(Mercola)—COVID-19 lockdowns accelerated brain aging in adolescents, according to a recent study.¹ The pandemic drastically changed daily routines, leaving many young people struggling with their mental and physical health. You might have noticed how isolation affected teens, especially girls, more than boys. Increased feelings of anxiety and depression became common as social interactions dwindled.²

As the lockdowns wore on, physical fitness levels among young adults began to decline sharply. Reduced opportunities for exercise and more time spent sedentary led to significant drops in both aerobic and anaerobic fitness.³ This decline isn’t just about physical health; it’s closely tied to mental well-being as well.

We’re only now beginning to see the many ways COVID-19 lockdowns impacted adolescent brain development and physical fitness; the full effects likely won’t be apparent for years or decades to come.

The Impact of Lockdowns on Adolescent Brain Development

Adolescence is a critical period for brain maturation, where emotional and social development take center stage. During this time, your brain undergoes significant changes, including synaptic pruning and myelination, which are essential for cognitive and emotional growth. However, the COVID-19 lockdowns disrupted these typical developmental trajectories, particularly in girls.⁴

Researchers used MRI scans to compare brain structures before and after the lockdowns, revealing that young girls experienced more rapid cortical thinning than boys did. Cortical thinning is a natural part of brain development during adolescence, where your brain’s outer layer, the cortex, becomes thinner as it matures.

This process is essential for improving cognitive functions like thinking, memory and emotional regulation. However, the study showed that the lockdowns caused this thinning to happen much faster than usual, especially in female adolescents. Girls experienced a mean brain age acceleration of 4.2 years compared to 1.4 years in boys.

The acceleration in brain maturation is linked to increased stress caused by the pandemic restrictions. Prolonged social isolation and the disruption of daily routines led to higher levels of stress hormones like cortisol. These hormones affect brain development, leading to the accelerated thinning observed in the study.

Moreover, the faster brain maturation in females is concerning because it’s associated with a higher risk of developing mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. The rapid changes in brain structure may interfere with the normal development of emotional and social skills, making adolescents more vulnerable to neuropsychiatric disorders.

The study highlights the critical need for ongoing support and monitoring of adolescents who experienced the lockdowns. Providing mental health resources and promoting healthy lifestyles may help mitigate the negative impacts of accelerated brain aging, but early intervention is essential to address the long-term consequences on young minds.

Autobiographical Memories Impact Mental Health in Lockdown

Another study found that as lockdowns continued, children’s memories of that time became less detailed and more negative over time. Initially, kids could recall specific events and feelings from the lockdown, but as months passed, their memories lost some of that detail and leaned more toward negative emotions.⁵

Psychological well-being among children and adolescents also took a hit during the lockdowns, with girls showing the most significant decline. While all young people experienced increased anxiety and depression, female adolescents were particularly hard-hit, reporting the lowest levels of happiness and the highest levels of depressive symptoms.⁶

The content of these memories played a crucial role in mental health outcomes. Memories that were filled with negative emotions and detailed factual information about COVID-19 and the restrictions predicted poorer psychological well-being over time. Not surprisingly, kids who focused more on the negative aspects and the hard facts about the pandemic struggled more with their mental health.⁷

Overall, the findings suggest that the way children and adolescents remember and narrate their experiences during challenging times significantly influences their mental health. Negative memory narratives lead to worse psychological outcomes, highlighting the need for supportive interventions that help young people process their experiences in healthier ways.⁸

Long-Term Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns on Physical Fitness in Young Adults

COVID-19 lockdowns also had a significant long-term impact on the physical fitness of young adults.⁹ Researchers conducted a comprehensive analysis involving over 5,300 university freshmen, comparing their physical fitness levels before and after the pandemic lockdowns. Again, not surprisingly, the lockdowns led to notable declines in both aerobic and anaerobic fitness compared to previous years.

The study showed that anaerobic fitness, which is essential for short bursts of intense activity like sprinting, decreased by an average of 0.84 points. More strikingly, aerobic fitness, crucial for sustained activities such as running or cycling, dropped by 2.25 points in males and a more substantial 4.28 points in females. This indicates that young adults became significantly less capable of performing endurance-based activities post-lockdown.

With gyms, parks and sports facilities closed, many young adults found themselves spending more time sitting or engaging in less physically demanding activities like video games or desk work.

Curiously, females experienced greater declines in aerobic fitness compared to their male counterparts. This gender disparity suggests that lockdown measures may have disproportionately affected girls in maintaining their cardiovascular endurance. Possible reasons include differences in how males and females engaged in physical activities during the lockdown or varying access to exercise resources and support systems.

The decline in physical fitness may lead to long-term health issues such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases and metabolic disorders. The study underscores the urgent need to promote physical activity among young adults, especially in the aftermath of lockdowns or similar restrictions. Encouraging regular exercise and reducing sedentary time are essential steps in preventing these negative health outcomes and ensuring that fitness levels recover post-pandemic.

Furthermore, the research highlights that addressing fitness declines is important for supporting the overall health of young adults. Promoting accessible and enjoyable forms of exercise may help mitigate the long-term consequences of the pandemic on youth fitness and well-being.

Lockdowns Led to Vitamin D Deficiency, Worse Birth Outcomes in Pregnant Women

In related news, a team of Spanish researchers looked into the effects of strict lockdown on the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women, noting, “In Spain, a strict lockdown (SL) was declared, with the population being confined at home, therefore influencing their exposition to sunlight.”¹⁰

For this study, vitamin D deficiency (VDD) was defined as a vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL, and vitamin D insufficiency as a level between 20 and 30 ng/mL. This is notable, since it represents an extremely low level of vitamin D. While sufficiency begins around 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L in European measurements), the target range for optimal health is 60 to 80 ng/mL (150 to 200 nmol/L).

If higher levels were used to define vitamin D deficiency in the study, even more women would have been deemed deficient. Still, even using 20 ng/mL as the deficiency cutoff, 55.5% of pregnant women in the region were vitamin D deficient. Among those on strict lockdown (SL), the prevalence was 77.8%.¹¹

While the study stopped short of examining the pregnancy outcomes of lockdown-driven vitamin D deficiency, past research has linked VDD with adverse effects in pregnancy, including pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm birth and caesarean delivery.¹²

COVID-19 lockdown was also associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes, with risk increasing the longer the lockdown continued,¹³ as well as an increased risk of preterm birth.¹⁴

Other studies also suggest that lockdowns negatively affected pregnant women in other ways. For example, in a study comparing women who experienced a Level I lockdown in China during the pandemic with women who did not, the lockdown group had shorter gestational length and a higher risk of preterm birth.¹⁵

Brain Development and Fitness Are Suffering After Pandemic Lockdowns

To conclude, the COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on adolescent brain development and physical fitness, particularly in young girls. These effects, coupled with increased stress and prolonged social isolation, have heightened the risk of mental health challenges, including anxiety and depression.

Physical fitness has also taken a significant hit, with both aerobic and anaerobic capacities declining, especially among young women. The shift toward sedentary lifestyles and reduced opportunities for physical activity has had lasting effects on health and well-being, with implications for long-term health outcomes.

To mitigate these impacts, it’s essential to promote regular physical activity, provide mental health support and encourage healthy lifestyle habits. By understanding the unique challenges faced by adolescents during the pandemic, we can develop targeted interventions to support their recovery and ensure a healthier future for our youth.

Early intervention, consistent support and fostering resilience are crucial steps toward helping adolescents navigate these challenging times and safeguarding their mental and physical health.

• ^1, 4 PNAS September 9, 2024, 121(38)
• ^{2, 5, 6, 7, 8} Child Development August 14, 2024
• ^3, 9 Scientific Reports September 18, 2023, volume 13, Article number: 15430 (2023)
• ¹⁰ Nutrients 2023, 15(8), 1972
• ¹¹ Nutrients 2023, 15(8), 1972, Discussion
• ¹² Nutrients 2023, 15(8), 1972, Introduction
• ¹³ Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022; 13: 824245
• ¹⁴ Front Med (Lausanne). 2021; 8: 705943
• ¹⁵ BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21: 795

(Mercola)—The more I study science, and particularly medicine, the more I come to see how often fundamental facts end up being changed so that a profitable industry can be created. Recently I showed how this happened with blood pressure, as rather than causing arterial damage, high blood pressure is a response to arterial damage that ensures damaged arteries can still bring blood to the tissues and, in turn, rather than helping patients, aggressively lowering blood pressure can be quite harmful.

In this article, I will look at the other half of the coin, the Great Cholesterol Scam — something that harms so many Americans it was recently discussed by Comedian Jimmy Dore.

First, they scammed you on skin cancer when the sun is good for you.

Now, they're scamming you again on cholesterol to sell you a lifetime medication.

This entire narrative of cholesterol being the villain in heart disease was built on a lie.

What doctors fail to tell you is… pic.twitter.com/bhhkFBBDbb

— A Midwestern Doctor (@MidwesternDoc) September 11, 2024

Cholesterol and Heart Disease

Frequently, when an industry harms many people, it will create a scapegoat to get out of trouble. Once this happens, a variety of other sectors will jump on the bandwagon and create an unshakable societal dogma.

For example, the health of a population (or if they are being poisoned by environmental toxins) determines how easily an infectious disease can sweep through a population and who is susceptible to it, but reframing infectious diseases as a “deficiency of vaccines” it both takes the (costly) onus off the industries to clean up the society and simultaneously allows them to get rich promoting the pharmaceutical products that “manage” each epidemic and the even larger epidemic of chronic diseases caused by those vaccines (discussed in detail here).

Note: The major decline in infectious illness that is credited to vaccines actually was a result of improved public sanitation, and when the data is examined (e.g., for smallpox) those early vaccination campaigns made things worse not better.

In the 1960s and 1970s, a debate emerged over what caused heart disease. On one side, John Yudkin¹ effectively argued that the sugar being added to our food by the processed food industry was the chief culprit. On the other side, Ancel Keys² (who attacked Yudkin’s work) argued that it was due to saturated fat and cholesterol.

Note: Leaders in the field of natural medicine, like Dr. Mercola, have made a strong case this spike came from the mass adoption of seed oils (which thanks to our unprecedented political climate is at last being discussed on the mainstream news). Likewise, some believe the advent of water chlorination was responsible for this increase.³

Ancel Keys won, Yudkin’s work was largely dismissed, and Keys became nutritional dogma. A large part of Key’s victory was based on his study of seven countries (Italy, Greece, Former Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Finland, America, and Japan), which showed that as saturated fat consumption increased, heart disease increased in a linear fashion.

However, what many don’t know (as this study is still frequently cited) is that this result was simply a product of the countries Keys chose (e.g., if Finland, Israel, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, France, and Sweden had been chosen, the opposite would have been found).

Fortunately, it’s gradually become recognized that Keys did not accurately report his data. For example, recently an unpublished 56 month randomized study⁴ of 9,423 adults living in state mental hospitals or a nursing home (which made it possible to rigidly control their diets) was unearthed.

This study, which Keys was the lead investigator of, found that replacing half of one’s animal (saturated) fats with seed oil (e.g., corn oil) lowered their cholesterol, but for every 30 points it dropped, their risk of death increased by 22% (which roughly translates to each 1% drop in cholesterol raising the risk of death by 1%).

Note: The author who unearthed that study also discovered another (unpublished) study from the 1970s of 458 Australians, which found that⁵ replacing some of their saturated fat with seed oils increased their risk of dying by 17.6%.

Likewise, recently, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world published⁶ internal sugar industry documents. They showed⁷ the sugar industry had used bribes to make scientists place the blame for heart disease on fat so Yudkin’s work would not threaten the sugar industry. In turn, it is now generally accepted that Yudkin was right, but nonetheless, our medical guidelines are still largely based on Key’s work.

However, despite a significant amount of data that now shows lowering cholesterol is not associated with a reduction in heart disease, the need to lower cholesterol is still a dogma within cardiology.^{8,9,10,11,12,13} For example, how many of you have heard of this 1986 study which was published in the Lancet¹⁴ which concluded:

“During 10 years of follow-up from December 1, 1986, to October 1, 1996, a total of 642 participants died. Each 1 mmol/L increase in total cholesterol corresponded to a 15% decrease in mortality (risk ratio 0 to 85 [95% Cl 0·79 to 0·91]).”

Statins Marketing

One of the consistent patterns I’ve observed within medicine is that once a drug is identified that can “beneficially” change a number, medical practice guidelines will gradually shift to prioritizing treating that number and before long, rationales will be created that require more and more of the population to be subject to that regimen. Consider for example the history of the (immensely harmful) blood pressure guidelines:

In the case of statins, prior to their discovery, it was difficult to reliably lower cholesterol, but once they hit the market, research rapidly emerged arguing for a greater and greater need to lower cholesterol, which in turn led to more and more people being placed on statins.

As you would expect, similar increases also occurred within the USA. For example, in 2008 to 2009, 12% of Americans over 40 reported taking a statin, whereas in 2018 to 2019, that had increased to 35% of Americans.¹⁵ Given how much these drugs are used, it then raises a simple question — how much benefit do they produce?

As it turns out, this is a remarkably difficult question to answer as the published studies use a variety of confusing metrics to obfuscate their data (which means that the published statin trials almost certainly inflate the benefits of statin therapy), and more importantly, virtually all of the data on statin therapy is kept by a “private” (industry-funded)¹⁶ research collaboration¹⁷ that consistently publishes glowing reviews of statins (and attacks anyone who claims otherwise)¹⁸ but simultaneously refuses to release their data to outside researchers,¹⁹ which has led to those researchers attempting to get this missing data from the drug regulators.²⁰

Note: As discussed in Dr. Malhotra’s interview below, this collaboration (which militantly insists less than 1% of statin users experience side effects) also created a test one could utilize to determine if one was genetically at risk for a statin injury — and in their marketing for the test said 29% of all statin users were likely to experience side effects (which they then removed once health activists publicized this hypocrisy).

Nonetheless, when independent researchers looked at the published trials (which almost certainly inflated the benefit of statin therapy) they found²¹ that taking a statin daily for approximately 5 years resulted in you living, on average, 3 to 4 days longer. Sadder still, large trials have found²² this minuscule “benefit” is only seen in men. In short, most of the benefit from statins is from creative ways to rearrange data and causes of death, not any actual benefit.

Note: This is very similar to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine trial²³ which professed to be “95% effective” against COVID-19, but in reality only created a 0.8% reduction in minor symptoms of COVID (e.g., a sore throat) and a 0.037% reduction in severe symptoms of COVID (with “severe” never being defined by Pfizer).

This in turn meant that you needed to vaccinate 119 people to prevent a minor (inconsequential) case of COVID-19, and 2711 to prevent a “severe” case of COVID-19.

Worse still, a whistleblowers later revealed that these figures were greatly inflated as individuals in the (unblinded) vaccine group who developed COVID-19 like symptoms weren’t tested for COVID-19 and their vaccine injuries were never reported. Sadly, in most cases (e.g., the statin trials) we don’t have access to whistleblowers who can inform us of how unsafe and ineffective these drugs actually are.

In circumstances like these where an unsafe and ineffective but highly lucrative drug must be sold, the next step is typically to pay everyone off to promote it. For example:²⁴

“The National Cholesterol Education Programme (NCEP) has been tasked by the National Institutes of Health to develop guidelines [everyone uses] for treating cholesterol levels. Excluding the chair (who was by law prohibited from having financial conflicts of interest), the other 8 members on average were on the payroll of 6 statin manufacturers.²⁵

In 2004, NCEP reviewed 5 large statin trials and recommended: ‘Aggressive LDL lowering for high-risk patients [primary prevention] with lifestyle changes and statins.’”

In 2005 a Canadian division of the Cochrane Collaboration [who were not paid off] reviewed 5 large statin trials (3 were the same as NCEP’s, while the other 2 had also reached a positive conclusion for statin therapy). That independent assessment instead concluded:²⁶ “Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.”

Note: The primary reason no cure for COVID-19 was ever found was that the guideline panel for COVID-19 treatments was handpicked by Fauci²⁷ and comprised of academics taking money from Remdesivir’s manufacturers. Not surprisingly, the panel always voted against recommending any of the non-patentable treatments for COVID-19, regardless of how much evidence there was for them.

Likewise, the American College of Cardiology made a calculator²⁸ to determine your risk of developing a heart attack or stroke in the next ten years based on your age, blood pressure, cholesterol level, and smoking status. In turn, I’ve lost track of how many doctors I saw proudly punch their patient’s numbers into it and then inform them that they were at high risk of a stroke or heart attack and urgently needed to start a statin.

Given that almost everyone ended up being “high risk” I was not surprised to learn that in 2016, Kaiser completed an extensive study²⁹ which determined that this calculator overestimated the rate of these events by 600%. Sadly, that has not at all deterred the use of this calculator (e.g., medical students are still tested on it for their board examinations).

Note: One of the most unfair things about statins is that the health care system decided they are “essential” for your health, so doctors who don’t push them are financially penalized, and likewise patients who don’t take them are as well (e.g., through life insurance premiums).³⁰

So, despite the overwhelming evidence against their use, many physicians believe so deeply in the “profound” benefits of statins that they do things like periodically advocating for statins to be added to the drinking water supply.³¹

In tandem, a cancel culture (reminiscent of what we saw with the COVID vaccines) has been created where anyone who challenges the use of Statins is immediately labeled as a “statin denier” accused of being a mass murderer and effectively canceled. Recently, a statin and COVID vaccine dissident, British Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra discussed the dirty parallels between these two industries on Joe Rogan:

In addition to doctors being forced to follow these guidelines, patients often are too. Doctors often retaliate against patients who do not take statins (similar to how unvaccinated patients were reprehensibly denied essential medical care during COVID-19).

Employers sometimes require cholesterol numbers to meet a certain threshold for employment (although they never did anything on the scale of the COVID-19 vaccine mandates placed on workers around America). Similarly, life insurance policies often penalize those with “unsafe” cholesterol numbers.

Statin Injuries

My primary issue with the statins is not the fact we waste billions each year on a useless therapy (approximately 25 billion per year in America alone).³² Rather, it’s the fact that they have a very high rate of injury. For example, the existing studies find between a 5% to 30% rate of injuries,³³ and Dr. Malhotra, having gone through all the existing evidence estimates that 20% of statin users are injured by them.

Likewise, statins are well known for having a high percentage of patients discontinue the drugs due to their side effects (e.g., one large study³⁴ found 44.7% of older adults discontinue the drugs within a year of starting them, while another large study of adults of all ages found 47% discontinued within a year).³⁵

Statins in turn, are linked to a large number of complications³⁶ that have been well-characterized (e.g., mechanistically) and described throughout the medical literature.^{37,38,39,40,41,42} One group of side effects are those perceived by the patient (which often make them want to stop using the medications). These include:

• A high incidence of muscle pain^{43,44,45,46,47,48,49}
• Fatigue^50,51 especially with exertion and exercise⁵²
• Muscle inflammation (whose cause remains “unknown”)^53,54
• Autoimmune muscle damage^55,56,57,58
• Psychiatric and neurologic issues such as depression, confusion, aggression, and memory loss^{59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67}
• Severe irritability⁶⁸
• Sleep issues⁶⁹
• Musculoskeletal disorders and injuries^70,71
• Sudden (sensorineural) hearing loss⁷²
• Gastrointestinal distress⁷³

The other group are those not overtly noticed by the patient. These include:

• Type-2 diabetes,^{74,75,76,77,78} particularly in women^79,80,81
• Cancer^82,83,84,85
• Liver dysfunction and failure^86,87
• Cataracts^88,89
• ALS-like conditions and other central motor disorders (e.g., Parkinson’s disease and cerebellar ataxia)^{90,91,92,93,94}
• Lupus-like syndrome⁹⁵
• Susceptibility to herpes zoster (shingles)^96,97,98
• Interstitial cystitis⁹⁹
• Polymyalgia rheumatica¹⁰⁰
• Kidney injury^101,102
• Renal failure¹⁰³

From the start, I noticed statin patients often reported numbness, muscle pain, or cognitive issues after starting these drugs, which resolved once they stopped. When this was brought up with their doctors, the response was often hostile, with doctors insisting statins couldn’t be the cause, citing their own experience or claiming the patient needed to continue the medication to avoid a heart attack.

In turn, as the years went by, I saw increasingly elaborate excuses being created to protect the statins from an ever-increasing awareness of their dangers. A common one was the “nocebo effect” — the idea that negative expectations caused the reported symptoms. For example, I lost count of how many doctors I knew who cited this 2016 study¹⁰⁴ when patients stated they had been injured.

The nocebo effect is the opposite of the placebo effect. While the placebo effect occurs when a person experiences positive outcomes from a treatment because they believe it will help, the nocebo effect happens when negative outcomes arise simply because a person expects harm from a treatment, even if the treatment itself is harmless or ineffective.

This theory was used to dismiss patients’ experiences despite the fact that many were unaware of possible side effects until they occurred and then looked them up.

If you take this story and replace “statin” with COVID-19 vaccines, you will see it is essentially what everyone has experienced over the last four years (e.g., I lost count of how many times vaccine myocarditis was diagnosed as “anxiety”).

Note: Two adverse event reporting systems exist for adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals, MedWatch¹⁰⁵ and FAERS.¹⁰⁶ Like VAERS, they suffer from severe underreporting (it is estimated only 1% to 10% of adverse events are reported to them), but none the less, thousands of (ignored) reports can be found there of the common injuries which result from statins.¹⁰⁷

Conclusion

Most pharmaceutical medications work by blocking the function of an enzyme within the body, which while an effective way to change physiology, is often incredibly detrimental as each enzyme within the body is there for a reason. Statins do just that (and at the time were a revolutionary approach since decades of research had not yielded a consistent way to lower cholesterol). Unfortunately, the enzyme they chose doesn’t just lower cholesterol.

Sadly, however, since that was the only way to make statin’s “work,” the research community has largely ignored the consequences of eliminating all the other essential biomolecules that originate from mevalonate. For example, many of the characteristic side effects of statins can be addressed by simply supplementing with Coenzyme Q10 (an essential nutrient for the mitochondria, heart and muscles) — in fact Merck even patented a Statin-CoQ10 preparation.¹⁰⁸

However, acknowledging that would be akin to admitting statins are not “safe and effective” and it hence has never been done (a situation analogous to the fact many disabling childhood vaccine injuries could avoided if the vaccines were spaced out, yet those who proposed doing so are instead simply attacked for “not following the CDC’s schedule”).

Worse still, the massive market for “lowering cholesterol” has suppressed all research into the actual causes of heart disease and as a result, despite spending 25 billion a year on statins,¹⁰⁹ heart remains the top cause of death in America. This is an immense tragedy as the actual causes and treatments of heart disease have been known for decades, but still remain Forgotten Sides of Medicine.

Author’s note: This is an abridged version of a longer article about the great cholesterol scam which goes into greater detail on the dangers of statins, the actual causes of heart disease, and the natural ways to safely heal the arterial system and prevent heart disease. That article and its additional references can be read here.

A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate their exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

See all references

• In my interview with Calley Means, co-author of the book “Good Energy,” we discuss how tobacco companies bought major food companies in the 1980s, applying addictive strategies to food production and influencing nutritional guidelines, leading to a surge in chronic diseases
• The 1910 Flexner Report, funded by Rockefeller, reshaped medical education, emphasizing pharmaceutical interventions and marginalizing holistic approaches, setting the stage for modern health care’s limitations
• Corruption in health institutions, including conflicts of interest in research funding and guideline committees, perpetuates misguided health advice and hinders effective chronic disease management
• Reforming the health system requires removing conflicts of interest from advisory committees, restructuring financial incentives and empowering patients through grassroots advocacy and education
• A multi-pronged approach to health care transformation is necessary, including individual empowerment, new wellness-focused business models and policy changes to address the chronic disease epidemic

(Mercola)—I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Calley Means, co-author of the book “Good Energy” and a policy advisor to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Our conversation uncovered some shocking truths about the origins of our modern food system and the dire health consequences we’re facing as a result.

However, Means’ insights into the corruption of our health institutions and his ideas for reform leave room for much optimism about the future of health in America.

The Tobacco Industry’s Secret Takeover of Our Food Supply

The tobacco industry’s covert influence on our food system is responsible for many of the processed foods that line grocery store shelves today. As Means explained:¹

“In the 1980s when you looked at the most valuable companies in the world — now it’s Microsoft and Amazon and Google — it was Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds back then. These were two of the largest companies in the world and they had the largest cash piles, the largest balance sheet of any company in human history because smoking was such a profitable business.”

As smoking rates began to decline due to public health warnings, these tobacco giants made a calculated move. With their core business under threat, these tobacco giants used their massive cash reserves to buy up major food companies:²

“They had big piles of cash, cigarette smoking was clearly going to decline, what do they do with that cash? They bought food companies. So, we think about the 1980s as the age of Wall Street, M&A [mergers and acquisitions], Gordon Gekko. When you look at the biggest deals and the biggest Wall Street transactions in the 1980s, the two largest were cigarette companies buying food companies.”

The implications of this shift were profound:³

“By 1990, the two largest food companies in the world were R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris. The book ‘Barbarians at the Gate,’ which is the preeminent book on the M&A deals of the 1980s, was about R.J. Reynolds buying Nabisco. And then you had Philip Morris buying Kraft, US Foods, some of the largest transactions in U.S. history.”

Making Food Addictive: The Cigarette Company Playbook

What happened next was a deliberate effort to apply tobacco industry tactics to food production:⁴

“So, what the cigarette companies did very intentionally is they shifted two departments over, they shifted their scientists over to make food more addictive. And this is an amazing situation, right? And this is documented. This is very clear what they were trying to do.

They’re going from cigarettes, which is becoming a stigmatized industry where it’s not allowed for kids, to something every single American needs — to eat starting basically at birth.”

To push their new addictive foods, the industry employed the same lobbying tactics that had kept tobacco “safe” for decades. They funded biased research from prestigious institutions like Harvard to claim sugar doesn’t cause obesity. But this wasn’t just about changing recipes.

The tobacco industry’s influence extended to shaping nutritional guidelines. This junk science was then used to create the infamous USDA food pyramid, which Means called “the most deadly document in American history.” The goal was clear: “And just as any drug provider, the business is getting people hooked, getting them hooked early, getting them hooked for a long period of time.”⁵

The Health Consequences of a Corrupted Food System

The impact of these changes on public health has been devastating. As Means pointed out:⁶

“Cancer rates actually exploded since the 1980s dramatically. So, I joke, but I’m being somewhat serious, we’d be much healthier if the cigarette companies were back to making cigarettes.

