139 of 144 people found the following review helpful
Just Undo the Damage!,
This review is from: Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime (Hardcover)
This book might be a steep read for most lay-people who aren't all that interested in cell biology or molecular chemistry, even as a passing fancy. But, the flipside of the author's depth of detail is that it allows you a glimpse into the kinds of complexities and even paradoxes that occur in the human metabolism (and how different those reactions can be even from those taking place in mice and monkeys).
DeGrey's major beef, in a nutshell, with the R&D community is that they are spending waaay too much time and energy trying to "understand" the complexities of why aging, cell damage, dysfunction, and diseases arise over time as bi-products of simply living life. He argues that we need a more targeted engineering approach -- simply FIND the damage after it has occurred, define what that damage is, and then GO FIX IT. These are much simpler problems to solve. As an analogy, look at what we do to preserve any machine or system. You can see a 100-year old house has holes in the roof; go patch them. While you're at it some new caulking around the windows, maybe some more insulation in the attic, some anti-termite spray, and there you go, good for another 100 years.
DeGrey envisions periodic therapies, say once per decade or so (similar to immunization schedules, for example) where individuals would receive viral injections and/or gene therapy to kill cancer cells, untangle proteins that cause alzheimers and the like, and remove calcification and stiffening from arteries and veins, generally restoring the body to a state of youthful vitality.
It is not nearly as "crazy as it sounds", but the fact remains that the large amounts of govt. and even private funding of such activities are not directed at "aging" per se, but rather at specific foundations devoted to one disease or another -- in other words, massive investment into cryptic treatments directed at helping a very very small percentage of the population. A paradigm shift is needed.
To his credit, and despite wild claims if 1,000-year "potential lifespans" and the like, DeGrey and Rae do not balk at frank discussions of the complexity that some of these treatments entail, or the failures that have plagued researchers along the way. The point is that progress IS being made now, and much more will come in the future, but at a pace that will be determined by focus, funding, and technological progress.
This book ties in well with books on nanotechnology and futurism. As others have said, we are about to enter a golden age of engineering *applications* that were undreamed of a century ago. We discovered quantum physics 100 years ago, but people are now building quantum computers. We first described the human DNA double-helix in 1953, have already sequenced many entire human genomes, and are well on the way to engineering with genetics, even building machines made from DNA.
We can now touch each individual molecule and cell in the body, so why can't we repair enough of them to keep the body functional indefinitely as a whole? It really isn't crazy at all.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 15 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 11, 2007 6:08:10 PM PST
E. E. Papp says:
Posted on Dec 12, 2007 10:34:08 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 12, 2007 12:20:51 PM PST]
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 28, 2008 8:32:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 28, 2008 8:36:06 PM PST
the point, of course, is that understanding the nature of an organism is not as simple as understanding a specific failing in an organism. while the two are inextricably related, treating the latter is not invariably dependent upon the former. your suggestion regarding cancer is a canard. "cancer" is not merely one simple thing. yes, as a "physician" you should know better than to suggest otherwise. cancer covers a vast array of conditions, hardly one single factor. why "don't" start with cancer in only one organ? because concerning aging, this has been done and it has proven fruitless. what this new paradigm suggests instead is to operate preventatively as aging occurs and, it pains me to remind you, you being a "physician," that cancer is not an aspect of senescence. as a "physician," you must also certainly understand that cancer can and does happen at any age at all. as a "physician," it is odd that you choose to unscientifically conflate correlation with causation.
p.s. and no, i don't actually believe you are a physician and if you are, not one of any worth or particular intellect--as you so handily demonstrate.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2008 2:07:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2008 1:07:49 AM PDT
R. Young says:
i'm not a physician but, doesnt aging, in fact increase the risk of cancer (indirectly)? as you age, dont you accumulate mutations, damage, and such? i think many areas of medicine interrelated and cancer is at least an aspect of senescence although its focus is in oncology. to say otherwise is like saying ovarian cancer is only an issue of oncology but never gynocology.
anyways, 'curing cancer' is pretty much a solution to one of the seven causes of aging in de grey's theory...
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2008 4:36:40 PM PST
I suggest everybody to check the book "Can We Live 150". It will answer some of your questions.
Posted on Jan 5, 2009 8:17:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 5, 2009 8:20:28 PM PST
Wakka is right. The issue is a paradigm shift in attitude and approach.
Unfortunately, paradigm shifts in general are difficult because many people don't want to let go of their current way of looking at or doing something. It's a curse we tend to heap upon ourselves as adults. Look at how a child learns. Their mental growth is precipitated upon rapid shifts in how they think, being open to adjusting how they view the same things in the world. As adults we find this natural for our offspring. We encourage our children to explore new ideas, to entertain new possibilities. Yet when we get to be - say over age 35 or so - most of react as if adults know everything and don't need to and/or want to change our way of thinking. This is how we end up with stagnant leaders. It is important throughout our lives to remain open and explore change. Embracing change does not mean letting go of security, it means letting go of hypocrisy and trying to control that which we cannot control. Loosening the reins accelerates new thoughts and benefits us all.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2009 1:39:23 PM PDT
James Street says:
If you look at medical history you'll see that the major problem will almost certainly be human, psychological resistance, both personal and political, to anti-aging therapies and research.
Think of the efforts of Pasteur and Semmelweiss to convince the world that tiny, invisible organisms called bacteria, cause disease. Neither one convinced the medical establishment during his lifetime. I believe Semmelweis died in a mental institution, a broken man, unable to convince doctors to use common sanitary practices to save women's lives during childbirth.
On the other side of the equation, people like Nobel prize winning Elie Metchnikoff, who discovered the active ingredients of Yogurt, boiled all of his food before eating it to kill all the bacteria and ate an enormous amount of yogurt. He thought bad bacteria caused aging and good bacteria prolonged life. He only lived to be about 70.
The modern world doesn't present a prettier picture. Prepare for the difficult life of a pioneer and rebel if you go down this path. Whatever the outcome, I thank you for your courage, in advance, if you choose to do so.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2013 10:45:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2013 10:55:18 PM PDT
Judy Smith says:
Actually, from personal observation of society around me, I don't think cancer hits the old any more than the young. In fact, i've noticed that some of the most vibrant people get cancer.
So i hypothesize that, say there's a 6-year old kid, full of vitality, exposed to EMFs of computer (or cellphone) day in & day out. The kid's passageways are like an empty highway, where racecars can ZOOM quickly, with no obstructions. So now you have a situation where the EMFs (or smoke, or extreme foods) can trigger the kid's stem cells to turn cancerous. Add to that the fact that the kid's passages are free & clear of obstructions, giving the cancer stem cells free license to spread quickly, like a racecar ZOOMING on an empty highway.
Compare that to someone with multitudinous plaque, which tend to obstruct growth AND circulation. On such an instance, EVEN IF the person has alot of repair stem cells on standby, and EVEN IF electromagnetic fields trigger them to turn cancerous, their mobility is blocked by plaque & other toxins. But in the same vein (forgive the pun), their mobility to REPAIR the body is also hindered. Which is why IMO you can see chronically ill people who may live long lives, albeit filled with aches & pains due to virals & toxins trapped inside them obstructing repair cells from doing their normal job.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2013 11:16:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2013 11:23:19 PM PDT
Judy Smith says:
Well, davil, here's a another paradigm idea - my version for Anatomical Repair Clinics of the future, as compared to today.
What you see today are various systems which are CAGED-IN-BUBBLES
(1) the BUBBLE of the failed USA (Unhealthcare System Assoc.) upon which the MSC stem cell clinics in China are based. The Chinese require you to get official diagnostics from the Unhealthcare System prior to proceeding with MSC therapy.
(2) the BUBBLE of energy medicine, much of which proved useless to me.
Quantum physics diagnostics (see the thumbnails on the L.I.F.E. System website) and ROFES which are way more wholistically advanced than conventional diagnostics.
I mean, just compare the anatomical pics. on the links at the ROFES section of rofes.ru to see samples of TRUE wholistic transparency, as compared to the NONtransparency of the currently predominating unhealthcare diagnostics.
Which leads to my vision for Repair Clinics of the future...
Obtain advanced diagnostics via home computer, thru quantum physics based software, which by then will be accepted by stem-cell clinics.
If yours is a difficult case such as advanced Lyme, you're admitted to your local Repair Clinic to undergo whichever form of detox was cumulatively proven by the pictorials of the Quantum-Physics software to have been most effective for cases such as yours.
Once your anatomy has been proven, via software pictorials, to have been effectively detoxed, you're injected with stem cells. (Autologous bone-marrow cells have been proven superior.
In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2014 11:33:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2014 11:34:42 AM PDT
Lisa Marie says:
Not EMF. GMO. It's just that simple.
200 years ago, cancer didn't exist. We chose to live in a chemical swimming pool with the "Industrial Revolution."
Monsanto used that cancer to chew through the previously impenetrable cell wall. Mad science. Who wants a tomato with a will to live? Who wants rice with HUMAN DNA? Who wants pork spliced with tapeworm to boost Omegas in the meat when Canadian farmers do the same simply by adding flax seed to the pig's diet.
Kids are exposed to GMO from birth. Gerber is loaded with the stuff.