• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Immortality?

Prof. Kim Tae-kook, however, is confident about the commercial viability of CGK733, believing the efficiency of the material was created using state-of-the-art magnetic nano-probe technology.
Click to expand...

Quantum, anyone?

That being said, BenK's link looks a lot better at first glance.
 
All of this is legit, but as the last link points out, exactly what it means for human aging is pretty unclear so far.
 
rocketdodger said:
All of this is legit...
Click to expand...

I have my (very strong) doubts. It appears that the first announcements are being made to the public, and not in a peer-reviewed journal. Isn't that supposed to be one of the earliest warning signs? I'm having a flashback to Pons and Fleischman. Also, there's a heavy element of commercial musings, which may be natural but still makes one wonder where the focus may be. Besides, I always doubt claims that feature "magnetic" and "nano."

And, finally, there's the old saw about if it sounds too good to be true...

Given the probable effect on all life on this planet, we'll know this is a fraud if these guys aren't awarded the Nobel Prize before this stuff goes on the market.

ETA: Come to think of it, how come this news isn't on the front page of every major newspaper in the world? How come it's not even mentioned in the supermarket tabloids?
 
Beady said:
I have my (very strong) doubts. It appears that the first announcements are being made to the public, and not in a peer-reviewed journal. Isn't that supposed to be one of the earliest warning signs? I'm having a flashback to Pons and Fleischman. Also, there's a heavy element of commercial musings, which may be natural but still makes one wonder where the focus may be. Besides, I always doubt claims that feature "magnetic" and "nano."
Click to expand...
Well, it's being published as a letter in a journal run by Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nchembio800.html

I suffer from severe jargon overload when I try to read that first paragraph, but if it means what I think it means, they're talking about turning off a cellular error catching mechanism which will lead to less ageing but more cancer.:confused:

Beats me if it's legit or not.
 
BenK said:
Found this, the site appears to be dedcated to aging.
Click to expand...
This review of the study and the news report of it is pretty good. I would add that a lot of research is reported as breakthroughs and new discoveries by the news media. In reality much of this research represents scientific breakthroughs but not necessarily therapeutic breakthroughs. In other words they are nowhere near human trials with this science.

On the other hand, anti-aging research is moving full speed ahead. Depending on your age, you may indeed be alive to benefit from this research. I'm hoping I will be.

But don't count on the elimination of death to go hand in hand with anti-aging technologies. There is separate research for that depending on cause of death. Some diseases may improve with anti-aging technologies and some may increase in risk. Damage to one's body from smoking, alcohol, diet, not using seat belts and lack of smoke alarms are not likely to be reversed by anti-aging technology. We probably need brain transplants to cure those problems. ;)
 
It strikes me as a standard media hyping of a preliminary study.
 
Cancer

Jekyll said:
Well, it's being published as a letter in a journal run by Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nchembio800.html

I suffer from severe jargon overload when I try to read that first paragraph, but if it means what I think it means, they're talking about turning off a cellular error catching mechanism which will lead to less ageing but more cancer.:confused:

Beats me if it's legit or not.
Click to expand...


Cancer is pretty much when one of your cells refuses to die when it is supposed to.
 
Overman said:
Cancer is pretty much when one of your cells refuses to die when it is supposed to.
Click to expand...
It needs more than just not dying. It has divide, invade tissues, interfere with other body functions, steal nutrients from other tissues and so on. Even benign tumors if they don't press on vital structures and provided you can feed them, can grow and grow without killing the host.

So just having a cell not die isn't automatically a problem and it certainly isn't the definition of cancer.
 
Beady said:
I have my (very strong) doubts.
Click to expand...

What I meant is that the science is already there.

As to whether or not the guy did what he says, I have no clue. I wouldn't discount his claims on the basis of it being woo, though.
 
rocketdodger said:
What I meant is that the science is already there.

As to whether or not the guy did what he says, I have no clue. I wouldn't discount his claims on the basis of it being woo, though.
Click to expand...

You've pretty-much described cold fusion. Look up Pons & Fleischman; one of Bob Parks' books has an excellent account ("Borderlands of Science," I believe).
 
rocketdodger said:
But having a cell not die when it is supposed to IS pretty much the definition of cancer.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. The cell has to be dividing. And even then it isn't cancer unless it isn't supposed to be dividing.

You have neurons that live as long as you do and stem cells that produce blood and skin cells by dividing throughout your lifetime. You are focusing on the wrong thing that defines cancer.

Benign tumors grow when they shouldn't and even they are not cancer.

Malignant tumors GROW and INVADE. That is the definition of cancer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom