#35: Spinning Science

#35: Spinning Science

In this training, “The Fatal Flaw of P—, And Why Your Doctor Doesn’t Understand.” 

Were going to find out what happens when spinning science get their hands on this “linear-pathway methodology” and decides to increase the levels of oxytocin artificially in infant rats with autism?


I discuss:

  • Human Experimentation with synthetic oxytocin gone mad
  • The “yin and yang” of human physiology is in the balance by a Dynamic interaction of biomolecules and neuropeptides that science cannot even begin to scratch the surface of
  • Spinning Science happens everyday

I am really excited to start you on this journey and I hope to add a lot of value to your life as a whole.

Show Transcript:

Nutrition is remarkable in its ability to have people with completely opposite views saying they have science to support completely opposite views.

Frustrating isn’t it? What are we suppose to believe?

Welcome to Dynamism Biohack, my name is Dr. Matt Hammett Wellness & Nutrition Expert, Lifestyle Trainer and Movement Enthusiast. In each week I’m going share with you how to make the right nutritious choices despite conflicting expert opinions where I help you to discover how to unlock your inner aborigine or your inner greatness. Thank you for spending this time with me today, so let’s get into the training.

LET ME EXPLAIN AN EXAMPLE OF THIS spinning science, continuing our story with Carter and oxytocin. If you recall earlier, I indicated a bit about oxytocin and autism. What happened when spinning science got their hands on this linear-pathway methodology and decided to increase the levels of oxytocin artificially in infant rats with autism?

Keep in mind; they theorized that adding levels of oxytocin to infants earlier in life would make the babies more socially apt later in life, but what happened surprised them. It did not surprise Carter at all. What happened?

Carter and her research partner Karen Bales recently completed a study in voles that were meant to mimic the effect of giving autistic children a few squirts of oxytocin while they were young. At first glance, the treatment on the voles seemed to work, but only while they were young. As the voles are aged, their behaviors turned away from regular social prairie vole society life. The males had a difficult time finding a mate. You see, those early doses of oxytocin made them less, not more, social as adults.

Carter believes these phenomena happened because the initial doses are desensitizing the normal receptors on the young voles. Then, as they age, the receptors become less able to read the normal levels of oxytocin. This line of research is where it gets very downright personal for us. Carter can recall how rare it was for doctors to inject mothers in labor with the synthetic form of oxytocin, P—. In fact, it only happened about 10% of deliveries!

In case you are unaware, today, P— is almost always given to laboring moms in the United States today; in fact, around 90% of the time. Many mothers and scientists are wondering what we did to our babies by allowing the doctors to give us that.

The worst of it all is the fact that mothers usually have no choice; they get a drugged birth unless previously discussed (which is even sometimes ignored)!

Doctors argue that the drug is for the mother, not the baby. However, we know that this same molecule goes to the brain seconds after a mist of it is in the air. I do not see that as a valid argument when the baby in utero is intimately connected to the source.

Carter and other scientists are troubled by this because the results from their studies showed up in those prairie voles only when they became adults.

It was not until very recently that their fears came in a more recent report in The New England Journal of Medicine correlating an increase in the incidence of autism in humans with receiving Pitocin during delivery. If we venture back a moment when I discussed Carter’s early prairie vole experiments, in that the neuropeptides in question caused monogamy, social bonding, sexual attraction and solid parenting, it would be great to end it there. However, what happens when we spin science? We venture from the rat lab into human experimentation.


Science magazine reported on an adult human experiment in Amsterdam headed by Carsten De Dreu, which used a nasal dose of oxytocin and assessed the effects with an innocent game of gambling for money: “Compared with men who got a saline spray, those who sniffed oxytocin behaved more altruistically to members of their own team… they were more likely to preemptively punish competitors…”

In a 2011 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “De Dreu’s team found that oxytocin increased favoritism toward subjects’ own ethnic group (native Dutch men) on a series of tasks and thought experiments done on a computer, and in some situations the treated men exhibited more prejudice against other groups (Germans and Middle Easterners, in this case)”.

Carter noticed that once the injected infant vole reached puberty, the male became a lethal weapon. He will fight to the death any intruders, while at the same time nurturing his young and devoted mate.

In other words, oxytocin does something more than giving us ‘feel good’ chemicals. It makes us protective, which, from an evolutionary adaptive point of view, means it can make us violent to survive the threat.

Not trusting others outside our social environment is the flip side of the social bonding that allows us to trust those closest to us.

The evolutionary biological debate has much rested on the idea of individual fitness and a discrete unit of genes, the only group in which evolution can act.

On the contrary, social and behavior studies on ants, termites, prairie voles and humans came to ripen the idea of group fitness or community cooperation. Behavioral studies raised the idea of community rather than individual selection, although still debated.

Genes do have a role, but so does our environment. The “yin and yang” of human physiology is in the balance by a Dynamic interaction of biomolecules and neuropeptides that science cannot even begin to scratch the surface of. Nevertheless, sometimes it is to our advantage to be selfish and seek individual time, and at other times, to do what is best for the group. It seems to coincide as selfish behavior and altruism, or the “yin and the yang.” Both have their advantages in evolutionary terms, and we are wired to express both.

Our human connection with one another helps us cope with stress. The ability to adapt to an ever-changing environment gets its control by the same hormones and areas of the brain that enable us to survive stress. We experience a sense of resiliency in the face of stressors when we are in communal support, rather than when we feel isolated or lonely. Some fascinating research demonstrated that lesions in tissues of animals heal more quickly when living in the community than in isolation.

Drs. Susan Carter and Stephen Porges wrote a report for a journal, entitled, “The Biochemistry of Love: an Oxytocin Hypothesis,” stating that “the protective effects of positive sociality seem to rely on the same cocktail of hormones that carry a biological message of ‘love’ throughout the body.” For example, the molecules associated with love have restorative powers, “including the ability to heal a ‘broken heart.’ Oxytocin receptors are expressed in the heart, and precursors for oxytocin seem to be crucial for the development of the fetal heart. Oxytocin exerts protective and restorative effects, in part through its capacity to convert undifferentiated stem cells into cardiomyocytes. Oxytocin can facilitate adult neurogenesis and tissue repair, especially after a stressful experience.”

Oxytocin has direct anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, found in vitro models of atherosclerosis. “The heart seems to rely on oxytocin as part of a normal process of protection and self-healing.”

In this context, it is best to end this chapter in the common words from The Biochemistry of Love, of Drs. Sue Carter and Stephen Porges:

“Social engagement helps us to cope with stress. The same hormones and areas of the brain that increase the capacity of the body to survive stress also enable us to better adapt to an ever-changing social and physical environment. Individuals with strong emotional support and relationships are more resilient in the face of stressors than those who feel isolated or lonely. Lesions in bodily tissues, including the brain, heal more quickly in animals that are living socially compared with those in isolation. The protective effects of positive sociality seem to rely on the same cocktail of hormones that carry a biological message of ‘love’ throughout the body”.

As only one example, the molecules associated with love have restorative properties, including the ability to literally heal a ‘broken heart,’ as well as those aforementioned.

“The heart seems to rely on oxytocin as part of a normal process of protection and self-healing. A life without love is not a life fully lived. Although research into mechanisms through which love protects us against stress and disease is in its infancy, this knowledge will ultimately increase our understanding of the way that our emotions have an impact on health and disease. We have much to learn about love and much to learn from love”.


#35: Spinning Science by

Find us on the Map

google copy

Find us on Instagram


Follow us on Facebook

facebook copy

Follow us on Twitter


Go Tell It