4 ms·

How is this irresponsible? It's her body. Yeeesh. She is brave to believe in her work. I don't think the article author is aware of how the cause of ulcers

How is this irresponsible? It's her body. Yeeesh. She is brave to believe in her work. I don't think the article author is aware of how the cause of ulcers was proved and shared the 2005 Nobel prize. http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-...

epistasis 11y ago
Some ways this is irresponsible, from the (much much better) Tech Review article: >Fossell, the anti-aging entrepreneur, says even if Parrish were to somehow succeed in slowing the aging of her body, an outcome he rated as unlikely, the experiment would have no impact because of how it was carried out. “The problem is that no one is going to believe them,” he says. “The credibility will be zero even if they are right on the money.” Also: > “We as a company have our own ethics,” she says, referring to what she calls the need for inexpensive gene therapy treatments. “I am certainly not going to ask someone’s permission to potentially create new industries and cures.” Anybody saying "we have our own ethics" is way way out there, it casts doubt on all of the rest of their endeavor.
- narrator 11y ago
  So if it works, only the people who have adopted Liz Parrish's ethics and those who do not live under the rule of those who refuse to accept her ethics will be able to live forever. That's because, in the ethics of Fossell, some truths are not ethical to believe in, no matter what the evidence. They become ethical to believe in once the proper authorities have determined those truths to be ethical.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Anybody saying "we have our own ethics" is way way out there, it casts doubt on all of the rest of their endeavor. Everybody has slightly different ethics. She's just pointing out that she views the advancement in this field and the millions of people it could give longer life to if it comes about sooner as more important than the arguments against a human trial, and to make sure someone isn't being taken advantage of, she's doing it on herself. I'm not sure how to fault that.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >Fossell, the anti-aging entrepreneur, says even if Parrish were to somehow succeed in slowing the aging of her body, an outcome he rated as unlikely, the experiment would have no impact because of how it was carried out That's not really true, is it? If she lives to 120, or she lives a normal life span with dramatically "younger" looks and energy, it will have a huge impact. Even if the treatment can't be replicated exactly they'll know where to start looking.
88e282102ae2e5b 11y ago
Her body is not the only thing that's affected. This kind of unscientific showmanship could make legitimate aging research look like a joke to the public, who can't tell the difference. It's hard enough to get funding already.
- anonmeow 11y ago
  If the PR is good this could create a positive public attitude towards life extension. You'd get more funding in the end.
etiam 11y ago
Helicobacter pylori was in many ways a well-understood entity just by virtue of being a bacterium, and was treatable with antibiotics. Meddling with growth factors and chromosome structure systemically is hardly going to be reversible in anywhere near as controlled a way, and could well end up hurting her (and others who may decide to follow the example), potentially hurting her in a life threatening way by inducing cancer. Then there's the abstract damage from reckless human experimentation on attitudes and community reactions. Early failures with gene therapy probably delayed the clinical use about a decade. We don't need more of that, and we don't need more excuses for people to dismiss life extension as a crackpot venture. I hope she turns out at least unharmed. Got to admit the case study could prove to be interesting.
tsotha 11y ago
Then there was this, guy, who may have set the the development of germ theory back by drinking cholera-laden water without getting cholera: http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/vonpettenkofer.html http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/vonpettenkofer.html

epistasis 11y ago

Some ways this is irresponsible, from the (much much better) Tech Review article: >Fossell, the anti-aging entrepreneur, says even if Parrish were to somehow succeed in slowing the aging of her body, an outcome he rated as unlikely, the experiment would have no impact because of how it was carried out. “The problem is that no one is going to believe them,” he says. “The credibility will be zero even if they are right on the money.” Also: > “We as a company have our own ethics,” she says, referring to what she calls the need for inexpensive gene therapy treatments. “I am certainly not going to ask someone’s permission to potentially create new industries and cures.” Anybody saying "we have our own ethics" is way way out there, it casts doubt on all of the rest of their endeavor.

narrator 11y ago
So if it works, only the people who have adopted Liz Parrish's ethics and those who do not live under the rule of those who refuse to accept her ethics will be able to live forever. That's because, in the ethics of Fossell, some truths are not ethical to believe in, no matter what the evidence. They become ethical to believe in once the proper authorities have determined those truths to be ethical.
kbenson 11y ago
> Anybody saying "we have our own ethics" is way way out there, it casts doubt on all of the rest of their endeavor. Everybody has slightly different ethics. She's just pointing out that she views the advancement in this field and the millions of people it could give longer life to if it comes about sooner as more important than the arguments against a human trial, and to make sure someone isn't being taken advantage of, she's doing it on herself. I'm not sure how to fault that.
tsotha 11y ago
>Fossell, the anti-aging entrepreneur, says even if Parrish were to somehow succeed in slowing the aging of her body, an outcome he rated as unlikely, the experiment would have no impact because of how it was carried out That's not really true, is it? If she lives to 120, or she lives a normal life span with dramatically "younger" looks and energy, it will have a huge impact. Even if the treatment can't be replicated exactly they'll know where to start looking.

88e282102ae2e5b 11y ago

Her body is not the only thing that's affected. This kind of unscientific showmanship could make legitimate aging research look like a joke to the public, who can't tell the difference. It's hard enough to get funding already.

anonmeow 11y ago
If the PR is good this could create a positive public attitude towards life extension. You'd get more funding in the end.

etiam 11y ago

Helicobacter pylori was in many ways a well-understood entity just by virtue of being a bacterium, and was treatable with antibiotics. Meddling with growth factors and chromosome structure systemically is hardly going to be reversible in anywhere near as controlled a way, and could well end up hurting her (and others who may decide to follow the example), potentially hurting her in a life threatening way by inducing cancer. Then there's the abstract damage from reckless human experimentation on attitudes and community reactions. Early failures with gene therapy probably delayed the clinical use about a decade. We don't need more of that, and we don't need more excuses for people to dismiss life extension as a crackpot venture. I hope she turns out at least unharmed. Got to admit the case study could prove to be interesting.

tsotha 11y ago

Then there was this, guy, who may have set the the development of germ theory back by drinking cholera-laden water without getting cholera: http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/vonpettenkofer.html http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/vonpettenkofer.html