Re: Reversing aging (or even stopping it)

[Guest guest]

It's nice to speculate that in the near future, we'll reverse aging but I'm

not holding my breath . (Besides I may not make it to another 50 years).

Nature has a way of intervening and bringing us back down to earth with her

power. Take the cloned sheep. They die young. Something's messed up there.

As the saying goes: " it's not nice to fool mother nature " . We don't even

know if CR will work in humans. And if it does, how much CR?

A " pill " would be nice that would " right " any disease in your body and

insure longevity along with vitality to 120 or so. And we ain't even there

yet. We keep saying it's just around the corner but.........

Of course we always have war, accidents, murder, terrorists, mutant and

different diseases emerging which we don't know how to fight. And of course

where will we put everybody who lives to 5000?

Just my usual " optimistic " nature :-)))

on 8/3/2004 1:49 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

> Just some more stuff:

>

> J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Jun;59(6):B573-8.

>

>

> " Anti-aging " is an oxymoron.

>

> Hayflick L.

>

> Professor of Anatomy, Department of Anatomy, University of California, San

> Francisco, School of Medicine, P.O. Box 89, The Sea Ranch, CA 95497, USA.

> len@...

>

> No intervention will slow, stop, or reverse the aging process in humans.

> Whether anti-aging medicine is, or is not, a legitimate science is completely

> dependent upon the definition of key terms that define the finitude of life:

> longevity determination, aging, and age-associated diseases. Only intervention

> in the latter by humans has been shown to affect life expectancy. When it

> becomes possible to slow, stop, or reverse the aging process in the simpler

> molecules that compose inanimate objects, such as machines, then that prospect

> may become tenable for the complex molecules that compose life forms. Most of

> the resources available under the rubric " aging research " are not used for

> that purpose at all, thus making the likelihood of intervention in the process

> even more remote. If age changes are the greatest risk factor for

> age-associated diseases (an almost universal belief), then why is the study of

> aging virtually neglected?

>

> PMID: 15215267

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Well, no need to worry about that over the next ~50 to 100 years,

since the majority of the world's population is going to be wiped out

by AIDS over the next 30 years.

As evidence I would offer that, since its earliest inception in the

late 1950s, AIDS infections have risen at a rate of slightly in

excess of 40% per year.

There have now been about 60 million cases.

Try compounding out that 60 million number at just HALF the historic

rate of growth (i.e. take 20% per year) for thirty years. The number

you get thirty years out very substantially exceeds the world's

entire population. Of course most of the deaths will be in the

poorest countries.

Nevertheless, my prediction is that the world's population will

certainly be below two billion by 2035. Possibly below one billion.

(Incidentally I have been predicting this for years. Even written

letters to newspapers. Of course they never get published. But

articles bemoaning the population explosion continue to appear with

regularity. LOL).

Rodney.

> ............ And of course where will we put everybody who lives

to 5000?

>

> Just my usual " optimistic " nature :-)))

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis:

I am glad to hear things went well. Please keep us up to date with

your weight and BF% data. They are particularly helpful to try to

get a handle on the proportion of weight lost that is fat and the

proportion that is lean body mass. From the data you already posted

I believe it seems to have been about 80% fat. It also seems to have

been about 80% in my case too. Further confirmation of that would be

helpful.

As regards the cultural feedback issue you raise below, do you not

think there has been massive publicity on this matter for twenty

years now, yet the disease continues to advance pretty much

unchecked? One NIH official (Fauci I believe) was quoted recently as

saying something to the effect that 'no one ever expected the disease

would approach this kind of magnitude'. What kind of publicity, or

other actions, will it take to get people, especially those in poor

countries, to sit up and take notice and do some things differently?

And when you think about it, when 20% of the population is infected

and infectious, as in many part of Africa now, it is not likely to be

long before everyone who isn't immune will be infected. And other

countries, it seems to me, are ten to fifteen years behind those in

Africa only for the reason that the disease started there. Not

because of some intrinsic reason to expect a slower rate of progress

in those other countries.

It would be nice to be optimistic about it. But I cannot see any

reason to be yet. It seems to me a vaccine that works would be the

only thing that will be effective. And they have been trying to do

that for twenty years.

Rodney.

> >

> > > ............ And of course where will we put everybody who

lives

> > to 5000?

> > >

> > > Just my usual " optimistic " nature :-)))

> >

> >

> >