probably from crystal blue persuasion.
I Still Think Science May Cure The Entire Aging Process Before Specifically Curing Hair Loss.
- Thread starter nameless
- Start date
You need a break. You sound delusional, bro.
Aging and death are necessary. (think about it! How many people can live simultaneously on Earth?)
Last edited:
Yes, I've also got an eMail from Stephen Hawking about the invention of warp drive within the next 5 years. I will spend my honeymoon on Tau Ceti 4.
Hi Occulus, I see you just signed-up again today using the fictitious name "Herold".
Only a minority of posters think that science will NEVER cure the aging process.
If they cure the aging process in my lifetime I will purchase that cure. If you don't want to purchase that cure that's fine with me. I will be happy for you to sacrifice your life so I can have more space.
Last edited:
Only faster-than-light interstellar travel won't happen within the time-frame you indicated. It's highly doubtful that there will ever be faster-than-light travel. Anything with mass can't travel faster than light. E=MC2. Worm holes may make it possible but that idea is still up in the air and doubtful.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 76
It's a cruel world man. It's a cruel f*****g world.
So, you're telling me we can send a man to the Moon, put up a flag and return. We can fly across oceans and travel the world. We can f*****g send a robot to Mars, to f*****g take soil samples and analyze them in real time. We can blow up entire countries with nuclear weapons... but we can't regrow the hair on your head? Unfucking believeable man.
So, you're telling me we can send a man to the Moon, put up a flag and return. We can fly across oceans and travel the world. We can f*****g send a robot to Mars, to f*****g take soil samples and analyze them in real time. We can blow up entire countries with nuclear weapons... but we can't regrow the hair on your head? Unfucking believeable man.
I did not mean you'll be on your deathbed from a sniffle when you're 40 although, I can understand you thinking that's what I meant. What I meant is that when you're 40 you'll be among the crowds in your doctor's office seeking treatment for whatever ills you have, including the sniffles. My point was that 40-year olds are not OK about dying. They're trying to avoid dying. They're trying to get cures for any ills they have. You won't be happily going to your death; you'll be trying to avoid it.
- Reaction score
- 365
It's only slightly more ludicrous than suggesting there will be a "cure" to the aging process around 2020. We are several thousand years into medical science and we've come up with virtually no cures. We've developed a number of hugely successful vaccines, but those are preventative measures. A vaccine isn't going to reverse the damage to your cells caused by aging. And cures are developed for diseases, not natural biological processes that affect every living organism on the planet.
K
karankaran
Guest
I am hoping that by the time science can cure male pattern baldness, science could also reverse at least 20 years in aging. This would mean that we will relive all our lost years again with a full head of hair.
Your opinion is HIGHLY ignorant for multiple reasons:
1. You raise the issue that cellular damage is incurable even though cures for cellular damage already exist. It's called senescent treatment, and some of these treatments are already in the FDA pipeline right now. Hence, since you cite an inability to cure cellular damage as the key reason the aging process can't be cured you should be informed that not only are you wrong but said treatments already exist. They just have to go through the FDA pipeline.
2. You raise the issue that cures for biological processes aren't being developed. As far as I know this opinion (by you) is by far the stupidest opinion ever expressed at this site. As a matter of fact, it's the stupidest thing I've ever seen anywhere. Every last person here should realize that medical researchers are, in fact, trying to cure biological processes since hair loss is a biological process, and we have all been informed that researchers are trying to cure hair loss. Give me a break already.
Last edited:
I have NO respect for your intellect whatsoever. You can not even do the most simple 1 + 1 math. I said a cure for the aging process will be on the planet in about 4 years. You dispute my assertion and you say there won't be a cure for the aging process by 2020. But four years from now would be sometime in 2021. You need to go back to school and you should start with 1st grade. I'm laughing at the intellectual opinion of an adult male who doesn't know there's a difference between the number 3 and 4. That's kindergarten math dude.
Last edited:
Someone has to be dumb as a rock to mesh medical science from several thousand years ago with today's medical science as if they're the same thing. Show me the books from 1,000 years ago where they write about telomerase therapy, senescent therapy, genetic engineering, gene editing, etc, etc, etc.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 365
Breathtaking. Such vitriol in response to an innocuous comment. Notice how I used the word around when giving the 2020 figure? Let's see.....what does that word mean, I wonder?
əˈround
adverb
approximately; about.
"software costs would be around $1,500"
synonyms: approximately, about, around/round about, circa, roughly, something like, more or less, in the region of, in the neighborhood of, give or take (a few);
nearly, close to, approaching;
Yeah, I was rounding - since 2020 is a nice round number. We're a couple days into Q2 of 2017, so your timeline is 2020 plus a few months. But thanks for that diatribe on my math skills. If you're going to fancy yourself as this intellectual heavyweight and attack others for disagreeing with your opinion, your reading comprehension really should pick up the slack. Your current level of processing and repugnant pretentiousness makes for a really brutal combination.
So these groundbreaking treatments "already exist," they just have to go through the FDA pipeline, which as we all know, means years of human safety and efficacy trials to actually verify that the science checks out. In that case, cell-based therapies for hairloss already exist too, amirite?!
- Reaction score
- 11,938
A cure for the ageing process in four years?
No.
No.
Regarding your number 1 point - today is April 3, 2017. Four years from today is April 3, 2021. You should have used the correct year - 2021. Why don't you just admit that you're confused about the difference between 3 and 4?
Regarding your number 2 point - you have a valid point here. But I did not say the treatments would be available to the public in about 4 years. I said they would be created/invented in about 4 years. I stand by that. That having been said, as I indicated I recently got an email that suggests something interesting regarding delivery of these treatments to people who want them.
Last edited:
I disagree. Let's let some time go by and see who's right. About a year ago I said it would be 5 years. About a year has gone by and now I'm saying a cure for the aging process is about 4 years away. I'm holding my feet to the fire here. Every year I'll admit we're getting a year closer to the point where I'm either proven right or wrong. I remain confident. I admit that I could be wrong but I'm sticking with my prediction.
I never said I would bet with YOU. You're dishonest. If I win you won't pay up.
As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone here so I can't really bet anyone here since there's nothing I can do about it if the other person doesn't pay up. And you're definitely the last person here I would trust. But since I can't really trust anyone here I have to withdraw the offer to bet.
In your case occulus, one reason I'm unwilling to bet is because you're untrustworthy but there are also 2 other reasons I wouldn't be able to do this bet with anyone here. (1) how to insure the loser pays up. (2) There is no way to referee/arbiter such a bet.
Regarding the number 2 reason - it's impossible to come up with a way to decide who wins the bet. I would of course want to use scientific proclamations by researchers as the deciding factor for whether or no science has been able to reverse the aging process. You and David_MPN would want to use your own opinions. LOL! There is no way we could come to an agreement on a barometer for whether or not science reverses the aging process. IMO anti-aging researchers say they have already done it so we are already there because I INSIST that the word of the anti-aging researchers must be accepted as the barometer for whether or not science has reversed aging. On the other hand, you and David want your's and David's opinions to be the arbiter of truth in such a bet. I scoff at yours and David's opinions. I give your's and David's opinion in this matter the same amount of credibility as I give to the fools who told Columbus the world is flat. I reject both of your opinions on the matter out-of-hand. I'm only willing to accept the opinions of the anti-aging researches and you two are only willing to accept the opinions of people who have no idea what they're talking about, such as yourselves.
Obviously, offering the bet was a mistake because it's impossible to decide who wins and there's no way to be sure the loser pays. I withdrew the bet for these reasons, and in your case there is the added reason that you're untrustworthy.
Regarding the number 2 reason - it's impossible to come up with a way to decide who wins the bet. I would of course want to use scientific proclamations by researchers as the deciding factor for whether or no science has been able to reverse the aging process. You and David_MPN would want to use your own opinions. LOL! There is no way we could come to an agreement on a barometer for whether or not science reverses the aging process. IMO anti-aging researchers say they have already done it so we are already there because I INSIST that the word of the anti-aging researchers must be accepted as the barometer for whether or not science has reversed aging. On the other hand, you and David want your's and David's opinions to be the arbiter of truth in such a bet. I scoff at yours and David's opinions. I give your's and David's opinion in this matter the same amount of credibility as I give to the fools who told Columbus the world is flat. I reject both of your opinions on the matter out-of-hand. I'm only willing to accept the opinions of the anti-aging researches and you two are only willing to accept the opinions of people who have no idea what they're talking about, such as yourselves.
Obviously, offering the bet was a mistake because it's impossible to decide who wins and there's no way to be sure the loser pays. I withdrew the bet for these reasons, and in your case there is the added reason that you're untrustworthy.
Last edited: