At first, I couldn’t even spell it! I first heard about quercetin in this interview with Dr. Mark Gordon, and was intrigued that an over-the-counter supplement might help protect against COVID and even colds and flus. But I was a little skeptical, so I decided to do some digging.
I found this widely cited study which concluded that although we can’t say to a certainty that quercetin can protect us from COVID, there is some good evidence for it, especially if taken with vitamin C. What’s more, the risks seem quite low:
Quercetin displays a broad range of antiviral properties which can interfere at multiple steps of pathogen virulence -virus entry, virus replication, protein assembly- and that these therapeutic effects can be augmented by the co-administration of vitamin C. Furthermore, due to their lack of severe side effects and low-costs, we strongly suggest the combined administration of these two compounds for both the prophylaxis and the early treatment of respiratory tract infections, especially including COVID-19 patients.
The study authors are careful to note that this is an “experimental strategy,” and I found another study that questioned whether using quercetin to protect against COVID is well-founded.
That said, given the reasonable cost, low risk, and emerging evidence of efficacy, I decided to order some here. I’ll take it in conjunction with the vitamin C and vitamin D I already take and hope for the best!
If you found this post interesting, please share it on Twitter/LinkedIn/email using the buttons below. This helps more people find the blog!
My wife was the first person to tell me about Captain Tom, a man in the UK nearing his 100th birthday who was walking across his small garden day after day to raise money for the NHS. At that time, things in the New York area, where we live, were at their worst.
I remember the disturbing sights of that time. What was odd about them was I’d just catch a glimpse of what was happening. I would wonder if what I saw was what I thought it was. I seemed to see more hearses than I used to, but then who could be sure? I saw a large trailer outside a medical facility in Greenwich Village…was that one of the trailers that held bodies?
Other things were less equivocal. I saw a white panel truck pull up in front of a funeral home in Lower Manhattan. They had evidently run out of hearses. And an ambulance seemed to pass our building almost every minute.
I asked my wife if she had ever heard so many sirens. Was I just imagining things? She agreed she’d never heard so many at once. This made me realize I wasn’t imagining. I don’t know if that made it better or worse.
At this time, I felt helpless to stop the catastrophe surrounding me, as I’m sure many did. But Captain Tom’s example from afar cheered me. Of all people, who would be in a worse position to help than someone who is 99 years old and frail? But he determinedly crossed his garden back and forth, unconcerned with whatever limitations he might face. He just kept moving. I think he gave a lot of us the courage to keep moving to.
And bit by bit, his seemingly small act made a huge impact. He raised 33 million pounds ($45 million) for the NHS, perhaps saving many lives.
At 99 years old, one would think he had already given all he had to give. He had served his country in World War Two and raised a wonderful family. Who would’ve thought that his greatest achievement was still ahead of him?
When he started his walk, Captain Sir Tom was still recovering from serious injuries from a fall that included a punctured lung! But he saw what he could do, not what he couldn’t, and set about doing it for the good of others. And if someone could accomplish so much at age 99, imagine what we could do as well!
Captain Sir Tom Moore showed me what one human being can do, even in the face of the worst things. He showed me that people cannot be stopped; that the human spirit can triumph over anything, if we try.
It’s a shame to lose him, but he was here when we needed him most.
Google owns YouTube. Facebook owns Facebook and Instagram. Who owns e-mail?
Trick question: the answer is, no one! It’s an open protocol anyone can use. So are RSS feeds used to distribute podcasts and the Domain Name System that tells your browser where to go when you type in google.com.
Many are concerned about the power that social media companies have, but what if social media were open and governed by the public at large? Blockchain technology may provide the means to do that, per a new article by top-flight venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz:
How do social networks decide which users to verify or ban? How do search engines decide how to rank websites? One minute social networks court media organizations and small businesses, the next minute they de-prioritize their content or change the revenue split. The power of these platforms has created widespread societal tensions, as seen in debates over fake news, state-sponsored bots, privacy laws, and algorithmic biases.
That’s why the pendulum is swinging back to an internet governed by open, community-controlled services. This has only recently become possible, thanks to technologies arising from the blockchain and cryptocurrencies.
If users collectively hosted a social network on their computers using blockchain-style distributed computing, they could govern the network outside any tech company. Algorithm changes and deplatforming would be their decision.
I find this future intriguing and suspect it’s only a matter of time until such a tool arises. Perhaps you will build one!
If you found this post interesting, please share it on Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/email using the buttons below. This helps more people find the blog!
1) Us-vs-them thinking. The individual trader versus the evil hedge fund industry.
2) Determination to hold a position out of machismo
Take a look at some examples below (usernames redacted). These are all from today alone:
The backdrop to these conversations is the cratering of their most widely held stock, Gamestop:
The initial buying of Gamestop and other heavily shorted stocks had some logic: Wallstreetbets wanted to engineer a short squeeze. A rapidly escalating price would force hedge funds that had shorted the stock to buy it to close out their positions. Otherwise, the hedge funds would face even worse losses. But, since all those hedge funds have to buy at once, the price can spiral higher and higher.
Despite the logic of that move, I find many people’s judgment clouded by us-vs-them thinking and machismo. Whether hedge funds are morally good or bad has no bearing on whether a position is worth holding. And one should never identify with an investment emotionally. If one’s identity and manhood (something tells me these posters are probably mostly men) are wrapped up in holding Gamestop stock, how can you make a rational decision based on the facts?
Will you choose to invest or not invest based on data, or will you just hold your position all the way down to 0 to show everyone how tough you are?
Perhaps a lack of machismo is one reason why female investors tend to have a better track record:
According to the Warwick University research, women’s outperformance can be attributed to the type of investment they tend to favour.
The study revealed that men are more likely to take a risk on more speculative, “lottery style” stocks where they believe [they] have the potential to make a lot of money very quickly. Men also tend to hold on to lossmaking investments in the hope that they will come good.
Instead, I suggest adopting a philosophy of non-attachment. This is a concept often attributed to Buddhism. It has parallels in many other religions, including Christianity. If we detach from our opinions and possessions (including stocks), we can view things more dispassionately. That investment isn’t you. You are you. The investment is just an investment. And it either makes sense or it doesn’t on its own merits. What’s more, whether you made millions or lost everything, it doesn’t change who you are.
I find meditation helps me in this process. It gives me a chance to get outside of the normal rushing freight train of thoughts and examine my opinions and beliefs from the outside. Or just simply take a break from them!
Time will tell whether the likes of Gamestop make good investments, and whether Wallstreetbets remains a phenomenon or fades. But detaching from our emotions and opinions and viewing them from the outside is a useful strategy we can employ forever.
If you found this post interesting, please share it on Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/email using the buttons below. This helps more people find the blog!
Last night, my wife and I watched the newest episode of the adorable Japanese video series Pui Pui Molcar. I’ve mentioned this series before here, and this week’s video was their best yet! The video is below. If you’re stressed, take a couple minutes and enjoy!
Pui Pui Molcar, Episode #5
If you found this post interesting, please share it on Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/email using the buttons below. This helps more people find the blog!
We often hear what the minimum amount of exercise we need is, but what amount of exercise is actually optimal? At what point have we reaped all the benefits exercise has to offer, and possibly even gone over the edge into damaging overtraining?
With the largest snowstorm in years lashing my apartment today, I thought it was as good a time as any to try to find an answer.
The federal government recommends a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity per week. This establishes a useful lower bound we definitely shouldn’t dip below, but a highly cited study in JAMA Internal Medicine finds that you can get further longevity benefits by exercising a lot more:
the longevity benefit threshold appears to be approximately 3 to 5 times the recommended physical activity minimum
So, in order to be sure to get the maximum longevity benefit, you need to do five times the minimum recommended level of exercise. 5x the minimum recommended level would be 1 hour 47 minutes of moderate activity daily or 54 minutes of vigorous activity daily.
Furthermore, the study found no danger from exercising even more than what it takes to get the full longevity benefit:
there does not appear to be an elevated mortality risk with LTPA [leisure time physical activity] levels as high as 10 or more times the recommended minimum.
Looking at the differences between moderate and vigorous activity, I also wondered if one is better than the other. There doesn’t seem to be solid data to say that either moderate or vigorous activity is superior from a health perspective:
comprehensive reviews of the literature on physical activity and mortality report that overall volume of physical activity is associated with lower mortality risk but report mixed findings on the relative contributions of moderate- vs vigorous-intensity activities
So am I doing enough? Looking at the pedometer app on my phone, I’ve averaged 2.75 hours per day of walking (moderate intensity exercise) over the past year. I also do about 3-4 hours a week of vigorous exercise (yoga and strength training, mostly), so about 30 min daily.
So, I seem to be comfortably above the level needed to get the maximum longevity benefit. That said, counterintuitively, I sometimes find my mood is a little lower on days I don’t do vigorous activity. (You think you’d be happy for a rest day, but maybe not!) Just because I’m at the maximum amount of exercise to produce longevity benefits doesn’t mean that more exercise might not produce other benefits in terms of mental health, athletic ability, appearance, etc.
Since there appears to be no harm from even very high levels of activity, I may add another vigorous workout (likely yoga or calistenics) to my routine some weeks, depending on my schedule and desires at the time.
If you found this post interesting, please share it on Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/email using the buttons below. This helps more people find the blog!
Many of us have heard that vitamin D might protect us from COVID, but is there real science behind these claims? Yesterday, I received a very thoughtful message from Dr. Peter Attia on the subject. Dr. Attia cites a randomized controlled trial from Spain that found the following:
patients not treated with vitamin D had 33.3 times the risk of ICU admission compared to patients treated with vitamin D
Vitamin D seems to help with disease severity even if it doesn’t prevent you from catching COVID in the first place. Dr. Attia also provides some good perspective on dosing.
there is virtually no risk to supplementing, say, 5,000 IU/day
I had heard that too much vitamin D could cause kidney stones, but Dr. Attia put those concerns to rest as well:
Too much vitamin D results in hypercalcemia, most commonly due to an overproduction of calcium that can result in kidney stones. However, vitamin D toxicity is not easy to come by: a review article noted that all published cases involved an intake of at least 40,000 IU/day. Even though the Food and Nutrition Board established a conservative dose threshold of 2,000 IU/day, some studies suggest that doses of up to 10,000 IU/day is safe for most adults.
I’ve taken 5,000 IU of Vitamin D for nearly 3 years with no ill effects that I can discern. I based that decision on information from this book that it may boost testosterone levels. I was also informed by this book, which noted that those who live in the north struggle to get sufficient vitamin D in the winter, regardless of the amount of sun exposure. The next step I need to take is to get blood levels of vitamin D taken to confirm the supplementation is getting me into the healthy range.
If you want to get more interesting content from Dr. Attia, you can sign up for his newsletter at the bottom of his message. If you found this post interesting, please share it on Twitter/LinkedIn/email using the buttons below. This helps more people find the blog!
Today, Myanmar’s (deeply flawed) democracy fell today to a military coup:
The coup follows a disputed election in November that Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party won by a landslide. The main opposition party, the army-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party, claimed the vote was marred by fraud. Myanmar’s election commission rejected the allegations but tensions between the two sides had been rising for weeks. The military made its move hours before Myanmar’s parliament had been due to sit for the first time since the National League for Democracy’s win in the Nov. 8 general election.
Dr. Jeremy Walston, Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University and co-author of the study
I just read an interesting new study identifying the biggest causes of aging. The authors gathered a panel of leading experts on health and aging and asked them what the biggest risk factors are for failing health as the years go by. Here’s what they found:
Experts identified 13 factors predisposing to or clinically manifesting AACD [accelerated aging and cellular decline]. Among these, chronic diseases, obesity, and unfavorable genetic background were considered as the most important.
Early detection of accelerated aging and cellular decline (AACD): A consensus statement
None of the risk factors will shock you, but seeing all the key risks laid out in order of importance can really help guide our decision making:
One risk stood out above all:
smoking was consistently viewed as the most prominent risk factor
In difficult times such as these, we have to celebrate our wins. We had two big ones today: both the Johnson & Johnson and Novavax vaccines were found to be effective against COVID. J&J was 66% effective and Novavax 89% effective.
Both were less effective against the variant from South Africa, with Novavax below 50% efficacy there. But Novavax is working on a new formulation to counter that variant.
We face a constrained supply of vaccines, so any effective ones we can add to our toolkit are a huge win!
Tremendous 