What RFK jr. actually said was it was “a possibility”. He told USA Today that his spasmodic dysphonia “could be” due to taking flu shots. That’s cautious. That’s responsible. He stated in an interview that he took annual flu shots until the mid-1990s, then stopped in 2005 “when I began looking at the side effects.”

“I was preparing litigation against some of the flu shots several years ago and one of the entries that was listed on a lot of them was spasmodic dysphonia, which is an injury I have to my voice. That’s why my voice is so screwed up.” “

Do I know it was caused by the annual flu shot? I have no idea.”

When pressed by the interviewer, who asked if he suspected it was caused by the vaccine, he said it’s “a possibility.”

“It’s a potential culprit that I cannot rule out, but I can’t prove it,” he said. “I’d like to know. We should have that data but we don’t.”

MedPage Today flunkeys round on him again with a supposed analysis of the package inserts for the most popular flu vaccines showed that “none of them listed spasmodic dysphonia — or laryngeal dystonia, an alternative name for the condition — as a side effect.” 

Of course what they omit is that the warning WAS on the package inserts. It’s been removed.

Only one flu shot, FluLaval, listed “dysphonia” as a potential respiratory symptom, but this shot was approved in 2006, after Kennedy said he stopped taking flu shots. Of course this is tricky wording to make RFK look stupid or mistaken. But to me they shoot themselves in the foot. If this type of vaccine is shown to definitely cause spasmodic dysphonia, then it makes it very likely that the one RFK was subjected to would also cause the condition.

They’ve just covered it up, as they do.

That great conman Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who co-invented a rotavirus vaccine, takes a different line. He said package inserts typically mention any side effect that came up in a clinical trial, even if it was later shown not to be tied to the vaccine.

“Package inserts … are written by lawyers at companies in collaboration with lawyers at the FDA, and they fall under the general rubric of ‘failure to warn,'” Offit said. “They want to make sure that anything that was reported in the vaccinated group gets reported as a possible cause, even if it occurs at the same level in the placebo group.”

I doubt most honest or scientifically-minded doctors would declare the package inserts as bogus or misleading!

And guess what? When Offit’s own rotavirus vaccine RotaTeq® was in trial there were nine seizures in the vaccine group and two in the placebo group, “which was statistically significant.” Very significant. That should have stopped the product right there… but it didn’t of course. Too much money invested in development.

But once that vaccine was rolled out and given to millions of people,” claims Offit, “…You saw the incidence was the same in both groups.” Wonderful isn’t it, how cleverly drug manufacturers cause problem to simply disappear.

There are in fact many side-effects of RotaTeq®, most of them mild, like tummy upsets. But there are some very serious life-threatening problems, notably intussusception. This is a bowel obstruction where one part of the intestine literally “telescopes” (slides inside) into another. It’s not common but there is an increased risk after rotavirus vaccines, concentrated mostly in the first week (or up to ~21 days) after the first dose.

Also serious are sudden episodic severe abdominal pain/crying, vomiting, blood in stool (“currant jelly” stool), marked lethargy. If those show up after vaccination, clinicians generally want the baby assessed urgently. It rapidly becomes fatal.

More controversially Kawasaki disease was reported after RotaTeq® in post-marketing experience (so it appears in manufacturer safety language and labeling summaries).

Kawasaki disease (KD) is a rare, acute illness causing vasculitis (inflammation of blood vessels), primarily affecting children under 5. It is the leading cause of acquired heart disease in children in developed countries, characterized by persistent high fever (?5 days), rash, red eyes, swollen hands/feet, and strawberry tongue.

When researchers have looked systematically, reviews generally find low incidence and no convincing association, while also noting the need for large datasets. As I said, Big Pharma has this convenient way of making problems disappear and become “unproven” (by their own standards of course).

And there is another not-to-be-discussed problem, which is that live vaccines (RotaTeq® is live) will inevitably shed pathogens on the population and cause a lot of collateral sickness. Of course they consider that part of the price to pay, an entitlement of theirs, to make the population “safe”. The trouble is, children who are immune-compromized, through no fault of their  own, are thrown under the bus.

I’m not saying all this so much as to attack Offit (a man I revile) but to show the hypocrisy and double-science they use to try and discredit anyone who stands in the way of their obscene profits. Every statement of Kennedy’s is opposed, taken apart and supposedly discredited, because they want him out of the way. Otherwise he’s going to derail the gravy train and we’ll end up with healthy people again!

Do I need to remind you how bad things are? The USA in 2024 spent $5.3 trillion on health care, which works out to $15,474 per person, and is 18.0% of GDP.  Yet we are currently tabled at about 46th (males), 47th (females) in terms of overall health (the global health index). Indeed, various healthy life expectancy (HALE) analyses show the U.S. has declined sharply in global standing, with some research suggesting it has fallen into the 60s or lower for healthy life years compared with world peers.

In fact when it comes to “years lived with disability”, THERE ARE ONLY SIX COUNTRIES BEHIND US IN THE WORLD TABLE (204 countries).

Put another way, every dollar spent on the US Big Pharma healthcare system means more death and damage to the population. We are BUYING death and disability!

Go Bobby, go!

To your good health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, December 20). Rotavirus Vaccine Safety. CDC. 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022). Package Insert — RotaTeq (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral, Pentavalent). FDA. 

Vesikari, T., Matson, D. O., Dennehy, P., Van Damme, P., Santosham, M., Rodriguez, Z., … Heaton, P. M. (2006). Safety and efficacy of a pentavalent human–bovine (WC3) reassortant rotavirus vaccine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 354(1), 23–33. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Postmarketing monitoring of intussusception after RotaTeq vaccination—United States, February 1, 2006–February 15, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

World Health Organization, Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety. (n.d.). Rotavirus vaccines and intussusception. WHO. 

Patel, N. C., Hertel, P. M., Estes, M. K., De la Morena, M., Petru, A. M., Noroski, L. M., … Chinen, J. (2010). Vaccine-acquired rotavirus in infants with severe combined immunodeficiency. The New England Journal of Medicine, 362(4), 314–319. 

Mellone, N. G., & Carvalho, A. P. (2019). Kawasaki disease and the use of the rotavirus vaccine in children: A systematic review. Revista Paulista de Pediatria. 

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/videos/us-falling-global-health-rankings

Measuring Biological Aging

There is no single dial on the body that reads “You are 47.3 years old, biologically speaking.” Instead, we triangulate. We infer. We listen to multiple systems at once and look for points of convergence.

That said, we can now go far beyond the guesswork of old.

The first thing to understand is that biological age is not one thing. It is a composite signal emerging from many interacting systems. Any attempt to measure it with a single marker is guaranteed to be incomplete. Accuracy comes not from perfection, but from overlap—when different measures, drawn from different layers of biology, begin to tell the same story.

Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man re-imagined!

One of the most powerful approaches currently in use is epigenetic aging. This is based on DNA methylation patterns—chemical tags that sit on DNA and regulate which genes are turned on or off. These patterns change predictably with biological aging, but crucially, they change faster or slower depending on lifestyle, stress, illness, trauma, and environment.

Epigenetic clocks—such as those developed by Steve Horvath and others—compare an individual’s methylation profile to large population datasets to estimate biological age. When someone’s epigenetic age is higher than their calendar age, it correlates strongly with increased disease risk, frailty, and mortality. When it is lower, it correlates with resilience and longevity.

What makes epigenetic clocks compelling is not that they measure time, but that they measure cellular memory. They capture the imprint of lived experience on gene regulation. This is why they respond to interventions—diet, exercise, stress reduction, sleep, even psychosocial changes. The clock can slow. Sometimes it ticks backward.

Another major axis of measurement involves inflammatory burden. Chronic, low-grade inflammation—often called inflammaging—is one of the strongest drivers of biological aging. Markers such as C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, fibrinogen, and white blood cell ratios reveal whether the immune system is in a state of calm vigilance or chronic activation.

An immune system stuck in alert mode ages tissues faster. It degrades collagen, damages blood vessels, disrupts insulin signaling, and interferes with repair. Elevated inflammatory markers often predict biological age more accurately than calendar age ever could. 

The importance of the immune system is such that over 35 years ago, I wrote: “We live just as long as our immune systems will allow us”.

That came from the observation of AIDS victims, whose immune systems collapsed. They aged frighteningly fast, often dying within months but suddenly looking decades older.

Then there is metabolic age, which quietly governs how efficiently the body turns fuel into life. Measures like fasting insulin, insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR), triglyceride-to-HDL ratios, HbA1c, lactate thresholds, and resting metabolic flexibility give insight into how “old” the metabolic machinery is behaving.

Cardiovascular measures also serve as remarkably accurate proxies for biological age. Arterial stiffness, pulse wave velocity, blood pressure variability, endothelial function, and heart rate variability reflect the condition of both blood vessels and the autonomic nervous system. A heart that recovers quickly, varies its rhythm fluidly, and responds gracefully to demand is biologically younger than one that plods, stiffens, and overreacts.

Heart rate variability, in particular, is fascinating because it bridges physiology and perception. It reflects vagal tone, emotional regulation, and nervous system flexibility. High variability correlates with youthfulness, resilience, and longevity. Low variability correlates with accelerated aging, chronic stress, and disease risk. The heart, it turns out, is an excellent historian.

There is also functional age, which medicine is slowly rediscovering after decades of obsession with lab values alone. Grip strength, gait speed, balance, reaction time, VO? max, recovery from exertion—these are not cosmetic metrics. They integrate muscle strength, nerve tone, cardiovascular vitality, and metabolic health into real-world performance.

How fast do you get tired? How fast do you recover? How confidently does your body move through space? These questions often predict mortality better than sophisticated imaging.

At the cellular level, markers of repair capacity matter enormously. Telomere length was once hyped as the aging marker, and while it is no longer considered enough on its own, it still tells an important part of the story. Telomeres shorten as cells divide, but their rate of shortening varies dramatically based on stress, inflammation, oxidative load, and lifestyle. Short telomeres are not destiny, but they do signal accumulated strain.

Equally important—but less commonly measured—are markers of mitochondrial health. ATP production efficiency, oxidative stress levels, mitochondrial DNA integrity, and metabolic byproducts reveal how energetically “young” cells are. Aging, at its core, is often an energy problem before it is a structural one.

Cognitive and neurological measures also belong in any serious assessment of biological age. Processing speed, working memory, sensory acuity, sleep architecture, and circadian rhythm robustness all decline with biological aging—but not inevitably with time. Brains, like bodies, age fastest under chronic threat and slowest under curiosity, safety, and engagement.

Here is the key point that often gets missed: no single test gives you biological age. Accuracy emerges from accumulated pattern recognition across systems. When epigenetics, inflammation, metabolism, cardiovascular function, and performance all point in the same direction, you are no longer guessing. You are listening to the body in stereo.

And there is an even deeper layer—one medicine is only beginning to acknowledge. Biological age is inseparable from nervous system state. A body that feels perpetually unsafe (high active stress) ages faster, regardless of diet or supplements. A body allowed to regularly enter deep parasympathetic repair modes slows aging across every measurable domain.

This is why two people with identical lab panels can age differently over time. One heals. One doesn’t. The difference is not compliance—it is coherence.

So how do we accurately measure biological age?

We triangulate it like a constellation. We track trends over time rather than relying on single numbers. We investigate whether the organism is becoming more resilient or more brittle, more adaptable or more reactive, more coherent or more fragmented.

Back to our first metaphor, let’s say calendar age tells you how many laps around the sun you’ve completed. Biological age tells you how intact the vehicle is—and whether it’s learning how to repair itself while still moving!

Identifying reliable biomarkers of aging is a current major goal in geroscience. Things have moved very fast in the last 2 decades!

Testing Biological Age

The most widely validated and scientifically accepted biological age tests are epigenetic clocks. These look at chemical tags on your DNA — especially DNA methylation — that change in very predictable ways as your body ages.

Unlike genetic sequences (which are fixed in your DNA), methylation patterns shift depending on life history: lifestyle, stress, diet, pollution, inflammation, and even social experiences leave detectable scars on your epigenome. By reading these patterns across hundreds to thousands of sites in the genome, algorithms can estimate your “biological age” relative to a population average.

The famous Horvath clock, developed by Dr. Steve Horvath, analyzes over 350 CpG sites (regions of DNA where methyl groups attach) and has a median error of only a few years compared to chronological age — remarkably precise for a biological process.  

Commercial tests like TruDiagnostic’s TruAge and myDNAge are based on this kind of analysis — you send a blood or saliva sample, and they return an estimate of your biological age along with personalized insights. 

Researchers have also developed variations like PhenoAge, GrimAge, and the DunedinPACE clock — each tuned to different aspects of aging (disease risk, mortality prediction, aging pace, etc.). 

Telomere Length Tests. Telomeres are protective caps at the ends of chromosomes that shorten with each cell division. Early aging research popularized telomere length as a proxy for biological age. Today, we know telomere tests are noisy and less predictive than epigenetic clocks — telomeres can vary widely between individuals and even fluctuate with temporary stressors — but they still supply useful context when interpreted alongside other biomarkers. 

Companies such as Life Length specialize in telomere diagnostic services, often combining telomere length with telomerase activity (the enzyme that rebuilds telomeres) for a richer picture. 

Blood-Based Biomarker Age and Machine Learning Models. Some commercial and research programs don’t rely solely on DNA at all. Instead, they analyze panels of blood biomarkers and use machine learning (AI) to derive an age estimate based on how your physiology compares to large datasets.

These can include patterns across:

• Inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein

• Metabolic markers like glucose and triglycerides

• Hormones, cytokines, and more

Such tests — sometimes called proteomic or deep aging clocks — can use hundreds of circulating proteins and cell counts to estimate biological age and even predict disease risk before symptoms appear. 

Composite Age Scores with Frailty and Functional Metrics

Some approaches combine clinical measurements (like blood pressure, glucose regulation, body composition) with functional performance (strength, gait speed, cognitive tests) into composite indices that estimate biological age.

This is less molecular but very practical for assessing overall physiological reserve and real-world function. 

Emerging and Multimodal Tests

Cutting-edge methods blend multiple data layers — epigenetics + proteomics + metabolomics + phenotypic signs — often refined by with AI models to give an age estimation beyond what any single marker can offer. 

None of these tests claim to measure a literal “number of years lived,” because that wouldn’t be biological. Instead, they measure patterns that correlate with:

• Cellular maintenance capacity

• Immune function

• Metabolic resilience

• Inflammatory burden

• Epigenetic change rates

• Disease susceptibility trajectories

In short, they measure how your body is functioning relative to its chronological peers, which is far more meaningful for health outcomes than the number of candles on your birthday cake.

Accuracy and Real World Use

Epigenetic clocks currently represent the most scientifically robust measure of biological age available — but it’s not perfect. Different clocks can give slightly different ages, and results are influenced by which tissues are sampled (blood vs saliva, etc.), the model used, and technical variability in lab processes (no two lab give identical results). 

Many experts caution that these tests are predictive tools, not definitive statements of destiny. But compared to traditional age markers like telomeres, they are far more predictive of disease risk and mortality patterns. 

Poetically speaking, what all these tests do is read the echo of your life in your biology. They read the impact left by nutrition, trauma, adaptation, stress management, repair capacity, and systemic resilience. They capture your physiological biography rather than your chronological biography.

All of them, in their own way, try to answer one question: Is your biology older, younger, or on track — and what does that mean for your future health?

To Your Good Health,Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

Calendar age is the number stamped on your passport and defined by how many times the earth has gone round the sun since you were born. It’s what we normally mean when we refer to a person’s age.

But in terms of health, and especially longevity, we need to look at things slightly differently. Here we are concerned with how vibrant your organs and tissues are and how long they will last, starting from NOW! We call this “biological age.”

Say a person is sixty years old (calendar age) but has lived a healthy life, done all the right things and not “burned the candle at both ends”. Such a person’s body might be in roughly the same biological shape as the average fifty year-old. That would mean he or she has a biological “age” of fifty and is 10 years in credit for a long and healthy life. This individual might expect to live well past 80, maybe even 90 – 95 or more.

But another kind of sixty year-old individual who smokes, eats badly and doesn’t take nearly enough exercize might be in similar condition to someone healthy but 20 years older. Chances are her or she will die younger than the first individual, maybe a lot younger. Maybe very soon, in fact!

See it’s easy, really. 

Your calendar age is exact: you have a certificate, given when you were born, that tells us exactly how “old” you are. But how old you body “feels” and what sort of dynamic shape it’s in—actually more important—is not nearly so easy to establish.

It depends on what is happening within: are your organs doing the job as well a they should? Is some of you deteriorating, while other parts are not? See, that is important because if you are healthy in every way EXCEPT your heart is stressed, swollen and beating irregularly at times, then you might die quite soon, while MOST of the rest of you is in good shape.

Maybe everything is OK in the heart and blood vessels department but you start to lose your mental skills and grow a bit dotty over the years. That happens, but clearly the person is defined by the onset of dementia, not by heart health! He or she will be “old” before their time.

[It’s a tricky example because dementia is unlikely without considerable deterioration of the circulatory system, even if it’s undetected for a time. The blood brings nutrients and carries away toxins, so any under-performance of the circulatory system (properly called the cardio-vascular system) will have widespread aging consequences, but you get the idea].

Biological aging is intimate, cellular, and deeply personal. It unfolds not by birthdays but by biochemical conversations happening in your tissues, your mitochondria, your epigenome, your immune system, and—if we’re being honest—your nervous system’s relationship with meaning, stress, safety, and love.

To confuse the two is one of modern culture’s great conceptual errors.

Calendar age measures time elapsed since birth. That’s it. It does not care whether you slept, loved, healed, raged, starved, meditated, or laughed yourself senseless. It ticks forward with the same indifference whether you are flourishing or unraveling. Two people born on the same day share a calendar age but may inhabit bodies that differ by decades in functional capacity, resilience, inflammation, cognitive clarity, and regenerative potential.

Biological age, by contrast, asks a far more interesting question: How old is your body behaving?

It is an emergent property, not a single number. It arises from the cumulative state of cellular repair, metabolic flexibility, immune competence, hormonal signaling, mitochondrial efficiency, epigenetic regulation, and nervous system tone. It is shaped not just by genetics, but by environment, nutrition, trauma, beliefs, relationships, purpose, sleep, movement, toxins, and the stories the body has been forced to tell itself in order to survive.

Calendar age is destiny only if you believe in clocks more than cells.

At the biological level, aging is damage accumulating faster than repair. When repair keeps pace, aging slows, stalls, or even partially reverses. Yes, that is possible.

When damage overwhelms repair, biological aging accelerates—sometimes dramatically. This is why a person can “age” ten biological years in five calendar years under chronic stress, illness, or grief, and why another can appear to grow younger across a decade of conscious living.

See, cells do not own calendars. They respond to signals.

One of the most profound discoveries in modern biology is that aging is plastic. Not infinitely so, perhaps—but far more malleable than once believed. Telomeres shorten, yes, but their rate of shortening varies wildly. DNA accumulates mutations, but repair pathways can be upregulated or suppressed. Proteins misfold (which is bad), but chaperone systems can be strengthened. Mitochondria decline, but they also biogenically rebound under the right conditions. Epigenetic markers drift, but they can be re-patterned.

Biological age is not fixed at birth. It is negotiated daily.

Calendar age moves in a straight line. Biological age zigzags, stalls, accelerates, decelerates, and occasionally moonwalks backward when conditions allow. At 50 calendar years, one person may have the inflammatory profile, muscle mass, insulin sensitivity, and cognitive speed of a 35-year-old, while another carries the metabolic and immune burden of 70.

This divergence is not cosmetic. It predicts disease risk, recovery capacity, and mortality far more accurately than birthdate ever could.

What we call “aging” in everyday language is usually not aging at all—it is accumulated dysregulation. Systems falling out of coherence. Communication breakdowns between cells. Chronic low-grade inflammation smoldering like an unattended fire. Hormonal rhythms flattening. Repair cycles shortening. Autophagy (removal of dead cells and debris) slowing. Sleep architecture fragmenting. The nervous system remaining stuck in vigilance long after the danger has passed.

None of this is required by time itself.

Calendar age has no memory. Biological age remembers everything.

It remembers famine and abundance. It remembers safety and terror. It remembers loneliness, overwork, grief, unresolved shock. It remembers whether the organism felt supported or hunted by life. It remembers whether the body was treated as an ally or a machine to be driven until parts failed.

This is why two seventy-year-olds can walk into a room and feel like different species.

One carries stiffness, brittleness, and caution in every movement. The other carries fluidity, curiosity, and strength. One’s immune system is reactive and exhausted; the other’s is responsive and calm. One’s cells whisper inflammation; the other’s murmur repair. Calendar age cannot explain this. Biology can.

Modern medicine historically conflated age with inevitability. Decline was treated as natural rather than conditional. Wrinkles, sarcopenia, cognitive slowing, insulin resistance, osteopenia, immune senescence—these were framed as the unavoidable tax of time. “You’re growing old, what do you expect?”

But what we are now discovering is that many of these phenomena correlate far more strongly with biological age than with calendar age. Rather than the phenomenon of clocks ticking down, the real emphasis is systems wearing out under load.

There is also a crucial distinction between appearance and biology. Some people look young but are biologically old—propped up cosmetically while inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, and immune exhaustion quietly advance. Others look weathered but function with remarkable resilience. The grizzly old goat type of countenance. Skin is a visible organ, but it is not the whole story. Biological age lives in blood markers, tissue elasticity, mitochondrial output, cognitive flexibility, and recovery speed.

The Search For Markers Of Aging

The emerging science of aging biomarkers—epigenetic clocks, glycation levels, inflammatory indices, immune cell ratios—exists precisely because calendar age is such a blunt instrument. These tools attempt to quantify biological age, not because time matters less, but because time alone explains so little.

And here is where things get quietly radical.

If biological age is responsive to signals, then perception matters. Meaning matters. Belief matters. A nervous system that perceives life as hostile and difficult ages faster than one that perceives life as joyous and workable. A body trapped in perpetual defense spends its resources on survival, not regeneration. Over time, that trade-off becomes visible as “aging.”

The immune system, endocrine system, and nervous system are in constant conversation. Fear ages. Safety heals. Purpose stabilizes. Joy lubricates repair. Loneliness corrodes at a cellular level. Chronic resentment is not just an emotion; it is a hormonal climate.

Put another way, calendar age does not care whether your life makes sense or not. Biological age very much does care!

Perhaps the most important implication of this distinction is ethical. When society treats calendar age as the primary metric of vitality, it enforces decline narratives prematurely. People are told they are “too old” to heal, adapt, learn, love, desire, or change. Biology does not agree. Cells are opportunistic. Give them the right signals and they respond—often astonishingly late into life.

We are not aging because we are getting older. We are aging because our systems are losing coherence.

Today that coherence can be restored to degrees once thought impossible.

This is not talking about immortality. It means flexibility. It means that aging is not a straight slide into the pit (entropy), but a dynamic negotiation between damage and repair, stress and recovery, meaning and exhaustion.

In the end, the difference between the two is the difference between counting years and telling a story. Calendar age is like a tax, a tally. Biological age is a narrative story written in cells—edited daily, revised constantly, responsive to how you live, what you eat, how you breathe, how you move, how you love, and whether your nervous system believes it is allowed to rest.

To Your Good Health,Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

So, what is the truth? You rely on me, I know, to pick my way through the B*S* and report back honestly.

First off, it is wonderful stuff; it does wonderful things. It’s relatively safe, relatively inexpensive and easy to use; BUT THERE IS AN IMPORTANT DOWNSIDE. Nobody seems to bother much with that.

DMSO is made from pulped trees

Let’s start with a summary of good things it can do…

A fast-acting pain + inflammation tamer.

DMSO is framed first as a topical analgesic and anti-inflammatory—rub it on and it sinks deep, easing joints, tendons, muscles, bursitis, and assorted ouches. Clinics offering IV DMSO extend the claim to chronic pain syndromes and fibromyalgia, crediting improved microcirculation and immune modulation. 

Gut Healing

In our modern world, with toxic foods and overload, DMSO has welcome soothing properties. A recent wave of holistic commentary proposes DMSO as an “umbrella remedy” for GI inflammation—Crohn’s, ulcerative colitis, IBS, SIBO, leaky gut, even diverticulitis—on the logic that it reduces inflammation, supports microcirculation, and calms “cells in shock.” 

But this is from “health researchers” who just Google for their “facts” and so get their advice badly wrong sometimes.

To me that’s all nonsense: you identify your bandit foods and stop eating them and (of course) stop the ultra-processed and chemicalized junk food. That way you don’t need anti-inflammatories!

A Nerve Protector

Strokes, spinal cord injuries, TBI (traumatic brain injuries), and other causes of neuro-degeneration often lead to severe disabilities because treatment options are limited. DMSO offers hope in these scenarios by protecting nerve cells from damage caused by inflammation and oxidative stress, two factors that worsen brain injuries.

Bladder Friend

Holistic sources often point to intravesical (in-bladder) DMSO for the relief of interstitial cystitis, radiation cystitis, and chronic prostatitis.

A “Rocket Sled” Carrier

One of the great properties of DMSO is that it is amphiphilic. That means it dissolves in both water- and fat-based liquids. That probably accounts for its ability to rapidly penetrate the skin and to drag other molecules (ie. herbs, nutrients and other remedies) with it.

Practitioners and community forums pair it with aloe, magnesium, iodine, B-vitamins, herbs, or targeted meds—arguing you can get local effects without blasting the whole body. Cue the warning chorus: keep application clean and avoid contaminants, because DMSO will ferry them in too!

Surprising Cancer Benefits (BUT…)

Researchers investigated DMSO’s impact on both blood cancer (leukemia) cells and epithelial cancer cells (representing solid tumors), found that DMSO significantly inhibited cell growth in all tested cancer cell lines, including MV4-11 and TF-1a leukemia cells, as well as Hep-G2 liver cancer cells and MCF7 breast cancer cells. 

It also enhanced apoptosis (cell suicide).

This inhibition was both dose and time-dependent, with noticeable effects starting at concentrations as low as 2% DMSO. At 10% DMSO, growth inhibition reached up to 69% in some cell lines after 72 hours of exposure.¹

However, I shall argue further down that using such concentrations as 2% is  asking for trouble and should not be used in such a cavalier fashion. 10% DMSO is really a measure of desperation and there is no need to act in desperation with cancer. If you start early enough, there are many mild, holistic tools to bring to bear.

An Antimicrobial/Antiviral Helper

DMSO can inhibit the growth of several bacteria in vitro, and a number of viruses, notably the Herpes family (cold sores and genital Herpes). It works best and has had the most research when used in conjunction with idoxuridine.

The Downside

There are a few side effects, a couple of them trivial and one problematic.

1) Hygiene and cleanliness are critical. DMSO will ferry anything into the body, via the skin or elsewhere it is used. That means it will carry in pathogens and toxins, as surely as it will transport remedies. For that reason use only pure pharmaceutical-grade DMSO. But beware: There are many companies out there that will try to sell you “Pharma Grade” DMSO that is really commercial or industrial grade.

2) DMSO stinks. The unpleasant garlicky smell (unfair to garlic!) is quite penetrating. It will carry on your breath and from your skin (a bit like tea tree oil – Melaleuca or teetree oil).

But much more important is…

Poor Mitochondria

Educated laymen and women now know just how very important our mitochondria are. They are our energy bunnies and generate life in the way they create molecules of ATP. Without them, we’d die pretty fast. When they don’t work so well, we feel tired and age faster.

DMSO damages our mitochondria. There: it’s said. Only at significant concentrations but it does do harm.

In cultured astrocytes (brain cells), just 1% DMSO exposure for 24 hours impaired membrane potential and triggered ROS production (reactive oxygen species or free radicals, which are exceptionally harmful to mitochondria); at 5%, mitochondrial collapse and cell death occurred.³

So much for the anti-cancer properties.

Other damaging effects include:

• Swelling of mitochondria and loss of cristae (the internal folds essential for energy production).

• Decline of mitochondrial membrane potential, impairing ATP generation.

• Increased ROS production beyond cellular capacity to compensate.

• Release of cytochrome C, triggering programmed cell death (apoptosis).

Moreover, in isolated rat hepatic mitochondria, DMSO induced swelling and structural damage.²

In rat heart tissue freezing studies, DMSO protected structural survival but mitochondrial function still declined, especially after freezing to -20°C.⁴

Thus, while DMSO may preserve tissues or organs under stress, such as cooling, it often does so at the expense of mitochondrial integrity when concentrations are high.

When it takes 2% or more to work against cancer cells but only 1% concentration damages our mitochondria, I would say skip most of the holistic treatments that DMSO is famous for.

To your health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Alternative Doctor

References:

1. Journal of Medical Discovery; Philadelphia Vol. 5, Iss. 4, (2020): 1,211. DOI:10.24262/jmd.5.4.20055
2. Ma L, Dong JX, Fu WR, Li XY, Chen J, Liu Y. Mitochondrial morphology and function impaired by dimethyl sulfoxide and dimethyl Formamide. J Bioenerg Biomembr. 2018 Aug;50(4):297-305. doi: 10.1007/s10863-018-9759-7. Epub 2018 May 17. PMID: 29770896
3. Yuan C, Gao J, Guo J, Bai L, Marshall C, Cai Z, Wang L, Xiao M. Dimethyl sulfoxide damages mitochondrial integrity and membrane potential in cultured astrocytes. PLoS One. 2014 Sep 19;9(9):e107447. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107447. PMID: 25238609; PMCID: PMC4169574
4. Offerijns FG, ter Welle HF. The effect of freezing, of supercooling and of DMSO on the function of mitochondria and on the contractility of the rat heart. Cryobiology. 1974 Apr;11(2):152-9. doi: 10.1016/0011-2240(74)90305-8. PMID: 4281379

Additional Resources:

Mercola, J. “Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO): Benefits, Uses and Side Effects.” Article, November 8, 2024. 

A Midwestern Doctor (hosted on Mercola.com). “How DMSO Heals the Gut and Cures Gastrointestinal Diseases.” Article, September 26, 2025. 

I know you know just how much emphasis I put on toxic foods (Bandit Foods). But health issues and toxins are not confined to that.

What we subject our skin to is just as bad; maybe more so! I’ll run you through the obvious toxins in cosmetics and skin “care” products. But then I’m sure you’ll be even more startled by what toxins we actually WEAR (clothes and fashion). Here Vivien actually stepped in a few years back and told me about the dangers of denim. She had been taken to dinner by her supplier in Turkey, and his friend, an Egyptian fabric dealer.

Egypt, of course, is known for pure cottons. But changing fashions had forced them into dealing in denim and it made the dealer really ill. She learned that the more “distressed” the denim, with chemicals and acids, the more ill he had become handling it, until he eventually had to quit.

I was shocked. Who’d have thought that denim was bad for your health?

I seem to remember I did write briefly about this some years ago but

1. I can’t remember where

2. It’s something that bears repeating many times, like the Highway Code.

WHAT YOU WEAR CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH!

1. Heavy Metals

Lipsticks, foundations, and eye shadows can be contaminated with lead, mercury, cadmium, nickel, and chromium—these metals may accumulate, provoke inflammation, hasten aging, and even contribute to cancer and organ damage.¹

2. Endocrine Disruptors and Reproductive Toxins

Parabens and phthalates mimic hormones, affecting reproductive systems, possibly lowering IQ, and raising risks of cancer. It is especially important that we safeguard our pregnant ladies from this hazard but nobody even seems to know about it.^2.

3. Formaldehyde and Releasers

Found in formaldehyde and its releasers—Quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, and more (look ’em up if you’re interested) can cause allergic contact dermatitis and have carcinogenic potential. A formaldehyde releaser is a substance that slowly releases formaldehyde, whether intentionally made to do so our not. These substances are used to prevent microbial growth and extend shelf life. They are found in shampoos, conditioners, hair straightening products, nail polish and other toiletries.³

4. The “Toxic Trio” in Salon Products

Many chemicals in salon products pose potential health risks. Examples of hazardous chemicals found in common treatments (e.g. hair coloring, straightening, perms, relaxers, keratin treatments, Brazilian Blowouts, and nail treatments) include dibutyl phthalate, formaldehyde, lye (sodium hydroxide), ammonia, and coal tar. Allergies and dermatitis have forced approximately 20% of hairdressers to stop practicing their profession.⁴

Hair stylists hover over an industrial cocktail: formaldehyde, toluene (a solvent), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP). Found in hair straighteners, dyes, nail polish and removers, each of the trio independently hurts reproductive health.⁵

5. Nanoparticles

Don’t get me started on this. They are everywhere, including in health supplements. But there are absolutely NO studies establishing the safety of nano particles in our bodies. None.

Some sunscreens and creams use nanoparticles like titanium dioxide (TiO?) and zinc oxide (ZnO). While ZnO is regarded as generally safe, TiO? dust has been classified as a possible carcinogen in high-exposure contexts. But just to make the point: it’s the nano particle angle that troubles me,  not what the chemical is.⁶

6. Talc, Fragrance, Contaminants

Talc may carry asbestos. All kinds of “fragrances” hide behind commercial secrecy layers. But they often trigger irritation; contaminants like aluminum, lead, sulfates—context matters, but personal sensitivity and longevity of use seem to matter more.⁷

Over 4 Pounds A Year!

And ladies, it bears repeating many times: the average woman absorbs approximately 4.4 pounds (weight) of cosmetic substances per year. That’s equivalent to over 2 teaspoonsful per day! Surprised? Don’t be. The skin isn’t as much of a barrier as you might think! Why do you suppose nicotine and estrogen patches work? The chemical goes straight through the skin, into the body!⁸

Fabrics

Anyway, let’s move into the topic that I most wanted to share with you… toxins in clothing and textile treatments. The same problem of absorption through the skin applies, of course.

I learned from Vivien (who was a brilliant fashion designer in her time, by the way), that the fashion industry is among the worst polluters in the environment. I looked up some figures…   Textile production alone is responsible for approximately 20% of global clean water pollution due to dyeing and finishing processes and contributes substantially to global wastewater pollution. Additionally, the industry accounts for 35% of oceanic primary microplastics, equivalent to approximately 190,000 tons annually. 

Did you know that fashion production is also a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for 8 – 10% of global CO? emissions? Ladies, this is a heavy price to pay for your elegant good looks!

Emissions from textile manufacturing are projected to increase by 60% by 2030. Moreover, the industry generates an estimated 92 million tons of textile waste per year, a figure expected to rise to 134 million tons annually by 2030. So-called fast fashion production also involves the extensive use of hazardous chemicals, accounting for a quarter of the world’s toxic chemical consumption. For instance, dyeing just 1 kg of textile material requires an average of 449 g of chemicals 

Although the global environmental consequences of fast fashion have been widely acknowledged by international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union, the discussions surrounding the impact of its processes on human health remain largely overlooked. 

A key consequence of the fashion industry’s secretive supply chains is the widespread exposure of workers to hazardous chemicals at multiple stages of production. In cotton fields, laborers regularly encounter pesticides and herbicides, often suffering from acute poisoning, chronic illnesses, and long-term environmental harm. 

Factory workers who process textiles face similar dangers, handling synthetic dyes, formaldehyde, and flame retardants that can lead to respiratory issues, skin irritation, and even cancer. In garment assembly plants, finishing treatments involving phthalates and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) further expose workers to toxic substances. These chemicals do not disappear after production; they remain embedded in the fabrics, posing ongoing health risks to consumers through skin contact.

That mean YOU are exposed to exactly the same hazards, I daresay without realizing it.

Toxic chemicals permeate every stage of fabric production, from the moment a cotton seed is planted to the final touches on a garment. Although cotton crops cover only 2.4% of the world’s cultivated land, they account for 6% of global pesticide use. That’s more than any other crop! 

In addition to pesticides, synthetic dyes and finishing agents introduce hazardous substances into textiles, such as azo dyes, a class of synthetic nitrogen-based dyes, which can degrade into mutagenic amines once they meet sweat or bacteria. They’re whispering carcinogens.

While finishing treatments often include formaldehyde, NPEs, phthalates, alkanes, benzyl benzoate, benzophenone, biphenyl compounds, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), and other chemicals. These substances introduce assets such as wrinkle resistance and flame retardancy, while also reducing production costs, but have an enormous impact on our environment AND PERSONAL HEALTH.

As fast fashion becomes increasingly rapid in production and distribution cycles, toxic chemicals are infiltrating wardrobes worldwide, posing risks to both consumers and garment workers. A striking example is the recent safety tests conducted by South Korean authorities in May 2024, which revealed that children’s products from the company SHEIN contained dangerously high levels of toxic chemicals used to soften plastics. These included phthalates, which are known to cause hormonal disruptions, heart disease, fertility issues, and even cancer. One pair of shoes tested contained 428-times the permitted level of phthalates, the highest concentration ever recorded in the Seoul tests, while three handbags contained 153-times the legal limit. 

Similar safety tests of products from Temu and AliExpress showed that 43% of the 90 children’s products examined, including watches, clay sets, toys, and pencils, contained hazardous substances at unacceptable levels.

Of course children often chew on pencils and put toys in their mouth. You’ll see, it’s a big problem.⁹

Synthetic Fabric Underwear Can Make You Infertile!

Finally, just days after I wrote this piece on my birthday cruise, another pearl dropped into my lap, this time from Sayer Ji at GreenMedInfo: Emerging research suggests that the very fabric touching your most sensitive areas might be acting as an accidental contraceptive. From Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. Ahmed Shafik’s experiments rendering men temporarily sterile with polyester underwear to modern discoveries of hormone-disrupting chemicals in yoga pants, the evidence is mounting: synthetic fabrics can cause sterility!

Read more here.

OK, startled? I hope so!

All the best,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. https://thegoodinside.com/toxic-cosmetics
2. Front Public Health. 2024 Aug 26;12:1439027. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1439027
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde_releaser
4. “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 2011-09-29. Retrieved 2011-05-15. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691515001209?via%3Dihub]
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetology
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology_in_cosmetics
7. https://www.self.com/story/controversial-cosmetics-ingredients-research
8. https://www.sunmark.org/connect/sunmark-360/average-woman-absorbs-44-pounds-chemicals-every-year-makeup
9. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2024/05/28/seoul-government-finds-shein-products-contain-high-levels-of-toxic-chemicals_6672910_19.html#

I like his point but—just to clarify—the Law of 70s in not like the 80/20 rule (applies to almost anything), it’s actually a financial multiplier formula. Turns out that it measures the time it takes for interest or other value to double in value. It’s simply 70 divided by your growth rate. So if your interest increases  regularly at 10% a year, it will take 7 years to double your holdings (70 divided by 10). If it grows at 5% then it will take 14 years, right? (70 divided by 5). Simple. But not really relevant!

On with the 70s then. Dr. Ham has uncovered a few startling ones:

• A Korean War study examined the coronary arteries of American soldiers who had died in their 20s and found that 70% of them had atherosclerosis (with 5% having up to 90% narrowing of the arteries)

• 70% of heart attacks happen to those with normal LDL cholesterol levels

• 70% of heart attacks are caused by early smaller soft plaques in the coronary arteries rather than the older more calcified obstructive plaques

• More than 80% blockage in your left anterior descending coronary artery puts you at a greater than 70% chance of sudden death (not for nothing, the left anterior descending coronary artery is christened “the widow maker”!)

The point is that, with serious atherosclerosis starting in your 20s (often in the teens: fact), the possibility of being pretty clogged at say 55 or 65 is rather high. That means an awful lot of guys (yes, men preponderate) are going to drop dead unexpectedly. The first symptoms of heart trouble may be, as a friend joked, waking up in Heaven!

What can you do to protect yourself?

The first step is to get a status report. That can be done by asking for a calcium heart scan. It’s a kind of CT scan and you don’t have to swallow any preliminary dyes, etc. Just turn up! The more calcium you have deposited in your coronary arteries, the more danger you are in. Results above 500 are actually very dangerous.

But here’s the major point: sudden blockages (a so-called “coronary”) that take you out in less than a minute don’t usually come from these old, calcified obstructions.

70% of heart attacks occur from plaques that are more newly formed, that are soft and not calcified. These can rupture, like a pimple, and their content can lead to a blood clot that suddenly fully obstructs the heart vessel. In these cases, a stent can be life-saving as it allows blood to flow. But as a real solution, stenting is worthless and survival figures show it. As with a bypass, it’s really just like a plumber fixing a short section of rotten pipe when the whole plumbing system is rotten and weak. 

Doesn’t make sense.

So what do we do? We get rid of the coronary artery calcifications! Easy to say but surely not easy to do? Well, it’s not as difficult as you might think. You just have to go about it the right way. As in all things, you don’t have to get to zero; just reduce your body’s burden to where it can cope.

A 20% – 50% reduction will get you right back into the safety zone. Be assured, coronary artery calcification can be reversed.

Step #1. ABANDON ALL MEDS

There is no drug that will undo the years of unhealthy living. You’ve got to grasp that. With cardiovascular disease (heart attacks and strokes) riding as the number one killer in all the civilized world (but worst in the USA) you have to figure that DOCTORS ARE NOT ON TOP OF THIS.

The reason is simple: they are distracted by drugs and the fake science, such as the smoke-and-mirrors surrounding statins. They simply prescribe the latest drug “solution” to the problem and do not take the trouble to look upstream and find the real cause of the adverse condition, which is ALWAYS about diet and lifestyle. It is NOT about pathogens, it is NOT about genes, it is NOT about fats or cholesterol, it is NOT about deficiencies…

It’s about throwing the wrong things at your body which are causing widespread (so-called systemic) inflammation. I’m talking about wrong foods, faulty nutrition (not quite the same thing), toxic chemicals, EMF radiation, vaccines, wrong sleep and wrong movement patterns. And of course don’t forget stress, which is right up there, though not as an immediate cause of coronary artery calcification!

Step #2. OVERHAUL YOUR DIET

I do NOT mean follow the dogmas: the high carb, low carb, low fat, vegetarian, plant-based (again, not quite the same thing), calorie controlled, keto or whatever…

I mean ASK your own body what foods IT likes and dislikes! You are the most recent step in an evolutionary line that has been experimenting and diversifying for millions of years. It makes NO SENSE whatever to suppose we are all the same and need the same things to eat for optimum health. No sense whatsoever. But that’s what medical “science” is based on.

As it happens, we are into my wheelhouse. At my age I could now be considered the doyen of food and environmental allergies and their multiple and varied effects. We early adventurers produced MIRACLES by eliminating select foods from a person’s diet. I don’t mean just casein and gluten allergy; you can tell an absolute phoney “expert” by that, it means they just Googled for their “knowledge”. There is more, MUCH MORE, to food allergies than that.

Anyone who has done their time—and I admit there are almost none of the 70s and 80s pioneers now left alive (me, Damien Downing, Jean Monro, Sherry Rogers, and a few others)—will tell you a person can react to anything, anything at all.

I rarely use the term food allergy or food intolerance these days. I call ‘em BANDIT FOODS, which is a sort of social media thumbnail concept. It works.

I wrote a book guiding you on how to help your body by learning how to question it and get real, safe, answers as to what to eat and what to avoid. For many, it’s the compete opposite of the government pyramid or what wannabe nutritionists are telling you. We’re all different!

Get the book here.

Step #3. THE RIGHT NUTRIENTS.

Here’s where the right nutrients really do help. Viz:

Vitamin K2 is great at de-calcifying coronary arteries. Ideally you need to take several milligrams daily. Most supplements are pitiful and supply around 100 mcg or 200 mcg. Not enough if you are serious.

Personally, I take Koncentrated K, which is a blend containing all-natural versions of vitamin K1 and K2, plus Astaxanthin. Vitamin K1 is phylloquinone and MK4 (25 mg) and MK7 (0.5 mg) menaquinones or K2s. These are the highest doses of any product on the market. You can buy the product on Amazon.

[Incidentally, you should take this even just to counter the effect of vitamin D,  which is great to take, but it does tend to deposit calcium in your blood vessels, where we DON’T want it]

Vitamin C 

Vitamin C does a lot of great things. But you may not know how vital it is for a healthy heart and blood vessels. Simply put, there is a cogent theory that thickening of the arteries is a kind of scurvy (vitamin C deficiency disease). According to this model, which I embrace entirely, the arteriosclerotic plaques are just non-healing scars produced by the lack of vitamin C. The thickening is the body’s response and includes the use of cholesterol derivatives. BUT CHOLESTEROL DOES NOT CAUSE THE PLAQUES. It just heals them. That’s why statins are, basically, just based on junk science.

You need to take 5 – 10 grams daily, as a minimum. You’ll likely get diarrhea and abdominal pain if you try! But there is an answer: my own Super C is especially formulated to get round this problem. But as I have written all along, it may not suit everybody. After all: we are all different! 

Buy some Super C from Dr. Keith’s Own

Live well, Live long!

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

It intrigued me enough to go on reading the article. But Ms. Robertson soon turned sour. She’s not an enterprising journalist at all, just your average hack, quoting orthodox baloney, masquerading as science. “During the pandemic, rampant misinformation drew attention to the antiparasitic as a treatment for COVID, though research continues to show it is not effective against the disease.”

First of all, there is NO continuing research. They have tried to suppress ivermectin. Orthodox doctors go banging on about “science” and adhering to the science. BUT THEY DON’T WANT THE SCIENCE. They just want their ignorant prejudices. Of course it’s all orchestrated by Big Pharma, which is where Ms. Robertson gets her “research” results.

It’s laughable, as is her ignorant and judgmental writing.

If you take the trouble to search on Google for this string: “ivermectin successful in uttar pradesh covid” you’ll be astonished at what comes up! I knew that the state of Uttar Pradesh in India had used ivermectin to remarkably good effect… It works! The endless parade of drivel that Ms. Robertson relies on keeps saying “It’s proven not to work”! 

But it’s just lies, fostered by Big Pharma. In fact professor Surya Kant, Head Department of Respiratory Medicine, at King George Medical University, Lucknow said the opposite. 

“There are newer drugs on the horizon which have been recommended though with very limited experience & devoid of enough data about safety and efficacy. These newer options are neither easily available nor affordable… We have revisited some of the old molecules and have found ivermectin, originally introduced as an antihelminthic [killing worms] to be an effective, safe and affordable therapeutic option in Indian settings for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”¹

He’s got a few more credentials than Ms. Robertson, namely:

MBBS, MD (Gold Medalist), D.Sc. (Honoris Causa) FCCP (U.S.A.), FACP (USA), FRCP (London), FRCP (Glasgow), FAPSR, FGAPIO, FISEB, FAMS, FIAMS, FNCCP, FCAI, FIMSA, FGSI, FIAB, FICS, FUPDA, FIACM, FICP, FCGP, FISC, FUAPMI, FISH. 

The journalist? Well she’s just got a measly bachelor’s! Haha!

In October 2021, SunSentinel Opinion (congressman Neil Dunn’s own website) had this to say:

Data continues to mount demonstrating ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19. It is being deployed as part of the strategy to fight the pandemic in countries around the world, including Mexico, Peru and two large states in Argentina.

But even as the body of evidence in other countries grows, the opposition to not only using ivermectin but even discussing it in America multiplies.

To be clear, when I refer to the potential benefits of ivermectin, I am only suggesting that human-use ivermectin be considered. There has been talk of “horse paste” and purchasing ivermectin from farm stores. I unequivocally do not recommend humans use a medicine that is prepared and sold for use in animals.

Further, the decision to use any treatment for COVID-19 should be made after consultation with a trusted medical professional. If prescribed by a licensed and trusted medical professional, any medication should only be used specifically as prescribed.

However, the mere mention of ivermectin can get you banned from major social media platforms. Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein’s podcast was yanked from YouTube for discussing the drug. Federal authorities are arrayed against it. And the American Medical Association called for the “immediate end” of any use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients with no research to support their stance…

Thousands of physicians working on the front lines of this pandemic — honest, intelligent, caring professionals working tirelessly to care for patients with COVID-19 — want the option of administering ivermectin. Yet they are widely discouraged, even demonized, by some public health professionals and even President Biden, who obliquely tarred physicians using ivermectin as “conspiracy theorists” and implied they are not “real doctors.”

It seems redundant to say it but THIS IS NOT SCIENCE AT WORK, it’s arrogant prejudice and counter-science by ad hominems and opinion.

Review Of Evidence

In 2021 a goodly summary of the science to date, covering the effectiveness of ivermectin, was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. One of the authors was no other than Dr. Paul Marik, a great champion of REAL science in the holistic arena. He did a good paper on the value of high-dose vitamin C in saving lives of patients with sepsis (septicemia). He was subsequently ousted from his post, attacked and vilified by our dear “proper” doctors, who don’t want patient’s lives saved; they just want huge pharmaceutical expenses and then rounding it off by letting the patients die.

The authors of the AJT paper set up their study by writing:

Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.

Meantime, the authors took up the story as they saw it…

The data they reviewed was “published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

And they added, “A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes.”²

Nothing wrong so far; in fact most drugs get to the market with less to commend them. But of course no doctor can say that, otherwise they would be ostracized and probably de-licensed.

What followed was column after column of the following:

• Since 2012, multiple in vitro studies have demonstrated that Ivermectin inhibits the replication of many viruses, including influenza, Zika, Dengue, and others.

• Ivermectin inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication and binding to host tissue through several observed and proposed mechanisms.

• Ivermectin has potent anti-inflammatory properties with in vitro data demonstrating profound inhibition of both cytokine production and transcription of nuclear factor-?B (NF-?B), the most potent mediator of inflammation.

• Ivermectin significantly diminishes viral load and protects against organ damage in multiple animal models when infected with SARS-CoV-2 or similar coronaviruses.

• Ivermectin prevents transmission and development of COVID-19 disease in those exposed to infected patients.

• Ivermectin hastens recovery and prevents deterioration in patients with mild to moderate disease treated early after symptoms.

• Ivermectin hastens recovery and avoidance of ICU admission and death in hospitalized patients.

• Ivermectin reduces mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

• Ivermectin leads to temporally associated reductions in case fatality rates in regions after ivermectin distribution campaigns.

• The safety, availability, and cost of ivermectin are nearly unparalleled given its low incidence of important drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered.

• The World Health Organization has long included ivermectin on its “List of Essential Medicines.”

The authors cite 84 quality references to validate these claims!

In addition, there were numerous specific trials reported akin to this one:

An RCT from Iran found a dramatic reduction in mortality with ivermectin use. Among multiple ivermectin treatment arms (different ivermectin dosing strategies were used in the intervention arms), the average mortality was reported as 3.3%, whereas the average mortality within the standard care and placebo arms was 18.8%; 6 times higher!³

Long COVID

SARS-Cov-2, whether an artificially enhanced virus or not, was a pretty brutal beast and was capable of causing lasting debilitation, a condition called “long COVID”. It is generally considered as a postviral syndrome consisting of a chronic and sometimes disabling constellation of symptoms which include, in order: fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pains, and chest pain. Many patients describe their most disabling symptom as impaired memory and concentration, often with extreme fatigue, described as “brain fog,” and is highly suggestive of the condition myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, a condition well reported to begin after viral infections, in particular with Epstein–Barr virus.

I wrote about post-viral syndrome at length by the way, in my bursting-with-facts book on viruses and how to treat them called VIRUS BLITZ.

In 2020, a manuscript by Aguirre-Chang et al from the National University of San Marcos in Peru reported on their experience with ivermectin in long-haul patients. They treated 33 patients who were between 4 and 12 weeks from the onset of symptoms with escalating doses of ivermectin; 0.2 mg/kg for 2 days if mild and 0.4 mg/kg for 2 days if moderate, with doses extended if symptoms persisted. They found that in 87.9% of the patients, resolution of all symptoms was observed after 2 doses with an additional 7% reporting complete resolution after additional doses. That’s 94% recovery with this proven-not-to-work ivermectin!⁴

Big Pharma can only DREAM of results such as these. Their science, such as it is, is pitiful and they usually have to falsify the results to show any benefit. But ivermectin has proved its worth, over and over and over.

Exciting reading, huh? And all buried under the trope “ivermectin is just for worming horses”!

Prof.

Main Source Paper:

Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021 Apr 22;28(3):e299-e318.

References:

1. https://www.biopharmaapac.com/opinion/72/44/evolution-of-ivermectin-as-a-drug-of-choice-for-prevention-treatment-of-covid-19-dr-surya-kant.html
2. Am J Ther. 2021 Apr 22;28(3):e299-e318
3. Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial. Res Square. 2020. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-109670/v1
4. Aguirre-Chang G. Post-Acute or prolonged COVID-19: treatment with ivermectin for patients with persistent, or post-acute symptoms ResearchGate. 2020. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344318845_POST-ACUTE_OR_PROLONGED_COVID-19_IVERMECTIN_TREATMENT_FOR_PATIENTS_WITH_PERSISTENT_SYMPTOMS_OR_POST-ACUTE

Today a lady asked me “What is inflammation?” Aside from the fact that she could just look online for answers, it intrigued me that she felt ignorant. It’s one of the most fundamental processes in nature! It’s healing on steroids. You can’t really heal anything without inflammation; YET, you can’t heal anything in the presence of inflammation. OK, I’d better explain… Here goes.

Calor, rubor, tumor and dolor! No it’s not gobbledegook; it’s Latin. Every medical student learns these four words early on. They come from the observations of Aulus Cornelius Celsus, c. AD 25, and translate to heat, redness, swelling and pain. Those are the key characteristics of inflammation.

We all know what pain, swelling, redness and heat feel like!

All pain is caused by inflammation and if you think back to an infected cut, a sore joint or maybe a tooth abscess, you will remember that as well as pain, the part swells and goes red. It also feels HOT, hence inflammation (in flames = burning).

It’s our way of protecting ourselves. Suppose for example a bunch of Strep bacteria get going in your tonsils—the body will respond by pouring immune troops into the area. The ensuing battle is the root cause of the pain. It’s fiery hot because blood pours into the spot and the extra fluid leads to swelling and heat. If it’s a big enough deal, the body will add to its response by raising the body’s temperature (a fever); that helps the immune cells get the advantage, while slowing down the invader. Perfect!

Without this response, we would rapidly die; with it, we endure a few days of being unwell, which we call a sickness. Then it heals up and is all gone. 

Trust me, you DO want the toothache, or sore throat. You need that fight back (interestingly, the word pain comes from the Greek ponos, meaning struggle or fight. Hippocrates this time).

You with me so far?

This wonderous healing response, one of nature’s finest, works well and works often. As I said, without it, we’d be dead. In fact that’s what happened to AIDS cases: they lost their immune T-cells and quickly aged and then died. It’s why we isolate immune-compromised cases: No fight back.

So how does it go wrong? If the inflammation is not resolved, it becomes chronic (Greek: chronos = time). This is very bad news because heat, pain, swelling and redness are not nice and we want them gone. PLUS there is one other negative aspect of inflammation: LOSS OF FUNCTION (Latin: functio laesa). This is obvious when you think of a sore throat—you don’t like to swallow; or with a dental abscess, you don’t want to bite on it; or you try not to use an inflamed joint. So with a body part out of action, you are at a disadvantage. I’m sure you can recall an instance that you once suffered.

Chronic inflammation is created when the problem faced by the body does not go away. If a person is unknowingly allergic to milk, for instance, and goes on drinking it day after day, the resulting eczema, colitis, arthritis or asthma won’t resolve and the person is chronically sick. This is great news for Big Pharma, who has the patient trapped in a vicious cycle. They don’t even WANT to find out what the case of chronic inflammation is and so get rid of it. They want to go on selling meds to that patient (via the doctor) for the rest of his or her life! The patient becomes a “cash cow”.

It Gets Worse

Unfortunately, it isn’t just the body part and the surroundings that get dragged into the chronic inflammation story. Healing cannot take place in the presence of chronic inflammation. DOCTORS DO NOT KNOW THIS! So they go on prescribing symptomatic treatment, instead of going further upstream and looking for real causes.

They are stuck on the so-called inflammatory cytokines model (IL-6, TNF-alpha, c-Reactive Protein and similar), which undoubtedly exist. But they are not the originators of inflammation, merely the biomarkers for it. Why are there inflammatory cytokines being produced in excess? That’s the real question.

Meanwhile, the fight goes on and on and on. Eventually, the body defence mechanisms begin to wear out and start misfiring. The adrenal response to stress continues on and on, releasing cortisol to help with the fight. Eventually the adrenal gland will get tired too, leading to adrenal exhaustion. But meanwhile chronically raised cortisol is very dangerous and starts to produce lasting damage, not limited to tissue loss and organ malfunction.

It is now many years since I wrote about the salmon run in this context, so here goes a reminder: we all know that the salmon “run” upriver, to spawn and then die. The reason they die is that they are hyper-stressed by battling upstream against the current and waterfall. Stress = cortisol. Measurements of the salmon cortisol showed levels up to 3,000 times the normal. That’s how deadly cortisol is and you should bear this story in mind!

Now don’t get me started on the psychological aspects of all this. Many patients are diagnosed as depressed and that’s the real “cause” of their symptoms, say the doctors. But as I’ve written for decades, that’s a result, not a cause; who wouldn’t be depressed while suffering years of misery which no doctor seems able to alleviate? What’s more the “treatment” is making you worse, because of the side-effects. It leaves me wondering why anyone would go to the doctor at all!

The Antibody Myth

One last (astonishing) surprise before we leave this immune response 101! A lot is written about antibodies and their role in beating off invasive pathogens. It’s even taught at high school and it has become so ingrained in normal thinking that even laypeople think they understand it.

Trust me, you don’t!

The story is that our B-cells and T-cells meet the invaders, identify them as foreign and produce anti-bodies against them. T-cells (especially the helper T-cells) remember the invader and so if they ever re-appear the attack response is fast and effective. This state is called “immunity”. In many circumstances it can last for life but that never happens with vaccine-induced immunity, which wears off, often very quickly. Life-long immunity only comes through natural infections and the appropriate response.

What’s wrong with this story? People UNABLE to produce antibodies still get immunity for life! It’s a condition called congenital agammaglobulinemia. In fact those who catch measles or whooping cough, for example, are immune for life… absent any antibodies! Now didn’t that startle you!

Surely individuals who can’t make antibodies will die of an infection, very soon? In fact the life expectancy of people with congenital agammaglobulinemia is normal, with occasional help – the same range as that for the general population!¹

Clearly lasting immunity is NOT totally dependent on antibodies. Their immune cells are capable of phagocytosis too (phagocytosis: Greek I’m afraid! It means eating up cells or pathogens).

Maybe it’s opsonins after all? Say what? Opsonins, you know… opsonins! Haha! Opsonins are extracellular proteins that, when bound to pathogens, induce certain white cells phagocytes to gobble up (phagocytose) the intruders. This is non-specific, meaning it works for any pathogen, whether met before or not! In 1904 researchers Wright and Douglas found that incubating bacteria with blood plasma enabled phagocytes to phagocytose (and thereby destroy) the bacteria. They concluded that: “We have here conclusive proof that the blood fluids modify the bacteria in a manner which renders them a ready prey to the phagocytes.”

No mention of antibodies back then!²

Probably too simple for modern medicine! But George Bernard Shaw, no less, in the preface to his play “The Doctors Dilemma” wrote about this phenomenon. It’s hard to tell whether he was being serious or sarcastic! But he seemed better clued in for the time than most doctors (and still does).

Here’s to your good health… and abundant opsonins!

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby

The Official Alternative Doctor

For more information (much more than you need!) you can read the book: Charles N. Serhan, Peter A. Ward, Derek W. Gilroy, editors. Fundamentals of Inflammation. 2010. Cambridge University Press: New York. ISBN: (Hardcover) 978-0521887298. US $99. 488 p.

References:

1. https://www.immunodeficiencyuk.org/x-linked-agammaglobulinemia-xla
2. Wright, A. E.; Douglas, S. R.; Sanderson, J. B. (September 1989). “An experimental investigation of the rôle of the blood fluids in connection with phagocytosis. 1903”. Reviews of Infectious Diseases. 11 (5): 827–834. doi:10.1093/clinids/11.5.827. PMID 2682954

Those of you who have been with me for some years know that one of my teachings is: ANY GOOD HEALTH MEASURE IS AN ANTI-CANCER MEASURE!

They are not separate issues at all. 

I have also said, often, that cancer need not be a death knell. BUT IT IS A WAKEUP CALL (I’ve lately seen other people steal that idea and pass it off as their own). It’s telling you that your health is in tatters. You need to answer the call and shape up. Otherwise you may be for it. But if you help your body to recover, it will help you.

Our biological selves are superb machines, designed and run by nature. Looked after, the way nature intended, bodies are well-oiled, self-correcting entities and can heal. BODIES DO HEAL.

But we mess up the process by unnatural processes, such as a sedentary lifestyle, toxic environmental chemicals, crappy and nutritionally-inadequate foods, disgusting psychological stressors (such as TV advertizing blare, “news”, porn and social media), artificial hormone disruptors and electromagnetic “pollution”.

In reverse, that means if we act to mitigate some of these poisons, we start correcting towards normality, which at its high end is a life of vitality, joy, ease and motion.

ANYTHING you do to achieve optimal is worthwhile. The more you do, the better the outcome. And, YES, the one that gets missed most often is adequate healthy exercize. The opposite tends to happen. Someone is chronically ill or in danger from cancer and they are supposed to “take it easy” and “look after themselves”!

Wrong call!

Now before you back off, let me tell you that the level of exercize required to help retune your body is not arduous. I do the recommended amount each week just for pure pleasure. I enjoy doing what I’m supposed to be doing and my body responds by “singing” a kind of tune with a beat. When I stride along, there’s a kind of rhythm that feels natural, indeed harmonious!

Something about the deep down walking music is a kind of expression of living.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no exercize nerd. I NEVER go to the gymn. I don’t have fancy “kit” or a yoga mat! I recently tried to climb a mountain in the UK and had to give up! In shame, I realized that at 80 I could no longer do what I could do easily 20 years ago.

Anyway, let’s move on to the cancer connection.

A landmark international study, known as the CHALLENGE trial, provides compelling evidence on the positive impact of exercise post-cancer treatment. Involving 889 colon cancer patients across six countries, the study revealed that participants who engaged in a supervised exercise program experienced a 28% reduction in cancer recurrence and a 37% decrease in mortality over eight years compared to those receiving only standard health advice. The exercise regimen included activities like brisk walking, tailored to individual preferences, and was supported by regular coaching sessions.

As well as showing that exercise can cut the risk of death and cancer recurrence, the results of the study highlight the importance of personalized support in helping people develop the right routine for them.

