Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans...

[gorski]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans

Harvard scientists were surprised that they saw a dramatic reversal, not just a slowing down, of the ageing in mice. Now they believe they might be able to regenerate human organs...

Madre mia......

Well, The World Association of Small and Medium Sized Cats just issued an excited [and saliva-smudged] communique, thanking the scientist for their diligence in taking special care of their members, stressing how healthy and crispy mice diet is of essential imortance to them!

However, the Big Cats Association of Earth expressed their hope for widening of the research scope into large rodent population of Earth, as especially pointed out by the Jaguar Association of America, in relation to the Capybara, while The Florida's Puma Association also urged the scientists to enlarge the Nutria, if at all possible, as their diet would be vastly improved, since Nutria meat is lean and doesn't have too much poly-saturated fat, salivating at the very thought of their delicious legs.

Cheers!

 

[TruXta]

There's a whole shed-load of if's and but's going into that "they believe they might be able to regenerate human organs...". Still, pretty exciting eh? Assuming I live for another 40-50 years I'm increasingly willing to bet that healthy life-spans can be increased by a factor of 1.5-2 during my lifetime. Meaning we might be able to live healthily to about 120-150 years of age. Wouldn't that be something?

 

[gorski]

Who controls the OFF switch, though?

 

[TruXta]

I don't think there would be an off switch. Have I missed something?

 

[Cadmus]

Well, the mice are getting younger because they reactivated their telomerase enzyme which repairs damage on the DNA which occurs after each division (after a certain number of divisions, damage is too great and the cell dies to prevent mutation of DNA). That enzyme is naturally switched off in humans because it would allow cells to divide without ever reaching death. Telomerase activity allows cancers to be "immortal" and never die out naturally but continue dividing forever. One woman in the 50s developed a very agressive cervical cancer and the cells from that cancer (with strong telomerase activity) have established the first immortal human cell line, found in labs all over the world today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

Therefore, an immortal human exists already. Her name is Henrietta Lacks and she lives in the form of cancer cells spread around world labs.

Anybody fancy that?

 

[TruXta]

Old news.

The main problem with the research in the OP seems to be this bit: "Repeating the trick in humans will be more difficult. Mice make telomerase throughout their lives, but the enzyme is switched off in adult humans, an evolutionary compromise that stops cells growing out of control and turning into cancer. Raising levels of telomerase in people might slow the ageing process, but it makes the risk of cancer soar."

 

[gorski]

Yuck, Cadmus!

Still, who controls the OFF SWITCH?!? The potential for misuse is enormous...

 

[Cadmus]

Telomerase does.

No telomerase => limited number of cell division (DNA damage with each division) => apoptosis (programmed cell death).

Telomerase => unlimited number of divisions (DNA damage with each division) => immortality (with mutation).

The choice is simple: either die or live forever as a mutant.

 

[TruXta]

Why should anyone in particular control an off switch? It's not entirely clear what the therapeutic regime consists of, but I wouldn't be surprised if it consists of some kind of pharmaceutical. In which case the IP owners would likely control production, at least initially.

 

[gorski]

What, you never heard of "minimum criteria" and "eligibility", not to mention "affordability" issues?

This [health and even life itself] getting commodified doesn't strike you as potentially...

Well, dangerous or abominable or...???

 

[TruXta]

Of course I know about that, all I'm saying is that it doesn't amount to an "off switch". Health and life has been commodified since the dawn of markets. What's your point? That it's wrong? If so, feel free to propose how a modern day society should manage costs and benefits related to healthcare and QoL.

 

[gorski]

To all, regardless of financial or political status.

Interesting: you allegedly know of it, how seriously dangerous and divisive it is and you don't even mention it, let alone problematise it? Well...

Indeed, it must be contextualised, like the Human Genome and NOT allowed to be "privatised" and "run for profit"!!!

Can we do it? Of course we can. We have shown it many times before! Solidarity in action!

Progressive taxation, universal health care.

On the other hand...

"Privatisation"...

Hmmm...

 

[TruXta]

The point I was trying to make is that modern healthcare is often really fucking expensive, and people don't seem to realise that there isn't an infinite amount of money to spend on it. Given budgetary constraints (and I'm talking from within the status quo now) some treatments have to be prioritized over others, meaning some groups of patients lose out to other groups of patients. Unless you propose to remove all limits to spending on healthcare there's always going to be people who aren't eligible to certain treatments.

Of course you could argue that a life is literally priceless, but that's not gonna fly in real life. You can also argue over which treatments (and relating to that which groups of people) should be prioritised, but if you're willing to do that you're already accepting the principle that "eligibility" issues are an inevitable outcome of modern-day HC systems.

 

[gorski]

Aaaaaahhh, the "real life" hammer at work.... Marvelous! And how unimaginative!!!

You know, NHS was first imagined. Then, we found a way... I reminded us of that earlier.

Now, you're retreating to a Conservative dogma... And call that "real life"... A really pathetic "argument"!!!

You see, there is "real life" elsewhere that does not subscribe to that ideology...

 

[TruXta]

Way to evade my question. Which was: Given limited resources for h/c, do you or do you not accept that some treatments (and this patient groups) get prioritized over others? Or do you cling to a utopian (read: impotent) reading of events in which it's "oh but if we had XYZ we could do this or that or the other"?

I'm not retreating to a conservative dogma, I'm talking about the here and now. If you want to talk about h/c in some kind of imagined perfect society start a thread on that then.

 

[gorski]

Do you or do you not agree that taxes are too low, especially for the seriously well off, who wouldn't exactly be left destitute if they paid higher percentage of their income to the public [services] coffers, since this is where they got those extra dollars/pounds/euros from?

I am possibly a little bit older than you and I studied these matters thoroughly, so I do remember the times when that was the case and I do know that we can even improve upon it, given a different climate globally or at least in EU...

Some countries do have it already. Guess how... So, again: "the real world" clobbering is a falsity!!! WHICH reality is that? Because there are other "realities" - since you can't or won't understand even that little!!!

And even if it still wasn't a "reality": was Capitalism always a "reality"? Nope. It came to being. Was NHS always a "reality"? Nope, we dreamt it up and made it a "reality".

Now, that "reality" has been eroded. Why can't we ever make it better, if we already made things considerably better than they were before, say, NHS?!?

Have you seen the future, oh Reality Mastah?!?

 

[TruXta]

Do you or do you not agree that taxes are too low, especially for the seriously well off, who wouldn't exactly be left destitute if they paid higher percentage of their income to the public [services] coffers, since this is where they got those extra dollars/pounds/euros from?

I agree. However, that doesn't bear on the question I asked you, which I kinda feel you should reply to now that I've answered yours. There's a saying in Norwegian which you might've heard "mye vil ha mer og faen vil ha fler". Essentially, people will ceteris paribus always want more and better h/c, even if it's not worth it on a societal scale, ie even if the costs outweigh the benefits.

Again, you are welcome to argue that a utilitarian calculus such as this is wrong, but I'd appreciate it if you specified what exactly the ethical alternative is.

 

[TruXta]

Oh, and this line

I am possibly a little bit older than you and I studied these matters thoroughly, so I do remember the times when

is getting really fuckin old now. You've no idea how old I am, what I do or know.

 

[gorski]

I have seen you argue. You do not know much. Pardon my bluntness.

Ever heard of "qualifying a statement"? That is what "I am possibly..." is. A qualified statement. As I said, you do not know much, at least when it comes to thinking, philosophy and so on.

Indeed, anyone who "thinks" that "utilitarian ideas" are worth having can not be taken seriously. At least not by me. You try to impress others with that sort of BS but I am just too well educated and too old to fall for that...

I have answered your Q. In my own words. Not yours. If you feel lazy - why bother?!?

 

[gorski]

Oh, one more thing: anyone who "thinks" in a utilitarian manner is a conservative by definition. Very lazy and nasty "set of [so called] ideas"!!!

 

[TruXta]

Right so, lay out your non-utilitarian philosophy of h/c management then. Show me how these principles of yours allocate limited resources to the population in a way that does not use calculations of cost and benefit. Shouldn't be so hard if I'm so stupid.

 

[gorski]

If you can't see it above - sorry, but I can't help you...

 

[TruXta]

To all, regardless of financial or political status.

This? Is this it? Yeah, that's clear as day.

 

[gorski]

As I said, nothing to do with thinking, you... Way too conservative/utilitarian to even perceive any other possibility... I mean, why should you, when you have all your answers in "the ["highly advanced" utilitarian] real world"...

Which, obviously, unlike others who have to interpret all of those phenomena for themselves, you do not have to interpret at all... Because it just is...

Which makes one wonder: if it is soooo apparent and transparent, how come so many intelligent, well educated people can't see any sense in it, disagree with it, are looking for alternatives...

Or just [Gawd forbid!] remember it wasn't always as this "reality" of "right here and now"...

 

[TruXta]

I get that your trying to push an alternative vision of healthcare and that's laudable, really! The problem is I see nothing but visions, apart from a completely trivial point about raising taxes on the rich. To back up a bit, up in post 10 you voiced concerns about "eligibility", "minimum criteria" and "affordability". Which are all valid points.

You then suggested "progressive taxation, universal health care". Yup, still fair enough and well within the realms of possibility. What you then seemingly don't want to face up to is healthcare is a limited resource, which brings up the question of the allocation of scarce resources, which again brings up the problem of making rules that fairly divide this access to as many people as need it. This is utilitarian thinking, cost-benefit analysis.

I'm still not sure what your alternative vision looks like in its details. And you stubbornly refuse to explain. And so it goes.

Speaking of the Human Genome project. That cost a fair chunk of public money. What's been the pay-off so far? How much suffering has that research alleviated? How many lives could have been saved if that money had gone to malaria eradication instead?

Are these questions you refuse to entertain, gorski? Because they do require you to think like a utilitarian.

 

[gorski]

Vision only, eh?

How about historical vision, to begin with?

But of crse, why would you? I mean, it doesn't fit the silly orthodoxy you're hiding behind, calling it "the real world", as if - as I already stated - there aren't or weren't other "realities"... Ergo, not a "vision" alone...

And as I explained but you can not understand, NHS started as a "vision" and then we made it possible...

The "scarce resources" was the argument against it, back then.

But we made it work. Handsomely. REALLY!!!

Progressive taxation, solidarity...

But oooooh, noooo...

"Real world"...

Blimey!

 

[TruXta]

And that's another handy sidestap. Goddamned tango dancer. Do you or do you not acknowledge that healthcare involves utilitarian planning? If you answer no to that question there's really no point to this any more.

 

[gorski]

What do you think, after all that I wrote - do I subscribe to Utilitarian BS?!?

Now, there's a nail-biter, edge of the seat kinda stuff... Woooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TruXta]

By all means, dream on. I'd still like to hear about this new HC vision of yours where people magically get all the HC they could ever need without having to worry about such things as a shortage of personnel, resources, money or time. Oh well.

 

[kyser_soze]

The vision the NHS was started with didn't have to incporporate pressure to spend say £50,000 on a palliative cancer drug that, at best, prolongs life by 6 months, the last 2-3 months of which involve the new drug and systematic ramping up of previous pain-management medications, leaving a patient who is still going to die, but will cost about £60K more to treat. This is the kind of thing TruXta is talking about, and you're not answering g.