2618 replies to this topic

[Kelvin]

"A hypothesis is a statement that explains what happens under certain conditions."
 
No it doesn't - that's ridiculous - if it did it wouldn't be an hypothesis. It is a educated guess at explaining. 
 
Here is the thing: an hypothesis is effectively a hybrid of fact and some exrapolated or appropriated theory - it will have justification in it's formation, it is made up of stuff. That is how Turnbuckle introduced his protocols.

 
 
I never said the statement in a hypothesis was true or false.  
 
I meant only that the statement is proposing something is true under certain conditions.
 

Now to suggest that once this hypothesis' first breath is drawn the only way to debunk it is through testing it, is crazy - because if the factual or theoretical assumptions underpinning its inception can be rendered doubtful or false, then the hypothesis must be reconstituted subject to those challenges.

 
So now you think it is "crazy" to test a scientific hypothesis with scientific tests (???) even though YOU put forward scientific studies on C60 use (without fusion) in an attempt to refute Turnbuckle???
 
If YOU think it is "crazy" to use scientific tests to test a hypothesis then WHY did YOU refer to studies of scientific tests on C60?
 
Which is it?
 

Edited by Kelvin, Yesterday, 07:47 PM.

[ambivalent]

The observation referenced to Turnbuckle's disclosure of some degree of accelerated aging was not during his c60 wilderness years, but rather when in the depths of his protocols - perhaps 3-4 years ago. I don't argue c60 was no longer doing it during those prior years, which is why interest dropped off on the forums, and I too believe it needs something in addition, again, I cite Turnbuckle as a real outlier, other's weren't getting his effects - many could have done with some additional head hair. 

 

I am not attempting to downplay the importance of epigentic age as a marker of aging - but I don't think its underhyped. It does seem, though, that the epigenitic age reversal is easily undone, and must be kept on top of. It is an important marker, but it is not signal of age reversal as we would like it to be - if I can get an epigentic age reversal of 20 years six months from now, I haven't banked 20 years of life extension, assuming I don't take a one-way ticket to the our reaches of our solar system. 

 

This though does kinda feel like what happened in Baati, and yes this was over an extended period of time, but the biological boon those rats received during the c60-based intervention appeared to have been more than banked.

 

So when Turnbuckle's friends disclosed, as he would have wished them to do, that he appeared to noticeably aged over a short period of time, it set the alarm bells ringing - and what it had showed is that there had not been some biological reset, otherwise there wouldn't have been rapid aging.

It may well be that forever while the epigentic age is say -20 years, there are rejuvenating effects, but it may be difficult to keep on top of it, for whatever reasons. Or perhaps it can be, but then aging finds another way. We don't have these answers, but we have to try - and keep revaluating, not get married to ideas.

 

But for those rats in Baati, it was no false dawn - whatever the entity that was that intervention in its entirety comprised of, it worked, and might have been made to work even better.    

Edited by ambivalent, Yesterday, 08:15 PM.

[ambivalent]

 

So now you think it is "crazy" to test a scientific hypothesis with scientific tests (???) even though YOU put forward scientific studies on C60 use (without fusion) in an attempt to refute Turnbuckle???
 

 

Read what I wrote:

 

"Now to suggest that once this hypothesis' first breath is drawn the only way to debunk it is through testing it, is crazy"

 

....with the emphasis on "only". 

 

If you formulate an hypothesis with an assumption or fact that can be proven to be false, then the hypothesis in its present form is discredited without ever being tested.

 

The only alternative is to reformulate the hypothesis - and test. 

 

Now if a direct irrefutable implication of this hypothesis of Turnbuckle, were say, that taking c60 without fusion leads to accelerated aging and shortened life, then the hypothesis is debunked, without needing to be directly tested - because said implication of that hypothesis has been tested, and found to be false (at least in mice, and very likely in humans). I don't believe this is the case, btw, but represents a significant challenge to that hypothesis. 

 

As I said, if there were no fusion in Baati, then Turnbuckle's hypothesis is undermined without being tested, because the hypothesis was based on an assumption of fusion in the study, that was false. 

 

As such Turnbuckle would need to find another explanation to drive the hypothesis or go in search of an alternative.

 

You could get lucky anyway, and whatever Turnbuckle did was beneficial - which should be of no surprise because it repleted stem cells stocks. But that doesn't make it Baati, and c60 could  synergise with this protocol while recreating the effects of that 2012 study - it is hardly some prosaic molecule, is it? 

Edited by ambivalent, Yesterday, 08:18 PM.

[Kelvin]

The observation referenced to Turnbuckle's disclosure of some degree of accelerated aging was not during his c60 wilderness years, but rather when in the depths of his protocols - perhaps 3-4 years ago. I don't argue c60 was no longer doing it during those prior years, which is why interest dropped off on the forums, and I too believe it needs something in addition, again, I cite Turnbuckle as a real outlier, other's weren't getting his effects - many could have done with some additional head hair. 

 

I am not attempting to downplay the importance of epigentic age as a marker of aging - but I don't think its underhyped. It does seem that, though, that the epigenitic age reversal is easily undone, and must be kept on top of. It is an important marker, but it is not signal of age reversal as we would like it to be - if I can get an epigentic age reversal of 20 years six months from now, I haven't banked 20 years of life extension, assuming I don't take a one-way ticket to the our reaches of our solar system. 

 

This though does kinda feel like what happened in Baati, and yes this was over an extended period of time, but the biological boon those rats received during the c60-based intervention appeared to have been more than banked.

 

So when Turnbuckle's friends disclosed, as he would have wished them to do, that he appeared to noticeably aged over a short period of time, it set the alarm bells ringing - and what it had showed is that there had not been some biological reset, otherwise there wouldn't have been rapid aging.

 

Turnbuckle temporarily lost the epigenetic age reversal when he used a telomerase lengthener which he surmised kept older cells alive and prevented stem cells from replacing them with younger cells that would have al lower epigenetic age.

 

When he dropped the telomerase extending supplement he regained his younger epigenetic results.

 

The fact a telomerase lengthener eliminated his epigenetic benefits, and dropping it restored them to younger levels, is another piece of evidence in favor of the idea the protocol replenishes stem cell niches.

 

Epigenetic age reversal can be lost, as Michael Lustgarten has noted here and at his website about his experiences with reversing biological age.

 

However, epigenetic is still a good predictor of biological age and, besides, the Baati study looked at actual lifespan.

Edited by Kelvin, Yesterday, 08:17 PM.

[Kelvin]

Read what I wrote:

 

"Now to suggest that once this hypothesis' first breath is drawn the only way to debunk it is through testing it, is crazy"

 

....with the emphasis on "only". 

 

If you formulate an hypothesis with an assumption or fact that can be proven to be false, then the hypothesis in its present form is discredited without ever being tested.

 

 

Name ONE scientific hypothesis in all of history that was proven true or false WITHOUT testing it.........

 

[ambivalent]

Turnbuckle temporarily lost the epigenetic age reversal when he used a telomerase lengthener which he surmised kept older cells alive and prevented stem cells from replacing them with younger cells that would have al lower epigenetic age.

 

When he dropped the telomerase extending supplement he regained his younger epigenetic results.

 

 

This was still earlier, within the protocol - because he believed it gave dying cells extra life. This was a different time to which I from memory cite - whatever the reason there will always be reasons. And it rather makes my point, Turnbuckle didn't age 20 years because his epigentic age did. I suspect epigentic age represents a biological state, rather than an aging one (which contributes to aging) - it is to volatile to represent biological age.

 

As for your point about discrediting an hypothesis without testing - if I believe I have designed a perpetual motion machine, but my hypothesis is based upon some assumption which conrtadicts a law of nature, then the machine h doesn't need to be built, for the hypothesis to be disproven, or discredited. The hypothesis that this machine will work, is based on a false assumption. And we should be interested in observations that discredit hypotheses.

 

It is not your decision to make - if there is evidence which contradicts the assumptions behind or the consequences of this or any other hypothesis, they have a right to be aired, and people can revaluate their choice based upon it. And any rationally minded person would want to know this.  

 

Turnbuckle, didn't just say "trust me do this" - he provided a basis for doing so, and as a result offers up a challenge. That challenge is ongoing as long as the thread is alive and people are interested.

 

This has become tedious, repetitive, and wasteful of (everyone's time) - and well off topic, as mentions of perpetual motion machines indicate, this is for another forum, start a thread on somewhere appropriate with "Hypothesis: All hypotheses need to be tested in order to be disproven (including this one)"

 

 

Edited by ambivalent, Yesterday, 08:53 PM.

[nadaepeu]

Dear Kelvin and ambivalent,

 

I think that your points are clear enough and we could let the debate rest a bit.

 

It would be much more useful if we could make other users of the protocol to post their results, especially long term users. I am one such user, of both the stem cell and mito protocol. However, I have never done any epigenetic age test so I think my response is going to be rather subjective.

 

Best

 

[ambivalent]

Nadaepeu,

 

You are right and I apologise, and will step back, as I have little further to add to this subject presently. I have undertaken these protocols at times and have experienced benefit. This protocol provided signficant benefit to my arthritic knee (along with NMN, and powerfully fiseting) and I particularly recall the remarkable energy when consu,ing stearic acid on the back of fission (though too much stearic acid can and did prove harmful). But please go ahead and summarise your experiences, along with others - that would be a good way to productively redirect the thread. 

[Kelvin]

Dear Kelvin and ambivalent,

 

I think that your points are clear enough and we could let the debate rest a bit.

 

It would be much more useful if we could make other users of the protocol to post their results, especially long term users. I am one such user, of both the stem cell and mito protocol. However, I have never done any epigenetic age test so I think my response is going to be rather subjective.

 

Best

 

Go ahead.

 

I haven't done epigenetic testing either.

Edited by Kelvin, Yesterday, 11:19 PM.