David Sable

Dear Loyal Readers…You already know the obvious. AI will grow. Autonomous cars will improve. Robots will learn to fold laundry (maybe). Crypto will continue to confound us. And China….?

But you don’t need me for that. You have headlines and hype machines at work…fueled by self-serving analysts…and yet, for all the advances in tech, people are still worried about affordability. All the tech in the world hasn’t helped the price of eggs go down…or made rent any easier to pay. That’s the murk we need to explore…because innovation that doesn’t touch people’s lives just frustrates them more.

So let me go somewhere else…into the deepest murk. The places where humanity is pushing back, where culture is asserting itself, and where leadership, creativity, empathy…yes, even joy…are refusing to be optimized away.

These are not predictions for specific technology or better states applied technology . These are predictions about people…us (you and me), who will influence everything.

Most people don’t wake up wondering about autonomous cars driving or how many safety parameters a new model has. They wonder whether AI is coming for their jobs… and whether they’ll still be needed.

That’s the Luddite Dilemma…a term you will be hearing more about. It’s not a fear of machines, tech, or AI, but a fear of being replaced. Our challenge? Evolve that fear into something future-facing…something productive, and…something hopeful.

Are you ready? Let’s go…

1. The Human Brand Will Matter More Than Ever.

The algorithm delivers reach. But only humans deliver resonance. In a world where ChatGPT and its cousins generate endless content, audiences will hunger for voice, perspective, vulnerability, and…intentional imperfection.

Proof point: Watch the rise of creator CEOs…unpolished internal memos that go viral…brands dropping AI disclaimers as a badge of pride…..because AI is….why go on about it? Who cares that Coke used it to create another flat Holiday commercial? Many of us use it every day. It is everywhere.

2. Trust Will Become a Growth Metric.

Not ESG. Not DEI. Just T. Trust. Simple. Measurable. Valuable. Audiences will reward brands that act in ways that feel true…and punish those that hide behind performance. Not authentic…a word my Loyal Readers know I revile….but real. Trust is built on real.

Proof point: Investor pressure on social platforms…decline in fake follower campaigns…growth of direct-to-community platforms.

3. Physical Space Will Reassert Its Power.

The office isn’t dead. It’s just waiting to be wanted. Smart companies will stop forcing returns…and start designing reasons to show up. Expect a renaissance of space as experience.

Proof point:New builds that feel like cafés…museums…theaters. Hybrid models that earn commutes, not mandate them. Hot desking? Please….. I can go to Starbucks.

4. Ethics Will Shift from Silo to Strategy.

We can’t bolt on “ethics” after we build the machine. We have to bake it in. The companies that integrate ethical frameworks into product dev, hiring, and AI training will lead.

Proof point: Surge in Chief Ethics Officers…investor panels demanding tech bias audits and model transparency. This isn’t woke. It’s real.

5. The DaVinci Factor.

AI can copy. AI can remix. But only a human could be a DaVinci (see my IMAGINE). The creative outliers…the unpredictable, the wonderfully different, the messy, and the weird…will become disproportionately valuable.

Proof point: Campaigns that embrace really never-before-seen…art that defies algorithmic taste…brands willing to break format. The messy and weird….

6. Quiet Will Become a Competitive Advantage.

In a noisy world…silence signals strength. Listening becomes leadership. Focus becomes strategy.

Proof point: Growth of slow content…demand for asynchronous teams…meetings replaced with meaning.

7. Soft Power Will Drive Hard Outcomes.

Empathy. Curiosity. Presence. The stuff we used to dismiss as “nice to have” will show up on the balance sheet.

Proof point: Executive coaching budgets are rising…boards are hiring based on EQ. Gen Z refuses to work for robots in suits and BTW is backing off of Social Media while showing up in Malls

8. The Big Question Will Be: What Is Enough?

Enough content. Enough optimization. Enough data. Enough growth. The leaders who pause to ask this…and answer with clarity…will create organizations that last.

Proof point: Shift from scale-at-all-costs to sustainable models…subscription fatigue…minimalism in UX and brand design. The backlash against the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle campaign…not just the hate, but the defense of it …was a signal. Erika Kirk’s thoughtful pushback against conspiracy and division reminded us that enough doesn’t mean less…it means human. The conversation will only grow.

And with the World Cup ahead, a moment when the world actually pauses together…the question is: what will we use that spotlight for? What will we decide matters when we’re watching, not coding?

So yes…AI will rise. Autonomous everything will continue. But the real story of 2026? The fight for what makes us human. The courage to aspire to DaVinci…The wisdom to listen…The bravery to say…this is enough.

Call it the age of the evolved Luddites…

The original Luddites didn’t fear machines…they feared being replaced. Their mistake wasn’t resisting technology…it was removing themselves from the future it created. They smashed the tools…and lost their voice. And now? Their name is used as an insult.

Let’s not let that be us. We don’t win by saying no to progress. We win by saying yes to humanity, yes to design with purpose, and yes to a future we help shape…for all of us.

And as Yuval Noah Harari reminds us…”Technology is never deterministic. We can use the same technology to create very different kinds of societies.”

So, I ask you…What kind of society will we imagine in 2026? Will we waste the opportunity of the World Cup? Can we all become DaVinci’s?

You know where I stand on all of this….Keep me honest…in 6 months, let’s revisit.

What’s your view?

#CloudyCrystalBall #Imagine #PeopleFirst #HumanityByDesign #EvolvedLuddites

The post My Cloudy Crystal Ball Show for 2026…. Humanity Fights Back…and the Rise of the Evolved Luddites…. appeared first on Good News!.

#VinnyPaz

The post The Untold Story of Vinny Paz | A Sisi Hollywood TV Episode appeared first on Good News!.

The HBO Original four-part docuseries BRANSON, directed by Chris Smith (HBO’s “100 Foot Wave”), debuts THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1 (10:00-11:00 p.m. ET/PT) on HBO and will be available to stream on HBO Max. New episodes will debut at the same time on subsequent Thursdays.

Synopsis: Sixteen days before Richard Branson is scheduled to make a potentially historic flight as the first passenger to reach space in his own spacecraft in July 2021, the billionaire entrepreneur sits down for a conversation with acclaimed filmmaker Chris Smith, in light of the risk that lies ahead. Smith ultimately takes us on an expansive and intimate 70-year journey, from Branson’s upbringing as the son of a spirited, tough-love mother in Britain, to his pursuits of extreme, personal daredevilry that serve both to grow his businesses’ brands and feed his insatiable, lifelong thirst for high-stakes adventure. With added insight from family members, business associates, and journalists, and illustrated by decades of archival and home video footage, BRANSON reveals the ups and downs of a man driven by risk taking in both his business and personal life, reflecting on the costs and rewards of his lifelong, relentless optimism and boundary-pushing.

After dropping out of school where he struggled with dyslexia, Branson began his entrepreneurial career as a 15-year-old publisher of a student magazine and went on to become a millionaire by the age of 22 with the booming success of Virgin Records. His launch of the airline Virgin Atlantic soon followed, along with a myriad of other Virgin branded businesses with varying levels of success, culminating in the launch of Virgin Galactic, his commercial spaceflight company in 2004. His record-breaking, transoceanic boat and balloon challenges, and now his crusade to bring customers to space, have all been positioned by Branson with the Virgin brand front and center. Branson remains a complex figure, committed to both philanthropic initiatives and his own bottom line.

Participants: Alongside exclusive interviews with Branson himself, the series features his colleagues and employees, as well as insights from both business journalists and industry experts. Also included are intimate interviews with his family, including revealing excerpts from conversations with Joan, his wife of 33 years, his sisters, his daughter Holly and son Sam, and an extensive personal archive of his late mother Eve, whose lively presence in Branson’s life continues to loom large.

Episode Descriptions
Episode 1:“Words and Music”
Debut date: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1 (10:00-11:00 p.m. ET/PT)
The series premiere explores Branson’s early years and the influence of his iconoclastic mother. As a dyslexic teenager, he leaves school at age 15 to create a magazine called Student, leading to a mail-order record business and eventually Virgin Records and Virgin megastores.

Episode 2: ”Atlantic“
Debut date: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8 (10:00-11:00 p.m. ET/PT)
The episode tracks the launch of Virgin Atlantic and Branson’s efforts to attract media attention to his brand, including an attempt to break the trans-Atlantic speed record in a boat, and his death-defying balloon adventure across the Atlantic in 1986.

Episode 3: “Fight or Flight”
Debut date: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15 (10:00-11:00 p.m. ET/PT)
The episode chronicles Virgin Atlantic’s battle with British Airways, ending in a libel suit win for Branson. From outsider to wealthy capitalist, Branson continues to push for world records and promotional attention for his company, setting off on a nail-biting Pacific Ocean balloon voyage. He announces plans to develop a spaceflight company to take commercial passengers into space, beginning a decade long pursuit.

Episode 4: “Space”
Debut date: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22 (10:00-11:30 p.m. ET/PT)
The series finale tracks the arduous history of Virgin Galactic, from conception to test flights, and the controversial bid from Virgin Atlantic to obtain government support for the airline during the Covid-19 pandemic. As the first passenger flight of Virgin Galactic approaches, Branson defends the benefits of privately funded space exploration and the paradoxes around Virgin’s eco-messaging. Set for July 11, 2021, the launch day follows 17 years of research, testing, accidents, and setbacks, culminating in a successful flight in which Branson realizes his ultimate dream.

Credits: HBO Documentary Films presents BRANSON. Directed by Chris Smith; executive produced by Kate Noble. For HBO: executive producers Nancy Abraham and Lisa Heller, senior producer Tina Nguyen.

#branson #hbo #words&music #richardbranson #atlantic #fight&flight #space #chrissmith #risk #family #businesslife #personallife #virgin #nancyabraham #lisaheller #tinanguyen #eve #joan #holly #sam

The post HBO Original Docuseries BRANSON Debuts December 1 appeared first on Good News!.

Life is Funny

You come with Nothing

Then fight for Everything

Then leave with Nothing

#ThoughtOfTheDay, #life, #funny, #nothing, #fight, #everything, #leave

The post Thought of the Day 07/05/2022 appeared first on Good News!.

You are gifted human body that is not possible for millions and millions of years even for God’s. Now we have a chance to use our minds, body, soul and spirits for doing right things in the world. And if we have to fight even with god’s to do right things we must fight. It’s not about changing world but healing ourselves and bringing peace in our own lives and in lives of our friends and family. Keep in mind forever family that has dinners together staying together forever and it’s daily celebration of thanksgiving without alcohol and smoke in our own house with our own friends and family that is a beginning of world peace and Olympia is alone striving extremely hard from bottom of his heart daily and I have seen his heart during my face to face physical meeting with him and how he is putting intense hardships in bringing people together for billionaires Miss Ma and I told Miss Ma about Olympia. She doesn’t understand and speak English but I have seen enlightenment in doing something good in her eyes and readiness to contribute to world. If we all do our tiniest part our children can definitely see day lights of peace of mind forever.
His message below-Thank you dear brother for your beautiful message.
We are both on the same Mission & Vsion to bring Unity and Peace back on earth with Art & Culture , You have created a conscious Ecosystem with the government of India , I am very glad to share the Olympia Awards of 15 Arts with you and the people of India.

You are a true Soul send down by God to bless many people.

Prince Dr Olympia Awards

Olympia Gellini Facebook

The post Olympia Gellini appeared first on Good News!.

NIH study advances personalized immunotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

An experimental form of immunotherapy that uses an individual’s own tumor-fighting immune cells could potentially be used to treat people with metastatic breast cancer, according to results from an ongoing clinical trial led by researchers at the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Center for Cancer Research, part of the National Institutes of Health. Many people with metastatic breast cancer can mount an immune reaction against their tumors, the study found, a prerequisite for this type of immunotherapy, which relies on what are called tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs).

In a clinical trial of 42 women with metastatic breast cancer, 28 (or 67%) generated an immune reaction against their cancer. The approach was used to treat six women, half of whom experienced measurable tumor shrinkage. Results from the trial appeared Feb. 1, 2022, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“It’s popular dogma that hormone receptor–positive breast cancers are not capable of provoking an immune response and are not susceptible to immunotherapy,” said study leader Steven A. Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., chief of the Surgery Branch in NCI’s Center for Cancer Research. “The findings suggest that this form of immunotherapy can be used to treat some people with metastatic breast cancer who have exhausted all other treatment options.”

Immunotherapy is a treatment that helps a person’s own immune system fight cancer. However, most available immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, have shown limited effectiveness against hormone receptor–positive breast cancers, which are the majority of breast cancers.

The immunotherapy approach used in the trial was pioneered in the late 1980s by Dr. Rosenberg and his colleagues at NCI. It relies on TILs, T cells that are found in and around the tumor.

TILs can target tumor cells that have specific proteins on their surface, called neoantigens, that the immune cells recognize. Neoantigens are produced when mutations occur in tumor DNA. Other forms of immunotherapy have been found to be effective in treating cancers, such as melanoma, that have many mutations, and therefore many neoantigens. Its effectiveness in cancers that have fewer neoantigens, such as breast cancer, however, has been less clear.

The results of the new study come from an ongoing phase 2 clinical trial being carried out by Dr. Rosenberg and his colleagues. This trial was designed to see if the immunotherapy approach could lead to tumor regressions in people with metastatic epithelial cancers, including breast cancer. In 2018, the researchers showed that one woman with metastatic breast cancer who was treated in this trial had complete tumor shrinkage, known as a complete response.

In the trial, the researchers used whole-genome sequencing to identify mutations in tumor samples from 42 women with metastatic breast cancer whose cancers had progressed despite all other treatments. The researchers then isolated TILs from the tumor samples and, in lab tests, tested their reactivity against neoantigens produced by the different mutations in the tumor.

Twenty-eight women had TILs that recognized at least one neoantigen. Nearly all the neoantigens identified were unique to each patient.

“It’s fascinating that the Achilles’ heel of these cancers can potentially be the very gene mutations that caused the cancer,” said Dr. Rosenberg. “Since that 2018 study, we now have information on 42 patients, showing that the majority give rise to immune reactions.”

For the six women treated, the researchers took the reactive TILs and grew them to large numbers in the lab. They then returned the immune cells to each patient via intravenous infusion. All the patients were also given four doses of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) before the infusion to prevent the newly introduced T cells from becoming inactivated.

After the treatment, tumors shrank in three of the six women. One is the original woman reported in the 2018 study, who remains cancer free to this day. The other two women had tumor shrinkage of 52% and 69% after six months and 10 months, respectively. However, some disease returned and was surgically removed. Those women now have no evidence of cancer approximately five years and 3.5 years, respectively, after their TIL treatment.

The researchers acknowledged that the use of pembrolizumab, which has been approved for some early-stage breast cancers, may raise uncertainties about its influence on the outcome of TIL therapy. However, they said, treatment with such checkpoint inhibitors alone has not led to sustained tumor shrinkage in people with hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer.

Dr. Rosenberg said that with the anticipated opening early this year of NCI’s new building devoted to cell-based therapies, he and his colleagues can begin treating more individuals with metastatic breast cancer as part of the ongoing clinical trial. He noted that this new immunotherapy approach could potentially be used for people with other types of cancer as well.

“We’re using a patient’s own lymphocytes as a drug to treat the cancer by targeting the unique mutations in that cancer,” he said. “This is a highly personalized treatment.”

About the Center for Cancer Research (CCR): CCR comprises nearly 250 teams conducting basic, translational, and clinical research in the NCI intramural program — an environment supporting innovative science aimed at improving human health. CCR’s clinical program is housed at the NIH Clinical Center — the world’s largest hospital dedicated to clinical research. For more information about CCR and its programs, visit ccr.cancer.gov.

About the National Cancer Institute (NCI): NCI leads the National Cancer Program and NIH’s efforts to dramatically reduce the prevalence of cancer and improve the lives of cancer patients and their families, through research into prevention and cancer biology, the development of new interventions, and the training and mentoring of new researchers. For more information about cancer, please visit the NCI website at cancer.gov or call NCI’s contact center, the Cancer Information Service, at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit nih.gov

#cancer #rosenberg #national #institute #health #research #breast #immunotherapy #patients #metastatic #tumor #fight #lymphocytes #oncology #infiltrating #immune #response #cells #dna #science

The post National Cancer Institute Researcher — Exciting Finding in Fight Against Breast Cancer (And Potentially Others) appeared first on Good News!.

The post Awakening and Healing appeared first on Good News!.

Despite expanded lung cancer screening guidelines, accelerated progress in the treatment of lung cancer and a continued increase in survival rates, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., 2 Almost one-quarter of all cancer deaths are due to lung cancer – more than breast, prostate and colorectal cancers combined.

Due to the complexities of lung cancer, the adoption of personalized medicine is critical to ensuring people receive the right treatment for their specific type of cancer at the right time. However, many people with the most common type of lung cancer—

non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) — are not receiving a fully-informed diagnosis due to a lack of comprehensive biomarker testing that can help identify important characteristics about an individual’s cancer and more precisely inform treatment decisions.

LUNGevity Foundation, the nation’s leading lung cancer-focused non-profit, recently launched No One Missed – a new campaign that aims to increase awareness of comprehensive biomarker testing and empower patients and caregivers to discuss testing with their doctor for a fully-informed diagnosis. Comprehensive Biomarker testing can reveal vital information to help identify the appropriate individualized treatment plan for each NSCLC patient.4

Dr. Jorge Gomez, medical director of the solid tumor oncology unit at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and Andrea Ferris, President and CEO of Foundation, as they discuss No One Missed and address:

Recent milestones that will help advance lung cancer care

• Nationwide call for every person diagnosed with NSCLC to receive comprehensive biomarker testing
• Vital information gathered through comprehensive biomarker testing and how it can inform treatment decisions
• 3 key steps for every person living with NSCLC and their caregivers: Talk, Test, Treat
Interview is courtesy: AstraZeneca
[1] US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;325(10):962–970. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1117
2 American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2021. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2021
3American Cancer Society. What Is Lung Cancer? Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2019
4 Gierman HJ, Goldfarb S, Labrador M, et al. Genomic testing and treatment landscape in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) using real-world data from community oncology practices. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(suppl; abstr 1585).

#fight #against #lung #cancer #no #one #missed #noonemissed #jorge #gomez #andrea #ferris #longevity #critical #biomarker #testing #foundation #care #astra #zeneca

The post Significant Advancements Achieved in the Fight Against Lung Cancer, We’re Not Done Yet appeared first on Good News!.

By Jon Gertner

Edward Holmes was in Australia on a Saturday morning in early January 2020, talking on the phone with a Chinese scientist named Yong-Zhen Zhang who had just sequenced the genome of a novel pathogen that was infecting people in Wuhan. The two men — old friends — debated the results. “I knew we were looking at a respiratory virus,” recalls Holmes, a virologist and professor at the University of Sydney. He also knew it looked dangerous.

Could he share the genetic code publicly? Holmes asked. Zhang was in China, on an airplane waiting for takeoff. He wanted to think it over for a minute. So Holmes waited. He heard a flight attendant urging Zhang to turn off his phone.

“OK,” Zhang said at last. Almost immediately, Holmes posted the sequence on a website called Virological.org; then he linked to it on Twitter. Holmes knew that researchers around the world would instantly start unwinding the pathogen’s code to try to find ways to defeat it.

From the moment the virus genome was first posted by Holmes, if you looked, you could find a genetic component in almost every aspect of our public-health responses to SARS-CoV-2. It’s typically the case, for instance, that a pharmaceutical company needs samples of a virus to create a vaccine. But once the sequence was in the public realm, Moderna, an obscure biotech company in Cambridge, Mass., immediately began working with the National Institutes of Health on a plan. “They never had the virus on site at all; they really just used the sequence, and they viewed it as a software problem,” Francis deSouza, the chief executive of Illumina, which makes the sequencer that Zhang used, told me with some amazement last summer, six months before the Moderna vaccine received an emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration. The virus’s code also set the testing industry into motion. Only by analyzing characteristic aspects of the virus’s genetic sequence could scientists create kits for the devices known as P.C.R. machines, which for decades have used genetic information to formulate fast diagnostic tests.

In the meantime, sequencing was put to use to track viral mutations — beginning with studies published in February 2020 demonstrating that the virus was spreading in the U.S. This kind of work falls within the realm of genomic epidemiology, or “gen epi,” as those in the field tend to call it. Many of the insights date to the mid-1990s and a group of researchers in Oxford, England, Holmes among them. They perceived that following evolutionary changes in viruses that gain lasting mutations every 10 days (like the flu) or every 20 days (like Ebola) was inherently similar to — and, as we now know, inherently more useful than — following them in animals, where evolution might occur over a million years.

An early hurdle was the tedious nature of the work. The Oxford group had to analyze genetic markers through a slow and deliberate process that could provide insight into a few dozen characteristics of each new variant. It wasn’t until the late 2000s that drastic improvements in genetic-sequencing machines, aided by huge leaps in computing power, allowed researchers to more easily and quickly read the complete genetic codes of viruses, as well as the genetic blueprint for humans, animals, plants and microbes.

In the sphere of public health, one of the first big breakthroughs enabled by faster genomic sequencing came in 2014, when a team at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard began sequencing samples of the Ebola virus from infected victims during an outbreak in Africa. The work showed that, by contrasting genetic codes, hidden pathways of transmission could be identified and interrupted, with the potential for slowing (or even stopping) the spread of infection. It was one of the first real-world uses of what has come to be called genetic surveillance. A few years later, doctors toting portable genomic sequencers began tracking the Zika virus around Central and South America. Sequencers were getting better, faster and easier to use.

To many, the most familiar faces of this technology are clinical testing companies, which use sequencing machines to read portions of our genetic code (known as “panels” or “exomes”) to investigate a few crucial genes, like those linked to a higher risk of breast cancer. But more profound promises of genome sequencing have been accumulating stealthily in recent years, in fields from personal health to cultural anthropology to environmental monitoring. Crispr, a technology reliant on sequencing, gives scientists the potential to repair disease-causing mutations in our genomes. “Liquid biopsies,” in which a small amount of blood is analyzed for DNA markers, offer the prospect of cancer diagnoses long before symptoms appear. The Harvard geneticist George Church told me that one day sensors might “sip the air” so that a genomic app on our phones can tell us if there’s a pathogen lurking in a room. Sequencing might even make it possible to store any kind of data we might want in DNA — such an archival system would, in theory, be so efficient and dense as to be able to hold the entire contents of the internet in a pillowcase.

Historians of science sometimes talk about new paradigms, or new modes of thought, that change our collective thinking about what is true or possible. But paradigms often evolve not just when new ideas displace existing ones, but when new tools allow us to do things — or to see things — that would have been impossible to consider earlier. The advent of commercial genome sequencing has recently, and credibly, been compared to the invention of the microscope, a claim that led me to wonder whether this new, still relatively obscure technology, humming away in well-equipped labs around the world, would prove to be the most important innovation of the 21st century. Already, in Church’s estimation, “sequencing is 10 million times cheaper and 100,000 times higher quality than it was just a few years ago.” If a new technological paradigm is arriving, bringing with it a future in which we constantly monitor the genetics of our bodies and everything around us, these sequencers — easy, quick, ubiquitous — are the machines taking us into that realm.

And unexpectedly, Covid-19 has proved to be the catalyst. “What the pandemic has done is accelerate the adoption of genomics into infectious disease by several years,” says deSouza, the Illumina chief executive. He also told me he believes that the pandemic has accelerated the adoption of genomics into society more broadly — suggesting that quietly, in the midst of chaos and a global catastrophe, the age of cheap, rapid sequencing has arrived.

One morning last August, after the pandemic’s first wave had ebbed on the East Coast, I visited the New York Genome Center in Lower Manhattan to observe the process of genetic sequencing. On that day, lab technicians were working on a slew of SARS-CoV-2 samples taken from patients at New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center. Dina Manaa, a lab manager at the center, handed me a blue lab coat upon my arrival. “I’ll walk you through the entire process,” Manaa said, and over the next 20 minutes, we went up and down the lab’s aisles as she explained the work.

The sequencing of a virus, much like the sequencing of human DNA from a cheek swab or a drop of blood, is painstaking. Samples are moved along what is essentially an assembly line: “weighed” on exquisitely sensitive “scales” to check the mass of the specimen; bathed with chemical solutions known as reagents; tagged with a “bar code” of genetic material so each sample can be individually tracked. Most of the preparations, Manaa explained, are about checking the quality of the virus sample and then amplifying its genetic material — in effect, transforming a tiny and invisible amount of the coronavirus extracted from a swab into vast quantities of DNA, all in preparation for being read and analyzed by a device built to do exactly that.

In another lab, Manaa paused by a row of five sleek and identical new machines, the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 — or “Nova-seeks,” as they’re called. These were similar to the machines used in China to sequence the virus for the first time, six months before. The NovaSeqs are about the size of an office photocopier and have few distinguishing features, apart from a large touch-screen interface and a vent pipe that rises from the back of the device to the ceiling. Each machine costs roughly $1 million; there are about 1,000 of them in the world right now. At a nearby lab bench, a technician named Berrin Baysa was pipetting minuscule amounts of clear, virus-laden solutions from one tube to another and moving her mixtures into small, spinning centrifuges. After nearly two days of preparation, these were the final steps for the Hackensack samples. At last, Baysa combined the tiny cocktails she had made by pouring them together into something known as a flow-cell, a flat glass cartridge about the size of an iPhone, containing four hollow chambers. She then carefully popped the flow cell into a drawer slot in a NovaSeq 6000.

Quietly, in the midst of chaos and a global catastrophe, the age of cheap, rapid sequencing has arrived.

“OK, keep your fingers crossed,” she said after punching some instructions into a touch-screen and then tapping “GO.” She held up both hands and crossed her own fingers.

For this particular task, it would take the machine two days to complete the readings, she said — meaning that at that point, the full genetic sequences of the virus would be ready for the “bioinformaticians,” who would look for patterns and variants in the samples.

The NovaSeqs represent the culmination of about two decades of technological development that in large part began with the Human Genome Project, which was completed in 2003 and funded mainly by the National Institutes of Health. The project showed that the human genome — “nature’s complete genetic blueprint for building a human being,” as the N.I.H. describes it — is composed of a sequence of about three billion “base pairs.” These are bonded chemicals coded as A, C, G and T, where A stands for adenine, C for cytosine, G for guanine and T for thymine. The chemical pairs are frequently grouped together on our chromosomes, in about 30,000 information-dense strings, or clumps. The clumps are our genes.

The Human Genome Project required 13 years of work and cost more than $3 billion. Jeffery Schloss, who for many years oversaw technology grants at the National Human Genome Research Institute, a division of the N.I.H., told me that in 2002, he attended a meeting to map out the future of sequencing. “This had been a massive effort, to sequence the human genome,” Schloss recalls, “but we knew it was just the beginning of what we needed to do, which meant that sequencing had to change dramatically. And in the course of that meeting, some people brought up this crazy idea: What if you could sequence a big genome for a thousand dollars? What would that enable?”

Most of the scientists in Schloss’s circle believed it might lead to profound revelations. By studying the genomes of a large population of, say, Alzheimer’s patients, researchers might piece together how certain genes, or combinations of genes, could make someone more likely to become ill. In an even larger sweep, they might gain insights into the health or disease markers of entire population groups or countries. Sequencing might find uses beyond basic science — routine clinical scans for prenatal testing, say, or for genes known to increase the likelihood of certain cancers.

Schloss’s office invested $220 million in various start-ups and ideas over a period of about 15 years. The ultimate goal was to help bring down the cost, and raise the speed, of whole-genome sequencing. Even if the $1,000 genome remained out of reach, perhaps a new generation of machines might come close. “It was really unclear how long it would take for any of those to get into commercialization,” Schloss recalls. “They had to become commercially successful. It was all pretty uncertain.” Indeed, many of the sequencing start-ups from the early 2000s ultimately failed in the marketplace. A few, however, were subsumed into the core technology of other firms. A company known as Solexa, for instance, developed ingenious ideas — known as “sequencing by synthesis” — that involved measuring genetic samples optically, with fluorescent dyes that illuminated elements of DNA in the samples. That company was ultimately bought by another firm — Illumina, which quickly became a leader in the industry.

As machines improved, the impact was felt mainly in university labs, which had relied on a process called Sanger sequencing, developed in the mid-1970s by the Nobel laureate Frederick Sanger. This laborious technique, which involved running DNA samples through baths of electrically charged gels, was what the scientists at Oxford had depended upon in the mid-1990s; it was also what Dave O’Connor, a virologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, was using in the early 2000s, as he and his lab partner, Tom Friedrich, tracked virus mutations. “The H.I.V. genome has about 10,000 letters,” O’Connor told me, which makes it simpler than the human genome (at three billion letters) or the SARS-CoV-2 genome (at about 30,000). “In an H.I.V. genome, when we first started doing it, we would be able to look at a couple hundred letters at a time.” But O’Connor says his work changed with the advent of new sequencing machines. By around 2010, he and Friedrich could decode 500,000 letters in a day. A few years later, it was five million.

By 2015, the pace of improvement was breathtaking. “When I was a postdoctoral fellow, I actually worked in Fred Sanger’s lab,” Tom Maniatis, the head of the New York Genome Center, told me. “I had to sequence a piece of DNA that was about 35 base pairs, and it took me a year to do that. And now, you can do a genome, with three billion base pairs, overnight.” Also astounding was the decrease in cost. Illumina achieved the $1,000 genome in 2014. Last summer, the company announced that its NovaSeq 6000 could sequence a whole human genome for $600; at the time, deSouza, Illumina’s chief executive, told me that his company’s path to a $100 genome would not entail a breakthrough, just incremental technical improvements. “At this point, there’s no miracle that’s required,” he said. Several of Illumina’s competitors — including BGI, a Chinese genomics company — have indicated that they will also soon achieve a $100 genome. Those in the industry whom I spoke with predicted that it may be only a year or two away.

These numbers don’t fully explain what faster speeds and affordability might portend. But in health care, the prospect of a cheap whole-genome test, perhaps from birth, suggests a significant step closer to the realization of personalized medicines and lifestyle plans, tailored to our genetic strengths and vulnerabilities. “When that happens, that’s probably going to be the most powerful and valuable clinical test you could have, because it’s a lifetime record,” Maniatis told me. Your complete genome doesn’t change over the course of your life, so it needs to be sequenced only once. And Maniatis imagines that as new information is accumulated through clinical studies, your physician, armed with new research results, could revisit your genome and discover, say, when you’re 35 that you have a mutation that’s going be a problem when you’re 50. “Really, that is not science fiction,” he says. “That is, I’m personally certain, going to happen.”

