Finish Well Health Coaching, LLC

05/30/2026

Lab testing commissioned by consumer advocacy groups detected glyphosate in 100% of America’s top fast food restaurants. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide globally and often ends up in grain-heavy and ultra-processed convenience foods. Glyphosate is toxic to the human body with the IARC considering it a “probable carcinogen” because of its links to non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, but it also can cause liver, gut and kidney damage as well as metabolic disorders like non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome.

The restaurants tested were: Panera Bread, Subway, Arby’s, Dairy Queen, Popeyes, Little Caesar’s, Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, KFC, Domino’s, Wendy’s, Sonic, Taco Bell, Jack in the Box, Chick-fil-A, In-N-Out, Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, Chipotle, and Panda Express.

The manufacturer of glyphosate, Bayer, has paid over $11 Billion in historical settlements to people who have been critically injured by the chemical.

Check out the comments section for a complete breakdown of the health impacts of glyphosate.

What do you think—does this make you want to be more careful with your restaurant selections?

05/26/2026

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2026-01-08-new-study-finds-stopping-weight-loss-drugs-linked-faster-regain-ending-diet

People tend to regain weight rapidly after stopping weight-loss drugs - and faster than after ending behavioural weight loss programmes - according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis from researchers in Oxford's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, published in The BMJ toda...

05/18/2026

Fact check in the comments

Take a good look at the cartoon. The smug professor in the lab coat. The open jar labeled "ENGINEERED TICKS."

The chalkboard behind him reading "FOR YOUR OWN GOOD." The American family at the picnic table getting rained on by the swarm he just released.

The tick falling toward them, calmly saying "You're welcome."

We wish we were exaggerating. We are not.

Two professors of medical ethics at Western Michigan University's medical school just published a peer-reviewed paper in a major academic journal arguing that it is, quote, "morally obligatory" to release genetically engineered ticks on the American public so that more of us become permanently allergic to beef, pork, and lamb.

The paper is called "Beneficial Bloodsucking." It was published in the journal Bioethics in 2025. The authors are Parker Crutchfield and Blake Hereth, and they teach the future doctors of America in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Here is what they actually wrote. They call the disease-carrying tick a "moral bioenhancer." They say we have an obligation to "expose others" to alpha-gal syndrome, the meat allergy spread by the lone star tick. They say we should "undermine attempts to cure" the allergy. They say AGS is not even a disease, so it does not need a cure.

Their plan is to use CRISPR gene editing to redesign the tick so it can survive in more environments, including cities, possibly by hitching rides on rats. They cite the gene-edited mosquito programs already operating in other countries as their working model.

That is the jar in the cartoon. That is the swarm coming out of it.

Their justification is that eating red meat is morally wrong, and since you will not stop on your own, the credentialed class at a state-affiliated medical school is going to make the decision for you. They argue this is not a violation of your rights, just a tolerable, quote, "infringement," same as a vaccine mandate.

That is the chalkboard. "For your own good." Their words, not ours.

Nobody is going to ask you. Nobody is going to put it on a ballot. One of the same authors previously published a paper in the same journal titled "Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should Be Covert," meaning forced biological modification of the population should be kept hidden from the population.

That is the family at the picnic table. That is every American household. We are the ones at the table. We are the ones who never agreed to any of this. We are the ones the tick is talking to when it says "You're welcome."

This is not a parody site. This is not a tweet. This is a peer-reviewed paper sitting in the flagship journal of the bioethics field, written by tenured professors at a medical school, available right now on PubMed.

The Founders had a phrase for the principle these professors just casually walked past. It was called "consent of the governed." Apparently a tick does not need your consent.

Source: Crutchfield, P. and Hereth, B. (2025). "Beneficial Bloodsucking." Bioethics 39(8): 772–781

05/18/2026

04/23/2026

Don't eat anything grown in a lab! Not meat, not chocolate, etc. This is a grand experiment with no long term data.

04/23/2026

While major chocolate companies quietly fund lab-grown alternatives that are set to hit shelves in 2027, they’ve already been replacing your favorite bars for years.

Cadbury’s ‘dairy milk’ contains so many substitutions that it’s not even legally considered chocolate in some parts of the world, yet millions still buy it thinking nothing has changed. The cocoa butter disappeared long ago, replaced with a blend of six industrial oils designed to mimic real chocolate’s mouthfeel. What remains gets diluted with polyglycerol and flavored with petroleum-derived vanilla to mask the waxy taste of those oil blends.

The transition happens through small reformulations every few months, which means your taste buds adapt gradually without noticing the difference. Companies count on you not reading the ingredient labels carefully enough to spot when “cocoa butter” vanishes from the list, replaced by vague terms like “chocolate flavoring” and “cocoa compounds”.

You can still find real chocolate’s mouthfeel made with actual cocoa butter and natural vanilla, but you need to know which brands haven’t compromised their recipes. Look for chocolate with five ingredients or fewer and avoid anything containing PGPR, polyglycerol, or vegetable fats where cocoa butter should be.

What are your thoughts on lab-grown chocolate?

04/23/2026

SHEIN is facing intense scrutiny and several lawsuits, including the most recent one filed in February 2026 by the Texas Attorney General, alleging its clothing contains hazardous chemicals, with some independent tests indicating levels thousands of times higher than legal safety limits.

👨🏻‍⚖️Key Findings in Lawsuits & Investigations:

▶️Toxic Chemical Levels: Independent lab tests, cited in legal filings, found chemicals like PFAS (“forever chemicals”), phthalates, lead and cadmium in clothing, with some items exceeding safety standards by up to 3,269 times.

▶️Children’s Clothing Risks: Tests reported formaldehyde—a chemical often used in, or to preserve, textile produces—at 3.5 times the legal limit in children’s clothing.

▶️Independent Findings: A 2025 investigation by Greenpeace and other lab testing found that 32% of tested products exceeded EU safety limits, with some jackets exceeding PFAS limits by up to 3,300 times.

▶️Rico Charges: In addition to safety concerns, SHEIN is facing Rackateer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges in some lawsuits, alleging systemic intellectual property theft, according to reports.

▶️Data Security: The Texas lawsuit also alleges that SHEIN failed to disclose that sensitive consumer data can be accessed by the Chinese government, labeling the company a “data siphon”.

These allegations raise SERIOUS concerns about the safety of “fast fashion”, particularly those marketed to children and pregnant women, as some toxic chemicals are known to be absorbed through the skin, accumulate in the body, and cause long-term health issues.

These chemicals are HIGHLY TOXIC leading to reproductive issues (reduced s***m quality, infertility), developmental disorders, obesity, type 2 diabetes, bone weakening, kidney damage, neurological and development issues, cancers, cardiovascular problems and SO MUCH MORE—I’ll expand on these in the comments section.

What do you think about this?