Antiviral Gum Gives Epidemiologists Something To Chew On
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.
With viruses on the rise, of course one of our biggest weapons against them is vaccination, but that approach has its limitations:
- In some places such as the US, anti-vaccine sentiments are high, and a vaccine is only as good as its uptake (i.e. if people don’t take it, they will more likely catch the disease and pass it on, including to some people who cannot be vaccinated, so non-vaccinators create a hole in herd immunity)
- Many vaccines can become outdated when viruses mutate more quickly than vaccines can be developed (we’ve seen a lot of this with COVID and Flu viruses, and that’s why we keep needing new ones)
- There are some viruses for which we simply do not yet have vaccines; sometimes this is the case even for very common viruses like Herpes simplex. or, indeed, the common cold (Rhinovirus sp.).
So, antivirals definitely have their place too. To be clear about the difference:
- A vaccine forewarns the immune system “watch out for this thing that you might encounter in the future, and prepare a defense for it according to these specifications” (it only helps if you aren’t already infected with the thing it’s vaccinating against, because otherwise the warning is too late and your body is already trying to mount a defense)
- An antiviral kills, inactivates, or otherwise severely inconveniences the virus directly (it only helps if there is a virus there to fight)
How the antiviral gum works
In few words: you chew it, the antiviral substance is then in your saliva, and it kills/inactivates/inconveniences the virus at the site of infection (e.g. your respiratory tract)
In the case of this specific antiviral gum, it’s more in the category of “severely inconveniences”, because the antiviral substance is a protein trap that binds to the virus, rendering it near-harmless.
In essence, therefore, it works less like a vaccine and more like a facemask (except it’s trapping the virus on the molecular level, rather than trying to stop aerosolized droplets from moving around on the macro level).
This was first developed as a possible tool against COVID:
…and this in turn was based on previous work quite early in 2020:
And yes, those are lablab beans, as in Lablab purpureus, also called hyacinth beans, which may not be available in all supermarkets, but are not very obscure either (common throughout most of Africa and the tropics).
Most recently, researchers have found that 40mg of the broad-spectrum (as in, it affects many viruses) antiviral trap protein, as delivered by a 2g piece of gum, was sufficient to reduce viral loads by more than 95%, including for SARS-CoV-2 as well as H5N1, H3N2, and H7N9 (various kinds of bird flu that affect humans), and HSV-1 and HSV-2 (the two most common variants of herpes, including cold sores):
You can also read a pop-science article about it, with links to more details, here:
Antiviral chewing gum shows promise in reducing influenza and herpes spread
Want to learn more?
Check out:
Winning The Biological Arms Race: Could This Be “The Ultimate Booster”?
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 Your Diet Causing You Hair Loss?
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.
When it comes to diet and hair health, most people know to get vitamin something, consume a mineral or so (usually zinc), and skip the polonium.
But, there’s a little more to it than most people realize:
Foods For & Against
Researchers (Dr. Beatriz Teixeira et al.) investigated, by means of a huge literature review (taking data from 17 observational studies, with 613,320 participants, of whom, mostly women), what things actually matter the most, for and against.
First, what not to do:
Foods and drinks that worsen hair loss include sugar-sweetened beverages, and even more strongly, alcohol:
- Sugar spikes cause inflammation that disrupts hair cycles
- Alcohol contributes in a whole stack of ways, both directly and indirectly, including:
- nutrient deficiencies (hypothesis: due to people drinking a higher portion of their calories in alcohol rather than eating nutritious food)
- poor absorption of nutrients (because alcohol causes the body to do almost everything worse, and especially messes with the gut, and not in a good way—one might struggle to spell “dysbiosis” when one’s had a tipple or two too many, but suffice it to say, alcohol causes the gut microbiome to swing wildly in the direction of Bad Things™, including C. albicans, also called simply Candida, the fungus which puts its roots through your intestinal walls, making holes there giving you leaky gut syndrome, and also interfaces with your nervous system via its roots that escape the gut and access the vagus nerve, and thus gives you cravings for more alcohol/sugar/flour, by sending false signals up to your brain) (we’re not exaggerating, check out the papers we cited in the relevant section of this article on gut health)
- liver stress (because that’s where alcohol is metabolized, and our liver is not supposed to have to do that much work)
- poor sleep (because of how it disrupts brain function, including while sleeping, at which time the brain’s job is normally “restore this” and it can’t do that correctly while impaired)
- systemic inflammation (because of the combination of the above plus the fact that the alcohol itself is toxic, and even when metabolized, produces sugars that also worsen inflammation)
Now, some things most people know about:
Zinc and biotin (vitamin B7) deficiencies can cause thinning; adults need 30 μg vitamin B7 daily from foods like seeds, nuts, and sweet potatoes (to pick some out from the paper; there are plenty more options, of course). The researchers concluded that beyond that, extra supplementation is unlikely to help without deficiency.
