22 replies to this topic

[Mind]

To me, tracking the progress of the novel coronavirus has revealed more than a case of a deadly virus circling the globe. It reveals that we are at a precarious point history when it comes to our treatment of health and disease.

 

Two things that have contributed to the vast majority of the fatalities during the pandemic:

 

1. Modern medical technology/medications.

 

2. The modern diet and lifestyle.

 

With modern medical technology and medicines we are able to keep more people alive much longer than 100 years ago. Our collective compassion and technological prowess has allowed our species to beat "natural" selection. It is a great thing, but the novel coronavirus has revealed some vulnerabilities.

 

The vast majority of fatalities in the coronavirus epidemic are elderly. Immune-modulating therapies that might work in younger subjects are not likely going to be very effective in elderly patients - vaccines included.

 

Another significant source of coronavirus fatalities are among people with "underlying health conditions". Diabetes (type 2), heart disease, Alzheimer's, cancer, and many other age-related conditions are highly correlated with poor diets and sedentary lifestyles (but not all, of course, some afflictions are more random or genetic). Those issues cannot be fixed in a short-enough time period to make potential coronavirus therapies more effective.

 

The current system works good for keeping people alive. Technology and medications are able to manage age-related disease to a significant degree. However, a new more deadly virus has revealed the limits of this system (IMO), particularly in Italy. When the healthcare industry becomes burdened and non-functional (due to an external crisis), a lot of the people who were previously well-cared for, are more like to quickly become victims of the deadly disease or of their age-related diseases.

 

To me, this pandemic reveals why we need true rejuvenation therapies. The "sick-care" industry, as many people call it, only "papers-over" disease issues. Our current technology doesn't get to the root causes. This needs to change.

 

A similar discussion here.

 

Do you think more people will focus on health and rejuvenation after the pandemic?

[Daniel Cooper]

Maybe modern lifestyle has contributed.  But, modern medicine has also given us a higher percentage of elderly in our population than say 100 years ago.  That segment will be more sickly with more preexisting conditions by fact of their age.  So it's just not modern lifestyle and diet.

 

Let's not forget, a little over 100 years ago we had a pandemic with broadly similar communicability and mortality that killed 675,000 people in the US on a population about one third of today.  It seems unlikely at this point we'll challenge those number (thank goodness).  So maybe modern medicine isn't so bad.

 

The truly sad thing is we have broad based anti-viral therapies that have not been adequately pursued - DRACO for instance.  Modern medicine does have a solution to this but it has sat on a shelf.

 

 

 

 

[Dorian Grey]

My experience working in healthcare has taught me sometimes what you do not do can be as important as what you do.  Polypharmacy has become so widespread in America it is spilling down into childhood.  The National Center for Health Statistics reports that 7.5 percent of U.S. children between ages 6 and 17 were taking medication for “emotional or behavioral difficulties” in 2011-2012 (wonder what that stat is today) and David Healy, professor of psychiatry at Bangor University claims 20%-25% of students at most universities in the US are on medication, often multiple prescriptions.  Primary side effects of antidepressants are "weight gain & sexual dysfunction" (how depressing!).  

 

It only gets worse in middle age.  On average, 45-year-olds take four different prescription drugs.  30 to 40 percent of elderly patients take five or more, with 57% having contraindicated drug combinations.  

 

Pharmageddon: A dystopian scenario wherein medicine and the pharmaceuticals industry have a net detrimental effect on human health and medical progress does more harm than good.

 

The obesity epidemic has become simply astonishing.  The doctor prescribed "fear of dietary fat" over the last half century has had everyone running to sugar for satisfaction, with disastrous result.  Whenever this subject comes up, I always like to point out William Banting's 1863 "Letter on Corpulence" where he very colorfully shouts from the rooftops his doctor's prescription simply to "limit carbohydrates" had cured his chronic obesity.  It's actually a very entertaining read, even if you're not trying to lose weight.  

