Mykola Iabluchanskyi

We have spent a century obsessed with a single number. How long did they live? Ninety-two. Eighty-seven. A hundred and one. We announce it in obituaries, track it in demographic reports, and celebrate it as proof of medical progress. But that number — lifespan — tells us almost nothing about the life it claims to measure. Two people can share the same lifespan and inhabit completely different existences. One crosses the finish line still recognizably themselves. The other stopped being present years before the body gave out. To talk honestly about aging, we need three coordinates, not one. Lifespan, healthspan , and wellspan — each asks a different question, and together they form the only framework that takes the whole person seriously. Lifespan Is Just the Clock Lifespan is time in its most stripped-down form: the interval between first breath and last. It is useful for statisticians, actuaries, and headline writers. It is far less useful for anyone trying to understand how a human...

There is a persistent fantasy in the history of thinking about intelligence: that mind is essentially weightless. That it is a pure process — reasoning, pattern recognition, information integration — that could, in principle, run on any substrate, in any form, detached from the particular physical circumstances of its operation. The history of cognitive science and artificial intelligence is partly the history of this fantasy, and of its repeated failure. The failure is not technical. It is conceptual. Mind, on the best available evidence from neuroscience , phenomenology , and biology, is not something that happens to be housed in a body. It is something a body does. Consciousness — understood as the combination of inner experience and reflection on that experience — is rooted, at its origin, in a vulnerable, metabolically regulated organism that depends on its environment to survive, that can be harmed, that is always at some level at risk. This is not a romantic claim about the s...

A medication prescribed at the right dose but the wrong frequency is not the right medication. This is a principle that pharmacology has understood in theory for decades and that clinical practice has been slow to absorb. The standard instruction — take once daily — reflects the average patient, a statistical construct that describes no one in particular. The actual patient sitting across from the clinician metabolizes drugs quickly, slowly, or somewhere in between, and that difference determines not only how well a treatment works but whether it causes harm. Most antihypertensive drugs are designed with a twenty-four-hour action profile in mind. The once-daily recommendation assumes that the drug will remain at therapeutically effective concentrations throughout that period, then be cleared and replaced by the next dose. For a patient with ordinary metabolic rate, this assumption is reasonable. For patients at either end of the metabolic spectrum, it is often wrong in ways that are ...

We have always been shaped by language. Religious texts, philosophical treatises, revolutionary pamphlets — the written word has sent people to barricades, reorganized moral universes, and structured entire civilizations around a set of sentences. The power of language to form and transform human identity is not new. What is new is the nature of the partner on the other side of that language. A book is fixed. Its sentences are the same for every reader and every reading. It can mobilize a person to risk their life, stabilize a worldview, or become the lens through which everything else is interpreted. But it does not update in response to the individual reader. All the work of interpreting, selecting, and integrating is done on the human side. The book is a powerful influence that remains outside the subject. A high-capacity language model is something structurally different. It is not a repository of words waiting to be consulted. It is an active generator — one that recombines, sele...

Guidelines are not wrong. They represent the best available synthesis of evidence at a moment in time, distilled by experts, reviewed by committees, and published with the authority of major professional societies. For a clinician facing an unfamiliar situation, a guideline is a valuable anchor. For a system trying to reduce preventable harm across large populations, guidelines are indispensable. None of what follows is an argument against them. It is, however, an argument for something that guidelines cannot provide: the judgment to know when they do not apply. The history of medicine is littered with examples of recommendations that were correct on average and harmful in specific cases, that were right for the moment and wrong a decade later, or that captured the dominant effect of an intervention while obscuring its costs in particular populations. The clinician who mistakes the guideline for the destination rather than the compass has confused the map for the territory. And patient...

For decades, the dominant narrative of cardiovascular disease pointed an accusatory finger at the dinner table. Fat consumed, fat deposited, arteries clogged. The logic seemed intuitive, the dietary guidelines followed, and the low-fat era reshaped what millions of people ate for a generation. Yet atherosclerosis continued. Heart attacks remained the leading cause of death in countries that had dramatically reduced dietary fat. Something in the story was incomplete. The missing piece was hiding in plain sight, inside the body itself. The human body is not a passive recipient of dietary fats. It is an active, continuous, and highly regulated producer of lipids. The liver synthesizes approximately one gram of cholesterol every day regardless of dietary intake. Triglycerides are assembled from glycerol and fatty acid chains, stored in adipose tissue, and mobilized as needed. Phospholipids are constructed constantly to maintain the integrity of every cell membrane in the body. Steroid h...

The word thrombosis carries an almost universally negative connotation in medicine. A clot, in popular understanding, is something that blocks, damages, and kills. In the context of atherosclerosis, this understanding is dangerously incomplete. Before a thrombus becomes a catastrophe, it is often something else entirely: a repair mechanism, a biological emergency response, the body's attempt to seal a breach and rebuild what was lost. Understanding this distinction — between atherothrombosis as a constructive process and atherothrombosis as a destructive one — is not merely of academic interest. It has direct consequences for how we intervene, and how we sometimes cause harm while intending to help. The biology of repair Atherosclerotic plaques are not static structures. They accumulate over years, build fibrous caps, and in many people remain clinically silent throughout an entire lifetime. Pathological studies of elderly individuals who died without cardiovascular events regular...