Taking A Trip Through The Evidence On Psychedelics
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.
In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinions on the medicinal use of psychedelics, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- 32% said “This is a good, evidence-based way to treat many brain disorders”
- 32% said “There are some benefits, but they don’t outweigh the risks”
- 20% said “This can help a select few people only; useless for the majority”
- 16% said “This is hippie hogwash and hearsay; wishful thinking at best”
Quite a spread of answers, so what does the science say?
This is hippie hogwash and hearsay; wishful thinking at best! True or False?
False! We’re tackling this one first, because it’s easiest to answer:
There are some moderately-well established [usually moderate] clinical benefits from some psychedelics for some people.
If that sounds like a very guarded statement, it is. Part of this is because “psychedelics” is an umbrella term; perhaps we should have conducted separate polls for psilocybin, MDMA, ayahuasca, LSD, ibogaine, etc, etc.
In fact: maybe we will do separate main features for some of these, as there is a lot to say about each of them separately.
Nevertheless, looking at the spread of research as it stands for psychedelics as a category, the answers are often similar across the board, even when the benefits/risks may differ from drug to drug.
To speak in broad terms, if we were to make a research summary for each drug it would look approximately like this in each case:
- there has been research into this, but not nearly enough, as “the war on drugs” may well have manifestly been lost (the winner of the war being: drugs; still around and more plentiful than ever), but it did really cramp science for a few decades.
- the studies are often small, heterogenous (often using moderately wealthy white student-age population samples), and with a low standard of evidence (i.e. the methodology often has some holes that leave room for reasonable doubt).
- the benefits recorded are often small and transient.
- in their favor, though, the risks are also generally recorded as being quite low, assuming proper safe administration*.
*Illustrative example:
Person A takes MDMA in a club, dances their cares away, has had only alcohol to drink, sweats buckets but they don’t care because they love everyone and they see how we’re all one really and it all makes sense to them and then they pass out from heat exhaustion and dehydration and suffer kidney damage (not to mention a head injury when falling) and are hospitalized and could die;
Person B takes MDMA in a lab, is overwhelmed with a sense of joy and the clarity of how their participation in the study is helping humanity; they want to hug the researcher and express their gratitude; the researcher reminds them to drink some water.
Which is not to say that a lab is the only safe manner of administration; there are many possible setups for supervised usage sites. But it does mean that the risks are often as much environmental as they are risks inherent to the drug itself.
Others are more inherent to the drug itself, such as adverse cardiac events for some drugs (ibogaine is one that definitely needs medical supervision, for example).
For those who’d like to see numbers and clinical examples of the bullet points we gave above, here you go; this is a great (and very readable) overview:
NIH | Evidence Brief: Psychedelic Medications for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders
Notwithstanding the word “brief” (intended in the sense of: briefing), this is not especially brief and is rather an entire book (available for free, right there!), but we do recommend reading it if you have time.
This can help a select few people only; useless for the majority: True or False?
True, technically, insofar as the evidence points to these drugs being useful for such things as depression, anxiety, PTSD, addiction, etc, and estimates of people who struggle with mental health issues in general is often cited as being 1 in 4, or 1 in 5. Of course, many people may just have moderate anxiety, or a transient period of depression, etc; many, meanwhile, have it worth.
In short: there is a very large minority of people who suffer from mental health issues that, for each issue, there may be one or more psychedelic that could help.
This is a good, evidence-based way to treat many brain disorders: True or False?
True if and only if we’re willing to accept the so far weak evidence that we discussed above. False otherwise, while the jury remains out.
One thing in its favor though is that while the evidence is weak, it’s not contradictory, insofar as the large preponderance of evidence says such therapies probably do work (there aren’t many studies that returned negative results); the evidence is just weak.
When a thousand scientists say “we’re not completely sure, but this looks like it helps; we need to do more research”, then it’s good to believe them on all counts—the positivity and the uncertainty.
This is a very different picture than we saw when looking at, say, ear candling or homeopathy (things that the evidence says simply do not work).
