Beth Yamada

Mãe, médica, neurocientista e investidora.

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

Incredible how we know so little about thymus physiology.

[Abud Bakri MD @AbudBakri]

Thymulin levels by age

The endocrine aspects of the thymus may be equally as important as the immune aspects

And no one is measuring this critical hormone, which is more important to your health than testosterone

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

@schmittpaula @moolhosdegato @SBTonline Ele sempre trabalhou no jornalismo esportivo, e teve essas passagens no BBB e the voice. Sempre gostei das resenhas dele mas ainda não o assisti narrando jogos.

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

@rafaelgloves Chocada! Acompanhava o Richard desde 2019! Sem acreditar! Muito jovem! Grande perda!

[Zane Koch @zanehkoch]

for a while i've had a slight fear that the bluetooth from my airpods could be frying my brain

this weekend i pulled the raw data from a $30m government study of 1,679 mice blasted with cell phone radiation and reanalyzed it

what i found was...not what I expected?
🧵

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

Para reconectar suas sinapses com as coisas boas da sua vida

[Growth Labs @growthhub_]

This man literally tells Neuroscience trick to stop negative thought loops.

[Metabolic Mind @Metabolic_Mind]

Metabolic Health Initiative just released a free eBook bringing together 150+ peer-reviewed studies across psychiatry, neurology, oncology, metabolic dysfunction, and human performance.

If you’re exploring the intersection of metabolism and brain health, this is a practical way to engage directly with the evidence.

Each study is summarized and linked to the original publication so you can go deeper.

📘 Free download. No membership required: https://t.co/cKVfifMbDL

Organized evidence helps move meaningful conversations forward.

[Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki @MatthewWielicki]

As a former academic, it is physically painful to watch the "Gold Standard" of scientific publishing turn into a rubber-stamp factory for narrative-driven garbage. A recent paper published by Springer Nature on CO2 "toxicity" is the perfect case study in why institutional science is losing all credibility.

The paper claims that rising atmospheric CO2 is on the verge of poisoning human blood and causing a "toxic threat" within decades. It sounds scary... until you apply five minutes of basic biological and historical literacy.

1. The Evolutionary Reality Check
Mammals evolved roughly 225 million years ago. During that era, atmospheric CO2 wasn't just "high"—it was astronomical, estimated at 2,000 to 4,000 ppm. That is nearly 10X higher than current levels. If the human (mammalian) blood-gas exchange system were as fragile as these authors claim, our entire lineage would have been extinguished in the Triassic. We are the descendants of organisms that thrived in high CO2.

2. The Military "Living Laboratory"
We don't have to guess how humans react to high CO2. The U.S. Navy and NASA have decades of data. Submariners routinely live and work in environments with CO2 levels maintained between 2,000 and 5,000 ppm for months at a time. If the "science" in this paper were remotely accurate, every nuclear sub crew in history would have been neurologically incapacitated. They aren't. They perform highly complex technical tasks at CO2 levels the authors of this paper would find "apocalyptic."

3. The Peer Review Scandal
How does a paper that ignores the fossil record and existing physiological data get past the "gatekeepers"?

When "Science" ignores the laws of biology and decades of human data to push a scary headline, it is no longer science... it is ideology. This is why the public is tuning out. When you trade your intellectual honesty for a "fashionable" conclusion, you don't just lose the argument; you lose the trust of the people.

The "reproducibility crisis" was just the beginning; we are now facing a full-blown crisis of basic competence. When prestigious publishers like Springer Nature swap rigorous physiological data for "fashionable" alarmism, they aren't just publishing bad papers... they are actively dismantling the public's trust in the scientific method itself.

Academia is burning its own house down, and until there is a reckoning with this institutional rot, nobody should blame the public for looking elsewhere for the truth.

https://t.co/Cm0qOakkwc

[Camus @newstart_2024]

Andrew Huberman shares a simple, science-backed trick to fall asleep faster when your mind races or you can't stop noticing your body position:

Close your eyes and do slow, deliberate eye movements to shut down proprioception (body awareness) and signal your brain it's time to transition into sleep.

Try this tonight (takes ~1–2 minutes):

- Slowly move eyes left → right (a few times)

- Then counterclockwise circle → clockwise circle
Look up → down

- Gently attempt to look toward the bridge of your nose (faux cross-eyed)

- Finish with a long exhale to slow heart rate

Why it works: Eye movements coordinate with your vestibular system & cerebellum to mimic the natural forgetting of body position that happens at sleep onset (similar to slow rocking or boat motion calming the brain). It gives your racing mind something active to focus on instead of "just relax."

