Because conventional medicine has largely failed at finding cures for all major diseases, the focus has shifted to early detection and quick intervention to save lives. Nowhere is this approach more prevalent than in treating cancer. We all know someone who’s alive today because the doctors “caught the cancer in time.”

All cancer awareness organizations like to share the survival percentages of those who get regular screenings and receive early intervention to promote the process.

Today, the so-called fight against cancer has largely become a race game. Unfortunately, we’re finding that the early detection screening methods we once held up as the gold standard are seriously flawed, and in some cases, entirely inaccurate.

This is exactly the situation with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), the test that since 1994 has been the premier screening for prostate cancer. Now, more than two decades of rushing into treatment is revealing how the lives of tens of millions of men were ruined, fortunes were created, and a healthcare disaster exploded.

A Runaway Mistake

In 1970, Dr. Richard J. Albin, PhD, was a researcher at The State University of New York College at Buffalo. He was attempting to discover an antigen (protein) that was specific to prostate cancer that could be used in diagnosing the condition.

Unfortunately, what he found, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), was present in both the benign (normal) and malignant prostate. There was no way to tell if a man had prostate cancer using the PSA, but with some additional analysis, it was found to be helpful for tracking the prostate for a recurrence of cancer but only after it had already been diagnosed and treatment administered. As an initial diagnostic tool for cancer, it was useless.

In 1986, the FDA approved the PSA test as a tool to track the recurrence of prostate cancer. The biotech representatives present at the meeting were really after getting approval for cancer detection, because it would have bolstered their efforts in developing immunotherapy drugs. But it didn’t happen.

Although only one biotech lab, San Diego based Hybritech, was authorized to make the PSA test kit, several other labs almost immediately began producing their own off-label versions.

The urology market was instantly flooded with PSA test kits that doctors began using indiscriminately to test men, who’d never been officially diagnosed with prostate cancer, for the disease. The practice became so widely accepted, that by 1994, the FDA officially approved the PSA test for the detection of prostate cancer in men through regular testing beginning at age 50.

In a 2010 op-ed article in the New York Times entitled, “The Great Prostate Mistake,”1 Dr. Albin poured out his regret over the entire tragic process. He explained that the 1994 approval process hinged on a so-called study that showed PSA could detect a dismal 3.8% of prostate cancers. This happened to be a higher rate than the standard method at the time — the digital rectal exam.

In his book, The Great Prostate Hoax: How Big Medicine Hijacked the PSA Test and Caused a Public Health Disaster,(2) Dr. Albin describes how the 1994 FDA approval committee meeting disintegrated into chaos.

Some physicians pointed fingers and screamed that blood would be on the hands of those who voted in favor of PSA being approved for prostate cancer detection.

On the other side of the table were those who knew the test didn’t work but yelled back that “millions of men were dying” and the American medical establishment had to do something. As it turned out, there would be a lot of blood on a lot of hands because in the words of the man who invented the test, “With the 78% false positive rate and being wrong 80% of the time, I don’t know how the test was approved.” (3)

In the end, in spite of the habitual misuse, the profit-hungry corporations that wanted to sell a prostate cancer prevention scam won. It was the tens of millions of American men who lost.

The truth is that the PSA, which was once so revered and trusted as the definitive test for prostate cancer, has no cutoff for detecting the disease. Men have shown a PSA level as low as 0.5ng/mL and had prostate cancer, while those with a level as high as 11ng/mL have been cancer free.

Still, in the early years of screening, any man whose test showed as little as 4ng/mL was immediately sent for a painful biopsy, regardless of the fact that the test couldn’t decipher between benign or malignant cells. If there was any sign of cancer at all, he was quickly pushed into surgery, with radiation to follow, along with other harmful treatments. This so-called early detection and quick response happened almost without exception.

Loss and Profit

Considering the fact that the PSA is wrong 80% of the time, and that approximately 30 million men (4) each year for the last 22 years have had the test, the number of men who have had their lives ruined is staggering.

With prostates entirely removed or damaged beyond repair by radiation and chemotherapy, they’ve suffered through decades of urinary incontinence, impotence, hormonal imbalance, and the intense depression that comes with such abrupt and severe biological changes.

The tragic truth is that with very rare exceptions, prostate cancer is extremely slow-growing. It’s so slow, in fact, that the vast majority of these men could have lived full, happy lives and never died of prostate cancer. Most men don’t.

If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it. Author, Mark Twain once said, “It’s easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.”

That’s the story of the PSA. Even now, when what has always been known about the PSA has finally become common knowledge, hordes of brainwashed doctors still don’t want to let go of the test. They still recommend that men get their yearly PSA screening starting at age 50.

Maybe it speaks to the power of habit, or profit, but it’s just inexplicable and certainly inexcusable. Maybe they believe the test still has some efficacy and they don’t want to be sued by patients who don’t get the PSA and then develop cancer at a later date. Perhaps they haven’t read Dr. Ablin’s book or the New England Journal of Medicine study that recently showed PSA screening does not reduce death rates in men age 55 and over. (5)

Many patients and their families still defend the PSA, claiming that it saved their lives or the lives of their husbands, fathers and grandfathers. It’s certainly understandable that someone would choose to believe this, especially when the thought that one’s life has been so unnecessarily and irrevocably damaged is just too much to bear.

To find out who’s still pushing routine PSA screenings, all you have to do is follow the money. The PSA became so widely used, it created its own mini-industry within the healthcare industry.

PSA screenings led to millions of unnecessary procedures that benefited surgeons, labs, radiology, pharmaceutical companies, a robotic surgical equipment market specifically for prostate procedures, and proton beam development firms. Why else would we, in Albin’s words, “…spend $3 billion [a year] on PSA screening in asymptomatic men using a test that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.”(6)

Albin himself has spoken directly to the CEOs of biotech companies explaining why the PSA test doesn’t work for detection. He describes their consistent response this way, “Dick, this is very interesting, but nobody is going to be interested in your story. Too many people are making too much money to stop this.” (7)

The Turning Tide

It’s no surprise that the mainstream media has been largely silent on this crucial healthcare development. Even with the release of his book in 2014, the press wasn’t exactly knocking down Albin’s door.

The media sources that weren’t silent did what they tend to do best, confuse the whole issue in the public’s mind by running articles on why the PSA still mattered, and the so-called risks of not having a regular screening.

What does seem to be changing minds is an official statement originally made by the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2009, which was reinforced as their final judgment, and published in 2012 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The national organization of preventative health experts stated:

“There is convincing evidence that PSA-based screening programs result in the detection of many cases of asymptomatic prostate cancer. There is also convincing evidence that a substantial percentage of men who have asymptomatic cancer detected by PSA screening have a tumor that either will not progress or will progress so slowly that it would have remained asymptomatic for the man’s lifetime. The terms ‘overdiagnosis’ or ‘pseudo-disease’ are used to describe both situations….The precise magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with any screening and treatment program is difficult to determine, but estimates from the 2 largest trials suggest overdiagnosis rates of 17% to 50% for prostate cancer screening.”

And, “…the USPSTF now recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in all age groups.” (8)

According to the Prostate Cancer Foundation, after the USPSTF made their final recommendation, PSA screenings dropped by up to 50% in some primary care clinics across the country.

The biggest drop was in men aged 50–70 and yet, some urologists are still wringing their hands with worry. The fact that 8 out of 10 doctors surveyed in Massachusetts said the PSA offered more harm than benefit suggests the tide may be turning. (9)

Awareness Agencies Weigh In

Meanwhile, some major health organizations are choosing a less decisive position, even in light of the overwhelming evidence. The American Cancer Society now urges “more caution” when pursuing the PSA screening. The American Urological Association does not recommend PSA screenings for men younger than 54.

African-American men, who naturally have a higher risk of prostate cancer, and men with a family history of the disease should make individual decisions as to what’s best for them.

Men 55–69 should participate in “shared decision-making” and consider screenings every two years. No screening for men 70 and older. The American College of Preventative Medicine has stated there is insufficient evidence to warrant regular screenings. The National Cancer Institute states that any man considering a PSA screening should be informed of the risks and benefits beforehand.

Watch and Wait

My recommendation is to watch and wait. Because prostate cancer is so slow-growing, most men will live happy lives and never die of the disease. In the meantime, we can use other, non-invasive, forms of treatment. If the cancer changes in anyway, we can address those issues when the time comes. This is the wisest and most humane approach, especially since American men have only a 16% chance of developing prostate cancer over their lifetime and just a 3% chance of actually dying from it. (10)

Pass this article on to someone you love.

National health organizations have a strong influence on the minds of Americans, and it will take time to reverse the blind belief in yearly early detection screenings like the PSA test. With the each-one-teach-one approach, we can save millions of lives. Consider nationally-recommended preventative healthcare routines very carefully. Everyone’s body, state of health and lifestyle are different. Standardized recommendations to have a particular test at repeated intervals beginning at a specific age don’t work for many people, can be very harmful and are often profit-driven.

Decisions like these should be made between the two people who know your body best, you and your doctor. In the meantime, practice the early detection of fear-based healthcare recommendations that promote regular testing and fast follow-up treatment, because what you’ll actually be preventing is a decision you might later regret.

Footnotes:

[1] Albin, R. (2010) March 9. The New York Times, The great prostate mistake.

[2] Ablin RJ, Piana R. The Great Prostate Hoax: How Big Medicine Hijacked the PSA Test and Caused a Public Health Disaster. New York: Macmillan Publishers; 2014.

[3] Topol, Eric. (August 8, 2014). PSA test is misused, unreliable, says the antigen’s discoverer. Medscape: news & perspectives. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/828854_3.

[4] Mahar, Maggie. (2010). The doctor who invented psa test calls it “a profit-driven public health disaster” . . . Why this is good news — see more at: http://www. Healthbeatblog. Com/2010/03/the-doctor-who-invented-psa-test-calls-it-a-profitdriven-public-health-disaster-why-this-is-good-new/#sthash. 0nrm87cj. Dpuf. . Health beat, (), http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/03/the-doctor-who-invented-psa-test-calls-it-a-profitdriven-public-health-disaster-why-this-is-good-new/.

[5] Andriole, G et al. (2009). Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. New England Journal of Medicine. 360(13), 1310–1319.

[6] Topol, Eric. (August 8, 2014). PSA test is misused, unreliable, says the antigen’s discoverer. Medscape: news & perspectives. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/828854_3.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Moyer, Virginia. (2012). Screening for prostate cancer: U. S. Preventive services task force. Annals of Internal Medicine. , 157(2), 120–134.

[9] Thompson, Dennis. (May 17, 2015). Prostate cancer testing drops off following controversial guidelines. Research News: Prostate Cancer Foundation. , http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEpH/b.9283333/k.9A1F/Prostate_Cancer_Testing_Drops_Off_Following_Controversial_Guidelines.htm.

[10] Mahar, Maggie. (2010). The doctor who invented psa test calls it “a profit-driven public health disaster” . . . Why this is good news — see more at: http://www. Healthbeatblog. Com/2010/03/the-doctor-who-invented-psa-test-calls-it-a-profitdriven-public-health-disaster-why-this-is-good-new/#sthash. 0nrm87cj. Dpuf. . Health beat, (), http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/03/the-doctor-who-invented-psa-test-calls-it-a-profitdriven-public-health-disaster-why-this-is-good-new/.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse. You can read more of his exclusive articles on medical research, mind/body healing, and entelechy medicine at Patreon.

For men, unless a chronic disease process or an exposure to toxins is involved, hormones remain at healthy levels while gradually declining over a lifetime.

Women, unfortunately, must face menopause, a more immediate and distinct decline in hormone levels over as little as 5–10 years.

Needless to say, this kind of rapid hormonal decline often creates symptoms that run the gamut from irritability to debilitating pain. It’s during this difficult time that some women may need hormone therapy (HT) to regain their peace of mind and quality of life.

I want to make it clear that I am not an advocate of HT for the purposes of extending youth or elevating levels to those of a 25-year-old.

The hormonal cascade requires a very delicate balance, and without the proper knowledge and precision of application, the introduction of exogenous hormones (those obtained from outside the body) can wreak havoc on one’s health.

Understanding Menopause

At any given time, there are about 50 million women in the U.S. going through the change of life we call menopause. (1) The biggest misconception about menopause is that women are in it for years. Actually, menopause is a woman’s last menstrual cycle or period. In Greek, the word menopause means: month (meno) and to cease (pausis). The average age of menopause for women is 51, after which time their ovulation cycle stops and they are considered postmenopausal.

It’s mainly the 5 to 10-year period leading up to menopause that gets the most press and causes all the trouble. It’s known as the perimenopausal period or perimenopause.

Here is where women experience widely varying degrees of a host of symptoms that include hot flashes, insomnia, mood swings, memory loss, depression, night sweats, loss of libido, joint pain, dry skin, fatigue, rapid heartbeat, frequent urination, concentration problems and weight gain. The severity of these symptoms often depends on a woman’s biological make up and the type of introduction she’s had into perimenopause.

If she’s in good health with no disease processes, a woman’s symptoms should begin in her 40s and progress naturally, which may or may not require HT.

Women with chronic or auto-immune disease and sometimes those who over-exercise can begin perimenopause earlier, usually in their mid-30s, resulting in a more intense experience that often requires HT. About 1% of women reach menopause before age 40. (2) Abrupt entries into menopause, through chemotherapy, radiation or hysterectomy, always cause severe symptoms that require HT.

Boom & Bust

As we know it today, HT didn’t come into existence until the late 1960s. When Dr. Robert Wilson’s book, Feminine Forever, was released in 1968, it became an instant sensation. In it, he describes how estrogen treatment can benefit a woman’s health and wellbeing through midlife. By the early 1970s, 28 million women were taking the estrogen drug, Premarin. The name was created from the origin of the estrogen, pregnant (pre), mare (mar), urine (in). Yes, that’s pregnant horse’s urine.

The HT revolution was short-lived when in 1975, the New England Journal of Medicine published research stating that women who took estrogen increased their risk for uterine cancer by 400%. After this made headlines, half of all American women quit taking Premarin immediately.

In the 1980s, it became clear that it was crucial that any woman taking estrogen, who also had a uterus, needed to take progesterone as well, to prevent hyperplasia, the thickening of the uterine lining that can lead to cancer. About the same time, the first synthetic progesterone drug, Provera, was released, as well as an estrogen/synthetic progesterone (progestin) combo called Prempro.

Clearing the Air

Over the years, there has been much confusion concerning HT and its relationship to increasing cardiovascular disease and cancer risk in women. Fortunately, there has been just as much research in the 48 years since HT began, and the air is finally beginning to clear. In short, HT can protect women from cardiovascular disease, and the only measurable risk for breast cancer lies with conventional HT, which is negligible at that.

Research published in the Journal of Women’s Health in 2006 shows that women who start HT (estrogen only) within a decade after menopause experience an 11%-30% reduction in heart attack risk.

The earlier HT is begun, the larger the benefit, with the youngest women receiving a 44% risk reduction. (3) A periodic review in the famous “Nurses’ Health Study” showed similar results that year. (4)

The real cardiovascular risk comes with women over age 60 with a history of cardiovascular disease who begin taking Prempro (estrogen and progestin) for the first time. These women show a legitimate increase in heart attacks, artery blockages and even gall bladder disease. It is not recommended that these women utilize HT. If, however, a healthy woman began HT earlier in life she can expect no problems as she passes into her 60s and beyond. (5)

With regard to breast cancer risk, a follow-up review of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in 2010 found that women taking Prempro had a higher rate of invasive breast cancer and mortality than the placebo group, (6) but this amounted to an increase of only 1.3 women in every 10,000.

To demonstrate how small this risk increase is, the percentage comparison would be 0.34% for the placebo group and 0.42% for the HT group — just eight one-hundredths of a percent. I’d also like to point out that although the media likes to keep American women’s attention focused on breast cancer, it’s not the number one cancer killer for women. That’s lung cancer.7

Conventional Hormone Options

Because Premarin, the most common form of conventional estrogen, is made from the urine of pregnant horses it can be problematic when introduced into the human body. Breaking it down, Premarin is estrone sulfate (>50%), equilin (15–25%) and equilenin.

These conjugated estrogens are called as such because they are not in the true molecular form of a woman’s own estrogen. Because of this, there is some concern over the equine (horse) estrogens in Premarin, particularly equilin and equilenin, and how the body metabolizes them. Research published in The Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, (8) and Chemical Research and Toxicology (9) shows that the body breaks down these foreign hormones into metabolites that have an even stronger estrogenic effect than the horse estrogens themselves. They create DNA damage in tissue that has been shown to be carcinogenic. (10) This could very well be the reason why studies show a very small increase in cancer risk in women on conventional HT. It should also be noted that because most prescription drugs like Premarin need to be heavily metabolized by the body, they raise insulin levels.

Real progesterone doesn’t have a long half-life. The pharmaceutical companies needed something that lasted much longer, so they created medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), also known as progestin. It was created at the same time as the birth control pill, because in low, regular doses it prevents ovulation.

While estrogen has been shown to protect women against heart disease, synthetic progesterone or progestin (Provera), largely cancels out that benefit. When the WHI data was reviewed in 2010, women on Prempro did show an increase in myocardial infarctions and deaths from coronary artery disease, and blood clots in the first two years on HT. (11)

Methyltestosterone is a completely synthetic form of testosterone and has been around for nearly 50 years. As an anabolic steroid, it’s the most common type used by bodybuilders. It has a low bio-availability and is widely known for lowering HDL (good cholesterol), raising LDL (bad cholesterol) and damaging the liver. (12) Aside from these more serious issues, all conjugated and synthetic (conventional) hormones come with a host of side effects because they are not truly natural and will elicit a defensive response of some kind from the body.

Bio-identical Hormone Options

Bio-identical hormones are called as such because they are identical in molecular structure to the estrogen, progesterone and testosterone found in the human body. They are the exact same hormones the body uses, making their bio-availability very high and side effects virtually non-existent. Identical means they are an exact match, unlike the label of “natural,” which can be used to include many substances that might be from nature but are foreign to the human body.

Plants have hormonal properties just like humans, and in the 1930s, it was discovered that a plant steroid, diosgenin, found in yams could easily be converted into an exact match for human progesterone using only heat and pressure, no chemicals. Bio-identical testosterone also comes from yams.

In the same way, bio-identical estrogen is derived from soybeans. After the conversion process, none of the phyto (plant-based) estrogen properties remain in place. After conversion, it’s not similar to human estrogen; it’s identical. The plant-based estrogen structure no longer exists.

Myth Busting

Bio-identical hormones are the exact substances that the body creates, so unlike conventional hormones, they cannot be patented. Big pharma can’t make any money off of them. That’s why all the large longitudinal studies have always focused on synthetic and conventional hormones like Premarin and Prempro. It’s also the reason why drug companies like to spread misinformation about bio-identical hormones.

The biggest misconception they perpetuate is that bio-identical hormones are not FDA regulated. Regulation simply means that the FDA guarantees their purity and efficacy and standardizes the dosages. Bio-identical hormones are not FDA regulated because they come in individualized not standardized dosages, which maximizes their effectiveness.

It is important to understand however, that all bio-identical hormone ingredients are FDA approved for use. Bio-identical hormones are also provided by compounding pharmacies that follow the same state regulations as any other pharmacy. In addition to those safety measures, the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB) applies an additional set of stringent standards that compounding pharmacies must meet.

Supporters of conjugated and synthetic hormones like to claim that because bio-identical hormone prescriptions are formulated by hand, the levels of ingredients aren’t consistent from one prescription to another, altering their effectiveness.

They liken compounding to cooking, putting in a pinch of this and a dash of that with no real measurement of any ingredient. This is absurd. With a doctor’s order, a compounding pharmacist, using industry-approved measuring instruments, is able to raise or lower the amount of individual hormones to give a woman the ideal combination that works specifically for her. This frees women from being locked into standardized doses that may either be too much or too little to be appropriately effective. With hormones, very small amounts make very big differences, and accuracy requires flexibility in dosing.

It’s also common for detractors to point out that the American Medical Association (AMA) doesn’t endorse bio-identical hormones because of a lack of research. That’s because nearly all research studies are paid for by the pharmaceutical corporations that want to promote their products. Even the WHI, which used Premarin and Prempro, was partially funded by Wyeth-Ayerst, the company that makes Premarin. Who’s going to fund a national study on bio-identical hormones that can’t be patented, and from which no one can profit?

Fortunately, for over 40 years, women have taken bio-identical hormones without a problem. In addition to decades of anecdotal success, two recent independent studies on bio-identical hormones are proving what we’ve always known.

Reassuring Results

The Early versus Late Intervention Trial with Estradiol (ELITE) began in 2004 and released its results in 2014. The study, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and performed at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California (USC), examined whether bio-identical estradiol slowed the progression of atherosclerosis in women. Test subjects without a uterus took only estradiol while those with a uterus also took bio-identical progesterone. Accumulation in the carotid artery was examined by ultrasound.

Results showed that bio-identical HT did slow the progression of atherosclerosis in women, particularly for those in the early stages of menopause. Older women who were further past menopause, while experiencing no negative effects, did not receive the same benefit. This seems to fit with other findings that show women receive protection against cardiovascular and other diseases from HT the earlier they begin. Hormones are about timing.

The Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study (KEEPS) was conducted by the Kronos Longevity Research Institute in Phoenix, AZ. The goal of the double blind, randomized, controlled study was to discover whether conjugated or bio-identical estrogen decreased the risk of heart disease in women if started within a few years after menopause.

Over 720 women between the ages of 42 and 58 who were within three years of menopause were divided into three groups. The first group took oral Premarin (0.45mg/day), a dose much lower than used during the WHI (0.625mg/day). The second group took bio-identical estradiol via transdermal patch (50ug/day). Both groups were given bio-identical progesterone. The third group was placebo.

Results released in 2012 showed that neither Premarin nor bio-estradiol had any negative effects on blood pressure. It seems probable that the benefit for the Premarin group was the result of a much lower dose than was given during the WHI, as well as help from the bio-progesterone. The majority of studies have shown Premarin with synthetic progestin does pose some risk of heart attack and stroke.

Premarin increased HDL and lowered LDL, but also increased triglycerides. Bio-estradiol had no positive or negative effects on cholesterol, but it did improve insulin sensitivity (reduced insulin resistance). At these doses, neither Premarin nor bio-estradiol had any impact either way on atherosclerosis. Both relieved symptoms and increased bone density while neither group experienced any major health crisis during the study. (14)

It comes as no surprise that during the tests, bio-estradiol had zero negative effects. In addition to relieving menopause symptoms and increasing bone density, it improved insulin sensitivity. This means that it’s protecting women against all the diseases that are connected to insulin resistance, a benefit Premarin doesn’t provide. This is most certainly due to its bio-identical and easily metabolized structure. The fact that Premain raised triglycerides is a concern and needs more study.

Women have been taking both conventional and bio-identical hormones for nearly half a century now without a major health crisis. This is what we know for sure. Women starting HT earlier, within five years of menopause, receive the greatest benefits and disease protection.

HT should never be started for the first time after age 60. That’s when real problems occur. Women with a uterus taking estrogen must also take progesterone to prevent thickening of the uterine lining. Tests also repeatedly show small but viable risks for cardiovascular disease and cancer when using conventional estrogen (Premarin), especially in conjunction with synthetic progestin (Provera/Prempro).

Because bio-identical hormones have shown no detrimental health effects whatsoever in testing, or over the last 50 years, it’s no surprise that I recommend them to my patients when needed. Besides, what could be a better replacement for your own hormones than your own hormones?

Hormones have a variety of delivery systems including capsules, sublingual pills, patches, creams and gels. Each woman will have her preference based on how they work for her.

Bio-identical progesterone must be taken orally because it’s not absorbed well by transdermal methods. When you begin and how long you’re on HT is between you and your doctor. My recommendation is that levels remain light, just enough to alleviate symptoms. The goal isn’t to return to the energy level of your 20s. We must honor the natural progression of life, while at the same time using the tools we have to give us the best quality of life at the time of life we’re already in.

[1] University of Maryland Medical Center, Complementary and Alternative Medicine Guide, menopause, introduction: http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/condition/menopause.

[2] Northrup, C. (2012). The Wisdom of Menopause: Creating physical and emotional health during the change. (p. 120). New York: Bantam books.

[3] Grodstein F, Manson J, and Stampfer M. Hormone therapy and coronary heart disease: The role of time since menopause and age at hormone initiation. Journal of Womens Health. 2006 Jan-Feb; 15(1):35–44.

[4] Grodstein F, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Speizer FE, and Stampfer MJ. A prospective, observational study of postmenopausal hormone therapy and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Ann Internal Med. 2000 Dec; 113:933–941.

[5] Hulley, S et al. (1998). Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Journal of the American Medical Association. , 280(7), 605–613.

[6] Chlebowski R, et al. Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2010; 304(15):1684–1692.

[7] U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2010 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/women.htm.

[8] Bhavanni, B. (1998). Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of conjugated equine estrogens: chemistry and metabolism. The Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. , 217(1), 6–16.

[9] Shen, L et al. (1998). Alkylation of 2‘-deoxynucleosides and DNA by the Premarin metabolite 4-hydroxyequilenin semiquinone radical. Chemical Research in Toxicology. , 11(2), 94–101.

[10] Zhang, F et al. (1999). The major metabolite of equilin, 4-hydroxyequilin, autoxidizes to an o-quinone which isomerizes to the potent cytotoxin 4-hydroxyequilenin-o-quinone. Chemical Research in Toxicology. , 12(2), 204–213.

[11] Hulley, S et al. (1998). Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Journal of the American Medical Association. , 280(7), 605–613.

[12] Steroid.com. Methyltestosterone. Retrieved from Http://www. Steroid. Com/methyltestosterone. Php#.

[13] Hodis HN, Mack WJ, Shoupe D, et al. Testing the menopausal hormone therapy timing hypothesis: the Early Vs Late Intervention Trial with Estradiol. Circulation. 2014;130:A13283.

[14] Tsagkas, V. Hormone therapy has many favorable effects in newly menopausal women: Initial findings of the Kronos early estrogen prevention study (KEEPS). http://www.keepstudy.org/news/pr_100312_a.cfm.

Everyone loves a fine wine because it gets better with age.

Grapes have just enough sugar inside to feed the yeast on their skins to sustain a fermentation process that creates incredible depths of flavor over many years. The trick is, in order for the yeast and sugar to interact to create this state of richness, the grapes must be smashed.

Wine has always had a sacred significance because it’s a metaphor for a state of being, and what it means to be human.

How many times do we find ourselves feeling smashed by the circumstances of our lives, thinking that everything is ruined, only to come through the experience wiser, stronger, and, dare I say, grateful?

This type of breaking down to build back up into something better explains the evolution of human consciousness and the reason we’re alive. This fermentation of the soul happens to us individually and together in our relationships, especially our intimate ones.

In psychological terms, we can say the subconscious creates our life experiences based on our own deepest beliefs about ourselves and the world around us, compelling us to seek out, through our thoughts, feelings and actions, the people and events that will reinforce those perceptions.

The subconscious is always seeking to maintain order in your personal world, as you see it. It doesn’t matter whether the perceptions you hold about yourself, someone else, or a situation, are true, false, right or wrong. The subconscious is completely neutral and non-judgmental. It trusts that you’re the expert on knowing what’s best for you and guides you straight toward people and situations that validate your deepest beliefs, regardless of whether you experience those outcomes as positive or negative.

You can see how this could become a problem if you are not tuned into how your subconscious works. This is where projections come into play—and they can create serious issues with our relationships with others, especially intimate ones.

Addressing this requires real self-knowledge and the willingness to work with your own projections to minimize the harm they create for you and the people you are in relationship with. For more, you can read the full version of this article by subscribing to my Patreon.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse.

Better with Age was originally published in The Startup on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Biologists at Emory University conducted an experiment with monarch butterflies that had been infected with a parasite that damaged their bodies and sometimes their wings, limiting their ability to fly.

Here’s how the experiment worked: Although monarchs eat milkweed exclusively, some species of milkweed are toxic for them.

The researchers placed an equal number of toxic and non-toxic milkweed plants in an enclosure with monarch butterflies that all suffered from the parasite infection.

What the researchers found amazed them.

When given a choice, the sick butterflies chose to lay their eggs on the toxic milkweed 68% of the time. The butterflies weren’t trying to cure their condition, but they were giving their larvae and future generations a chance to absorb massive amounts of toxins from the milkweed as they feasted on it. By absorbing the plant toxins into their larval tissue, these future butterflies would be much more immune to parasite infection, and protected from other predators like amphibians and birds.

It’s interesting that the butterflies self-medicated by laying their eggs on a toxic plant. In doing so, the following generations would actually be healthier and better protected.

How might our perspective change if we could look at our illnesses in the same way? Perhaps we, as students in the Earth School of soul development, are also placed in the perfect toxic environment for the lessons we need to learn from time to time.

Read the full discussion of this topic on Patreon.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse.

Every mother knows that “a mother’s intuition” is a very real thing—but no one has ever been able to explain it.

But in recent years, a study has emerged that may shed light on the science of how a mother’s intuition actually works.

A 2012 study published in the medical journal, PLOS One1, examined the brains of 59 women who had died between the ages of 32 and 101. Nearly two-thirds, or 37 women in the sample, were found to have traces of male DNA with the Y chromosome in various regions of their brains.

The Y chromosome could not have come from the women’s fathers because if it had, they would have been born male. The only logical explanation was that the male DNA had come from their sons.

During pregnancy, more than nutrients pass through the placenta between mother and child. Tissue cells and genetic material also seem to make the transfer.

Science has known for some time that DNA passes through the placenta between the fetus and mother in mice, but now it seems the same phenomenon, called microchimerism, also happens in humans.

Fetal DNA crossing the placenta can find a home in any of the mother’s organs including the skin, liver and spleen. The membrane protecting the brain, known as the blood-brain barrier, becomes less resistant to cells from the outside when a woman is pregnant, because a woman’s immune system is partially suppressed during pregnancy.

This happens so that her body does not reject the fetus as a foreign invader. It was also surmised that fetal DNA entering the mother’s brain was yet another way for the mother’s body to identify the fetus as friend, not foe.

It should be noted that the same effect most likely happens for daughters, as well. The researchers chose to focus on sons because it would have been much too difficult to distinguish a mother’s DNA from her daughter’s, since they are both female. In either case, it appears that fetal DNA in the brains of mothers is there for life; the oldest woman in which the male DNA was found was 94.

I hope you find this discovery as exciting as I do. The fact that women carry the DNA of their children inside their own bodies, specifically their brains, might explain a mother’s intuition. Many women can sense when their child is in danger, or pick out their child’s cry from within a group of other children. Women have felt the reality of this profound connection since the beginning of humanity, but now it seems we have scientific proof of it.

While the study was very small and some valid challenges were made, it’s clear these initial findings justify broader investigation. If confirmed, many healing opportunities may lie in the unique mother/child bond. Could it be possible to use this DNA connection between mother and child to facilitate a non-resistant organ transplant that wouldn’t require immune-suppressive drugs?

I believe this DNA connection will eventually reveal how subconscious trans-generational traumas that create illnesses on the physical plane are passed down, as well as how we can heal them.

So there you have it, a new reason to cherish our mothers and be grateful for the special bond we will share with no one else in our lives. It’s another beautiful example of our interconnectedness within the great One and a reminder of what a profound responsibility and blessing it is to be a mother, and to hold the future in your hands.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse.

Making the Connection

The idea that bras are connected with an increase in breast cancer was first raised by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer in their 1995 book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras.

In the book, the authors were following up on a 1991 study conducted at Harvard University which was published in the European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology.

In examining breast size and breast cancer risk, the study discovered that pre-menopausal women who did not wear bras had half the risk of contracting breast cancer when compared withto bra wearers.

