8 replies to this topic

[Alvin]

In 1975 I went to a meeting of the American Aging Association, which was held in New York City. The Head of the National Institutes of Health's, National Institute on Aging was speaking at the meeting. He said that the government did not want to increase the lifespan of the aged. I looked shocked by that statement. The NIA Director saw the expression on my face and yelled at me. He said that there was no proof that it could be done. But if it could be done do you know what that would do to the Social Security system?

 

At least at that time that increasing the life span of the aged was not their objective. The FDA won't approve a drug to increase the lifespan by interfering with the aging system. The drug must be shown to treat a disease. The above attitude is not acceptable to us. We must expose it.

Edited by Alvin, 26 March 2015 - 08:21 PM.

[Antonio2014]

He should have been fired, like this guy: http://www.theatlant...e-at-75/379329/Do they really know what does NIH stand for?

[mikey]

We live in only industrialized nation that has a profit-driven medical system. Until this changes we must think for ourselves.

 

And another thing, this country, in general, doesn't have reverence for elders, as they do in some other countries.

[niner]

And another thing, this country, in general, doesn't have reverence for elders, as they do in some other countries.

 

That's a good point.  I think that in order to change that, we'd have to get people to put a higher value on what was best for society, rather than what's best for them.  That's not "The American Way".  We are a very individualistic people.  When we get older, and are no longer attractive and fully functional, our individualism comes back to bite us in the butt.  Oh well.  It makes for a fun youth...   Maybe if we cure aging, then people will respect elders, because then they will still be attractive and fully functional, plus they will be more likely to have money, achievements, and standing in the community.

[corb]

We live in only industrialized nation that has a profit-driven medical system. Until this changes we must think for ourselves.

 

And another thing, this country, in general, doesn't have reverence for elders, as they do in some other countries.

 

There is little reverence for the old in most Western countries nowadays. I'm too young to try to unravel why that happened but I suspect it has a lot to do with all the pseudo revolutions that happened in the West - sexual revolution, second wave feminism and so on. The Old became the enemy because they were a symbol of the culture created by their forefathers.

 

As for the medical system, every medical system is profit driven, unless it's completely socialized at which point it becomes a quota based hell - the queues in front of doctors offices are a very real thing in Eastern Europe, It'd be much better for you Americans to realize what you have built is far from the worst healthcare system that can exist.

Edited by corb, 10 July 2015 - 03:02 PM.

[niner]

 It'd be much better for you Americans to realize what you have built is far from the worst healthcare system that can exist.

 

It's great healthcare if you have good insurance.  Possibly the best in the world, if you happen to have a great doctor.  The problem is that it's inefficient and shot full of bad incentives and it doesn't work particularly well for people who don't have a lot of money. 

[corb]

 

 It'd be much better for you Americans to realize what you have built is far from the worst healthcare system that can exist.

 

It's great healthcare if you have good insurance.  Possibly the best in the world, if you happen to have a great doctor.  The problem is that it's inefficient and shot full of bad incentives and it doesn't work particularly well for people who don't have a lot of money. 

 

 

It's a shame the economic situation around the world is creating greater income inequality in your country and making you doubt your healthcare. From what I've seen and heard about it, it works good enough at the moment.

 

The problem with socialized healthcare is, it needs to cater to the lowest common denominator and is dependent on taxes. And people don't like paying taxes so socializing is a good way to wreck a healthcare system in a democracy. It works ok in communism, but if the people can actually vote for (someone who will) lower taxes and they sure as hell can in the States it's just going to be a car crash in slow motion.

 

I think the way Obama added some sort of a middle ground for the poor is about as good as it's going to get. Pushing it more in either direction will just create problems in the future.
 

[YOLF]

The only problem with this is getting the life extension drug. Do we want our doctor deciding that we're too young to be healthier? "Oh you don't need that yet, you're not even 25..." We could probably already do alot to keep ourselves younger and thus longer lived with existing medical technologies, but it's not going to help if everyone has to get it on Rx. I'd rather any and life extension drugs be over the counter or walk-in $20 aging vaccines at your local pharmacy. Rejuvenation through the retail model will be faster and more productive IMO. Also cheaper and available more readily. Rx drugs that are decades old will still cost you on the order of $60-300/month or more simply because it's "medical."

[niner]

Well, even if I have to go through a doctor to get it, that's a hell of a lot better than the drug not even existing.  Getting the FDA to accept aging as a valid indication for a drug is important because given our current model of drug development, the promise of big money down the road from a patent-protected drug is what brings in the funds to develop it in the first place.  Even if you took the gigantic human trials out of the picture entirely, it would still cost a ton of money to develop a drug.  If you want a drug to be cheap as soon as it's developed, then you need to find a funding model that can pay for it.  If such a model meant that pharma execs didn't buy hundred thousand dollar wristwatches so they could feel more bad-ass than their golf buddy with a cheapo fifty thousand dollar wristwatch, that would probably be a win for society.