Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was just reading on MIT Technology Review about how scientists at 3 different research centers in the USA have for the first time extended the life span of mammals by giving them the antifungal drug Rapamycin. Before this the only way to extend the life span was either by genetic engineering or calorie restriction. Also the scientists were amazed that this worked when administered to the mammals when they were already old and not just when they were young.
And then you have this: Obama's Health Zar says that any one over 61 years old that can not recover and contribute to the economy should not receive health care!! Well, guess what yawl, most of usare in that over 61 group!! Heaven help us if we get appendacidas (?) or a blocked artery!!
And then you have this: Obama's Health Zar says that any one over 61 years old that can not recover and contribute to the economy should not receive health care!! Well, guess what yawl, most of usare in that over 61 group!! Heaven help us if we get appendacidas (?) or a blocked artery!!
A lot of folks have been screaming for us to follow the European example of healthcare.
The future value of your life is weighed, and your treatment protocol is set according to that value.
If you are an Aristocrat, then you can recieve full care for a long time.
Otherwise once you turn 60 you can only get 'care and comfort', no life-saving efforts are allowed.
As for the drug, I wonder what is causing this longevity. Could it be preserving the DNA of the subject from life threatening mutation? Or maybe it just makes it less vulnerable to low-level degenerative diseases that never really register as life threatening to us since they never cause any outright symptoms or noticible signs.....
It's going to require some further study to see exactly what it is about the antifungal that contributed to extending the lifespan of the mice. It wasn't clear if the antifungal was given to the mice once, or administered routinely over a longer period of time.
If I understand correctly, the extension in comparison to humans at age 60 would be roughly an additional 5.4 to 7.8 years. It's unknown if it would work with humans. If it does, there's still a downside: although it may have a life-extending potential, the antifungal suppresses the immune system making you more susceptable to loads of problems like being unable to fight off infections, which would seem might negate the life extention. In other words, in the end, there might be few if any years extended.
However, it may be possible to identify the specific properties in the antifungal that causes the extension and might be able to figure out a way of adding even more years. It's interesting.
And then you have this: Obama's Health Zar says that any one over 61 years old that can not recover and contribute to the economy should not receive health care!! Well, guess what yawl, most of usare in that over 61 group!! Heaven help us if we get appendacidas (?) or a blocked artery!!
What's next? Anyone over 61 would be eligible to be shipped off to the nearest Soylent Green Factory?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
