Science Advocacy
Science Advocacy
I have done some pretty weird things in my life (including eating bugs for this blog), but I am not sure that there is anything quite so bizarre as using your own pee-pee as a health tonic. However, in a video posted recently in the New York Post, Julia Sillaman does just that.
Sillaman claims that drinking her own urine and using it as a face wash has cleared up her acne and helped her lose weight. She also says that fasting has helped her pee taste more like coconut water. Not only is this really a thing that she does (and not a joke or prank), the practice of using urine for health purposes has been around since forever. In this, the third article we’ve had to do about pee, we debunk the inexplicable history of people using urine as a health tonic. (Hint: It does not work.)
In a somewhat creepy presentation, Italian neuro-surgeon, Dr Sergio Canavero announced at a TED event in 2015 that he would soon successfully transplant a live human head onto a donor body. While watching the video, I noticed that TED flagged the talk as not conforming to their guidelines and they note that his talk is speculative and ethically questionable. Canavero described how he partnered with Dr Xiaoping Ren of China and Canavero told the South China Morning Post in November of 2017 that, “Western bioethicists needed to stop patronizing the world. Chinese President Xi Jinping wants to restore China to greatness.” Contrarily, in another article published days later, a senior health official in China asserts that this procedure is not legal, will not happen and is a publicity stunt. However, Canavero and Ren have found a Guinea pig (pardon the term) in Valery Spiridonov, who suffers from Werdnig-Hoffman disease, also called Spinal Muscle Atrophy Disorder, is a autosomal recessive neuro-muscular disease that usually results in paralysis. Spiridonov, 31, is wheelchair-bound and reports a very low life quality. He has agreed to the head transplant surgery, no matter the outcome.
Why are Head Transplants So Darned Hard?
Head transplantation has been considered impossible for many reasons. The first reason is that severing the spinal cord, and then repairing it almost never works. Past attempts with animals typically ended with a paralyzed monkey, mouse or dog. Dr. Canavero argued that he could minimize damage to the cord by using a super-sharp diamond blade to cut the cord. He also claims that he can reconnect the severed cord using a chemical called polyethylene glycol (PEG) and electrical stimulation. Canavero claims that PEG accelerates spinal regeneration and is calling it a “fusogen.” Canavero has insisted that this technique has worked on animals, but there has yet to be any accepted evidence of his claims in peer-reviewed literature.
Keeping the brain alive long enough to connect it to the new body (read: blood source) is also very difficult. The brain will degrade beyond repair in minutes without a blood source. Canavero claims to use a combination of cryogenics and silicone tubing to solve this problem. Again, this is a claim for which little evidence has been presented.
After a transplant surgery, the patient’s immune system will often reject and attack implanted foreign tissue, which is the third major problem for a head transplantation: How does the surgeon keep the donor body’s immune system from rejecting the new head? Transplant patients struggle with this problem even with the most common kinds of transplant surgeries but Canavera says that he has conquered this problem in the same way we battle immune rejection in heart or kidney transplant patients – with a cocktail of immune suppressant drugs.
Is it Ethical to Cut Off a Person’s Head and Sew it on to Another Person’s Body?
In the industry of scientific research, the scientific method is the primary way in which research moves from hypothesis to accepted theory. In a situation like Canavero’s research, a responsible researcher would start with a moderately large sample size of small rodents, such as mice. Canavero says he has performed the surgery on mice. It is uncertain whether or not the surgeries were successful, or how one might even define success in this case. He would perform the experimental procedure, document it in a legitimate scientific publication and subject it to peer review. examine the article and determine if the research is acceptable. Once peer review was established, Canavero might move on to larger animals, probably dogs (yes, I know it’s awful, but that’s another article) and repeat the process. After that work had been accepted, he might move on to non-human primates (monkeys). After monkeys, a responsible researcher might then move on to a human cadaver.
When a researcher is writing these articles, they should include excruciatingly detailed descriptions of their methods along with well-documented explanations of the results. Canavero and his colleagues have not done this. The articles he has published mention methods minimally, if at all. He does assert that the work was “successful,” without much of an explanation of what “successful” means in objective terms. Neurologists around the world have expressed a variety of sentiments about his research, from mere skepticism to stern disapproval. There is no legitimate ethics board that would approve this procedure, considering the lack of evidence and the ethical considerations. Dr James Fildes, NHS principal research scientist at the University Hospital of South Manchester’s Transplant Centre, said: “Unless Canavero or Ren provide real evidence that they can perform a head, or more appropriately, a whole-body transplant on a large animal that recovers sufficient function to improve quality of life, this entire project is morally wrong.”
