The Lost Art of Silence – by Sarah Anderson

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.

From “A Room Of One’s Own” to “Silent Mondays”, from spiritual retreats to noise-cancelling headphones, this book covers the many benefits of silence—and a couple of downsides too.

In an age where most things are available at the touch of a button, a little peaceful solitude can come at quite a premium, but what it offers can effect all manner of physical changes, from reduced stress responses to increased neurogenesis (growing new brain cells).

The tone throughout is a combination of personal and pop-science, and it’s very motivating to find a little more space-between-the-things in life.

The book is best enjoyed in a quiet room.

Bottom line: if you get the feeling sometimes that you could rest and recover fully and properly if you could just find the downtime, this book will help you find exactly that.

Click here to check out the Lost Art of Silence, and find peace and strength in it!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • The Food For Life Cookbook – by Dr. Tim Spector
  • Collard Greens vs Kale – Which is Healthier?
    Collard greens triumph over kale with more protein, fiber, and essential vitamins—redefining the superfood hierarchy!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • 10 Simple Japanese Habits For Healthier & Longer Life

    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 don’t have to be Japanese or live in Okinawa to enjoy the benefits of healthy longevity. A lot of it comes down to simple habits:

    Easy to implement

    We’ll not keep the 10 habits a mystery; they are:

    1. Start the day with hot water: drinking hot water in the morning helps with hydration, warming the body, and aiding digestion.
    2. Enjoy a hearty breakfast: Japanese breakfasts are traditionally filling, nutritious, and help promote energy and longevity. Typical components include rice, miso soup, fish, and pickles.
    3. Take balanced meals: Japanese education emphasizes nutrition from a young age, promoting balanced meals with proteins, fiber, and vitamins & minerals.
    4. Enjoy fermented foods: fermented foods, such as nattō and soy-based condiments, support digestion, heart health, and the immune system.
    5. Drink green tea and matcha: both are rich in health benefits; preparing matcha mindfully adds a peaceful ritual to daily life too.
    6. Keep the “80% full” rule: “hara hachi bu” encourages eating until 80% full, which can improve longevity and, of course, prevent overeating.
    7. Use multiple small dishes: small servings and a variety of dishes help prevent overeating and ensure a diverse intake of nutrients.
    8. Gratitude before and after meals: saying “itadakimasu” and “gochisousama” promotes mindful eating, and afterwards, good digestion. Speaking Japanese is of course not the key factor here, but rather, do give yourself a moment of reflection before and after meals.
    9. Use vinegar in cooking: vinegar, often used in sushi rice and sauces like ponzu, adds flavor and offers health benefits, mostly pertaining to blood sugar balance.
    10. Eat slowly: Eating at a slower pace will improve digestion, and can enhance satiety and prevent accidentally overeating.

    For more on all of these, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    How To Get More Out Of What’s On Your Plate

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Strawberries vs Raspberries – 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 strawberries to raspberries, we picked the raspberries.

    Why?

    They’re both very respectable fruits, of course! But it’s not even close, and there is a clear winner here…

    In terms of macros, the biggest difference is that raspberries have moderately more carbs, and more than 3x the fiber. Technically they also have 2x the protein, but that’s a case of “two times almost nothing is still almost nothing”. All in all, and especially for the “more than 3x the fiber” (6.5g/100g to strawberries’ 2g/100g), this one’s an easy win for raspberries.

    When it comes to vitamins, strawberries have more vitamin C, while raspberries have more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, E, K, and choline. Another clear and easy win for raspberries.

    In the category of minerals, guess what, raspberries win this hands-down, too: strawberries are higher in selenium, while raspberries have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and zinc.

    Adding up all the individual wins (all for raspberries), it’s not hard to say that raspberries win the day. Still, of course, enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • How Primary Care Is Being Disrupted: A Video Primer

    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.

    How patients are seeing their doctor is changing, and that could shape access to and quality of care for decades to come.

    More than 100 million Americans don’t have regular access to primary care, a number that has nearly doubled since 2014. Yet demand for primary care is up, spurred partly by record enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans. Under pressure from increased demand, consolidation, and changing patient expectations, the model of care no longer means visiting the same doctor for decades.

    KFF Health News senior correspondent Julie Appleby breaks down what is happening — and what it means for patients.

    More From This Investigation

    Primary Care Disrupted

    Known as the “front door” to the health system, primary care is changing. Under pressure from increased demand, consolidation, and changing patient expectations, the model of care no longer means visiting the same doctor for decades. KFF Health News looks at what this means for patients.

    Read More

    Credits

    Hannah Norman Video producer and animator Oona Tempest Illustrator and creative director KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • The Food For Life Cookbook – by Dr. Tim Spector
  • Falling vaccination rates put children at risk of preventable diseases. Governments need a new strategy to boost uptake

    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.

    Child vaccination is one of the most cost-effective health interventions. It accounts for 40% of the global reduction in infant deaths since 1974 and has led to big health gains in Australia over the past two decades.

    Australia has been a vaccination success story. Ten years after we begun mass vaccination against polio in 1956, it was virtually eliminated. Our child vaccination rates have been among the best in the world.

    But after peaking in 2020, child vaccination in Australia is falling. Governments need to implement a comprehensive strategy to boost vaccine uptake, or risk exposing more children to potentially preventable infectious diseases.

    Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Child vaccination has been a triumph

    Thirty years ago, Australia’s childhood vaccination rates were dismal. Then, in 1997, governments introduced the National Immunisation Program to vaccinate children against diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, and measles.

    Measures to increase coverage included financial incentives for parents and doctors, a public awareness campaign, and collecting and sharing local data to encourage the least-vaccinated regions to catch up with the rest of the country.

    What followed was a public health triumph. In 1995, only 52% of one-year-olds were fully immunised. By 2020, Australia had reached 95% coverage for one-year-olds and five-year-olds. At this level, it’s difficult even for highly infectious diseases, such as measles, to spread in the community, protecting both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

    Nurse talks to mother and toddler
    By 2020, 95% of children were vaccinated. Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Gaps between regions and communities closed too. In 1999, the Northern Territory’s vaccination rate for one-year-olds was the lowest in the country, lagging the national average by six percentage points. By 2020, that gap had virtually disappeared.

    The difference between vaccination rates for First Nations children and other children also narrowed considerably.

    It made children healthier. The years of healthy life lost due to vaccine-preventable diseases for children aged four and younger fell by nearly 40% in the decade to 2015.

    Some diseases have even been eliminated in Australia.

    Our success is slipping away

    But that success is at risk. Since 2020, the share of children who are fully vaccinated has fallen every year. For every child vaccine on the National Immunisation Schedule, protection was lower in 2024 than in 2020.

    Gaps between parts of Australia are opening back up. Vaccination rates in the highest-coverage parts of Australia are largely stable, but they are falling quickly in areas with lower vaccination.

    In 2018, there were only ten communities where more than 10% of one-year-old children were not fully vaccinated. Last year, that number ballooned to 50 communities. That leaves more areas vulnerable to disease and outbreaks.

    While Noosa, the Gold Coast Hinterland and Richmond Valley (near Byron Bay) have persistently had some of the country’s lowest vaccination rates, areas such as Manjimup in Western Australia and Tasmania’s South East Coast have recorded big declines since 2018.

    Missing out on vaccination isn’t just a problem for children.

    One preprint study (which is yet to be peer-reviewed) suggests vaccination during pregnancy may also be declining.

    Far too many older Australians are missing out on recommended vaccinations for flu, COVID, pneumococcal and shingles. Vaccination rates in aged care homes for flu and COVID are worryingly low.

    What’s going wrong?

    Australia isn’t alone. Since the pandemic, child vaccination rates have fallen in many high-income countries, including New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

    Globally, in 2023, measles cases rose by 20%, and just this year, a measles outbreak in rural Texas has put at least 13 children in hospital.

    Alarmingly, some regions in Australia have lower measles vaccination than that Texas county.

    The timing of trends here and overseas suggests things shifted, or at least accelerated, during the pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy, fuelled by misinformation about COVID vaccines, is a growing threat.

    This year, vaccine sceptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr was appointed to run the US health system, and Louisiana’s top health official has reportedly cancelled the promotion of mass vaccination.

    In Australia, a recent survey found 6% of parents didn’t think vaccines were safe, and 5% believed they don’t work.

    Those concerns are far more common among parents with children who are partially vaccinated or unvaccinated. Among the 2% of parents whose children are unvaccinated, almost half believe vaccines are not safe for their child, and four in ten believe vaccines didn’t work.