In some respects, it has begun already, even amid a public-health crisis. In January, the New York Genome Center began a partnership with Weill-Cornell and NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals to conduct whole-genome sequences on thousands of patients. Olivier Elemento, a doctor who leads the initiative at Weill-Cornell, told me that the goal is to see how a whole-genome sequence — not merely the identification of a few genetic traits — could inform diagnosis and treatment. What is the best medication based on a patient’s genome? What is the ideal dosage? “We’re trying to address a very important question that’s never been answered at this scale,” Elemento explained: “What is the utility of whole-genome sequencing?” He said he believed that within one or two years, the study would lead to an answer.

‘Sequencing is 10 million times cheaper and 100,000 times higher quality than it was just a few years ago.’

Some of the grandest hopes for sequencing have arisen from the notion that our genes are deterministic — and that by understanding our DNA’s code, we might limn our destiny. When an early reading of the human genome was unveiled in 2000, President Bill Clinton noted that we were getting a glimpse of “one of the most important, most wondrous maps ever produced by humankind.” But the map has often proved hard to read, its routes unclear. The past 20 years have demonstrated that inherited genes are just one aspect of a confounding system that’s not easily interpreted. The progress of using gene therapy to treat diseases, for instance, has been halting; it wasn’t until last year that physicians had a resounding success with a treatment on several patients with heritable genes for sickle-cell anemia. In the meantime, scientists have come to realize something else: A complex overlay of environmental and lifestyle factors, as well as our microbiomes, appear to have interconnected effects on health, development and behavior.

And yet, in the course of the past year, some of the extraordinary hopes for genomic sequencing did come true, but for an unexpected reason. During the summer and fall, I spoke frequently with executives at Illumina, as well as its competitor in Britain, Oxford Nanopore. It was clear that the pandemic had meant a startling interruption in their business, but at each company the top executives perceived the situation as an opportunity — the first pandemic in history in which genomic sequencing would inform our decisions and actions in real time.

From the start, the gen-epi community understood that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would form new variants every few weeks as it reproduced and spread; it soon became clear that it could develop one or more alterations (or mutations) at a time in the genome’s 30,000 base letters. Because of this insight, on Jan. 19, 2020, just over a week after the virus code was released to the world, scientists could look at 12 complete virus genomes shared from China and conclude that the fact that they were nearly identical meant that those 12 people had been infected around the same time and were almost certainly infecting one another. “That was something where the genomic epidemiology could help us to say, loudly, that human transmission was rampant, when it wasn’t really being acknowledged as it should have been,” Trevor Bedford, a scientist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, told me.

When Bedford’s lab began studying viral genomes in Seattle, he could go a step further. By late February, he concluded that new cases he was seeing were not just being imported to the U.S. from China. Based on observations of local mutations — two strains found six weeks apart looked too similar to be a coincidence — community transmission was happening here. On Feb. 29, Bedford put up a Twitter post that noted, chillingly, “I believe we’re facing an already substantial outbreak in Washington State that was not detected until now.” His proof was in the code.

Bedford’s lab was one of many around the world that began tracking the virus’s evolution and sharing it in global databases. In the meantime, gen-epi researchers used sequencing for local experiments too. In the spring of 2020, a team of British scientists compared virus sequences sampled from ill patients at a single hospital to see if their infections came from one another or from elsewhere. “We were able to generate data that were useful in real time,” Esteé Torok, an academic physician at the University of Cambridge who helped lead the research, told me. “And in an ideal world, you could do that every day.” In other words, sequencing had advanced from a few years ago, when scientists might publish papers a year after an outbreak, to the point that genetic epidemiologists could compare mutations in a specific location in order to be able to raise alarms — We have community spread! Patients on Floor 3 are transmitting to Floor 5! — and act immediately.

To watch the pandemic unfold from the perspective of those working in the field of genomics was to see both the astounding power of new sequencing tools and the catastrophic failure of the American public-health system to take full advantage of them. At the end of July, the National Academy of Sciences released a report noting that advances in genomic sequencing could enable our ability “to break or delay virus transmission to reduce morbidity and mortality.” And yet the report scathingly noted that sequencing endeavors for the coronavirus were “patchy, typically passive, reactive, uncoordinated and underfunded.” Every scientist I spoke with understood that the virus could evolve into dangerous new variants; it was many months before one in particular, known as B.1.1.7, emerged and demonstrated that it was more transmissible and most likely more deadly. Researchers were similarly worried that our sequencing efforts to track the pathways of infection — unlike more serious and government-supported efforts in Britain or Australia — were flailing.

One of the Biden administration’s approaches to slowing the pandemic has been to invest $200 million in sequencing virus samples from those who test positive. With the recent approval of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, a further $1.75 billion will be allocated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support genomic sequencing and disease surveillance.

In late January, the C.D.C. began disbursing money to public-health laboratories around the country to bolster the sequencing work already being done at academic labs. But the effort was starting from a low baseline. One calculation in The Washington Post noted that the United States had ranked 38th globally in terms of employing sequencing during the pandemic; as of mid-February, the U.S. was still trying to catch up to many European and Asian countries. And it therefore couldn’t be said that new or dangerous variants weren’t landing on our shores or emerging here afresh. What could be said is that we were unable to know.

One day sensors might ‘sip the air’ so that a genomic app on our phones can tell us if there’s a pathogen lurking in a room.

One day at the New York Genome Center, a researcher named Neville Sanjana told me that he thinks of genetic sequencers not as a typical invention but as a kind of “platform technology.” The phrase resonates among those who study innovation. Such technological leaps are rare. They represent breakthroughs that give rise to “platforms” — cellphones, say, or web browsers — that in time revolutionize markets and society.

The immense value of a platform innovation is related to how it can be adapted for a range of uses that are unforeseen at its inception. It can be like a toolbox, waiting at the back of a closet. What happened with sequencing during the pandemic serves as a good example. Another is Sanjana’s work on new Crispr technologies, which he uses to modify or repair strings of DNA to better understand the genetic basis of human disease. Twenty years ago, when officials at the N.I.H. talked about investing in the future of sequencing, altering the human, plant or animal genome on a regular basis was not something they could have predicted. But Crispr requires Sanjana to constantly evaluate his editing by using sequencers — usually a desktop Illumina model, in his case — to check the results. “It would be impossible to do these experiments otherwise,” he says.

It has been the case historically that platform innovations don’t merely create new applications. They create new industries. And while countless genomics companies have already sprung up, for now just four companies run most of the sequencing analyses in the world. These are Illumina and Pacific Biosciences, based in the United States; Oxford Nanopore Technologies, based in Britain; and China’s BGI Group.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, Illumina controls roughly 90 percent of the market for sequencing machines in the U.S., and by the company’s own assessment, it compiles 80 percent of the genomic information that exists in the world in a given year. It is sometimes described as the Google of the genomics business, not only because of its huge market share but also because of its products’ ability to “search” our complete genetic makeup. In short, it dominates the business. Last year, the firm took in over $3 billion in revenue and about $650 million in net income. In its hunger for expansion, the company has recently made a run of acquisitions. In late September, for example, Illumina announced that it intended to acquire, for $8 billion, a biotech company called Grail, which has created a genomic test that runs on an Illumina sequencer and that an early study suggests can successfully detect more than 50 types of cancers from a small sample of blood. On a recent corporate earnings call, deSouza called Grail and early cancer detection “by far the largest clinical application of genomics we’re likely to see over the next decade or two.”

As the pandemic unfolded, I spoke often to genomics executives about which industries could be transformed by their technologies and how their machines would be deployed in the years to come. One model for the future was built around the strengths of Illumina — big machines like the NovaSeq, with an extraordinary capacity for sequencing, housed in central testing labs (as they are now) and run by specialists. But a very different set of ideas emerges from one of Illumina’s main competitors, Oxford Nanopore. Oxford’s sequencers involve a technology that is electronic rather than optical; it is based on the concept of moving a sample of DNA through tiny holes — nanopores — in a membrane. The device measures how genetic material (extracted from a sample of blood, say) reacts to an electric current during the process, and it registers the letter sequence — A, G, C, T — accordingly. One distinctive feature is that a nanopore device can read longer threads of DNA than an Illumina device, which can be helpful for some applications. It can also give readouts in real time.

Yet the biggest difference may be its portability. In 2015, Oxford Nanopore began selling a sampling and sequencing gadget called the Minion (pronounced MIN-eye-on) for $1,000. It is smaller than a small iPhone. The chief executive of Oxford Nanopore, Gordon Sanghera, told me he sees his company’s tool as enabling a future in which sequencing insights can be derived during every minute of every day. Inspection officers working in meatpacking plants would get results about pathogenic infection in minutes; surveyors doing environmental monitoring or wastewater analysis can already do the same. Your dentist might one day do a check of your oral microbiome during a regular visit, or your oncologist might sequence your blood once a month to see if you’re still in remission. A transplantation specialist might even check, on the spot, about the genomic compatibility of an organ donation. “The company’s ethos,” Sanghera says, “is the analysis of anything, by anyone, anywhere.” Indeed, there happens to be a Minion on the International Space Station right now.

The technology, compared with Illumina’s, is considered by most scientists I spoke with to be less accurate, but it has advantages beyond those that Sanghera mentioned. It was the Minion that enabled scientists to test for diseases like Zika without any infrastructure beyond a laptop; more recently, it’s what allowed Esteé Torok and other researchers in Britain to track viral mutations in real time in a hospital. “That ability to do sequencing in the field, even in rural Africa, has opened up possibilities that were never previously even envisioned,” Eric Green, who runs the National Human Genome Research Institute, part of the N.I.H., told me recently.

Bringing the equivalent of an iPhone into genomics may not effect a revolution overnight. Sanghera doesn’t imagine that big central testing labs, or Illumina, could fade away anytime soon; indeed, his own company markets a line of large sequencers for big labs, too. And for sure, related technologies can coexist, much like cloud computing and desktop computing, especially if they solve different problems. For now, Sanghera regards the coronavirus, and the surveillance efforts in Britain and the U.S. that are increasing demand for his company’s products, as hastening the culture’s genomic transition. He said he sees no obstacle to a $100 whole human-genome sequence in the near future. His company, he told me, is also working with a new chip that may eventually bring down the cost to $10.

It seems beyond debate that the pandemic has demonstrated that we can benefit from genomic sequences even before we fully unravel all their mysteries. We can use them as a sort of global alarm system, for instance, much as they were used by Eddie Holmes and Yong-Zhen Zhang when they shared the SARS-CoV-2 sequence in January 2020. As it happens, there are a variety of different surveillance efforts underway, some driven by health agencies and others by academics, that would go much further than simply posting a sequence on a website — efforts that would share critical public-health information faster and, more broadly, might be useful for another new coronavirus, a deadly influenza strain or even a bioterror attack.

Pardis Sabeti, a geneticist at Harvard, told me that last May she received a philanthropic grant to help develop and deploy a pandemic “pre-emption” network called Sentinel. “We’ve always aimed for that ability to do surveillance,” she told me, adding that the goal of Sentinel would be to use genomic technologies everywhere — in rural clinics in Europe, villages in Africa, cities in China — to detect familiar pathogens within a single day of their appearance and novel pathogens within a week. The system would then race to share the data, via mobile networks, with health workers and communities so as to elicit a rapid response: travel restrictions, quarantines, medicine. Anything necessary to break chains of transmission. With a virus that spreads exponentially, a day could matter. A week could mean the difference between a small but deadly outbreak and a global cataclysm. (The time between the first case of Covid-19 and the release of the sequence of the virus was most likely about two months.)

As successive waves of the pandemic washed over the world, I noticed that the buzzword at the sequencing companies also became “surveillance.” For the most part, it meant tracking new variants and using sequencing codes to help reveal paths and patterns of transmission. Yet surveillance sometimes seemed a flexible concept, given that Illumina and Oxford Nanopore were selling flexible machines. Surveillance could mean the search for the next novel virus in Asia or even early cancer detection in our bodies. And it sometimes meant mass testing too. Last year, both deSouza and Sanghera successfully adapted their companies’ machines to do clinical diagnostic tests for the coronavirus; the goal was to step in and help increase global testing capacity at a moment when many medical facilities were overwhelmed by the demand.

In many respects, a genetic sequencer is over-engineered for the task of simply testing for a virus. A P.C.R. machine is faster, cheaper and less complex. And yet there are potential advantages to the sequencer. Illumina eventually won emergency approval from the Food and Drug Administration for a diagnostic test for the NovaSeq that can run about 3,000 swab samples, simultaneously, over the course of 12 hours. Thus, a single machine could do 6,000 coronavirus tests per day. Two hundred NovaSeqs could do more than a million. In addition to this immense capacity, it’s viable to test for the virus and sequence the virus at the same time: An analysis run on a sequencer could inform patients whether they have the virus, and the anonymized sequencing data on positive samples could give public-health agencies a huge amount of epidemiology data for use in tracking variants. “I can envision a world where diagnosis and sequencing are kind of one and the same,” Bronwyn MacInnis, who directs pathogen genomic surveillance at the Broad Institute, told me. “We’re not there yet, but we’re not a million miles off, either.”

Last summer, a few big clinical laboratories, notably Ginkgo Bioworks in Boston, began plans to roll out tests for Illumina sequencers, pending authorization from the F.D.A. Ginkgo, with help from investments from Illumina, as well as a grant from the N.I.H., began building a huge new laboratory next to its current one, where the company would install 10 NovaSeqs. “After we get the big facility built, that’s when we’d be trying to hit 100,000 tests a day,” Jason Kelly, Ginkgo’s chief executive, told me at the time. It was technically possible to sequence many of the positive coronavirus samples, too, he said.

When I asked Kelly what he would do if his capacity goes unused, he didn’t seem concerned. He doubted his sequencers would be idle. “By betting on sequencers as our Covid response,” he remarked, “we get flexibility for what you can use this for later.” After the pandemic, in other words, there will still be new strains of flu and other viruses to code. There will be a backlog of sequencing work for cancer and prenatal health and rare genetic diseases. There will be an ongoing surveillance effort for SARS-CoV-2 variants. An even bigger job, moreover, involves a continuing project to sequence untold strains of microbes, a project that Ginkgo has been involved with in search of new pharmaceuticals. “I think of this as like building fiber in the late 1990s, for the internet,” Kelly said. “Back then, we laid down huge amounts of fiber, then everything crashed.”

But it turned out that a decade after the dot-com crash, optical fiber was essential for the expanding traffic of the web. And what Kelly seemed to be saying, I later realized, was that he would expand his lab because sequencing had to be the future, in all kinds of different ways. There was no going back.

Opening illustration includes a portion of the SARS-CoV-2 genome released to the public in 2020.

Jon Gertner is a contributing writer for the magazine and the author of “The Ice at the End of the World.” He writes frequently about science and technology, including features on Tesla and Climeworks, a Swiss company that is removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

#dna #sequencing #revolution #help #fight #covid #genome #technology #tool #key #variants #code #tech

The post A DNA Sequencing Revolution Helped Us Fight Covid. What Else Can It Do? appeared first on Good News!.

Do you have a sleep disorder?

Before you start making changes to your lifestyle, it may be a good idea to talk to your doctor about the potential of having a sleep disorder. According to Harvard University, there are many different types of sleep disorders, from insomnia to obstructive sleep apnea, the latter of which can be fatal. Rule out any serious medical concerns before moving forward.

Diet and exercise

Now that that’s out of the way, take a look at your diet. If you’re pregnant, you may have started eating differently than you did before. Hopefully, this means that you’ve added lots of healthy foods to your diet. But even the healthiest dinner can keep you awake all night if it’s too heavy. First, as your abdomen expands, it takes less food to feel full. Plus, your body — and sense of smell — reacts differently to even your favorite foods, meaning that tacos may wind up giving you unbearable heartburn until delivery. Instead of overdoing it at the dinner table, have a light meal and a healthy snack before bed. You can also use this trick on children who tend to toss and turn the first part of the night.

Did you know that certain minerals and vitamins can improve your sleep quality? Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and vitamins D and E can all give you a little extra help sleeping, so make sure you’re taking a quality multivitamin. A multivitamin can also reduce sluggishness and prevent your mood from dipping.

You’ll also want to make sure you’re getting plenty of exercise since this is the best way to wear your body out and bring on uninterrupted slumber.

Environmental factors

Your behaviors are only one thing that can bring on unwelcomed insomnia. If your family hasn’t purchased new mattresses in a few years, it’s time to start evaluating your sleep styles. Many adults find that sleeping on a firmer mattress is most comfortable. Kids, however, might cozy up better on a soft bed with a down topper. A good mattress to try is Purple, which is a middle-of-the-road brand (it’s not luxury, but it’s not low-end either). When picking a mattress, keep your body weight in mind. If you’re on the larger side, the firmer, the better since your body weight will exert more force on the top few layers, making a mattress that the kids would call “brick-like” feel a bit too soft and squishy for you.

If you’ve switched mattress out and still can’t sleep, pay attention to the temperature. Most experts agree that somewhere in the mid-60s is good for sleep. But, if you have hormones swirling through your blood, you may experience night sweats, which can wake you from a deep sleep. Consider changing your bedding to a material that wicks moisture away and can handle frequent laundering. Keep in mind that night sweats are not just for moms; people of all ages – about three percent of the population – experience it due to medication, diabetes, or, for women, menopause.

Finally, if you’re eating well and have a comfortable surface to rest on at night, you may have to concede that the problem is your bed partner. Snoring and tossing and turning from the other side of the bed isn’t pleasant. And as much as you may not want to, there is no shame in separating bedrooms temporarily. This applies not only to husbands but to kids and pets as well. You can always try sleeping in earplugs or with a sound machine if noise is the only issue.

Remember, sleep isn’t a luxury – at least it should not be. Getting eight hours on most nights is one of the best ways to improve your mood and your health overall. It is not always easy when you have a growing family, but making a few changes, such as eating well and utilizing a mattress that fits your sleep style, is a good start.

Julia Merrill

The post Here’s How to Get More ZZZs appeared first on Good News!.