Saturday, May 31, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

The 5:2 diet can help with type 2 diabetes

Published 5 August 2024
– By Editorial Staff

Fasting two days a week may be effective for type 2 diabetes, according to new research.

The study, published in JAMA Network Open, involved 405 Chinese adults who had recently been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The study participants had not used any medication for the disease or weight loss drugs in the past three months. They were then divided into three different groups that received the diabetes drugs metformin and empagliflozin or a 5:2 meal replacement diet for a total of 16 weeks.

In a nutshell, 5:2 means fasting two days a week and eating as usual the other five days.

The meal replacement participants ate one serving of a low-energy product instead of three meals on two consecutive days. For the remaining five days, they ate breakfast and lunch of their choice, but a portion of the meal replacement product for dinner.

At the end of the study, glycated hemoglobin, weight, and anthropometric and biochemical parameters were analyzed.

The fasting participants had the greatest reduction in glycated hemoglobin compared to the other two groups. All participants in the group except those over 60 years of age had lower levels. The researchers saw no difference between those taking metformin or empagliflozin.

About 76% of the 5:2 group had a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 6.5% eight weeks after treatment. For people without diabetes, the level should be around 5.7%. Body weight also decreased more in the 5:2 group than in the other two groups, as did blood pressure.

The researchers conclude that 5:2 fasting can effectively improve glycemic control and reduce body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes, and that it is more effective than the medications tested.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Use of obesity drugs surges in Finland

Published 27 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Sales of obesity medication have skyrocketed in Finland in just a few years.

The use of obesity medication increased significantly in Finland last year – many more Finns were treated for obesity compared to 2023. At the same time, opinions are divided on the effectiveness of the treatment.

A total of 75,000 Finns used medicines for weight loss or obesity treatment in 2024. This is an increase of 20% compared to 2023, according to the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela). In five years, the number of users has increased more than elevenfold.

Semaglutide, sold under brands such as Ozempic and Wegovy, is the most popular. Originally designed as a drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, this type of medicine is not reimbursed if it is used for obesity alone. This means that Finns have to foot the bill themselves, which can be over €260 each month.

It is also unclear how effective this type of weight loss medication really is, but Pia Pajunen, an expert physician at Kela, says it is not a quick fix for losing weight.

If you stop using the obesity medication, the weight often starts to increase again quickly. It’s important that both doctors and patients are aware that research shows these medications generally need to be used long-term, she says in a press release.

Good fitness may prevent dementia

Published 27 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff

People at risk of dementia can reduce their risk by improving their fitness, according to a study from Karolinska Institutet. The study shows that the risk can be reduced by up to 35%.

In the study, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers used data from 61,214 dementia-free people, drawn from the UK Biobank database. The participants, who were aged between 39 and 70, were followed over a period of 12 years.

On enrollment, participants completed a six-minute cycle test to measure fitness, and neurological tests were done to estimate their cognitive function. The researchers also examined genetic predisposition to dementia.

During the 12-year follow-up period, a total of 553 people were diagnosed with dementia, representing 0.9%.

The results show that better fitness is linked to reduced dementia risk and improved cognitive function. According to Weili Xu, Professor of Geriatric Epidemiology in the Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, good fitness can reduce the risk of all forms of dementia by up to 35%.

– Our findings suggest that maintaining good fitness may be a strategy for preventing dementia, even among people with high genetic susceptibility, she says in a press release.

The researchers also emphasize that this is an observational study, so it is not possible to determine cause and effect. The number of dementia cases may also have been underestimated, they add, as UK Biobank participants are generally healthier than the general population.

The first patient in the world treated with a new gene editing technology

Published 26 May 2025
– By Editorial Staff
The only CRISPR-based treatment approved for clinical use so far costs around $2 million per treatment session.

A teenager with a rare immune disorder has become the first in the world to be treated with the new gene editing technique prime editing. The aim: to restore the function of the body’s white blood cells.

One month after the procedure, the first results show that the technique seems to work – apparently without any serious side effects.

The treatment was performed on a teenager with chronic granulomatous disease – a rare, inherited condition in which the immune cells lack an enzyme that normally helps kill bacteria. This makes it difficult for the body to fight infections. Through prime editing, the researchers were able to correct the mutation in the DNA that causes the disease.

According to the biotech company Prime Medicine, which developed the treatment, after one month, enzyme function was restored in two-thirds of the patient’s neutrophils – a type of white blood cell that plays an important role in the body’s defense against bacteria. This was announced by the company on May 19.

Prime editing is a new and more precise variant of the well-known CRISPR technique, often described as a “gene scissors”. While traditional CRISPR cuts out parts of DNA and replaces them, prime editing works more like a text editor that can correct errors in the genetic code without making major changes to the genome. The technique was developed in 2019 and is considered both safer and more versatile than previous methods.

Extremely expensive method

Despite the promising results, Prime Medicine says it does not plan to continue developing the treatment, known as PM359, on its own.

– The science has moved far enough that many patients would benefit from these gene-editing treatments. But it boils down to an issue not just of science and technology, but of economics, says David Liu, a chemical biologist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and co-founder of the company.

For very rare diseases, development costs are often high relative to the limited number of patients. The only CRISPR-based treatment approved for clinical use so far, for blood disorders such as sickle cell anemia, currently costs more than $2 million per treatment.

– It’s like upgrading your iPhone. NThere are new versions coming out all the time and the tools are constantly being refined, says Joseph Hacia, a medical geneticist at the University of Southern California.

Longer follow-up needed

Prime editing is one of several emerging techniques developed as alternatives to classical CRISPR. It has the potential to treat more diseases with greater precision, but time and follow-up are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn about its long-term effects.

It will take between six months and a year to be certain that the edited stem cells are thriving, says Annarita Miccio, a gene therapy expert at the Imagine Institute in Paris.

Critics have also raised several ethical concerns about prime editing and similar techniques, even though they are described as highly accurate. A recurring objection is the risk of genetic changes occurring in the wrong place in the genome and thus causing unwanted side effects and mutations.

Concerns have also been raised that the technology could be used in the future to modify traits rather than treat diseases – raising the debate about so-called ‘designer babies’ and how far we are prepared to go in altering the human genetic code.

The headache of brain cell masses: How human consciousness baffles neuroscientists

Man and consciousness

The thesis that human consciousness emanates from the brain cell mass is not as self-evident as the broad stream of research fields today would like to claim. This is what Cecilia Gustafsson writes, who takes a closer look at some of the questions that physical science has left unanswered.

Published 25 May 2025

Brain research has been conducted for decades, accumulating extensive knowledge about the brain’s functions and reactions, both electrochemical and biochemical. Today, the structure and composition of a brain cell can be described in great detail, and its function has been clarified. The brain has been established as the central organ of the nervous system, transmitting impulses enabling, among other things, motor functions. Humanity has thus gained a wealth of knowledge about the brain, as well as other physical organs, which is beneficial in cases of dysfunction, injury, treatment and surgery.

What has not been mapped, proven or explained, however, is human beings and human consciousness. Nevertheless, science, and implicitly large parts of brain researchers, stubbornly maintain that the human being is the brain and that the brain controls the entire human consciousness, i.e. everything that the human being thinks, feels, says, remembers, can and does. The brain is thus not only given the function of being the overall part of the nervous system, but is attributed the overall, or leading, position over the human being itself. How such reasoning has been allowed to pass as scientific fact, and is also widely accepted as truth within mainstream natural science, may seem absurd to an independently thinking individual.

What has not been mapped, proven or explained, however, is human beings and human consciousness.

If brain research, and thus physical science, cannot scientifically prove how the brain produces everything that a human being thinks, feels, and remembers, then how can it so confidently claim that it does? Moreover, how can such claims serve as the foundation for public discourse about the brain? Across websites, television programs, and institutions in healthcare and education, we are constantly presented with this “knowledge” about the brain’s supposed influence over us. However, none of the claims regarding the brain’s role in producing human consciousness and memory have been scientifically verified.

Not only are these explanations often contradictory (they depict the brain and the human self as separate entities), but they also defy reason by reducing the human being, this living entity with dreams, desires, willpower, reflection, intelligence, and agency, to a passive slave under the control of a wrinkled mass of organic matter and its electrochemical signals.

Here some quotes with following comments, to illustrate the contradictory arguments and how you as a human being are presented, taken from, among others, a national and well-known healthcare site on the internet:

“The outer layer of the cerebrum is called the cerebral cortex. It consists of gray matter that contains nerve cells. The cerebral cortex is responsible for our awareness of different sensory impressions. The cortex is where our thoughts, feelings and memories are created”.

“The brain is involved in almost everything we do, feel, and experience. It gives us our personality and emotions. The brain is what allows us to have consciousness, to think, and to remember”.

“The brain uses very few neurons to remember things it sees”.

“Research claims that neurons act as thought cells, capable of specializing on certain memories previously selected by the brain”.

Note how the cerebral cortex is described as a gray matter containing neurons, and how this gray matter is responsible for the consciousness of sensory impressions – “it sees”, “it remembers”. Further, how the brain is ascribed properties that allow you to think and remember and that it also “selects” memories based on “what it sees”. You have no say in these representations, you have to rely on the fact that “the brain sees correctly”, that the neurons “remember what the brain sees”. In other words, you are entirely subordinate, and who you are or what the brain needs you for is not made clear. How the brain, with its nerve cells, “chooses,” “sees,” and “remembers” cannot be explained by physicalist research, yet it is not willing to reconsider its claims.

From this reductionist view of man and consciousness, allow me to take a somewhat humorous look at the “life of the brain cell mass Edgar”:

The brain cell mass Edgar was created at the same time as the physical body in which the brain cell mass Edgar is located at the top. They both came in the “same package” via the body of another brain cell mass, as a result of this second brain cell mass, called mother, together with a third brain cell mass, called father, previously jointly deciding to breed a new brain cell mass.