So, Just What are (some of) Those Ethical Quandaries?
Consideration 1 – Dr Canavero has announced in several venues that his plan is to use head transplantation to help those who can pay for it to achieve immortality. He sees a world in which rich people can buy a new, younger, healthier body, thus live forever. The two procedures central to the research are the GEMINI Spinal Cord Fusion protocol and HEAVEN (Head Anastomosis Venture Project). This is an ethical argument that could fill books. Is immortality ethical, or even sustainable? Is it fair that this would be an option for only the very wealthy? It sort of reminds me of Elysium.
Consideration 2 – In order to do a head transplant, a corpse with an appropriate body needs to be available. According to Organdonor.gov, 20 people die every day waiting for an organ to become available. At a time when wait list for donated organs are months or even years long, how will we handle the supply/demand problem for whole bodies? Is it realistic to donate an entire body for an iffy procedure when those organs can save as many as 8 people on organ donor waiting lists? If were talking about future immortality and wealthy people can live forever, who donates their body? The poor? Prisoners? Clones? It would take another book to even touch on the cloning ethics problems.
Consideration 3 – What kind of hellish scenario would it be for a live human if the head is rejected by the immune system? Currently, the most commonly transplanted organ is the kidney, though we can transplant hearts, lungs, faces, hands, arteries, penises, uteruses, and many other organs with a high likelihood of success. Tissues without a vascular system, such as tendons, cornea, or skin have a much smaller risk of rejection, according to the US Center for Disease Control (CDC). Despite the low likelihood of rejection, it still happens. A head transplant is vastly more complex than any kind of transplant we do currently. Transplantation of organs are typically followed by years of anti-rejection drugs designed to suppress the immune system. This raises the risk of the patient catching an infection that they can’t fight off. The CDC also reports that there is a risk of the transplanted organ having an undetected infection, such as HIV/AIDS, or Hepatitis.
Consideration 4 – Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “biochemical differences between the head and the donor body, the person would probably never be able to regain normal consciousness. “It’s not like putting a light bulb into a new socket,” Caplan said. “If you move the head and the brain, you are putting it into a new chemical environment with new neurological input. I think it would drive the person crazy before they died.” It makes you wonder, how will all of those other person’s hormones and other chemicals change the new brain?
Consideration 5 – To whom will the new combination-body belong? Does the recovering patient become the head or the body? There will be 2 different sets of DNA at play, one from the head, and one from the body. What about identity? While the newly recovering patient has one person’s head, they have another person’s finger prints. What happens to the body’s property, debt, spouse, children? What about the heads personal and legal belongings and family?
This may seem obvious if you think the center of our consciousness is in our brain, but research shows that may not be the case. Much of our behavior and feelings are influenced by our hormones, gut microbiome, and other factors. The enteric nervous system, located in the lining of the gastrointestinal system, is the largest nerve bundle second to the brain, and for this reason the ENS is sometimes called the “second brain.” 95% of our serotonin is found in the ENS. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that helps reduce depression and anxiety, referred to commonly as a happiness chemical. We don’t know enough about how consciousness, personality, and our feelings really work. We don’t know enough about the ENS or the human microbiome yet to determine where the seat of consciousness is located.
What Do You Think?
In a situation like Spiridonov’s, suffering from Spinal Atrophy Disease, I can see why he might risk death or worse for a chance for a better life. Canavero’s arrogant, self-assured attitude and flashy, circus-like handling of his work would seem to convince a vulnerable person that this procedure was indeed not only possible but inevitable. On the other hand, if a head transplant is possible it represents hope to people with conditions that limit their quality of life. Is it ethical to deny them the procedure because of its Frankenstein-esque qualities? After all, any new surgery might have seemed pretty morbid and risky at one time. Let us know what you think in the comments!
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometimes dangerous stuff people post online, and then we give you the facts.
Several retailers sell something called miracle mineral solution for the treatment of numerous ailments, including malaria, HIV/AIDS, the flu, autism, and cancer. It’s also known as master mineral solution, MMS, the CD protocol, or CDS. There’s a whole book about how great it is!
Of course.
MMS DOES NOT WORK. FOR ANYTHING. DON’T TAKE IT. EVER.
It sure is! MMS is made by adding sodium chlorite to acidic water, which produces chlorine dioxide, which is bleach. Yes, ITS MADE OF BLEACH.
Generally, it is recommended that you drink MMS, which its just as dangerous as it sounds. Drinking bleach will cause nausea, vomiting, and (if you drink enough) death. The bottle of bleach in your basement has a warning label on it telling you not to drink it. MMS is no different, in fact, it’s more powerful than the bleach you buy in stores. It’s Super Bleach!
Look, most people know instinctively not to drink bleach, but just to put it in context, here’s how chlorine dioxide stacks up with other nasty stuff in terms of acute toxicity, as measured by the average lethal doses (LD50’s) in rats.
Glyphosate (active ingredient in Roundup herbicide) = 5,600 mg/kg
Formaldehyde (carcinogen used to preserve bodies) = 500 mg/kg
Chlorox bleach (hypochlorite) = 192 mg/kg
Thiopental sodium (used for lethal injections) = 117 mg/kg
Chlorine dioxide (ingredient in MSS) =94 mg/kg
Cyanide (rat poison) = 1.5 mg/kg
So the active ingredient in MSS is more toxic than glyphosate, formaldehyde, “regular” bleach, and the stuff they use in lethal injections. On the plus side, it’s not quite as bad as eating rat poison, so there’s that.
There is also a small group of people who believe that if MMS is given as an enema it can cure autism. This is absolutely not true, and is just as dangerous as you might think a bleach enema would be. There is no cure for autism. If anyone tells you there is, they are lying to you.
The idea of using MMS to treat disease was “invented” by a guy named Jim Humble, who left the church of Scientology (presumably because it wasn’t crazy enough) to found what he calls the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing, which promotes the use of MMS to treat disease. Jim claims to have discovered MMS when he was in Africa in the 1990’s and used it to treat his malaria. He self-published a book, and a small, dangerous community of adherents have been touting it’s benefits ever since. Besides the unsupported ramblings of Jim Humble and his followers, there is not a shred of scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of MMS, and a whole bunch of evidence telling us that drinking and “cleansing” with super bleach is incredibly dangerous.
The governments of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others have all issued warnings against the use of MMS, and there have been several cases in the US of the government filing criminal charges against people offering MMS for sale as a medical treatment and shutting them down. This makes sense – unlike a lot of other fake “alternative” medical treatments, MMS is extremely dangerous, and profiting off of false claims about it’s nonexistent health benefits is a crime in most countries. People have died from MMS.
Maybe the idea of “cleaning” our insides makes sense in some basic way. It would be great if we could bleach our bodies clean like we do our kitchens, but that is not the world we live in. If you drink enough of this stuff, or squirt enough of it up your butt, it will kill you. Even if it doesn’t kill you, the malaria, autism, HIV, cancer, whatever you were using it for, will still be there.
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then we give you the facts.
There have been a number of recent news stories about the possibility of coffee being listed as a human carcinogen in the state of California. A recent court decision ruled against several coffee sellers (including 7-Eleven and Starbucks), allowing a lawsuit to continue that may end with coffee being listed as containing potential carcinogens in California. How did this happen, and should we be worried about our morning brew? Let’s break down the science and find out.
Let’s start here. There is absolutely zero data to suggest that drinking coffee increases your cancer risk. In fact, it is more likely to be protective against some cancers because of the antioxidants it contains. Coffee may also lower the risk of heart disease and diabetes, though the data supporting these potential positive health effects is weak. It is true that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified drinking very hot beverages of any kind as being linked to cancer, but this is not specific to coffee and is honestly kind of silly, because most people intuitively understand that scalding their esophagus and mouths with hot beverages day after day is probably not good for them. So to recap: coffee does not cause cancer, do not drink boiling water.
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then we give you the facts.
The bad science:
There are several companies selling something called “raw water”, which is unfiltered and untreated water.
What do they claim?
