A non-chemical theory of aging.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by drg
First.
Can you tell me, please, (couple sentences) what I am talking about (the goal)?

Second.
How are you going to use it?
Click to expand...

First: I really have no idea what you are offering, so the goal should be to convey your theory and claims. The best example is a condensed version of a patent application that explains the theory, claims, benefits etc with some prior work by others (references).

The reason I bring up a patent application is that, it is a self standing information base that answers all the important questions thereby minimizing questions, arguments and word fights.

Second: Specifically to understand your claim and support it. If you posted for the benefit of people, may be your claim has some information one can use to develop anti-aging techniques now rather than waiting for the major drug companies to develop a pill costing $100 each.
 
oh, i see it now drg!


(where was that ignore button?)



oh well.


drg: you either a: seriously lack communication skills ; b: are a dumbshit ignant ass foo ; or c: all of the above
 
<i><b>kmguru wrote:</b> You are welcome. I am glad, I was some help. I hope you get better.</i>

With your entertainment ... I really feel better. Thanks again (or try again).
 
Re: DNA is not the bottom line.

>> The matter is what the mechanism Nature uses to change
>> DNA. It is definitely not what modern scientists do.

So RNA isn't the 'mechanism' that Nature uses to change DNA?
 
Re: "Ignorance is not an argument."

>> I can prove by a few independent methods that things I
>> told here are the truth. Can you do the same?

Care to share you proof?
 
>> Placebo remedies do not have side effects.

If you have ever viewed the report, or even the summary, of a clinical trial, you would see that placebos DO have side effects. There is nothing that your body can consume, even water, that will produce absolutely no pharmacological effects.

>> But, the difference with other placebo experiments was
>> that nobody knew which remedies were real drugs and
>> which remedies were placebo.

This is the way that all studies with a control group perform studies; if the control patients know they are recieving a placebo, the experiment is invalid. All of you following statements are invalid.

>> The only thing that modern genetic science can do well is
>> production of destructive technologies/weapons

I beg to differ. Some of the most recent NDA's for critical care and oncology drugs were originally discovered and developed as a result of new discoveries from the Human Genome Project.
 
>> Can you say that produced by genetically altered bacteria
>> insulin is the cure for diabetics?

Apparently you don't know what insulin is.

>> Genetic manipulation is using for business but not for
>> actual help

Genetic engineering is being used to help people. Monsanto is one of the largest biotechnology companies that produce an actual procuct. They produce genetically engineered crops to sell in developing countries, crops that would not normally grow in a particular climate (due to rainfall or temperature) and crops that yield much more per acre than 'natural' crops. So far, these crops have been a godsend.

>> I wish to explain you more, but you have to little
>> knowledge about the issue.

This is an insult if I ever heard one.

You know the old adage: "Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience."
 
Re: To all my critics and defenders of genetic engineering.

>> 102 out of 198 drugs approved by the FDA (52% drugs!!!)
>> between 1978 and 1986 <b>had "serious post-approval
>> risks . . . (reported by the General Accounting Office).

The General Accounting Office is neither qualified or allowed to report such findings, even if they were valid. The FDA is the only organization that can report adverse effects.

Assuming that the FDA did report what you stated, this is very common, especially with drugs approved prior to 1982. Clinical trials are conducted before any drug can be sold to consumers, and the FDA mandates that the number of participants must be "that largest feisable number". Most of the participants, all of which are voluntary, are average people. All of these adverse effects that you mention occur in patients with rare and semi-rare disorders; any type of adverse effect to any FDA approved drug must be reported to the FDA. This means that if 1 person out of 500,000 experiences an increased heart rate, the physician will report the event to the FDA, where it will be classified as a "serious risk".

>> In New York City, tuberculosis is making a comeback. And
>> fully a third of these new cases are resistant to antibiotics.
>> In Britain, over 60 percent of staph infections are now
>> drug-resistant.
>> And in South Africa, there was an outbreak of hospital-
>> acquired strep infections that did not respond to normal
>> treatment.

Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics because of natural genetic mutations. Just like our own bodies adapt to foreign agents and organisms, the bacteria 'learns' how to protect itself.

>> The popular over-the-counter cold medicine makes cancer
>> cells spread like crazy! A study at a leading cancer center
>> proves it makes tumors grow 2 times faster!

You are talking about phenylpropanolamine, and it did not ever cause cancer. PPA was linked to an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke in women, and the odds of this effect was less than 1 in 10,000,000.

>> Alka Seltzer is able to cause Alzheimer's disease (shocking
>> new findings)!

Alka Seltzer cannot be linked to Alzheimer's disease, because we still do not know what causes the disease.

>> The common blood-pressure drug increases your heart
>> attack risk. A study shows that people who take it are
>> 60 percent more likely to have a heart attack!

I would love to see this!

I've got news for you dude. If any drug ever had such a dramatic risk for a particular condition, it would have been seen in the clinical trials and would never have been approved.

>> An FDA-approved food additive that is so dangerous it
>> was once classified by the Pentagon as a biochemical
>> weapon!

I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.