Now, into lesser-known things:
Insufficient protein can trigger shedding; the researchers suggest about 0.5 g per pound of body weight daily, which is a very normal recommendation. We wrote about this more here: How Much Protein Do We Need, Really?
On which note, the researchers also tentatively recommend considering collagen, but note that while it seems entirely reasonable that it should help, the actual science is mostly not there for it yet (i.e. mostly hasn’t been done). Most collagen RCTs have been about skin health or joint health; less about hair. For more on that though, do see our research review on this: We Are Such Stuff As Fish Are Made Of
And if you are vegetarian/vegan? Worry not, because you can simply enjoy The Best Foods For Collagen Production, picking the vegetarian/vegan options in each category as applicable.
And as for other supplements of note:
- Persimmon leaf: linked to better hair density and thickness through antioxidants like quercetin that improve scalp blood flow; available as tea or supplements.
- Pumpkin seed oil: in a study of men with male pattern baldness, 400 mg daily for 24 weeks led to greater growth, likely by reducing DHT, the hair-thinning hormone (it does more things than that, but that’s what’s relevant here—actually, while we’re on this, let’s note for the record that while DHT thins head hair, it increases body hair, which for many people isn’t a combination they’re hoping for)
- Vitamin D: five studies found higher levels protective against hair loss; a suggested dose is 2,000 IU daily, though excess carries toxicity risk, so do keep within the recommended bounds (and double-check what other supplements have “plus vitamin D” tagged on, and/or foods “fortified with vitamin D”).
- Iron: supplementation improved growth in women; absorption is best when paired with vitamin C; dietary sources include spinach, lentils, and almonds. See also: The Iron Dilemma: Factors To Consider
Finally, in the category of specific foods that were mostly strongly associated with healthy hair growth, the researchers highlighted:
- Cruciferous vegetables (e.g. broccoli, cauliflower, kale, sprouts, etc) likely due to antioxidant and anti-inflammatory phytochemicals, and especially sulforaphane.
- Soy products (especially edamame & tofu, i.e., the least-processed of soy products) likely due to the top-tier amino acid profile, plus that while the phytoestrogens can’t be used as estrogens in the body (not compatible), they can be broken down and the “ingredients” used to produce your own estrogen, if (and only* if) you have working ovaries.
- *Ok, so that was technically a lie; if you have working testes, then these can and do also produce estrogen, but in truly truly tiny amounts, and more than counterbalanced by the testosterone they produce. We wrote a bit about the science of ovaries and testes doing each other’s jobs, here. So if you are a reader with working testes rather than ovaries, then be aware: you could not physically eat enough soy to cause them to crank out enough estrogen to make the slightest change to your hair or any other part of your body. So our original statement stands, for all practical purposes: soy products will only increase your E levels if you have working ovaries to produce the E in question.
You can read the paper in full, here: Assessing the relationship between dietary factors and hair health: A systematic review
Want to learn more?
If you want to get very serious about it, you might want to consider: Hair-Loss Remedies, By Science
And/or if you want to go a drug-free route but without relying solely on diet, then check out: Gentler Hair Health Options
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Is black mould really as bad for us as we think? A toxicologist explains
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.
Mould in houses is unsightly and may cause unpleasant odours. More important though, mould has been linked to a range of health effects – especially triggering asthma.
However, is mould exposure linked to a serious lung disease in children, unrelated to asthma? As we’ll see, this link may not be real, or if it is, it’s so rare to not be a meaningful risk. Yet we still hear mould in damp homes described as “toxic”.
Indeed, mouldy homes can harm people’s health, but not necessarily how you might think.
Peeradontax/Shutterstock What is mould?
