Anti-Aging Medicine – Hope, Hype Or Hucksters?

Anti-aging can be a difficult topic to address because it has a number of different common meanings and connotations. Each is championed by a particular group or coalition of interests which define their terms in ways that can make the subject confusing.

For the scientific community, anti-aging research refers exclusively to slowing, preventing, or reversing the aging process. In the medical community, anti-aging medicine means early detection, prevention, and reversal of age-related diseases. The wider business (health) community (taking away hucksters and adventurous branding to increase sales) usually concentrates upon looking or feeling younger (longevitymeme)

The confusion lies not only in the definition, but also the application. There is, as of this time, no medical technology that allows us to slow, prevent or reverse the aging process. Nor is there any currently available method (short of waiting for people to die) to accurately measure the effects of an alleged anti-aging therapy.

Early detection and prevention is always a noble cause, but sadly we are focusing on the effect, rather than the cause. And of course intervention does not lengthen life spans, but only allows natural biological process to go on unabated for a specific time. By arresting diseases we merely prevent the interruption of the normal life span. This cannot be called true anti-aging medicine as it has no effect on the aging process itself.

Still, many remain eternally optimistic of modulating the human aging process and mapping  a possible route to individual immortality. Dr. Ronald Klatz, founder and President of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine sincerely believes we’re looking at life spans of 120 to 150 years of age, with perhaps no natural limits.” (V. Kannisto, Development of Oldest-Old Mortality, 1950-1990). Yet at this present time, the only verified case of a human living beyond 120 years is Jeanne Calment, a Frenchwoman who died in 1997 at 122 years.

We may ask the question, “Which community – whether scientific, medical or marketplace – has turned back the clock on time one iota?” Name a study, cite a legitimate claim, or even give a personal reference. It’s true that people desire real anti-aging medicines, but these therapies simply don’t exist. In that sense, I believe science is selling a pipe dream of hope when it advertises regenerative medicine, repairing mitochondria, gene therapies or nanomedicine as possible mechanisms to extend life. Normal human cells have a built-in program that prevents them from replicating more than a predetermined number of times. In fact, scientists have already identified genes that appear to accelerate human aging, but they have yet to find genes with the opposite effect.

It is true that medicine can help us to prolong the time spent in age-related disability. But this also begs the question, “Do the extra years allow us to enjoy life, or just cling to it?”Aging is not an illness pathologized by false hope, neither should it be paying homage to a dubious youth obsessed culture. If we can get past all the hype, hucksters and theories, we see that the only provable concept available to humans today is optimizing the normal lifespan.

Using appropriate lifestyle and diet choices will help you live a years longer and in better health than your sick neighbour. And instead of calling it “anti-aging,” we could apply the more appropriate label of “graceful aging.”  In rather simple terms, it involves prevention, good maintenance, and moderation to allow the biochemical processes of the body  to operate most efficiently. Eat healthy foods, get sufficient sleep, exercise and fresh air, practice good hygiene, proper elimination and right thinking. Then live life to the fullest in the time you have, because you can!

Natural And Organic Products Swallowed Up By Multi-National Companies

Found this interesting article on Alternet which highlights the fact that many of the natural and organic products we enjoy and believe are good for us are now produced by large, multi-national corporations which have bought out the original companies. Correct me if I’m wrong, but are not these the same mega-corporations that produce toxic chemicals with little to no regard for environmental or societal issues? It’s an eye opener for sure.

After some more research, I found a list the following companies that have been purchased by their larger, mainbrand competitors on a blog titled withonebreath:

• Burt’s Bees is owned by Clorox
• Tom’s of Maine is owned by Colgate-Palmolive
• Stonyfield Yogurt is owned by Danone (Brown Cow); the CEO also sits on the board of Dannon U.S.A.
• Horizon is owned by Dean Foods (the largest dairy company in the U.S.)
• Odwalla is owned by Coca-Cola
• Naked Juice is owned by Pepsi-Cola
• After the Fall is owned by Smucker’s
• R.W. Knudsen is owned by Smucker’s
• Santa Cruz Organic is owned by Smucker’s
• Smart Water/Vitamin Water is owned by Coca-Cola
• Kashi is owned by Kellogg’s
• Back to Nature is owned by Kraft Foods (whose parent company also owns Phillip Morris USA)
• Cascadian Farms is owned by General Mills
• Barbara’s Bakery is owned by Weetabix
• Mother’s is owned by Quaker, which is owned by PepsiCo
• Health Valley/Arrowhead Mills is owned by Hain Celestial Group, of which 16% is owned by H.J. Heinz
• Green & Black Organic chocolate is owned by Schweppe’s.
• Dagoba Chocolate is owned by Hershey’s.
• The Body Shop is owned by L’Oreal/Nestle

It seems these large corporations are in a race to get a piece of the lucrative organic pie. Yes, the same pie that was ridiculed a few decades back has now become almost mainstream. Yet, even though some of these products are now available to a larger audience, I wonder what type of quality will remain with them, as many steps in the process will be discarded in favour of profit for investors. And as the “withonebreath” writer pointed out, “many of these mega-corporations utilize the same poor agricultural and manufacturing practices that prompted organic farming and consuming in this country” in the first place.

Do we really think they will change their habits for the sake of the organic consumer, or will they continue on the road to deceiving them? My vote is for the latter, even though there are third party oversight groups involved. There is far too much of the organic market farmed out to countries such as China with little or no oversight. I’m simply not convinced in light of the fact that many of these companies are lobbying the USDA to lessen the standards for organic products, and the FDA to loosen up on labeling requirements.

Want Some Estrogen With That Soft Drink?

It turns out a cold drink isn’t the only thing in your pop can. A Health Canada study of canned pop has found the vast majority of the drinks contain the chemical bisphenol A, a substance that imitates the female hormone estrogen and is now banned in baby bottles.

The highest levels of the chemical, known as BPA, were found in  caffeine-loaded energy drinks, but the residue was also detected in ginger ale, diet cola, root beer and citrus-flavoured soda. Pop cans are lined on the inside with BPA in order to prevent the drink from coming into contact with the metal in the can.

“The emphasis has always been on canned foods, and the results are especially startling, given that the average person, worldwide, consumes more than 22 gallons of soft drinks every year. Yikes!” (thedailygreen.com)

Out of 72 drinks tested, 69 were found to contain BPA at levels below what Health Canada says is the safe upper limit. However, studies in peer-reviewed science journals have indicated that even at very low doses, BPA can increase breast and ovarian cancer cell growth and the growth of some prostate cancer cells in animals. Health Canada spokesman Stéphane Shank said  there is no risk to Canadians. “The average adult weighing approximately 60 kilograms would have to consume over 900 cans per day” to reach the department’s safety threshold, he said. (www.cbc.ca)

The drinks tested came from a variety of sources, representing at least 84 per cent of the market share of soft drinks sold in the country. Despite this, the federal department did not reveal why this study was only published January in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry and on Health Canada’s website. The reasoning? It wasn’t their intent to hide it. However, had they wanted to get this report out, which would certainly have been the case if it was more positive, more sources would have been included.

Like estrogen — BPA is active in very small amounts. The average soft drink contains levels of around half a part per billion, resulting in 500 times more estrogen in people than normal. Some experiments have found harmful effects in animals at BPA concentrations as low as 1,000 times below Health Canada’s marker. Given this information, we need to consider the cumulative effect of hormone-disrupting chemicals.

Pharmaceutical Companies: Blanket Immunity for Drug Side Effects, Deaths?

cleanerplateclub.wordpress.com/.../

Well, we’ve reached the point where giant pharmaceutical companies will have nothing more to fear.

The Supreme Court is about to rule on a case that could grant Big Pharma blanket immunity for ALL harm and deaths caused by their dangerous products. This would be a huge victory for them and the FDA, and a devastating loss to fundamental human rights.

The FDA’s approval of a drug will then absolve companies of any responsibility if that drug later turns out to be dangerous, even if information was concealed from the FDA during the approval process. While courts have rejected this argument for decades, the winds appear to be shifting.

Evidently the FDA has also recently thrown its support behind pre-emption, reversing a longstanding, de-facto policy of viewing lawsuits as an extra layer of oversight to make up for the agency’s time and budget constraints. Now the agency says that lawsuits over drug side effects could lead to a confusing state-by-state regulatory patchwork that would cause hardship to drug companies and discourage patients from taking certain medications.

Your heart had to bleed for all the hard work these companies have to endure to ensure our safety. I guess making it easier for them to harm or kill innocent people should appease that wrong. Has anyone noticed a shift in the direction of the sun lately?

Read the facts on this pivotal Supreme Court decision below, sourced at: (http://www.naturalnews.com/024688.html)