Hopkins
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Robert Gunier, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Naila Khalil, MBBS, MPH, PhD
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio

Amanda Claire Starbuck, MA
Food & Water Watch, Longmont, Colorado

Johann Zaller, PhD
BOKU University, Institute of Zoology, Vienna, Austria

Dr. Janet Perlman, MD, MPH, FAAP
University of California at San Francisco, Berkeley, California

Dr. Eve Shapiro, MD, MPH
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Dianne Glover, MD
Providence/Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington

Sun-Young Kim, PhD
National Cancer Center of Korea, Goyang, Korea

Muhammad Zahid, PhD, MPH
College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Andrew Smith, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer, Rodale Institute, Kutztown, Pennsylvania

Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California

Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, FAAP
Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts

Christopher J. Portier, PhD
Former Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Former Director, National Center for Environmental Health, Former Associate Director, National Toxicology Program, Thune, Switzerland

Dr. Daniele Mandrioli, MD, PhD
Secretary General, Collegium Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy

Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Charles Benbrook, PhD
Benbrook Consulting Services, Lakeville, Maine

Dr. Beate Ritz, MD, PhD, FSPH
University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

Alexandra Muñoz, MS, PhD
Independent Toxicologist, Miami, Florida

Anne Riederer, PhD
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Jennifer Fung, PhD
University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California

Catherine Hong
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Karie L. Knoke
Benbrook Consulting Service, Sandpoint, Idaho

Dr. Dennis D. Weisenburger, MD
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

Alexander A. Kaurov, PhD
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Kelly Ryerson, MBA
American Regeneration, Miami, Florida

Yogi Hendlin, PhD
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Melinda Hemmelgarn, MS, RD
Beyond Pesticides, Columbia, Missouri

Kendra Klein, PhD
Friends of the Earth, Washington D.C.

Erik Millstone, PhD
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, England, United Kingdom

Noreen Mucha, MPA
Wisconsin Organics, Waukesha, Wisconsin

Dr. Kambria Beck Holder, MD
Family Physician, Kilauea, Hawaii

Dr. Stephanie Blount, MD
Pediatrician, West Palm Beach, Florida

Carsten A. Brühl, PhD
Technical University Kaiserslautern – Landau, Institute for Environmental Sciences, Landau, Germany

Dr. Ana M. Mora, MD, PhD
School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Dr. Michael W. Schwartz, MD
Professor of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Why Your Brain Can Read Scrambled Words, According to Science. Via @sciencealert #Science 🔭🔬🧪🥼🧑‍🔬 #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology

Why Your Brain Can Read Scramb...

Here's Why Your Brain Shuts Down During Arguments, And What Helps. Via @sciencealert #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology #MentalHealth

Here's Why Your Brain Shuts Do...

AI can reason like a physician—what comes next? Via @sciencemagazine #AI #ArtificialIntelligence 💻 🤖 🧠 #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷

AI can reason like a physician...

People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia – what this tells us about the psychiatric condition
#Health #Schizophrenia #Neuroscience #MentalHealth #BrainScience #CognitiveScience #MedicalScience #BrainDevelopment #Psychiatry #Blindness
https://the-14.com/people-who-are-blind-from-birth-never-develop-schizophrenia-what-this-tells-us-about-the-psychiatric-condition/

People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia – what this tells us about the psychiatric condition
#Health #Schizophrenia #Neuroscience #MentalHealth #BrainScience #CognitiveScience #MedicalScience #BrainDevelopment #Psychiatry #Blindness
https://the-14.com/people-who-are-blind-from-birth-never-develop-schizophrenia-what-this-tells-us-about-the-psychiatric-condition/

People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia – what this tells us about the psychiatric condition
#Health #Schizophrenia #Neuroscience #MentalHealth #BrainScience #CognitiveScience #MedicalScience #BrainDevelopment #Psychiatry #Blindness
https://the-14.com/people-who-are-blind-from-birth-never-develop-schizophrenia-what-this-tells-us-about-the-psychiatric-condition/

People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia – what this tells us about the psychiatric condition
#Health #Schizophrenia #Neuroscience #MentalHealth #BrainScience #CognitiveScience #MedicalScience #BrainDevelopment #Psychiatry #Blindness
https://the-14.com/people-who-are-blind-from-birth-never-develop-schizophrenia-what-this-tells-us-about-the-psychiatric-condition/

People who are blind from birth never develop schizophrenia – what this tells us about the psychiatric condition
#Health #Schizophrenia #Neuroscience #MentalHealth #BrainScience #CognitiveScience #MedicalScience #BrainDevelopment #Psychiatry #Blindness
https://the-14.com/people-who-are-blind-from-birth-never-develop-schizophrenia-what-this-tells-us-about-the-psychiatric-condition/

IMHO: Any law restricting scientifically proven medical care is MALPRACTICE, and should be litigated as such.
Politicians are not Doctors, and have no right to deny medical care on any basis. Abortion, Vaccines, Transgender care - all of it is not in the purview of non medically educated politicians, and every single one of them who proposes or supports these laws needs to be sued for malpractice and interference, until it is not politically acceptable to interfere.
#USPol #MedicalScience #Law

The Discovery of Stem Cells

Canadian scientists James Till and Ernest McCulloch proved the existence of stem cells in 1961, opening doors to regenerative medicine and cancer research. Their work remains foundational in medical science. 🧬

🇨🇦 #Canada #MedicalScience #StemCells #Research

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stem-cell-research

AI Can Spot Pancreatic Cancer Years Before Diagnosis, Study Finds. Via @sciencealert #AI #ArtificialIntelligence 💻 🤖 🧠 #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #Oncology

AI Can Spot Pancreatic Cancer ...

AI outperforms doctors in Harvard trial of emergency triage diagnoses. Via @guardian #AI #ArtificialIntelligence 💻 🤖 🧠 #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷

AI outperforms doctors in Harv...

Active-duty US soldiers to receive MDMA therapy for PTSD next year. Via @guardian #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #MentalHealth #Veterans 🇺🇸

Active-duty US soldiers to rec...

In the 1930s, Robert E. Cornish Constructed a Bizarre Tilting Table to Reverse Death.
His story continues to fascinate because of its blend of brilliance, ambition, ethical questions, and the visually striking image of a body rocking on a giant see-saw in a desperate bid to cheat death
https://www.vintag.es/2026/05/robert-e-cornish.html #globalmuseum #death #medicalscience

How Does Imagination Really Work in the Brain? New Theory Upends What We Knew. Via @singularityhub #Science 🔭🔬🧪🥼🧑‍🔬 #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology

How Does Imagination Really Wo...

Student Finds the Psychedelic Fungus the Inventor of LSD Spent His Life Searching For

The discovery could reshape how we study psychedelic compounds in nature and medicine

At West Virginia University (WVU), Corinne Hazel, an undergraduate major in environmental microbiology, examined morning glory plants for signs of protective chemicals. She wasn’t looking for new drugs or anything psychedelic. But nestled in the folds of a tiny seed coat was a hint of white fuzz.

That fuzz turned out to be a fungus that scientists had been seeking since the 1930s. And this included Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist who first synthesized LSD.

Hofmann offered the world LSD in the late 1930s by modifying a compound called lysergic acid, which he extracted from the ergot fungus Claviceps purpurea. That fungus grows on rye and other grains and is well-known for producing ergot alkaloids, a group of chemicals that can be toxic or medicinal depending on the dose.

Hofmann and others searched the plants for a fungus related to Claviceps purpurea, the rye-dwelling microbe that produces ergot alkaloids, a group of potent compounds with powerful biological effects. But for decades, that fungus remained a phantom.

Hazel found it almost by accident.

“We had a ton of plants lying around and they had these tiny little seed coats,” she said. “We noticed a little bit of fuzz in the seed coat. That was our fungus.”

With Panaccione’s guidance, Hazel extracted DNA from the fuzz and sent it for sequencing. The results confirmed what generations of chemists and botanists had only suspected: the morning glory harbored a previously unknown species of ergot-producing fungus.

“Sequencing a genome is a significant thing,” Panaccione said. “It’s amazing for a student.”

link

Newborns come into the world with LOW vitamin K on purpose — it’s not a flaw

Newborns come into the world with LOW vitamin K on purpose — it’s not a flaw.

Cord blood is loaded with stem cells meant to repair the stress of birth, and thin blood lets those stem cells travel exactly where they’re needed.

Then nature delivers the perfect dose: colostrum — rich in natural vitamin K, given orally, slow and gentle.

Instead, we cut the cord early (stealing up to 30% of baby’s blood volume) and inject synthetic vitamin K packed with polysorbate 80, propylene glycol, benzyl alcohol, and sometimes aluminum… straight into an immune system that’s barely online.

Why are we “fixing” a system that was perfectly designed?

Think about it before you consent. Nature already had the plan.

link

___________

I am no expert on this but many are saying the umbilical cord is cut quickly because the blood in it is very valuable and hospitals sell it. ABN

The chickenpox vaccine stops chickenpox, but causes shingles later on, which is 20x deadlier.

Your Pleasant Memories Can Vanish For a Surprisingly Simple Reason. Via @sciencealert #Health ❤️‍🩹 🧑‍⚕️ #MedicalScience 💉💊🏥🩸😷 #neurology #MentalHealth

Your Pleasant Memories Can Van...

Health insurers and organizations literally bribe pediatricians to give your baby 25 vaccine doses before 3 years of age

Health insurers and organizations literally bribe pediatricians to give your baby 25 vaccine doses before 3 years of age.

For example, pediatricians in the 3-million-person Health Net network receive a $2,500 bonus for each baby receiving 25 vaccine doses by 2.5 years of age.

A paralegal at my firm quickly found 27 additional examples of insurers and providers from across the country offering such bribes. See list below.

It is amazing that even pediatricians need to be bribed to inject these products.

How do you think this affects how pediatricians treat parents during “well-check” visits?

EXAMPLES: Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)-https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/hospital-p4p/2025/20250109%20-%20FINAL%202025%20Hospital_P4P_Program%20Guide.pdfEmpire; Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)- https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/global-quality-program/2026/20260413%20-%20Final%202026%20Global%20Quality%20P4P%20PCP%20Program%20Guide.pdf; Health Plan (IEHP)-https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/ob-p4p/2025/20250110%20-%20FINAL_2025_OB_P4P_Program%20Guide.pdf; Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)- https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/global-quality-program/2026/20260413%20-%20Final%202026%20Global%20Quality%20P4P%20PCP%20Program%20Guide.pdf; Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)- https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/p4p—urgent-care/20251215%20-%20Final_2026%20Urgent%20Care%20Guide.pdf; Partnership HealthPlan of California- https://partnershiphp.org/Providers/Quality/Documents/QIP%202025/2026PCPQIPMeasureSpecifications.pdf#:~:text=Incentives%20are%20%0Abased%20on%20meeting%20specific%20performance%20thresholds%20in%20measures%20that%20address%20the%20above%20areas; Passport by Molina Healthcare- https://molinamarketplace.com/members/nv/en-us/-/media/Molina/PublicWebsite/PDF/members/ky/en-us/Medicaid/2026VaccineVABFlyer_R.ashx; Eastern Oregon Coordinated Care Organization (EOCCO)- https://eocco.com/news/Current/Childhood-Immunization-Incentive-Program; Central California Alliance for Health- https://thealliance.health/wp-content/uploads/2026-Care-Based-Incentive-CBI-workbook.pdf; California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)- https://dhcs.ca.gov/services/Documents/CY-2025-Quality-Withhold-and-Incentive-Methodology-Document.pdf; Blue Shield of California- https://blueshieldca.com/content/dam/bsca/en/provider/docs/2023/June/PRV_Primary-Care-Fee-For-Service-Plus-Program-Overview.pdf; Molina Healthcare (Apple Health / Medicaid)- https://molinahealthcare.com/members/wa/en-us/-/media/Molina/PublicWebsite/PDF/members/wa/en-us/Medicaid/Member-Rewards-Program/Flu-Incentive-Flyer_EN_FNL_R_508c.ashx; McLaren Health Plan- https://mclarenhealthplan.org/Uploads/Public/Documents/HealthPlan/documents/Provider%20Forms/PCP-Incentive-Program.pdf; McLaren Health Plan- https://mclarenhealthplan.org/Uploads/Public/Documents/HealthPlan/documents/Healthy-Child-Immunization-Incentive.pdf; Molina Healthcare (Apple Health / Medicaid)- https://molinahealthcare.com/members/wa/en-us/-/media/Molina/PublicWebsite/PDF/members/wa/en-us/Medicaid/Member-Rewards-Program/2026-Molina-Member-Rewards-Flyer_Child_EN_FNL_R_508c.ashx; New Jersey Department of Health – https://nj.gov/health/cd/documents/imm_requirements/hot_shots_welcome_packet.pdf; Partnership for Maternal and Child Health of Northern New Jersey / New Jersey Department of Health- https://eastamwelltownship.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1227?fileID=20313; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (Healthy Blue)- https://healthybluenc.com/medicaid/extras/healthy-rewards; AmeriHealth Caritas North Carolina- https://amerihealthcaritasnc.com/member/benefits/carecard; Carolina Complete Health- https://carolinacompletehealth.com/members/medicaid/benefits-services/healthy-rewards-program.html; Aetna Better Health of Illinois- https://aetnabetterhealth.com/illinois-medicaid/rewards-program.html; APhA Foundation/American Pharmacists Association- https://aphafoundation.org/post/apha-foundation-announces-2025-2026-incentive-grant-recipients; Kern Health Systems- https://res.cloudinary.com/dpmykpsih/image/upload/kern-site-353/media/011c263f1fc54936a1daad22bc376243/p4p_2026-binder_final-12026.pdf; Oklahoma Complete Health- https://oklahomacompletehealth.com/providers/quality-improvement/participation-in-qi-.html#:~:text=Childhood%20Immunization%20Status%20%28PDF%29%0A%0AImmunizations%20for%20Adolescents%20%28PDF%29; Setra Health Plans- https://sentarahealthplans.com/en/members/medicaid/earning-your-medicaid-member-incentives#:~:text=The%20Healthy%20Incentives%20Program%20rewards%20you%20with%20up%20to%20%2450%20in%20gift%20cards%20per%20year%20for%20completing%20certain%20wellness%20exams%20and%20services; AmeriHealth Caritas- https://p1.amerihealthcaritasdc.com/content/dam/amerihealth-caritas/acdc/pdf/provider/forms/2025/2025-provider-incentive-cpt-code-campaign-child-immunization-status.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf; Health Net (Health Net of California, Inc. / Health Net Community Solutions, Inc.)-https://providerlibrary.healthnetcalifornia.com/news/26-367-earn–2-500-for-closing-cis-10-immunization-care-gaps–my.html; Peach State Health Pla- https://pshpgeorgia.com/content/dam/centene/peachstate/pdfs/2026%20Medicaid%20P4P%20Incentive%20PPT_FINAL_R.pdf

link

Health insurers and organizations literally bribe pediatricians to give your baby 25 vaccine doses before 3 years of age — Aaron Siri

Health insurers and organizations literally bribe pediatricians to give your baby 25 vaccine doses before 3 years of age.

For example, pediatricians in the 3-million-person Health Net network receive a $2,500 bonus for each baby receiving 25 vaccine doses by 2.5 years of age.

A paralegal at my firm quickly found 27 additional examples of insurers and providers from across the country offering such bribes. See list below.

It is amazing that even pediatricians need to be bribed to inject these products.

How do you think this affects how pediatricians treat parents during “well-check” visits?

EXAMPLES: Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)-https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/hospital-p4p/2025/20250109%20-%20FINAL%202025%20Hospital_P4P_Program%20Guide.pdfEmpire; Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)- https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/global-quality-program/2026/20260413%20-%20Final%202026%20Global%20Quality%20P4P%20PCP%20Program%20Guide.pdf; Health Plan (IEHP)-https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/ob-p4p/2025/20250110%20-%20FINAL_2025_OB_P4P_Program%20Guide.pdf; Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)- https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/global-quality-program/2026/20260413%20-%20Final%202026%20Global%20Quality%20P4P%20PCP%20Program%20Guide.pdf; Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)- https://providerservices.iehp.org/content/dam/provider-services-rd/en/documents/providers/p4p–prop-56–gemt/p4p—urgent-care/20251215%20-%20Final_2026%20Urgent%20Care%20Guide.pdf; Partnership HealthPlan of California- https://partnershiphp.org/Providers/Quality/Documents/QIP%202025/2026PCPQIPMeasureSpecifications.pdf#:~:text=Incentives%20are%20%0Abased%20on%20meeting%20specific%20performance%20thresholds%20in%20measures%20that%20address%20the%20above%20areas; Passport by Molina Healthcare- https://molinamarketplace.com/members/nv/en-us/-/media/Molina/PublicWebsite/PDF/members/ky/en-us/Medicaid/2026VaccineVABFlyer_R.ashx; Eastern Oregon Coordinated Care Organization (EOCCO)- https://eocco.com/news/Current/Childhood-Immunization-Incentive-Program; Central California Alliance for Health- https://thealliance.health/wp-content/uploads/2026-Care-Based-Incentive-CBI-workbook.pdf; California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)- https://dhcs.ca.gov/services/Documents/CY-2025-Quality-Withhold-and-Incentive-Methodology-Document.pdf; Blue Shield of California- https://blueshieldca.com/content/dam/bsca/en/provider/docs/2023/June/PRV_Primary-Care-Fee-For-Service-Plus-Program-Overview.pdf; Molina Healthcare (Apple Health / Medicaid)- https://molinahealthcare.com/members/wa/en-us/-/media/Molina/PublicWebsite/PDF/members/wa/en-us/Medicaid/Member-Rewards-Program/Flu-Incentive-Flyer_EN_FNL_R_508c.ashx; McLaren Health Plan- https://mclarenhealthplan.org/Uploads/Public/Documents/HealthPlan/documents/Provider%20Forms/PCP-Incentive-Program.pdf; McLaren Health Plan- https://mclarenhealthplan.org/Uploads/Public/Documents/HealthPlan/documents/Healthy-Child-Immunization-Incentive.pdf; Molina Healthcare (Apple Health / Medicaid)- https://molinahealthcare.com/members/wa/en-us/-/media/Molina/PublicWebsite/PDF/members/wa/en-us/Medicaid/Member-Rewards-Program/2026-Molina-Member-Rewards-Flyer_Child_EN_FNL_R_508c.ashx; New Jersey Department of Health – https://nj.gov/health/cd/documents/imm_requirements/hot_shots_welcome_packet.pdf; Partnership for Maternal and Child Health of Northern New Jersey / New Jersey Department of Health- https://eastamwelltownship.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1227?fileID=20313; Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (Healthy Blue)- https://healthybluenc.com/medicaid/extras/healthy-rewards; AmeriHealth Caritas North Carolina- https://amerihealthcaritasnc.com/member/benefits/carecard; Carolina Complete Health- https://carolinacompletehealth.com/members/medicaid/benefits-services/healthy-rewards-program.html; Aetna Better Health of Illinois- https://aetnabetterhealth.com/illinois-medicaid/rewards-program.html; APhA Foundation/American Pharmacists Association- https://aphafoundation.org/post/apha-foundation-announces-2025-2026-incentive-grant-recipients; Kern Health Systems- https://res.cloudinary.com/dpmykpsih/image/upload/kern-site-353/media/011c263f1fc54936a1daad22bc376243/p4p_2026-binder_final-12026.pdf; Oklahoma Complete Health- https://oklahomacompletehealth.com/providers/quality-improvement/participation-in-qi-.html#:~:text=Childhood%20Immunization%20Status%20%28PDF%29%0A%0AImmunizations%20for%20Adolescents%20%28PDF%29; Setra Health Plans- https://sentarahealthplans.com/en/members/medicaid/earning-your-medicaid-member-incentives#:~:text=The%20Healthy%20Incentives%20Program%20rewards%20you%20with%20up%20to%20%2450%20in%20gift%20cards%20per%20year%20for%20completing%20certain%20wellness%20exams%20and%20services; AmeriHealth Caritas- https://p1.amerihealthcaritasdc.com/content/dam/amerihealth-caritas/acdc/pdf/provider/forms/2025/2025-provider-incentive-cpt-code-campaign-child-immunization-status.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf; Health Net (Health Net of California, Inc. / Health Net Community Solutions, Inc.)-https://providerlibrary.healthnetcalifornia.com/news/26-367-earn–2-500-for-closing-cis-10-immunization-care-gaps–my.html; Peach State Health Pla- https://pshpgeorgia.com/content/dam/centene/peachstate/pdfs/2026%20Medicaid%20P4P%20Incentive%20PPT_FINAL_R.pdf

link

__________

UPDATE: A typical rebuttal of the claim that health insurers are bribing doctors to vax as many children as possible is that insurers are acting in the children’s best interest; and this is solidly proved because mass vaxxing is also in the insurers best interest. The claim is that by vaccinating as many children as they can, insurers are keeping them healthy while also saving money themselves as insurers will be required to pay fewer claims for healthier children. This rebuttal is completely false and based on a misunderstanding of how insurance works. Insurers make more money the sicker their customers are. Here’s why that is so. Under Obamacare, insurers are given 20% of covered medical expenses to manage their part of the system. In any one year, insurers do try to minimize their payouts. And this is where the misunderstanding or deliberate fraud in the rebuttal lies. In any one year, insurers always minimize payouts on established policies. But over more than one year, insurers always make more money the more medical costs go up. Under Obamacare 20% of $100 dollars of medical expenses is $20. If costs go up 10x, 20% of $1,000 is $200. The amount of work for insurers to manage those costs is the same. So, it is always in insurers’ best interests for medical costs go up over the years and not down. ABN