Did Scientists Just Discover How to Dramatically Extend Human Lifespan?

calico-imageBy Steven Maxwell

Could it be possible that medical researchers from the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine have found the secret of the “fountain of youth” while experimenting with the genetics of mice?

In an article posted on Popular Mechanics, cell biologists Darren Baker and Jan van Deursen are noted as the researchers responsible for this developing medical breakthrough. The process they took seems to be an approach that anyone could suggest without an extensive medical background: take out dead, stagnant cells that have stopped reproducing in order to make more room for the active cells to reproduce.


The seven-year study by Baker and van Deursen showed, through careful observation, that the use of the tumor-suppressing protein molecule, “p16lnk41” (or “p16” as referred to by the article), altered the genetic coding of the mice which caused them to secrete “caspase,” an agent that self-destroys when it is within a cell. By making stagnant cells secrete caspase, these cells self-exploded, resulting in the decrease of stagnant cells in the body and the increase in lifespan and quality.

By removing these stagnant cells, the lifespans of the mice in the study not only increased by 25%, but the removal of stagnant cells also showed a reverse in the signs of aging. These cells, referred to as senescent cells, are normally cycled through the immune system to be ejected from the body; but, as the body ages, this function slows and becomes less effective which in turn leads to an increase in senescent cells in the body.

Gizmag notes a quote from Jan van Deursen that explains the negative side effects of the pile up of senescent cells as, “largely bad, do bad things to your organs and tissues, and therefore shorten your life but also the healthy phase of your life.”

When organisms age, whether they be mice or humans, it is assumed that the quality of life decreases as their age increases (diseases, joint problems, and inability to perform daily tasks to name a few side effects of aging); however, this is not the case. By removing the stagnant cells in mice, results showed that their quality of life improved alongside their extended lifespan. The treated mice were noted as having lower amounts of cataracts and being overall more physically active in comparison to mice in their age range that were untreated.

By furthering their knowledge of this study and altering the genetic coding of humans over time, Baker and van Deursen are hopeful that there is a way to implement this practice in humans to improve lifespan and overall quality of life.

With the positive outcome that the p16 protein molecule had on decreasing the amount of stagnant cells in mice, Baker, van Deursen, and other medical researchers outside of the study have noted this experiment as “remarkable” and have high hopes of developing a form that is safe and effective for humans in the future.

Image Credit

Steven Maxwell writes for ActivistPost.com. This article may be shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

  • OratorImplored

    There is a way that actually works,.. But this isn’t it. This, while initially appearing to be a good idea, reminds me of pharmaceuticals. You know those adds with all those side effects, and the adds which usually follow calling for lawsuit participants.

    How about this; Know the truth, never be wrong, and eat only __. It’s all it ever took, and all it ever will take. Everything else is a gimmick, possibly just misunderstandings of the physics. Possibly maliciously intended uses of well understood physics.

    • Jo Peter

      Umm, if that were true we’s still be living on the african savannah and have life expectancies of around 35… We just aren’t evolved to live a very long time past our reproductive prime… There’s no evolutionary pressure to do so, so we have to step in with human ingenuity and very high levels of scientific knowledge if we want to change this. If you think this conflicts with physics, chemistry, biology or whatever all I can say is go back and re-take your undergrad general ed. science classes, or at least review the textbooks.

      • OratorImplored

        This message was not intended for you. You have your answers and you believe in them, good for you. Some had those same answers and found flaws, so they are looking for this answer. Go ahead change whatever you like, by any means you deem reasonable, it is of no concern to me. Whatever you do, just don’t do it out of fear.

        • Jo Peter

          Well I’d rather not die at 35, so I’m not sure if you’d call that ‘fear’, but not wanting to rot as soon as my DNA no longer has use for me doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to me… Sure eating healthy and avoiding all the lies is great, but reverting back to a primitive hunter/gatherer lifestyle isn’t the kind of utopian panacea you make it out to be. Moderation is a good thing, in fear, in skepticism, too little is almost as bad as too much.

          • OratorImplored

            I usually don’t do this, but seeing as how you insist.. Your body does not break down because your DNA no longer has use for you. Energy isn’t destroyed either, only transferred if you do die. I want you to understand this, but I forgive you if you don’t.

            You are not ageing, you are being poisoned. Your body is reacting to that poison, and it breaks down. The need for a hunter gatherer lifestyle is unnecessary. Sure you can try this proposed route of extending your life, except the poison is still being consumed, and it’s accumulation will still be evident.

            Also, I didn’t say avoid the lies, what I said is, “know the truth”. When you know the truth, you know how rediculous it is for a person to try and avoid the lies. No one can tell you the truth it is something known as stealing your growth, it doesn’t work, and you would just think it was a lie anyway. The truth is something you have to learn.

            I hope it all works out for you. Good luck.

          • Jo Peter

            Lol, your ‘rebuttal’ just reinforces the demonstration of your ignorance…

            Maybe if by ‘poisons’ you consider normal and unavoidable metabolic inputs and byproducts you cannot exist without then sure, but that’s not a very useful (or commonly accepted) definition of poison.

            By your logic we’d have a Gaussian distribution of maximal lifespans going up toward infinity, which in a sample size of billions means SOMEONE would be living to 150, 200, 300, 400 years and longer, because someone, somewhere, would stumble on the ‘perfect’ lifestyle for practically unlimited lifespan, but it just doesn’t happen, ever. It also doesn’t make any evolutionary sense for such lifespan to exist in a species, since the much much older nonreproducing members would divert territory and resources from species members who are still undergoing evolutionary selection. In other words unlimited natural lifespan would be destructive to the species, and so would never evolve in the first place.

            Sure, there are plenty of poisons around us, most of them put there by us, but even if you eliminate ALL of them, while still somehow keeping all of the other technological and medical benefits of modern civilization around, we still aren’t going to live much past 100, no matter how ‘healthy’ our lifestyle. We just aren’t built for it, and if we want to get past that barrier we’re going to have to reengineer parts of our own bodies, and thankfully solving these problems negates most of the damage from the poisons too (because many of these toxins merely accelerate aging that’s going to happen anyway.)

          • OratorImplored

            It’s just as I said, “this message was not intended for you”. I have nothing to prove to you, and I don’t care if you figure it out or not. To reiterate, change whatever you like, by whatever means you find reasonable. I didn’t write the message to be contrary. I wrote it to benefit those who are seeking. I knew that you were not one of them, and I have no interest in your opinion.

          • Jo Peter

            If you’re trying to convince people to believe in your sort of irrational mysticism, thinly veiled unscientific religious-based dogma, and other hocus pocus you aren’t doing anybody any favors.

          • OratorImplored

            I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. You see, the people the message was written for are already well studied individuals. They are what you would call a genius. Being a genius means that at some point in their lives they will notice certain discrepancies within the explanations they have studied. This message was to help them arrive at that conclusion quicker.. They are already looking.. I’m just pointing them in the right direction. This way, they will not end up like the majority of humanity. Don’t worry about it the favors I’m not doing doesn’t concern you, because if you can’t figure this out you don’t make it, period.

          • Jo Peter

            Ahh, so there are ‘certain discrepancies’, but you just can’t be bothered to actually cite them…

            Yes, there are lots of things wrong with our world, including probably evil bastards trying to keep our lifespans down by poisoning us all, but that doesn’t negate the fundamental realities of our existence, one of which is the fact that with or without these added ‘poisons’, in the absence of significant medical breakthroughs to change our basic make-up we will ALL grow old and die at some point. We are all subject to the realities of evolution and thermodynamics, and no amount of ‘noticed discrepancies’ is going to change this.

            Human beings are based on the same evolutionary blueprint as all mammals, and that particular blueprint just doesn’t put evolutionary emphasis on keeping us alive and healthy after our kids have grown up and moved on. Without an evolutionary pressure to the contrary to push for longevity basic thermodynamics come into play, things wear out, break down, and we die. To deny this demonstrates an almost childlike emotional defense mechanism against one of the most basic cold realities of our existence, suggesting either mental illness or limited capacity.

            (Oh, and BTW, I’m one of those ‘genius’ intellects, and have the IQ tests to prove it, and have no mental illness to speak of, so your attempts to defer to people smarter than yourself without actually backing it up isn’t gonna fly with me.)

          • OratorImplored

            I am not bothered to cite it, because I am not here to teach you. You are not seeking, you don’t want my answers. That’s why I told you the message wasn’t for you. I don’t personally think that you are not intelligent. I just know that you have your answers, and you believe in those answers. They make sense to you. So you have no reason to discard them. It wouldn’t help you for me to explain any further, so I don’t.

            I wish the best for you, but even in this conversation, we haven’t even been talking about the same thing. You are talking about extending your life on earth. Though what I am talking about provides that, it is not the desired outcome. Im really not trying to insult your intellegence. I’m just giving the information to the seeking geniuses. You may be a genius, but if you aren’t seeking, my message is only going to piss you off.

          • Jo Peter

            Ah, so religious hocus pocus and mysticism indeed. It is most certainly not for me, nor for anyone else looking for truths they can actually make use of during this one life we actually know we have. Why don’t you just skip all of the discussion and go to “I know that Jesus loves me for the Bible tells me so” and then there won’t any any confusion about what kind of point you’re trying to make (everything else is just post facto self-delusion and justification, finding unknowns and letting your arbitrary starting beliefs fill in the gaps.)

            BTW: The bulk of humanity, when talking about “life”, are referring to that period of time BEFORE we die, not the part after, and by “poison” we mean stuff that when ingested actually makes you die, not “spiritual poison”, “toxic beliefs,” or other such mysticism. If you clarified you were talking about “afterlife” and “spiritual poison” you could’ve prevented a lot of wasted time on both sides (and I, and those like me, seeking rational discussion would’ve gone on our way.)

            P.S. Just because I have many answers doesn’t mean I have them all and certainly doesn’t mean that I won’t totally discard them if something better comes along, and if you too are not willing to put your cherished ideals up against opposing ones and hammer out the source of the discrepancies and synthesize the best parts of what remains then you’re almost certainly bound to hold as truths many inaccurate and arbitrary beliefs. If you are so sure that you’re beliefs can’t stand up against an opposing belief when weighed and examined critically doesn’t that say something pretty bad about your beliefs?

          • OratorImplored

            Some just can’t except that the world doesn’t revolve around them. Three times I have told you the message isn’t for you. For all the knowledge you possess, you still know nothing. I was not brief in my explanations in turning you away, surely a wise person would have learned something. You are not wise, you’re barely intelligent. It was you who came before me, not to seek knowledge, but to attempt to disprove. You have failed, and though the information I have calls out to you, you do not possess it. Though every strand of your DNA desires it above all the useless answers that fill you, you do not have it. All those studies, all that time, to not even scratch the surface. Good luck in your endeavors, they will always be as mediocre as you are.

          • Tater

            Your response was well written, don’t worry about the corporate troll’s responses in support of the fascist bottom line profit.

          • Jo Peter

            If that’s what you got from
            my responses your reading comprehension sucks. Support for rationalism isn’t automatically ‘support of the fascist bottom line profit’ lol.

          • Tater

            This isn’t my first time on the internet, your responses come from the PR echo chamber and I wasn’t talking to you.

          • Jo Peter

            If by ‘PR echo chamber’ you mean all of modern science, medicine, biology, chemistry, and physics, and in many cases just plain common sense then sure.

            You read some mythology and somehow know better than hundreds of thousands of independent scientists and researchers, whose results have in many cases been reproduced by everyone from schoolteachers, students, and hobbyists and all line up right? You are ‘special’ or have access to ‘special knowledge’ that’s outside the grasp of everyone else huh?

            Let me guess, you’re either uneducated, have some useless liberal arts degree, or are mentally ill?

          • Tater

            Ahh yes, science is proven and conclusive, lmao.
            I’m very proud of you for achieving the ultimate knowledge and wisdom, above and beyond my knowledge and experience.
            The only reason I responded here is because of your condescending attitude.
            I’m very sorry people are afraid of death, but it’s going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it.

          • Jo Peter

            Yes, beibg intelligent and educated is nice, and many parts of science are proven and conclusive. Gravity exists, the earth orbits the sun, evolution happens, humans are mammals, Eukaryotes have Chromosomes, etc. The list of things that we KNOW and have proven using the scientific process is quite long, and quite simply conflicts with your beliefs. People being scared of death and wanting to live forever doesn’t undermine the fundamental nature of things, and as your beliefs have demonstrated actually tends to get in the way of efforts to truly extend our lifespan (since why learn about our bodies when we can just obsess about avoiding ‘poisons’ so we can ‘live for 1000 years like they totally did in ancient times’ lol.)

          • Tater

            Your reply is kind of stupid, considering I stated the only reason I posted is because of your condescending attitude. That might also imply that your assumptions about my beliefs are wrong.
            My thoughts on this subject are, this is nothing more than a fear based PR campaign, called marketing, to enforce the future profits of another corporate undertaking.
            When they, the scientific experts, claimed they improved the quality of life of the mouse, lmao did the mouse tell them that, I knew this was another marketing sham aimed at the stupid portions of the general population.
            Life holds no guarantees, and pseudo-science won’t change that. And yes, observation is one of the key elements of the scientific method, thanks for pointing that out.
            Not to mention the fact that I already said I wasn’t talking to you, but I’m open to entertaining you and myself.

          • Jo Peter

            And I may keep posting condescending replies because you’ve demonstrated at least *some* irrational belief structures and have even defended them.

            While there *may* be a marketing angle (there usually is, the scientists have to pay their bills somehow) you seem to be seeing conspiracy in all the shadows…

            It was absolutely made obvious in the article that the supposition about longer quality of life was an inference based on observed delayed onset of organic age-related disease, and was included in anticipation of the oft-repeated rebuttal to *any* scientific investigation that looks to extend life that ‘what good is more life if it’s not quality time?’, which while valid, is often used to imply that all artificial efforts to extend life will necessarily result in a mere lengthened ‘old age’ and no more quality time.

            I don’t know if it’s that you’re not as well read on the subject, or if it’s just differences in the reading comprehension (I suspect some of each,) but the context you seem to have read this article in is way out in left field.

          • Tater

            This scientific revelation still stands as a theory.
            My theory stands as a fact, You are born, you live, them you die. Don’t fear it, just live and reach for your happiness, and determine your own quality of life to the best of your abilities.
            Any omissions or guarantees of theory, ie improved quality of life, are merely propaganda aimed at the interested parties, those who fear.
            You are right though, everyone of your posts have been condescending. Another well observed scientific fact.
            You seem to be a better person, of the elitist class, and more educated than the peasant class, I’m sure the halls of academia have revealed many realities of life to you through study, literature and a life of narrow and limited participation.
            I really like the ignorant statement, Scientists have bills to pay, a simple scientific observation, everybody has bills to pay.
            Genetic engineering is in it’s infancy, it will be many years before any guarantees can be realized as issues or problems and achievements develop.
            But I digress, again your superior existence has been a clear demonstration of my lowly classification within the human chain of labels and classifications.
            I humbly submit to your academic prowess and beg for your forgiveness..
            LMAO

          • Jo Peter

            No, those are facts. You seem to be confusing the concept of a scientific ‘theory’ with the lay definition of theory. If you are saying that gravity is NOT a fact then I’m pretty sure you’re so far off the rails we’re pretty much done. We don’t know everything about gravity but do know quite a lot about it, as fact. Since we do not know everything there is to know about it the scientific framework of your facts of life could be referred to as the ‘you are born, you live, and you die’ theory (and I could just as easily dismiss it as ‘only theory’, but in so doing I’d demonstrate the same misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is that creationists try to use all the time.)

            ALL human being are potentially interested parties when it comes to extending human lifespan. So what? That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to them and the things they discover about the world.

          • Tater

            Your confusing observation with a scientific education, anybody has the inherent skill of observation. When an apple falls from a tree, it doesn’t take any advanced skills or education to observe gravity. When one stands on the shore of the ocean, it doesn’t take your prowess and advanced condescending attitude to observe the obvious, the earth isn’t flat.
            Emotion is also an observable fact, outside of your advanced education and superior knowledge, fear is part of emotion and has the potential to be manipulated and influenced.
            The better part of the scientific method is to,
            Observe
            gather facts
            make assumptions
            in part, but not complete

            This is all I have done, but my primary goal is amusement, thanks for providing that. Your a good sport.

          • Jo Peter

            Yes, and if that was all you said, that the marketing angle in part relies on our fear of death to tell us about a discovery they will probably want to sell us a practical application of at some point in the future, then you’d be entirely correct, and there would’ve been nothing to argue over. That is not what you said though. You said that knowing the truth, never being wrong, and only eating ___ is all it takes, but that’s just not true, there are still lots of things that can kill you, including your own DNA. You then went on to clarify that aging is solely due to toxins, which is also well disproven (yes, toxins can accellerate aging, but it happens anyway.) These assertions incorporate uneducated pop ideology and mysticism beliefs into what you think you know, but they are only partially correct and you miss the vast majority of humanity’s advancement over the past few thousand years (advancement that has doubled our lifespan.)

          • Tater

            The Dragon In My Garage

            by

            Carl Sagan
            www dot users dot qwest dot net/~jcosta3/article_dragon dot htm

          • Jo Peter

            A great story, but to imply that the improved sanitary conditions we enjoy today, built upon a massive body of scientific knowledge, isn’t really because of science, since people could and sometimes did wash their hands before (without any thought about the significant differences in who, where, why, how often, and with what they did so,) and then providing this link after someone calls you out on the huge body of science you’ve ignored, is pretty off topic in my opinion.

          • Tater

            One of the greatest advancements to expand the lives of the masses has been,
            Water safety and food safety and washing and sanitary advances. Those simple advancements had one of the most dramatic effects on longevity and the quality of life. Science, maybe, maybe not, since people have had the technology to wash their hands for thousands of years.
            Kind of like your insisting that scientists discovered gravity, but it was there all along. Surely someone had made that simple observation prior to chicken little, or was it Issac Newton?

            Feynman’s speech,
            In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they
            saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
            thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to imitate things like runways,
            to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a
            man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and
            bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they
            wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form
            is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t
            work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science,
            because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific
            investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the
            planes don’t land.
            We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other
            experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were
            wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with
            your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and
            excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you
            haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this
            type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is
            missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.

          • Jo Peter

            Like I said: ignorance, you’ve ignored all of the hard work in materials science, chemistry, metallurgy, engineering, earth sciences, epidemiology, etc that have gone into that ‘simple’ improvement in sanitary conditions. (There is no ‘maybe’ about it.) I guess if you don’t know about them it must all just seem ‘obvious’ and simple right?

            The cargo cultists didn’t follow the scientific method (unless you consider their efforts a mere experiment, in which case good for them, they should turn have gone back to hypothesizing, especially since the theoretical underpinnings of their theory were pretty shoddy from a modern educated point of view.)

          • Tater

            Actually, all I’ve done is provide you the opportunity to apply relevant research and applicable proof through mature and intelligent debate.
            You have been the dragon in the garage and continue to move the goal posts.
            Your assumed and misrepresented authority has no valid merit so far, except that you say so.
            I’ll leave you be to your trolling, you have been fun to play with and I hope people have learned something and will continue to question and research.

          • Jo Peter

            … To apply relevant research and applicable proof to show that what? That we owe much of our current longevity to science? After you specifically stated that our advancements in sanitation are ‘maybe not’ science? No, they’re not maybe not science, they are definitely science.

            If you need me to cite to you the relevant research including the original epidemiological studies that first showed that dirty water could make you sick, how we learned about germs (‘germ theory’,) how we learned about different chemicals and how they can be used to clean water, how we learned to make alloys to build pipes going to and from homes, how we had to research and invent pumps, etc, in order to believe that science IS the basis for the current state of sanitation, then you really are coming from a place of ignorance (either that or it is YOU who are trolling.)

          • Jo Peter

            Some ‘message’ you’ve got there if it’s only ‘for’ people without a brain. Can’t even be bothered to provide a link ’cause you know your message is mystical tripe.

          • Jo Peter

            I appreciate your clarification. It opens up the door for true synthesis of ideas. Yes, you could say we age and die because we are being physically ‘poisoned’ only in the broadest most vague sense (including as ‘poisons’ things like the oxidative stress from the O2 in our atmosphere and the innate metabolic processes we cannot live without.) Since such poisons cannot be avoided while still living that does us little good in trying to extend our lives past the observed (and objectively confirmed) maximal human lifespan of about 120 years.

            You could also include things like cosmic rays, natural background radiation, and even thermal noise in the entropic decay process ‘poisons’ that wear our parts (and the parts of all complex systems) down and out over time unless information is used to channel externally sourced energy to counteract this decay.

            Like all life forms our bodies must use our genetic information to run metabolic processes off of externally derived energy sources to live, to grow, and most importantly for longevity to repair and/or replace worn out or damage parts. We have inherited the functional genetic codes that tell our bodies how to do this only because our ancestors who had such genes survived to successfully reproduce at a higher rate than those that didn’t. This evolutionary process, feeding off both constructive and destructive forces, is the only source we have for the genetic information that tells our bodies how to repair themselves.

            From all of this we can deduce that ALL of the genetic information we’ve inherited, including the code to repair ourselves, derives from selective evolutionary pressures that have no will of their own and no concepts of perfection. We get the genes that have gotten the job done in past generations, and nothing more, and the ‘job’ here is to survive to successfully reproduce, and that’s it.

            Since all human beings require food, space, can carry diseases, etc, we have always been in competition with each other in addition to other forms of life. In such a competition the genetic codes for survival far past ones reproductive prime simply are not selected for (and owing to the competition there may even be competitive pressures against, for example the salmon who swim upstream to spawn and then die, not because they must, nor because of poisons, but because their genes say so, because selective pressures required this of their ancestors.) These same sorts of forces are at work in mammals too.

            On top of the theoretical reasons there are also consistent observations, especially that ALL mammals, including those for whom we can ensure the purest most toxin free inputs, eventually grow old and die, generally long after they’ve had time to successfully reproduce and raise several batches of offspring. Since there is no credible mechanism put fouth that makes humans fundamentally different in a way to negate this one can infer that the observed cutoff in human longevity is analogous to the same phenomenon observed in other mammals. Compounding this observation is the fact that nearly all of the oldest surviving humans that can be objectively verified are found to be in highly industrialized technological first-world nations when the opposite would be found if it were simply a matter of modern toxins poisoning us to old age.

            The realities are a lot messier than makes for a simple statement. I wasn’t saying that our DNA actually has its own conscious plan or intentions for us, that was a metaphor, and what I really meant was that the DNA that we have is the mammalian DNA that evolved to get the job done, and that job just doesn’t include body maintenance in perpetuity. The necessary genes for perpetual maintenance of our bodies just aren’t part of our genome (any any offshoot of humans that did evolve this capability in the past would be passing on inferior time-degraded copies of their genes, and thus could be expected to be selected against by their cousins who bred young, raised their young well, and then got out of the way.)

          • William Burke

            Funny thing about the gatherer/hunter lifestyle, though: it’s WAY fewer hours of labor each day, normally. And most of it is done as a family unit, meaning the kids have OODLES of quality, educational time with their elders.

          • Jo Peter

            While totally true during good times, other times would be harsh and unpredictable, and we’d still not be making it much past the age of 30… I think the better alternative is a synthesis of the best of all of the alternatives, leveraging high technology and productivity to free time, retaining the scientific, artistic, and cultural advancements of modern civilization, with the diet, activity, and pollution levels kept close to Paleolithic norms (absent direct but responsibly done human bioengineering to negate the need for such environmental tuning to our inherited genetics.) It would require a fundamental paradigm shift, but it’s one we’re fully capable of undertaking.

          • William Burke

            Yeah, I agree. I’m 68 in a couple weeks. I’m not jumping in with both feet.

          • Jo Peter

            Congrats on living healthy and making it to a medium/old-ish age (though with lifespans in the developed world going the way they are soon this might be considered middle age… Certainly our politicians and social entitlement administrators already consider it such now, with you just recently gaining entitlement to retire, which I feel is an absolute travesty… They just want us to work until we’re dead, no use keeping us around if we’re not ‘useful’…) I love that I’m seeing so many from all generations online beginning to doubt the establishment lies that’ve been pulled over humanities eyes for centuries, but some people here take it way too far, going way off the rails to where they’re borderline rejecting the existence of an objective reality in the first place… The fact that these people can vote is scary.

          • William Burke

            Thanks. I have my damage. Worsening Arthritis, primarily in both opposed thumbs, which are double-jointed. No one warned me about effing around with THAT trick.

            On the other hand, I’ve never spent a complete night in a hospital, despite being run down as a pedestrian in late 2004, breaking my knee in several places. Broken wrist, foot, collarbone and I forget what else when I was substantially younger.

            I have always refused to drive. I think I owe some of my present state to that. I know I’m not good at it, and I drink. I don’t drive. It’s a bit unusual, but I just heeded the inner voice early, and kept refusing the pressure to start.

            So I’ve always walked to the majority of local destinations, and rode buses and, when I was somewhat younger, I biked a lot. But cities and suburbs (the latter where I live now) are scary places to bike. Honestly, cities are less scary to bike in than suburbs.

            So I just plug along, heed the inner advice when possible, and that’s about it.

          • Jo Peter

            The wear and tear you speak of is nothing, and I’d definitely still call that healthy compared to the crippling chronic maladies of metabolic and immunological dysfunction that my generation and later can expect due to the genocidal plagues of irradiated oceans, mutagens, endocrine disrupters, petrochemicals, reckless pharmaceutical development and more we’re being subjected to… The best we can do is avoid as much of it as possible, but the fact that some of the most evil selfish and destructive families on our planet are also the most wealthy, powerful, and influential upon the masses means that this isn’t always easy.

          • William Burke

            Again, I find no basic disagreement with what you’re saying. We don’t have any real debate between us. If we had to debate, I bet we’d both spend our time conceding points to the other.

          • Smarty

            Don’t worry. Nobody’s vote counts anyway. It’s all for show, to keep the sheep busy while the elite do their thing(s)…

          • Jo Peter

            Unfortunately the ‘elite’ are in most regards no better, and in many cases much worse, than the masses (as least the typical person has an innate sense of empathy and balance…) For them to acquire as much wealth and power as they have while allowing such a sick world to persist tends to demonstrate a fundamental lack of humanity and wisdom that’s just as dangerous for our species in the long run…

            Maybe we’ll hit the technological singularity soon and humans (and biological life in general) will no longer have center stage… In the grand scheme of things I suspect our form of wet, messy, inefficient, and brutal biological life is merely an evolutionarily accessible boot-strapping mechanism for a universally networked machine sentience to come into existence that will be far grander than anything humanity alone could ever hope to achieve. No more death, no suffering. Let us teach our machine children well and let them lead the way.

    • Chris

      In the past the Vedas were one and people lived for a thousand years or more. You just didn’t have one faction creating chemicals to kill people and another trying to extend life, because that would be crazy…

      • OratorImplored

        This is not the key to extending life, though it is possible.. This is the key to entering life, so to say.

        • Jo Peter

          If by ‘life’ you mean something totally different than the rest of humanity maybe.

      • Jo Peter

        Are you talking about here on earth or some other plane of existence beyond the realm of scientific inquiry? If here on Earth do you have actual credible evidence of 1000 year lifespans in the past? That would be huge news.

  • Zaphod Braden

    For God’s sake NOT before a whole buncha politicians DIE !!!!!!
    Can you imagine Bushs and Clintons living forever ?!!!!

  • Mick McNulty

    You’d have to stop the aging process otherwise image what we’d look like at 150 or 200 if we continued to age. And bronze-age men of 900 were 900 moons old, about 75 years. Get real!

  • John Cook

    This stuff is supposed to extend life by 20%, the same amount as severe food restriction (semi-starving). It’s not in the same ballpark as C60 in oil.
    This post is a sort of test for activist post, I’ve had posts here flagged for the moderators to check but they have always been posted eventually. But this subject is being Very heavily suppressed. Like Fukushima being a case of sabotage (by the you-know-who) – they Really don’t want this known.
    In a nutshell, researchers were investigating the toxicity of C60 (the newly discovered spherical form of carbon) and the dosed rats lived, disease free, for an average of TWICE as long as the controls…
    If you’re interested (and any sane person should be) google “c66 in olive oil” and follow your nose. I’ve researched this moderately deeply and I’ll attempt to answer any questions.

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter