How can I be that bombastic and stupid to sincerely say that? Well, I have considered Dr. Sinclair and Dr de Grey to be worthy of 2 Nobel Prizes each! What will you call a person who intelligently understood and self-applied three theories if these two and also Dr. Kenedy to reduce self-age and proceed with self-test and on the family after expanding, improving, and first comprehensive blood test results? Still await Dr. Sinclair's swab test for age.
The number of vouched for ageing supplements increases every day. One stupid way is to try random permutation subset of the supplements, hoping for no interaction. That is done by many in India, who treat illnesses and cures as buying a product, typically independent in effects. I have contempt for these consumers and call them meta-morons, not only once stupid but repeatedly so. Two cures or medicines can be composed only if the prescriber is a single registered doctor or interactions are precisely thought about and person runs a self-imposed clinical test, critical for fssai/2012 to know! There is unfortunately no credible data like that, side effect web sites indications are not reliable, and if written assurances are sought, most doctors are smart enough to use lawyer language that can include every known/unknown side effects so extensive that any rational patient will never try that drug or supplement! Between lawyers and doctors, the patient is fucked!
Composing ageing recommendations rationally is my mission and explains why I look for a doctor/Nurse in my team to argue on effects as a devil’s advocate to my research. Beyond the three here and metformin even without TAME (4th), I await TRIIM-X end as 5, low dose rapamycin as 6, lot more like E5 not public yet. The stupidest idea is composing best of each, or try them all sequentially, singly, like 5 Pandavas or six wives.
The three theories, determined by me to be independent, hence composable, are NAD+ boost by NMN and NO from resveratrol as per Dr. Sinclair (and argnin by self); Senolysis through fisetin as per Dr. de Grey; and CaAKG (+ayurveda +vitamins) as per Dr. Kennedy. FDA essentially monitors the safety and efficacy of chemicals, salutary for drugs but useless for drugs and supplements me - critical chemicals like new all ageing related chemicals. For these alone, I do derivations differently, by ethics not law.
My principal improvement is to sidestep bio-availability and drug delivery questions by using liposome forms of all chemicals (except NAD+ for BBB entry). Liposomes eliminate needed medical services and do even better than injections as they sidestep cell entry.
Safety is assumed due to low concentration safety from
1 Element of many fruits and vegetables with no credible known dangers
2 At least 20-30 year safe history as a drug or supplement
3 GRAS status in US law
4 Chemical name for a body compound or intermediate
Thus NMN follows from #4, Fisetin from #1, CaAKG from #4, argnin, and resveratrol from #2. This is personal safety and not community safety, for which alone, such arguments can be advanced. For random community, I recommend wait for FDA, unless inaction risk greater than ageing composition.
Efficacy arises from the fact that I consider these three developers to be like double Noble prize winners who advocate this thread.
Joint efficacy happens from apparent independence of the threads, NAD+ boosts is needed and empirically decreases. The de Grey thread arises from eliminating harmful senescent cells producing SASP and CD38 in particular, buy cancer immunity as side benefit. The AKG thread is unclear, may work due to effective bookkeeping of methylation marks, thus prolonging cell life. Safety does not end here.
There are unknown dangers from dose size and interactions with other parts of these threads, and wholly different drugs prescribed for other illnesses coincident with aging fixes. These are precisely circumstances when the patient is on their own anyway! Common sense says if the chemicals are safe in low doses and edible, they are likely so in higher doses, unless not natural or so recorded.
I strongly believe in Bayesian statistics and hence am suspicious of FDA clinical tests on new chemicals without a history of use. Most drugs approved post-2000 are cancer suspects! I believe a doctor or a vaccine solves a problem by instantiating more and hence is better avoided unless really needed and healthy disrespect to new chemicals but not foods.
With my thinking, a particular load was lifted after 1 month of self-test. Now I can advise the family to try if as upset with chronic diseases as me provided the risks are more anyway. My work and risks recorded did not crash so far. People who see no death hanging there anyway, or not a decrepitude life should await FDA blessings.
No comments:
Post a Comment