    Other consequences of the pandemic were a spike in the cost of living, and a health system struggling to meet demand. More than one in ten parents said cost and difficulty getting an appointment were barriers to vaccinating their children.

    There’s no single cause of sliding vaccination rates, so there’s no one solution. The best way to reverse these worrying trends is to work on all the key barriers at once – from a lack of awareness, to inconvenience, to lack of trust.

    What governments should do

    Governments should step up public health campaigns that counter misinformation, boost awareness of immunisation and its benefits, and communicate effectively to low-vaccination groups. The new Australian Centre for Disease Control should lead the charge.

    Primary health networks, the regional bodies responsible for improving primary care, should share data on vaccination rates with GPs and pharmacies. These networks should also help make services more accessible to communities who are missing out, such as migrant groups and disadvantaged families.

    State and local governments should do the same, sharing data and providing support to make maternal child health services and school-based vaccination programs accessible for all families.

    A girl and clinician smile at each other
    Governments can communicate better about the benefits of vaccination. Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Governments should also be more ambitious about tackling the growing vaccine divides between different parts of the country. The relevant performance measure in the national vaccination agreement is weak. States must only increase five-year-old vaccination rates in four of the ten areas where it is lowest. That only covers a small fraction of low-vaccination areas, and only the final stage of child vaccination.

    Australia needs to set tougher goals, and back them with funding.

    Governments should fund tailored interventions in areas with the lowest rates of vaccination. Proven initiatives include training trusted community members as “community champions” to promote vaccinations, and pop-up clinics or home visits for free vaccinations.

    At this time of year, childcare centres and schools are back in full swing. But every year, each new intake has less protection than the previous cohort. Governments are developing a new national vaccination strategy and must seize the opportunity to turn that trend around. If it commits to a bold national plan, Australia can get back to setting records for child vaccination.

    Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute and Wendy Hu, Associate, Health Program, Grattan Institute

    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:

  • Syphilis Is Killing Babies. The U.S. Government Is Failing to Stop the Disease From Spreading.

    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.

    ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

    Karmin Strohfus, the lead nurse at a South Dakota jail, punched numbers into a phone like lives depended on it. She had in her care a pregnant woman with syphilis, a highly contagious, potentially fatal infection that can pass into the womb. A treatment could cure the woman and protect her fetus, but she couldn’t find it in stock at any pharmacy she called — not in Hughes County, not even anywhere within an hour’s drive.

    Most people held at the jail where Strohfus works are released within a few days. “What happens if she gets out before I’m able to treat her?” she worried. Exasperated, Strohfus reached out to the state health department, which came through with one dose. The treatment required three. Officials told Strohfus to contact the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for help, she said. The risks of harm to a developing baby from syphilis are so high that experts urge not to delay treatment, even by a day.

    Nearly three weeks passed from when Strohfus started calling pharmacies to when she had the full treatment in hand, she said, and it barely arrived in time. The woman was released just days after she got her last shot.

    Last June, Pfizer, the lone U.S. manufacturer of the injections, notified the Food and Drug Administration of an “impending stock out” that it anticipated would last a year. The company blamed “an increase in syphilis infection rates as well as competitive shortages.”

    Across the country, physicians, clinic staff and public health experts say that the shortage is preventing them from reining in a surge of syphilis and that the federal government is downplaying the crisis. State and local public health authorities, which by law are responsible for controlling the spread of infectious diseases, report delays getting medicine to pregnant people with syphilis. This emergency was predictable: There have been shortages of this drug in eight of the last 20 years.

    Yet federal health authorities have not prevented the drug shortages in the past and aren’t doing much to prevent them in the future.

    Syphilis, which is typically spread during sex, can be devastating if it goes untreated in pregnancy: About 40% of babies born to women with untreated syphilis can be stillborn or die as newborns, according to the CDC. Infants that survive can suffer from deformed bones, excruciating pain or brain damage, and some struggle to hear, see or breathe. Since this is entirely preventable, a baby born with syphilis is a shameful sign of a failing public health system.

    In 2022, the most recent year for which the CDC has data available, more than 3,700 babies were infected with syphilis, including nearly 300 who were stillborn or died as infants. More than 50% of these cases occurred because, even though the pregnant parent was diagnosed with syphilis, they were never properly treated.