 

"Of all the parasites that affect humanity I do not know of, nor can I imagine any more distressing than that of Obesity, and having just emerged from a very long probation in this affliction, I am desirous of circulating my humble knowledge and experience for the benefit of my fellow man, with an earnest hope it may lead to the same comfort and happiness I now feel under the extraordinary change—which might almost be termed miraculous had it not been accomplished by the most simple common sense means."   Read on Here: 

 

https://www.gutenber...5-h/57545-h.htm

 

Limit prescriptions, limit carbs; add even a modest amount of moderate exercise & hey, this healthy living is easy!  

 

I've actually not been all that health conscious throughout most of my life.  Fond of beer when I was young, fond of wine now (in moderation of course!).  Never really cared for sweets though and my mother started me on supplements at a young age.  I learned to swallow a small hand full of pills in grade school and have continued to do so all my life.  At 64, I have no chronic disease, take no daily meds and have kept my weight under 200 lbs (6 ft tall).  

 

Working in healthcare all my life, I'd just shake my head at all the sickness & disease in the world.  How the heck did these folks ever get this way!  They sad God looks after children, drunks & fools, and I've been all three at one time or another.  Perhaps he's just been looking after me?   

Edited by Dorian Grey, 26 March 2020 - 07:24 PM.

[Mind]

Maybe modern lifestyle has contributed.  But, modern medicine has also given us a higher percentage of elderly in our population than say 100 years ago.  That segment will be more sickly with more preexisting conditions by fact of their age.  So it's just not modern lifestyle and diet.

 

Let's not forget, a little over 100 years ago we had a pandemic with broadly similar communicability and mortality that killed 675,000 people in the US on a population about one third of today.  It seems unlikely at this point we'll challenge those number (thank goodness).  So maybe modern medicine isn't so bad.

 

The truly sad thing is we have broad based anti-viral therapies that have not been adequately pursued - DRACO for instance.  Modern medicine does have a solution to this but it has sat on a shelf.

 

Yes, true. Modern medicine has worked wonders in keeping many people alive....hopefully long enough to benefit from rejuvenation therapies.

 

However, I think what we are seeing right now is a vulnerability. A more deadly virus has revealed that people with poor, old, and disregulated immune systems cannot be helped very effectively with our current "tools".

 

I am still optimistic that rapid innovation and testing will end this pandemic quicker than most think.

[Daniel Cooper]

I am still optimistic that rapid innovation and testing will end this pandemic quicker than most think.

 

It will if someone lights a fire under the medical establishment bureaucracy.

 

I think it will happen.  If not for the lives for all the dollars that hinge on how quickly this is ended.

[drgs]

If you think of the humanity as a whole organism, and old people as senescent cells, then the corona virus is senolytic

 

Sorry for the morbid comparison, but it is inevitable -- we have to sacrifice the aged

 

Let the tempest come strike harder

[Daniel Cooper]

If you think of the humanity as a whole organism, and old people as senescent cells, then the corona virus is senolytic

 

Sorry for the morbid comparison, but it is inevitable -- we have to sacrifice the aged

 

Let the tempest come strike harder

 

With all due respect, your statement is contemptible.  That's a very easy statement to make when you feel secure that the hatchet isn't falling on your neck.

 

You're on a site dedicated to longevity. Has it occurred to you that "sacrificing the aged" isn't exactly compatible with the mission of this site?

 

I'm not in favor of sacrificing anyone.  We're looking for solutions, not deciding who we let die.

 

We're self aware sentient beings, not mindless cells. Your analogy is completely specious.

[drgs]

With all due respect, your statement is contemptible.  That's a very easy statement to make when you feel secure that the hatchet isn't falling on your neck.

 

You're on a site dedicated to longevity. Has it occurred to you that "sacrificing the aged" isn't exactly compatible with the mission of this site?

 

I'm not in favor of sacrificing anyone.  We're looking for solutions, not deciding who we let die.

 

We're self aware sentient beings, not mindless cells. Your analogy is completely specious.

 

Nothing is more contemptible than longevity for the sole sake staying alive.

I am only interested in longevity if it defies aging, ie. being a productive and useful human being till you die.

 

We are all inherently born with a self-preservation instinct and have a certain excuse to be selfish, but imagine a society where the problem of longevity has been solved, and where 60% of the population are passive, immobile, senile 70-120+ year olds. They all want to weed out the senescent cells in their bodies, but none of them wants to compare themselves to those senescent cells.

 

Anyway, in this situation its not out decision and whether we agree or not does not matter.

Kill them all

[Daniel Cooper]

Nothing is more contemptible than longevity for the sole sake staying alive.
I am only interested in longevity if it defies aging, ie. being a productive and useful human being till you die.

We are all inherently born with a self-preservation instinct and have a certain excuse to be selfish, but imagine a society where the problem of longevity has been solved, and where 60% of the population are passive, immobile, senile 70-120+ year olds. They all want to weed out the senescent cells in their bodies, but none of them wants to compare themselves to those senescent cells.

Anyway, in this situation its not out decision and whether we agree or not does not matter.
Kill them all

You're a peach.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 27 March 2020 - 11:23 AM.

[soulprogrammer]

Maybe modern lifestyle has contributed.  But, modern medicine has also given us a higher percentage of elderly in our population than say 100 years ago.  That segment will be more sickly with more preexisting conditions by fact of their age.  So it's just not modern lifestyle and diet.

 

Let's not forget, a little over 100 years ago we had a pandemic with broadly similar communicability and mortality that killed 675,000 people in the US on a population about one third of today.  It seems unlikely at this point we'll challenge those number (thank goodness).  So maybe modern medicine isn't so bad.

 

The truly sad thing is we have broad based anti-viral therapies that have not been adequately pursued - DRACO for instance.  Modern medicine does have a solution to this but it has sat on a shelf.

 

Yes, DRACO is the solution for all virus related disease yet it was not funded. But I am curious why Dr. Todd Rider does not do a fundraising now? 

 

If he would do a fundraising now, he can easily raise millions!

[xEva]

I think drgs makes an important point. And others are overreacting to the age angle based entirely on the number. But drgs speaks of quality and dignity of human life.

 

In the west it is a taboo to discuss death and suggest that death with dignity is the ultimate right a person has.  In the other thread I raised the point that there is a substantial number of old people who are burdened by their state of health and very limited ability to function. They are "self aware sentient beings, not mindless cells" to quote Daniel above. They long to get it over with and die already but cannot even discuss this with their family (because their children find it upsetting). So they talk about such matters only with their closest friends in the same age group.

 

I invite all the red-button-pushers above, who seem also upset by this, to read the discussions after an in depth article on Alzheimer's somewhere in nytimes or the wapo. You will see that the vast majority of participants are the caregivers to such patients. Many anticipate the same fate and insist that, when their time comes, they are determined to exit with dignity, while they still can, and exchange info on the best ways to do it and where and how to procure the necessary stuff. The quote that keeps being reiterated in various forms is, 'we would not treat a dog this way'.

 

Life, specifically human life, should not be a sentence to a monotonous, painful existence. It's far worse when the person is no longer a person, for he does not know where he nor who he is and does not recognize his family. That's is a terrible disgrace and, imo, a crime against human dignity. That's why I say this virus is a godsend.  

Edited by xEva, 27 March 2020 - 03:04 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I think drgs makes an important point. And others are overreacting to the age angle based entirely on the number. But drgs speaks of quality and dignity of human life.

 

In the west it is a taboo to discuss death and suggest that death with dignity is the ultimate right a person has.  In the other thread I raised the point that there is a substantial number of old people who are burdened by their state of health and very limited ability to function. They are "self aware sentient beings, not mindless cells" to quote Daniel above. They long to get it over with and die already but cannot even discuss this with their family (because their children find it upsetting). So they talk about such matters only with their closest friends in the same age group.

 

I invite all the red-button-pushers above, who seem also upset by this, to read the discussions after an in depth article on Alzheimer's somewhere in nytimes or the wapo. You will see that the vast majority of participants are the caregivers to such patients. Many anticipate the same fate and insist that, when their time comes, they are determined to exit with dignity, while they still can, and exchange info on the best ways to do it and where and how to procure the necessary stuff. The quote that keeps being reiterated in various forms is, 'we would not treat a dog this way'.

 

Life, specifically human life, should not be a sentence to a monotonous, painful existence. It's far worse when the person is no longer a person, for he does not know where he nor who he is and does not recognize his family. That's is a terrible disgrace and, imo, a crime against human dignity. That's why I say this virus is a godsend.  

 

I think that's an odd sentiment on a site dedicated to not just longevity, but to living a long and healthy life.  Nobody here wants to sentence the aged "to a monotonous, painful existence".  As I said, we're dedicated to living longer and healthier.  You'll find many discussions about increasing "healthspan" as opposed to "lifespan".  And keep in mind, covid-19 isn't just killing old people in nursing homes that don't know who they are, it's killing 70 year olds that play with their grandchildren and great grandchildren who are living fulfilling lives albeit with the normal infirmities of aging. You can actually live a decent life with high blood pressure and diabetes and if you asked these people most are not ready to "die with dignity", at least not yet.

 

And there's no taboo around here about this subject. We talk about life, death, and health here all the time.  I know it's trendy to talk about the "taboo to discuss death" but aside from individual people being reluctant to discuss it out of fear, if you'll look around there are all sorts of discussions on the topic going on, even in the popular culture.

 

My problem is the idea that old people have some sort of duty to die, or that society owes them nothing in terms of care.  Let me quote from drgs's post:

 

Sorry for the morbid comparison, but it is inevitable -- we have to sacrifice the aged

Let the tempest come strike harder

 

He's not talking about "death with dignity", he's explicitly saying that the old must be sacrificed. That's a bit different than "allowing someone to die with dignity", don't you agree?  Then to put a flourish on it, he says "Let the tempest come strike harder", in other words he welcomes the current situation because it will remove those pesky senescent cells, i.e. the elderly.  

 

In his next message, lest you are unclear on what he means, he says "Kill them all".  This has nothing to do with death with dignity, and everything to do with eliminating people he finds inconvenient.  

 

As I said, I find the whole sentiment utterly contemptible. I really hope that you will re-read what he actually said and find yourself not agreeing with it.

[xEva]

I agree that the choice of words could be better. But hey it's just a hurried post. In the other thread I too wrote about the US society that it is "rotten to the core", but I meant the system, not the people. Actually, I find Americans, as a group, more compassionate and generous than Europeans and explain it by a higher degree of devotion among them (regardless of what religion). 

[Robert Magnuson]

Please see this petition at Change.org

 

http://chng.it/nBGJZxYQHx

 

Title: China is Resolving Coronavirus with Vitamin C Injections. Demand the Same for the USA! 

[Daniel Cooper]

 

Please see this petition at Change.org

 

http://chng.it/nBGJZxYQHx

 

Title: China is Resolving Coronavirus with Vitamin C Injections. Demand the Same for the USA! 

 

 

 

We don't know what China is or isn't doing.  Can we believe the numbers they are reporting?  They seem unlikely to me and China does have a reputation for lacking transparency.  

 

Keep in mind, people were traveling unrestricted in and out of Wuhan for a couple of months before the Chinese realized what was going on and controls were clamped down.  It seems unlikely that locking down a few provinces would halt this virus given that it had likely spread well outside of the provinces they quarantined. 

 

I have friends that are Chinese nationals that are permanent US residents/naturalized citizens and they tell me "Don't believe a word from the Chinese government".  They are talking with relatives back in China and they don't believe the information coming out of the government.

 

Now, none of this is anything that can be backed up or refuted by any published studies.  This is all opinion and could be dead wrong.  But I think it would be prudent to exercise caution in taking information released by the Chinese government at face value.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 30 March 2020 - 01:56 PM.

[Robert Magnuson]

"We don't know what China is are isn't doing. Can we believe the numbers they are reporting?  They seem unlikely to me and China doesn't has a reputation for lacking transparency.  

 

Keep in mind, people were traveling unrestricted in and out of Wuhan for a couple of months before the Chinese realized what was going on and controls were clamped down.  It seems unlikely that locking down a few provinces would halt this virus given that it had likely spread well outside of the provinces they quarantined. 

 

I have friends that are Chinese nationals that are permanent US residents/naturalized citizens and they tell me "Don't believe a word from the Chinese government".  They are talking with relatives back in China and they don't believe the information coming out of the government.

 

Now, none of this is anything that can be backed up or refuted by any published studies.  This is all opinion and could be dead wrong.  But I think it would be prudent to exercise caution in taking information released by the Chinese government at face value."

 

My Reply: If you read said petition, you will see that some doctors in New York are providing high dose Vitamin C injections to covid-19 patients, and they are having good success. When you say, "Now, none of this is anything that can be backed up or refuted by any published studies" consider the myriad studies on Pub Med. Also consider the decades of work by Dr. Thomas Levy, MD (see his videos on YouTube), an expert on Vitamin C, and many others he cites.

 

The problem is that too few patients are receiving Vitamin C injections. Again, I will refer you to some basic information:

 

ABC News Prime (covid-19)::

Title:  IV of Vitamin C could be a game-changer against coronavirus, Scottsdale doctor says:

 

See more articles showing success with high dose IV Vitamin C in the petition at Change.org

 

http://chng.it/nBGJZxYQHx

 

I hope that people in this forum will sign this petition; lives will be saved by those fortunate enough to receive high dose Vitamin C injections. The idea is to do what we can to raise awareness and help people. 

  

 

[Engadin]

.

 

 

 

Fatal toxicity of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with metformin in mice

 

 

Abstract

 

Guided by the principle of primum non nocere (first do no harm), we report a cautionary note on the potential fatal toxicity of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in combination with anti-diabetic drug metformin. We observed that the combination of CQ or HCQ and metformin, which were used in our studies as potential anti-cancer drugs, killed 30-40% of mice. While our observations in mice may not translate to toxicity in humans, the reports that CQ or HCQ has anti-COVID-19 activity, the use of CQ resulting in toxicity and at least one death, and the recent Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for CQ and HCQ by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prompted our report. Here we report the lethality of CQ or HCQ in combination with metformin as a warning of its potential serious clinical toxicity. We hope that our report will be helpful to stimulate pharmacovigilance and monitoring of adverse drug reactions with the use of CQ or HCQ, particularly in combination with metformin.

 

 

 

 

.../...

 

 

 

 

S O U R C E :   bioRXiv

 

 

 

 

.

[xEva]

 

.

 

 

 

Fatal toxicity of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with metformin in mice

 

 

Abstract

 

Guided by the principle of primum non nocere (first do no harm), we report a cautionary note on the potential fatal toxicity of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in combination with anti-diabetic drug metformin. We observed that the combination of CQ or HCQ and metformin, which were used in our studies as potential anti-cancer drugs, killed 30-40% of mice. While our observations in mice may not translate to toxicity in humans, the reports that CQ or HCQ has anti-COVID-19 activity, the use of CQ resulting in toxicity and at least one death, and the recent Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for CQ and HCQ by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prompted our report. Here we report the lethality of CQ or HCQ in combination with metformin as a warning of its potential serious clinical toxicity. We hope that our report will be helpful to stimulate pharmacovigilance and monitoring of adverse drug reactions with the use of CQ or HCQ, particularly in combination with metformin.

 

 

 

 

.../...

 

 

 

 

S O U R C E :   bioRXiv

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

https://www.biorxiv....8556v1.full.pdf

 

Methods. Animal experiments were conducted following approval by the Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines of the Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD). Tumor bearing or non-tumor bearing immunocompromised mice were injected with 100 μL of saline vehicle, chloroquine (CQ, 60 mg/kg), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, 60 mg/kg) and/or metformin (250mg/kg) once daily intraperitoneally daily for 4 weeks as described [2 3]. A combination of CQ and metformin in the above-mentioned dose and frequency was administered to animals in the combination treatment group. In a separate study, non-tumor bearing immunocompromised and immunocompetent mice were treated with HCQ and metformin once daily in the above-mentioned dose for 38 days. Blood was drawn for chemistry and hematology via cardiac puncture, and o rgans   and tissues were harvested, examined and processed for transmission electron microscopy as described [3].

 

 

[Mind]

Aerobic exercise protects against COVID-19.

 

This of course fits nicely with the data showing that the people most susceptible to COVID-19 (by a large margin) are obese or elderly.

 

Getting exercise improves the immune system. Losing excess weight improves the immune system.

 

Treatments that might rescue the small percentage of younger healthier people who suffer severe COVID-19 symptoms, will most likely be less effective in the obese and elderly.

[Hip]

If you think of the humanity as a whole organism, and old people as senescent cells, then the corona virus is senolytic

 

Sorry for the morbid comparison, but it is inevitable -- we have to sacrifice the aged

 

Ever been tested for psychopathy personality traits? There is a free online test here.

[ymc]

Well, the truth is that there remains still a lot of unknowns in the medical field.

 

For example, hypertension is the number one underlying condition of coronavirus deaths (70%).

 

Yet 80% of hypertension are idiopathic (ie no causes are found).

 

Therefore, the current anti-hypertensive drugs are treating the symptoms but not the disease.

 

As a result, people treated with anti-hypertensive drugs are still counted as hypertensive when they die from coronavirus at a normal blood pressure.

 

[Mind]

A couple more months have passed and the COVID data remains the same. Those in ill-health, obese, and the frail elderly are still the VAST majority of deaths in this pandemic.

 

A vaccine is likely to only be marginally effective in this cohort of people.

 

Except for the stem cell treatments (100% successful so far in 21 patients), I doubt there is anything out there that is "powerful" enough to provide a significant benefit to the most vulnerable cohort. Hydroxychloroquine + antibiotic + basic essential nutrients, seems like the best bet for the money invested.

 

Many people like myself have said, let's get the economy, freedom, and technological progress rolling again by "protecting the vulnerable" while allowing healthy "younger" people get back to work and study.

 

The problem is - the vulnerable cohort is a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE. Our (very expensive) sick-care industry has done a fabulous job keeping a lot of people going well past their natural expiration date. The novel coronavirus has revealed the problem with the current sick-care industry.

 

If I was a policy-maker, I would engage in a vigorous program of getting people healthier through diet, exercise, essential nutrient supplementation, etc... I would also fund more rejuvenation programs/research. Then I remember, I am in the extreme minority in this opinion. It is very saddening to see a push for more "sick-care" (very expensive pharma drugs with significant side-effects - remdesivir), as a solution to the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Oakman]

It's getting easier to see the scope of the problem with healthcare in general, and the US's healthcare industry as time goes by.

 

Hospitals are complaining about going bankrupt because they can not do their 'lucrative' elective care, surgeries and other non critical procedures. 

 

The so called, "healthcare industry" is like a car repair shop. They love customers coming in with old cars, cars that have been not maintained, or just driven into the ground. They offer a multitude of piecemeal options to 'symptomatically' solve the customer's problem, for a significant price. If you ask them to solve the problem, help to keep you healthy in the 1st place, so you don't show up as a walking (or limping) disaster, they throw up their hands, either because they don't want to discuss with you the REAL reasons you are the way you are (heaven forbid) or because the system (FDA & AMA) prevents them doing things that are not preordained in their 'rule book' of symptomatic treatments.