>> Using Tylenol for a hangover can cause serious liver
>> damage!

Tylenol CAUSES liver damage in the event of an overdose; this has nothing to do with a hangover

>> Combining cold medicine and antibiotics can kill you!

Then we have a hell of a lot of dead sick people in the world.

>> Studies show that there is no difference in the death
>> rates of the group which took a daily aspirin and the
>> group which did not.

I've got some more news for you dude. Aspirin has always been shown, and still is, to reduce the risk of a heart attack. That is what a blood thinner does. Aspirin has been shown to be even more effective than Plavix at preventing future attacks. I guess the fact that asprin was shown to be more effective than Plavix shoots down you theory about the 'conspiracy of the drug companies'.

>> You do not know what aspirin companies have hidden

What, are aspirin comanies big business now? Lobbying in Congress and covering up important facts?

>> It is not aspirin that prevents heart attack, but magnesium!

If magnesium was acutally in any type of aspirin product, it would be reflected on the product label -- FDA requirement.

>> Magnesium is totally safe and it dilates blood vessels,
>> acts as a natural blood thinner

Are you insinuating that aspirin isn't a natural blood thinner? Do you have any idea where aspirin comes from? It has been used for thousands of years by native americans, and they harvested it from the bark of the weeping willow tree. It's not natural though, huh.

>> You need to stop taking a daily aspirin and stick to
>> magnesium instead!

Where are your studies that show the safety and effectiveness of magnesium as a blood thinner?
 
hmm

I'm surprised there aren't many actually informed posts on this message forum, I guess I'll have to straighten the whole deal about aging. FYI I am exceptionally interested in aging research, I've read alot about it, I've been to very cool seminars, and I have a very positive outlook as to what the biogerontology field will be able to achive over the next 25 years.


Aging all started when sex evolved, by fusing gametes together two different individuals could create a new offspring instead of just dividing. Were we to reproduce by splitting into two, we would effectively be immortal. But we do not, and our multicellular bodies have through a billion years of evolution refined this whole reproduction thing.

In species that do reproduce by division, they have very high amounts of a protein called telomerase. This enzyme is key to setting the biological clock of any cell. At the end of each chromosome are caps called telomeres, every time a cell divides your telomeres get slightly shorter. With the cap deleted, genes on the edges of the chromosome start to loose nucleotides and eventually the cell no longer has the necessary genes to divide. When you have alot of telomerase your cells never reach this point, infact your telomeres stay the same length.

Now having immortal cells sounds like a good idea, but if your a multicellular being then *some* of your cells might malfunction. By having a set number of times a cell can divide, your body effectively limits the amount of damage a haywire cell can do. The whole deal about aging can be considered as a ying and yang of cancer versus youthfulness. Animals that have longer telomeres have greater chances of healing rapidly, but are more vulnerable to cancer. Mice are a perfect example, they have a great ability to heal however they are also about 60,000 times more succeptible to cancer then humans. The limit to our cells ability to divide is clearly shown with age, but our replicative limit can also be reached by other means. Professional Tri-athaletes are starting to experience significant muscle loss near the age of 45 because their store of muscle stem cells to repair muslce has been run too low because of overuse.

Mutations also play a roll in aging, the more defects in your genes the greater likely hood that even MORE mutations will accumulate. And there are ways for cells to get around the telomere cap problem, the gene to produce telomerase can be switched on and IS done so in many of the large cancers that are life threatening. However reducing the amount of mutations in a cell will only decrease the chances of cancer, and doing this doesn't work by taking anti-oxidants since the body already has its own ample supply.


So, how do we overcome aging? Well, several ways. First off there is a large movement to develope the technology to grow organs, if you slowly replace your body with younger parts before they wear out theres no real limit to how long you can live. Stem cells are also being discovered to be very ample at repairing parts of the body, and the idea of injecting new stem cells to repair old tissue is definetly possible. Any attempt to reverse aging will have to involve two major steps, resetting the telomerase clock, and checking for mutations. If they were going to grow you a new heart, the source cells to use for you would be screened for mutations. By starting the growth of a new organ with fewer mutations you will encounter less complications later on.

The most difficult organ to replace, would obviously be the brain. Simply put, you can't replace it! Already we have found embryonic stem cells can repair old brain damage, and using modified stem cells to rejuvinate the brain would be THE way to combate aging of our most important organ. Recently it was discovered that stem cells even in old age can migrate up to the brain and start creating new neurons. Stem cells as a whole, are KEY to combating aging. Embryonic stem cells are even better, because their cellular organelle are healtheir then the older mitochondria that exist in your own cells.

Cancer itself may be dealt with by creating new genes that are hypersensitive to mutations. Aging and our current situation makes perfect sense when held in the light of evolution. Back when we were hunter-gatherers and death happened ALOT we had evolved to live about 45ish, just long enough to properly raise our children and then die. Our bodies have a combination of cellular pluropotency(ability to heal, etc) and cancer rate that was ideal for our survival. Now had there been enough evolutionary pressure, genes would have evolved that allowed us to live far longer then 45 years but the key word is having *enough* pressure. Humans could evolve to grow purple wings if there was *enough* evolutionary pressure and time. Aging is a health problem, that like many other aspects of biology, is simply a compromise between various conflicting factors.


In short:
All supplements are bull, take your daily vitamins and forget the hype.

Stem cells are good, embryonic stem cells are fantastic

Telomerease enzyme is key to setting back the biological "clock"

Eat healthy, exercise(but not too much), invest in biotech stocks

Magnetics are pieces of metal, they are worthless

All people claiming to have the cure to aging have died, or will unless they visit their local geneticist in the year 2025.
 
Last edited:
Re: hmm

>> I'm surprised there aren't many actually informed posts
>> on this message forum

Don't be. I found this thread while I was looking for a thread with the same title on a different forum, obviously started by the same person: DRG. He is using pseudoscience (and barely pseudoscience at that) to try to convince gullable people to buy his snake oil for $250 per bottle.

>> the gene to produce telomerase can be switched on and
>> IS done so in many of the large cancers that are life
>> threatening.

From my understanding, all known types of cancer have been shown to produce telomerase. This is a huge area in oncology research.

>> Stem cells are also being discovered to be very ample
>> at repairing parts of the body, and the idea of injecting
>> new stem cells to repair old tissue is definetly possible.

I was reading the result summary of a Phase I clinical trial just a few weeks ago, but now I am unable to locate the article. Anyway, stem cells were used in the place of surgery to repair the femoral artery. They were injected directly into the damaged area, and they had a very good success rate.

>> The most difficult organ to replace, would obviously be the
>> brain. Simply put, you can't replace it!

That's really a shame, some people could use a replacement!

>> All supplements are bull, take your daily vitamins and
>> forget the hype.

You can say that again!

>> Eat healthy, exercise(but not too much)

Check out these links:

http://eonlabs.yellowbrix.com/pages...35997041&ID=eonlabs&scategory=Pharmaceuticals

http://eonlabs.yellowbrix.com/pages...36069207&ID=eonlabs&scategory=Pharmaceuticals

>> invest in biotech stocks

I wouldn't do that in today's biotech climate if you actually want a return on your investment.

>> All people claiming to have the cure to aging have died, or will

Good point! /g/

>> FYI . . .

I am not directly involved in any type of research, but working in pharmacy gives me firsthand experience with the aging population. I also think that there will be huge advances in aging 'technology' in the near future, but I don't expect any major treatments (not to say that there won't be ground-breaking discoveries) within the next 20 years.
 
>> I spoke with many scientists in the U.S. and asked them:
>> "why are you doing this cheating"? We are in a free
>> country. Their basic answer sounds like: "We have
>> families and children. We need to put bread on the table.
>> Yes, we are cheating, but they pay us money."

So, you are saying the every scientist, pharmacist, and physician in the US is involved in a huge conspiracy to hide 'important facts' from American consumers? That is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard!

I've got an idea. Why don't you actually go to school, become some type of scientist, and reveal all of the hidden facts yourself.

>> but if you have friends-scientists - they should tell you
>> the truth (every scientist knows what's going on).

Obviously you don't know anything about the 'field' of science. I deal with hundreds of scientists per day, and I have yet to see a single one that is in it for the money -- one simple reason: it does not make you wealthy. If a scientist wanted to become wealthy they would get an MBA and grab a lucrative administrative position. Unless a scientist makes a groundbreaking discovery, and starts a company that operates on the idea, there is no money to be made in science.
 
>> Inform me with the facts, and we'll talk. Show me the cancer
>> statistics, and show me the consumption statistics on
>> genetically altered food. I will not allow you to make
>> sweeping statements and use hand-waving as proof. Show
>> me the numbers from their first sources, and we'll talk.

This is what he does: state a "fact", refuse to provide sources, and tell to to disprove it. HE doesn't need to provide HIS sources, but YOU do!
 
>> Why you still did not answer the question: why the naturally
>> derived chemicals are OK (for the body), but the same
>> artificially created copies are not?

You apparently have no idea what you are talking about.

Let me make an example. Until the mid 1980's pork insulin, and sometimes even human insulin, was given to insulin dependant diabetics. I am talking about pure, unrefined, biologically extracted insulin. Now, pork insulin is no longer used because lab manufactured insulin is much safer and more stable.

Human thyroid has the same story: thyroid replacement was formerly done using pork thyroid. Pork thyroid wasn't very effective, and produced numerous side effects, so lab manufactured thyroid replaced it. Lab manufacture thyroid is much safer and more stable than 'natural' thyroid.

Lets see, I already informed you about the natural origins of aspirin, so I will move on to penicillin. You can get penicillin 'naturally' by eating moldy bread, but penicillin extracted from lab-grown mold is much safer and more effective.
 
How About:

You answer the real question drg.
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS IF
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS YOU
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS DON'T
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS SEE
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS THIS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS YOU
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS ARE
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS A
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS RETARDED
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS IMMIGRANT.
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS
 
Really i was down woth DRG, she really had some good points, she was like cosmic.
when is she going to come back, she was well put togeather, i am for this new science tech she was saying.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top