Tom's Blog on Life

Tommy Wells posts:

Did you see the new 2026 Paper? About the survival benefit of colonoscopies? Nobody else did either. Because mainstream science likes to bury data that doesn’t fit their narrative. That’s how they herd the sheep in preferred directions.

So here’s what happened in the study. Here:
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736/26/00508-8/abstract

About 13 years ago, researchers set up a large randomized controlled trial where they split participants into two groups:
* One group was invited to colonoscopy screening
* The other group was not.

Then they followed both groups for 13 years. Here are the numbers:
In the group invited to colonoscopy screening, about 15 people per 1,000 developed colorectal cancer. In the group that was not invited, about 18 people per 1,000 developed colorectal cancer.

A difference of roughly 3 cases per 1,000 people over more than a decade.
And what about survival differences?

Over the same 13-year follow-up, colorectal cancer deaths were low in both groups.

For those who had colonoscopies, about 4 to 5 people per 1,000 died from colorectal cancer. For those with no colonoscopy, about 5 to 6 people per 1,000 died.

So in regards to survivability it was not statistically significant. Which means colonoscopies do not save lives, despite what the experts have been telling us for decades. Which is why the elitists are so quiet.
Now as to their assertion that colonoscopies may have prevented a small number of cancers. Let’s look at their trickery.

In their minds, if they take out a polyp, that necessarily counts as a cancer prevented. Despite the fact that the vast majority of polyps are harmless and would have never turned into cancer. (see the paper below)

The reality is that the small, mushroom-type polyps, which typically occur in the left side of the colon (and are usually quite visible during scans) are overwhelmingly harmless. Almost all of them are benign and would never cause harm.

At the same time, the larger, flat-type polyps that occur on the right side or in the transverse section of the colon are much harder to see during a colonoscopy (and thus, easy to miss) and are also more dangerous. But even still, chances of metastasis are still very low, as stated by the paper below, which blows the lid off the whole colonoscopy scam:

The paper found that small polyps had a 0.4 percent chance of abnormal growth along with 0% rate of metastasis. Even larger polyps had a less than 1% chance of being malignant. Here’s how they put it:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20304097/

Conclusions:
“Small (6–9 mm) polyps rarely contained high-grade dysplasia (0.4%); none was malignant. The malignancy rate for large (1–2 cm) colorectal polyps was less than 1%. These findings indicate the potential for less aggressive management of lesions detected by CTC.”

~~~~~~~~~~

So basically any small or medium sized polyp poses virtually no risk.

But the point is, when their models and analysis of the 13-year study ASSUMES or infers that burning or digging out polyps prevents cancer it’s nothing but a deception based on their underlying flawed assumptions.

Something else important: Polyps are designed to keep heavy metals and other poisons sequestered. That’s their job. Like a warehouse. So as soon as a doctor shaves them off, suddenly their integrity is obliterated and all the contents go spewing out into the colon, into the gut lining, and into the blood stream.

I’m not saying that colonoscopies should never be done. But in my opinion, they should never be done in people who aren’t experiencing concerning digestive symptoms.

Dr. Andrew Huberman just confirmed a “wild conspiracy theory” about incandescent lights and LED bulbs.

The long wavelengths found in incandescents increase your metabolism and “charge your mitochondria.”

Conversely, the LED bulbs that most of you have in your house are “causing disruptions in mitochondrial function.”

DR. ANDREW HUBERMAN: “Your mitochondria function better, you increase ATP production, your metabolism increases in the presence of red light, long wavelength light to the skin.”

“Shine long wavelength light on somebody, watch blood glucose levels in a blood glucose test, and it’s blunted.”

“Now, the LED lights that are commonly used now… that short wavelength light, in the absence of long wavelength light, has been shown to damage the mitochondria.”

“This used to be considered crazy. This was like chemtrail crazy, right?”

“But now we’re starting to see from animal studies and human studies, from Glenn Jeffreys and others, that people’s vision gets better when they get in front of an incandescent bulb once a day.”

“If they get sunlight, which also has long-wavelength light, your vision improves because of improvements in mitochondria.”

The Biden administration quietly pushed incandescents out of the market through aggressive energy regulations.

But you can still find them online today if you look hard enough.

If at times you consider my posts on the current state of allopathic medicine to be a bit jaundiced or extreme, these comments from two of the people most knowledgeable about the current state of affairs should share light on some of the reason for that.

(Tom: Which two ingredients are in my top bars and powders?)

A study has attracted attention after reporting that a combination of vitamin C and grape seed extract produced significant tumor reduction in animal models.

According to the reported findings, animals receiving the vitamin C and grape seed extract combination experienced a 76.61% reduction in tumor size, while the chemotherapy drug doxorubicin showed a 68.82% reduction under the specific conditions of the study.

While these results may appear promising, it is important to understand that findings from animal studies do not automatically translate to humans. Many treatments that perform well in laboratory or animal experiments later fail to demonstrate the same effectiveness or safety in human clinical trials.

Researchers frequently investigate natural compounds such as vitamin C and grape seed extract because they may possess antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, or anticancer properties. However, determining whether these substances can serve as effective cancer treatments requires extensive human testing, including randomized clinical trials.

Fact: Animal studies are often an important first step in medical research, but human clinical trials are required before a treatment can be considered proven, safe, or effective for cancer patients.

Source: Preclinical cancer research involving vitamin C, grape seed extract, and doxorubicin comparisons in animal models.

Disclaimer: Results from animal studies should not be interpreted as proof that a treatment is superior to chemotherapy in humans. Cancer treatment decisions should be based on guidance from qualified oncology professionals and evidence from human clinical trials.

I asked perplexity.com as I had not heard of several of these. It responded:

Yes — a few of those are grounded in real dermatology or nutrition advice, but several are either weakly supported or mostly social-media folklore. The strongest items on that list are sun protection, not smoking, good sleep, a healthy diet, and gentle skin care; the weakest are things like bone broth for “aging,” barefoot on grass, stopping straws, tongue posture, and smiling at yourself in a mirror as an anti-aging intervention.

What looks reasonable

Sleep on your back: plausible for reducing facial creasing from pressure, and dermatology guidance says side/stomach sleeping can crease facial skin; silk pillowcases may reduce friction a bit too.
Greek yogurt at breakfast: sensible as part of a high-protein, balanced breakfast, but it is not a proven anti-aging hack on its own.
Morning sunlight: getting daylight early can help circadian rhythm and sleep timing, which indirectly supports overall health; the skin-aging claim is much less solid than the sleep benefit.
Berries: generally a good diet choice because fruits and vegetables are associated with healthier skin aging patterns, though “every morning” is not a special threshold.
Facial massage: may temporarily improve puffiness or circulation, but it is not proven to slow skin aging in a meaningful long-term way.

What is overstated

Bone broth weekly: there’s no good evidence that drinking bone broth itself slows aging, even if it can be a source of protein or comfort food.
One Brazil nut daily: Brazil nuts are selenium-rich, and selenium matters nutritionally, but “one per day” is not a universal rule because selenium content varies a lot and excess selenium can be a problem.
Chew each bite 20 times: better chewing can help digestion and fullness, but the exact number is arbitrary; it is not an anti-aging intervention.
Add cinnamon to coffee: cinnamon has some interesting lab and topical research, but human evidence that eating it slows aging is weak.
Stop using straws: repeated puckering can contribute to mouth lines over time, but this is a very small effect compared with sun exposure and smoking.

Basically folklore

Walk barefoot on grass: pleasant and grounding, but not a known aging-slowing habit.
Sleep on silk pillowcases: may reduce friction, but evidence for anti-aging benefits is limited. [curology](https://curology.com/blog/anti-aging-pillows-and-other-bedtime-stories/)
Cold rinse your face: can reduce puffiness briefly, not aging.
Tongue on roof of mouth: no credible anti-aging evidence.
Smile at yourself in mirror: good for mood, not a skin-aging strategy.

What matters most

If the goal is genuinely to slow visible aging, the big levers are still the boring ones: daily sun protection, no smoking, enough sleep, regular exercise, a balanced diet, and a gentle skincare routine. Those are the habits dermatology groups consistently emphasize, far more than any of the “viral” items in the image.

Katie Hinde was studying breast milk samples in her lab when she noticed something that was not supposed to be there.

The pattern kept showing up. Again and again. Milk composition was not fixed. It shifted. It changed. It seemed to react to something unseen.

Established science said that should not happen. Breast milk was treated as biological fuel, fairly consistent from one mother to another and from one feeding to the next, almost like gasoline from a pump.

She showed the data to her colleagues.

They told her it was measurement error. Statistical noise. Contaminated samples.

She returned to the lab.

The data gave the same answer.

So Katie Hinde did what scientists do when everyone says the evidence must be wrong, but the evidence keeps refusing to change. She kept investigating. And what she uncovered over the next decade did not just challenge an old scientific belief. It changed the way we understand one of the oldest biological relationships on Earth.

Breast milk, it turns out, is not passive.

It is intelligent.

When a baby nurses, something remarkable happens that almost no one had been looking for because almost no one had thought to look.

Tiny amounts of saliva move backward through the nipple into the breast tissue, a process researchers now call retrograde duct flow. That saliva carries biological information, including signals about the baby’s immune condition, stress levels, and immediate health needs.

Within hours, the mother’s body reads those signals.

Then it responds.

The milk changes.

If a baby is fighting an infection, the mother’s milk can sharply increase its white blood cells, rising from about 2,000 cells per milliliter to more than 5,000 during acute illness, while macrophage counts can quadruple. Targeted antibodies enter the milk, shaped around the specific pathogen the baby is facing.

If a baby is going through a fast growth period, the milk adjusts by increasing fat and protein.

If a baby is under stress, calming compounds appear in higher amounts.

This is not simply nutrition being passed to a passive receiver.

It is a two-way biochemical conversation, one that has been happening quietly between mothers and infants for 200 million years of mammalian evolution.

And almost no one had been studying it.

When Hinde began searching through the research literature to understand why the field had been ignored for so long, she found something that stunned her.

Lactation science had been starved of funding. Major journals had overlooked it. It had been treated as a narrow issue, barely deserving serious attention.

The biological process that literally sustains every human life during the first months of existence, the foundation of mammalian survival itself, had been pushed to the side for decades.

She was furious.

So she got to work.

Hinde started a blog with a name that made people stop and look twice: “Mammals Suck… Milk!” She began turning dense lactation research into language ordinary people could understand. She pointed out the funding gaps. She demanded that science take mothers and their biology seriously.

The blog spread widely.

Millions of people who had never thought about breast milk research suddenly began asking the same uncomfortable question Hinde was asking:

Why has this been ignored for so long?

Her research continued revealing things that sounded more like science fiction than standard biology.

Breast milk changes depending on the time of day, with fat concentration peaking in the middle of the morning to match the baby’s circadian rhythm and energy needs.

It contains complex sugars called human milk oligosaccharides that the baby cannot even digest. They exist to feed beneficial bacteria in the infant’s gut, helping build a healthy microbiome before the child can even hold up their own head.

Each mother’s milk is uniquely adjusted, moment by moment, for her own child.

Not just personalized medicine.

Real-time personalized medicine, delivered automatically, for free, by a body science had barely bothered to examine closely.

Today, Hinde’s work is changing neonatal intensive care units around the world.

NICUs now understand that premature babies do not need their mother’s milk only for calories. They need it for the personalized immune signals, developmental compounds, and invisible biological instructions that no formula, no matter how advanced, can fully copy.

Formula companies are trying. They are working to reverse-engineer what evolution built over millions of years, breaking milk down into its parts and trying to rebuild it.

And they are discovering, with humility, that the real thing is almost impossibly complex.

Because breast milk is not only food.

It is medicine. It is communication. It is a biological algorithm that responds in real time to information the baby does not even know it is sending.

But beyond the medicine and the science, Katie Hinde gave us something larger than a research discovery.

She proved that nourishment is intelligence.

She showed that a mother’s body contains biological complexity science had barely begun to map, not because the complexity was absent, but because no one thought women’s bodies deserved to be studied that closely.

And she revealed a quiet, costly truth: when we consistently ignore the biology of motherhood, we do not only fail mothers.

We fail everyone.

How many other processes like this are still waiting to be found?

How many biological miracles are happening right now, invisibly, inside processes science decided were not worth funding, not worth attention, not worth taking seriously?

How many answers to medical questions we are still asking may already be written inside bodies we have been taught not to notice?

The story of Katie Hinde is not only about breast milk.

It is about what happens when someone refuses to believe the data must be wrong simply because it challenges accepted assumptions.

It is about what we discover when we finally look closely at things we have walked past for centuries.

Sometimes the deepest discoveries are not hidden in faraway galaxies or inside subatomic particles.

Sometimes they are happening millions of times a day, in the most ordinary moments imaginable, in the quiet of a nursery, in the privacy of a mother feeding her child, inside a biological conversation older than language itself.

Katie Hinde simply looked closely enough at what everyone else had dismissed.

And she found a universe.

A universe that had been there all along, waiting for someone to notice that it mattered.

Dr Catriona Walsh writes:
This week, I was featured in the Daily Mail’s Health Supplement, in a piece about gadolinium, the contrast dye used in up to half of all MRI scans.
https://www.thefoodphoenix.com/gadolinium-mri-contrast-the-diagnosis-delusion/

For years, those of us who felt our health collapse after an MRI were told it was stress, anxiety, or imagination. Normal labs, end of conversation. This week, a national newspaper printed it as news instead.

I told them what I have come to believe after my own MRI in 2016, and after meeting so many of you:

“Gadolinium doesn’t just take your health, it takes your life as you knew it.”

It’s a great and very balanced piece that was extremely well researched and written. But, like everything in life, it’s not perfect. It quotes a radiologist saying gadolinium has “helped and diagnosed millions.” It is a reassuring number. It is also one that, when you go looking for the research, is nowhere to be found. What the studies actually measure is how often the contrast adds nothing. In one paediatric study, gadolinium revealed something not otherwise visible in 0.18% of patients. In prostate MRI, three-quarters did not need it at all, with no loss of accuracy.

If you have lived this, you are not imagining it, and you are not alone. I have written the whole thing up, sources and all, on the blog. Link in the comments.

If you want a place to start making sense of your own story, my free MRI Contrast Guide is: https://www.thefoodphoenix.com/long-term-effects-of-gadolinium-contrast-agents/.

Shivani Arjuna commented on the post: commented on the post:
Gadolinium is extremely damaging to the nervous system and kidneys and is not needed to get good MRI imaging, for which iodine used to be used. Cilantro is the primo detox agent for it. Dr. Dietrich Klighardt recommends 1-3 tsp a day of Coriandolo Plus tincture with a binder, such as chlorella. You can also eat lots of cilantro if it agrees with you.

Dr Catriona Walsh replied:
Shivani Arjuna oddly, a lot of people in the gadolinium community complain that cilantro flares their symptoms. I’ve never noticed a problem eating it myself in food, but I’ve never used the amounts that some people do to try to detox. I have no idea why it seems to trigger so many people, but it’s a very frequent occurrence.

Interestingly, lots of people also react to glutathione supplements quite badly, which I suspect is riboflavin and niacin deficiency. Perhaps the cilantro sensitivity is also niacin deficiency.