The brain cell mass Edgar is now an adult and lives in his own apartment. Not far from Edgar the brain cell mass lives his best friend, another brain cell mass called Agaton. They spend a lot of time together and it’s easy to mistake them for twins. They are both extremely similar to each other. They both have a pinkish-gray hue with a wrinkled appearance, they weigh about the same, are similarly shaped and divided into the same number of lobes and ventricles each. Both have identical cerebellums and brain stems, and the cerebral cortex of both brain cell masses, which unites the two divided halves, is deceptively similar. The thalamus, hypothalamus and limbic system of the two also look the same and are located in the same places. In short, their structure, organization and function are not at all different and it is very easy to mistake the two at a glance.

Despite their incredible similarity, there is a significant difference between them. Since its inception, the Agaton brain cell mass has been very adept at producing beautiful sounds on various instruments. The brain cell mass Edgar, on the other hand, is, despite many and valiant attempts, completely untrainable when it comes to making music, and also completely tone deaf. They have both asked themselves on several occasions how this can be. After all, the two brain cell masses are so similar and both have the same functions in their respective parts. Edgar the brain cell mass once asked Agaton the brain cell mass how it is that he is so musically skilled. Did the brain cell mass Agaton’s brain cell mass parents play a lot of music? The Agaton brain cell mass searched feverishly in itself, both in the place in itself called the cerebral cortex and in the gray matter where the so-called “short-term memories” and “long-term memories” are said to be located, but without result. The brain cell mass Agaton could not, in itself, find where the interest in music arose, when it arose or how the skill to handle different instruments emerged. Growing up, there was no other music-making brain cell mass in the immediate vicinity.

Some of Edgar’s cortical neurons found this realization frustrating and reacted with sadness, generating a state of melancholy. Other neurons deemed it unfair. The two brain masses debated the issue extensively, communicating by emitting bursts of sound through the largest hole in the head.

Such a representation of the human being raises a host of questions, only a few of which are addressed in this text. The thinking reader, with intelligent ability and with the perception of himself as the possessor of self-activated thought, can certainly ask more questions.

What cells are missing from the brain cell mass of Edgar, who cannot learn to play music, that the brain cell mass of Agaton seems to have had since its creation? Which brain cells decide what to select, what to learn, where to store what has been learned, and how do the cells decide where to store it? Why such individual differences between brain cell masses despite the same diligent training, similar upbringing, the same conditions, and sometimes even the same parents (if siblings are involved)? If the brain cell mass creates the thoughts and feelings, as both brain cell masses have been taught by other brain cell masses involved in brain research and education, which brain cells get upset and sad, as in the case of the Edgar brain cell mass above, and how do the brain cells create these feelings? If brain cells have the same function in all healthy brain cell masses, what is it that makes, say, one and the same phenomenon make the brain cells in the cerebral cortex upset and sad in some brain cell masses, but not in others? How is this determined and by what?

Furthermore, if, for example, you don’t remember something at a certain time, but then remember it clearly at a later time, is it the case that the brain cells that stored the specific memory you wanted were busy with other things or were off duty at the first time, and then were “back on duty” at the later time, and can then retrieve the memory? How do the “memory-carrying” brain cells pick up the memory image itself? And how does it become a picture for your mind? How is the memory, which is spread over several neurons, assembled? And “oneself”, by the way, is it oneself who wants to remember something, or is it the brain? Because if it is “oneself” who wants to remember and sees the memory image “in one’s mind”, then this “oneself” must be something other than the brain itself. How, then, do these two entities relate to each other?

Such questions, and more, cannot be answered by physical science, which dismisses them as irrelevant. But if science is to be a guide to knowledge, it should follow scientific practice and thus stick to what it knows and does not know, what is ascertainable and what is not, and not create guesses and theories to fill the gaps in knowledge. Science knows that the brain is an organ which, like other organs, belongs to the physical organism.

Such questions, and more, cannot be answered by physical science, which dismisses them as irrelevant.

Science knows how nerve cells work and what electrochemical and biochemical impulses they transmit to each other. Science knows that these signals transmit and trigger other signals and activities in other organs of the organism. However, today’s science neither knows nor can explain what consciousness is. And because of its ignorance of the latter, it reduces living people to intelligence-free and will-less gray matter. Pressing inappropriate pieces into an already established puzzle and at the same time rejecting pieces they cannot fit.

Physical scientists often defend this by saying that much of what concerns the brain is still a mystery and that this is largely because it is difficult to research the brain. But the real mystery is not the physical brain itself, it is the living being, the human with consciousness, that remains unexplained. To somewhat dispel the headache that therefore prevails about this “mystery of the brain”, it may be helpful for further development in the field if those who carry out the research did not so dogmatically claim that human memory and consciousness are created in and by an organic gray mass of brain cells; is only the secondary result of brain cell impulses.

 

Cecilia Gustafsson

 


Sources and references:

1177 – Så fungerar hjärnan

Utforska sinnet – Vårt minne: hur fungerar det egentligen?

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.