In conducting their own research with 5,000 women between 1991 and 1993, Singer and Grismaijer discovered that breast cancer risk dramatically increased in women who wore their bras over 12 hours per day. Their other findings included:

• Women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer.
• Women who wore their bras for more than 12 hours but not to bed had a 1 in 7 risk for breast cancer.
• Wearing a bra less than 12 hours per day dropped breast cancer risk to 1 in 152.
• Women who never or rarely wore bras had a 1 in 168 risk for breast cancer.

Overall, women who wore their bras 24 hours per day increased their breast cancer risk by 125 times over women who rarely or never wore a bra.

Restriction and Reasons

Naturally, numbers like these got lots of people talking. While the lingerie industry was quick to dismiss the findings, science set to work trying to discover the exact mechanics by which bras seemed to be greatly increasing breast cancer risk in women. The original suspicions still hold true today.

Among those who acknowledge the bra/breast cancer risk connection, it’s widely held that a tight-fitting bra restricts the lymph nodes around the breast and underarm area, preventing toxins from being processed through them and flushed out of the body. Accumulated toxins anywhere in the body increase the risk for cancer.

Dr. Michael Schachter, MD, of the Schachter Center for Complementary Medicine, explains it this way:

“Over 85 percent of the lymph fluid flowing from the breast drains to the armpit lymph nodes. Most of the rest drains to the nodes along the breast bone. Bras and other external tight clothing can impede flow.”

“The nature of the bra, the tightness, and the length of time worn, will all influence the degree of blockage of lymphatic drainage. Thus, wearing a bra might contribute to the development of breast cancer as a result of cutting off lymphatic drainage, so that toxic chemicals are trapped in the breast.”

Free-flowing drainage throughout the entire lymphatic system is crucial for the body to quickly detoxify itself of waste products and any harmful or carcinogenic substances like PCBs, DDT, dioxin, and benzene from the industrial world we live in.

The rate and degree to which the lymphatic system can drain these toxins away depends largely on the amount of body movement needed to stimulate it. The lymphatic system doesn’t simply work on its own. It gets fired up when the body gets moving through exercise, dancing, or even a brisk walk.

When breasts are constricted in a form-fitting bra, they are not free to move in synchronization with the rest of the body and stimulate the lymph nodes around them to start moving toxins out. This kind of restriction problem is clearly evident in many women who display red creases or grooves along their bra lines. Dents around the sides of the chest near the bra edge are also sometimes visible through the clothes, depending on what a woman is wearing.

Another concern that comes along with breast restriction is an increase in temperature.

Breasts are external organs meant to hang out and somewhat away from the torso, maintaining a naturally lower temperature than the rest of the body. Certain cancers are temperature-sensitive. Temperature changes in the breast can alter hormone function and raise the risk of breast cancer, which is hormone-dependent. It’s been known for quite some time that men who regularly wear tight-fitting pants can disturb testosterone production and even their fertility by altering the temperature of the testicles.

A Second Look

Singer and Grismaijer certainly had their detractors, who were quick to point out that their study did not take into account issues such as a woman’s family cancer history, weight, diet, exercise habits, and other risk factors.

This is because Dressed to Kill was an epidemiological study, which normally looks at a large number of case studies and draws mathematical conclusions from them based on comparisons of large amounts of data. Unlike a traditional double-blind study that isolates one factor to test its effect on something else, epidemiological research takes a more bird’s eye view of a situation by seeking out obvious trends under certain circumstances.

This is why, although epidemiological research can certainly show that one thing (A) is correlated with another (B), it cannot absolutely prove that A causes B because too many other potentially causative factors are in play.

Correlation and causation, of course, are not the same thing. From far away, it would seem that smoke is responsible for the destruction of a building that burns to the ground. On closer inspection, however, it’s clear that the smoke was only correlated with the destruction and the real cause of the damage was fire.

Even with its limitations, a strong correlation can be an invaluable clue when determining actual causation between two factors. In fact, further research under a controlled setting often goes on to prove that one factor, which is correlated with a certain outcome, is indeed the causative force—or at least one among several others.

While the Dressed to Kill study doesn’t present an open-and-shut case on bras and breast cancer risk, the correlation it draws between the two is so strong that it can’t be ignored, especially when the cancer risk is 4 to 12 times greater than the risk of getting lung cancer from smoking.

In recent years, additional research has given even more credence to the original study, and those who laughed at the data are now giving it a serious second look. A Chinese study from 2009 found that not sleeping in a bra dropped a woman’s risk of breast cancer by 60 percent.

In 2011, a study by the Department of Public Health in Venezuela found that bras played a primary role in fibrocystic breast disease and cancer, and that any bras that left indentations or red marks on the body were a risk, especially underwire and push-up bras. A study of 2,500 women in Scotland in 2014 also showed that bra fit and length of wear were connected to increases in breast cancer rates.

Refuting the Evidence

In light of this more recent research, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) released data from its own study in September 2014, which was conducted by The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Originally published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the results contradicted virtually other every study done on the bra/breast cancer connection in the 23 years that preceded it. In examining 1,500 women with and without a history of breast cancer, the researchers found that there was zero connection between breast cancer and bra wear, regardless of a woman’s age, how long and at what time of day a bra is worn, at what age bra usage begins, bra style, or even breast/cup size.

When interviewed by USA Today as part of a “myth-busting” story, one of the researchers, Lu Chen, said of the breast cancer/bra connection, “…there’s just nothing there.”

That was it. The researchers simply said that bra usage doesn’t influence breast cancer whatsoever, and completely ignored virtually every other study on the subject as if they’d never existed. The only previous research the Hutchinson study did acknowledge was the Harvard study from 1991 that found breast cancer rates were 100% higher in younger women who wore bras when compared with those who did not. The Hutchinson researchers referred to the Harvard study as “flawed,” without providing a detailed explanation as to why or how they came to that conclusion.

At the same time, other researchers and breast health advocates were finding their own flaws and conflicts of interest in the Hutchinson study.

Of primary concern was the fact that the Hutchinson study only looked at women 55 and older, all of whom wore bras. There was no control group of women who did not wear bras with which the data was compared. Without a proper comparison with a control group, it’s nearly impossible to make any assumptions about the collected data.

Is it possible the researchers were concerned that the lower breast cancer rates of women who went bra-free would disprove the desired outcome of their own study? It’s a valid question. How else do you explain a so-called scientific study with no baseline with which to compare its data? Ironically, the study actually does validate all the previous bra/cancer connection studies because every woman in the Hutchinson study cancer group was a lifetime bra wearer.

Barely one week after the release of the NCI Hutchinson study results, Sydney Ross Singer, one of the authors of Dressed to Kill, was quick to point out the above research flaws, as well as a related conflict of interest that wasn’t widely known.

According to Singer, The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center receives money annually from a fundraising event called the Bra Dash, a 5k run during which women wear pink bras on the outside of their clothes to raise money for research. Perhaps the researchers felt it was inappropriate to implicate bras in breast cancer when bras are used to raise money for the institution.

In spite of the NCI Hutchinson stand on bras and breast cancer, Singer’s work and all the earlier studies continue to be validated. As early as February 2015, research published in the African Journal of Cancer found that, among other risk factors, “intensity of brassiere use…had association with breast cancer occurrence.”

An Underlying Problem

In recent years, yet another cancer-related concern has been raised about bras, particularly those with an underwire and their ability to magnify and sustain electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and radiation from things like cell phones and Wi-Fi. While the fact that your bra could absorb and intensify radiation seems preposterous, it’s not as far-fetched as it sounds.

Science has known for some time that metal objects can be used to sustain and magnify EMF radiation. Dr. George Goodheart, also known as the “Father of Applied Kinesiology,” discovered that taping a small metal ball over an acupuncture point generated a much longer electrical stimulation to that area of the body. He called this the “Antenna Effect.”

That discovery led to the development of AcuAids, small magnetic patches that doctors and chiropractors all over the world use every day.

Just like the metal ball, any metal on the human body has the ability to capture, sustain, and magnify EMF radiation depending on the environment you’re in and the electronic devices you’re using.

The concern with an underwire in a bra is that it comes into contact with two neuro-lymphatic reflex points on the body. The point below the right breast is connected to the liver and gall bladder, while the one below the left breast is linked to the stomach. Over-stimulation of these points not only risks cancerous mutation of breast tissue, but additional problems in the liver, gall bladder, and stomach may result, as well. Doctor and chiropractor John D. Andre explains it this way:

“These reflexes, like all acupuncture points, follow the Law of Stimulation. In the beginning of stimulating a point, it is stimulated — often causing an increase in associated function. Later on, this continued stimulation causes sedation of that point and a subsequent decrease in its associated function. It’s a mechanical thing…If a woman keeps the metal underwire on top of those reflex points, over time that will mess up the functioning of the associated circuits: Liver, gallbladder, and stomach.”

Change & Choice

I’m a firm believer that if we are to make choices that serve us, the choices we make should never be fear-based. With that in mind, there is no need to panic about any of what has been shared here. While there is a legitimate reason for concern when it comes to bras and breast cancer, some simple changes, along with maintaining an already existing healthy lifestyle, can result in a drastic reduction in breast cancer risk. Some of these include:

• Reduce the time you wear your bra by several hours each day.
• Try going bra-free once you come home from work instead of wearing it up until bedtime.
• Never wear your bra to bed.
• If you are small-breasted, an A or B cup, consider wearing camisoles or tops with built-in breast support as part of their design instead of a traditional bra more often.
• If your bra leaves marks on the body of any kind, it’s too tight. Make adjustments.
• Purchase bras without an underwire. Snipping the outer edges below each cup will allow you to remove the wires from your existing bras. Be sure to close the incisions up with a few stitches of thread. Bras with plastic under supports are available, too.
• Never carry your cell phone in a breast pocket, pants pocket, or in your bra. Always use an earpiece or speaker phone, keeping the phone away from your body.
• Consider a traditional internet connection for your home instead of Wi-Fi. The whole family will be healthier for it.

The Gravity of the Situation

If there really is one myth surrounding bra usage that needs to be busted, it’s that bras keep the breasts toned and prevent the sagging that’s wrongfully blamed on gravity.

If you’re concerned that going without a bra more often will cause your breasts to sag, let me reassure you that’s not going to happen. Better yet, check out these great quotes from experts, compliments of Breastnotes.com:

“A mistaken popular belief maintains that wearing a bra strengthens your breasts and prevents their eventual sagging, but you sag because of the proportion of fat and tissue in your breasts, and no bra changes that.” –Susan M. Love M.D., Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book

“Bras will keep your breasts from sagging while you’re wearing them, but not for the remainder of the time. There is no medical literature that shows bras prevent sagging. We have no evidence that wearing a bra could prevent sagging because the breast itself is not muscle, so keeping it toned up is an impossibility.” — John Dixey, Bras, The Bare Facts documentary

“…going braless can actually cause the breasts to sag less. Bras cause breasts to sag because chest muscles work less when breasts are supported and confined in a bra. Over time, these muscles and ligaments can atrophy because of a lack of use…When the chest muscles and ligaments have to bear the weight of the breasts, muscle tone returns.” –Dr. Claire Heigh

“Whether you have always worn a bra or always gone braless, age and breastfeeding will naturally cause your breasts to sag.” –Niels H. Laurensen, M.D., PhD, and Eileen Stukane, The Complete Book of Breast Care

“Contrary to popular belief, going braless doesn’t mean that your breasts are destined to droop…Bras do not preserve the shape or perkiness of breasts.” –Columbia University, Columbia Health, Go Ask Alice! column

So why not try going braless a little more often? The power and independence you feel this time around won’t be from rejecting political oppression but from taking charge of your health and resisting the social norms that seek to compromise it.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse.

When it comes to consciously creating our lives, we talk about thoughts most of the time.

However, the truth is that the feelings we attach to what we think are the real catalyst for manifestation.

We live in a feeling universe and therefore, emotion is the language of our cells. Emotions are energy in motion, and we can direct that energy to our benefit by choosing what we feel in any given moment.

Instead of struggling with which thoughts to think or not to think, the fastest way to plug into the energy of what you desire is to be it now.

Whatever it is you want, imagine what it would feel like to already have received it—and then step into that state of being right now. When you’re feeling that you have your desire right now, collecting your thoughts is unnecessary.

This is because your conscious and subconscious minds are aligned, and they’re sending your cells a new blueprint for how to be in this moment.

As we consciously change our being, this ever evolving being will eventually become our constant (subconscious) new state of being. In his book, Feeling is the Secret, author and teacher, Neville Goddard, reminds us that, “The only reality is consciousness, and consciousness becomes what it knows.”

Imagine how it would feel to have what you desire. Step into the feelings of this new assumption and inhabit that state of being now.

Whether you call it “acting AS IF,” or “faking it until you make it,” there’s much scientific proof behind this spiritual principle. One of the most amazing examples of this concept comes from a study Dr. Ellen J. Langer conducted at Harvard University in 1981.

Dr. Langer placed two different groups of men, all in their 70s and early 80s, in an old monastery in New Hampshire one week apart.