    That year, there were 200,000 cases identified in the U.S., a 79% increase from five years before. Infection rates among pregnant people and babies increased by more than 250% in that time; South Dakota, where Strohfus works, had the highest rates — including a more than 400% increase among pregnant women. Statewide, the rate of babies born with the disease, a condition known as congenital syphilis, jumped more than 40-fold in just five years.

    And that was before the current shortage of shots.

    In Mississippi, the state with the second highest rate of syphilis in pregnant women, Dr. Caroline Weinberg started having trouble this summer finding treatments for her clinic’s patients, most of whom are uninsured, live in poverty or lack transportation. She began spending hours each month scouring medicine suppliers’ websites for available doses of the shots, a form of penicillin sold under the brand name Bicillin L-A.

    “The way people do it for Taylor Swift, that’s how I’ve been with the Bicillin shortage,” Weinberg said. “Desperately checking the websites to see what I can snag.”

    The shortage is driving up infection rates even further.

    In a November survey by the National Coalition of STD Directors, 68% of health departments that responded said the drug shortage will cause syphilis rates in their area to increase, further crushing the nation’s most disadvantaged populations.

    “This is the most basic medicine,” said Meghan O’Connell, chief public health officer for the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board, which represents 18 tribal communities in South Dakota and three other states. “We allow ourselves to continue to not have enough, and it impacts so many people.”

    ProPublica examined what the federal government has done to manage the crisis and the ways in which experts say it has fallen short.

    The government could pressure Pfizer to be more transparent.

    Twenty years ago, there were at least three manufacturers of the syphilis shot. Then Pfizer, one of the manufacturers, purchased the other two companies and became the lone U.S. supplier.

    Pfizer’s supply has fallen short since then. In 2016, the company announced a shortage due to a manufacturing issue; it lasted two years. Even during times when Pfizer had not notified the FDA of an official shortage, clinics across the country told ProPublica, the shots were often hard to get.

    Several health officials said they would like to see the government use its power as the largest purchaser of the drug to put pressure on Pfizer to produce adequate supplies and to be more transparent about how much of the drug they have on hand, when it will be widely available and how stable the supply will be going forward.

    In response to questions, Pfizer said there are two reasons its supply is falling short. One, the company said, was a surge in use of the pediatric form of the drug after a shortage of a different antibiotic last winter. Pfizer also blamed a 70% increase in demand for the adult shots since last February, which it described as unexpected.

    Public health experts say the increase in cases and subsequent rise in demand was easy to see coming. Officials have been raising the alarm about skyrocketing syphilis cases for years. “If Pfizer was truly caught completely off guard, it raises significant questions about the competency of the company to forecast obvious infectious disease trends,” a coalition of organizations wrote to the White House Drug Shortage Task Force in September.

    Pfizer said it is consistently communicating with the CDC and FDA about its supply and that it has been transparent with public health groups and policymakers.

    The FDA has a group dedicated to addressing drug shortages. But Valerie Jensen, associate director of that staff, said the FDA can’t force manufacturers to make more of a drug. “It is up to manufacturers to decide how to respond to that increased demand.” she said. “What we’re here to do is help with those plans.”

    Pfizer said it had a target of increasing production by about 20% in 2023 but faced delays toward the end of the year. The company did not explain the reason for those delays.

    The company said it has invested $38 million in the last five years in the Michigan facility where it makes the shots and that it is increasing production capacity. It also said it is adding evening shifts at the facility and actively recruiting and training new workers. Pfizer said it also reduced manufacturing time from 110 to 50 days. By the end of June, the company expects the supply to recover, which it described as having eight weeks of inventory based on its forecast demands with no disruptions in sight.

    The government could manufacture the drug itself.

    Having only one supplier for a drug, especially one of public health importance, makes the country vulnerable to shortages. With just one manufacturer, any disruption — contamination at a plant, a shortage of raw materials, a severe weather event or a flawed prediction of demand — can put lives at risk. What’s ultimately needed, public health experts say, is another manufacturer.

    Congressional Democrats recently introduced a bill that would authorize the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to manufacture generic drugs in exactly this scenario, when there are few manufacturers and regular shortages. Called the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act, it would also establish an office of drug manufacturing.

    This same bill was introduced in 2018, but it didn’t have bipartisan support and was never taken up for a vote. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who introduced the bill in the Senate, said she’s hopeful this time will be different. Lawmakers from both parties understand the risks created by drug shortages, and COVID-19 helped everyone understand the role the government can play to boost manufacturing.

    Still, it’s unlikely to be passed with the current gridlock in Congress.

    The government could reserve syphilis drugs for infected patients.

    Responding to the shortage of shots to treat the disease, the CDC in July asked health care providers nationwide to preserve the scarce remaining doses for people who are pregnant. The shots are considered the gold standard treatment for anyone with syphilis, faster and with fewer side effects than an alternative pill regimen. And for people who are pregnant, the pills are not an option; the shots are the only safe treatment.

    Despite that call, the military is giving shots to new recruits who don’t have syphilis, to prevent outbreaks of severe bacterial respiratory infections. The Army has long administered this treatment at boot camps held at Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Moore and Fort Sill. The Army has been unable to obtain the shots several times in the past few years, according to the U.S. Army Center for Initial Military Training. But the Defense Health Agency’s pharmacy operations center has been working with Pfizer to ensure military sites can get them, a spokesperson for the Defense Health Agency said.

    “Until we think about public health the way we think about our military, we’re not going to see a difference,” said Dr. John Vanchiere, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport.

    Some public health officials, including Alaska’s chief medical officer, Dr. Anne Zink, questioned whether the military should be using scarce shots for prevention.

    “We should ask if that’s the best use,” she said.

    Using antibiotics to prevent streptococcal outbreaks is a well-established, evidence-based public health practice that’s also used by other branches of the armed services, said Lt. Col. Randy Ready, a public affairs officer with the Army’s Initial Military Training center. “The Army continues to work with the CDC and the entire medical community in regards to public health while also taking into account the unique missions and training environments our Soldiers face,” including basic training, Ready said in a written statement.

    The government isn’t stockpiling syphilis drugs.

    In rare instances, the federal government has created stockpiles of drugs considered key to public health. In 2018, confronting shortages of various drugs to treat tuberculosis, the CDC created a small stockpile of them. And the federal Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response keeps a national stockpile of supplies necessary for public health emergencies, including vaccines, medical supplies and antidotes needed in case of a chemical warfare attack.

    In November, the Biden administration announced it was creating a new syphilis task force. When asked why the federal government doesn’t stockpile syphilis treatments, Adm. Rachel Levine, the HHS official who leads the task force, said officials don’t routinely stockpile drugs, because they have expiration dates.

    In a written statement, an HHS spokesperson said that Bicillin has a shelf life of two years and that the Strategic National Stockpile “does not deploy products that are commercially available.” In general, the spokesperson wrote, stockpiles are most effective before a national shortage begins and can’t overcome the problems of limited suppliers or fragile supply chains. “There is also a risk that stockpiles can exacerbate shortages, particularly when supply is already low, by removing drugs from circulation that would have otherwise been available,” the spokesperson wrote.

    Stephanie Pang, a senior director with the coalition of STD directors, said that given the critical role of this drug and the severe access concerns, she thinks a stockpile is necessary. “I don’t have another solution that actually gets drugs to patients,” Pang said.

    The government could declare a federal emergency.

    Some public health officials say the federal government needs to treat the syphilis crisis the way it did Ebola or monkeypox.

    Declare a federal emergency, said Dr. Michael Dube, an infectious disease specialist for more than 30 years. That would free up money for more public health staff and fund more creative approaches that could lead to a long-term solution to the near-constant shortages, he said. “I’d hate to have to wait for some horrible anecdotes to get out there in order to get the public’s and the policymakers’ minds on it,” said Dube, who oversees medical care for AIDS Healthcare Foundation wellness clinics across the country.

    Citing an alarming surge in syphilis cases, the Great Plains Tribes wrote to the HHS secretary last week asking that the agency declare a public health emergency in their areas. In the request, they asked HHS to work globally to find adequate syphilis treatment and send the needed medicine to the Great Plains region.

    During the 2014 outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, Congress gave hundreds of millions of dollars to HHS to help develop new rapid tests and vaccines. Facing a global outbreak of monkeypox in 2022, a White House task force deployed more than a million vaccines, regularly briefed the public and sent extra resources to Pride parades and other places where people at risk were gathered.

    Levine, leader of the federal syphilis task force, countered that declaring an emergency wouldn’t make much of a difference. The government, she said, already has a “dramatic and coordinated response” involving several agencies.

    The FDA recently approved an emergency import of a similar syphilis treatment made by a French manufacturer that had plenty on hand. According to the company, Provepharm, the imported shots are enough to cover approximately one or two months of typical use by all people in the U.S. (The FDA would not say how many doses Provepharm sent, and the company said it was not allowed to reveal that number under the federal rules governing such emergency imports.)

    Clinics applaud that development. But many of them can’t afford the imported shots.

    The government could do more to rein in the cost.

    Clinics and hospitals that primarily serve low-income patients often qualify for a federal program that allows them to purchase drugs at steeply discounted prices. Pharmaceutical companies that want Medicaid to cover their outpatient drugs must participate in the program.

    One factor in determining the discount price is whether a pharmaceutical company has raised the price of a drug by more than the rate of inflation. Because Pfizer has hiked the price of its Bicillin shots significantly over the years, the government requires that it be sold to qualifying clinics for just pennies a dose. Otherwise, a single Pfizer shot can retail for upwards of $500. The French shots are comparable in retail price and not eligible for the discount program.

    Several clinic directors also said they worried that drug distributors were reserving the limited supply of the Pfizer shot for organizations that could pay full price. For several days in January, for example, the website of Henry Schein, a medical supplier, showed doses of the shot available at full price, while doses at the penny pricing were out of stock, according to screenshots shared with ProPublica. When asked whether it was only selling shots at full price, a spokesperson for Henry Schein did not respond to the question.

    Local health departments that qualify for the discount program told ProPublica they’ve had to pay full price at other distributors, because it was the only stock available.

    The Health Resources and Services Administration, the federal agency that regulates the discount program, said that a drug manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that when supplies are available, they are available at the discounted price. When asked about this, Pfizer said that it has “one inventory that is distributed to our trade partners” and that hospitals and clinics that qualify for the discount program are “responsible for ensuring compliance with the program and orders through the wholesaler accordingly.” The company added, “Pfizer plays no part in this process.”

    In October, on Weinberg’s regular search for shots for her Mississippi clinic, she found doses of Bicillin for sale at the discounted price and purchased 40. “The idea that we’re supposed to be hoarding treatment is a horrific compact,” she said. Word got out that the clinic, called Plan A, has some shots, and other clinics began sending pregnant patients there.

    The clinic’s supply is dwindling. Weinberg is happy to get the shots to patients who need them. But she’s not sure how much longer her reserve will last — or if she’ll be able to find more when they’re gone.

    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:

  • The Longevity Code – by Dr. Kris Verburgh

    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.

    Notwithstanding the subtitle claim of “secrets from the leading edge of science”, we’ll note up front that this book was published in 2015, and what was new then, isn’t now. However, what was new then is still important now, so we think the book merits attention just the same.

    The book examines why certain creatures (like humans) seem programmed to grow old and die, and why others (few others, but enough to make a list) either simply do not age, or else do age but can become younger when they hit a certain point. If this is the first you’re hearing of biologically immortal creatures, we’ll mention: they can and do die, just, their cause of death is usually by being eaten. But on a cellular and structural level, they don’t age. They grow to maturity and then just stay that way until one day they get eaten (or fall to some similar external circumstance).

    Tackling the question of “why do we age?” (not as a philosophical question, but rather as an engineering question) is important to tackle the critical question of “…and could we not?”, and that’s what much of this book is about.

    The real reason that compared to other mammals, humans live (for example) slightly longer than bats but not as long as naked mole rats, comes down mostly to genes, which makes it sound like things are set in stone, but rather, even without outright gene-editing technologies like CRISPR, gene expression is often quite modifiable, and often modifiable not just by drugs, but also by supplements, and indeed by nutraceuticals, which means also by diet, plus diet-adjacent things like fasting.

    While this is mostly an explanatory book rather than a how-to, there’s enough to make practical use of, and even a recipes section.

    The style is very gripping pop-science—or at least, if you’re anything like this reviewer, you’ll find it a page-turner. While being light on citations as we go (not like some authors who will mark several citations per page, or in the extreme, for every declarative sentence made), there is a reassuring bibliography at the back.

    Bottom line: if you’re interested in the “under the hood” of aging, then you will love this book.

    Click here to check out The Longevity Code, and slow down the aging process to live well for longer!

    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: