UMN startup company @CrytonBio, is advancing a breakthrough technology to enhance mitochondrial function to treat diseases like colorectal cancer. @steffingomes

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have helped create the world's first synthetic cell that can feed, grow and reproduce. Built entirely from non-living chemical components, SpudCell marks a major breakthrough in biological engineering with the potential to transform medicine, manufacturing and more. twin-cities.umn.edu/news-eve…

Have a glass. Get some sleep. Stop tracking yourself. The millennial fixation with wearable devices and health optimization is pointless quackery. thefp.com/p/health-obsession…

Let's assume what you're claiming is true. Ivermectin, which is mfg by a pharma is really a wonder drug and can treat all diseases, why then has no pharma run RCTs and obtained FDA approval for any of these diseases you claim it treats? Surely it would make them billions?

-Nicotine is a mitochondrial uncoupler -Increases testosterone and DHT Paired with aspirin and vitamin c cigarettes might actually be beneficial.

Today, we are launching Immortals. + $1,000,000 per year + Three spots available Immortals is the world’s best health program. It is the exact protocol I have followed for the last 5 years. It is your Autonomous Health. Includes a dedicated concierge team, BryanAI 24/7, extensive testing, millions of biological data points, continuous tracking, best skin and hair protocols, and access to the best therapies on market. Immortals begins with those who have the resources and commitment. The long-term goal is universal access: the same standard of care, regardless of income or willpower. As these systems mature and scale, cost declines. Over the coming months: + $1,000,000 fully managed (now) + $60,000 supported tier + Free digital tier Across all, the core philosophy remains the same: measurement, scientific research, intervention, repeat. $1m/yr prerequisites: + pass interview process + a dedicated assistant + invest time Join below.

I was one of the investigators for the lovastatin dose ranging trial, so I have been prescribing statins since before they were FDA approved as an investigator. As an Associate of the American College Cardiology (with Certification in Cardiovascular Knowledge (CCK) by the ACC which is a newly offered examination which is as close to a board certification in Cardiology as is available for PA's and NP's) I have been prescribing statins to reduce the risk of heart attack stroke and cardiovascular death as well as progression of all vascular disease, reduce the risk of dementia, and in the case of atorvastatin, reduce the risk of kidney failure related to diabetes (PLANET and PLANET2 trials). The majority of your article is nonsense. At least it's important as any direct effect on cholesterol, the reduction in intra-arterial inflammation is likely the primary reason that statins reduce the risk of acute myocardial infarction because they reduce the risk of plaque rupture which is caused by that inflammation. (this is why the blood test CRP, which is a test for inflammation, is often done as part of cardiovascular risk assessment) There are only three classes of drugs that have been shown to reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular death (MACE - Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events), as well as reduce the risk of progression of all vascular disease, and reducing the risk of dementia (dementia reduction is proven for the statins, still pending for the latter two below), that are traditionally thought of as "cholesterol reducing" drugs. 1. Statins 2. PSK9i 3. Bempedoic Acid No other drugs that change cholesterol values on lab testing have been shown to make any difference in health with the exception that Zetia, ONLY when added to max dose statin improves outcomes whereas Zetia alone does not Also, GLP-1 and SGLT2 drugs reduce cardiovascular risk regardless if the patient has diabetes. Of all of these, the statins are by far the safest with the least side effects. An anecdote about statins: We found my father dead of his third heart attack at age 52. He had his first at age 36. Paying absolutely no attention to my cholesterol, I started atorvastatin 80 mg a little more than 20 years ago. About seven years ago, I underwent cardiac catheterization for chest pain (turned out to be non-cardiac chest pain) it was essentially clean (had "lump and bumps" consistent with 65). Anecdote only, although I have seen similar results in numerous patients, atorvastatin let me beat genetics. Baychol, the only statin removed from the market (~2002) (numbers are from memory I can't find a reference) for roughly 15 deaths from rhabdomyolysis. Of those 15 deaths, roughly 9 were simultaneously on another drug that they either should not have been on, based on the prescribing literature, or for which day should have been having regular drug lab monitoring, which they weren't). That means that the "most dangerous" statin that had to be pulled from the market, was pulled for 6 deaths and there had been greater than 6 million prescriptions. (I apologize that I do not have hard numbers, but these are in the appropriate order of magnitude) The bottom line is that statins are safe, effective, have a few side effects (and I have never had a patient complain of weight gain with a statin by the way, although that's "only" in some number of thousands of patients in 39 years. ) BTW, The whole point of p values is to determine if something is statistically significant. If the p value says it isn't, then it isn't statistically significant no matter your opinion to the contrary.