Message From Mother Nature: WAKE UP!

Prick up your ears medical science, Universal Intelligence speaks again. This time via the pneumococcal bacteria which has a nasty little evolutionary habit of adapting to stressors (in this case the pneumococcal vaccine) by changing the makeup of its outer coat. The bug, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or pneumococcus, known to cause childhood pneumonia and meningitis has been a major player in worldwide illness and death since the late 19th century. It is thought to kill over a million young children around the world each year.

According to research conducted at the University of Oxford, the bacterium carries out a little genetic presto-chango by recombining with other, slightly different bacteria, so that the vaccine no longer recognizes it. Nice. Natural selection at its finest, and it shows the incredible intelligence that has permeated life from the start.

The pneumococcal vaccine works by eliciting antibody production against the polysaccharide coating of the bacteria. By recombining its genes with that of other pneumococcal serotypes, the bacteria successfully renders the vaccine less effective. And this is exactly what happened in Great Britain after it adopted an American formula in 2000 that targeted seven serotypes (different varieties) and was highly effective in preventing transmission from children to adults.

Researchers sought to find the answer to the vaccines reduced effectiveness, and through cutting-edge genetic analysis they were able to uncover the mystery. The vaccine has since been replaced with a newer and wider acting one targeting 13 serotypes, but it does show some potential problems of the future.

I respect the medical innovation that has led to the development of such useful drugs and vaccines that have provided us with so much protection over the last century. But if I've said it once I've said it a million times, we rely far too heavily on drugs and vaccines, and not enough on strengthening the human constitution. Antibiotic resistant bugs are directly related to antibiotic overuse--prescribing them for every cough and runny nose "that just won't go away" is ludicrous.

I still hear numerous people report that they run to the doctor after being sick for "one whole week," and the doctors give them the drugs. Listen people, let your body do the job! It should be strong enough to handle most routine bugs; but I know the medical profession, pharmacies and drug companies push the idea that this year will be the year that we all die from the flu unless we get coveted flu shot. WAKE THE EFF UP! Listen to Mother Nature. She's telling you that all life forms evolve, including microorganisms. We can slow down the need to develop new drugs by not medicating every physical challenge people have. Duh! Everybody has a responsibility on this one.

Addicted to Evolution

Are you addicted to technology? How about social media? It's a real thing, you know--virtual monkey on the back. Here are the sure signs you are addicted (at least according to one author who has written a book called "The Digital Diet" about when too much is not enough):

• The urge to pull out a cellphone even when someone you're with is in the midst of a conversation with you.
• Texting even while your child is telling you about his or her day at school, and realizing later that you can't remember the details of what your son or daughter has said to you.
• Having the vague feeling that something hasn't really happened until you post it to Facebook or Twitter.
• Feeling isolated and anxious if you are offline for an extended period of time.
• Noticing that even when your family is all together in one room at home, each person is gazing at his or her own screen and tapping at a miniature keyboard.

The author Daniel Sieberg says that some people even create status updates or tweets in their heads when they are experiencing things (Who doesn't?).  He says, "It's as if they have lost the ability to live in the moment, and have become conditioned to feeling that they have to instantly share it electronically while it is still going on."

Ha ha ha...I am only posting this to take enjoyment in what is a natural response to all new and world-changing phenomena. Whether talking about the light bulb, television, rock & roll or the internet, there will be some people that focus on the downside, freak out at where it's leading us, and perhaps even try to prevent the change from happening.

No doubt that every phenomenon has a negative side. In our new technological world, where information is just a mouse-click away, of course, there will be some detriment. And whenever our brain processes something as pleasurable, like multiple responses and comments on social media sites, it will release dopamine, the neurotransmitter "associated with the reward system of the brain, providing feelings of enjoyment and reinforcement to motivate a person proactively to perform certain activities."

Dopamine is released in response to experiences such as food, sex, drugs, and neutral stimuli that become associated with them.  It is believed that this system is responsible for the physical aspects of addiction. So in that regard, there is no doubt some people will struggle with the symptoms of addiction in the early years of the social media explosion.

Saying that, Mr. Sieberg, there is nothing in need of changing.  As I've said before in this blog, the human species will continue to evolve with machine--that is, with our informational systems. This symbiotic growth will not be stopped, so striving for separateness from our cyber-existence is futile. And why would we want to? Sure, neglecting your family for Facebook is lame, but for some it's welcome refrain from family strife and tensions. Some people that are isolated socially from the real world, find acceptance and a forum for their thoughts on social media. You see, it all depends on which perspective you are looking from. 

So don't fear your relationship to social media--I guarantee no matter how absorbed you are now, it will even out over time. And if it doesn't, so what? It just means you're popular...in cyberspace.

Ovulating Women Act Like Horny Men (Sort Of)

Everybody knows about PMS, but do women change their behavior during ovulation?  Current research says they do, sexually, and these changes may have evolutionary significance in spreading our genes.

Two new studies in the November issue of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior find that women get a little wilder during their most fertile days of the month.  One study found that ovulating women are more open to the idea of hooking up with a stranger or acquaintance, while the other study found that women with less masculine-looking partners are more likely to lust after men with "masculine" traits--like strong, square jaws--than women with partners already possessing those traits.

In the past, most research on the menstrual cycle focused on premenstrual syndrome (PMS), but these new studies are two of more than twenty focusing on behavioral changes brought about by ovulation.  Researchers in evolutionary biology have taken it for granted that ovulation is of slight significance since humans have deviated from the typical estrus cycle (heat) of mammals, and can be up for sex anytime of the month.

This, however, is just a theory, and a wrong one at that.  For instance, men can tell when a woman is ovulating, although they do so imperfectly.  Some experts believe it's through smell--of pheromones, excreted chemicals that triggers a social response in members of the same species--but this is just a hypothesis.  Several studies, however, have found that women report that their men become more attentive and jealous around fertile days. One study, in fact, found that when women were fertile, their male partners saw other men as a greater threat.

Further, women do have a sort-of "heat" phase, yet instead of simply being more receptive to sex, they want it for different reasons.  Consider this phase a lust-cycle, where women want sex for sex's sake and not for intimacy, which might be more the reason outside of the cycle.

The second study of the pair looked at womens' phenotypic preference for masculine traits during fertile periods.  Several previous studies had found that, when ovulating, women tended to go for more masculine-looking men.  Masculine traits fertile women prefer are strong-jawed faces, muscular bodies, dominant behaviors, deep voices and tallness.

(Example of test picture to the left--women, which face do you prefer?)

In the latest study, researchers found that if a woman is partnered with a man without a masculine face, her eye is more likely to wander during her fertile days. Now this doesn't mean she'll necessarily act on her wandering eye, but she'll likely look nonetheless.  And other studies have shown that the hormonal fluctuations surrounding ovulation do change women's attitudes and behavior.  For instance, fertile women seem to be more open than non-fertile women to the idea of taking "sexual pleasures where [they] find them."  According to the authors of the study, women in ovulation are more likely to express interest in sleeping with an attractive stranger or someone they don't care about.  Just sex.

Women in ovulation also tried harder to look nice for pictures, according to a 2006 study, showing that the hormonal changes may also affect female decision making.  An online shopping experiment reveals fertile women are also more likely to choose sexy clothes and accessories than women who weren't fertile, according to the study published online in the Journal of Consumer Research in August.  Finally, in a widely publicized study published in Evolution and Human Behavior in 2007, researchers found that ovulating strippers made an average of $30 more an hour than menstruating strippers and $15 more an hour than non-ovulating, non-menstruating strippers.

So to conclude, during fertile periods, women tend to be a bit friskier, make decisions about their attractiveness, look harder at masculine features, and be more likely to engage in casual sex.  Why?  To ensure the likelihood of fertilization and to increase the probability of finding successful genes, biologically speaking that is.  I don't know about you, but it sounds to me like the human female is as much a product of her biology as a man is.  Cool, huh?

Have We Met? Gay Men Know Better

Another piece of evidence showing how genetics plays a instrumental role in shaping sexual orientation.  A recent study out of York University in Toronto showed that the ability to recognize faces, both in speed and accuracy, is a skill sharpened in women and homosexual men.  And to add an interesting twist--left-handed heterosexual men have quicker and more accurate face recognition than do right-handers.


The ability to recognize faces has been shown through imaging techniques to be a purely right-sided brain function in men, while women use both hemispheres.  This "doubling-up" of brain power allows women to scan their memories much more rapidly than men, making it easier for them to recognize people at cocktail parties.  Researchers believe that the same holds true for homosexual men--their brains likely use both left and right hemispheres when evaluating faces, accounting for their mirroring women's abilities in this function. 

Face recognition is complex.  It takes a number of brain regions, visual processes, and memory for recognition to take place.  Researchers studied this phenomenon by recruiting a sample group of homosexual men, heterosexual men and heterosexual women, of both left-handed and right-handed variety.  The volunteers were shown pictures of 10 faces and given time to try to memorize them. The photos were black and white, and digitally altered to remove ears, hair and blemishes, so as to eliminate the physical landmarks people often use to remember faces.  The 10 faces were then mixed with similarly altered images of 50 other people and flashed on a screen for just milliseconds apiece. The subjects' job was to press a key when they saw a face they'd seen before.  The results were that women and homosexual men scored nearly the same, and both groups fared better than heterosexual men.  Homosexual women were not studied.

Genetics determines symmetry and asymmetry in body and brain.  For instance, previous studies have shown that gay men have a 39% greater chance of being left-handed than heteros (southpaw heteros performed better on face recognition than did righties, remember?).  Gay men also have a greater chance (~80%) of having a counter-clockwise hair whorl. 

When it comes to brain morphology (shape), both women and homosexual men have two symmetrical halves, whereas heterosexual men and homosexual women have asymmetrical brain regions, with the right side being larger than the left.

What is unknown is if homosexual men are, in fact, using both brain regions when attempting to recognize faces.  The only way to know for sure would be to image the brain as it goes through the same experiment, but this would bring up some serious ethical considerations. 

Either way, I find this research absolutely fascinating.  Despite some still believing it to be a lifestyle choice and not genetic, evidence points to homosexuality being a multi-factorial phenomenon.  Genetics, hormones, and environment all play a part in developing sexual orientation, many of them early in embryonic development.  Some have even proposed an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality being maintained in the population, despite its lowering reproductive success.  

If genetics are involved, then there must be phenotypic differences that go beyond sexual preferences.  What are these differences?  How are they expressed?  Politically speaking, if we could recognize that sexual orientation is biologically determined, then it could lead to an advancement in equal protection rights for homosexuals and same-sex couples.

I also find this study interesting because, well, it explains my total lameness in not remembering people whom I've met in the past, some just days earlier.  Duh...I'm a little slow, um...er, uh...what's your name?  Forgive me, I'm hetero--half brain, you know?

Welcome to the Future

As they say, the future is here. Experts have warned for years the coming of superbugs (I, myself, have warned extensively about drug-resistant microorganisms in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, and here in this blog)--their looming invasion and the consequences we'd have to face in a world where microorganisms develop resistance to the only weapons we have to fight them--drugs!

Well that world has arrived: Recent reports disclose two new frightening superbugs that could have global health officials scrambling for years to come. The first (I'll touch on the second in an upcoming post) is a case of highly drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) found in a Peruvian national studying English in the U.S. (West Palm Beach, FL area). Doctors say this extremely drug-resistant (XXDR) TB has never been seen before in the U.S. and is, in fact, so rare that only a handful of other people in the world are thought to have had it.

According to Dr. David Ashkin, one of the nation's leading experts on tuberculosis, "[This infected student] is really the future. This is the new class that people are not really talking too much about. These are the ones we really fear because I'm not sure how we treat them."

The XXDR TB-strain of TB is contagious, aggressive, and especially drug-resistant, doctors say. TB germs can float in the air for hours, especially in tight places with little sunlight or fresh air. So every time an infected person coughs, sneezes, laughs or talks, he or she could spread the deadly germs to others. Tuberculosis is the top single infectious killer of adults worldwide, and it lies dormant in one in three people, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Of those, 10 percent will develop active TB, and about 2 million people a year will die from it.

Simple TB is easy to treat--a $10 course of medication for six to nine months. But if treatment is stopped short, the bacteria fight back and mutate into a tougher strain. It can cost $100,000 a year or more to cure drug-resistant TB, which is described as multi-drug-resistant (MDR), extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and XXDR. There are now about 500,000 cases of MDR tuberculosis a year worldwide. XDR tuberculosis killed 52 of the first 53 people diagnosed with it in South Africa three years ago.

Although this all seems scary and futile, I do not take that stance. It's true that antibiotics and other microorganism-fighting drugs have been over- and misused. And it's also true that we have few to no external weapons to fight superbugs. But we still have one mighty tool in our arsenal, one that evolves along with the ever-changing environment in the same way mutating microorganisms do: our immune system.

The human immune system is the only weapon I'm putting my money on. A healthy human body expressing a healthy immune system is rather formidable--our ability to thrive over the course of history proves it. We encounter plagues that take out the weakest (with a few random exceptions) of our ranks, but ultimately, we adapt...and the dance goes on.

No doubt, our own endeavors have created new and enigmatic challenges--like extremely drug-resistant (XXDR) TB--but we will persist, for now. I don't see drug-resistant tuberculosis as the dawn of the new Roman Empire, but we will have to be smart about it. Without a doubt, our most talented minds in chemistry and biotechnology will find new drugs to combat these dangerous superbugs, but ultimately, we'll have to maintain strong, healthy bodies. We'll have to make sure that all our functional systems are operating at their highest levels. This includes the immune system, the nervous system, the cardiovascular system and all other systems of the body.

Practicing the health-enhancing behaviors I outline in my book and here in this blog are the only things that will ensure your own strength and survival. Some healthy people will get sick and probably die from drug-resistant microorganisms. But if I have to bet on which people will have the greatest chance of survival from a superbug onslaught--I'll put my money on healthy, optimally functioning people every time.

Darwinian Medicine

Does evolution apply to human health? Why do we so conveniently forget about the evolutionary process when evaluating 21st century health and disease? I mean, I know modern medical science is familiar with the concept, so why throw out evolutionary reason when analyzing today's health issues?

Well here comes a branch of medicine, known as Darwinian medicine, dedicated to applying reason to rationale. Darwinian medicine is not your typical Cartesian philosophy--the one that says the human body is simply a machine, with various parts and systems, much like a clock; and that all processes can be understood by breaking the whole down to it's most basic components--but instead see the human body as evolving through time to environmental factors the way all living organisms do.

A key area of focus in Darwinian medicine is the emergence of modern epidemics like asthma and obesity--modern diseases resulting from changes in the environment which our bodies cannot evolve quickly enough to. And these rapid changes in our environment can also be the result of human activity, and even caused by efforts to eradicate other diseases.

According to Randolph Nesse, a pioneer in the field from the University of Michigan states, "The epidemic of asthma worldwide may be directly related to our very effective world health efforts to eliminate worms from people."

Another scientist explains that improved standards of hygiene could explain why societies in the rich world have become more susceptible to asthma, to allergies and to auto-immune diseases. Our push to eradicate diseases, and especially our attempt to protect ourselves via vaccination might be one cause of lowered resistance to some illnesses. Humans in less developed, poorer societies, "where parasites and microbial infections are high," have lower instances of such ailments, Barnes said.

I've been pushing this idea since I started this blog, especially as it relates to the influenza virus and accompanying vaccine. If the influenza virus is rapidly mutating--that is, changing it's makeup every year--doesn't make sense just to encounter it and develop natural immunity? I mean it isn't tuberculosis, for heaven's sake. Yes, flu kills people--so do aligators. It's not like we haven't evolved in a way to outrun those grisly gators. This is true for microorganisms to. They have been around for milennea, and they'll keep evolving. As living organisms, human beings need to keep up with the times, too.

Sons? Daughters? Genes.

Whether you have sons or daughters might be programmed into your genes. That, at least, is the latest coming out of evolutionary genetics research in the UK. According to a recent article published in the journal Evolutionary Biology, there may be a gene in males that determines whether he will father more sons, more daughters, or equal numbers of each. Wow!

Now mind you, this is simply a hypothesis; but British researcher Corry Gellatly of Newcastle University showed, through his study of family trees and population genetics, that sex ratio is heritable. That is, the number of males born versus females at any given time can be determined by a gene in the father.

According to Gellatly, there may exist a gene that controls the X to Y chromosome ratio. Females inherit two copies of the X chromosome, while males inherit one X and one Y. So if this proposed gene is present, it can determine whether the male produces more X containing sperm or more Y containing sperm. Apparently only men express the gene; women are simply carriers that pass the gene on.

This study results from the observation that male to female ratio remains relatively constant despite population changers like war, where the number of males lost is significant. Data shows that the number of males born following events like war increases dramatically. And this isn't a one time event--the phenomenom was recorded following both world wars. Gellatly believes this is a sort of counterbalancing mechanism programmed into our DNA. As he said in a recent interview, "You can't get a population that becomes too skewed toward males or too skewed toward females [with this type of counterbalancing mechanism]."

The details of the study are too involved to get into in depth here, but you can check out he primary paper here, or the press release here, both which do a great job of explaining the methods used to come to these conclusions. I find this fascinating, especially since I philosophically believe that the universe is continuously moving into a state balance at all times, and in all things. So this type of hypothesis does a good job of explaining how biologically, or materially, balance is achieved in one universal aspect--organic life. Furthermore, the researchers stated that this gene is likely ancient and exists in all living things that reproduce sexually, including plants.

Yeah, makes sense. Think about it: What if early in human evolution, a disaster wipes out almost all living males. Unlikely, but possible. There has to be a mechanism in place to keep some sort of survivability for the organism. It may not be foolproof--extinction is always a possibility. But my guess is that the wisdom of the universe is much greater than we can ever imagine. Kinda cool, though, to get some inkling of how this magnificent universe operates.

Health and Evolution

If you've been reading this blog, you know how I feel about getting sick--it's absolutely essential. Protecting yourself against all illness is not only impossible, it's dangerous. We need to get sick from time to time because encountering microorganisms upgrades our immune system in the same way updating your computer's virus scan does: it protects you from future illnesses that might be strong enough to kill you. We evolve along with microorganism--and they with us. There's no such thing as solitary evolution.

Case in point: Scientist have recently discovered the bacteria responsible for tuberculosis (TB) in 9,000 year old human bones submerged in waters off of Israel's coast. It was previously thought that Mycobacterium tuberculosis was younger by about 3,000 years, but these findings show the incredible co-evolution of TB and man.

What I find interesting is that in our attempt to eradicate certain microorganisms, and thus certain diseases, we may actually be making said microorganisms stronger, tipping the balance in their favor for awhile. The widespread use of antibiotics and other drugs has led to the emergence of drug-resistant strains that are sturdier and tougher to treat. Take multi-drug resistant TB, or methicillin-resistant Staph aureus (MRSA), or now drug resistant HIV. We've created these superbug monsters, and are we more advantaged as a result?

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take antibiotics, or HIV infected people shouldn't take their drugs, but taking antibiotics for every sniffle or sore throat is absurd. Please let me inform you that sniffles and sore throats ARE good health! They are our bodies ways of fighting infection.

I bring this up because we are entering "flu season" and millions of people will be running for their flu shots, and millions more to their doctor for antibiotics because, "I've been congested for three days." Just understand that on the one hand you are living an illusion to think that if you get a shot, you'll avoid getting sick. You'll get sick again, one day. And that you are actually getting protection from the flu (read last post)...you're not. On the other hand, by running to the doctor for antibiotics to fight your viral infection, you are just adding to the probability of even stronger superbugs in the future.

Bugs evolve. Man evolves. We typically evolve together. Sometime man has the advantage, and sometimes microorganisms have the advantage. If I'm going to be the master of my health, I'll take my chances and meet these little buggers head-on. Better believe that if I encounter something super-virulent, I'll take the drugs. But not for the sniffles, I won't. For that I'll tough it out.

Sudden Death

A newly observed phenomenon is being reported which shows that some young men are dying suddenly following police arrest, and scientist believe that it may involve a mechanism similar to one to one that kills some animals in the wild. Man as wild animal expiring under extreme stress? You bet. Read on.

According to Dr. Manuel Martinez Selles of Madrid's Hospital Gregorio Maranon, surges in blood levels of hormones--specifically catecholamines--may cause cardiac arrest. Interesting. Many wild animals also die suddenly when captured. Call it an evolutionary expiration mechanism if you will. But why?

The study looked at 60 cases of people who had died suddenly and unexpectedly after being arrested. Twenty had died at the point of arrest, while the rest died within 24 hours. All but one of the cases was male, their average age being 33. Only sudden deaths with no clear causes were included and autopsy reports were checked to exclude the possibility of mistreatment or past serious medical conditions. Twelve of the victims were drug users but Selles said this was not thought to have contributed to their deaths.

I find this story so interesting, because it illustrates the incredible innate intelligence of human body. Organism under severe stress, captured and compromised, expires suddenly. Cells do it, wild animals do it, and now we know that man also does it. Simply fascinating. This type of organismic suicide has most likely evolved to preserve the whole, that is other cells or other animals of the group. In cells, programmed cell death occurs to stop infection from spreading to other cells, and clearly this has passed on to more complex organisms.

What really gets my intellectual juices flowing is the notion that this phenomenon is just now being observed. I asked why. Why now? What is going on in society, with people, that this mechanism is turning on. Why haven't we seen more of it before? Surely people have experienced extreme stress before today. Was it just that we weren't paying attention? Was it that we only now have the tools, the diagnostics, the autopsy techniques to study this phenomena? Any thoughts?