Huberman: "Many people find it helps them fall asleep quickly—it's not kooky; it's physiology."

No apps, no gadgets—just your eyes. Game-changer for insomniacs or restless nights. Try it & report back.

[Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) @MIT]

We’ve long thought of epigenetic memory as an on/off switch — genes either fully activated or fully repressed. But a new study from MIT engineers reveals something far more nuanced: cells actually remember gene activity on a dimmer dial, not a binary switch.

It opens the door to discovering new cell types and understanding previously hidden biological behaviors. https://t.co/lmaO9P13hv

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

Eles já pesquisam isso há mais de 10 anos. Em 2018 eu assisti uma palestra do Greg Riggins em Belém, onde ele contou q a descoberta foi ao acaso. Houve uma infestação parasitária na colônia de camundongos usados em estudos de câncer, e notaram (surpresos) a regressão dos tumores pós-tratamento com mebendazole.

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

Se não se pode questionar, não é ciência. É propaganda.

[The Vigilant Fox 🦊 @VigilantFox]

“This is devastating.”

Attorney @AaronSiriSG of ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) notes that this study should have been “rushed to publication on an emergency basis.”

But that didn’t happen.

[Camus @newstart_2024]

17% vs. 57%: The Staggering Chronic Illness Difference Between Unvaxxed and Vaxxed Kids A Major Study Found—Before It Was Buried.

A bombshell revelation from attorney Aaron Siri exposes a systemic corruption of science that has left parents in the dark for decades.

Leading up to 2013, the U.S. government paid the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review ALL existing science to confirm the safety of the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule.

Their finding? “The studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule… have not been conducted.”

They found ZERO studies comparing the long-term health of fully vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated children. The IOM could only conclude “there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe”—a far cry from proving it is safe.

They noted such a study was possible using large medical databases. A 2015 CDC white paper even outlined how to do it. Yet, the government never did.

In 2017, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sought to answer this critical question. They met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center—a mainstream, pro-vaccine doctor who conducts clinical trials for companies like Moderna.

He agreed to conduct the study.

Using actual medical records from 2000-2016, his team compared children with no vaccines to those who had one or more. The sample was large: ~2,000 unvaxxed vs. ~16,000 vaxxed.

The results were staggering, and all statistically significant. Compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated children had:
▪️ 4.29x higher rate of ASTHMA
▪️ 3.03x higher rate of ATOPIC DISEASE
▪️ 5.96x higher rate of AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
▪️ 5.53x higher rate of NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS

- Including 3.28x DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY

- And 4.47x SPEECH DISORDER

For conditions like ADHD, learning disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, there were HUNDREDS of cases in the vaccinated group and ZERO in the unvaccinated.

The overarching finding: By age 10, only 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic illness. Among the vaccinated, that number skyrocketed to 57%.

This was the study that was never done. The one the IOM called for. And its findings were devastating to the official narrative.

So what happened? The study was completed in early 2020… and then buried.

Aaron Siri states that the researchers, despite affirming the study was well-designed, refused to publish it. Dr. Zervos reportedly said he “didn’t want to lose his job.” The co-author said she “did not want to make doctors uncomfortable.”

This is the corruption of science in plain sight. Studies that confirm the desired outcome are published. Those that don’t are shoved in a drawer.

We must be able to have honest science to ensure we are protecting children from infectious diseases without causing widespread chronic harm.

The public deserves the truth.

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

Excelente

[Elie Jarrouge, MD @ElieJarrougeMD]

When you see highly educated scientists and physicians (people with master’s degrees in public health and PhDs in their fields) completely disagreeing on a health topic (whether it’s diet, cholesterol, or vaccines), it should raise a red flag.

Why? Because when experts who are supposedly looking at the same body of evidence land on opposite conclusions, it usually means one or more of the following is happening:
• Someone is cherry-picking data.
• Someone is overly biased or dogmatic.
• Someone is ignoring inconvenient evidence.
• Someone has financial or professional incentives to defend their position.

