Part 1: Understanding Sarcopenia
1.Mitchell WK, et al. (2012). Sarcopenia, dynapenia and the impact of advancing age on human skeletal muscle size and strength; a quantitative review. Front Physiol. 3:260.
2.Cruz-Jentoft AJ, et al. (2019). Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 48(1):16–31.
3.Wilkinson DJ, et al. (2018). Age-related differences in muscle protein synthesis: responses to feeding and exercise. Sports Med. 48(Suppl 1):S53–S64.
Part 2: What Works?
4.Morton RW, et al. (2018). A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training–induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults. Br J Sports Med. 52(6):376–384.
5.Devries MC, Phillips SM. (2014). Supplementation strategies for optimizing muscle mass in the elderly. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 17(1):40–48.
6.Smith GI, et al. (2020). The effect of omega-3 fatty acids on skeletal muscle protein synthesis and muscle mass in older adults: A systematic review. Clin Nutr. 39(9):2515–2524.
7.Landi F, et al. (2016). Protein intake and muscle health in old age: From biological plausibility to clinical evidence. Nutrients. 8(5):295.
8.Rutherford SL, et al. (2020). HMB supplementation and resistance training in older adults: A meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 11(5):929–938
Drug Pipeline (Contextual Support)
9.Rooks D, et al. (2017). Effect of bimagrumab on thigh muscle volume and composition in men with inclusion body myositis: Proof-of-concept trial. Lancet Neurol. 16(9):708–718.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Steve Kirsch is at it again — defending an unpublished, unreviewed “study” that even Henry Ford Health says didn’t meet scientific standards.
Let’s take apart his claims, line by line.
This one’s going to sting.
@IntegralAnswers
2/ Claim 1: “The Henry Ford study followed CDC guidelines.”
Reality: The 2012 CDC guidance covers post-licensure safety surveillance, not retrospective chart reviews.
Kirsch doesn’t know the difference between a VAERS analysis and a pediatric EHR cohort.
3/ Claim 2: “Cancer rates were equal → no detection bias.”
Absurd. Cancer is rare in toddlers. Similar rates say nothing about bias in diagnosing asthma, allergies, or developmental delay — conditions where health-care use drives detection.
1/Disinformation spreads faster than disease. Shot in the Arm follows how fear, fraud, and politics turned vaccines—the greatest lifesaving tool—into a cultural battlefield. This is about science, trust, and the social contract.
2/ Prologue: 1918 flu killed Karen’s great-great-grandmother. In 2020 she realizes the hard truth—denial and fatigue aren’t new. They’re human nature. We repeat the same mistakes unless we learn, together.
3/ Flashback to 2019: Measles roars back despite a safe, effective MMR. WHO flags vaccine hesitancy as a top global threat. When vaccines work “nothing happens”—and that success makes them easier to doubt.
1/ 🚸 “Kids today get 72 vaccine doses!”
Sounds scary—until you realize it’s a talking point, not a fact.
Here’s what antivax influencers don’t tell you about how vaccine schedules and doses are counted.
#VaccinesWork | @IntegralAnswers
2/ What the claim refers to:
That “72” number comes from counting every injection, nasal spray, and booster from birth through age 18 — and even counting combination vaccines (like MMR) as 3 separate doses, not one shot.
It’s creative arithmetic, not medical reality.
3/ Historical context
In 1960, a child received vaccines for 5 diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, and smallpox.
Today, we protect against 16 — measles, meningitis, pneumonia, HPV cancers, hepatitis, and more.