Some people claim that “raw” water is more healthy because it has minerals and probiotics and no chemicals in it. This is wrong. However, the website of one particular company, Live Water, is a goldmine of ridiculous pseudoscience tomfoolery. It’s clear that the health claims on this site weren’t written by a scientist, and honestly, I’m not even sure if they were written by an adult. Or at least not by an adult capable of using spellcheck! Let’s take a look at some of the silliest claims:
“Shocking but true- All other filtered and even bottled spring waters are sterilized with UV light, ozone gas, and a sub micron filter. This is similar to how most juice and dairy products are pasteurized for shelf stability. Unfortunately this sterilization destroys beneficial sources of minerals and probiotics.”
These processes don’t destroy minerals (though some can be filtered out using the submicron filters, which are filters with extremely small pores – too small for bacteria to pass through. Of course these processes destroy or remove bacterial (including potential probiotics), that’s the point. Many bacteria cause disease. Disease is bad.
“There are more nerve endings in our bellies than in our brains and there’s a constant battle between good and bad bacteria. The micro biome [sic] of our gut produces about 95% of the serotonin and 50% of the dopamine in our brains.”
I’m not sure what they mean by saying there are more nerve endings in “bellies” than in brains. I assume they are talking about pain sensing nerve endings? This is actually true- there are no pain sensors in the brain. However, gut bacteria do not produce 95% of the serotonin and 50% of the dopamine in our brains – they don’t produce significant quantities of either, and even if they did these chemicals can not be transported into the brain.
“The probiotics listed here are exclusive to our unsterilized water. There could be countless other benificial [sic] microbes present, scientists just haven’t discovered yet. They are imperative for optimal physical and mental health.”
If these “probiotics” are only found in Live Water’s well, then only people who have consumed this water have ever been exposed to them. So how do they know these bacteria are beneficial? As a general rule, it is not a good idea to eat previously unknown species of bacteria. This is dangerous. They admit that there could be all sorts of undiscovered bacteria in their water. They say this like it is a good thing, but it is not. How do they know these undiscovered bacteria aren’t dangerous? Finally, they tell us that their probiotics are “imperative” for optimal physical and mental health. I don’t think the author of this site knows what the word imperative means.
“Without these probiotics we’re not able to fully assimilate all the nutrients in our food. Some beneficial bacteria are also proven to have abilities to transform harmful bacteria. Here is a published medical report supporting evidence that raw spring water has vast healing abilities.”
The first sentence is absolutely false. The second statement is completely untrue. The report they reference is about a spring in Italy, not the spring they get their water from, and as they have already told us, the probiotics in their spring is different from all others.
“Major science has concluded that there is a body of water with a larger volume than all our oceans combined in the core of the earth. This is the earth’s way of cleansing water, and offering it back to us with a fresh new start.”
No scientist or health professional would ever use the phrase “major science., though we admit it might be a great name for a DJ or superhero. The reference to water in the Earth’s core suggests that they actually did a little research! However, they didn’t understand what they were reading. A recent report did hypothesize that there was more water in the earth’s mantle (different from the core) than in all the oceans, but this is not a “body” of water – the water is trapped inside of rocks. Because of this, this water is not part of the water cycle, and is not where the water in their spring is coming from.
“The Extensive Water Analysis shows super high levels of natural silica. Silica is essentially pure liquid crystals. Silicone holds information and energy in a unique way, thats [sic] why all our devices run off of them, hence the name silicone valley [sic]. Imagine how it would feel to upgrade your brain’s entire operating system to the best computer chips available.”
Wow. This is gibberish. You may know silica as sand (not whimsical “pure liquid crystals,” whatever that is). There is a lot of sand in this water, and they are trying to tell you that this is good for you. In all fairness, drinking a little sand isn’t bad for you, but it’s certainly not good for you. Then they switch to talking about “silicone” which they claim to magically “hold” energy and information. I assume they are referring to silicon (no “e”) microchips. Do you think drinking microchips will “upgrade your brain’s entire operating system”? You are correct – it will not. For the record, silicone is a synthetic polymer of silicon, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. It’s basically plastic, used in medical tubing and devices, lubricants, adhesives, and caulk. If there is silicone in their spring, no one should be drinking from it, and if Silicone Valley was really a place, we assume it would be greasy and sticky. (Kind of like the real-world silicon valley, but literal.)
“Since our water is alive and abundant with healthy microflora, it is imperative that we keep it from reaching sweltering conditions. Unlike sterile water, our water will turn green if exposed to excessive heat and sun light.”
