The businesses promote their services as stress relief solutions that help customers release their pent-up anger from their weekly struggles.
The concept is effective because it aligns with our common understanding of stress-relief methods. People have always received advice to release their pent-up emotions through physical activity. The psychological concept that internalizing anger leads to adverse effects has long been recognized in the field. The waiver process for rage room customers fails to ask whether destructive activities truly help people manage their anger.

The answer to this question is negative. And the answer lies in examining multiple studies that most rage room customers remain unaware of. Why should they care? They’re selling a service, and that’s it.

The Appeal of Destruction

Rage rooms have gained significant popularity worldwide. The business model has expanded throughout the United States and into multiple countries worldwide. Customers reserve time at these facilities for their birthdays and team-building activities and to cope with relationship endings. Essentially, the experience creates an elevated feeling as you participate. Loud glass-breaking sounds and the sight of inexpensive lamps exploding into pieces create a deep sense of contentment. What are you really doing? Breaking the rules of society by destroying things.

The experience produces authentic positive emotions. But feeling good doesn’t necessarily translate into reduced anger. The scientific evidence on anger management techniques reveals unexpected results that challenge conventional beliefs about this approach.

What Science Actually Says

The 2024 Ohio State University study evaluated 154 anger management techniques through 10,000 participant studies. The research team discovered that physical arousal-increasing activities, such as hitting objects, intense physical exercise, and running, do not decrease anger levels. Actually, these activities often lead to increased anger levels.

The discovery of anger management has been part of scientific knowledge for many years. R.H. Hornberger conducted his research in 1959 to study human behavior. The researcher asked participants to complete a writing assignment, followed by an insult about their work. Participants who pounded nails on a board for 10 minutes showed increased hostility and aggression afterward compared to those who remained seated. Subjects who engaged in nail pounding were expected to experience better emotional states because it would relieve their frustration. It didn’t work out that way.

The results showed the opposite effect from what was expected. Participants who hammered nails displayed higher aggression levels than those who remained silent. The act of hitting objects to release anger increased their willingness to express anger toward people. Is that what we want — people motivated to violence?

The discovery created such concern that scientists conducted additional research to verify their findings. Multiple studies confirmed that the same pattern emerged in their results. The world-renowned psychologist Albert Bandura demanded an immediate halt to using anger release as an anger treatment approach in 1973. A 1977 review established that anger venting doesn’t decrease aggression, but actually increases aggression in people.

Today, unfortunately, there are still individuals who act as therapists and tell their clients to punch pillows or use other objects of destruction. They are going against years of research that contradicts what they are saying. Did they learn nothing from the Bobo Doll experiment?

The myth persisted despite scientific evidence against it. People continued to believe in this myth while the research community continued to study this phenomenon. So, is it advertising or ignorance?

A study at the University of Michigan in 2002 tested the hypothesis surrounding emotion and physical targets. Researchers required participants to punch a bag while thinking about their anger targets. The researchers studied three groups who punched the bag while thinking about their anger, two groups who punched the bag for fitness, and a control group who did not punch anything. Participants who focused on their anger during punching were the most aggressive of all three groups. The practice of doing nothing proved more effective than the practice of anger release.

Why Rage Rooms Feel Good Even Though They Don’t Work

The current situation presents an unusual paradox. People continue to visit rage rooms despite these facilities failing to decrease their anger levels. They experience a positive sensation during rage room activities even though these activities don’t help with anger management.

The solution depends on two essential factors. Physical exercise triggers the body to produce endorphins, which are natural chemicals that create feelings of happiness. The act of destruction requires intense physical effort. Your body will experience a strong sensation regardless of your current emotional state. And the process of destruction provides two primary benefits to people. What are they? They experience a sense of rebellion when they break rules inside controlled spaces, which creates an exciting feeling (pumped up emotions). That’s a momentary effect, but there is no salutary effect that carries over into the other aspects of their lives. Breaking things violently does not translate into a calmer person when they become angry.

Research has shown that people frequently mistake improved moods for reduced aggressive emotions. The temporary improvement in your mood makes you believe your anger has disappeared. Actually, what your body learned is to express aggression through physical actions when you feel angry. What do you actually learn? Your body learned to link anger with physical aggression through this experience. Wouldn’t all of this point to more aggression in a situation of intense anger? Seems to me it would.

The comparison between this situation and smoking cessation becomes apparent. A person who wants to stop smoking would never use a special room for practicing cigarette smoking. The practice of smoking in a designated area would strengthen your smoking habit instead of helping you quit. Rage rooms operate through the exact mechanism as this example.

What Actually Works

The 2024 study demonstrated that arousal-increasing activities are ineffective, while showing effective anger-reduction methods. Your body’s physiological arousal levels decrease when you perform specific activities that prove effective for anger reduction. The following activities help people reduce their anger levels:

• Deep breathing exercises
• Meditation and mindfulness
• Progressive muscle relaxation
• Yoga
• Taking time to cool down before responding

The most successful methods combined physical relaxation techniques with cognitive processes. Simply sitting in silence produces beneficial effects. Your breathing rate becomes more relaxed when you practice deliberate breathing control. What’s more, these techniques help people from all backgrounds, age groups, and cultural backgrounds, and in different situations. They proved effective for both college students and criminal offenders in controlled laboratory environments and real-world situations.

Research conducted since 1959 has consistently demonstrated results on this topic. To effectively handle anger, you need to reduce its intensity rather than increase it. Your body needs to relax, not get more energized. That is the caveat.

The Middle Ground

The elimination of rage rooms from public access doesn’t seem necessary, and people should understand that these facilities provide no therapeutic benefits. Smashing objects with friends remains a harmless form of entertainment when people understand it serves as entertainment rather than therapy.

Don’t try to deceive yourself that it’s anything other than entertainment. Destroying objects with friends can create a unique experience and offer an opportunity to try something new together. But that’s all, it is an opportunity for bonding and fun, not a therapeutic activity.

People face issues when they believe rage rooms provide therapeutic benefits. Those who visit rage rooms for anger management purposes choose an ineffective method according to scientific evidence. The practice of aggressive responses to frustration during rage room activities might actually intensify your anger problems. It would be interesting if someone did an experiment where they logged persons who had utilized rage rooms and how frequently they engaged in physical aggression toward someone when they were away from those rooms. Who’s up for that one?

People can attend rage rooms for entertainment without any issues when they visit for special events or out of curiosity. But anyone who experiences anger problems that impact their relationships, work performance, or health status should avoid rage rooms as a solution.

The scientific evidence from sixty-five years of research confirms that rage rooms do not work for anger management. When you become angry, take ten deep breaths while counting your exhalations. Take a peaceful stroll through the area. Find a peaceful spot to sit for 15 minutes of silence. Help yourself calm down, not ramp up your anger.

The process of managing anger through these methods will prove more effective than destroying a television, even though it lacks the thrilling experience. The actual goal of anger management requires you to focus on controlling your anger rather than simply learning about it.

The post Rage Rooms: Do They Actually Help With Anger? appeared first on Medika Life.

Q&A

Gil Bashe: You called Converge\OIST the “very first gathering.” Why did Okinawa feel like the right birthplace?

Yasushi Yamamoto: Yes, this is the very first gathering, and we named it Converge\OIST because I’m a big fan of ‘OIST’—the context of the birth, this location, these people. It was the right place and people, a great gathering, and a pleasure to meet old friends in such a beautiful, inspiring place.

Gil Bashe: Your career bridges Tokyo boardrooms and Jerusalem start-ups. Where did your obsession with “convergence” begin?

Yasushi Yamamoto: Innovation cannot be done in an isolated form; it should be done in collaboration with various fields. Professionals with beautiful résumés in Tokyo surround me, but many lack a broader vision. They are so good at something particular, yet it’s a pity they’re busy in silos. I saw the lack of collaboration and started my business, raising money from Japanese corporations for Israeli start-ups. That contrast—dinosaurs with big systems but little ‘challenging spirit’ versus entrepreneurs who ‘run and fix’—motivated me to build synergy between powerful pieces.

Gil Bashe: Modern medicine seems to multiply silos every year. How do you see convergence breaking that pattern?

Yasushi Yamamoto: Medicine has become hyper-specialized. We have gastroenterologists who only look at the upper esophagus or the colon, cardiologists in electrophysiology, and neurologists focused on one nerve pathway. They perfect an art, but they have blinders. Convergence is breaking down those walls.

Gil Bashe: Inviting violinists and AI ethicists to the same podium can feel radical. How did people react when you pitched this mix?

Yasushi Yamamoto: People would never believe me if I hadn’t done serious work in the previous decade. Thanks to that track record, we built trust. Gathering in Okinawa sounded out of context for many professionals, but it wasn’t curiosity but trust that made them come.

Gil Bashe: Every July, you disappear into Kyoto’s 1,200-year-old Gion festival to play the traditional Japanese flute. What does a month of music teach a CEO?

Yasushi Yamamoto: Back home, I’m participating and serving. When I set up my company, I realized it would never be greater than this festival. The experience makes me humble. I received a baton from previous generations and must pass it on to the next. After that month, I ask, ‘Two generations later, how will young people judge the work I’m doing now?’

Gil Bashe: You’ve spoken of building on three “wheels”: science, art, and philosophy. Where is Corundum on that journey?

Yasushi Yamamoto: We started in hardcore science and investment, then gradually expanded to art—like Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist in one person. In the coming three to five years, I will put the vehicle of philosophy on top. Combining great minds and spirit, we can create something AI alone cannot deliver.

Gil Bashe: What tangible outcomes do you want from Converge?

Yasushi Yamamoto: First, I want to support OIST, an institution I love. We held the first event there; followed by South by Southwest London. I want more gatherings in multiple locations, bringing talented people with good hearts.

Gil Bashe: You’ve set up subsidiaries for neuroscience, virtual mixed human-data AI, and the microbiome. Why those intersections?

Yasushi Yamamoto: Think of the gut–brain axis. Discovery comes from interaction: AI power, system biology, and the microbiome. Add the element of art to inspire other curious, intelligent people, and the community expands.

Gil Bashe: Food as medicine used to be folk wisdom; you’re turning it into data science. How?

Yasushi Yamamoto: We invested in a project from the Weizmann Institute—the deepest phenotype cohort, hundreds of people over 20 years with genes, metabolites, behavior, nutrition. We link ancient wisdom to ultra-modern science by layering AI on that dataset. We are converging the past, the future, and current ways of life.

Gil Bashe: Philosophy sounds noble, but ventures need cash. How do you square capital with conscience?

Yasushi Yamamoto: I strongly believe in setting vision on a solid philosophical idea, but also in the power of capital. Our job is to propose a hypothesis, bring capital, deploy people, and prove the hypothesis with action. So, we’re raising our next venture fund while creating the Corundum Convergence Institute, a U.S. 501(c)(3), as an alternative financing model to advance science.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Yamamoto-san reframes the entrepreneur’s impossible triangle—mission, money, and meaning—into an orchestral score. Science provides the bass line, art supplies melody, philosophy sets tempo, and well-deployed capital funds the concert hall. As Converge expands from Okinawa to London and beyond, its founder is betting that harmony, not hierarchy, will unlock the next era of precision health.

The takeaway is disarmingly simple for the rest of us: when great minds tune their instruments to work in harmony, the walls separating our disciplines start to fall—and patients everywhere will hear the music of life-sustaining innovation.

According to Gil Granot Mayer, Executive Vice President, Technology Development & Innovation at OIST:

“In just two days, we managed to connect people from different disciplines and geographies, immersing them in the OIST spirit and Okinawa’s culture. From understanding the value of the long tail to different approaches to improving life through the Human Phenotype Project, or the understanding of a new aging mechanism associated with cell membrane damage. I hope that these new connections and cutting-edge talks will spark new collaborations and great results.”

The post Blending Renaissance Thinking and Collaborative Power to Address Global Health Challenges appeared first on Medika Life.

Government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded research ensures the health of our people and drives the health of our economy. The current policy of cuts and freezes puts both at risk.

For decades, Congress has provided strong, bipartisan support to research programs, not simply to help Americans stay healthy and live longer but to give American researchers, businesses, and other institutions a leg-up. This has meant that costly, labor-intensive scientific research doesn’t have to be completely shouldered through private funding.

It would seem that American businesses and institutions — in particular patient advocacy groups, the ambassadors of communities that benefit most from science that leads to innovations that can sustain and save lives – should want to vigorously defend government-backed research. But in today’s political climate, leaders are taking a “wait and see” approach. While this may appear prudent, now is not the time for complacency.

The old saying, “fail to prepare and you prepare to fail,” couldn’t be more timely. Patient advocates and other leaders need to act now to marshal facts about the essential benefits of government-funded science. They need to develop a strategy to express their expert points of view, identifying which topics they will speak out about and to whom, in order to be ready to assert their influence when the timing is right.

As new policies unfold, voices calling us back to this shared national interest are essential. Patient advocates and business leaders hold tremendous power – and responsibility – to help rally support for essential programs and remind decision makers of what’s really at stake. Here are three considerations, based on many years of guiding clients through successful thought leadership campaigns, that can help leaders plan their words and actions for maximum impact, even as they operate in a “watch and wait” environment.

1. Define What Is at Stake

Publicly funded research has saved many millions of American lives. Since 1969, the U.S. stroke mortality rate has decreased by 70%, largely due to NIH-funded research on treatments and prevention. The American Cancer Society estimates that 3.5 million lives were saved from 1991 to 2019 because of publicly funded advances. These are only two of many examples.

But if these very real impacts – which touch all of us – do not carry enough weight, consider that government subsidized research has also been a powerful driver for American businesses. Every dollar spent by the NIH in research funding in the fiscal year 2024 (FY24) generated $2.56 of economic activity, according to a new report, “NIH’s Role in Sustaining the U.S. Economy.” And those dollars enabled the development and production of penicillin and other life-saving antibiotics, antiretrovirals, Ozempic and other GLP-1s, polio and measles vaccines, and discoveries such as deciphering the human genetic code.

This taxpayer-funded investment has made American drug companies, med-tech, hospitals and biotech global powerhouses. In this way, the U.S. has led the world, both in innovation and economically.

2. Determine the Audience(s) You Want to Reach

If the last few weeks have proven anything, it is that local conversations can have national impact. And, it’s local economies that stand to benefit the most from publicly funded science. These communities and states will also suffer most acutely should funding continue to be withheld from research programs located in their communities.

A new study from the Association of American Universities found that in FY24, the NIH alone awarded $36.94 billion in extramural research funding to researchers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, funding that supported 407,782 jobs and produced $94.58 billion in new economic activity nationwide.

That is all balanced on a knife edge at the moment. These figures demonstrate that local communities and their lawmakers – state and federal congresspeople and senators – are the natural allies of research programs that depend on federal dollars. Such programs put businesses and people to work in fields ranging from construction and maintenance to food services and research and development.

By acting hyper-locally, targeting the vulnerable communities and representatives who are impacted most by current policy, thought leaders can start to move the country away from self-harm towards a restoration of prosperity and health.

3. Actively Monitor for Opportunity to Assert Leadership

While it’s clear what’s at stake and who stands to benefit or lose the most, evaluating the right time to act is more challenging. What’s becoming more apparent is that, as the impact of cuts and freezes begins to be felt more broadly by patients, employees of local businesses and local communities – then leaders’ words will have more resonance and impact. Thought leadership will have an increasing ability to rally support and change minds.

In many places, this is already beginning to happen. Conducting outreach in those communities at the moment when the administration’s cuts are affecting people’s income and businesses’ bottom lines most acutely, leadership voices can begin to have an impact. Drawing attention to the struggles our neighbors are facing, and calling for action based on people’s experiences, the evident economic impacts, and real public health needs will resonate. Determining the right moment to act will take careful monitoring of economic and health impacts within key communities across America and seizing the right moment.

If advocacy groups want to continue to protect and promote the rights of patients, they must prepare to speak out. If the organizations, health systems and companies of the American health ecosystem that have been blessed with the fruits of publicly funded research want to continue to stay competitive, their leaders must speak out. If the small businesses that rely on their employees’ health and customers’ wallets wish to stay competitive, they, too, must raise their voices. What’s at stake is the health of all Americans and our nation’s world-leading position as the “arsenal of health.”

The time is now for leaders to make their plans. Those who are ready to speak will be thought leaders—and those who do not will not be. American thought leaders must prepare to speak up, loudly and often, to guarantee the future of U.S. leadership and to help America remain healthy—physically and financially.

The post For Leaders, When Is it Time to Speak Out for Science? appeared first on Medika Life.

Yet today, we find ourselves dismantling these hard-won achievements. Extraordinary cuts to disease prevention, research, and surveillance programs signal a large-scale reversal of a successful strategy of containment and elimination. Such an irresponsible pivot risks opening the door for vaccine-preventable diseases, drug-resistant infections and new pandemics to reemerge with devastating force. If we continue down this path, the consequences will be felt not just in developing nations, but across the industrialized world, where health systems already are under strain.

It could take years to regain the high ground we currently hold against infectious diseases; many countries may never get there again. While pursuing modernization and efficiencies in the global health system is vital, randomly eliminating or suppressing funding and institutions we rely on to develop the pipeline of new vaccines, therapeutics, and practices to fight tomorrow’s pathogens only weakens us further. Our most dangerous disease threats constantly evolve, probe our weaknesses, and exploit natural opportunities to strike.

The attack on America’s preeminent medical research institutions and the innovations they fuel severely undermines our ability to counter disease while degrading the very talent we need to protect us: the next generation of scientists and medical researchers.

Many prominent health leaders are sounding the alarm, but until a coalition of the informed begins to take shape, we may as well be screaming into the wind. Unless a concerted effort is made to change course, the infrastructure, jobs, institutional knowledge, and recruitment of future health experts that constitute one of humanity’s greatest achievements may be dismantled. Surely by now we have learned that research and disease prevention is dramatically less costly than deploying the vast resources necessary to respond to a new outbreak.

Here’s one path forward: U.S. health communicators, advocates, and leaders should coordinate framing the issues to state and congressional lawmakers who stand to lose the most from the current health funding policy direction. Many of the places contributing the most to America’s competitive advantage in biomedical research are in conservative districts that receive funding from the NIH and other public sources.

Similarly, emerging diseases often pose the highest threat to people battling chronic diseases or living in areas underserved by health services, which means all of us are affected, regardless of economic status or ideological belief. People at every level of the health system—from practitioners to patients, researchers to drugmakers—should be energized to speak with one voice and let policymakers know that retreat in the face of defeatable disease threats is the wrong direction for the U.S.

Disease is humanity’s greatest enemy, and it constantly hovers at our doorstep. Do we pretend not to hear it knocking, or do we recognize its dangers and act?

That’s exactly the moment we are facing now. Our situation is complicated by the fact that our most important defenses – biomedical research and disease prevention infrastructure – are being demolished before our eyes. It will take real courage to act, but we must marshal our resources, defying the ambivalence and dismissiveness that make us more vulnerable to looming infectious disease threats. This is no time to retreat.

The post A Turning Point for Global Health appeared first on Medika Life.

This isn’t just about politics; it’s about public health, our ability to foresee and tackle future crises, and the integrity of scientific progress. When information disappears, the imagination about future possibilities disappears, and trust eventually disappears. And when trust erodes, so does our clear path to innovate, treat, and prevent the conditions that threaten human lives.

The Hidden Costs of Scientific Censorship

Censorship in science, medicine, and psychology doesn’t just suppress facts; it stifles breakthroughs. Scientific dissent is often the birthplace of innovation. Imagine if Ignaz Semmelweis had been silenced when he proposed handwashing to prevent infections or if HIV research had been blocked because it challenged biased narratives.

Silencing scientists today means fewer opportunities for tomorrow’s cures. Consider:

• Medical Research and Public Health — Data on Alzheimer’s, STD treatments, and overdose prevention trends guide policies and innovation. If public health agencies quietly remove or limit access to this knowledge, how will researchers or in-the-trenches public health professionals develop new treatments or preventive strategies?
• Environmental and Health Links — Climate change affects respiratory diseases, heat-related illnesses, and infectious disease spread. If we erase data on these connections, we blind policymakers and health providers to the realities they must address.
• Mental Health and Social Science — From trauma to the role of social determinants in disease, psychological research informs how we treat and support people’s wellness and well-being. When access to that knowledge is restricted, so are our tools to address crises like teen suicide and PTSD.

Government Justification — and the Risks of Overreach

While concerns over misinformation and national security are often cited as reasons for limiting public access to specific data, history warns us of the dangers of excessive control. Governments may argue that restricting specific information helps prevent panic, misinformation, or harmful misinterpretations (or, even worse, disinformation). However, when public agencies remove health and science data without transparent discussion, they risk undermining trust and accountability.

The balance between information security and the right to knowledge must be carefully maintained because progress suffers once suppression becomes the norm.

Censorship Kills Creativity — and Delays Life-Saving Discoveries

Discarding certain points of view does more damage than suppressing voice — it suffocates creativity. Science, like art, thrives on curiosity, challenge, and critique. Often, significant breakthroughs in medicine and psychology were once outlier ideas met with skepticism or resistance.

• The Germ Theory of Disease was ridiculed before it revolutionized infection control.
• Helicobacter pylori’s role in ulcers was dismissed — until its discoverers won a Nobel Prize.
• The link between social determinants and mental health was ignored for decades, delaying holistic approaches to care and addressing the needs of populations most at risk for illness.

When institutions decide which ideas deserve visibility, they don’t just silence voices but extinguish innovation sparks. Fear of professional or political backlash discourages scientists from pursuing unconventional theories, slowing progress at a time when the urgency of medical advancements has never been greater. Fear of losing access to grants places outside-the-box thinkers into a smaller world where wondering why and questioning the status quo of disease becomes too risky to contemplate.

The False Promise of ‘Controlling the Narrative’

Some argue that removing certain information prevents misinformation. But proper scientific progress comes from debate, peer review, and constant re-evaluation — not from a government deciding which truths deserve visibility. Mistakes and failures are stepping stones to better approaches and are not institutionalized as “forever approaches” to people’s care.

We live in an era when AI can generate misinformation faster than fact-checkers can catch it. But the solution isn’t erasure; it’s education. Censorship doesn’t correct falsehoods; it breeds skepticism and fuels conspiracy theories. Timely transparency, however, builds credibility, trust, and working communities around solutions.

When institutions decide which ideas deserve visibility, they don’t just silence voices; they extinguish sparks of innovation. Fear of professional or political backlash discourages scientists from pursuing unconventional theories, slowing progress at a time when the urgency of medical advancements has never been greater. Remember McCarthyism in US history — the Great Red Scare? How did that play out in Hollywood and politics? Not well.

What’s at Stake? Our Future

If researchers cannot access past data, how can they track disease patterns or health trends? How can medical professionals provide the best care if they lose access to evolving best practices? If scientists fear retribution for discussing controversial topics, how will we ever challenge flawed assumptions and advance knowledge?

Censorship is the enemy of innovation. It does not protect people; it weakens them. Progress depends on an open marketplace of ideas, where competing viewpoints sharpen theories, refine treatments, and spark breakthroughs. If we allow the erasure of uncomfortable or politically inconvenient knowledge, we risk living in a world where the next significant medical advance never sees the light of day.

Knowledge is not a partisan issue. It is the foundation for human progress. If we start treating scientific inquiry and imagination as something that can be controlled or curated, we lose history and the future.

The post The Silent Threat: How Censorship in Medicine, Science, and Psychology Endangers Innovation and Public Health appeared first on Medika Life.

I have always found it odd that my temperature is always 98 degrees Fahrenheit (F), or 36.7 Celcius.

I thought about this recently, as I recently had an office visit with my healthcare provider.

It all makes more sense now. Stanford University (USA) researchers recently discovered that the “correct” normal number is about 98 F.

“There are three types of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics.” ― Benjamin Disraeli.

Let’s start by turning the clock back to how we got to the “98.6 F” we all know.

Today’s Topic

Did you know that the normal body temperature is not 98.6°F?

Recent research by Stanford University has revealed that the “new normal” body temperature is slightly lower, at 97.95°F.

This article will explore the history of body temperature measurement, the new findings, and what they mean for healthcare providers and patients.

Normal Body Temperature — A Brief History

Dr. Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich was a German pioneering psychiatrist.

He introduced temperature charts into hospitals, holding that fever is not a disease but a symptom.

I am surprised at his thermometer size. It was reportedly one foot long and took 20 minutes to register a temperature.

A New Standard Emerges in the 1800s

While thermometry became popular, no clinician could match the sheer data volume Wunderlich had accumulated.

The average temperature? This pioneer of thermometry reported it was 37° C (98.6 f).

New research has discovered that the numbers provided by Wunderlich were not perfectly accurate.

Wunderlich noted that a normal body temperature could go up to 38°C (100.4°F), higher than what we consider normal today.

A Modern Rethinking of Body Temperature

We are a century and a half since Dr. Wunderlich set the standard for normal body temperature.

We humans may have changed since the mid-1800s. Moreover, we have better temperature-measuring tools today.

The clever folks at Stanford University School of Medicine (USA) realized that we take our temperature every time we visit the doctor’s office.

So, they decided to use this wealth of data to understand better what’s ‘normal’ when it comes to body temperature.”

Redefining Oral Temperature Normal

For the study, the Stanford researchers applied artificial learning (machine learning) tools to over 600,000 adult outpatient encounters to define a “normal” temperature.

The “normal” temperature was 36.64°C (97.95°F). The range of average temperatures for the coolest to the warmest individuals was 36.24°C (97.23°F) to 36.89°C (98.4°F).

The researchers also concluded that sex, age, height, weight, and time of day affected normal temperature ranges.

Final Thoughts — Sizzling Stats: The Science Behind the New Average Body Temperature

In conclusion, modern medical research has redefined the concept of “normal” body temperature.

While Dr. Wunderlich’s historic temperature chart set the standard for normal body temperature in the mid-1800s, new studies have found that the average “normal” temperature is 36.64°C (97.95°F).

Machine learning tools have allowed researchers to understand better how factors such as age, sex, height, and weight can affect normal temperature ranges.

As our understanding of the human body continues to evolve, it is important to stay up-to-date with the latest medical research to ensure we accurately measure and interpret vital signs.

The post Sizzling Stats: The Science Behind the New Average Body Temperature appeared first on Medika Life.

Covid vaccines are 98% percent effective at preventing infection and transmission.

Remember that statement? It was drummed into us as we were locked away. Later, as the efficacy percentages dropped, month to month, our livelihoods and access to basics like foodstuffs and accommodation became dependent on accepting a treatment that many were beginning to suspect wasn’t “as described” on the package insert. If one could be found anywhere.

Now, in 2023, in what can loosely be described as a post-pandemic phase, the lies continue. Despite glaring warnings from people in the know that mRNA can indeed transcribe itself into our DNA, thanks to DNA contamination (intentional or otherwise) of the vaccines that exceeds recognized safety levels by a number of factors, we still persist in the lie. That Covid vaccines are safe.

The world, or at least those who care to research the issue properly, know otherwise, and yet, the entire medical and scientific complex continues to promote mRNA vaccines, encouraging parents to vaccinate children as young as six months.

Can we trust science?

That’s the million dollar question and science seems hell bent on convincing us to the contrary. Little wonder then, that climate change skepticism is on the rise. Why would we trust the same community that propagated a half-truth for the duration of the pandemic and still, pathetically clings to it, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary?

I tend to look at evidence and data when evaluating a claim, and I must admit that in the past I placed a lot of faith in the medical community and science itself. What benefit, to the community, I asked myself, to propagate a lie? It turns out, my base assumption was both flawed and naïve, and for one simple reason. Science no longer exists solely for the purposes of advancing knowledge.

Clinical studies, long seen as the hallmark of evidence-based medicine, can be corrupted and data coerced to produce the desired results. No medical journal or publication escapes this insidious coercion of science. While I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, it’s when science and politics converge, it’s challenging to determine who is believable. Science must return promptly to its historic mission to explore and publish untainted data.

Disinformation is blamed for increased climate skepticism, but in truth, the root of the blame lies squarely at the door of science. They have misled us, been caught in the lie, and despite this, still persist. It is therefore little wonder that the continuous deluge of news relating to climate change and our impending doom is greeted with growing skepticism.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Science must recognize that its absolute trust has been shattered. How do we believe in the urgencies of public health when we question the source of the information? Science and its advocates must revisit how to regain public confidence.

So is Climate Change real?

Undoubtedly. Our planet is warming. We know the earth is subject to cycles of hot and cold, and we’re headed into a hot one What role we play, if any, in accelerating this process is still largely debatable, and given the length of records we have access to, we can hardly make accurate predictions. 300 years pales in comparison to the planet’s billion year old history. Its been around awhile and undoubtedly will be here after our demise.

Science would you have you believe you are completely responsible for this natural cycle. Our role in speeding up the process is unknown and anyone who can claim to know otherwise is simply selling you snake oil.

What is true however is that we are polluting our natural resources. Plastics are contaminating every corner of the earth and we are endangering our access to clean drinking water. Unlike the occasional heat wave, potable drinking water is key to human survival, so in the end, the argument may be moot.

We won’t be around to see the poles covered in tropical vegetation.

The post Covid’s Impact on Climate Change and Health appeared first on Medika Life.

This article contains claims that many will consider incendiary and anti-science. It therefore requires context and if you indulge me for a minute or two, I’d like, at length, to provide background before we address the large mammal. Words have power and we use them to record our history, describe the world around us, create narratives and chart the future. We use words to communicate our deepest thoughts, describe our fears and share our joys. And then, in some instances we use words to lie, both to others and ourselves.

I understand fully the responsibility that comes with the gift of being able to convey complex ideas to others, more importantly however, I also grasp the moral obligation attached to the gift. It should only ever be used for truth, or in the pursuit thereof. Science isn’t that different. It relies on words to describe complex concepts, often utilizing its own specific language, one that for most laypeople, places much of what is discussed beyond reach.

I am, for the record, a disciple of science. I believe. I always have. The logical purity of numbers and the wonders of the natural world are intertwined in an almost mystical fashion and our salvation, as a species will undoubtedly depend on science. Much like the Spiderman character however, the ability to wield an understanding and control over the natural world grants the scientist almost unlimited power. Power that, you guessed it, requires responsibility. Responsibility, morals and a strong sense of ethics.

That it what this article is about. It is not about science per se, but rather about the consequences we now face from the abuse and corruption of the discipline, morphing it into a tool whose primary focus is profit and control, rather than the betterment of our species. That, unfortunately, makes the brand of science currently being practiced, a danger to you and I. A fact the pandemic has highlighted with stunning clarity.

mRNA is the Pandora’s box of science, one of many advancing technology has uncovered. Make no mistake, mRNA holds huge promise for medicine, potentially even rivalling the discovery of penicillin. You can read an article I wrote on that exact topic in 2021, exploring the promise the technology holds.

So no, I am clearly not anti-science, at least not when the science being practiced is honest, ethical and cautious science, science that is aware of the potential impact of its actions on society and our wellbeing. That is not the science we have endured for the last three years, and we need to speak up. We have been systematically and intentionally lied to, misled and chemically abused for the last two years of the pandemic, potentially even right from the outset. Misled with words, scientific phrases couched in ambiguity and force-fed fear by the mass media, at the behest of politicians and scientists.

Now, when the dust settles, we need to face uncomfortable truths and a world that has changed, in ways we have yet to fully grasp. So, to the article, and if you should find yourself at odds with it, please, at least consider the questions it raises.

The Viral Elephant

If, and the “if” is looking more and more likely, the entire human race was just exposed to the first genetically engineered virus, we need to be urgently addressing the elephant in the room. The effects of the SARS-COV2 virus on our physiology are widespread and complex and it is critical more time is spent reverse engineering exactly how the virus was altered to increase its transmissibility.

I came across an incredibly interesting article while writing this piece from one of Medika’s contributors, William Haseltine, that describes in detail one of the unique tools this novel virus utilizes to evade and suppress our immune system. The article may prove heavy going for some, but it is an excellent read and provides insight on just how well adapted the virus is at exploiting our defenses.

Far more than being a one trick pony, SARS-COV2 is the Swiss army knife of viruses and we, unfortunately, are the can of baked beans.

You may notice how I refer to the above tool as unique. Its a term used all the time when discussing this virus. It is unique and the more we discover about it, the more likely it becomes that it was intentionally weaponized (for whatever purpose) to exploit our physiology. Simply put, the virus that has killed millions across the globe was likely released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is a product of science, American science, it is worth adding, practiced at a safe distance, on foreign soil and funded by American taxpayers.

For the first time in the history of humanity, over the course of the next two generations, this genetically manipulated virus will have infected the entire global population. For those who escaped the virus itself, there is no escaping the engineered bits (or spike protein) that have been artificially stimulated in your system by the mRNA vaccines. So the extent of the damage caused by the SARS-COV2 virus and its ability to access our entire physiology is not surprising, given it was designed for exactly that purpose.

We now face a new kind of threat, unknown medical risk by intentional design, a threat for which we are physiologically unprepared. This new world is filled with unknowns. Future mutations, revisited on us by livestock as we infect a host of animals that live in close proximity to us, or a reversion to the original SARS strain, far more deadly than SARS-COV2. How the virus and the vaccines impact our immune system’s response to future viral attacks is also up in the air. These are the issue’s we should be addressing now, with a sense of immediacy.

It is not melodramatic to suggest our species survival may depend on it, and if you think this is being melodramatic, then you still haven’t grasped the gravity of what has just unfolded.

The first step in this process requires accountability from the players involved, most notably EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, Anthony Fauci, Kristian G. Andersen, Dr. Ralph S. Baric, Dr. Shi Zhengli, et al. must be made to cooperate with a view to establishing the exact nature of their Gain of Function research on coronaviruses. Exactly what did they cook up in the lab in Wuhan and what else resides there on ice, patiently waiting for the next breach in safety protocols.?

It is also worth pausing a moment to consider the irony of the last three years, of looking to those who created the SARS-COV2 virus for our salvation.

The pandemic is rapidly transitioning from a global viral infection to chronic, long-term complications, with a range of symptoms so broad, doctors are at a loss as to how to define and treat them. Covid vaccines may play a significant, but as yet, unquantified role in many of these chronic and often fatal conditions, further muddying the waters. To truly understand which actor, the vaccine or the virus, both manufactured, may be to blame for the afflictions faced by millions, we need reliable, unbiased research and securing that is proving increasingly difficult.

Sifting Quicksand

Every corner of science and the politics that governs it has skin in the Covid game. The pharma industry, perhaps best positioned to carry out large-scale clinical research, can no longer be trusted. Any data released by pharma relating to anything pandemic related – especially in the absence of critical, independent third party review, cannot and must not be taken at face value.

The original Covid mRNA vaccine trials are evidence of this. The trials (170 people, in case you were not aware) were subjected to the most appalling “management” of candidates and data to validate the vaccine’s safety. Rapid development of a vaccine or treatment was of the essence to alleviate a collapsing medical infrastructure that was buckling under the pressure of the pandemic. Moderna took 28 days to solve the problem. 28 days. I’d say it again, but you can draw your own conclusions.

After nearly two decades, we hadn’t managed to develop a vaccine for the original SARS virus and yet, 28 days later, we had a working SARS-COV2 vaccine ready for clinical trials. The absurdity of this and the euphoric acceptance of this break with scientific reality go a long way to illustrating the desperation felt by many in the early days of the pandemic. Logic would rather suggest the virus was familiar to both Moderna and Pfizer prior to 2019.

Government agencies within the U.S. have been deeply complicit, providing funding via the NIH and the NIAID for developing and effectively weaponizing coronaviruses, ostensibly for the purposes of “further research.” Their ability to provide unbiased opinion on what poses a danger to the public they serve has been compromised. It is essential, moving forward, that both the FDA and CDC are overhauled, effectively preventing their pursuit of policies that place the public directly in harms way. Take their latest unanimous advice on vaccinating children as young as six months with mRNA vaccines.

Possibly the greatest indictment of the CDC is their mismanagement of VAERS. The CDC took 15 months before it finally evaluated data from the VAERS system in June of 2022. VAERS is a dedicated tool for collecting reports on vaccine side effects. So why wait 15 months? No sense in checking data for safety signals to simply verify what you already know, is there? Once you’ve checked that data, you can also no longer ignore it.

Every academic medical institution capable of performing the required research we so desperately need is at the same time beholden to outside funding. Research grants and future employment are dependent on not rocking the boat. To produce data that conflicts with, compromises or exposes funding sources (for the most part, pharma) is the equivalent of professional suicide and banishment to the land of the unfunded.

That leaves us with the politicians, whose agendas are rarely fueled by the best interests of the public. Although elected by us, they are all cling to the purse strings that enable them to reach their lofty heights. We will probably never know who orchestrated the official pandemic narrative, but it was the politicians who enforced it. In 2023, despite irrefutable evidence that disputes this narrative, most still repeat it ad nauseam.

To understand just how interwoven this has all become, take Peter Daszak, appointed by the WHO to head up a team to investigate the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan, effectively policing his own research. In record time he appeared on camera, stating that his investigation had turned up no evidence of a breach in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Lie upon lie, layer upon layer of deceit and deception. Little wonder then that trust is science is at an all time low.

Given the above, where do we then turn for reliable, agenda free research that is motivated only by the pursuit of the truth? We need to overcome this seemingly insurmountable obstacle before we can even consider unpacking the plethora of virus related questions that require answers. Some would suggest, the World Health Organization is best placed to oversee an investigation, but they too, possibly more than any other health body, are riddled with conflicts of interest on every level.

One thing is glaringly apparent though. There is large and growing body of evidence supporting the fact Covid vaccines are harming some, in many instances, fatally, which begs the following question.

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO USE THEM? Why have we extended vaccination to healthy children and why does the CDC support this and promote it? How, in good conscience and with the safety of the public in mind, can governments and regulatory bodies allow the current narrative to continue? The study I have linked to above, references post vaccine induced myocarditis. Myocarditis post the Pfizer-Moderna combo was 28 times more common than post-Covid in 16-24 year old males in this massive Nordic study.

Impunity and the Point of No Return

No one is coming to save us and any hands that reach out from the medical and scientific community must, in light of the last three years, be considered tainted by default, until proven otherwise. This is the sad reality of where we currently find ourselves. Everyone in a position to put an end to the current pandemic narrative is compromised. They have passed the point of no return and although many may be racked by feelings or remorse, there is no world in which anyone admits fault, in particular to the virus’s origin and the efficacy of the vaccines.

That wonderful phrase “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is absolutely applicable. Everyone sold the narrative and no one institutes an investigation in which they are also likely to be held accountable. Add to this, a growing number of individuals, intimately involved in the pandemic, who act with absolute impunity and concern only for shareholder and personal profit – or glory – and we seem to find ourselves in a spot of bother.

Realistically, no one in a position of power or acting from within the industry is going to the sound the alarm. Our only hope of getting to the truth lies in picking at the edges of the tapestry until it frays and pulls apart. It is left to fringe reporters to harass individuals like Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, who was accosted recently in Davos by two reporters from Rebel News. He was peppered with questions about their vaccine, its efficacy and more. Understandably, he diplomatically kept silent .

An eminent British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra has also taken a stance against the vaccines and their manufacturers after the death of his father from a vaccine related illness. He is among a rising number of influential voices now starting to speak out publicly to call for an end to the mRNA vaccination campaign.

It is by no means a simple task or one for the feint of heart. Censorship is still frequently applied to any information that questions the ongoing Covid narrative, and on many social media platforms, content and users are still frequently de-platformed and often professionally sanctioned. Many have turned to Twitter, which, in recent months, since it’s acquisition by Elon Musk, has stopped censoring information that conflicts with the official narrative on the pandemic.

I’ve shared many articles during the last three years, relying mostly on common sense to question the incredibly dubious public health decisions as they’ve unfolded on a very public platform. At this point in the pandemic, we are now confronted with a very new and real threat, in the face of which, who did what, where, when and why, become almost irrelevant.

Mankind 2.0

What legacy will SARS-COV2 leave in its wake and how does that impact us and future generations? What long term impacts will the continued boosting of a novel drug with an abysmal safety record have on our physiology? What has it done to us over the last three years?

The truth is, we really don’t know the answers, which, in some instances, will require time and separating the vaccine’s effects from those of the virus have now become a research nightmare, thanks to the billions already vaccinated. In 2021, a group of academics valiantly tried to sound warning bells, this incredibly detailed article highlighting the potential dangers of mRNA vaccines.

We are headed into troubled waters, from a public health perspective. We may yet be plagued for generations to come by the ill effects of both the virus and the vaccines, no matter their delivery methods. More so, there is swirl and mistrust in voices of influence.

Long Covid, vaccine Serious Adverse Events (SAE’s – to many to list here) and strokes and heart related damage, in many instances fatal, already blight the medical landscape. Worryingly, the younger members of society appear to be as prone, if not more so, to developing adverse reactions, perhaps because their immune responses to the vaccine are more pronounced.

Humanity may have undone humanity, only time will tell. Time is needed to sort-out fact from fiction – probability from certainty. The responsibility now rests with us (you and I) to ensure we attempt to repair the damage and prevent any further rushed science being put to trial in the public space.

What can you do, you ask? Research all sides of the conversation. Ask questions and demand answers from those you have placed into positions of accountability. The truth will out – over time. Make your own, informed decisions – balancing your personal care and risk/risk – the risk of the current virus variant alongside your health status.

I’d ask one more thing of you. Trust your instincts and try to approach public facing pandemic information with a critical mind. There is almost always an agenda, from both sides of the fence and a little digging will normally uncover it. It’s time to leave the safety of the flock. In case you hadn’t noticed they’ve appointed the wolf as shepherd.

As a parting thought, please don’t vilify science. It is as much a victim of the avarice and greed of humanity, as we are. Perhaps, while we attempt to save ourselves, we can, in the same moment, rescue science. We are going to need it.

Missed Part 5 of the Covid Files on The Origins of Covid? Catch up here.

[EDITORS NOTE: The author is pro public health, pro science and pro vaccination. In this situation, he raises important questions and concerns for readers around the Covid SARS2 virus and Covid treatment approaches. His goal is to get people thinking in the best interest of future health innovation.]

The post Covid’s Elephant in the Room. We Must Address it appeared first on Medika Life.

What is Lupus?

Lupus (systemic lupus erythematosus) is an autoimmune disease that affects women approximately ten more than men, and is characterized by the overproduction of antibodies that attack the body’s own tissues. Lupus symptoms—ranging from mild to life-threatening—often come and go, making the condition hard to diagnose. Characteristic signs such as fatigue, muscle pains, joint pains and fever also coincide with symptoms of other diseases.

Current Lupus Treatments  

Although lupus has no cure, modern day symptomatic treatments ensure a normal life expectancy for 80-90% of people with lupus. One of our successes at Human Genome Sciences, a company I founded and served as Chair and CEO, was the use of genomics to discover and bring to market the first drug to treat lupus: Benlysta. Although the medicine proved to be effective, for some with lupus even the strongest drugs offer no relief.

CAR T Therapy for Lupus 

In their study, Mackensen et al. test the effectiveness of CAR T therapy for treatment-resistant forms of lupus. The theory derives itself from CAR T cells’ ability to kill cells. In lupus, B cells produce antibodies that attack the body and trigger inflammation (Figure 2). Using CAR T therapy, the researchers aimed to purge the B cell lineage, allowing the body to restore B cells de novo.

To do this, the researchers first collected patients’ white blood cells. The patients then underwent lymphodepletion, the use of chemotherapy drugs (i.e. fludarabine and cyclophosphamide) to preferentially kill B cells. As seen in Figure 3, this drug regimen leaves room for the later infusion of engineered T cells, but can be very dangerous if the immune system is too thoroughly depleted.

The team altered the patient T cells with new genetic information. The new, chimeric T cell products contained a new receptor—a single-chain variable (scFv) fragment poised to detect CD19-expressing cells—a 4-1BB costimulatory domain and a CD3 intracellular domain. Figure 4 illustrates these cellular components. The antibody-derived receptor and additional costimulatory structure do not naturally occur on T cells, lending the chimeric nature the therapy is coined after (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells).

Results 

Five patients with severe, treatment-resistant lupus (four women and one man) participated in the study. Lupus impacted several of their organs, including the kidney, heart, lungs, and joints. In addition, these patients did not respond to steroids, antimalarial drugs and other immunosuppressive medicines.

Each of the patients received a transfusion of modified T cells after chemoablation treatment. The chemoablation successfully depleted patient B cells while T cell numbers remained within normal range. Moreover, the team could no longer detect malignant autoantibodies (ie. anti-double stranded DNA antibodies). The participants’ responses to vaccines also remained largely unchanged, suggesting that the CAR T therapy correctly targeted detreminal B cells without damaging the entirety of the immune system.

Three months later, prior symptoms including kidney inflammation, arthritis, fatigue, and heart fibrosis disappeared, and all other immunosuppressive drugs could be discontinued. The symptoms did not return even when B cells began to reconstitute months later. Remission was defined by DORIS, a standardized criteria used to measure lupus symptom severity.

Future Possibilities for CAR T 

This study demonstrates how CAR T can send treatment-refractory lupus to remission. This is a first hopeful step. The search is now on for ways to improve CAR T induced remission for prior B cell ablation using a cocktail of cytotoxic drugs. The study also opens the door to the possibility of applying CAR T to other difficult to treat autoimmune diseases.

The post CAR T Therapy: From Cancer To Autoimmune Disease, The Lupus Example appeared first on Medika Life.

When I was a teenager, I became horribly sick after sleeping in front of a fan for hours on end (it was summertime and very hot). I also remember reading – way back in medical school – that respiratory viruses are able to attach better to the nasal mucosa in cold air. New research has elucidated the possible mechanism behind this. It turns out that our nasal mucosa has inherent, innate anti-viral properties.

There are things called “nasal epithelium-derived extracellular vesicles in innate Toll-like receptors” that line our nasal epithelium, or the lining of our noses. According to this research, these extracellular vesicles induce “a swarm-like increase in the secretion of nasal epithelial EVs via the TLR3 signaling,” and this helps prevent viral infections from happening.

Cold air, it turns out, seems to disrupt this process:

And so this may help explain why colds are more common in the winter months.

Now, it is true that there is also increased influenza in the winter months, even in warmer climates such as the Southern part of the U.S. And COVID did not stop during the summer, although it was definitely less prevalent than in the winter. Still, this may help explain part of the reason why respiratory viral infections are more common during the cold winter months.

Therefore…there seems to be a scientific case for a scarf: the scarf can help keep the upper airway nice and warm, so this innate antiviral defense system can stay as intact as possible. The same is true with a…dare I say it…mask (or balaclava) in the cold as well. It should be able to do the same thing: keep the ambient air in the upper airway warm.

Is this fool-proof? Of course not. But it is one possible extra arrow in the quiver to fight against respiratory viral infections in the winter. It is relatively inexpensive, does not involve drugs or medicines, and can be fashionable as well! And, with how annoying – and potentially deadly – some of these respiratory viruses can be, we need all the defenses we can muster.

The post The Scientific Case For a Scarf (Or A Mask) appeared first on Medika Life.