data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a92ef/a92ef4c9ed68666ca53e0696102180dfdffbb928" alt=""
Eat This Daily For No Wrinkles (& How It Works)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dr. Andrea Suarez explains:
Go nuts for…
Almonds! They’re rich in vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol), beta-sitosterol, squalane, protein, and fiber:
- Vitamin E acts as an antioxidant, protecting skin lipids.
- Lipids in almonds support the skin barrier and hydration.
- Protein is necessary for collagen synthesis.
- Fiber promotes gut health, indirectly benefiting skin.
- Polyphenolic compounds in almond skins (not the shells, the skins, the fibrous brown part that slides off if you blanch them) provide additional skin protection.
The science (yes, there have been almond intervention studies!):
- 2019 Study:
- Participants: 28 post-menopausal women with fair skin (Fitzpatrick phototype 1-2).
- Design: 20% of daily calories from almonds vs. a calorie-matched snack.
- Results: 9% decrease in facial wrinkles in the almond group, no change in oil production or barrier function.
- 2021 Study:
- Extended Duration: 24 weeks with a similar design as the 2019 study.
- Findings: further wrinkle reduction and improvement in skin pigmentation.
- Mechanism: vitamin E may reduce hyperpigmentation and support antioxidant defense.
- UV Protection Study (2021):
- Participants: healthy Asian women (18–45 years, Fitzpatrick phototype 2-4).
- Method: daily almond snack vs pretzel snack for 12 weeks.
- Outcome: increased skin resistance to UV damage in the almond group.
Obviously, a limitation is there is not really an option to make a RCT with a blinded control; “…and group B will only think they are eating almonds” doesn’t really work. Hence, interventional RCTs with a non-blinded control (the calorie-matched snack).
Almonds may not be the cure to all things, but they certainly are potent nuts. Best enjoyed, of course, as part of a healthy overall diet (Mediterranean diet is great), and it’s certainly advisable to take care of your skin from the outside too (sunscreen as a must; other things optional).
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Bananas vs Grapes – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing bananas to grapes, we picked the bananas.
Why?
In terms of macros, bananas have more fiber and carbs, the ratio of which gives them the (very slightly) lower glycemic index. The difference in GI is marginal enough that it’d be tied on that point alone, but looking at total fiber figures, we say that having nearly 3x the fiber counts for a win here.
In the category of vitamins, bananas have more of vitamins B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, and choline, while grapes have more of vitamins A, B1, E, and K. Thus, an 8:4 win for bananas (and with considerable margins of difference, too).
When it comes to minerals, bananas have more copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium*, selenium, and zinc, while grapes have more calcium and manganese. Thus, a 6:2 win for bananas this time.
*because of some popular mentions in TV shows, people get hung up on bananas being a good source of potassium. Which they are, but they’re not even in the top 10 of fruits for potassium. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of fruits that have more potassium than bananas, portion for portion:
- Honeydew melon
- Papaya
- Mango
- Prunes
- Figs
- Dates
- Nectarine
- Cantaloupe melon
- Kiwi
- Orange
See also: The Other “Special K”: The Top Micronutrient Deficiency In High Blood Pressure
It’s worth mentioning polyphenols: black/red grapes do have more abundant polyphenols than bananas, and this is very much a point in their favor; however, we don’t think it’s enough to compensate for bananas beating them in every other category, so we still declare bananas the winner.
Of course, the solution to this dilemma is to enjoy both!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Can We Drink To Good Health? ← while there are polyphenols such as resveratrol in red wine that per se would boost heart health, there’s so little per glass that you may need 100–1000 glasses per day to get the dosage that provides benefits in mouse studies.
If you’re not a mouse, you might even need more than that!
To this end, many people prefer resveratrol supplementation ← link is to an example product on Amazon, but there are plenty more so feel free to shop around 😎
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Fisetin: The Anti-Aging Assassin
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Out With The Old…
Fisetin is a flavonoid (specifically, a flavonol), but it’s a little different than most. While it has the usual antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer properties you might reasonably expect from flavonoids, it has an extra anti-aging trick up its sleeve that most don’t.
❝Fisetin is a flavonol that shares distinct antioxidant properties with a plethora of other plant polyphenols. Additionally, it exhibits a specific biological activity of considerable interest as regards the protection of functional macromolecules against stress which results in the sustenance of normal cells cytoprotection. Moreover, it shows potential as an anti-inflammatory, chemopreventive, chemotherapeutic and recently also senotherapeutic agent❞
~ Dr. Grynkiewicz & Dr. Demchuk
Let’s briefly do some due diligence on its expected properties, and then we’ll take a look at its bonus anti-aging effects.
The flavonol that does-it-ol
Because of the similar mechanisms involved, there are three things that often come together, which are:
- Antioxidant
- Anti-inflammatory
- Anticancer
This list often gets expanded to also include:
- Anti-aging
…although that is usually the last thing to get tested out of that list.
In today’s case, let’s kick it off with…
❝Fisetin (3,3′,4′,7-tetrahydroxyflavone) is a dietary flavonoid found in various fruits (strawberries, apples, mangoes, persimmons, kiwis, and grapes), vegetables (tomatoes, onions, and cucumbers), nuts, and wine that has shown strong anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, anti-tumorigenic, anti-invasive, anti-angiogenic, anti-diabetic, neuroprotective, and cardioprotective effects❞
Read more: Fisetin and Its Role in Chronic Diseases
Understanding its anticancer mechanisms
The way that fisetin fights cancer is basically “all the ways”, and this will be important when we get to its special abilities shortly:
❝Being a potent anticancer agent, fisetin has been used to inhibit stages in the cancer cells (proliferation, invasion),prevent cell cycle progression, inhibit cell growth, induce apoptosis, cause polymerase (PARP) cleavage, and modulate the expressions of Bcl‐2 family proteins in different cancer cell lines (HT‐29, U266, MDA‐MB‐231, BT549, and PC‐3M‐luc‐6), respectively. Further, fisetin also suppresses the activation of the PKCα/ROS/ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK signaling pathways, reduces the NF‐κB activation, and down‐regulates the level of the oncoprotein securin. Fisetin also inhibited cell division and proliferation and invasion as well as lowered the TET1 expression levels. ❞
Read more: Fisetin: An anticancer perspective
There’s also more about it than we even have room to quote, here:
Now For What’s New And Exciting: Senolysis
All that selectivity that fisetin exhibits when it comes to “this cell gets to live, and this one doesn’t” actions?
It makes a difference when it comes to aging, too. Because aging and cancer happen by quite similar mechanisms; they’re both DNA-copying errors that get copied forward, to our detriment.
- In the case of cancer, it’s a cell line that accidentally became immortal and so we end up with too many of them multiplying in one place (a tumor)
- In the case of aging, it’s the cellular equivalent of “a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy” gradually losing information as it goes
In both cases…
The cell must die if we want to live
Critically, and which quality differentiates it from a lot of other flavonoids, fisetin has the ability to selectively kill senescent cells.
To labor the photocopying metaphor, this means there’s an office worker whose job it is to say “this photocopy is barely legible, I’m going to toss this, and then copy directly from the clearest copy we have instead”, thus keeping the documents (your DNA) in pristine condition.
In fisetin’s case, this was first tested in mouse (in vivo) studies, and in human tissue (in vitro) studies, before moving to human clinical studies:
❝Of the 10 flavonoids tested, fisetin was the most potent senolytic.
The natural product fisetin has senotherapeutic activity in mice and in human tissues. Late life intervention was sufficient to yield a potent health benefit.❞
~ Dr. Matthew Yousefzadeh et al.
Read in full: Fisetin is a senotherapeutic that extends health and lifespan
There’s lots more science that’s been done to it since that first groundbreaking study though; here’s a more recent example:
Want some?
We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Bromelain vs Inflammation & Much More
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Let’s Get Fruity
Bromelain is an enzyme* found in pineapple (and only in pineapple), that has many very healthful properties, some of them unique to bromelain.
*actually a combination of enzymes, but most often referred to collectively in the singular. But when you do see it referred to as “they”, that’s what that means.
What does it do?
It does a lot of things, for starters:
❝Various in vivo and in vitro studies have shown that they are anti-edematous, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancerous, anti-thrombotic, fibrinolytic, and facilitate the death of apoptotic cells. The pharmacological properties of bromelain are, in part, related to its arachidonate cascade modulation, inhibition of platelet aggregation, such as interference with malignant cell growth; anti-inflammatory action; fibrinolytic activity; skin debridement properties, and reduction of the severe effects of SARS-Cov-2❞
Some quick notes:
- “facilitate the death of apoptotic cells” may sound alarming, but it’s actually good; those cells need to be killed quickly; see for example: Fisetin: The Anti-Aging Assassin
- If you’re wondering what arachidonate cascade modulation means, that’s the modulation of the cascade reaction of arachidonic acid, which plays a part in providing energy for body functions, and has a role in cell structure formation, and is the precursor of assorted inflammatory mediators and cell-signalling chemicals.
- Its skin debridement properties (getting rid of dead skin) are most clearly seen when using bromelain topically (one can literally just make a pineapple poultice), but do occur from ingestion also (because of what it can do from the inside).
- As for being anti-thrombotic and fibrinolytic, let’s touch on that before we get to the main item, its anti-inflammatory properties.
If you want to read more of the above before moving on, though, here’s the full text:
Anti-thrombotic and fibrinolytic
While it does have anti-thrombotic effects, largely by its fibrinolytic action (i.e., it dissolves the fibrin mesh holding clots together), it can have a paradoxically beneficial effect on wound healing, too:
For more specifically on its wound-healing benefits:
In Vitro Effect of Bromelain on the Regenerative Properties of Mesenchymal Stem Cells
Anti-inflammatory
Bromelain is perhaps most well-known for its anti-inflammatory powers, which are so diverse that it can be a challenge to pin them all down, as it has many mechanisms of action, and there’s a large heterogeneity of studies because it’s often studied in the context of specific diseases. But, for example:
❝Bromelain reduced IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α secretion when immune cells were already stimulated in an overproduction condition by proinflammatory cytokines, generating a modulation in the inflammatory response through prostaglandins reduction and activation of cascade reactions that trigger neutrophils and macrophages, in addition to accelerating the healing process❞
~ Dr. Taline Alves Nobre et al.
Read in full:
Bromelain as a natural anti-inflammatory drug: a systematic review
Or if you want a more specific example, here’s how it stacks up against arthritis:
❝The results demonstrated the chondroprotective effects of bromelain on cartilage degradation and the downregulation of inflammatory cytokine (tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8) expression in TNF-α–induced synovial fibroblasts by suppressing NF-κB and MAPK signaling❞
~ Dr. Perephan Pothacharoen et al.
Read in full:
More?
Yes more! You’ll remember from the first paper we quoted today, that it has a long laundry list of benefits. However, there’s only so much we can cover in one edition, so that’s it for today
Is it safe?
It is generally recognized as safe. However, its blood-thinning effect means it should be avoided if you’re already on blood-thinners, have some sort of bleeding disorder, or are about to have a surgery.
Additionally, if you have a pineapple allergy, this one may not be for you.
Aside from that, anything can have drug interactions, so do check with your doctor/pharmacist to be sure (with the pharmacist usually being the more knowledgeable of the two, when it comes to drug interactions).
Want to try some?
You can just eat pineapples, but if you don’t enjoy that and/or wouldn’t want it every day, bromelain is available in supplement form too.
We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Most People Who Start GLP-1 RAs Quit Them Within A Year (Here’s Why)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Specifically, 54% quit within one year, with that number rising to 72% within two years.
We first wrote about GLP-1 receptor agonists (i.e. semaglutide drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy) a couple of years ago when popularity was just beginning to take off:
However, as we had room only to touch briefly on the side effects and what happens when you stop taking it, you might also want to check out:
What happens when I stop taking a drug like Ozempic or Mounjaro?
…and:
Notwithstanding all this information, there’s a lot of science that has still yet to be done. If you’re a regular 10almonds reader, you’ll be familiar with our research review articles—this one was more of a non-research review, i.e. looking at the great absence of evidence in certain areas, and the many cases of research simply not asking the right questions, for example:
❝Of the four studies that actually looked at the macros (unlike most studies), they found that on average, protein intake decreased by 17.1%. Which is a big deal!
It’s an especially big deal, because while protein’s obviously important for everyone, it’s especially important for anyone trying to lose weight, because muscle mass is a major factor in metabolic base rate—which in turn is much important for fat loss/maintenance than exercise, when it comes to how many calories we burn by simply existing.
A reasonable hypothesis, therefore, is that one of the numerous reasons people who quit GLP-1 agonists immediately put fat back on, is because they probably lost muscle mass in amongst their weight loss, meaning that their metabolic base rate will have decreased, meaning that they end up more disposed to put on fat than before.❞
Read in full: Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Unexamined Effects ← there are a lot more (equally concerning) items discussed in this article
Why people quit GLP-1 RAs
There was a large (n=125,474) study of US adults. The average age was about 54 years, and about 65% were female.
From the total data pool (i.e. not narrowing it down by demographic), 54% stopped within a year, and 72% within two years.
The factors most associated with discontinuation were:
- age above 65 years
- not having type 2 diabetes
The main reasons given for discontinuation were:
- High costs: self-explanatory, but it’s worth noting that people who stopped for this reason were more likely to restart later.
- Adverse side effects: the most common ones were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, stomach pain, and loss of appetite. Rarer, but more seriously, side effects included: pancreatitis (severe abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting), gallbladder issues (gallstones, cholecystitis), kidney problems, severe allergic reactions (rash, swelling, difficulty breathing), hypoglycemia, especially if taken with insulin or other diabetes medications, changes in vision (worsening diabetic retinopathy), and an increased heart rate.
- Disappointingly little weight loss: the researchers noted that GLP-1 RA results are “heterogenous”, meaning, they differ a lot. For those for whom it didn’t work, quitting was more likely, for obvious reasons. See also: 10 Mistakes To Sabotage Your Ozempic Progress
- Successful weight loss: while it is widely known that if one stops taking GLP-1 RAs, weight regain is the usual next thing to happen, there are a lot of people who go onto GLP-1 RAs with the rationale “I’ll just use this to lose the weight, and then I’ll keep the weight off with my diet and lifestyle”. Which sounds reasonable, but because of the specific mechanisms of actions of GLP-1 RAs, it simply doesn’t work that way (and, as we mentioned above, there are reasons that you may, after stopping taking GLP-1 RAs, be more disposed to put weight on than you were before you started). So, by the best of current science (which admittedly is not amazing when it comes to this topic), it does seem that taking GLP-1 RAs is a lifetime commitment.
You can read the study itself here:
Want to get similar results, without GLP-1 RAs?
Then check out:
5 Ways To Naturally Boost The “Ozempic Effect” ← this is about natural ways of doing similar hormone-hacking to what GLP-1 RAs do
and
Ozempic vs Five Natural Supplements ← this is about metabolism-tweaking supplements
and
Hack Your Hunger ← this is about appetite management
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Is alcohol good or bad for you? Yes.
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This article originally appeared in Harvard Public Health magazine.
It’s hard to escape the message these days that every sip of wine, every swig of beer is bad for your health. The truth, however, is far more nuanced.
We have been researching the health effects of alcohol for a combined 60 years. Our work, and that of others, has shown that even modest alcohol consumption likely raises the risk for certain diseases, such as breast and esophageal cancer. And heavy drinking is unequivocally harmful to health. But after countless studies, the data do not justify sweeping statements about the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on human health.
Yet we continue to see reductive narratives, in the media and even in science journals, that alcohol in any amount is dangerous. Earlier this month, for instance, the media reported on a new study that found even small amounts of alcohol might be harmful. But the stories failed to give enough context or probe deeply enough to understand the study’s limitations—including that it cherry-picked subgroups of a larger study previously used by researchers, including one of us, who concluded that limited drinking in a recommended pattern correlated with lower mortality risk.
“We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.”
Those who try to correct this simplistic view are disparaged as pawns of the industry, even when no financial conflicts of interest exist. Meanwhile, some authors of studies suggesting alcohol is unhealthy have received money from anti-alcohol organizations.
We believe it’s worth trying, again, to set the record straight. We need more high-quality evidence to assess the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption. And we need the media to treat the subject with the nuance it requires. Newer studies are not necessarily better than older research.
It’s important to keep in mind that alcohol affects many body systems—not just the liver and the brain, as many people imagine. That means how alcohol affects health is not a single question but the sum of many individual questions: How does it affect the heart? The immune system? The gut? The bones?
As an example, a highly cited study of one million women in the United Kingdom found that moderate alcohol consumption—calculated as no more than one drink a day for a woman—increased overall cancer rates. That was an important finding. But the increase was driven nearly entirely by breast cancer. The same study showed that greater alcohol consumption was associated with lower rates of thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma. That doesn’t mean drinking a lot of alcohol is good for you—but it does suggest that the science around alcohol and health is complex.
One major challenge in this field is the lack of large, long-term, high-quality studies. Moderate alcohol consumption has been studied in dozens of randomized controlled trials, but those trials have never tracked more than about 200 people for more than two years. Longer and larger experimental trials have been used to test full diets, like the Mediterranean diet, and are routinely conducted to test new pharmaceuticals (or new uses for existing medications), but they’ve never been done to analyze alcohol consumption.
Instead, much alcohol research is observational, meaning it follows large groups of drinkers and abstainers over time. But observational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect because moderate drinkers differ in many ways from non-drinkers and heavy drinkers—in diet, exercise, and smoking habits, for instance. Observational studies can still yield useful information, but they also require researchers to gather data about when and how the alcohol is consumed, since alcohol’s effect on health depends heavily on drinking patterns.
For example, in an analysis of over 300,000 drinkers in the U.K., one of us found that the same total amount of alcohol appeared to increase the chances of dying prematurely if consumed on fewer occasions during the week and outside of meals, but to decrease mortality if spaced out across the week and consumed with meals. Such nuance is rarely captured in broader conversations about alcohol research—or even in observational studies, as researchers don’t always ask about drinking patterns, focusing instead on total consumption. To get a clearer picture of the health effects of alcohol, researchers and journalists must be far more attuned to the nuances of this highly complex issue.
One way to improve our collective understanding of the issue is to look at both observational and experimental data together whenever possible. When the data from both types of studies point in the same direction, we can have more confidence in the conclusion. For example, randomized controlled trials show that alcohol consumption raises levels of sex steroid hormones in the blood. Observational trials suggest that alcohol consumption also raises the risk of specific subtypes of breast cancer that respond to these hormones. Together, that evidence is highly persuasive that alcohol increases the chances of breast cancer.
Similarly, in randomized trials, alcohol consumption lowers average blood sugar levels. In observational trials, it also appears to lower the risk of diabetes. Again, that evidence is persuasive in combination.
As these examples illustrate, drinking alcohol may raise the risk of some conditions but not others. What does that mean for individuals? Patients should work with their clinicians to understand their personal risks and make informed decisions about drinking.
Medicine and public health would benefit greatly if better data were available to offer more conclusive guidance about alcohol. But that would require a major investment. Large, long-term, gold-standard studies are expensive. To date, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health have shown no interest in exclusively funding these studies on alcohol.
Alcohol manufacturers have previously expressed some willingness to finance the studies—similar to the way pharmaceutical companies finance most drug testing—but that has often led to criticism. This happened to us, even though external experts found our proposal scientifically sound. In 2018, the National Institutes of Health ended our trial to study the health effects of alcohol. The NIH found that officials at one of its institutes had solicited funding from alcohol manufacturers, violating federal policy.
It’s tempting to assume that because heavy alcohol consumption is very bad, lesser amounts must be at least a little bad. But the science isn’t there, in part because critics of the alcohol industry have deliberately engineered a state of ignorance. They have preemptively discredited any research, even indirectly, by the alcohol industry—even though medicine relies on industry financing to support the large, gold-standard studies that provide conclusive data about drugs and devices that hundreds of millions of Americans take or use daily.
Scientific evidence about drinking alcohol goes back nearly 100 years—and includes plenty of variability in alcohol’s health effects. In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, alcohol in moderation, and especially red wine, was touted as healthful. Now the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction that contemporary narratives suggest every ounce of alcohol is dangerous. Until gold-standard experiments are performed, we won’t truly know. In the meantime, we must acknowledge the complexity of existing evidence—and take care not to reduce it to a single, misleading conclusion.
This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
What immunocompromised people want you to know
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
While many people in the U.S. have abandoned COVID-19 mitigations like vaccines and masking, the virus remains dangerous for everyone, and some groups face higher risks than others. Immunocompromised people—whose immune systems don’t work as well as they should due to health conditions or medications—are more vulnerable to infection and severe symptoms from the virus.
Public Good News spoke with three immunocompromised people about the steps they take to protect themselves and what they want others to know about caring for each other.
[Editor’s note: The contents of these interviews have been condensed for length.]
PGN: What measures have you been taking to protect yourself since the COVID-19 pandemic began?
Tatum Spears, Virginia
From less than a year old, I had serious, chronic infections and have missed huge chunks of my life. In 2020, I quit my public job, and I have not worked publicly since.
I have a degree in vocal performance and have been singing my whole life, but I haven’t performed publicly since 2019. I feel like a bird without wings. I had to stop traveling. Since no one wears a mask anymore, I can’t go to the movies or social outings or any party.
All my friends live in my phone now. It’s a community of people—a lot of them are immunocompromised or disabled in some way.
There are a good portion of them who just take COVID-19 seriously and want to protect their health, who feel the existential abandonment and the burden of all of this. It’s really isolating having to step back from any sort of social life. I have to assess my risk every single time I leave the house.
Gwendolyn Alyse Bishop, Washington
I was hit by a car when I was very young. I woke up from surgery, and doctors told me I had lost almost all of my spleen. So, I was always the sickest kid in my school.
When COVID-19 hit, I started working from home. At first, I wore cloth masks. I didn’t really learn about KN95 masks until right around the time that COVID-19 disabled me. [Editor’s note: N95 and KN95 masks have been shown to be significantly more effective at preventing the transmission of viral particles than cloth masks.]
I actually don’t get out much anymore because I am disabled by long COVID now, but when I do leave, I wear a respirator in all shared air spaces. My roommate and I have HEPA filters going in every room.And then we test. I have a Pluslife testing dock, and so we keep a weekly testing schedule with that and then test if there are any symptoms. I got reinfected [with COVID-19] last winter, and a Pluslife test helped me catch it early and get Paxlovid. [Editor’s note: Pluslife is a brand of an at-home COVID-19 nucleic acid amplification test, which has been shown to be significantly more effective at detecting COVID-19 than at-home antigen rapid tests.]
Abby Mahler, California
I have lupus, and in 2016, I started taking the drug hydroxychloroquine, which is an immunomodulator. I’m not as immunocompromised as some people, but I certainly don’t have a normal immune system, which has resulted in long-term infections like C. diff.I started masking early. My roommates and I prioritize going outside. We don’t remove our masks inside in public places.
We are in a pod with one other household, and the pod has agreements on the way that we interact with public space. So, we will only unmask with people who have tested ahead of time. We use Metrix, an at-home nucleic acid amplification test.
While it’s not easy and it’s not the life that we had prior to COVID-19’s existence, it is a life that has provided us quite a lot of freedom, in the sense that we are not sick all the time. We are conscientiously making decisions that allow us to have a nice time without a monkey on our backs, which is freeing.
PGN: What do you want people who are not immunocompromised to know?
T.S.: Don’t be afraid to be the only person in a room wearing a mask. Your own health is worth it. And you have to realize how callous [people who don’t wear a mask are] by existing in spaces and breathing [their] air [on immunocompromised people].
People think that vaccines are magic, but vaccines alone are not enough. I would encourage people to look at the Swiss cheese model of risk assessment.
Each slice of Swiss cheese has holes in it in different places, and each layer represents a layer of virus mitigation. One layer is vaccines. Another layer is masks. Then there’s staying home when you’re sick and testing.
G.A.B.: I wish people were masking. I wish people understood how likely it is that they are also now immunocompromised and vulnerable because of the widespread immune dysregulation that COVID-19 is causing. [Editor’s note: Research shows that COVID-19 infections may cause long-term harm to the immune system in some people.]
I want people to be invested in being good community members, and part of that is understanding that COVID-19 hits the poorest the hardest—gig workers, underpaid employees, frontline service workers, people who were already disabled or immunocompromised.
If people want to be good community members, they not only need to protect immunocompromised and disabled people by wearing a mask when they leave their homes, but they also need to actually start taking care of their community members and participating in mutual aid. [Editor’s note: Mutual aid is the exchange of resources and services within a community, such as people sharing extra N95 masks.]
I spend pretty much all of my time working on LongCOVIDAidBot, which promotes mutual aid for people who have been harmed by COVID-19.
A.M.: An important thing to think about when you’re not disabled is that it becomes a state of being for all people, if they’re lucky. You will become disabled, or you will die.
It is a privilege, in my opinion, to become disabled because I can learn different ways of living my life. And being able to see yourself as a body that changes over time, I hope, opens up a way of looking at your body as the porous reality that it is.
Some people think of themselves as being willing to make concessions or change their behavior when immunocompromised people are around, but you don’t always know when someone is immunocompromised.
So, if you’re not willing to change the way that you think about yourself as a person who is susceptible [to illness], then you should change the way that you consider other people around you. Wearing a mask—at the very least in public indoor spaces—means considering the unknown realities of all the people who are interacting with that space.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: