Ron Put Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted August 4, 2023 Report Share Posted August 4, 2023 Thanks, listening to it, I tend to believe that resveratrol was a total fiasco, simply because after Glaxo Smith bought the project for a hefty sum and went on experimenting it, they ditched it. No way big pharma would have renounced the income had the molecule had a minimally provable effect on longevity and health, even on lab rats. Resveratrol may still have an effect as a phytochemical but far below the hyped ads, probably. The counter-narrative professor Brenner proposes is particularly interesting and warns us on assigning too much credence to scientific research (which, as we all know, is ruled by grants, so there is always, in a way, a conflict of interests since the income, the position, the career of researchers is dependent on grants and research money). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Put Posted August 6, 2023 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2023 On 8/4/2023 at 7:58 AM, mccoy said: The counter-narrative professor Brenner proposes is particularly interesting and warns us on assigning too much credence to scientific research (which, as we all know, is ruled by grants, so there is always, in a way, a conflict of interests since the income, the position, the career of researchers is dependent on grants and research money). Yes, regulator capture is unfortunately already entrenched, and it used the Covid fiasco and politics to cement the ties between industry and regulators, who are now staffed full of political appointees and hires. A decade ago regulator capture was not nearly as pervasive and ideology played a very minor part in it. Now it has become dangerous to science, but also in the broader sense, to democracy, as regulators and institutions are weaponized to punish the Left's opponents and reward those who support its policies. It's really hard to come back from this, as political ideology gains control of life chances and forces conformism. It's how authoritarian ideologies operate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanPater Posted August 7, 2023 Report Share Posted August 7, 2023 The Irish Light: Woman abused by paper which falsely said vaccine killed her sonhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66424582 A grieving mother and her lawyer have been targeted by an extreme campaign of abuse after suing a conspiracy theory newspaper which falsely claimed her son died from a Covid vaccine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Put Posted August 22, 2023 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2023 On 8/7/2023 at 9:49 AM, AlanPater said: The Irish Light: Woman abused by paper which falsely said vaccine killed her son I am puzzled about what this post has to do with the topic of the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted December 7, 2023 Report Share Posted December 7, 2023 First evidence of a member replacing themselves with AI that wasn't quite ready yet 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Pearce Posted October 11 Report Share Posted October 11 (edited) I don't like the fact that prof. Brenner makes a lot of sense, especially when it comes to his entirely reasonable argument against calorie restriction's ability to slow aging. Enclosing the control mice in cages and giving them unlimited food probably did make them analogs of americans eating our notoriously bad western diet. Those control mice probably aged faster than they otherwise would. So the calorie restricted mice perhaps just aged at a more normal rate. But he could possibly be wrong about our maximum potential lifespan being around 120. If Jean Calmente wasn't a fake, as some claim, and she did indeed live to 122, why should we doubt she might have lived longer if she had been practicing calorie restriction with optimal nutrition? I doubt she was a CRON practitioner, don't you? Therefore, the goalpost might be faulty. I am not discouraged. I doubt that 120 is an upper limit for people practicing optimum health in ways we didn't have the knowledge to do so before. It'll still be fun to find out. I know at 67 I'm healthier than I've ever been in my life and no intention to go back to eating piles of junk food. Edited October 11 by Jim Pearce Spelling error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Pearce Posted October 12 Report Share Posted October 12 I just looked her up and found she smoked and ate up to 2 pounds of chocolate a week! Yes! The goalpost is flawed! She surely would have lived even longer if she were applying the ideas we're aware of and applying today. So there has to be doubt about her representation of our potential lifespan. It has to be more than the 122 years achieved by a smoker who ate more than a quarter pound of chocolate a day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.