Aluminum along with other adjuvants and preservatives used in vaccines are likely a more substantial cause of autism than acetaminophen use during pregnancy. Note that vaccines given to children are also associated with acetaminophen use at the time of inflammation caused by these vaccines, so that could potentially increase the risk further.

When looking at populations that have lower rates of autism, I think of the Amish. And with the Amish you get less screen time, less exposure to artificial light spectrums, less exposure to nnEMF, less noise pollution less exposure to processed food (note that's been changing a lot over the prior several decades though). They are generally exposed to farming communities which creates a different microbiome. There have fewer medical intervention such as prenatal ultrasounds.

So I think trying to blame just acetaminophen or just vaccines is not sufficiently comprehensive.

I've come to realize that the belief that someone is going to get well is more important than any treatment, supplement, medication, or gizmo that I have ever encountered.

The ivermectin didn't cure it. In the end he chose to use Accutane which helped tremendously.

We've long known statins worsen insulin resistance/increase risk of diabetes. This paper gives a mechanism and thus potential treatment for people taking statins. Not medical advice - but know that UDCA is readily available as TUDCA - just UDCA with a taurine molecule attached.

https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(23)00505-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1550413123005053%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Results of an "unschooled" life:

If you want to challenge dogmatic thinking about health topics and explore new ideas; subscribe to Nick Norwitz's substack: https://staycuriousmetabolism.substack.com/p/the-hunger-signal-hidden-in-a-bacterial?

Yes, hallucinations are a weakness. Much improved from what it was 2 years ago though. Sometimes I'm not sure which to trust though since I don't trust everything published on pubmed either.

AI can make medicine more efficient.

It can expand differentials.

It can prevent mistakes.

It can propose diagnostics and treatments.

It can document the note and thought process behind the decisions.

It will continue to get better.

But it can’t teach wisdom.

If young doctors never learn to argue with the algorithm, the pipeline of learning wisdom dies.

In ten years, the thinkers will be the ones naming their price.

HEPA air filter from Austin Air (even without the charcoal or zeolite coating layer) reduces systolic blood pressure slightly (maybe up to 3 mmHg) if you have high blood pressure:

https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.06.037#abstract

Preventive medicine should not be housed in the same system that manages disease.

One is about keeping people healthy.

The other profits when they’re sick.

"Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcomes"

Time to decouple them for good.

When views promoted by ethicists cause harm.

My response:

I read “Beneficial Bloodsucking” (Crutchfield & Hereth, Bioethics, 2025) with deep concern. The authors argue that alpha-gal syndrome (AGS)—a tick-borne allergy that renders patients unable to consume mammalian meat—should be promoted as a form of “moral bioenhancement.” Their thesis rests on two claims: first, that eating meat is inherently immoral, and second, that spreading AGS (for example through genetically modified ticks) would curtail this wrong. Both claims are gravely flawed, and publishing such a proposal risks undermining trust in bioethics and medicine.

First, promoting disease is irreconcilable with medical ethics. AGS is not a minor inconvenience but a complex, often life-altering condition. Patients endure unpredictable reactions ranging from hives to anaphylaxis, sometimes hours after exposure. Some live in constant fear of accidental ingestion or even environmental contact with mammalian products. Social isolation, anxiety, and depression are common. AGS is an emerging public health problem with potentially severe, lifelong impacts, many impacts are yet unknown. To describe this as “beneficial” disregards both the morbidity and the profound psychological burden borne by patients.

Second, the assurance that spreading AGS “doesn’t violate rights” is indefensible. Respect for autonomy and informed consent are bedrock principles of medicine. Inflicting illness on unsuspecting individuals to enforce a dietary ethic is a direct violation of bodily integrity. Unlike vaccination, which prevents disease, AGS confers no benefit to the individual—only harm. Ethical standards from the Nuremberg Code onward prohibit precisely this kind of coercion.

Third, the moral premise itself—that all meat consumption is wrong—is stipulated, not demonstrated. Philosophers continue to debate this question. While critiques of factory farming have merit, many frameworks allow meat consumption when it is humane, sustainable, or nutritionally necessary. Billions worldwide rely on animal protein for survival. To declare their diets immoral is neither a consensus view nor a sound basis for coercive intervention. Genuine virtue cannot be manufactured through biological incapacitation; it requires free, informed choice.

Finally, proposals of this kind corrode public trust. Patients depend on clinicians and ethicists to safeguard their health, not to advance ideology through disease. Troublingly, one of the co-authors, Parker Crutchfield, has previously argued that moral bioenhancement should be administered covertly—that is, without the recipient’s knowledge. In effect, he has defended lying to patients and the public in order to “promote morality.” Such views undermine the fundamental commitment of medicine to honesty and informed consent. Advocating deception or deliberate illness feeds public suspicion that scientists cannot be trusted to act transparently. In an era already plagued by misinformation, this rhetoric is profoundly irresponsible.

For these reasons, “Beneficial Bloodsucking” fails on ethical, clinical, and philosophical grounds. The suggestion that society should deliberately proliferate a debilitating disease in order to enforce a contested moral stance deserves emphatic rejection. Public health must never be weaponized for ideology.

In the end, it makes me wonder whether the [my perceived] recent uptick in AGS has been caused by human manipulation.

I think FieldLark.ai is giving me some excellent ideas for improving the health of my garden and orchard. Created by Advancing Eco Agriculture, it's an extension of their regenerative agronomy resources. Check it out for yourself at https://fieldlark.ai/ai-agronomist.

The founder John Kempf also has an AI clone at https://www.delphi.ai/johnkempf which has been quite insightful as well.

I think less severe forms of copper overload are underappreciated. I personally did substantial testing and finally put pieces together to form a hypothesis that my easy bruising was caused by copper excess (not noted on common lab testing) causing functional vitamin C deficiency. By taking zinc supplements and vitamin C supplements along with bone broth the bruising went away. Note that while on an almost carnivore diet including organ meats I continued to have substantial bruising. So I now am biased by personal experience but with that bias I see it every once in a while in practice. I personally won't be drinking from any copper utensils.

Saw my first patient who did therapeutic plasma exchange after I recommended he do it. Has improved energy and basal body temperature increased from 96 to 97 degrees. But most importantly, his cognition has improved dramatically and the persistent thoughts and ruminations from the past have resolved! One month out from the procedure and the improvements have been maintained.

Posting these screenshots to avoid loosing them:

RFK Jr. fired the entire CDC vaccine advisory panel. Signs of "There are weeks when decades happen."

Reading the executive order on MAHA, where agencies are directed to work with farmers to ensure U.S. food is the healthiest, most abundant, and most affordable in the world, reminded me of the “cheap, fast, good” principle: you can only pick two.

Healthy + Abundant = Not Affordable

Abundant + Affordable = Not Healthy

Healthy + Affordable = Not Abundant

I think we should retire the "need" for "food" to be cheap.

"We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things." - The more I learn about the human body the more this seems true.

On trying new things in medicine:

Teenage boy with acne not responsive to substantial dietary change (now essentially eating unprocessed food - fair bit of meat and fresh veggies), tried multiple topical gels/creams including adapalene, ivermectin, clindamycin, benzoyl peroxide, niacinamide, tried tanning lights, next traditional step in mainstream medicine would be oral antibiotics and then accutane if the oral antibiotics aren't effective.

Considering that: ivermectin oral has an excellent safety profile, it's used topically for acne, it has anti-inflammatory benefits, and the microbiome shifts seen with its use tend to be in a direction we think is positive. I've occasionally seen tremendous benefits in using it orally to treat eczema.

So started oral ivermectin at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg/daily. Will see what effect it has.

Posting here to see if anyone has experience or insights on using it this way?