Health & Wellness 2

• A 2012 peer-reviewed study found that rats given C₆₀–olive oil lived nearly twice as long as normal, with no tumors detected—described as "almost doubles their lifespan" Wikipedia+10PubMed+10ResearchGate+10.

• Follow-up safety tests found no short-term toxicity in rats at similar doses Healthline+3excli.de+3ResearchGate+3.

 

Some believe the C₆₀–olive oil breakthrough was too big to stay in the spotlight. In 2012, scientists ran a real peer-reviewed test where rats given this mix didn’t just live longer—they lived almost twice as long, and without tumors.

 

 That kind of result had never been seen before in lab animals. Later safety checks found the treatment wasn’t toxic, which only raised more eyebrows: if it’s safe and works so well, why isn’t everyone talking about it? Some wonder if the reason it faded from headlines is because such a simple, unpatentable molecule threatens the massive industries built around aging, illness, and cancer. Instead of funding more human studies, the topic got quietly pushed aside. So now, the people sharing it are not big pharma—they’re the ones trying it for themselves.

 

But here's where things get complicated:

1. Not yet proven in humans: Lab results in rats don’t always apply to people. Human studies are very limited, and we don’t know if it’s safe or effective for us Healthlineexcli.de.

2. Conflicting data: Some real studies in mice showed no lifespan benefit, suggesting results aren’t consistent across species Fight Aging!.

3. Potential risks: C₆₀ is light-sensitive—when exposed to light, it can degrade and become harmful. That means manufacturing and storage must be done very carefully Wikipedia+1Wikipedia+1.

This is where the story takes a twist. While that 2012 study made big waves, things aren't so clear-cut when it comes to humans. What worked in rats might not work the same in people—our bodies are more complex, and there haven’t been enough serious human studies to say it’s totally safe or effective. In fact, other tests in mice showed no increase in lifespan at all, which makes scientists wonder if results depend on species, the dose, or even the way the substance is made. 

Plus, C₆₀ can become dangerous if it’s exposed to light—changing into something toxic. So unless it’s made and stored very carefully, it could do more harm than good. That’s why some experts are cautious. They aren’t saying it doesn’t work—they’re saying we need more proof before calling it a miracle.

 

Final Verdict:

True: There's peer-reviewed evidence that C₆₀ extended rat lifespans dramatically under controlled lab conditions—with anti-tumor effects.

Not proven or safe for humans yet: More animal studies and human clinical trials are needed to confirm benefits and rule out risks.

 

Beware overblown claims: Stories suggesting it doubles lifespan in people, prevents cancer, gives superpowers, or is deliberately hidden by "Big Pharma" mix real findings with personal anecdotes and conspiracy thinking. Those claims go far beyond what science supports.

The final picture is a mix of real science and bold storytelling. It's true that one well-known lab study showed C₆₀, when mixed with olive oil, helped rats live much longer and stay tumor-free—but that was in a controlled setting, with specific doses and conditions. When it comes to people, though, we’re not there yet. There haven’t been enough proper studies to prove it’s safe or works the same way in humans. Some folks online have taken the rat results and added dramatic claims—like curing cancer, giving you superhero-like energy, or saying that secret groups are hiding it to protect profits. But those ideas stretch far past what the science actually shows. It’s not that the research is fake—it’s that real science moves slower and demands a lot more proof before we say something truly works.

 

Please, use your discretion when applying these articles or videos of advice.

 

Please Like and Share! 😉🪽

The Brutal Truth July 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 

Something unusual is happening in Washington. After decades of telling people to stay far away from psychedelic drugs like LSD and MDMA (ecstasy), government leaders—including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and some Trump allies—are now saying these substances might help people who suffer from deep mental pain, like PTSD and depression.

 

RFK Jr. told Congress he wants to see psychedelics approved for medical use within a year. That shocked even the strongest supporters, many of whom have spent years trying to convince the government to look at psychedelics in a new way.

This includes Rick Perry, who was a governor of Texas and worked in President Trump’s Cabinet. He’s now speaking out in favor of psychedelic therapy, saying it could help veterans and others who are suffering.

These changes are coming fast, and not everyone feels comfortable with how quickly the doors are opening.

Some leaders in the psychedelic field are worried. They say if the government rushes things without proper research, it could backfire and make people trust these therapies even less. People like Rick Doblin, who’s been working to get MDMA approved since the 1980s, say the right studies still need to be done.

The FDA—which didn’t approve MDMA for PTSD under President Biden—has started to reconsider. The new FDA chief, Dr. Marty Makary, says psychedelics are now a “top priority,” and the agency is even trying to fast-track some drug approvals to speed up the process. They might even let some drugs skip the long, detailed studies usually required.

But here’s where things get tense.

Some people believe Dr. Makary shouldn’t be in that position at all, because he supported the fast rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which many Americans believe were forced on people too quickly and without enough long-term safety data. Critics say his willingness to “rush” medicines makes him untrustworthy, even if psychedelic therapies could help many who are hurting.

They worry that unless he’s replaced, the same pattern might happen again—something meant to heal could end up causing harm if it’s pushed too fast, too soon, and without honesty.

So now, there’s a strange split.

Some see a chance to bring healing through new science—others see a government that keeps jumping from one risky idea to another, without stopping to clean up the last one.

In the middle are the people suffering, especially our veterans, hoping someone finally gets it right.

 

Sources & Links:

• Politico – RFK Jr. Pushes Psychedelics

• FDA MDMA Rejection – NPR

• Rick Perry Supports Psychedelic Therapy – Texas Tribune

• FDA Fast Track Drug Approval – FDA.gov

 

The Brutal Truth July 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

 

 Some people say the renaming of Remdesivir to “Veklury” isn’t just a simple brand update—it could be a way for big pharmaceutical companies and regulators to reset public perception. The medicine was first rushed out during COVID-19 under an emergency use rule, and later the FDA gave it full approval as Veklury based on certain clinical data. 

 

FDA approves remdesivir as COVID-19 treatment

 Some people say the renaming of Remdesivir to “Veklury” isn’t just a simple brand update—it could be a way for big pharmaceutical companies and regulators to reset public perception. The medicine was first rushed out during COVID-19 under an emergency use rule, and later the FDA gave it full approval as Veklury based on certain clinical data. 

 

But many argue the evidence showing it helps isn’t as strong as claimed—some large international trials didn’t even find it reduced death rates fda.gov+6vox.com+6genengnews.com+6. Now, with a new name and shiny marketing, supporters push it as a go-to treatment, even though some experts still question its real-world benefits. The change could help doctors feel more comfortable using it, hospitals bill insurance, and Gilead keep earning large profits, all while doubts remain just beneath the surface.

 

Wasn't Remdesivir used to treat AIDS?

Remdesivir was not originally developed to treat AIDS (which is caused by the HIV virus), but this is a common confusion because it is an antiviral drug and shares some similarities with HIV treatments in how it works.

Here’s the real story:

What Remdesivir Was Actually Made For

Remdesivir was first developed by the drug company Gilead Sciences to treat Ebola during the 2014–2016 outbreak in West Africa. It didn't work well enough in human trials for Ebola, but scientists noticed that it had strong effects against other viruses in lab tests, including coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

Why People Link It to HIV/AIDS

Gilead Sciences—the company that created Remdesivir—is also the maker of Truvada and other HIV/AIDS medications. Because both HIV drugs and Remdesivir are antiviral medications and come from the same company, people often assume Remdesivir was part of the HIV treatment plan. But it wasn’t designed for HIV and hasn’t been approved to treat it.

 

How It Works (In Simple Terms)

Remdesivir tries to stop viruses from copying their RNA—this is like stopping a printer from printing more virus instructions inside the body. HIV drugs also mess with how viruses copy themselves, but they target different steps. So the similarity is in the general idea, not the disease it was meant to treat.

 

What This Means

• FDA Approval
  In October 2020, the FDA gave full approval to what was initially known as Remdesivir under emergency use. It's now branded Veklury and remains the only antiviral approved for COVID-19 patients in hospitals youtube.com+11fda.gov+11interestingengineering.com+11.

• How It Works
  Veklury blocks the coronavirus’s ability to copy itself, helping some patients recover faster—about 5 days quicker on average during clinical trials europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com.

• Effectiveness Debates
  Some studies, including a big WHO trial, found little impact on survival. Others showed benefits in reducing hospital stays and progression of disease vox.com.

• New Name = New Era
  Bringing Remdesivir under full FDA approval and marketing it as "Veklury" has helped give it broader doctor confidence, insurance coverage, and financial return for Gilead, even as questions remain about its long-term value.

Some people believe that changing Remdesivir’s name to "Veklury" wasn’t just about branding—it may have been a smart way to hide its rocky history and start fresh. At first, Remdesivir was rushed out during the height of the COVID crisis and only allowed under emergency rules. Later, it was approved fully, even though big studies, like one by the World Health Organization, showed it didn’t do much to save lives. But by renaming it, drug makers could reintroduce it with a clean image, get insurance companies to pay more easily, and build public trust again. Doctors started seeing it as a new solution, even though the drug itself didn’t change. That’s why some say this wasn’t just a medical decision—it was also a clever business move that helped cover up early problems and keep the profits flowing.

 

 

The Brutal Truth July 2025The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Discover the shocking truth about sucralose, the artificial sweetener hiding in thousands of “healthy” products that’s causing more harm than sugar. Originally developed as an insecticide in 1975, this chemical compound is now the fastest-growing sweetener worldwide, found in everything from protein bars to diet drinks.

 

Even more concerning, 70% of people who consume it develop sensitivity symptoms - yet most don’t know they’re affected. In this eye-opening investigation, learn:

• Why this sweetener is 600 times sweeter than sugar (and how it tricks your body)
• The hidden connection between sucralose and insecticide development
• How it prevents your liver from removing other toxins
• Common “health” foods secretly containing this ingredient
• Natural alternatives that are truly safe
• Steps to detox if you’ve been consuming it

 

Sucralose, a popular artificial sweetener found in countless “health-conscious” foods, has come under scrutiny—but is it really the #1 health hazard? Let’s explore the latest findings clearly and thoughtfully.

 

Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by accident when scientists researching sugar derivatives ended up with a compound much sweeter than sugar—initially mistaken for an insecticide shutterstock.com+15usrtk.org+15alamy.com+15frontiersin.org+2health.com+2medicalnewstoday.com+2. Today, it’s marketed under names like Splenda and added to everything from protein bars to diet sodas.

Recent studies—mainly in lab settings and animal models—have flagged several concerning effects:

• DNA damage: A metabolite called sucralose‑6‑acetate (S6A) showed genotoxic effects in test tubes, though the levels needed far exceed typical human consumption ft.com+3medicalnewstoday.com+3verywellhealth.com+3.

• Inflammation: Mice fed sucralose exhibited liver inflammation and shifts in gut bacteria, raising immune concerns sciencedirect.com+15frontiersin.org+15ft.com+15.

• Detox interference: Animal studies suggest sucralose could alter enzymes involved in detoxifying drugs and chemicals .

 

However, major reviews—including recent meta-analyses—conclude that sucralose remains safe when consumed within FDA-approved limits. One assessment noted, “no evidence of toxicity or carcinogenicity” at typical intake levels.

 en.wikipedia.org+15sciencedirect.com+15skeptics.stackexchange.com+15

From a conservative viewpoint, sucralose is viewed as a useful tool—providing sweetness without calories and perceived as harmless in moderation. Supporters acknowledge the debates but see the science as reassuringly regulated and evidence-based.

Center-of-the-road thinkers accept that while sucralose may carry some risks, most red flags come from high-dose or lab-only studies. They suggest moderation—particularly for vulnerable groups like children or people with metabolic disorders—and call for human clinical trials to clarify long-term effects. Organizations like WHO still advise caution, highlighting potential links to metabolic diseases and gut health issues .

In summary: sucralose isn’t necessarily “the most dangerous health food ingredient,” but recent research highlights possible signals that merit attention. Balancing benefits like reduced sugar intake with moderation appears to be the prudent approach.

Let me know if you’d like to dive deeper into gut microbiome impacts, the DNA/genotoxicity data, or regulatory responses to these findings.

 

---

Sources & Links

 

• PubMed Central: Sucralose alters detox enzymes and gut microbiota in rats pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

• PubMed Central: Immune and inflammation effects in mice 

• US Right to Know: Origin story and marketing newyorker.com

• Frontiers in Nutrition: Gut microbial changes and liver inflammation en.wikipedia.org+12frontiersin.org+12frontiersin.org+12

• Medical News Today: DNA damage potential via S6A metabolite de.wikipedia.org+10medicalnewstoday.com+10verywellhealth.com+10

• Verywell Health: Genotoxicity in vitro and real-world relevance sciencedirect.com+3verywellhealth.com+3medicalnewstoday.com+3

• FT: Immune suppression findings in mice health.com+2ft.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2

• Health.com: Balanced overview including WHO guidance 

• Wikipedia: Comprehensive sucralose safety review sciencedirect.com+15en.wikipedia.org+15frontiersin.org+15

 

 

THE BRUTAL TRUTH JUNE 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Rediscovering the Female Prostate — What Science Now Reveals About Skene’s Glands

For decades, medical science largely ignored an essential yet lesser-known part of the female anatomy: the Skene's glands, often referred to as the female prostate. Though not as visibly prominent as the male prostate, these glands have drawn renewed attention in the medical and scientific communities for their role in female sexual health, urinary function, and even hormonal balance.

 

Located on the front vaginal wall near the urethra, the Skene’s glands are small structures that secrete fluid. During arousal or orgasm, they can release a substance similar in composition to male prostatic fluid. This has led many researchers to assert that women, too, possess a form of prostate—functionally and anatomically analogous, albeit smaller and less centralized.

Histological studies (those that examine tissue structure) have shown that Skene's glands contain PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen) and PAP (Prostatic Acid Phosphatase), the same enzymes found in the male prostate. This biochemical similarity has reinforced the argument that the female prostate is not simply a myth or an anatomical footnote but a genuine part of female reproductive and excretory systems.

More controversially, the Skene’s glands are often associated with female ejaculation, a topic surrounded by cultural taboos and scientific disagreement. Some studies suggest the fluid expelled during female ejaculation originates from these glands and is chemically distinct from urine. Others remain skeptical, citing limited clinical data. Nonetheless, new imaging technologies and biopsies have helped validate the role of Skene’s glands in producing a unique fluid, separate from urinary output.

Some conservative scholars argue the female prostate’s marginalization in mainstream education stems from societal discomfort with female sexuality. They contend that decades of neglect in anatomical education have contributed to misinformation, sexual frustration, and even improper medical care—particularly in urology and gynecology. Meanwhile, a middle-of-the-road view acknowledges this organ's biological presence but calls for more research before redefining medical standards or diagnostic procedures.

Recent work in female urogenital mapping and MRI-based studies have started to integrate the female prostate into broader health discussions, particularly for its relevance in prostate-like cancers in women, incontinence treatment, and understanding female sexual dysfunction.

This resurgence of interest in the female prostate is not only reshaping gynecological science but is also helping to bridge gender biases in medical research. Recognizing the Skene’s glands as more than just a mystery tissue reaffirms that female anatomy is rich with complexity and still underexplored in vital ways.

 

---

Sources:

 

• Jannini, E. A., et al. “The Role of the Skene’s Glands in Female Ejaculation.” The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2014.

• Cabello, E. et al. “Immunohistochemical Detection of PSA and PAP in Female Paraurethral Glands.” International Urogynecology Journal, 2010.

• Kinsey Institute, Sexual Anatomy Research Reports, Indiana University.

 

THE BRUTAL TRUTH JUNE 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.