Mould is the general term for a variety of fungi. The mould that people have focused on in damp homes is “black mould”. This forms unsightly black patches on walls and other parts of damp-affected buildings.
Black mould is not a single fungus. But when people talk about black mould, they generally mean the fungus Stachybotrys chartarum or S. chartarum for short. It’s one of experts’ top ten feared fungi.
The focus on this species comes from a report in the 1990s on cases of haemorrhagic lung disease in a number of infants. This is a rare disease where blood leaks into the lungs, and can be fatal. The report suggested chemicals known as mycotoxins associated with this species of fungus were responsible for the outbreak.
What are mycotoxins?
A variety of fungi produce mycotoxins to defend themselves, among other reasons.
Hundreds of different chemicals are listed as myocytoxins. These include ones in poisonous mushrooms, and ones associated with the soil fungi Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus.
The fungus typically associated with black mould S. chartarum can produce several mycotoxins. These include roridin, which inhibits protein synthesis in humans and animals, and satratoxins, which have numerous toxic effects including bleeding in the lungs.
While the satratoxins, in particular, were mentioned in the report from the 90s in children, there are some problems when we look at the evidence.
The amount of mycotoxins S. chartarum makes can vary considerably. Even if significant amounts of mycotoxin are present, getting them into the body in the required amount to cause damage is another thing.
Inhaling spores in contaminated (mouldy) homes is the most probable way mycotoxins enter the body. For instance, we know mycotoxins can be found in S. chartarum spores. We also know direct injection of high concentrations of mycotoxin-bearing spores directly in the noses of mice can cause some lung bleeding.
Stachybotrys chartarum mycotoxins have been blamed for lung issues after exposure to black mould. Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock But just because inhaling spores is the probable route of contamination doesn’t mean this is very likely.
That’s because S. chartarum doesn’t release a lot of spores. Its spores are typically embedded in a slimy mass and it rarely produces the spore densities needed to replicate the animal studies.
The original reports suggesting the US infants who were diagnosed with haemorrhagic lung disease were exposed to toxic levels of mycotoxins were also flawed.
Among other issues, the concentrations of mould spores was calculated incorrectly. Subsequent correction for these issues resulted in the association between S. chartarum and this disease cluster basically disappearing.
The American Academy of Asthma Allergy and Immunology states while there is a clear, well-established relationship between damp indoor spaces and detrimental health effects, there is no good evidence black mould mycotoxins are involved.
But mould can cause allergies
Moulds can affect human health in ways unrelated to mycotoxins, typically through allergic reactions. Moulds including black moulds can trigger or worsen asthma attacks in people with mould allergies.
Some rarer but severe reactions can include allergic fungal sinusitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis and rarer still, hypersensitivity pneumonitis.
These can typically be controlled by removing the mould (or removing the person from the source of mould).
People with impaired immune systems (such as people taking immune-suppressant medications) may also be prone to mould infections.
In a nutshell
There is sufficient evidence that household mould is associated with respiratory issues attributable to their allergic effects.
However, there is no strong evidence mycotoxins from household mould – and in particular black mould – are associated with substantial health issues.
Ian Musgrave, Senior lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Barley Malt Flour vs chickpea flour – 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 barley malt flour to chickpea flour, we picked the chickpea.
Why?
First, some notes:
About chickpea flour: this is also called besan flour, gram flour, and garbanzo bean flour; they are all literally the same thing by different names, and are all flour made from ground chickpeas.
About barley malt flour: barley is a true grain, and does contain gluten. We’re not going to factor that into today’s decision, but if you are avoiding gluten, avoid barley. As for “malt”; malting grains means putting them in an environment (with appropriate temperature and humidity) that they can begin germination, and then drying them with hot air to stop the germination process from continuing, so that we still have grains to make flour out of, and not little green sprouting plants. It improves the nutritional qualities and, subjectively, the flavor.
To avoid repetition, we’re just going to write “barley” instead of “barley malt” now, but it’s still malted.
Now, let’s begin:
Looking at the macros first, chickpea flour has 2x the protein and also more fiber, while barley flour has more carbs. An easy win for chickpea flour.
In the category of vitamins, chickpea flour has more of vitamins A, B1, B5, B9, E, and K, while barley flour has more of vitamins B2, B3, B6, and C. A modest 6:4 victory for chickpea flour.
When it comes to minerals, things are much more one-sided; chickpea flour has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while barley flour has more selenium. An overwhelming win for chickpea flour.
Adding up these three wins for chickpea flour makes for a convincing story in favor of using that where reasonably possible as a flour! It has a slight nutty taste, so you might not want to use it in everything, but it is good for a lot of things.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?
- Gluten: What’s The Truth?
- Sprout Your Seeds, Grains, Beans, Etc
Take care!
Share This Post
-
The Seven Circles – by Chelsey Luger & Thosh Collins
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.
At first glance, this can seem like an unscientific book—you won’t find links to studies in this one, for sure! However, if we take a look at the seven circles in question, they are:
- Food
- Movement
- Sleep
- Ceremony
- Sacred Space
- Land
- Community
Regular 10almonds readers may notice that these seven items contain five of the things strongly associated with the “supercentenarian Blue Zones”. (If you are wondering why Native American reservations are not Blue Zones, the answer there lies less in health science and more in history and sociology, and what things have been done to a given people).
The authors—who are Native American, yes—present in one place a wealth of knowledge and know-how. Not even just from their own knowledge and their own respective tribes, but gathered from other tribes too.
Perhaps the strongest value of this book to the reader is in the explanation of noting the size of each of those circles, how they connect with each other, and providing a whole well-explained system for how we can grow each of them in harmony with each other.
Or to say the same thing in sciencey terms: how to mindfully improve integrated lifestyle factors synergistically for greater efficacy and improved health-adjusted quality-of-life years.
Bottom line: if you’re not averse to something that mostly doesn’t use sciencey terms of have citations to peer-reviewed studies peppered through the text, then this book has wisdom that’s a) older than the pyramids of Giza, yet also b) highly consistent with our current best science of Blue Zone healthy longevity.
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:
-
Grapefruit vs Orange – 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 grapefruit to orange, we picked the orange.
Why?
It’s easy, when guessing which is the healthier out of two things, to guess that the more expensive or perhaps less universally available one is the healthier. But it’s not always so, and today is one of those cases!
In terms of macros, they are very similar fruits, with almost identical levels of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, as well as water. Looking more carefully, we find that grapefruit’s sugars contain a slightly high proportion of fructose; not enough to make it unhealthy by any means (indeed, no whole unprocessed fruit is unhealthy unless it’s literally poisonous), but it is a thing to note if we’re micro-analysing the macronutrients. Also, oranges have slightly more fiber, which is always a plus. So, a very slight win for oranges in this round.
When it comes to vitamins, oranges stand out with more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, and E, while grapefruit boasts more vitamin A (hence its color). Still, we’re calling this category another win for oranges.
In the category of minerals, oranges again sweep with more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and selenium, while grapefruit has just a little more phosphorus. So, another easy win for oranges.
One final consideration that’s not shown in the nutritional values, is something we’ve written about before. Namely, that grapefruit contains furanocoumarin, which can inhibit cytochrome P-450 3A4 isoenzyme and P-glycoptrotein transporters in the intestine and liver—slowing down their drug metabolism capabilities, thus effectively increasing the bioavailability of many drugs manifold. It can also be found in lower quantities in Seville (sour) oranges, and it’s not present (or at least, if it is, it’s in truly tiny quantities) in most oranges.
This may sound superficially like a good thing (improving bioavailability of things we want), but in practice it means that in the case of many drugs, if you take them with (or near in time to) grapefruit or grapefruit juice, then congratulations, you just took an overdose. This happens with a lot of meds for blood pressure, cholesterol (including statins), calcium channel-blockers, anti-depressants, benzo-family drugs, beta-blockers, and more. Oh, and Viagra, too. Which latter might sound funny, but remember, Viagra’s mechanism of action is blood pressure modulation, and that is not something you want to mess around with unduly. So, do check with your pharmacist to know if you’re on any meds that would be affected by grapefruit or grapefruit juice!
Adding up the sections makes for a very clear overall win for oranges, but by all means do enjoy either or both, unless you’re on any meds that contraindicate grapefruit!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Watch Out For Furanocoumarins!
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:
-
A good death has a price – and a new study shows not everyone in palliative care can afford it
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.
You would hope for your dying days to be full of calm and care. But our research with people who are dying shows this is far from the reality for many people.
Instead, financial stress plays a huge and increasing role in who can afford a “good death”.
Bill Fairs/Unsplash What we did
In our recent study, we interviewed 18 people nearing the end of life in a palliative care unit, as well as six family members and carers, and 20 palliative care professionals.
We asked what it was like to be dying, to care for someone at the end of life, and to work in palliative care.
Palliative care is for people of any age who have a life-limiting illness. This means they have little or no prospect of a cure. So the goal is to prioritise comfort and living well as they approach the end of their life.
In Australia, palliative care is meant to be mainly free, with most costs covered by state and federal governments, as well as private health insurance.
But our research shows the patchwork of public and private funding means many people are confused and overwhelmed about how to pay for this essential care.
But first, how does palliative care work?
Palliative care can be provided at home or in hospital, a hospice or residential aged care.
Who pays for palliative care depends on where it’s being provided (for example, in the private or public hospital system) and whether the patient has private health insurance.
Australia’s health system is a complex hybrid of public funding, private insurance, charity and out-of-pocket payments.
For dying people and their families, navigating this system can be bewildering.
Previous research has explored how palliative care is funded in Australia. But until now we haven’t heard much directly from patients, carers and workers about how this affects them.
‘It’s expensive being ill’
Our research took place at a specialist palliative care unit in a major city hospital.
People working in the unit told us the activity-based funding model – where hospitals are paid for the number and mix of patients they treat – puts the focus on efficiency, rather than quality of care.
Patients spoke about not wanting to leave behind debt, while carers described confusing and stressful costs.
Patients and families told us they often enter palliative care confused by the patchwork of short-term subsidies, waiting lists for government support packages and gaps they must fill themselves.
For example, some people we interviewed said they had been paying out-of-pocket for medications and essential equipment such as oxygen, which they expected government supports to cover.
But securing government funding, such as the Support At Home program, End-of-Life Pathway or Carer Payment, can sometimes take months to organise.
And once secured, this funding is only available for fixed periods of time. This means patients who live longer than expected can be left without financial security.
Diane*, a community team nurse, told us:
We’ve had people who’ve been referred to us [for end-of-life care] and they were told six weeks [until death], and two years down the track they’ve done their superannuation, they’ve spent it all, […] they’ve got no money left and they’ve still got to pay electricity and things like that. […] And they go, ‘Well, what do I do now?’
Emily* told us her first worry when she got to the palliative care unit was not about dying, but whether the cost would impact her kids:
I didn’t want the children to be loaded with any more debt [because of] me. I would rather [die] on the bench in the park […] the last thing you want to leave them is debt.
Another participant, Kevin*, put it bluntly:
It’s expensive being ill.
Participants who were dying also described feeling pressure not to “outstay their welcome” in a palliative care unit because “the beds are needed” or “the insurance won’t keep paying”.
Alana*, who described herself as a “long-hauler” in the unit, said:
Let’s face it, it’s a business. And I know that. They’re not getting as much money from me as they would for patients coming in and out.
Patients were acutely aware that in the current health system, time is money.
The cost of visiting
For family and friends, their concerns were less about medical bills and more about the price of simply being present.
Jane*, whose elderly mother was dying in the unit, noted the prohibitive cost of parking on site:
They make you pay $20 a day. Your loved one’s dying. Really? […] I’m petrified when I stay overnight […] ‘when does [the parking] run out? I’d better go down and repay’.
Financial stress also impacted whether families could make funeral arrangements. A senior nurse, Patricia*, recounted:
They would say, ‘I don’t have a funeral director. I don’t think we are able to pay for the cost for the funeral. Can you arrange something?’
Death is an economic – not just medical – issue
Our research reveals how money, and worrying about it, can affect people’s experiences when nearing the end of life.
To ensure everyone can access a death free from financial stress, we first need to talk more openly about how money factors into dying.
More accessible government funding for palliative care patients and carers could help ensure everyone has an equal chance of a good end of life. This should be available for as long as people need, rather than on fixed terms.
*Names have been changed for privacy.
Henrietta Byrne, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies, University of Sydney; Alex Broom, Professor of Sociology & Director, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies, University of Sydney, and Katherine Kenny, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
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:
