Anneke Morel Naturopath

28/01/2026

Caution is advised in using Berberine for its effects on blood sugar, this is something we covered in Dr Hawrelack’s gut microbiome course.

14/01/2026

I fully believe in the importance of Vit D for overall health. It is one marker you should always ask for when you have bloods done (even if you have to pay for it).

Do not assume you will have good levels, just because you are outdoor. Covering up, skin tone, time of being outside and sunscreen all affect your uptake and then the conversion of Vitamin D from the sun to the bioavailable form, may be compromised due to a genetic under functioning of your genes.

I recommend a liposomal (under the tongue) delivery of D3 and K2 combined.

Also eat vitamin D rich foods to help and expose your midriff to the sun daily for best sun absorption (10 mins in full sun)

Adults with heart disease who had a previous heart attack and took vitamin D doses tailored to reach ‘optimal’ blood levels reduced their risk of another heart attack by more than half compared to those who did not, according to a preliminary study presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2025. The meeting held on November 7-10 in New Orleans, was a premier global exchange of the latest scientific advancements, research and evidence-based clinical practice updates in cardiovascular science.

Previous studies found low vitamin D levels are linked to worse heart health. The TARGET-D randomised clinical trial included 630 adults with heart disease who also had a previous heart attack. More than 85% of participants began the study with vitamin D levels in their blood below 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L). Unlike earlier vitamin D randomised trials that used standard doses, the TARGET-D trial personalised the doses based on the results of each participant’s blood test.

“Previous clinical trial research on vitamin D tested the potential impact of the same vitamin D dose for all participants without checking their blood levels first,” said Heidi T. May, principal investigator of TARGET-D and an epidemiologist and professor of research at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “We took a different approach. We checked each participant's vitamin D levels at enrolment and throughout the study, and we adjusted their dose as needed to bring and maintain them in a range of 40 to 80 ng/mL.”

Participants in the TARGET-D study were randomised to two groups: The standard of care group did not receive management of their vitamin D levels, and the treatment group received tailored vitamin D supplementation, with doses adjusted every three months until their vitamin D blood levels were above 40 ng/mL. Once the vitamin D level was above 40 ng/mL, levels were checked annually and doses adjusted if levels dropped below that target.

Researchers monitored both vitamin D and calcium levels for the participants in the treatment group throughout the study to prevent vitamin D toxicity. Doses were reduced or stopped if vitamin D levels rose above 80 ng/mL (200 nmol/L).
The study’s key findings include:

• People who received personalised dosing of vitamin D supplements to achieve vitamin D levels greater than 40 ng/mL for nearly four years had a 52% lower risk of heart attack compared to participants whose vitamin D levels were not managed.
• More than 85% of participants had vitamin D levels below 40 ng/mL when they enrolled in the study.
• Nearly 52% of participants in the treatment group required more than 5,000 IU of vitamin D each day to reach the target blood levels of greater than 40 ng/mL.
• There were no significant adverse outcomes from the vitamin D intervention
Researchers found that tailored vitamin D doses did not significantly reduce the primary outcomes of death, heart failure hospitalisation or stroke; rather, supplementation appeared to be beneficial for preventing heart attacks specifically.

For several years, informed by a broad reading of clinical and observational research, I have aimed for a minimum serum vitamin D level of 100 nmol/L (40 ng/mL) in my patients. In many cases, patients self-fund testing, as vitamin D measurement is often deprioritised in mainstream practice and higher target ranges are regarded as lacking clinical relevance beyond deficiency prevention.

This study provides important support for the clinical value of targeting higher vitamin D levels—an approach long adopted by many natural and integrative practitioners.

For more information see: https://bit.ly/49kHooj
and
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/heart-attack-risk-halved-in-adults-with-heart-disease-taking-tailored-vitamin-d-doses

23/12/2025

Another nail in the coffin for glyphosate’s so called safety.

A major toxicology journal has retracted a w**d killer study backed by Monsanto, citing ‘serious ethical concerns’. The highly cited paper was used as evidence that the widely used herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) is safe.

In 2017, a lawsuit uncovered internal emails from Monsanto that suggested its employees helped ghostwrite an influential paper that claimed to find no evidence glyphosate caused cancer. Now, the scientific journal that published the 2000 paper has announced it has been retracted.

The paper was withdrawn because of “serious ethical concerns” and questions about the validity of the research findings, toxicologist Martin van den Berg, co-editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, wrote in a scathing retraction notice released on 28th November. “This article has been widely regarded as a hallmark paper in the discourse surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup,” wrote van den Berg, who works at Utrecht University. “However, the lack of clarity regarding which parts of the article were authored by Monsanto employees creates uncertainty about the integrity of the conclusions drawn.”

The decision, which came more than 8 years after the initial revelations, can be traced to the work of two scientists who this year filed a retraction request with the journal after documenting the staying power of the disputed paper. “My worry is that people will keep citing it,” says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University who sought the retraction along with her then postdoctoral researcher, Alexander Kaurov.

In July, the duo published an analysis showing that the now-retracted paper was in the top 0.1% of studies cited in glyphosate-related academic research. They found that citation rates barely budged after the revelations of Monsanto’s hidden involvement, and the paper continued to be used in policy documents. With the retraction, Oreskes hopes “the word will get out” that the study shouldn’t be used as a trusted source of information.

Questions about the paper emerged during a lawsuit against Monsanto, filed by people who claimed their non-Hodgkins lymphoma stemmed from glyphosate exposure. It brought to light internal company documents showing company officials debating how to respond to a 2015 finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen. One tactic they considered was to help academic researchers publish papers that supported the company’s claims that the chemical was not a risk to people. A way to do that, a company executive wrote in an email, would be to approach scientists who would “have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just sign their names so to speak.” The email notes that “this is how we handled” the now-retracted paper.

Gary Williams, the paper’s lead author and a former New York Medical College pathologist who retired in 2018, did not respond to a request for comment. The retraction notice states that Williams also did not respond to the journal’s concerns about the paper. The two other authors, Robert Kroes and Ian Munro, are no longer alive.

In addition to the apparent involvement of Monsanto, the retraction announcement notes that the authors only reviewed unpublished studies produced by the company, and neglected to include a number of outside studies that were also not published in peer-reviewed journals. That could have skewed the study’s conclusions, van den Berg wrote.

The paper’s retraction could remove one hurdle for plaintiffs suing Monsanto, says Robin Greenwald, an attorney at the New York City–based law firm Weitz & Luxenberg who is overseeing glyphosate cases for hundreds of individuals. Monsanto “can’t rely on it anymore,” she says.

There may be more retractions coming. Kaurov, who is now studying for a PhD in science in society at New Zealand’s Victoria University of Wellington, says he and Oreskes recently submitted a retraction request to Critical Reviews in Toxicology for a 2013 paper published under the names of two other authors that does not fully disclose the role Monsanto played in the paper. “It’s not the end of the story,” he says.

For more information see: https://bit.ly/4pGMUY6
and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125001765

14/10/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1HLXKHUJE1/?mibextid=WC7FNe

19/05/2025

23/04/2025

Synergy between foods

16/04/2025

Many women in menopause avoid dietary fats due to long-standing misconceptions linking fat intake directly to weight gain. This approach is counterintuitive, particularly during menopause, for several reasons.

Firstly, fats are essential for hormone production and regulation; as estrogen levels decrease during menopause, adequate fat intake can help stabilize hormonal fluctuations and alleviate related symptoms.

Fats also enhance satiety, keeping you full longer and preventing overeating, which is crucial for weight management. It's important to distinguish between unhealthy fats, like trans fats found in processed foods, and healthy fats, such as those in olive oil, avocados, and fatty fish. These beneficial fats are necessary for the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K), crucial for bone health and immune function.

Completely cutting out fats can slow down the metabolism, an undesirable effect as metabolic rates naturally decline with age.

Instead of eliminating fats, focus on including the right types of fats in your diet, consumed in moderation to support your overall health and assist in weight management

15/04/2025

Cortisol, often referred to as the "stress hormone," is a steroid hormone produced by the adrenal glands, which are located on top of each kidney. It plays several critical roles in the body, particularly in managing stress and maintaining various bodily functions.

During menopause, the fluctuating and overall decline in estrogen and progesterone levels can indirectly affect cortisol levels and how the body responds to it as fat distribution during menopause

Menopausal transitions can affect the body's fat storage patterns. Elevated cortisol levels can lead to increased fat accumulation around the abdomen, known as visceral fat. This type of fat, responsive to cortisol, is associated with higher health risks like cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

During menopause, hormonal changes often cause a shift in fat storage towards the abdominal area. This change not only impacts physical appearance but also poses health risks. It is essential to be aware of these alterations and take a comprehensive approach to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Regular exercise, a balanced diet, stress management, and professional healthcare guidance are key in promoting well-being during this phase.

By understanding these changes and taking proactive measures, you can enhance your menopausal journey for better health and happiness.

14/04/2025

I have had a few requests for online consultations and have decided to adapt with the times and requests, to offer online consultations for those who would like to see me outside of my regular hours or are too far away from my physical consultation rooms.

These appointments will need to be booked via private message, for the time being. I will open my availability from 1 May 2025 for online appointments.

14/04/2025

Understanding the why of weight gain during menopause is an important part of traversing this period with our sanity intact - right ladies of a certain age??

We all want to feel good and look good, but sometimes the expectations of the world around us present us with a false picture of what is achievable, and most importantly what is healthy!

An extra little fat roll or two is actually a good thing as we enter menopause, science has shown us that ladies carrying a little more weight, actually have a more robust transitions and time in old age. We need the extra fat to help protect our bodies from trauma and illness (not to mention fill in a few wrinkles). We also produce estrogen from our fat cells (adipose tissue for the fancy pants term), which has so many functions, so whilst the ovaries have given up at working so hard, adipose tissue is taking over to fill the shortfall we need to age robustly. I am not saying we need to be obese, but high normal and low overweight is actually a good place to be, everyone is individual and what is good for me, is not necessarily good for you.

So be kind and embrace a healthy softer figure, unless you are an A-lister in the next action packed, Hollywood blockbuster - chillout and enjoy life - have some healthy fats in your diet.

I will share a few more pointers this week on a healthy diet during menopause, so keep on being fab ladies!!

23/03/2025

Another little video explaining how food additives / flavouring are made to be addictive…

19/03/2025

It boggles the mind to think that what we eat is actually actively trying to sabotage our efforts to remain healthy - big food and big $$$ - steer clear of ultra processed foods. If you are fortunate enough to be able to source home grown / small scale farming foods, do so. Big companies seemingly have abandoned the wellbeing of humans, for the wellbeing of their own back pockets $$$.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1FkPeBBJWu/?mibextid=WC7FNe