DWQA Questions › Tag: human disempowerment
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
A viewer asks: “Richard J. Davidson, author of “The Emotional Life of Your Brain”, says understanding the brain increases agency over emotional reactions. He claims you can train the brain to respond differently to challenges and that with the right mental exercises, and habits, it’s possible to reshape neural pathways, enhance resilience, attention, and overall emotional well-being. For example, he claims that naming an emotion activates the prefrontal cortex, which helps regulate the brain’s fear-and-stress center. He says the prefrontal cortex can also regulate other emotion-generating regions (amygdala, insula, hippocampus). How effective are these suggestions in gaining agency over emotional reaction?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
53 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “The classical view of emotions is they “happen to you” – regulation means managing reactions after they occur (e.g., calming down when angry). Lisa Feldman Barrett’s Theory of Constructed Emotion however argues that emotions are constructed (based on context, past learning, and bodily input) rather than hardwired biological and universal responses. If correct, practices like increasing body awareness, expanding emotional vocabulary, and reframing experiences can change the way we build emotions in real time. How well can this framework be used to turn emotional reactions into something we can consciously shape, meaning we have agency over how we feel, rather than just endure?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
51 views0 answers0 votes
A review article shows little or no benefit of supplementing patients with vitamin D3 for bone fractures (T. Gatt, A. Grech, and H. Arshad. The effect of Vitamin D supplementation for bone healing in fracture patients: a systematic review. Adv. Orthopedics Volume 2023, Article ID 6236045). However, the supplement doses of vitamin D3 were either low, 800-2000 IU daily, or quite high loading doses orally or systemically of 100,000 to 300,000 IU. Was their negative assessment justified or were the studies flawed? Would taking a 5000 to 10,000 IU dose of vitamin D3 daily, give significant benefit for healing bone fractures?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
160 views0 answers0 votes
Are the Red Light Therapy devices from UltraLux Health safe and effective, and of high enough quality to be a good value considering their cost?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
74 views0 answers0 votes
Many Red Light Therapy devices only deliver visible red and near-infrared wavelengths. How significant for healing is exposure to far-infrared wavelengths?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
101 views0 answers0 votes
A systematic review of 416 medical journal articles affirmed a strong association between higher serum vitamin D levels and a lower risk of bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, esophageal, gallbladder, kidney, ovarian, pancreatic, rectal, stomach, and vulvar cancers, as well as Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. The review also uncovered lower risks of metastasis and mortality from cancer in patients with higher levels of vitamin D. While vitamin D levels of 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/L) were adequate for bone and muscle health, reduction of cancer risk and mortality required levels greater than 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L) and fell further with levels above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L). The review cautioned that studies showing no benefit for those taking less than 5,000 IU per day might be misleading. [Wimalawansa SJ. Vitamin D’s impact on cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review. Nutrients. 2025 Jul 16;17(14):2333. Doi: 10.3390/nu17142333.] Is this a fair summary of vitamin D benefits for limiting incidence and severity of cancer?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
80 views0 answers0 votes
You have told us that 5000 IU of vitamin D3 taken twice a day would be safe and helpful for many, many people. Is that enough to get serum levels in a useful range for cancer prevention?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
80 views0 answers0 votes
Studies have shown that vitamin D levels have an inverted U-shaped curve, where low levels (<29.7 nmol/L) result in shortened telomeres on DNA, a sign of aging, but so do high levels of vitamin D (>95.9 nmol/L). Population-based studies and randomized clinical trials have shown a U- or J-shaped curve and suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes in those with the highest serum Vitamin D levels, including falls, fractures, and frailty. Most studies have reported a higher risk in those participants with serum levels above 100 nmol/L. Are the deleterious effects noted in these studies caused by elevated vitamin D? If so, your support for taking 5,000 to 10,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily seems risky. What is most important for us to know?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
72 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Recently a friend of mine explained she was diagnosed with MTHFR gene mutation. After which I realized this may be the gene mutation my doctors told me I had years ago. The gene mutation appears to be responsible for all kinds of chronic physical ailments. Everything from heart problems to digestive disorders and nerve issues. My question is: Are chronic viruses somehow related to the gene mutation? Or is there another reason for this mutation to occur through the environment or are there more sinister reasons for this mutation? Like interloper involvement? What can you tell me?”
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
122 views0 answers0 votes
Humans do not produce Vitamin C due to a mutation in the GULO (gulonolactone oxidase) gene, which results in the inability to synthesize the protein. Normal GULO is an enzyme that catalyzes the reaction of D-glucuronolactone with oxygen to L-xylo-hex-3-gulonolactone. This then spontaneously forms Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C). However, without the GULO enzyme, no vitamin C is produced. Other mammals like guinea pigs, bats, and dry-nosed primates have gained the same defect. It seems odd that a deleterious random mutation would become dominant in the human lineage. Is that what happened, or was there a sinister manipulation of the human genome?
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
106 views0 answers0 votes
If human DNA was corrupted deliberately, what caused the problem in other mammalian species?
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
123 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks about selling versus holding onto gold in a downturn: “What timing options can people consider beyond simply holding for the long term? I gather the word is that the drop will be sudden and you could just be too late, but would it be a good idea to sell right after the massive US power blackouts hit? I know there would be gaps in internet and stock market services for a time.” What can we tell him?
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
120 views0 answers0 votes
Given the recent paper showing a good anticancer effect of both grape seed extract and vitamin C in a mouse model of solid Ehrlich carcinoma, would either or both be a safe and effective addition to our Antiviral Regimen?
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
93 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “What can you tell us about the benefits versus risk factors in taking the bone medication Evenity? Cost is high, but insurance can help. Can you tell us if it is highest and best to take this or if it would be better to continue LHP-DSMR healing requests without outside chemical interventions? Side effects with this drug are concerning.”
ClosedNicola asked 4 months ago • 
88 views0 answers0 votes
In the book, The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want, co-authors Emily Bender and Alex Hanna argue that the term AI (acronym for Artificial Intelligence) is marketing hype. Google defines the word hype as “promote or publicize (a product or idea) intensively, often exaggerating its importance or benefits.” The implication is that without the exaggerated claim of benefit, and if people knew what they were REALLY getting with widespread adoption of these technologies bundled under the AI moniker, they quite likely would reject the product or idea altogether. The other pertinent question is, benefit to WHOM? Does the average consumer really benefit more than the cost imposed and the harm potentially incurred? The authors argue NO, the use of the term AI is really a bait and switch for increased AUTOMATION across the board. Automation that will decrease the demand for labor and remove human judgment from decision-making and categorizing. It will end up benefiting the ownership and finance classes at the expense of everyone else. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
175 views0 answers0 votes
« Previous12345…36Next »
Ask Question