Bad intentions are rarely the root cause. Most experts genuinely believe their viewpoint. But we can’t ignore the reality that careers, reputations, and salaries often depend on defending certain narratives. As Upton Sinclair put it: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Example 1: Nutrition
Some PhDs will swear red meat is dangerous because of saturated fat, while others will argue it’s one of the most nutrient-dense, health-promoting foods. Both cite “the science.” The difference usually lies in what evidence they prioritize: weak food-frequency questionnaires vs. rigorous clinical outcomes, or epidemiology vs. biochemistry.

Example 2: Cholesterol and Statins
Decades of dogma have framed LDL cholesterol as the “cause” of heart disease, leading to the widespread prescription of statins. Yet, other equally credentialed experts argue the story is far more nuanced: LDL may be a marker rather than the cause, and metabolic health (insulin resistance, inflammation) drives cardiovascular risk far more than cholesterol alone. Patients are put on lifelong statins, despite the fact that for many groups (especially primary prevention in low-risk individuals), the absolute benefit is tiny, while side effects are real. Both camps have MDs, PhDs, and clinical trials to back them. So which one is “science,” and which one is “misinformation”?

Example 3: Vaccines
Some public health experts say every single vaccine on the schedule is safe and necessary, while others raise legitimate concerns about certain ingredients or the aggressive dosing schedule. Again, same credentials but opposite conclusions because interpretation and bias are involved.

Here’s the broader lesson: when smart people with the same level of training land on opposite sides of the fence, it doesn’t mean both sides are equally valid. It means you, as a critical thinker, need to look closer at the assumptions, incentives, and blind spots driving their conclusions. Science isn’t about consensus—it’s about evidence that can withstand scrutiny. Consensus is often just a snapshot of what the majority believes, not necessarily what’s true.

And history proves this over and over again. What was once “settled science” is often overturned later:
• Galileo was condemned for rejecting the Earth-centered consensus.
• Semmelweis was ridiculed for handwashing. Germ theory was once “quackery.”
• For years, smoking was considered safe, and even endorsed by doctors.

Each time, there was consensus. Each time, the consensus was wrong.

So the presence of disagreement among equally credentialed experts should not be dismissed as “misinformation.” It should be seen as an invitation to think more critically, to examine incentives, and to remember that truth doesn’t depend on a vote.

[GIROTTO @GIROTTO]

Esse vídeo é pesado hein senhores, queria ler a opinião feminina nos comentários.

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

A velocidade está assustadora. Tbm me passa essa visão catastrófica. Viu o experimento com o Claude? Assustador.

[E. Cavendish @ducavendish]

Post meio catastrofista, portanto, não siga se não quiser ler potencial má notícia.

Vcs sabem que adoro debater política e tenho minhas convicções sobre o que seria um melhor futuro do nosso Brasil.

Por outro lado, todo dia penso no dia que a ASI (superinteligência artificial) chegará e no que resultará para a humanidade.

Num espaço curto de tempo nos tornaremos obsoletos, enquanto a AI seguirá progredindo de forma geométrica.

O problema é que acredito nisso acontecendo até 2030, diferente de outros que acham ser em 2050 ou depois.

Seguirei lutando pela nossa política e no que acredito, mas as chances são cada vez maiores que nossas convicções pouco importarão em alguns anos.

Alguns especialistas que acompanham de perto dizem que a chance de termos um cenário apocaliptico é de ~50%. 😫

Em todo caso, abrace aqueles que vc ama e não deixe para viver daqui 5 anos o que você pode hoje.

Podemos estar nos momentos finais dessa extraordinária experiência que é a humanidade.

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

Não dava pra seguir o plano de virar a Argentina primeiro? Please

[Rafael Gloves @rafaelgloves]

Bancos suspendendo remessa de dólar por tempo indeterminado após aumento do IOF.

Hello, Venezuela.

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

Absolute incredible! If confirmed, changes completely the current narrative! 🤯

[John Cremeans @JohnCremeansX]

The Giza Pyramid’s Origin Take An Unsuspecting Turn: Advanced scans in 2025 have uncovered an astonishing underground complex beneath the Khafre Pyramid. Researchers found 5 multi-level structures linked by pathways, 8 deep cylindrical wells plunging 648m, and 2 massive cubic chambers, spanning 2km under the Giza Plateau! This is completely fascinating. Could this be evidence of an even more advanced civilization that is responsible for the structures? It would be interesting to see if the other pyramid like structures in other parts of the globe had the same type of structures beneath them. Time will tell.

[Beth Yamada @beth_yamada]

@RafaelFontana Eu já vi em CGH faz uns anos. Parece q tem em GRU tbm.