Early in the book, Nosta writes, “The solved can never touch the whole.”  That line lingers. It captures the essence of his argument. AI can solve, generate, synthesize, and accelerate. Yet something about the human experience of thinking, the struggle, the friction, the meaning-making, exists beyond resolution.

This tension defines the book. It is not anti-technology. Nosta is deeply engaged with AI and candid about its value. He describes large language models as tools that “move faster and connect more disparate concepts than our minds could ever manage on their own.”  He is equally clear that this capability introduces a subtle risk. We may begin to outsource not just tasks, but thought itself.

That distinction matters more than many may be willing to admit.

From Tools to Thought

One of the most compelling contributions of The Borrowed Mind is its framing of AI not as the next step in computing, but as a turning point in cognition. Nosta traces a clear arc. Gutenberg unlocked words. Google unlocked facts. AI, he argues, is unlocking thought. 

That progression is elegant, yet also unsettling. Words and facts could be externalized without fundamentally altering the structure of human reasoning. Thought is different. It is intimate. It is identity. It is how we become.

Nosta reminds us that thinking once required effort, a type of natural friction that created sparks of innovation. “The distance between question and answer created space for our discernment.”  Within that space, judgment formed, curiosity deepened, and understanding took root.

AI compresses that distance. It removes friction. It delivers coherence with remarkable speed.  One of the book’s most important insights emerges here. Coherence is not the same as understanding.

Nosta introduces the concept of “anti-intelligence,” describing it as “fluency without understanding. Coherence without experience.”  AI does not think. It mirrors the structure of thinking. It produces language that resembles reasoning without sharing its origin.

In health, where evidence, interpretation, and judgment must coexist, this distinction is not academic. It is operational. It shapes how clinicians trust tools, how leaders deploy them, and how patients ultimately experience care.

The Seduction of the Socratic Mirror

One of the most original sections of the book is Nosta’s description of the “Socratic Mirror.” He draws a parallel between classical dialogue and modern AI interaction. Socrates asked questions to surface the truth. AI, in a different way, reflects our thinking back to us, reframed, extended and sometimes clarified.

Nosta writes that the model “…does not tell me what to think but creates the conditions under which my own thinking could deepen.” This is where the book moves beyond critique and into possibility.

Used well, AI becomes a cognitive partner. It expands perspective, accelerates exploration, and invites iteration. In clinical research, patient engagement, and system design, this capacity holds enormous promise.

Nosta does not romanticize the relationship. He recognizes its asymmetry. The model has no interior life. It does not ponder. It does not carry consequence. It does not bear responsibility. That responsibility remains human.

Rethinking the Fear of Displacement

A persistent anxiety runs beneath every conversation about AI. Many fear it will become a job slayer, a force that displaces rather than elevates human contribution. That concern is understandable, yet not new.

Every meaningful advance in technology has reshaped how people work. The wheel did not eliminate labor. It redefined movement. The stethoscope did not replace physicians. It extended their ability to listen and interpret. The tollbooth transponder did not end transportation roles. It changed the flow and focus of human involvement. Each innovation shifted roles, demanded new skills, and expanded what people could do.  AI belongs in that lineage.

What distinguishes this moment is not the elimination of work, but the redistribution of cognitive effort. The real risk is not that machines will think for us, but that people may become less inclined to think for themselves. Nosta’s warning is subtle yet profound. Surrendering curiosity, judgment, and reflection to systems that generate answers with ease risks dulling the very faculties that define human intelligence.

This is why The Borrowed Mind is such an important read at this moment. It does not dismiss concerns around job displacement. It reframes it. The central challenge is not protecting roles as they exist today, but strengthening the uniquely human capacities no system can replicate. Creativity, discernment, ethical reasoning, and the ability to navigate ambiguity are not diminished by AI. They become more essential.

The book offers reassurance without complacency. The future of work will favor those who sharpen their thinking, engage deeply with ideas, and remain active participants in their own intellectual development. The machine is not the adversary. Neglecting the development of one’s own mind is a danger.

Composite Intelligence and the Limits of the Machine

Nosta introduces “composite intelligence” to describe the interaction between human and machine cognition. Composite does not mean blended into sameness. It means distinct contributions working in concert. The model brings speed and breadth. The human brings depth.

This triad becomes one of the most useful frameworks in this book. AI excels in velocity and scale. Depth, the slow transformation of understanding, remains human. As Nosta writes, “Models do not ponder.” 

In health, this distinction is profound. Data can inform. Algorithms can suggest. The act of deciding, especially in moments of uncertainty, requires something more. It requires what Nosta elevates as the defining human contribution. Virtue.

Drawing on Aristotle’s concept of practical wisdom, Nosta reminds us that judgment is forged through experience, consequence, and accountability. A model can generate options. It cannot live with outcomes.

This is where the book resonates most deeply for those working in health. Intelligence is becoming abundant. Discernment is becoming scarce and, therefore, more valuable.

The Risk of the Borrowed Mind

The book’s title is not metaphorical. It is a warning. Nosta argues that as engagement with AI deepens, internal dialogue begins to change. The model becomes a cognitive tuning fork, subtly shaping how questions are framed, how ideas are explored, and how answers are anticipated. This dynamic is not inherently negative. It can elevate thinking, accelerate learning, and make complex domains more accessible. Dependency remains the concern.

Reliance on generated thought risks weakening the muscle of original thinking. Access can be mistaken for understanding. Individuals may become, in Nosta’s words, “cognitive clones.” 

This concern is particularly relevant in health ecosystems already strained by time, complexity, and administrative burden. The temptation to offload cognitive work will be strong. The discipline to remain intellectually engaged will be essential.

A Book About AI That Is Not About AI

What makes The Borrowed Mind stand apart is that it is not ultimately about technology. It is about humanity. Nosta writes, “This book is not really about technology. It is about you.”  That idea anchors this work.

Readers are challenged to consider what it means to remain “the authors of our own minds.”  Not passive recipients of generated insight, but active participants in meaning-making.

This question sits at the center of the health ecosystem’s future. As AI becomes embedded in clinical workflows, research, and patient engagement, the issue is not whether it will improve efficiency. It will.

The deeper question is whether it will deepen humanity or dilute it. Will it create space for clinicians to think more deeply, connect more meaningfully, and act more wisely? Or will it create a system that values speed over reflection, output over understanding, and coherence over truth?

Nosta offers no simple answers. He offers a framework for asking better questions.

The post “The Borrowed Mind” – Reclaiming Thought in an Age That Wants to Do It For Us appeared first on Medika Life.

When I asked him what sparked joy — my now-standard question for new consults — he didn’t hesitate.

“Travel,” he said, his eyes lighting up. “Dozens of countries. I love learning how people live, eat, think.”

Then he paused. “But if I had to choose just one?”

He leaned forward, almost conspiratorially.

“Japan. Lived there over 25 years.”

I perked up. “Hontō ni?”

“Eh? Hontō hontō!” he beamed.

And just like that, the oncology suite turned into an izakaya.

We chatted in Japanese for several minutes — I, a Black man from the Pacific Northwest with a Japanese wife and a daughter who had attended college in Kyoto; he, a white man with a surprising Tokyo accent and stories that could have filled a dozen ryokans.

The nurses outside the curtain must’ve been baffled.

There we were: two middle-aged men, dressed like surgical extras, speaking rapid-fire Japanese about onsen, natto, and konbini snacks.

In radiation oncology, these are the moments you don’t forget.

The Kind of Joy You Can’t Buy

When our conversation drifted back to English, we kept circling the same theme: experience.

He told me about sleeping in the Sinai desert under a blanket of stars.

About sipping strong coffee in Addis Ababa.

About riding motorcycles through Southeast Asia before Google Maps existed.

What he didn’t talk about were things.

No fancy watches.

No new Teslas.

No gadgets.

Just the texture of moments lived.

And it hit me: the joy that lit up his face wasn’t the kind you get from opening a box.

It was the kind you earn by stepping into the unfamiliar. The kind that asks something of you — and gives back more than it takes.

The Science of Why It Feels So Good

We tend to think happiness is about comfort.

But psychologists like Dr. Laurie Santos (of Yale’s wildly popular Science of Well-Being class) suggest that the happiest people spend less on stuff and more on experiences.

Why?

Because of experiences:

• Give us stories we can retell
• Bring us into contact with others
• They are often tied to personal growth
• Don’t lose their sparkle the way objects do

A new phone gets old fast. But your first tuk-tuk ride in Bangkok? That stays with you.

There’s even a term for the trap we fall into with material things: hedonic adaptation.

The idea is that we quickly get used to new pleasures.

The house, the car, the clothes — they stop thrilling us.

But experiences?

They stay vivid.

I wrote about a similar theme in 10 Tiny Habits That Make You Healthier, Calmer, and Harder to Kill — the idea that intentional living creates lasting joy, not just fleeting dopamine hits.

My Favorite Journeys

Some of my favorite travel memories come from places that required a little more effort than, say, Paris or London.

• Egypt: navigating the frenetic, poetic chaos of Cairo traffic, then standing in stillness before the pyramids.
• Turkey: sipping tea in the shadow of the Blue Mosque, hearing the call to prayer echo across centuries.
• Japan: of course — always Japan — with its contradictions, its grace, its reverence for detail.
• Indonesia: maybe my favorite of all, where time moves differently and kindness is a national trait.

These places didn’t just offer a change of scenery. They offered a shift in me — the way I saw others, the way I understood culture, the way I experienced time.

What Travel (and Cancer) Teaches Us

My patient and I shared one more truth that day: that illness, like travel, strips you down to what matters.

It makes you see the world in a different light.

It humbles you.

And if you let it, it can open you.

Sometimes I think the best journeys aren’t measured in miles, but in mindset.

You don’t have to get on a plane.

You just have to notice something new.

Final Thoughts

That day in the exam room, two men with nothing in common on paper laughed like old friends, because we shared a language — and not just Japanese.

We shared curiosity.

And in that moment, amid machines and masks and schedules, we were both simply human.

Let the numbers tell the story.

• Free Download: “Debunked: 7 Health ‘Facts’ That Are Quietly Hurting You — Grab It Here.”
• Liked this story? Read “25 Ways to Reduce Your Cancer Risk” or “What Dying Men Confessed When No One Was Listening.”

Author bio: Michael Hunter, MD, is a cancer doctor, travel junkie, and collector of patient wisdom. His new ebook, What Dying Patients Taught Me About Living, is available here.

P.S. If this story resonated with you, follow me for weekly insights from the clinic and beyond.

The post Clinic Notes: I Didn’t Expect to Speak Japanese Today appeared first on Medika Life.

Now the challenge was to determine the level of her dementia, how it was affecting her lifestyle, and whether or not there might be some hope in a new medication that had just been released for clinical trials. Part of the protocol required that she read something, and other parts that she perform an action, or recall items shown to her, and she would need her glasses for these tests.

When asked to replace her glasses, she looked at them as strange objects and had no idea what to do with them. Turning the glasses over and examining them, she still didn’t understand what they were meant to do.

Her daughter, who accompanied her for the evaluation, was almost in tears as she told me, “It has become even worse when we sit down for dinner because she doesn’t know what is food and what utensils are. She often tries to eat her fork, and we have to stop her.”

The woman was in her early 70s and previously had a successful clothing design business. But there had been noticeable slips in her behavior and even her ability to keep her company’s accounts correct. A math whiz, she kept blaming it on the sunlight coming in through the windows in her office.

She no longer went to the office after daily arguments, and her suspicion regarding her staff disrupted her business. Previously, she enjoyed good interactions with everyone in the office. Most had worked with her for decades and were shocked at her behavior.

The Thief We Fail to Acknowledge

Dementia prevalence increases in direct correlation with age; it reaches 1% in the 60–64 age group and 24–33 % in the 85+ age group. The term “dementia with late onset” refers to the disorder’s emergence after the age of 65, whereas “early-onset dementia” describes its incidence before that age. The signs may be subtle and even experienced clinicians may miss the probable diagnosis of dementia.

Roughly half of the 600 older persons whose brain scans and health indicators were investigated went on to acquire cognitive impairment. In addition to signs of brain aging, they found that the genotype, specific cognitive test scores, hearing loss, memory problems reported by the individual themselves, and symptoms of depression were associated with future cognitive impairment in older persons who were otherwise neurologically healthy.

According to a recent study, people with dementia start losing weight at least ten years before their symptoms appear, and this process speeds up in the two to four years leading up to the diagnosis. Dementia progression may be accelerated by hormonal and metabolic changes associated with weight reduction.

I can remember a neighbor who lived alone, was in her 80s, and went out several times a week to volunteer with, as she said,” the elderly at the local hospital.” No, she never saw herself as elderly or incapable of caring for all of her needs.

But one day, she mentioned to me that she had an evil twin coming into her home and hiding things on her. “I know she’s hiding things,” she said, “because I find them in places I would never have put them.” It was at this point that she stopped preparing food for herself, and I had to arrange for a local senior-support organization to deliver meals to her. But things got worse and she was becoming more mentally unstable until she was evaluated by a healthcare professional from that local hospital.

Once the evaluation was completed and she went to meet a team that worked on a dementia-related unit at the hospital where she had volunteered, she related the story of the evil twin. The decision was made that she could be admitted, and they would care for her.

Within months of arriving on the unit, she was discovered to have advanced cancer, had three surgeries, and died. We will never know if her dementia was related, somehow, to her cancer or the use of pain medication for it.

What Do We Look for?

Some of the subtle and not so subtle changes that should be noted in potential neurocognitive changes:

1. Losing track of newly acquired knowledge. Another symptom is an increase in the frequency with which you need to use memory aides, as well as a tendency to forget crucial dates or events.
2. Difficulty maintaining track of regular expenses or following a tried-and-true recipe.
3. Navigating to a known place, problems with a shopping list, or recalling the rules of a beloved game.
4. Sometimes they need assistance with the microwave’s settings or record a TV program.
5. Perplexed by events that do not unfold in real-time. They could become disoriented and lose track of their way at times.
6. They might also have trouble maintaining balance or reading, seeing colors, or gauging contrast, which could make them dangerous drivers.
7. Difficulty keeping up with or contributing to a discussion. They might repeat themselves or freeze up in the midst of a sentence, leaving you to figure out what to say next. They might not know how to spell certain words, have problems identifying commonplace objects, or even call something the wrong name (such a “watch” being called a “hand-clock”). One thing to remember is that sometimes there are regional names for certain things such as a door knocker may be called something else.
8. Possibly misplace items and not be able to trace their path back to them. As the illness advances, he or she may begin to falsely accuse others of stealing.
9. Perhaps they are careless with their money or do not keep themselves clean. Lack of care for personal cleanliness can also be caused by depression.
10. Do not participate in extracurricular activities, hobbies, or social gatherings. If they have a favorite team or pastime, they could struggle to keep up. And feelings of bewilderment, suspicion, depression, anxiety, or terror may set in. Whether they are at home, with friends, or somewhere else, they could quickly become agitated.

Although there are numerous changes that we may notice, there are a number of other reasons that some of these changes may be due to something else. We know that medication as well as a loss of active involvement in work or some other activity may be the reason for changes in behavior.

Remember, don’t jump to a conclusion that the person is suffering from a cognitive impairment. Go slow, consider everything, and have an evaluation by a healthcare professional.

The post Spotlighting Emerging Dementia in Its Many Iterations and Stages appeared first on Medika Life.

As parents you’ve been force fed a barrage of carefully scripted “justifications” for these vaccines and in case anyone considered an independent thought, legislation would simply be updated to include new vaccines, essentially removing your choice. In all States in the US a child cannot enter school without having complied with a vaccination schedule. Can you object? Yes, but only in certain states, and usually only on religious grounds. States like California are mandatory, no matter your objection.

The health impacts of the mandated 16 vaccines (spread over 72 doses, before the age of 18) have never enjoyed close scrutiny. What we do know for certain is that older adults (50+) who benefited from far fewer vaccines (3 on average), have far more resilient immune systems when compared to a 20 or 30 year old. Our immune system benefits from each challenge it receives, learning and growing stronger. By preventing many non-fatal infections through an expanded immunization agenda, we actively restrict our immune system from developing properly.

In short, we are producing weaker and less resilient human beings, one’s that are more prone to disease and more likely to develop chronic conditions.

Shockingly, a pre-licensing placebo-controlled safety study is not required in the US for the licensing of a vaccine. Don’t, however, take my word for it. THE HHS confirmed this in response to a written inquiry in 2018, the reply coming from Melinda Wharton, MD, MPH, then Acting Director of the National Vaccine Program Office. The question is shown below;

Please explain how HHS justifies licensing any pediatric vaccine without first
conducting a long-term clinical trial in which the rate of adverse reactions is
compared between the subject group and a control group receiving an inert
placebo?

Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required. In some cases, inclusion of placebo control groups is considered unethical. Even in the absence of a placebo, control groups can be useful in evaluating whether the incidence of a specific observed adverse event exceeds that which would be expected without administration of the new vaccine. Serious adverse events are always carefully evaluated by FDA to determine potential association with vaccination regardless of their rate of incidence in the control group. In cases where an active control is used, the adverse event profile of that control group is usually known and the findings of the study are reviewed in the context of that knowledge.

Decades of indoctrination and conditioning have convinced us that science never lies and that we cannot question anything produced by the scientific community. Science does not lie, not in a pure, unadulterated form. What we are bombarded with on a daily basis is, however, not any form of science any ethical professional would dare to claim. It is business, abetted by regulatory bodies and governments, masquerading behind and appropriating science, which is then twisted to suit the purposes of the companies benefiting from it.

Truth has become an outdated, antiquated word in the modern world of medical science.

You may ask, what this has to do with RFK, Jr., vaccines, and the medical fraternity?

You’ve recently participated in a global medical experiment with completely unknown consequences, at least none that are yet glaringly apparent, aside from a global increase in cancers, heart conditions and a litany of other other medical conditions, many of which can prove fatal. COVID “vaccines” were administered globally to billions of individuals. You may be one.

Almost all of your doctors and medical professionals, with a few exceptions, encouraged you to take these treatments. The billing that they were approved for broad use was misleading and the manner in which approval was obtained left much to be desired. These treatments were experimental, not adequately tested, and couldn’t remotely be called definitively safe. Why would your trusted healthcare providers do this?

Indoctrination is trusting a system of which they are the product. It no longer exists to foster only the best interest of the patients but rather leaves open the possibility of conflict of interest around “patient care or profit.” Most doctors didn’t even think to question the safety of the “miraculous Covid cure.”

A Global Pandemic

At the end of 2019, the world was exposed to a global contagion we were told was deadly, and much like influenza, in some instances it was. The source of the contagion has yet to be established, but facts seem to point at a Chinese research facility, a topic you can read more about here. Covid was to become a household word over the next two years, one that would dictate movement, work, schooling, and every other normal aspect of our lives as countries closed their borders, curfews were installed, and almost every aspect of our day-to-day life was dictated by our elected governments.

Two months after the outbreak, a miraculous breakthrough was announced: a vaccine! Based on a new technology, mRNA, the vaccine promised to reduce transmission and offer protection. We waited with bated breath, and in late November 2020, the vaccine was released for public use. After months of confinement, travel restrictions, working from home, and avoiding elderly members of our families, we sighed a global sigh of relief.

That sigh proved to be a little pre-emptive. Suddenly, taking the vaccine was no longer a matter of choice. It became mandated, and in many countries governments hid behind cloaks of restrictions rather than coming out and publicly mandating the Covid vaccine. Work, school and access to food and housing were subject to individuals being vaccinated. As I sit and type this, I still cannot believe how dystopian it sounds.

Billions had the vaccine administered, many not though choice, but through coercion. No vaccine, no work, no school, no food, and no access to rented property. In countries like Australia people refusing the vaccine, anti-vaxers, as they were quickly labeled, were even put into interment camps.

A Closer Look Behind mRNA and Pfizer and Moderna’s “Vaccines”

Why would people have refused to be injected with the Covid “vaccines” if they promised to protect you and reduce transmission? It turns out not everyone can be classified as a sheep. Questions were asked right from the outset of the announcement of the release of the vaccines.

It takes anywhere between six to 10 years to bring a vaccine to market. The reason for this is that the vaccine requires lengthy trials to prove safety. We know from experience that side effects can take years to manifest. Bringing a product to market in nine months raised huge flags.

We now know that some companies involved in producing what they loosely termed a “vaccine” to take advantage of market protection (in particular, Modena and BioNTech/and Pfizer) obscured data and omitted certain tests in the clinical trials of their Covid treatments. Tests that would have disclosed the reality of their treatments’ ability to integrate with our DNA, use of the SV-40 enhancer (a known link to cancer) in their treatments in levels far exceeding acceptable levels (clear clinical evidence of this vector has been found in the vaccines despite their continued denial) and effecting a bait and switch with the release of their final product, altered from the original provided for testing.

——–

——

Essentially, and we can debate why until time provides answers, these companies, in a global outbreak orchestrated by unknown players and enforced by your governments, forced an essentially untested, new type of gene therapy (not a vaccine) down your global throats, the full consequences of which have yet to become apparent. This quote is from an expert in the field of genomics (Kevin McKernan, who headed up the global genome project) on the mRNA vaccines.

These gene therapies are an attempt to centralize control over this evolutionary process, where they can mandate mRNA injections into billions of people and play SimCity on the evolutionary process and the human trajectory. They are entirely incapable of doing this and it is a disastrous idea. The hubris of authoritarians is an extinction level risk for humankind and needs to be dis-intermediated swiftly.

I have linked to a few articles in the paragraphs abovefor those with an interest in genomics, viruses, and vaccines. Two years ago, this article would have been labelled as anti-vaxer and dismissed. I sincerely hope we’ve moved beyond that point and that science is able to reclaim its integrity. This brings us back to RFK Jr. and America’s co-opted health care system.

The Perfect Pharma Salesman is…

Your doctor, of course. When you present yourself for medical assistance, you are in fact, facing a representative of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors will argue vehemently against this, but the fact remains, their universities, courses, curricula, and anything relating to their degrees and the educations they receive is regulated by pharma. Doctors are the public face of a multi-billion dollar marketing scheme and pharma are the beneficiaries.

A doctor is indoctrinated from the first day they step into a class.

Little wonder then they would play along with the farce of the Covid “vaccines”, knowing full well mRNA was a new and as yet unproven delivery method (previously restricted to testing on end-of-life patients) for what was an untested and unsafe treatment. Established beliefs and conditioning often fly in the face of logic and common sense. Little wonder they played along. Indoctrination is a powerful tool.

This indoctrination extends to every aspect of modern medicine, including the ridiculous number of times your child (if you’re a US citizen) is vaccinated by the time they reach the age of 18. Don’t believe me? Read this advice from the CDC, and do make a note of how many times Pfizer and Moderna’s names appear (the same companies that just experimented on you). The question this begs, is why would we suddenly be vaccinating our children so heavily, so frequently, and with a such a dizzying array of shots.

H.R.5546 – National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986

The United States (in a moment of madness or more likely, successful lobbying) indemnified pharma companies to protect them against any possible legal claims arising from the use of a vaccine in children. In effect, this became a “get out of jail free” card that led directly to the frenzied development of “vaccines” for every imaginable disease under the sun. Once again, doctors were at the forefront of selling these treatments to their patients.

If you’ve been indoctrinated into the faith, it is sacrilege to question your god. In modern medicine, it is tantamount to self destruction. This indoctrination is the main obstacle Kennedy faces. Pharma’s influence permeates every level of modern healthcare, from politics to regulatory authorities such as the CDC and NIH and on, down to the doctors and nurses, the real face of modern medicine.

While many label Kennedy as anti-vaccine and a conspiracy theorist, this is simply a ruse to discredit him and evade examining the real and pertinent concerns he raises relating to the state of American healthcare. He has come up with an incredibly simple and elegant solution to the vaccine question.

Burning the “Get Out of Jail Free” Card

Remove the immunity enjoyed by pharma for childhood and other vaccines and sit back and wait to see how many pharma companies have actual faith in the products they are retailing. Expect to see the number of vaccinations your child currently endures reduced dramatically. Why? Simply because these products do carry risks, severe or otherwise, that have been obscured by companies in their haste to get a product to market. Make hay while the sun shines, as the expression goes, only in this instance it was profit rather than sunshine. Profit that was protected by the US government. Until now.

The topic of vaccines is an especially sensitive one, confounded by multiple factors when it should actually be governed by one simple question. Is the vaccine safe for your child? The truth is, we cannot be sure, except in the instance of mRNA based shots now touted for the market. These are fraught with hidden dangers and Kennedy’s removal of the blanket indemnity for these so called “vaccines” which are actually gene therapies, will no doubt result in their removal from the market.

The reason we cannot be sure is that the clinical trial system is as broken as the rest of healthcare, and is subject to the same manipulation and lobbying influences the rest of the healthcare system endures. Manipulation and subversion of data is common practice, the two most glaring public examples being the latest additions to the vaccine stable, namely Pfizer and Moderna’s Covid treatments.

Kennedy simply wants the truth to out. He wants to ensure your children are enjoying the protection they deserve and that the individuals playing medical roulette with their health are held to account. Convincing the devout (your doctors) of his intentions may be an insurmountable obstacle, unless we can bundle the lot on a donkey on the road to Damascus.

***

[Always consult with your physician to determine medical advice and direction. This article does not intend to suggest you should or should not receive vaccines according to a recommended schedule. It does recommend that you study peer-review science and ask informed questions.]

The post Kennedy’s Biggest Challenge Isn’t Vaccines, It’s Medical Indoctrination appeared first on Medika Life.

First, the guidance itself removes a specific reference to COVID-19 and groups it together with other respiratory viruses, such as influenza and RSV. This, in and of itself, is a significant change. And the new guidance says that if you do not have a fever for 24 hours and are feeling better, you do not have to isolate for five days and can continue normal activities.

As far as I’m concerned, this is a big deal. In many settings, especially in healthcare settings, if one or more staff members have to isolate at home for five days if they test positive for Covid, this can cause significant staffing difficulties. Now, the CDC finally recognizes that common sense needs to prevail.

That common sense includes the fact that, if you are sick, you need to stay home. This is true whether it is the flu, Covid, RSV, or any other illness. Once you’re feeling better, then you can resume normal activities.

Now, it is true that Covid can spread to other people even if the carrier does not have any symptoms. And so, again, common sense needs to prevail: if you are around people who are at high risk for severe illness with Covid, you should wear a mask around them. And, when you are sick, you should stay away from them completely. This is proper “virus etiquette” that more of us need to develop. It is the same as coughing or sneezing into one’s elbow.

The reason I am so excited about this change is because, today, the COVID-19 virus is a completely different pathogen. In the very beginning, COVID-19 caused severe illness in a great number of people. In the United States, it killed over 1 million people. That is a lot. I myself came down with COVID-19 in November 2020, and I have never had a viral illness like that one. It was unlike anything I have ever experienced. Now, however, for many people, COVID-19 is simply a bad cold.

It has been several months, if not years, that I have seen a life-threatening case of Covid ARDS in my ICU. Recently, I had a patient who tested positive for Covid and had severe lung infiltrates. It turns out that those were due to severe heart failure and not Covid. In fact, many of the patients we see in the hospital with Covid have other conditions that brought them in, and the Covid was simply a bystander.

That said, this does not mean that Covid cannot cause severe illness at all. The elderly, the frail and weak, and those with compromised immune systems are still at high risk for life-threatening illness, even with the current variant of Covid. They, of course, need to remain vigilant and careful. And those of us who are not at high-risk need to be cognizant of this and, again, have proper virus etiquette.

All of this having been said, this is a great change. I disagree with the those who say that this new guidance will make people dismiss Covid as a significant disease. People have already moved beyond Covid, and this is because the COVID-19 of 2024 is substantially different than the COVID-19 of 2020. This is reality, and I am very happy that the CDC has finally acknowledged this reality.

Listen to the podcast episode about this article.

The post It’s About Time: CDC Changes COVID Isolation Guidelines appeared first on Medika Life.

Does even light physical activity hurt people with post-exertional malaise (with symptoms such as fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and challenges with body temperature regulation)?

I was lucky; my COVID-19 infection was virtually asymptomatic. I slept ten hours, something I never do. So I tested.

Others are less fortunate.

In 2022, seven percent of adults had Long COVID. Women (8.5 percent) were more likely than men (5.2 percent) to ever have Long COVID-19, and women (4.4 percent) were also more likely than men (2.3 percent) to currently have Long COVID.

Long COVID-19

Long COVID, a perplexing phenomenon characterized by the persistence of symptoms for weeks, months, or even years after recovering from COVID-19, continues to baffle medical professionals and researchers.

Those who suffer from it experience a wide range of symptoms, including fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and challenges with body temperature regulation.

Many people believe that exercise could worsen long COVID and cause harm.

Today’s goals

However, a recent study published in the British Medical Journal has shown that exercise may be a key player in long COVID recovery.

In this article, I will explore the findings of this study and provide insight into how exercise can improve the health-related quality of life for individuals experiencing long-term effects of COVID.

Post-exertional malaise (PEM)

Post-exertional malaise refers to worsening symptoms after even minor physical or mental exertion.

This phenomenon typically intensifies 12 to 48 hours post-activity, lingering for days or weeks.

Would exercise worsen COVID-19-related fatigue?

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Unlike many fatiguing diseases, where patients often find relief after exercise, those with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome face a different reality.

Even the slightest exertion can trigger Post-exertional Malaise (PEM), exacerbating their symptoms instead of providing relief.

Managing PEM involves adopting activity management strategies, commonly known as pacing.

The objective is to prevent flare-ups and avoid relapses by maintaining a delicate balance between rest and activity.

New study

A recent study published in the British Medical Journal has provided the first evidence-based recommendation for self-reported long COVID: exercise.

The research, titled “Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial,” focused on individuals recently discharged from the hospital after experiencing COVID-19.

Study objectives

The goal of the REGAIN trial (Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support after COVID-19 InfectioN) was to assess the effectiveness of an eight-week, organized online supervised group program focused on physical and mental health rehabilitation.

The objective was to determine whether this structured intervention could enhance the health-related quality of life in adults experiencing long Covid-19 compared to standard care.

Exercise intervention

These participants reported ongoing damage from COVID-19, commonly known as self-reported long COVID-19.

Researchers randomly assigned study subjects to an 8-week group exercise program or a single check-in session, with the main measure being their quality of life.

Exercise details

The REGAIN internet-based exercise and behavioral support intervention comprised an initial individual consultation with a skilled practitioner.

Eight online group exercise sessions and six group support sessions were conducted over eight weeks.

Additionally, participants could avail themselves of an online repository containing on-demand exercises and support videos.

Results

Despite failing to achieve full participation from everyone, the study showed significant improvements.

In the intervention group, 47% of participants (141 individuals) fully adhered to the program, 39 percent (117 individuals) partially adhered, and 13 percent (40 individuals) did not receive the intervention.

Even with varying levels of engagement, positive outcomes were still evident.

Compared to standard care, the exercise intervention improved health-related quality of life, particularly in areas such as depression, fatigue, and pain interference.

My take

These positive effects were sustained at the 12-month mark, suggesting that exercise can play a crucial role in the recovery of individuals experiencing long-term effects of COVID.

Researchers are testing the exercise and counseling intervention in a randomized controlled trial.

Got long-COVID-19? Please check in with a valued healthcare provider before embarking on physical activity.

The post Exercise Emerges as Key Player in Long COVID Recovery: Game-Changing Findings appeared first on Medika Life.

The vaccines mostly showed safe results, but the study confirmed some rare side effects. For example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine showed a slightly higher risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome and a type of blood clot in the brain known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. However, these risks were not seen with mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna.

The study also found that heart inflammation (myocarditis and pericarditis) was more likely after Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but this was extremely rare. Interestingly, there was a higher-than-expected occurrence of a brain condition called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, but this was based on a very small number of cases.

This large-scale study is crucial in identifying rare side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Although there were some variations in the data due to different healthcare systems and study methods across countries, the overall findings are reassuring. They confirm that the known risks of COVID-19 vaccines are very rare and that the benefits outweigh the potential risks. Continuous monitoring and analysis of real-world data are important as vaccination programs continue worldwide.

The post Understanding the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: Insights from a Major International Study appeared first on Medika Life.

Medika Life published a piece titled The Top 20 AI Voices to Watch some months ago, and most of the thought leaders, influencers, and theorists featured have continued to demonstrate why they lead the AI conversation.

But AI isn’t the only significant advancement, problem, or concern clouding the future of innovation and patient care. We can’t allow the AI boom to distract from the other issues that should be on sector leaders’ radar screens while we read about the hot trends and people to follow in 2024.

[Hear first hand Michael C. Mann, host of Planetary Health First, Mars Next, and Gil Bashe discuss the importance of this Top 10 Health Issues list.}

It All Ties Back to the Cost of Health – Election Year 2024

Get ready for the 2024 election cycle!  Presidential and down-ballot candidates will be the loudest voices trying to appeal to public sentiment and pinging voter pain points.

Congress has several health issues influencing drug innovation and affordability on its radar screen. There is little doubt that Congressional staffers from both parties have made the cost of prescription drugs a front-and-center policy focus so that medications are more affordable for constituents. Measures that empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices and increase transparency make good press. But in the US health system, when you fix one thing, you will break another. Our system is fragmented.  One sector executive has little idea of how another’s business model works.

Drugs are a relatively small piece of the overall health puzzle that hit employees and consumers. Still, they’re apparent pocketbook issues and popular targets for elected officials seeking simple solutions to complex health cost problems. Take, for example, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. The IRA is the significant legislative effort that connects drug pricing to Medicare reimbursement. This piece of pivotal legislation has industry executives and investors up at night considering the law’s provisions on direct negotiation, Part D coverage and the inflation price cap.

Utilization Offsets Price Reductions – We Hope

As industry champions navigate (or confront) legislative issues, those same stakeholders must collaborate with payers, policymakers, providers, and patient communities to ensure that future policies result in a health system that supports innovation and provides greater access. That was a core reason pharma companies came to the Obamacare table enthusiastically.  Greater access translates into more utilization, which offsets price reductions.

Biopharma industry advocates’ biggest fear is that pricing flexibility and profitability loss will negatively affect drug discovery and development investment. Policymakers hopefully recognize that there’s some truth in this pushback. Lawmakers must explore ways to incentivize drug innovation, such as tax credits and grants for research and development in critical areas while promoting cost-cutting and affordability measures.

Top 10 2024 Public Health and Legislative Issues to Watch

• Access

Policies to reduce healthcare disparities and improve affordability expand access to care for underserved populations, while initiatives to incentivize healthcare workers to serve in underserved communities improve access. While addressing cost, drug pricing reforms impact pharmaceutical companies’ ability to invest in research and development, potentially affecting the availability of new treatments.

There can be no “villains” in fixing the access conundrum. Collaboration is a must! No one can debate in good faith that a healthier population reduces overall health costs.  But does anyone care enough to act? The US health GDP is unsustainable as it nears 20%. That does not mean we should turn away from expanding access. It requires Congress to finally accept that the Affordable Care Act isn’t going anywhere and look to refine it, making timely access that keeps disease at bay a bipartisan ideal.

While the IRA will reduce the burden of cost around insulin and other medications for seniors, it does not resolve the access to care challenge for millions of Americans. Payers must consider their role in helping people with chronic conditions and reduce the chaos resulting from non-medical switching.

• Affordability

Affordability remains the chief concern of the public, legislators, and the health industry. Rising health costs put immense pressure on patients, payers, and providers. Public policies are expected to address this issue through price transparency, cost-control mechanisms, and expanded access to affordable health options. The heat on biopharma companies will continue to increase. 

• Climate Change and Health

The intersection of climate change and public health is inescapable. Policies addressing climate change and its health impact will lead to peer-review research and climate technology approaches in health, such as adapting infrastructure to deal with extreme weather, air-quality warnings, and debunking myths that climate change has no human health impact. Bottomline, the planet doesn’t need people!  People need the planet.  Keep planet earth healthy!

• Data Security

Health data is going digital – all the way. With the increasing digitization, protecting people’s data is paramount. Stricter data privacy and security regulations require companies to invest in advanced cybersecurity measures, pumping the brakes on some innovations due to compliance needs. Prioritizing cybersecurity requires technology, training, and investment. How can hospitals keep pace with digital health innovation and meet their skilled staff and resourcing needs? Federal policy leaders will need to consider special appropriations to make that feasible. Otherwise, more community-based hospital systems will go broke.

• Drug Access and Equity

Ensuring equitable access to medications is pressing. Policymakers must focus on reducing disparities in drug access, potentially through IRA-like pricing reforms, which will negatively impact the pharmaceutical industry’s profit margins. We must also closely examine how pharmacists can play a more significant role in dispensing medications for specific medical conditions. Pharmacists are in almost every community – hospitals can be hours away.

Addressing healthcare disparities, particularly in underserved and rural communities, cannot be lip service. Rural communities have higher burdens of preventable conditions such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, and injury compared to urban populations. Public health policies must prioritize improving women’s health, preventive education and health access and increasing representation in clinical trials. This requires mobilization from varied government agencies working with the private and nonprofit sectors to deploy resources to hotspots suffering from limited access to health care providers and social services.

• Health Worker Burnout

The healthcare workforce is strained due to an aging population and increased service demand. According to one recent survey, one in three workers planned to leave their position, with 14 percent of respondents saying they were prepared to go the discipline entirely in 2024. Public health policies must address workforce shortages and pilot innovative training, telemedicine, and technology approaches to support the physician/patient relationship beyond simply pressuring doctors by increasing workflow to see more patients daily.

• Innovation Vulnerabilities

Lawmakers are looking closely at reforming the patent system to prevent abuses that stymie generic drug competition. Stricter regulations on patent extensions and exclusivity periods encourage competition and lower drug prices. However, the problem has been that the largest generic drug companies deploy vast legal teams, challenging innovator patents and using these suits as “blackmail” to secure deals, positioning early market generic entry. “Pay for delay” is a double-edged sword. Congress must strengthen patent protection if it elects to lower the bar for generic companies to compete.

• Mental Health

The COVID-19 pandemic brought the mental health crisis to the front pages. It took a taboo topic and gave families permission to go public with their burden.  Mental health stigma is an obstacle to treatment.  Schools and employers must champion public health policies that continue prioritizing mental health services. Likewise, policymakers must push for long-needed action in higher and primary education settings, digital mental health platforms and through increased accessibility to mental health care.

• Pandemic Readiness

We failed! Communication is always part of the health delivery and access process! The shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed a systemic lack of preparedness, underscoring the need for better response strategies based on the learnings from acknowledged failures. Public health policies in 2024 are likely to prioritize investments in research, vaccine distribution, and infrastructure to ensure readiness for what is almost certain a stream of future pandemics. This will drive innovation in vaccine development, distribution systems, and, yes, the need to add public health communication expertise.

• Telehealth

Telehealth has seen explosive growth in recent years, driven by the pandemic, patient-care convenience, and a need to reduce carbon impact. Policymakers must balance the accessibility and convenience of telehealth with ensuring quality of care and data security. Stricter regulations impact the telehealth and digital health industry, and watchdog groups must prioritize access, avoiding the quicksand of reimbursement disadvantages and physician styles. Telehealth must be prioritized to ensure it’s not just about urgent access but also about making care easier for the consumer. Face it, the consumer – while certainly core to all the top issues – is rarely the center of attention of the system.  That must change and telehealth is a clear benefit for patients.

Election 2024 Will Place Health and Cost In the Spotlight

These health issues ought to be at the forefront of Congress’s agenda to strike a balance between fostering continued waves of drug innovation and ensuring Americans can access medications at affordable prices. 2024 promises to be transformative for the health industry, driven by public health policy issues and filtered through the distorting lens of an election year. Innovation is about more than discovering and developing new products. It translates into access to care with policies targeting affordability, tackling health disparities, and increasing mental health services.

Driven by technological and health information advancements, changing demographics, and shifts in public health priorities, the life science industry is constantly evolving. Public policy makes Presidential and state candidate debates entertaining – and worrisome. Suggested policies that shape the operating landscape for hospitals, biopharma companies, and digital health companies are designed to protect the public interest. But the public’s needs and business must not conflict.

What can we expect will happen? Check your crystal ball!

The post The Top 10 Public Health Policy Issues for Election Year 2024 appeared first on Medika Life.

I always get my vaccinations in my left arm. Not because I anticipated the intriguing new study results.

Rather, I sleep on my right side and don’t want the discomfort associated with vaccination on my compressed arm.

Before we examine sidedness and vaccinations, I must share that winter has begun in Seattle. I define the season as dark and rainy.

Chilled-looking people walking along the riverside, the snow beginning, faintly, to pile up on the roofs of cars, the bare trees shaking their heads left and right, dry leaves tossing in the wind. The silver of the metal window sash sparkled coldly. Soon after, I heard sensei call, “Mikage! Are you awake? It’s snowing, look! It’s snowing!” “I’m coming!” I called out, standing up. I got dressed to begin another day. Over and over, we begin again. — Banana Yoshimoto

Arm-Sidedness and COVID Vaccination

I read the title of a recent article and thought, “Really?” But as you will see, there is a logic to the finding. Here’s the title:

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

In other words, individuals may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm.

The Study

German researchers examined health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and a subsequent booster shot. None had a history of COVID-19 infection.

They measured the antibody levels of the subjects two weeks after the second shot.

Here are the surprising results:

The number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm.

Scientists found killer T cells in 67 percent of cases when both shots entered the same arm. This number compares to 43 percent of cases with different arms.

My Take

Same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells providing the immune response are in nearby (underarm) lymph nodes.

There may be a more vigorous immune response if the immune cells in the nearby nodes are restimulated in the same location.

Since this study does not represent high-level evidence, we need more studies to validate the results. Moreover, we don’t know if the findings apply to other vaccines, including the flu.

Still, I will continue to get my vaccinations in my left arm. I sleep on my right side, so it is for the best.

The post Is Getting COVID Shots in the Same Arm Better? appeared first on Medika Life.

As soon as the video came on, I knew I was witnessing my mother’s final moments. It was too loud for me to tell her anything — that I loved her; that I was grateful for everything she had done for me; that I was proud of all she had accomplished — and I convinced myself that it would be easier to speak if I could take a few minutes to get off the ship and call back from a quieter spot. By the time I was able to ring again, she was gone.

The awful truth is that I said goodbye to my mom a long time ago. She first showed the lasting signs of Alzheimer’s Disease more than a decade ago and her decline was steep but lengthy. Despite continuing to travel to remote areas of Africa and Asia as a volunteer health worker — a path she picked up after joining the Peace Corps in retirement with my dad — she knew something was wrong. Her memory and judgment started to fade rapidly just before the pandemic, and I took whatever opportunities I had to share my feelings with her. COVID-19 isolation took its toll and by the time we could spend time together, she no longer knew who I was.

My experience with Alzheimer’s is one shared by millions of people around the world. Right now, in the U.S. alone, six million people are afflicted with the disease or a related form of dementia. And that number is expected to explode over the next 25 years to 13 million cases with the long tail of aging Baby Boomers. The failure rate for new therapeutics has been remarkably high. The two approved drugs have significant downsides, but that could change as artificial intelligence and modified mRNA treatments demonstrate greater viability.

What else could help?

We must prioritize Alzheimer’s as a public health threat and focus greater resources on reducing many of the root causes that scientists now suspect are linked to increased likelihood of developing the disease.

For years, I was among the many people who believed that Alzheimer’s Disease was largely linked to genetics. If my mother had it, and my grandmother had it, then there was a good chance Alzheimer’s was in my future as well. But this is wrong. Only 1 percent of cases are inherited, and most are related to rare, early-onset forms of the disease.

Increasingly, scientists are finding stronger links with other health threats — hypertension, inactivity, diabetes — that could signal predisposition. Reducing these chronic health issues has been a white whale in public health — it’s notoriously difficult to encourage people to adopt healthier behavior.

The expected boom in Alzheimer’s Disease cases comes with a unique opportunity.

One of the most effective ways to change behavior is by providing people with a single person or patient with whom they can identify. It’s called the identifiable victim effect, and it works like this: humans frequently get overwhelmed by large numbers — the thousands of people who die in a war, or get infected with a virus, or suffer from malnutrition. Stories that include statistics and big numbers lose their punch because the scale overwhelms us. We are numb to the impact as it relates to our own lives.

But when we hear a story about one person who is similar to someone we know, or we experience a health episode ourselves, we are significantly more likely to change our behavior and to advocate to those around us to consider alternatives. This may be a possible opportunity for course correction against Alzheimer’s: As more people experience their loved ones battling the disease or are thrust into the role of caretaker, the awareness of a connection between chronic disease and Alzheimer’s prevention could usher in a dramatic shift in healthier behavior among younger generations.

Such a shift can’t come too soon.

The projected economic burden from Alzheimer’s Disease is already $321 billion and is expected to top a staggering $1 trillion by 2050. Family and volunteer caretakers already spend 18 billion hours of unpaid time helping relatives with Alzheimer’s Disease. As more people like me enter the sandwich generation of caring for young families and aging parents at the same time, it is fair to assume that we will see a decline in productivity and corresponding increases in mental health crises and the kind of stressful behavior that fuels the cycle of health issues later in life. Outside of the companies that stand to profit from the health challenges of an aging population directly, the looming economic burden of Alzheimer’s should be a clear signal that chronic disease prevention is everyone’s business.

Framing Alzheimer’s Disease as a public health imperative linked to chronic disease prevention could be the catalyst we need to encourage younger people to adopt healthier behavior while there’s still enough time.

The post We Have More Control Over Preventing Alzheimer’s Disease Than We Think appeared first on Medika Life.