It was actually a total disaster for the metric they were trying to solve with coming down on smoking — cancer rates. By letting the cigarette industry actually get to our food, cancer rates have absolutely just exploded along with every other chronic condition.”

This history has been largely obscured from public view. When I asked how they managed to hide their involvement, Means explained that while it has been reported on, the information hasn’t been widely disseminated. He learned about it through his work in public affairs, where they openly discussed using the “tobacco playbook” for food companies.

Beyond the personal toll, this epidemic of chronic disease is threatening the economic stability of our nation:⁷

“Health care costs are going up at an increasing rate today. They’re at 20% GDP, they’re growing double the rate GDP, health care costs. They’re the largest source of U.S. inflation. They’re going to be 40% GDP … just mathematically, if these trends don’t change, we will be a fat, infertile, sick, depressed and bankrupt population, if these trends aren’t reversed.”

The Flexner Report: How American Medicine Lost Its Way

Our discussion then turned to the historical roots of America’s dysfunctional medical system. I brought up the influential Flexner Report of 1910, which Means agreed was a pivotal moment:⁸

“John D. Rockefeller, and let’s be clear, maybe with some good intentions, the medicine was the Wild West, it wasn’t … I don’t want to get into his psyche, but I want to just say what happened. As he was a top funder of modern medical education, so Johns Hopkins was one of them, and he also was the father of the modern pharmaceutical industry from a lot of his byproducts from oil.”

The Flexner Report, commissioned by Rockefeller, fundamentally reshaped medical education in America and laid the foundations of the modern medical system, dubbed “Rockefeller medicine.” Rockefeller financed the campaign to consolidate mainstream medicine, adopt the philosophies of the growing pharmaceutical industry and shutter its competition.

Rockefeller’s crusade caused the closure of more than half of U.S. medical schools, fostered public and press scorn for homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, nutritional, holistic, functional, integrative and natural medicines, and led to the incarceration of many practicing physicians. It emphasized a reductionist approach that siloed different conditions and focused on pharmaceutical interventions. As Means explained:⁹

“That report said anything about nutrition, anything about holistic, is not serious science. Serious science is siloing a condition, naming it once somebody already got sick, and then drugging it or committing surgery. And then that has really infiltrated medical education.”

Biology didn’t change just because Rockefeller was pressured under monopoly threats from the U.S. government to advert from oil and shift into pharmaceuticals. Biology still remains the same and requires treating the causes of disease, which we in no way, shape or form do with our current medical paradigm.

Further, this paradigm shift left most physicians woefully unprepared to deal with the chronic disease epidemic plaguing the U.S. today. Our medical system excels at acute interventions but struggles to address the root causes of ongoing health issues. A key factor in perpetuating this crisis is the corruption of our health institutions, which leads to dangerously misguided health advice.

“The problem is that the majority of NIH [National Institutes of Health] grants go to conflicted researchers, that the FDA drug approval department is 75% funded by pharma, that the USDA Guideline Committee on Nutrition — 95% of the advisors are funded by food or pharma,” Means says, adding:¹⁰

“The American Diabetes Association, which accepts money from Coca-Cola, is dictating standards of care, saying that Type 2 diabetes is nonreversible and basically just a drug deficiency. It is not. It is reversible and we just need a correct accounting of why people are getting diabetes and how to potentially reverse it.”

Strategies to Transform American Health

Despite the dire situation, Means remains optimistic about our ability to turn things around. He outlined a strategy for transforming American health, including fixing corrupted medical guidelines. Ideally, the first step is to remove conflicts of interest from the bodies that set medical guidelines and research priorities. As Means put it:¹¹

“Within a week we can do this — make it that there cannot be conflicts on these key medical advisory committees. What happens then? We actually get a report on what glyphosate is doing to us, we actually get reports on standards of care and tell the American Diabetes Association to stop dictating completely corrupt guidelines.”

While Means encourages this top-down approach to reforming the system, it’s a challenge because these regulatory agencies have been taken over by the very industries they’re supposed to be regulating. This occurred decades ago, and it’s getting worse as time goes on. Lobbying efforts and new rules, legislation, is controlled.

It’s almost impossible in the current state to defeat this system, so the approach I’ve taken is to go from the bottom up — go to the people directly with solutions. Fortunately, technology is emerging that allows us to have the manpower, or at least the AI power, to help people understand what they need to do to achieve optimal health.

Part of Means’ plan also involves restructuring the financial incentives in health care. Currently, the system profits from keeping people sick and managing chronic conditions rather than preventing or reversing them.

The Power of Grassroots Action

He also emphasizes the need to educate and empower patients directly, which aligns closely with my own approach of providing people with actionable health information, and cleaning up our food supply. Means believes that with the right political will, significant changes could be made quickly:¹²

“The president tomorrow can sign an executive order saying that the USDA Nutrition Guideline Committee can’t take money from food companies. The president tomorrow can sign an executive order saying that NIH cannot go to researchers with conflicts of interest. Tomorrow the FDA can be disentangled from the pharmaceutical industry.”

While I’m skeptical about the ease of implementing such changes given the entrenched interests opposing them, the power of grassroots action remains. Means is working to build grassroots momentum through his nonprofit, EndChronicDisease.org:¹³

“We have thousands of people coming and taking action. You can sign up and email your congressperson and call them. These basics, that’s what pharma does.

When there’s a bill threatening pharma, they do this grassroots advocacy where they have a bunch of old people call members of Congress and say, ‘Don’t take my drugs away.’ That matters … As I meet with members of Congress I hear a lot, ‘Our phones aren’t ringing on this issue.’ So, we’re getting the phones ringing on this issue.”

Means is also taking concrete steps to improve the situation through his company TrueMed. They’re working within the current system to expand access to preventative health measures. This innovative approach allows people to use tax-advantaged health savings accounts to invest in their wellbeing proactively, rather than just paying for drugs and procedures after they get sick.

The Spiritual Dimension of Health

By making chronic disease a politically resonant issue, we can drive real change and create the political pressure needed to enact real reforms. However, a point that’s central to my philosophy is the connection between physical health and spiritual growth. When you’re truly healthy, you’re better able to connect with your intuition and fulfill your higher purpose. It’s difficult to do that when you’re not healthy.

Ultimately, it will take a multi-pronged approach to truly transform our health system — empowering individuals with information, developing new technologies and business models to support wellness, and pushing for policy changes at the highest levels.

If you’re inspired to get involved, I encourage you to check out Means’ work at TrueMed.com and EndChronicDisease.org. By adding your voice to this growing movement, we can build the momentum needed to create real, lasting change in U.S. health care.

Remember, your health is your most valuable asset. By taking control of your own well-being and advocating for systemic reforms, you’re not just improving your own life — you’re contributing to a healthier, more vibrant future for all.

• ^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13} Brighteon, Mercola, How Big Tobacco Captured and Transformed the Food Industry for Worse — Interview with Calley Means

(Mercola)—In an era where smartphones have become an extension of ourselves, British journalist Decca Aitkenhead conducted a bold experiment that might make you rethink your relationship with technology. Inspired by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s research on teen mental health, Aitkenhead challenged 10 teenagers — her two sons along with their friends — to give up their cellphones for one month.¹

The results, published in the U.K.’s Sunday Times Magazine, offer a compelling glimpse into how digital detox — intentionally abstaining from electronic devices — can transform young lives, echoing other recent research on the topic.

Digital Detox Leads to ‘Unexpected Resilience and Joy’

Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, wrote, “The Anxious Generation,” a book describing the mental health crisis that’s risen along with children’s use of cellphones and social media. Haidt says this shift in technology usage, which occurred in the early 2010s, led to a “great rewiring of childhood,” including alterations in self-concept and social skills.²

Play-based childhoods have largely disappeared — the product of “social trust collapses among adults” and parents becoming “more fearful, overprotective, and less willing to let their kids spend time with other kids unsupervised in the real world.” Instead, phone-based childhoods are now the norm, and rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide among youth have increased.³

Haidt argues that excessive cellphone use among children and teens may impair development of executive function and social skills, leading to attention fragmentation, delayed maturity and impaired creativity, which could persist lifelong.⁴

In addition to ditching cellphones for a month, the teens took part in a two-day camping trip, unsupervised. While some were initially resistant, at the end of the experiment the teens reported having more energy and focus. They read more and reported feeling calmer and more efficient. The Defender reported:⁵

“The unsupervised camping trip proved particularly transformative. Despite initial doubts about the teens’ competence, they demonstrated remarkable growth, ‘In under 36 unsupervised hours, they appear to have grown up by about two years,’ Aitkenhead said. Although several kids later reported finding it challenging not to slip back into old patterns, at the end of the trip, all of them said they hadn’t missed their cellphones.”

Benefits of a Social Media Detox: Better Sleep and Less Stress

A study published in Behavioral Sciences explored the effects of limiting social media use among people aged 18 to 30.⁶ The results reveal that a “social media detox” could have significant benefits for your health and wellbeing.

Researchers recruited 43 young adults and tracked their cellphone and social media usage for two weeks to establish a baseline. Then, participants were asked to limit their social media use to 30 minutes daily for two weeks, followed by two weeks of normal use. Throughout the study, participants completed surveys about addiction, physical health, mental health and relationships. Some also participated in interviews about their experiences.

On average, participants reduced their social media usage by 77.7% during the detox period. This dramatic reduction led to some intriguing changes. Cellphone and social media addiction scores decreased significantly during the detox and remained lower even two weeks after returning to normal use. This suggests that taking a break from social media helps reset your relationship with your devices in a lasting way.

One of the most noticeable benefits reported was improved sleep. Participants experienced both longer sleep duration and better sleep quality during the detox period. Many shared that they fell asleep earlier because they weren’t scrolling late into the night. These sleep improvements were maintained to some degree even after returning to normal social media use.⁷

The detox also reduced stress levels among participants. They reported feeling less pressure to constantly check notifications or maintain an online presence. Several noted increased productivity and confidence as well. While the effects were relatively small, they were statistically significant and supported by participants’ interview responses.⁸

Measures of life satisfaction and overall wellness also showed improvement. These gains were maintained or even increased further during the two-week follow-up period. The study reveals that stepping back from social media, even temporarily, helps you gain perspective and feel more content with your life offline.

A Manageable Approach to Digital Wellness

If completely quitting social media sounds too extreme, this study suggests a more moderate approach is still beneficial. Most participants found limiting themselves to 30 minutes per day challenging but doable. After an initial adjustment period, many were surprised by how much they enjoyed the detox.

Some participants recommended personalizing limits based on your current usage or focusing on restricting the most “destructive” apps first. Others found it helpful to turn off notifications or delete social media apps from their phones during the detox period. The key is to start by finding an approach that feels sustainable for your lifestyle.

While some participants experienced feelings of disconnection initially, many ultimately reported spending more quality time with friends and family in person.⁹ The detox encouraged them to seek out other forms of connection and entertainment. Even after returning to normal use, many participants said they became more aware of their social media habits and took steps to better regulate their usage going forward.

Reclaiming Your Time and Attention: Study Findings

A comprehensive review published in Cureus analyzed 21 trials with 3,625 participants, shedding light on the additional benefits of abstaining from electronic devices.¹⁰ One of the most immediate benefits of a digital detox, as observed in multiple studies, is the reclamation of your time and attention.

One study examined the consequences of a 14-day period where young individuals limited their social media use to 30 minutes daily. Participants reported having more free time for activities that truly enrich their lives, such as reading, exercising or spending quality time with loved ones.¹¹

Many experienced a sense of relief and freedom from the constant demands of their devices. The study also found improvements in sleep quality, overall life satisfaction and stress levels. By stepping away from the digital world, you give yourself the opportunity to be more present in the physical world, leading to deeper connections and more meaningful experiences.

Digital Detox Improves Mental Health and Well-Being

The comprehensive review and other studies have shown significant positive impacts of digital detox on mental health as well. Excessive use of cellphones and social media has been linked to feelings of anxiety, depression and low self-esteem.¹² By taking a break from these digital platforms, many experience a reduction in these negative emotions.

One study also reported improvements in perceived healthiness and supportive connections among participants. Additionally, limiting your exposure to social media can help alleviate feelings of inadequacy or FOMO (fear of missing out).¹³ A qualitative study, involving interviews with seven individuals who experienced digital detoxes, revealed that participants gained a new perspective on their relationship with technology following the experience.¹⁴

They became more aware of their digital consumption patterns and better equipped to set boundaries around device usage. This newfound awareness led to more intentional and balanced use of technology in the long term.

Meanwhile, research focusing on cellphone addiction among young adults in India emphasizes the importance of digital detox in reducing excessive cellphone use and its adverse effects.¹⁵ It’s important to find a healthy balance that allows you to enjoy the benefits of technology without sacrificing your well-being or real-world connections.

Less Cellphone Use Helps Lower Your EMF Exposure

Another key benefit of taking a break from the digital world is reduced exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Exposure to radiofrequency EMFs from cellphones and other sources poses a substantial health risk. For instance, a controlled study found cellphone radiation causes acute cell death and disrupted cell division in cheek cells, with a 57% increase in cell death indicators after high exposure.¹⁶

A systematic review and meta-analysis also revealed that using a cellphone for over 1,000 cumulative hours in your lifetime — equivalent to just 17 minutes per day over 10 years — increased tumor risk by a striking 60%.¹⁷

Several studies have also found that EMFs have a deleterious effect on the reproductive systems of both men and women. Research published in Fertility and Sterility found that men who used their cellphones more than 20 times a day had significantly lower sperm counts than those who only used them once a week or less.¹⁸

A Path Forward: Embark on Your Own Digital Detox

Haidt suggests adopting the following tips as “norms” to help break smartphone addiction in children and teens:¹⁹

1. No smartphones before high school (around age 14)
2. No social media accounts until age 16
3. Phone-free schools with restricted or zero use during the school day
4. Give kids far more independence, free play and responsibility in the real world

“If we do those four things, we can actually fix this problem in the next year or two,” Haidt said. “We’re not going to burn the technology, [but] we need to delay it.”²⁰ However, even as an adult, taking digital detoxes and using your devices in moderation — with steps in place to reduce your EMF exposure — is important.

For teenagers looking to embark on a digital detox, it’s important to approach the process gradually and set realistic goals, like implementing a step-by-step reduction in screen time. Start by identifying your current usage patterns and the specific apps or activities that consume most of your time.

Then, set clear boundaries for when and how long you’ll use your devices each day. It’s also helpful to create “no-phone zones” in your home, such as the dinner table and your bedroom, to cultivate spaces that are completely free from digital distractions. To make your digital detox more effective and enjoyable, try replacing screen time with alternative activities. Here are some ideas to get you started:

• Engage in physical activities — Join a sports team, go for bike rides or daily walks, or try yoga
• Explore creative hobbies — Learn to play an instrument, try painting or start writing
• Spend time in nature — Go for hikes, have a picnic in the park or start a vegetable garden
• Connect with friends in person — Organize game nights, study groups or just hang out
• Learn a new skill — Take up cooking, photography or a foreign language
• Practice mindfulness — Try meditation or journaling to reflect on your experiences
• Read books — Visit your local library and discover new genres or authors
• Volunteer in your community — Find causes you care about and contribute your time

By gradually reducing your screen time and filling those hours with engaging, offline activities, you can develop a more mindful relationship with digital devices while improving your overall physical and mental well-being.

• ^{1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 20} Children’s Health Defense, The Defender August 13, 2024
• ³ The Anxious Generation March 2, 2024
• ^{6, 7, 8, 9} Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Dec; 13(12): 1004
• ^{10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15} Cureus. 2024 Apr; 16(4): e58719
• ¹⁶ Environmental Research June 15, 2024, Volume 251, Part 1, 118634, Results
• ¹⁷ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17(21), 8079; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218079
• ¹⁸ Fertility and Sterility December 2023 Epub ahead of print