Their water is turning green because things are growing in it. Would you drink green water you found in the woods? Of course not, that would be dangerous. Where do the bacteria (and maybe algae?) that are turning this water green come from? They were there all along, there just weren’t enough of them to see. Once they have a chance to multiply in the petri dish that is raw water, they turn the water green and cloudy. Gross.
“In it’s natural cycle water is infinitely chemically and energetically complex. Water goes down into the soil and becomes the perfect probiotic as it passes through microbes and micro-organisms in the humus. It picks up bio-available [sic] mono atomic [sic] elements and minerals that just can’t be replicated.”
More gibberish. Water is not complex – it’s one of the simpilest chemicals on earth. Water cannot become a “probiotic” – probiotics are living bacteria. A monoatomic element is a element that is stable as a single atom. There actually aren’t many of these elements out there- mostly noble gases like helium, neon, and argon. I doubt this is what the author was referring to – honestly I have no idea what they are trying to say here, and I doubt they do either.
“Blasting water with ozone changes it’s molecular structure. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation uses synthetic ultraviolet light, different from our natural environment UV, to kill or inactivate micro-organisms by destroying nucleic acids and disrupting their DNA. A hard fact to swallow, but your drinking water might be considered a genetically modified organism. GMO seeds and GMO water don’t have the capacity to reproduce life. Perhaps this could influence human’s capacities also.”
Ozone does not change the structure of water. Water is water. Synthetic UV light is just UV light, no different from the UV light that comes from our sun. Both kill microorganisms at high enough doses – that’s the point of treating water with it. No reasonable person would call UV-treated water a GMO, because there is no “O” (organism). Because it’s just water. GMO seeds absolutely produce life – where do you think GMO plants come from? I think the last sentence is suggesting that UV-treated water can harm person’s ability to have children, which is completely and utterly false.
“Unfortunately almost all tap water also has the neurotoxin fluoride put into it…”
Fluoride is not a neurotoxin. It is perfectly safe at the levels used in tap water (and your toothpaste), and is the main reason that you can eat candy and other sugary foods without immediately losing all your teeth to cavities.
“‘Purified Water’ is typically devoid of all minerals, and actually strips your body’s minerals. The world health organization [sic] declared this a major health threat.”
It is difficult and expensive to pull all the minerals out of water. Tap and bottled water have plenty of minerals in them. Even if you got your hands on ultra-pure water and drank it, it would not strip the minerals out of your body. The WHO is not worried about this.
“We’ve chosen to use glass for our water because all plastic water bottles are toxic.”
Completely, totally, and troublingly false.
There’s more, but you get the point. Seriously, this may take the award for the most over-the-top collection of unfounded inaccurate pseudoscientific nonsense we have ever seen in a single website. They also claim to increase the oxygenation of your cells (not possible), to provide “super effective” detoxification (no), reverse the aging process (nope), and to activate the immune system, That last point might actually be true – more on this below.
Are they trying to sell you something?
Of course. 2.5 L will cost you 16 bucks. That’s almost 20 times more expensive than bottled water, and 6,000 times more expensive than tap water. Water is water. Don’t waste your money.
Is any of this true?
Absolutely none of it.
Is any of this dangerous?
Very much so. Getting a life-threatening water-born illness will definitely activate your immune system. Here is a list of some of the diseases you can catch by drinking unclean water:
Polio! SARS! Dysentery! You don’t want any of these diseases. Many of them can be fatal. We won’t get into which ones, because it doesn’t matter. What matters is THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER DRINK UNTREATED WATER THIS IS NOT SAFE DON’T DO IT.
What’s the bottom line?
Don’t drink raw water. It’s not any more healthy than regular bottled or tap water, it’s expensive, and it is very, very dangerous. Water is water, unless it’s full of disease-causing microbes, in which case this might happen:
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then we give you the facts.
The bad science:
There are a lot of dubious supplements being sold online, and we could spend years discussing them one by one. However, Truehope deserves to be highlighted because of their over-the-top claims and the sad story behind it.
What do they claim?
Truehope is a supplement company that markets supplements specifically for the treatment of mental illnesses. The specificity of their claims is alarming. On their website, they don’t even bother to change the wording of their claims, just substituting one condition (like autism or bipolar disorder) for another:
“If you or your child suffer from [mental illness, mood disorder, or autism] and you want to address the cause effectively rather than “cover up” the symptoms with medication, Truehope EMPowerplus Advanced can help.”
“Extensive independent research shows that when the body and brain are provided with the essential nutrients found in EMPowerplus Advanced, they are able to function properly—often negating the signs and symptoms of [ADD-ADHD, autism, bipolar disorder, or depression].“
Are they trying to sell you something?
Of course. It will cost you about $80 per month for the EMpowerplus supplements.
Is any of this true?
No. There are some limited studies that suggest a small benefit for some of the listed disorders, however, if you actually look at the reports themselves (click on “Research”), you’ll note that all the reports they list call for larger, more thorough follow-up studies to be run to confirm the preliminary findings. Such studies have either not been run or been negative.
On top of that, their claims are wildly overstated – no one, not even the experts they quote on their website can reasonably expect that these supplements can “negate” that signs of autism, bipolar disorder, ADD-ADHD, or depression. This is a dangerous assertion, since you’ll notice that right on every bottle of EMpowerplus is a warning not use use this supplement with pychotropic (mood-altering) drugs without consulting a physician. No reasonable doctor (MD or DO) is going to treat these serious diseases with supplements only. That would literally be malpractice.
Supplements don’t “cure” diseases, and treating any illness with a nutritional supplement like this would only make sense if the disease was caused by a vitamin or mineral deficiency. It is extremely uncommon for persons in developed nations to suffer from serious nutritional deficiencies, and the mental illnesses that Truehope claims to treat are not known to be linked to vitamin or mineral deficiencies of any kind. For most of these diseases (autism and bipolar disorder included), modern medicine cannot offer a “cure” either. It is sufficiently difficult to treat the symptoms of the diseases listed above with the advanced pharmaceuticals of our day. The best you could hope for out of a nutritional supplement is a slight improvement on top of standard medical care. However….
Is any of this dangerous?
It could be. Most of the ingredients in this supplement are just standard essential vitamins and minerals with some amino acids (protein building blocks) and anti-oxidants thrown in. These are things you’ll get in most multivitamins. However, it contains a few other potentially dangerous ingredients. We can’t say for sure these are dangerous, because they don’t say how much is in there (it’s proprietary). However, it contains:
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then give you the facts.
The bad science: Several companies are selling soaps that they claim can help you burn fat and lose weight. Not by eating it, just by washing with it. I’m totally serious, check it out here and here.
What do they claim? Here are some of the specific claims I found, rated by the level of scientific implausibility*:
and that can help with your weight loss either by consuming it or drinking it as tea, so it’s not that far fetched to assume it could do the same for your body through slimming soap.” Scientific implausibility score = 8/10. If eating or drinking it works (which is doesn’t), then rubbing it all over yourself must too, right?
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then give you the facts.
The bad science: Oxygen therapies like oxygen bars and oxygen “shots”
What do they claim? There are lots of claims, including improving general health and energy levels, aiding alertness and concentration, detoxifying the body, boosting the immune system, and treating diseases like headaches, hangovers, and even cancer.
Are they trying to sell you something? Yes! Most oxygen bars will charge you about $1 per minute, while oxygen shots typically cost $5-$10 per shot.
Is any of this true? No, no, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no. Look, we all know that we need oxygen to live, but more is not better – with oxygen or really anything.
When you breathe, oxygen goes into your lungs and is picked up by the red blood cells in your blood. Specifically, it binds to the iron-containing hemoglobin within those cells. There is a lot of hemoglobin in your red blood cells, and this is what makes them (and your blood) red. In a “normal”, healthy person (and unless you are very sick, you are normal, despite what your mommy taught you), the hemogloblin in the blood is at 95-100% saturation at all times. Anything below 90% is a problem, and would require medical intervention. Since hemoglobin is what moves oxygen from your lungs to all the tissues of your body, this means that adding more oxygen into your lungs can not, and will not significantly increase the delivery of oxygen to the tissues and organs of your body. That’s right, that oxygen that you are paying money for just goes into your lungs and, finding no room on the hemoglobin express, goes right back out when you exhale. Given this, it’s not surprising that oxygen therapy has no effects.
&media=https://www.useyourbrainforscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/poison-1481596_1920.jpg){kind=link}