We haven’t been linking individual studies so far, because that book we linked above has many, and the number of studies we’d have to list would be:
n = number of kinds of psychedelic drugs x number of conditions to be treated
e.g. how does psilocybin fare for depression, eating disorders, anxiety, addiction, PTSD, this, that, the other; now how does ayahuasca fare for each of those, and so on for each drug and condition; at least 25 or 30 as a baseline number, and we don’t have that room.
But here are a few samples to finish up:
- Psilocybin as a New Approach to Treat Depression and Anxiety in the Context of Life-Threatening Diseases—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
- Therapeutic Use of LSD in Psychiatry: A Systematic Review of Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trials
- Efficacy of Psychoactive Drugs for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review of MDMA, Ketamine, LSD and Psilocybin
- Changes in self-rumination and self-compassion mediate the effect of psychedelic experiences on decreases in depression, anxiety, and stress.
- Psychedelic Treatments for Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Patient Experiences in Qualitative Studies
- Repeated lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) reverses stress-induced anxiety-like behavior, cortical synaptogenesis deficits and serotonergic neurotransmission decline
In closing…
The general scientific consensus is presently “many of those drugs may ameliorate many of those conditions, but we need a lot more research before we can say for sure”.
On a practical level, an important take-away from this is twofold:
- drugs, even those popularly considered recreational, aren’t ontologically evil, generally do have putative merits, and have been subject to a lot of dramatization/sensationalization, especially by the US government in its famous war on drugs.
- drugs, even those popularly considered beneficial and potentially lifechangingly good, are still capable of doing great harm if mismanaged, so if putting aside “don’t do drugs” as a propaganda of the past, then please do still hold onto “don’t do drugs alone”; trained professional supervision is a must for safety.
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:
-
Unlimited Memory – by Kevin Horsley
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.
Premise: there are easily learnable techniques to rapidly (and greatly) improve one’s memory. We’ve touched on some of these methods before at 10almonds, but being a newsletter rather than a book, we’ve not been able to go as deeply into it as Horsley!
Your memory is far, far, far more powerful than you might realize, and this book will help unlock that. To illustrate…
Some of the book is given over to what are for most purposes “party tricks”, such as remembering pi to 10,000 places. Those things are fun, even if not as practical in today’s world of rarely needing to even know the actual digits of a phone number. However, they do also serve as a good example of just how much of “super memory” isn’t a matter of hard work, so much as being better organized about it.
Most of the book is focused on practical methods to improve the useful aspects of memory—including common mistakes!
If the book has any flaw it’s that the first chapter or so is spent persuading the reader of things we presumably already believe, given that we bought the book. For example, that remembering things is a learnable skill and that memory is functionally limitless. However, we still advise to not skip those chapters as they do contain some useful reframes as well.
Bottom line: if you read this book you will be astonished by how much you just learned—because you’ll be able to recall whole sections in detail! And then you can go apply that whatever areas of your life you wanted to when you bought the book.
Share This Post
-
Two Things You Can Do To Improve Stroke Survival Chances
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. Andrew’s Stroke Survival Guide
This is Dr. Nadine Andrew. She’s a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Medicine at Monash University. She’s the Research Data Lead for the National Center of Healthy Aging. She is lead investigator on the NHMRC-funded PRECISE project… The most comprehensive stroke data linkage study to date! In short, she knows her stuff.
We’ve talked before about how sample size is important when it comes to scientific studies. It’s frustrating; sometimes we see what looks like a great study until we notice it has a sample size of 17 or something.
Dr. Andrew didn’t mess around in this regard, and the 12,386 participants in her Australian study of stroke patients provided a huge amount of data!
With a 95% confidence interval because of the huge dataset, she found that there was one factor that reduced mortality by 26%.
And the difference was…
Whether or not patients had a chronic disease management plan set up with their GP (General Practitioner, or “family doctor”, in US terms), after their initial stroke treatment.
45% of patients had this; the other 55% did not, so again the sample size was big for both groups.
Why this is important:
After a stroke, often a patient is discharged as early as it seems safe to do so, and there’s a common view that “it just takes time” and “now we wait”. After all, no medical technology we currently have can outright repair that damage—the body must repair itself! Medications—while critical*—can only support that and help avoid recurrence.
*How critical? VERY critical. Critical critical. Dr. Andrew found, some years previously, that greater levels of medication adherence (ie, taking the correct dose on time and not missing any) significantly improved survival outcomes. No surprise, right? But what may surprise is that this held true even for patients with near-perfect adherence. In other words: miss a dose at your peril. It’s that important.
But, as Dr. Andrew’s critical research shows, that’s no reason to simply prescribe ongoing meds and otherwise cut a patient loose… or, if you or a loved one are the patient, to allow yourself/them to be left without a doctor’s ongoing active support in the form of a chronic disease management plan.
What does a chronic disease management plan look like?
First, what it’s not:
- “Yes yes, I’m here if you need me, just make an appointment if something changes”
- “Let’s pencil in a check-up in three months”
- Etc
What it actually looks like:
It looks like a plan. A personal care plan, built around that person’s individual needs, risks, liabilities… and potential complications.
Because who amongst us, especially at the age where strokes are more likely, has an uncomplicated medical record? There will always be comorbidities and confounding factors, so a one-size-fits-all plan will not do.
Dr. Andrew’s work took place in Australia, so she had the Australian healthcare system in mind… We know many of our subscribers are from North America and other places. But read this, and you’ll see how this could go just as much for the US or Canada:
❝The evidence shows the importance of Medicare financially supporting primary care physicians to provide structured chronic disease management after a stroke.
We also provide a strong case for the ongoing provision of these plans within a universal healthcare system. Strategies to improve uptake at the GP level could include greater financial incentives and mandates, education for patients and healthcare professionals.❞
See her groundbreaking study for yourself here!
The Bottom Line:
If you or a loved one has a stroke, be prepared to make sure you get a chronic health management plan in place. Note that if it’s you who has the stroke, you might forget this or be unable to advocate for yourself. So, we recommend to discuss this with a partner or close friend sooner rather than later!
“But I’m quite young and healthy and a stroke is very unlikely for me”
Good for you! And the median age of Dr. Andrew’s gargantuan study was 70 years. But:
- do you have older relatives? Be aware for them, too.
- strokes can happen earlier in life too! You don’t want to be an interesting statistic.
Some stroke-related quick facts:
Stroke is the No. 5 cause of death and a leading cause of disability in the U.S.
Stroke can happen to anyone—any age, any time—and everyone needs to know the warning signs.
On average, 1.9 million brain cells die every minute that a stroke goes untreated.
Stroke is an EMERGENCY. Call 911 immediately.
Early treatment leads to higher survival rates and lower disability rates. Calling 911 lets first responders start treatment on someone experiencing stroke symptoms before arriving at the hospital.
Source: https://www.stroke.org/en/about-stroke
What are the warning signs for stroke?
Use the letters F.A.S.T. to spot a stroke and act quickly:
- F = Face Drooping—does one side of the face droop or is it numb? Ask the person to smile. Is the person’s smile uneven?
- A = Arm Weakness—is one arm weak or numb? Ask the person to raise both arms. Does one arm drift downward?
- S = Speech Difficulty—is speech slurred?
- T = Time to call 911
Source: https://www.stroke.org/en/about-stroke/stroke-symptoms
Last but not least, while we’re sharing resources:
Download the PDF Checklist: 8 Ways To Help Prevent a Second Stroke
Share This Post
-
What is type 1.5 diabetes? It’s a bit like type 1 and a bit like type 2 – but it’s often misdiagnosed
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 you’re likely familiar with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, you’ve probably heard less about type 1.5 diabetes.
Also known as latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA), type 1.5 diabetes has features of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
More people became aware of this condition after Lance Bass, best known for his role in the iconic American pop band NSYNC, recently revealed he has it.
So, what is type 1.5 diabetes? And how is it diagnosed and treated?
Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock There are several types of diabetes
Diabetes mellitus is a group of conditions that arise when the levels of glucose (sugar) in our blood are higher than normal. There are actually more than ten types of diabetes, but the most common are type 1 and type 2.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition where the body’s immune system attacks and destroys the cells in the pancreas that make the hormone insulin. This leads to very little or no insulin production.
Insulin is important for moving glucose from the blood into our cells to be used for energy, which is why people with type 1 diabetes need insulin medication daily. Type 1 diabetes usually appears in children or young adults.
Type 2 diabetes is not an autoimmune condition. Rather, it happens when the body’s cells become resistant to insulin over time, and the pancreas is no longer able to make enough insulin to overcome this resistance. Unlike type 1 diabetes, people with type 2 diabetes still produce some insulin.
Type 2 is more common in adults but is increasingly seen in children and young people. Management can include behavioural changes such as nutrition and physical activity, as well as oral medications and insulin therapy.
People with diabetes may need to regularly monitor their blood sugar levels. Dragana Gordic/Shutterstock How does type 1.5 diabetes differ from types 1 and 2?
Like type 1 diabetes, type 1.5 occurs when the immune system attacks the pancreas cells that make insulin. But people with type 1.5 often don’t need insulin immediately because their condition develops more slowly. Most people with type 1.5 diabetes will need to use insulin within five years of diagnosis, while those with type 1 typically require it from diagnosis.
Type 1.5 diabetes is usually diagnosed in people over 30, likely due to the slow progressing nature of the condition. This is older than the typical age for type 1 diabetes but younger than the usual diagnosis age for type 2.
Type 1.5 diabetes shares genetic and autoimmune risk factors with type 1 diabetes such as specific gene variants. However, evidence has also shown it may be influenced by lifestyle factors such as obesity and physical inactivity which are more commonly associated with type 2 diabetes.
What are the symptoms, and how is it treated?
The symptoms of type 1.5 diabetes are highly variable between people. Some have no symptoms at all. But generally, people may experience the following symptoms:
- increased thirst
- frequent urination
- fatigue
- blurred vision
- unintentional weight loss.
Typically, type 1.5 diabetes is initially treated with oral medications to keep blood glucose levels in normal range. Depending on their glucose control and the medication they are using, people with type 1.5 diabetes may need to monitor their blood glucose levels regularly throughout the day.
When average blood glucose levels increase beyond normal range even with oral medications, treatment may progress to insulin. However, there are no universally accepted management or treatment strategies for type 1.5 diabetes.
Type 1.5 diabetes might be managed with oral medications, at least initially. Dragana Gordic/Shutterstock Type 1.5 diabetes is often misdiagnosed
Lance Bass said he was initially diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but later learned he actually has type 1.5 diabetes. This is not entirely uncommon. Estimates suggest type 1.5 diabetes is misdiagnosed as type 2 diabetes 5–10% of the time.
There are a few possible reasons for this.
First, accurately diagnosing type 1.5 diabetes, and distinguishing it from other types of diabetes, requires special antibody tests (a type of blood test) to detect autoimmune markers. Not all health-care professionals necessarily order these tests routinely, either due to cost concerns or because they may not consider them.
Second, type 1.5 diabetes is commonly found in adults, so doctors might wrongly assume a person has developed type 2 diabetes, which is more common in this age group (whereas type 1 diabetes usually affects children and young adults).
Third, people with type 1.5 diabetes often initially make enough insulin in the body to manage their blood glucose levels without needing to start insulin medication. This can make their condition appear like type 2 diabetes, where people also produce some insulin.
Finally, because type 1.5 diabetes has symptoms that are similar to type 2 diabetes, it may initially be treated as type 2.
We’re still learning about type 1.5
Compared with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, there has been much less research on how common type 1.5 diabetes is, especially in non-European populations. In 2023, it was estimated type 1.5 diabetes represented 8.9% of all diabetes cases, which is similar to type 1. However, we need more research to get accurate numbers.
Overall, there has been a limited awareness of type 1.5 diabetes and unclear diagnostic criteria which have slowed down our understanding of this condition.
A misdiagnosis can be stressful and confusing. For people with type 1.5 diabetes, being misdiagnosed with type 2 diabetes might mean they don’t get the insulin they need in a timely manner. This can lead to worsening health and a greater likelihood of complications down the road.
Getting the right diagnosis helps people receive the most appropriate treatment, save money, and reduce diabetes distress. If you’re experiencing symptoms you think may indicate diabetes, or feel unsure about a diagnosis you’ve already received, monitor your symptoms and chat with your doctor.
Emily Burch, Accredited Practising Dietitian and Lecturer, Southern Cross University and Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
We’re only using a fraction of health workers’ skills. This needs to change
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.
Roles of health professionals are still unfortunately often stuck in the past. That is, before the shift of education of nurses and other health professionals into universities in the 1980s. So many are still not working to their full scope of practice.
There has been some expansion of roles in recent years – including pharmacists prescribing (under limited circumstances) and administering a wider range of vaccinations.
But the recently released paper from an independent Commonwealth review on health workers’ “scope of practice” identifies the myriad of barriers preventing Australians from fully benefiting from health professionals’ skills.
These include workforce design (who does what, where and how roles interact), legislation and regulation (which often differs according to jurisdiction), and how health workers are funded and paid.
There is no simple quick fix for this type of reform. But we now have a sensible pathway to improve access to care, using all health professionals appropriately.
A new vision for general practice
I recently had a COVID booster. To do this, I logged onto my general practice’s website, answered the question about what I wanted, booked an appointment with the practice nurse that afternoon, got jabbed, was bulk-billed, sat down for a while, and then went home. Nothing remarkable at all about that.
But that interaction required a host of facilitating factors. The Victorian government regulates whether nurses can provide vaccinations, and what additional training the nurse requires. The Commonwealth government has allowed the practice to be paid by Medicare for the nurse’s work. The venture capitalist practice owner has done the sums and decided allocating a room to a practice nurse is economically rational.
The future of primary care is one involving more use of the range of health professionals, in addition to GPs.
It would be good if my general practice also had a physiotherapist, who I could see if I had back pain without seeing the GP, but there is no Medicare rebate for this. This arrangement would need both health professionals to have access to my health record. There also needs to be trust and good communication between the two when the physio might think the GP needs to be alerted to any issues.
This vision is one of integrated primary care, with health professionals working in a team. The nurse should be able to do more than vaccination and checking vital signs. Do I really need to see the GP every time I need a prescription renewed for my regular medication? This is the nub of the “scope of practice” issue.
How about pharmacists?
An integrated future is not the only future on the table. Pharmacy owners especially have argued that pharmacists should be able to practise independently of GPs, prescribing a limited range of medications and dispensing them.
This will inevitably reduce continuity of care and potentially create risks if the GP is not aware of what other medications a patient is using.
But a greater role for pharmacists has benefits for patients. It is often easier and cheaper for the patient to see a pharmacist, especially as bulk billing rates fall, and this is one of the reasons why independent pharmacist prescribing is gaining traction.
It’s often easier for a patient to see a pharmacist than a GP. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Every five years or so the government negotiates an agreement with the Pharmacy Guild, the organisation of pharmacy owners, about how much pharmacies will be paid for dispensing medications and other services. These agreements are called “Community Pharmacy Agreements”. Paying pharmacists independent prescribing may be part of the next agreement, the details of which are currently being negotiated.
GPs don’t like competition from this new source, even though there will be plenty of work around for GPs into the foreseeable future. So their organisations highlight the risks of these changes, reopening centuries old turf wars dressed up as concerns about safety and risk.
Who pays for all this?
Funding is at the heart of disputes about scope of practice. As with many policy debates, there is merit on both sides.
Clearly the government must increase its support for comprehensive general practice. Existing funding of fee-for-service medical benefits payments must be redesigned and supplemented by payments that allow practices to engage a range of other health professionals to create health-care teams.
This should be the principal direction of primary care reform, and the final report of the scope of practice review should make that clear. It must focus on the overall goal of better primary care, rather than simply the aspirations of individual health professionals, and working to a professional’s full scope of practice in a team, not a professional silo.
In parallel, governments – state and federal – must ensure all health professionals are used to their best of their abilities. It is a waste to have highly educated professionals not using their skills fully. New funding arrangements should facilitate better access to care from all appropriately qualified health professionals.
In the case of prescribing, it is possible to reconcile the aspirations of pharmacists and the concerns of GPs. New arrangements could be that pharmacists can only renew medications if they have agreements with the GP and there is good communication between them. This may be easier in rural and suburban areas, where the pharmacists are better known to the GPs.
The second issues paper points to the complexity of achieving scope of practice reforms. However, it also sets out a sensible path to improve access to care using all health professionals appropriately.
Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne
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:
-
What Most People Don’t Know About HIV
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.
What To Know About HIV This World AIDS Day
Yesterday, we asked 10almonds readers to engage in a hypothetical thought experiment with us, and putting aside for a moment any reason you might feel the scenario wouldn’t apply for you, asked:
❝You have unprotected sex with someone who, afterwards, conversationally mentions their HIV+ status. Do you…❞
…and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses. Of those who responded…
- Just over 60% said “rush to hospital; maybe a treatment is available”
- Just under 20% said “ask them what meds they’re taking (and perhaps whether they’d like a snack)”
- Just over 10% said “despair; life is over”
- Two people said “do the most rigorous washing down there you’ve ever done in your life”
So, what does science say about it?
First, a quick note on terms
- HIV is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. It does what it says on the tin; it gives humans immunodeficiency. Like many viruses that have become epidemic in humans, it started off in animals (called SIV, because there was no “H” involved yet), which were then eaten by humans, passing the virus to us when it one day mutated to allow that.
- It’s technically two viruses, but that’s beyond the scope of today’s article; for our purposes they are the same. HIV-1 is more virulent and infectious than HIV-2, and is the kind more commonly found in most of the world.
- AIDS is Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, and again, is what it sounds like. When a person is infected with HIV, then without treatment, they will often develop AIDS.
- Technically AIDS itself doesn’t kill people; it just renders people near-defenseless to opportunistic infections (and immune-related diseases such as cancer), since one no longer has a properly working immune system. Common causes of death in AIDS patients include cancer, influenza, pneumonia, and tuberculosis.
People who contract HIV will usually develop AIDS if untreated. Untreated life expectancy is about 11 years.
HIV/AIDS are only a problem for gay people: True or False?
False, unequivocally. Anyone can get HIV and develop AIDS.
The reason it’s more associated with gay men, aside from homophobia, is that since penetrative sex is more likely to pass it on, then if we go with the statistically most likely arrangements here:
- If a man penetrates a woman and passes on HIV, that woman will probably not go on to penetrate someone else
- If a man penetrates a man and passes on HIV, that man could go on to penetrate someone else—and so on
- This means that without any difference in safety practices or promiscuity, it’s going to spread more between men on average, by simple mathematics.
- This is why “men who have sex with men” is the generally-designated higher-risk category.
There is medication to cure HIV/AIDS: True or False?
False so far (though there have been individual case studies of gene treatments that may have cured people—time will tell).
But! There are medications that can prevent HIV from being a life-threatening problem:
- PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) is a medication that one can take in advance of potential exposure to HIV, to guard against it.
- This is a common choice for people aren’t sure about their partners’ statuses, or people working in risky environments.
- PEP (Post-Exposure Prophylaxis) is a medication that one can take after potential exposure to HIV, to “nip it in the bud”.
- Those of you who were rushing to hospital in our poll, this is what you’re rushing there for.
- ARVs (Anti-RetroVirals) are a class of medications (there are different options; we don’t have room to distinguish them) that reduce an HIV+ person’s viral load to undetectable levels.
- Those of you who were asking what meds your partner was taking, these will be those meds. Also, most of them are to be taken in the morning with food, so that’s what the snack was for.
If someone is HIV+, the risk of transmission in unprotected sex is high: True or False?
True or False, with false being the far more likely. It depends on their medications, and this is why you were asking. If someone is on ARVs and their viral load is undetectable (as is usual once someone has been on ARVs for 6 months), they cannot transmit HIV to you.
U=U is not a fancy new emoticon, it means “undetectable = untransmittable”, which is a mathematically true statement in the case of HIV viral loads.
See: NIH | HIV Undetectable=Untransmittable (U=U)
If you’re thinking “still sounds risky to me”, then consider this:
You are safer having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+ and on ARVs with an undetectable viral load, than you are with someone you are merely assuming is HIV- (perhaps you assume it because “surely this polite blushing young virgin of a straight man won’t give me cooties” etc)
Note that even your monogamous partner of many decades could accidentally contract HIV due to blood contamination in a hospital or an accident at work etc, so it’s good practice to also get tested after things that involve getting stabbed with needles, cut in a risky environment, etc.
If you’re concerned about potential stigma associated with HIV testing, you can get kits online:
CDC | How do I find an HIV self-test?
(these are usually fingerprick blood tests, and you can either see the results yourself at home immediately, or send it in for analysis, depending on the kit)
If I get HIV, I will get AIDS and die: True or False?
False, assuming you get treatment promptly and keep taking it. So those of you who were at “despair; life is over” can breathe a sigh of relief now.
However, if you get HIV, it does currently mean you will have to take those meds every day for the rest of your (no reason it shouldn’t be long and happy) life.
So, HIV is definitely still something to avoid, because it’s not great to have to take a life-saving medication every day. For a little insight as to what that might be like:
HIV.gov | Taking HIV Medication Every Day: Tips & Challenges
(as you’ll see there, there are also longer-lasting injections available instead of daily pulls, but those are much less widely available)
Summary
Some quick take-away notes-in-a-nutshell:
- Getting HIV may have been a death sentence in the 1980s, but nowadays it’s been relegated to the level of “serious inconvenience”.
- Happily, it is very preventable, with PrEP, PEP, and viral loads so low that they can’t transmit HIV, thanks to ARVs.
- Washing will not help, by the way. Safe sex will, though!
- As will celibacy and/or sexual exclusivity in seroconcordant relationships, e.g. you have the same (known! That means actually tested recently! Not just assumed!) HIV status as each other.
- If you do get it, it is very manageable with ARVs, but prevention is better than treatment
- There is no certain cure—yet. Some people (small number of case studies) may have been cured already with gene therapy, but we can’t know for sure yet.
Want to know more? Check out:
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:
-
Why You Can’t Deep Squat (And the Benefits You’re Missing)
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.
Matt Hsu fought his own battle with chronic pain from the age of 16 in his feet, knees, hips, back, shoulders, elbows, forearms, wrists, hands, and head. Seeking answers, he’s spent a career in corrective exercise, posture alignment, structural integration, orthopedic exercise, sports medicine, and has more certifications than we care to list. In short, he knows his stuff.
Yes you can (with some work)
The deep squat, also called Asian squat, Slav squat, sitting squat, resting squat, primal squat, and various other names, is an important way of sitting that has implications for a lot of aspects of health.
Why it’s so important: it preserves the mobility of our hips, ankles, and everything in between, and maintaining especially the hip mobility makes a big difference not only to general health, but also to reducing the risk of injury. It also maintains lower body strength, making falls in older age less likely in the first place, and if falls do happen, makes injury less likely, and if injury does happen, makes the injury likely less severe.
An important misconception: there is a popular, but unfounded, belief that the ability or inability to do this is decided by genes—or if not outright decided, that at the very least Asians and Slavs have a genetic advantage. However, this is simply not true. Westerners and others can learn to do it just fine, and on the flipside, Asians and Slavs who grew up in the West may often struggle with it. The truth is, the deciding factor is lifestyle: if your culture involves sitting this way more often, you’ll be able to do it more comfortably and easily than if you’re just now trying it for the first time.
Factors that you can control: you can’t change where you grew up, but you can change how you sit down now. Achieving the squat requires repeated position practice, and the more frequently you do so (even if you just start with a few seconds and work your way up to longer periods), the better you’ll get at it. And, on the contrary, sitting in chairs weakens and shortens the muscles involved, so any time you spend sitting in chairs is working against you. There are many reasons it’s advisable to avoid sitting in chairs more than necessary, and this is one of them.
10almonds tip: a limiting factor for many people initially is ankle flexibility, which may result in one’s center of gravity being a bit far back, leading to a tendency to have to change something to avoid toppling over backwards. Rather than holding onto something immobile (e.g. furniture) in front of where you are sitting, consider simply holding an object in front of you in your hands. A book is a fine example; holding that in front of you (feel free to read the book) will shift your center of gravity forwards a bit, and will thus allow you to sit there a little longer, thus improving your strength and flexibility while you do, until you can do it without holding something in front of you. If you try with a book and you’re still prone to toppling backwards, try with something heavier, but do use the minimum weight necessary, because ultimately the counterbalance is just a crutch to get you to where you need to be.
For more visual advice on how to do it, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
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:
