Up to now, very cursory, but usage needed, was introduced. This page is the end of the basics. No more stuff to know to use the interventions, and science language to escape from thugs.
A thug will either reference some magic from someone who seeks to hide anything, for believable, honest stupid reasons, dead master, or reference a non-scientific tome. I have a term for such moron - emfubar, Very sane nice folks end up believing in such thugs. Science and I avoid this trap by only believing God independent empirical science characterized by always skeptical reviews demanding objective experimental proof, even if like aging coming up with an empirical proof is very hard, Scientists are paid money to do it. It may take forever, the FDA method must not be hurt and different organizations must deal with aging drugs and supplements.
The phenomenon is a wonderful English word dealing with a process object as a black box, only asserting inputs and outputs, IE a black box. Regardless of how the mechanics of the event is postulated, the phenomenon will remain. The dictionary defines it as something (such as an interesting fact or event) that can be observed and studied and that typically is unusual or difficult to understand or explain fully. The empirical tests set up the phenomenon which has mechanics defined in terms of other phenomena. What we do is define implicitly aging and understand its mechanics to then understand the interventions.
Basic to understand a medical process is to develop its hallmark{a distinguishing characteristic, trait}s, or feature which are easy to explain Hallmarks like Animal life, human life, cancers, and Aging has hallmarks. They limit the meaning so that everything with a different hallmark is not the process, so very difficult to find.
The basic strength of modern medicine is to treat some upstream chemicals that affect all the hallmarks. Thus aging fixes all the hallmarks with NAD+ boosts like Dr. Sinclair and Dr. Kennedy, IGF-1 boost like Dr. Fahy. senolytics for dead cell garbage collection by Dr. de Grey. Other greats made this revolution possible - Dr. Yamanaka developed factors, Drs. Conboy scratching many California Claim companies based on their parabiosis work, and Dr. Horvath made Aging into a science. Only three make into interventions - NAD+ boosting, autophagy, and growth Hormone.
What is the demonstrable empirical proof you are right?
None. If you are under 50, then I ask you to desist and await FDA proof. If you are 60 and suffer from a chronic disease or have an eligible relative, then read on. Some might be under 50 but may want to risk developing science to freeze the bio-age at now, read on. The points are - I demand a doctor-controlled treatment and sharing your experience with others to you through me. I am serious, eat all myself, and view Dr. Sinclair as my model.
I am 3 months into my test, also being done by my mother and sister. The drugs meet my conditions - the chemical name of a body protein (NMN), GRAS designation, components of normal fruits and vegetables (FISETIN), 30-year history since FDA permission (Metformin, diabetic max). I may be wrong but common sense says things
1. These are all slow-acting drugs, so any bad results will warn
2. They are all extended concentrations of normal things
e. The impact of all illness-related drugs is unlikely. I am on many chronic diseases—many medicines and have been vaccinated thrice including the January booster dose.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23746838/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-4-uid-4
----------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment