I Still Think Science May Cure The Entire Aging Process Before Specifically Curing Hair Loss.

[nameless]

Mice have cures for everything, doesn't mean anything. There's lots of "cures" for them for different diseases. It doesn't translate to humans. I'd take a very skeptical approach to this anti-aging thing since it has only been done on mice.

1. Like I already said, sometimes mice studies translate to humans sometimes they don't. Since you say "It doesn't translate to humans" I guess that means you're saying it never translates to humans and the scientists (the people who should know) disagree.

2. The anti-aging thing has not only been done in mice. It's also been done in human cells in the lab and on some human so far. More human studies are imminent.

 

[nameless]

You're taking my quote out of context. In fact, what you're doing is called quote mining. For whatever reason, you're hung up on my use of the term biological processes. The emphasis was never on an inability to treat biological processes, as you continue to erroneously assert. I specifically referred to the cumulative biological processes which affect virtually all forms of life on this planet - AKA the aging process. This should have been readily apparent from my post, since I'm talking about aging the entire time in what was a response to your post in which you're talking about aging.

No sh*t diseases are biological processes. The difference is that diseases are inherently bad and abnormal. Not every thing on Earth develops cancer, or diabetes, or influenza, or even hair loss. With the exception of a couple lobster and tortoise species and some bacteria, every living thing on this planet shows degenerative signs of aging. You think scientists are right on the doorstep of re-creating this negligible senescence in the human biology, I'm not as convinced on the time-frame. Whoopty-fuckin'-doo, I really don't give a sh*t.

Congratulations on constructing straw-man arguments though and continuing to draw attention to your reading comprehension skills, which are the equivalent of rancid dog sh*t on a hot July afternoon. I'm sure you'll leave 5 separate posts to respond to this one though, since you clearly have no life.

1. No. What I've done is called quoting, NOT quote-mining. I merely quoted you. You can give it some silly-***, negative, label as if I'm doing something unfair to you, but the bottom-line fact is that I merely quoted you. Here, I will make-up a negative label for what you're doing - you're quote deflecting - quote deflecting is when someone gets quoted and then lies and pretends he wasn't quoted even though he really was quoted.

2. So now you're saying that you never meant to emphasize the words "biological processes" but that's irrelevant after the fact. YOU used those words and I quoted you. Be a man about it. You originally said there is NO treatment being developed for the biological processes going on inside the body and there is NO treatment marketed for biological processes going on inside the body. I proved you wrong on both counts.

3. You did NOT originally refer only to the aging process. The aging process is one process but you said "processeS" with an "S" at the end, as in plural processes. Here highlighted is your exact statement on the matter:

"And cures are developed for diseases, not natural biological processes"

Hence, you were referring to ALL biological processes, not just the one biological process of aging.

 

[nameless]

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this issue for this year. We'll touch base on this issue again in a year.

It's pretty clear that I'm ONLY willing to accept the scientific literature as evidence while other posters are only willing to accept old-wives-tales as evidence. And that's totally allowed. I have the right to only accept hard scientific fact for evidence and other posters have the right to only accept old-wives-tale logic for evidence. We'll see where things are at with this matter in a year.

 

[Trouse]

@nameless
Wow you really are a stupid son of a b**ch aren't you? You took one of my statements and quoted half of it - leaving the other half out - to distort the point I was making. I'm not "giving" it any label. It already exists. It is called quote mining, and it's a documented informal logical fallacy. It is also a well known tactic used by pieces of sh*t to cloud their intellectual dishonesty and trick audiences into agreeing with their stance. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining#Examples

I was literally describing the aging process without using the word aging. Aging is a biological process that affects all living organisms (with extremely rare exceptions that I've already conceded). See how those two words are only part of the explanation for the term, which, taken out of context, have a far broader meaning? This is incredibly simple to understand if you are literate. If you are still unable to grasp this, then I must simply offer my deepest condolences that life dealt you a woefully deficient brain.

 

[nameless]

@nameless
Wow you really are a stupid son of a b**ch aren't you? You took one of my statements and quoted half of it - leaving the other half out - to distort the point I was making. I'm not "giving" it any label. It already exists. It is called quote mining, and it's a documented informal logical fallacy. It is also a well known tactic used by pieces of sh*t to cloud their intellectual dishonesty and trick audiences into agreeing with their stance. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining#Examples

I was literally describing the aging process without using the word aging. Aging is a biological process that affects all living organisms (with extremely rare exceptions that I've already conceded). See how those two words are only part of the explanation for the term, which, taken out of context, have a far broader meaning? This is incredibly simple to understand if you are literate. If you are still unable to grasp this, then I must simply offer my deepest condolences that life dealt you a woefully deficient brain.

This is my last post on this matter until next year.

1. It doesn't matter who made up the label "quote mining". The point is that I quoted you. Period. The negative-sounding label "quote mining" was surely made up by some moron who lost arguments when his own words were used against him so he decided to create the straw-man argument that there is something nefarious and unfair about using someone's own words against him in arguments. There is NOTHING WRONG with using someone's own words against him in arguments. Period. It's totally fair and appropriate to quote someone in order to establish what a person said previously. The term "quote mining" is used by stupid, sorry-*** men who want to distract attention from the fact that they're wrong by drawing attention to the notion that the other person did something wrong by quoting him. Give me a break. There is NOTHING wrong with quoting someone during a disagreement.

2. You just referred to the aging process as a single "biological process" whereas before you talked about "biological processeS". Since you just referred to the aging process as a single process this establishes that you think of the aging process as a single process so when you previously used the plural term "biological processes" you were not referring to the multiple processes involved in the aging process. So now you can't use the stupid phony excuse that you were talking about the multiple processes involved with aging when you used the plural term "processes". And since that silly-*** phony excuse is no longer available to you, the most practical explanation for your use of the plural word "processeS" is that you were referring to ALL biological processes since you were definitely talking about the aging process, as that was the main topic of discussion, BUT you were also talking about at least one other biological process since you used the plural term "processes". It wouldn't be practical if you were also talking about some other specific biological process, such as digesting food for example, since other specific biological processes hadn't come up in the discussion. So for practicality's sake, you must have been referring to ALL other biological processes when you said, "Biological processeS".

Now I'm done with this discussion for a year.

 

[nameless]

Trouse, I have to tell you that I've just been pulling your leg with all of this nit-picking you about what you mean by "processes" versus "process". I was just trying to kill some time while a friend haggled with a car dealer since he recently got a new car, it's broken down, and the dealer's been trying to renege on his contract for a few days. I needed a distraction while this sh*t played out. They finally gave him a loaner so I have to run.

I really do believe a cure for aging will be on the planet within 4 years and it may already be on the planet now, but all of this nit-picking at you has just been to tease you a little bit. I was just funnin' with you a little bit with all of this nitpicky stuff, and I'm leaving now so I wanted to make sure you knew I was just joking with you before I go.

I was trying to use the word "processes" versus "process" for a joke. I got the idea from reading an old news article about how Bill Clinton made a big deal of what the word "is" means during his impeachment trial. I was just razzing you a little bit is all. I hope you don't take it too seriously.

Hey Trouse, who's your favorite NFL team? The NFL draft is coming soon.

 

[nameless]

Cuckoo-cuckoo-cuckoo...

What a very important post you have posted here halfwit.

LOL. I had a lot of good chuckles jerking you guys around with all of my seemingly serious nit-picking. You and Trouse took it the most serious. LMAO! You are way too much fun.

 

[rclark]

I'm GONNA POST MY ATM CARD NUMBER HERE!

Getting my anti aging medications.

Stay tuned. I'll also write my three digit security pin from my bank card.

 

[Feelsbadman.jpg]

There will never be a singular cure for aging. It is multi-faceted and there is not one singular cause. There have been seven identified types of damage/complications that lead the declining state of health we know as "aging", the last of which was identified back in 1982.

http://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research

Our metabolism creates damage and it is far too complex for us to understand (even in the distant forseaable future) to the point where we can modify it to not create/do damage and still do the things we need it to to keep us alive. What we can hope for in the near future is a maintenance/repair strategy. If we develop treatments to effectively repair/mitigate the identified issues, then the ill effects of old age can be postponed indefinitely.

Please listen to this man, he has P.h.D. awarded from Cambridge. Nameless has....... we have no idea.

Nameless's claim of a cure in 4 years is naive and indicates a very nascent understanding of what biological events actually drive the aging process (Different aspects of the aging process will be "cured" at different times, highly unlikely it will occur all at once). That being said, I hope he is right.

 

[nameless]

Feelsbadman.jpg, I'll see your Cambridge Phd and raise you 1 Harvard Phd. And my Harvard Phd is one of the top researchers in the world. He's one of the scientists who helped make CRISPR happen.


http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/first-phase-1-human-aging-reversal.html

http://www.lifeextension.com/Magazine/2016/7/Age-Reversal-Research-at-Harvard-Medical-School/Page-01

These scientists already reversed aging in mice and human cells via CRISPR.

I think CRISPR might even be even more promising than telomerase therapy for treating the aging process. IMO both telomerase therapy and CRISPR hold promise for treating the aging process and both are about to enter human studies. And if 2 or 3 years down the road these two treatments produce positive results then that will mean that back in April of 2017 when I said a cure for the aging process is already on the planet I will have been right.

 

[baldingAF]

ANd you think you could just walk in somewhere for Botox, see they have a special on age reversal and figure if you save up just a few hundred more dollars you could get that too.

Age reversal on that scale won't be open to the public until overpopulation is solved and even then it won't be just an cheap move. I mean like millionaire at least. But god dammit isn't this supposed to be about hair loss? Wtf this is god damn nonsense, you nameless need your own category cause now most posts here in the science category have become personal and petty, exactly what I've come to understand that actual science isn't. I just read the last three posts and if you or your name is mentioned I know there is nothing worth mentioning in the previous 25 posts at least. Not trying to start sh*t just want to leave this forum each time having learned something not more shameful about how much sh*t someone is willing to talk on a forum. That being said the nad+ was a great find. I learned. 80% of posts in it = high school bull. I'm out till science comes in

 

[nameless]

ANd you think you could just walk in somewhere for Botox, see they have a special on age reversal and figure if you save up just a few hundred more dollars you could get that too.

Age reversal on that scale won't be open to the public until overpopulation is solved and even then it won't be just an cheap move. I mean like millionaire at least. But god dammit isn't this supposed to be about hair loss? Wtf this is god damn nonsense, you nameless need your own category cause now most posts here in the science category have become personal and petty, exactly what I've come to understand that actual science isn't. I just read the last three posts and if you or your name is mentioned I know there is nothing worth mentioning in the previous 25 posts at least. Not trying to start sh*t just want to leave this forum each time having learned something not more shameful about how much sh*t someone is willing to talk on a forum. That being said the nad+ was a great find. I learned. 80% of posts in it = high school bull. I'm out till science comes in

1. From one side of your mouth you blab that discussions are too personal about me and from the other side of your mouth you whine that discussions about treatments you can't afford shouldn't be allowed. Why shouldn't the rest of us be allowed to discuss more expensive treatments if we can afford them? Why should we only be allowed to discuss treatments that YOU can afford. You're trying to make the conversations personal about yourself by making the rest of us base our discussions on your personal finances.

2. The researchers said that when the age-reversal treatments turned back the mice's aging clock it also reversed the mice's hair loss, which means it's possible that these age-reversal treatments might grow hair for humans. Since these anti-aging treatments have the potential to cure human hair loss that means they're relevant to this site. Why this has to be explained to you is beyond me.

 

[Armando Jose]

Aubrey talks about stopping aging, not reversing it.

http://www.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/ciencia/2017/04/05/58e402f9e2704ed7238b45bb.html

 

[Feelsbadman.jpg]

Aubrey talks about stopping aging, not reversing it.

http://www.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/ciencia/2017/04/05/58e402f9e2704ed7238b45bb.html

No he doesn't. I don't know what your link says as i dont speak the language but either it grossly misrepresents what Aubrey has said, or you have pics poor reading comprehension. I'm guessing the latter.

Aubrey has stated numerous times that it is pointless to try to stop the aging process as we only understand a small percentage of how body metabolism works. His approach, which has become widely accepted in mainstream medicine now, involves repairing damage. As treatments become more effective over time, we can be restored to a more effective (youthful) body state. Google longevity escape velocity. Ultimatelt, we will be able to oscillate between the biological ages of 20-25 by getting treatment every 5 years or so.

 

[Feelsbadman.jpg]

Aubrey talks about stopping aging, not reversing it.

http://www.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/ciencia/2017/04/05/58e402f9e2704ed7238b45bb.html

No he doesn't. I don't know what your link says as i dont speak the language but either it grossly misrepresents what Aubrey has said, or you have pics poor reading comprehension. I'm guessing the latter.

Aubrey has stated numerous times that it is pointless to try to stop the aging process as we only understand a small percentage of how body metabolism works. His approach, which has become widely accepted in mainstream medicine now, involves repairing damage. As treatments become more effective over time, we can be restored to a more effective (youthful) body state. Google longevity escape velocity. Ultimatelt, we will be able to oscillate between the biological ages of 20-25 by getting treatment every 5 years or so.

 

[lemoncloak]

No he doesn't. I don't know what your link says as i dont speak the language but either it grossly misrepresents what Aubrey has said, or you have pics poor reading comprehension. I'm guessing the latter.

Aubrey has stated numerous times that it is pointless to try to stop the aging process as we only understand a small percentage of how body metabolism works. His approach, which has become widely accepted in mainstream medicine now, involves repairing damage. As treatments become more effective over time, we can be restored to a more effective (youthful) body state. Google longevity escape velocity. Ultimatelt, we will be able to oscillate between the biological ages of 20-25 by getting treatment every 5 years or so.

I was just reading Aubrey De Gray and sens stuff yesterday thanks for the extra material bro

 

[GiveMeAccessToMyAccount]

1. Like I already said, sometimes mice studies translate to humans sometimes they don't. Since you say "It doesn't translate to humans" I guess that means you're saying it never translates to humans and the scientists (the people who should know) disagree.

2. The anti-aging thing has not only been done in mice. It's also been done in human cells in the lab and on some human so far. More human studies are imminent.

I know about this study and know that humans will get tested too.

No, I did not say what ever works on mice never works on humans. That was your assumption, not my comment.

 

[pegasus2]

The aging process is a lot more complicated than hair loss. Just look at how long people have been saying "5 more years" for curing hairloss, and researchers just keep hitting a dead end. With curing aging the refrain is more like 20 more years. Now how many times are the promising avenues of research going to turn into dead ends for something that is that much more complicated? It's going to a be a long time before aging is cured. I wouldn't count on it happening in your lifetime.

 

[That Guy]

Here's my thoughts on this because I've been thinking about this thread given recent developments:

It's obvious at this point that the visible signs of aging are indeed treatable; we just need solutions to finish trials and make it to market. I know it's trendy af to b**ch and moan about how this will take (insert grossly over-estimated timeframe here), but it's a safe bet that at least 3 things will be available in the next few decades.

• Reversal of UV-damaged and collagen deficient skin. This is a given since we know a lot more about this process and RepliCel's recent success with RCS-01 is all the proof you really need to know that this IS going to be a thing and it's a big deal because this is 90% of what we call "aging".

• Damaged tissues and internal organs can either be regenerated or replaced entirely with a new one. Again, RepliCel is a leader on this with their tendon-repair treatment, but bioprinting isn't even ten years old yet and we're already seeing incredible breakthroughs in printing organs and other tissues. At the Kobe Medical Center in Japan (should ring some bells) they've recently begun human trials on treating people with macular degeneration via stem cells and it won't be the first time stem cells have shown successes in treating blindness.

• Hair regeneration and pigmentation. It's why we're all here. We know it can be done with cells and wounding for sure. Obviously, perfecting the methods will take some time yet and it will be expensive, but it definitely is coming.

There is also the matter of superior treatments for many other age-related conditions coming to fruition and superior knowledge about UV damage and living healthier lifestyles (though these are up to the individual). Several things are already in phase 2 trials and with superior laws popping up in regards to market approval, I don't think they're that far away. They already cooked and ate the first lab-grown duck and chicken last month ffs.

If you can alleviate or outright reverse physical symptoms and consequences of aging, then the aging "process" as we currently know it becomes a treatable inconvenience. This is actually why I think the "cyborg age" predicted by Sci-Fi will probably be a flash in the pan if it ever happens. Sure, bionic limbs are amazing now, people can be microchipped and one day they could make these limbs superior to flesh ones...but I don't see people wanting robot hearts, synthetic hair or skin no matter what they can do when the real deal can be lab grown from your own cells.

There will never be a one-shot treatment that "cures" or outright prevents "aging', though.

 

[lemoncloak]

They already cooked and ate the first lab-grown duck and chicken last month ffs.

Catching up on Memphis Meats noice.

It's true that cell therapies and organ transplantation are coming up but there's still much more to aging than organ failure apparrently. SENS has recognized 7 classes of aging damage, each with its own proposed solutions. Here

It's pretty complicated business. And the more you fight aging, the more you have to deal with its arch enemy - cancer. If we want to cure aging for good we'll have to cure cancer first.
Also I don't know about your last point. Well maybe in born humans but I can't see why a zygote can't be made genetically immortal eventually.