“For an intervention that isn’t a drug, exercise offers remarkable benefits for patients,” said Professor Charles Swanton, chief clinician at Cancer Research UK. “For some people with colon cancer, physical activity can be a game-changer that shifts the course of their recovery.”

All 889 participants were well enough to exercise when they joined, but none of them were meeting recommended activity levels. 

Patients had already finished their cancer treatment, which included surgery and chemotherapy, but they still faced a risk that their cancer could come back. The researchers wanted to see if increasing their activity levels would help them stay well.

Half of the people who took part received standard health education materials with guidance on exercise and healthy eating, while the rest were given additional support from a trainer, pushing to help them reach a weekly exercise target.

After five years, 80% of people supported by a trainer remained cancer free, compared with 74% of those who were given the standard booklets. At eight years, 90% of people supported by a trainer were still alive, up from 83% in the health education materials group.

Professor Vicky Coyle at the University of Belfast, who led the research in the UK, said:?“During the trial, we supported people to reach their weekly exercise target in a way that worked for them. This could be a brisk walk for around 40 minutes every day, but some patients were also doing circuit classes, cycling, swimming, and many other activities.? 

“Our study gives clear, encouraging evidence that physical activity can reduce the risk of cancer returning for some people with colon cancer. We now need to work with policymakers and healthcare providers to embed exercise into treatment plans where appropriate.”¹

Well, if that means interference with the oncology industries obscene profit, I wouldn’t hold my breath Vicky! But, point taken.

In case you are wondering, this is not the only evidence of the benefits of exercize to cancer patients.

Complementing these findings, a comprehensive meta-analysis encompassing 151 cohorts and nearly 1.5 million cancer patients demonstrated that post-diagnosis physical activity is associated with significantly lower cancer-specific mortality across multiple cancer types. Notably, breast cancer patients engaging in regular exercise exhibited a 31% reduction in mortality risk, while prostate and colorectal cancer patients saw reductions of 27% and 29%, respectively.²

Reasons

The study wasn’t designed to figure out WHY exercize was helpful but if you understand my any-good-health-measure quote from above, you’ll see it doesn’t really matter.

But growing evidence suggests that physical activity may play a critical role in modulating multiple aging-related processes in general and improving cancer survival in particular. Beyond its well-documented benefits for cardiovascular and metabolic health, physical activity exerts profound anti-aging effects at the cellular and metabolic levels. 

Regular exercise has been shown to reduce chronic inflammation, prevent cellular senescence, enhance mitochondrial function, maintain genomic stability (such as the demethylation of tumor suppressor genes like L3MBTL1, so enhancing their expression), regulate hormones like insulin and estrogen (which, in excess, can promote tumor growth) and, finally, to improve immune surveillance (aiding in the detection and elimination of malignant cells)— mechanisms that are intricately linked to both aging and cancer progression. 

By interfering with these fundamental drivers of aging, physical activity may slow cancer progression and improve survival outcomes.³

All Other Health Measures Apply!

ANY good health measure is an anti-cancer measure. Learn that as a mantra.

Keep stress down, get love into your life, be content with what you have, even while wanting more.

Eat right and, from me, that means eliminating what I call bandit foods.

Take in more fiber. A high-fiber diet has been linked to improved responses to immunotherapy in melanoma patients, with 77% of those on a high-fiber diet responding positively compared to 29% on a lower-fiber diet.

Get your weight to reasonable levels. Maintaining a healthy weight through diet and exercise reduces the risk of getting various cancers. There may be an “ideal” weight for you and that may seem hard to achieve. But don’t give up altogether, as people often do.

Conclusion

Moderate exercise emerges as a powerful, non-pharmacological intervention in cancer care, offering significant improvements in survival and quality of life. As research continues to elucidate the mechanisms by which physical activity influences cancer outcomes, it becomes increasingly clear that promoting general health measures, including regular exercise, right diet and a stress-free life is essential in the fight against cancer.

Don’t forget the preventative aspect too!

To your good health,
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

Check out my book:Get your copy here.

References:

1. https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2025/06/01/structured-exercise-improves-colon-cancer-survival/
2. Ungvari, Z., Fekete, M., Varga, P. et al. Exercise and survival benefit in cancer patients: evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis. GeroScience (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-025-01647-0
3. ibid.

The one place we especially do not want to stiffen up in is our arteries, specifically the lining membrane inside our blood vessels called the endothelium.

Exercise training, even initiated in late life, enhances endothelium?dependent dilatation, increases capillary flow and improves blood flow distribution and capacity in the aged lower limb.¹

Unfortunately, excercize—the main thing that will help us as we age—can easily become too demanding for older people. But fortunately, the intensity of muscle stretching is relatively light compared to aerobic exercise, such that even quite elderly individuals can perform muscle stretching with minimal risk of injury.

Fights Cancer, Too

Recent decades have seen a shift in approach to cancer biology and treatment. While cancer research originally focused on the cancerous process in the cells themselves, there is a growing interest in factors within the host that may influence cancer growth, such as angiogenesis (development of new blood vessels, which aid the cancer), fibrosis, inflammation and immune dysregulation. 

Parallel with this new interest in a more holistic overall view is the emergence of non-pharmacological treatments that could boost natural defenses against cancer and contribute to primary and secondary cancer prevention. 

Among these, exercise has received a significant amount of attention due to the well-documented positive association between physical activity and survival in many cancer types. Now, intriguing research at Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital shows that even just simple stretching may help the body’s immune system fight cancer.

This investigation – which was actually conducted on animals – indicated that stretching may reduce the size of tumors by an average of 52 percent compared to cancer in animals that don’t have their limbs stretched.

Researchers used a well-established protocol for stretching in mice in which the animals are held by the tail and gently lifted, allowing their front paws to grasp a bar. With minimal training, mice can hold this position without struggling for 10 minutes.²

The researchers believe that stretching spurs the body’s T-cells to fight more aggressively against cancer cells. They also discovered that stretching reduced levels of PD-1 (programmed death receptor-1), an immune factor that indicates that T-cells are becoming effete and unable to fight the cancer (T-cell exhaustion, as it’s known). Put the other way round, mild stretching rejuvenated T-cells and brought them back into action.

On top of those findings, the investigation showed that stretching affected how the body controls inflammation (this makes sense since inflammation is an immune system function). Specifically, even though individual group differences were not significant, overall levels of inflammatory mediators, including IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-alpha, were improved in the stretch group.

The Harvard researchers are not yet sure precisely what these discoveries signify, but they say it sheds light on the fact that stretching exerts essential influences on immune cells in ways that seem to help them respond to tumors.

“There is still so much we don’t understand in terms of how stretching reduces tumor growth,” says researcher Jean J. Zhao, PhD, who teaches biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard. “Understanding these mechanisms could help us develop more effective therapies against breast cancer and potentially other cancer types.”

Lead author researcher Jean J. Zhao, PhD, had this to say in conclusion, “Our results demonstrate a 52% reduction of mammary tumor growth over one month in mice undergoing stretching for 10?minutes once a day without any other form of therapy. The potential clinical significance of our results lies in the possibility of developing a method of gentle stretching that could be well tolerated and testable in humans for primary or secondary cancer prevention, or in conjunction with cancer treatment. Although the mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of stretching in our mouse breast cancer model remain to be elucidated, our results point to a possible link between inflammation resolution and immune exhaustion mechanisms that could be important in basic cancer biology.”³

That this 50% improvement happened without any other form of therapy is a 8.5 on my Wow-Factor scale!

Getting Started

Here are some of the BIG benefits of stretching:

• Improves flexibility and circulation

• Increases blood flow and energy levels

• Helps maintain balance

• Reduces back pain

• Strengthens muscles

• Can reduce joint pain

• Improves posture

• Enhances mobility

• Reduces risk of injury and falling

• Relaxation

If you start a stretching program, experts recommend doing some light physical activity for five to ten minutes at each session before stretching. This is not quantitative activity, just loosening movement, which is especially helpful if you lead a sedentary lifestyle. 

Then, each stretch is usually held for 30 seconds to a minute. And you should repeat each stretch on both sides of your body.

Don’t be overly aggressive, pushing or jerking yourself into a stretch; keep your movements slow and gradual. Don’t do a stretch if it causes pain. And remember to breathe fully while you stretch.

If you need help getting started, here’s a beginner’s guide to basic stretches from the Mayo Clinic: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-depth/stretching/art-20546848?s=1

Video

Alternatively, you can get instructions on YouTube. Here’s a suggestion. I have no connection whatever with SilverSneakers and make no commissions. It’s just to save you a little time! Send me some feedback if you tried it. But looks useful to me.

Watch the video at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3dkKquMiQIk&t=768s

Of course if you are still playing tennis, cycling or doing martial arts, you probably won’t want anything this trivial. Just keep going!

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. J Physiol. 2018 Apr 5;596(10):1903–1917. doi: 10.1113/JP275459
2. Stretching Reduces Tumor Growth in a Mouse Breast Cancer Model. Sci Rep. 2018 May 18;8(1):7864. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26198-7. Erratum in: Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 16;8(1):17226. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35364-w. 
3. Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 7864 (2018)