anth

Rath is a highly respected MD
Anth

The authors don't conclude that because there is no evidence that
adult-onset cancers, especially those of old age, have been conquered. When
well-known cancer drugs brag about a 2 month increase in life expectancy, or
even 1 month, the overall effect is nil compared to life expectancy of large
groups. You always overrate the effects of spending huge amounts of money
on your business: the medical/industrial complex.

The issue is life expectancy, not management.


Heart disease: oh yes. We went throught that here several years back
when it was discovered that you were equally likely to live after a heart
attack in Canada as in the USA, despite aggressive treatments here. Those
posting at the time stated that our treatments offered better 'lifestyle'
than the Canadian ones, even if they did not change life expectancy.

ag24

The main evidence that that is not so, and that the more resistant you
are naturally, the harder it is to improve on you, is that until fairly
recently mortality curves in developed nations were getting more
rectangular even at ages around the life expectancy. We may now be
close to the point where medical treatments that can help anybody can
help most people, giving the recent pattern (no more rectangularisation
but rather a progressive right shift in survival, i.e. all deciles of
the mortality distribution moving to older ages at roughly the same
rate). And yet, the acceleration in that right shift seems to be continuing.


Hang on -- if so, surely you would have to look at **all** comparisons
between species with similar caution? That seems likely to be rather over-restrictive.

Absolutely. But so might humans.... and certainly so do the cloned
mice that you mentioned initially in support of your position.

Yes. One of the main differences, a decidedly relevant one, is that
the intestinal stem cells express telomerase.

Aubrey de Grey

mooshie peas

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 02:17:20 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
<no.address@ctc.net> posted:


First it ain't essential. It's thought to be beneficial in a healthy
diet, but there are many other molecules that do the same thing.
And second, I don't know anyone who doesn't eat tomatoes several times
a day. What is anti-science about that? Makes me think that you
haven't got a clue what science is.

william a. noyes

OK. Give an example. I can think of a couple off hand that do similiar
things. But do they do them in the same tissues?

That is an over-statement. :-(Oh. I see burger and fries with catsup
morning, noon, and nite:-)

Science is about measurement of effect and specifics in part.
You almost never deal with specifics. You deal with things, like
an English lit major.