Are they refered to as such? If not then why?
The SENS 7
#1
Posted 30 August 2008 - 12:57 AM
Are they refered to as such? If not then why?
#2
Posted 30 August 2008 - 02:58 AM
Are they refered to as such? If not then why?
Because they represent an interpretation of the interventional commonalities shared by numerous diseases thought to contribute to aging. For example, with mitoSENS, there are a number of conditions that result in, as well as caused by mitochondrial dysfunction and molecular oxidative-damage induced morbidities.
#3
Posted 07 November 2008 - 11:11 PM
#4
Posted 19 October 2009 - 08:52 PM
#5
Posted 19 October 2009 - 10:04 PM
First try:
Glucosepane accumulation = glucosepanitis (ok, kind-of funny, but you get the point)
#6
Posted 20 October 2009 - 02:41 AM
This brings up an interesting point. Money goes to research diseases but not aging. Maybe we should come up with some new names for the SENS 7 damage. Names that imply that it is a disease condition. That way the NIH and FDA might eventually come to allow medications and therapies to treat them. Once upon a time becoming fragile was "just a part of getting old". Now brittle bones are a disease (osteoporosis) and garner a lot of research dollars. Losing muscle mass was once just a part of getting old, now it is called sacropenia and is a legitimate field of research with a lot of funding.
First try:
Glucosepane accumulation = glucosepanitis (ok, kind-of funny, but you get the point)
Good idea. We could start refering to lipofuscin as a disease, or maybe lipofuscinitis. We should be sure to get this included in a petition with CEL collaboration we may do, or if we dont then in our own petition. We can outline those examples some in our efforts to convince them too. We can show them that theres a trend of more and more things becoming realized as diseases.
#7
Posted 20 October 2009 - 04:23 AM
#8
Posted 20 October 2009 - 04:41 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users