Unbeknownst to the men, before they arrived, she had transformed the entire place to look and feel as if it was still the 1950s. Leave It to Beaver, Ozzie & Harriet and similar iconic ’50s shows played on all the TVs. The news reported on Nikita Khrushchev and the sportscasts on Mickey Mantle. The radios only played doo-wop music, and LIFE magazine was scattered across the period furniture. The pink Cadillac parked out front was the finishing touch to her time capsule.

The first group was told to have fun and reminisce about the good old days. One week later, the second group took their place but was given a different set of instructions. They were told to be as you were in the 1950s. Don’t remember the past, but act as if you are there now as your younger selves. Feel the way you felt then.

Dr. Langer’s original intention was to study how preconceived ideas about aging affect the body. Her results were completely unexpected, and truly exciting.

After one week, the group that was told to simply reminisce about their past showed improvement in all their biomarkers including skin elasticity, hearing, flexibility, systolic blood pressure and sight. Bone density increased and their posture was dramatically straighter. Arthritis that had gnarled many of their hands had begun to loosen its grip.

The second group that was acting like their younger selves, instead of just remembering old times, experienced all the same improvements but at dramatically increased levels. Skin elasticity improved so much that their wrinkles started to disappear. Scores on intelligence tests improved, as well.

Dr. Langer’s study shows us that how we feel about anything, especially ourselves, is what drives the power of manifestation. Her work is proof of “As Above, So Below.” The mind doesn’t just have the power to halt illness and aging, it can reverse them too.

The quality of life we experience depends on understanding the difference between what is and what can be, releasing all preconceived notions and consciously acting on a new assumption.

The most amazing outcome of this study was the biological evidence that showed that the men who felt and acted like their younger selves, were actually physiologically younger when the study concluded.

Each time you imagine feeling healthy and strong, you send your cells a new set of directions.

Like Dr. Langer’s test group, you can “feel it real,” so to speak, in big and small ways each day.

Some of my patients may have noticed that at the top of each supplement label from my practice, Be Hive of Healing, is the affirmation, “What a balanced and healing life you are living.”

It’s our way of helping you stay grounded in a healing consciousness. Every time you’re scheduled to take your supplements, you might want to say to yourself, “What a balanced and healing life I am living.” Say it out loud and make sure you FEEL like you’re in a robust, healthy body. Then go about the rest of your day trying to embody as much of this idea as you can. Each time you imagine feeling healthy and strong, you send your cells a new set of directions.

Dr. Langer defines her unique brand of work as “the psychology of possibility.” For her, the quality of life we experience depends on understanding the difference between what is and what can be, releasing all preconceived notions and consciously acting on a new assumption.

Imagine how it would feel to have what you desire. Step into the feelings of this new assumption and inhabit that state of being now. The powerful energy from the positive feelings generated by this new state will speak to your cells, and they will respond. Dr. Langer certainly agreed in an interview with Harvard Magazine:

“Wherever you put the mind, the body will follow. At the end of the [monastery] study, I was playing football — touch, but still football — with these men, some of whom gave up their canes. It is not our physical state that limits us.”

I have seen enough healing miracles in my own life to know that what she says is absolutely true.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse.

Recently, I received a beautiful email from a prominent corporate executive who I’d been working with through the Master Mind Mentorship Program (M3P) I offer. The email contained a recording of Alanis Morissette’s song “Thank U.”

My client’s kindness and the lyrics of the song brought me to tears, as it spoke of being thankful—not just for positive things, but all experiences that make us who we are—experiences including frailty, consequences, grief and disillusionment. I was also struck by the first lyric of the song where Morissette sings, “How ‘bout getting off of these antibiotics?”

There’s an old saying that goes, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” It’s most often used to reference a person or group of people whose true intention is to make a situation better but, through poor decision-making or lack of knowledge, only end up making things worse.

In the medical world, you couldn’t find a better description for antibiotics.

Collateral Damage

The original intent of antibiotics was good. They were created to kill bad bacteria in the body that make us sick.

And yet, as so often happens, even the best of intentions can lead to the opposite result.

Antibiotics have contributed to major health and environmental problems, including an epidemic of chronic conditions like poor digestion and recurrent yeast infections, waterway pollution, an increase in cancer risk, and a host of superbugs that are causing untold suffering throughout the world.

To read a full discussion of this topic, visit and subscribe to Entelechy Medicine on Patreon.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse.

Scientists who have studied meditation extensively define it as a hypermetabolic physiological state—a condition in which the mind exists outside of waking, sleeping or dreaming.

In other words, it’s a verified fourth state of consciousness, far removed from simple relaxation. When we sustain ourselves at this unique level of mind for even short periods of meditation, the body responds in amazing ways.

In fact, the quality of rest achieved during meditation is more concentrated than anything that can be experienced during sleep, and it’s much better at reducing stress and cortisol levels.

Some studies show meditation reduces cortisol by 30% more than standard stress relief exercises. This is significant, not just to overall health, but to weight loss goals as well, because elevated cortisol both promotes weight gain and prevents the body from losing existing weight.

To date, over 600 peer-reviewed studies, published in 160 respected medical journals in 33 countries, have been conducted on the health benefits of meditation.

To read more about this exciting research, follow Entelechy Medicine on Patreon.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse.

Having a child might just be the greatest joy in life for most couples, especially for women.

It seems largely inadequate to say that many women desire to give birth. A desire can merely be a preference for one thing over another.

The yearning many women experience to become a mother is often deeply interwoven with their feminine identity and their very purpose on earth as a human being. That’s more than a desire; it’s a primal drive.

On the flip side, men are born with an equally intense compulsion to seek women out and meet that need. These instinctual cravings must be deep and intense if the human race is to go on. It was divinely designed that way.

Somewhere at the center of our being, most men and women subconsciously understand that carrying on the human race is one of our greatest honors and responsibilities in this life.

When a couple experiences fertility problems and cannot accomplish this primal purpose, men and women tend to react differently. If the male is infertile, he tends to struggle with masculinity issues, losing his sense of self.

However, because women are responsible for 99% of the procreation process, childbirth is more intensely integrated into their consciousness. If they happen to be the infertile partner, their pain goes beyond losing their sense of self; they often lose their reason for being. Deeply-seated feelings of having no use in the world are common among women who are told they are infertile.

After being told they have impaired fertility, most women feel that ART is their only option, but there are other options. Uterine realignment, emotional release, and examining your diet and medications are just a few.

For a full discussion of these options, visit Entelechy Medicine on Patreon.

Dr. Sadeghi is the founder of Be Hive of Healing, an integrative medical center, publisher of MegaZEN Wellbeing Journal, and the author of The Clarity Cleanse.