3 ms·

Haha it's really a marketing tool for bespoke medicine. Not really that useful in that field but people like it.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Not really that useful in that field Source? Because I know people working on it as a target measure at a national lab in India as well as at Pfizer (in America) and Novartis (in Switzerland).
- renewiltord 3y ago
  If they think so, and I don't, then we just disagree on this and history will see who is right.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > then we just disagree on this and history will see who is right That’s not how science works. Epigenetic age prediction is an area of active research for general diagnostic and treatment vectors [1]. There are peer-reviewed studies on the stuff. You claimed “really a marketing tool for bespoke medicine”. That appears to be false. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34415665/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34415665/
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      All right. Use it as a health target for yourself. It's no skin off my back.
- nradov 3y ago
  Here's one source. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001 Epigenetic alterations such as DNA methylation are only one hallmark of aging, and not the most useful one in most cases. Interventions to reduce those epigenetic alternations have generally not proven effective in extending lifespans or improving health outcomes.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Epigenetic alterations such as DNA methylation are only one hallmark of aging, and not the most useful one in most cases. Interventions to reduce those epigenetic alternations have generally not proven effective in extending lifespans or improving health outcomes Thank you. And I totally agree. It reminds me of telomere craze in the early noughties. It not being a panacea, however, is different from it being useless. Marking it as pure marketing makes it sound like it's cosmetics. It's not. The first research on chronological age prediction dates from 2011; we're still in the basic research phase. (Which the article mentioned is. It's not marketing any treatment.) To the degree it's being turned into a scam it's in supplements, not bespoke medicine.
- dahinds 3y ago
  That doesn't really contradict the post you're responding to, does it? (they say it is not that useful for bespoke medicine, you say that people are using it for research purposes, both can be true?)
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > they say it is not that useful for bespoke medicine, you say that people are using it for research purposes, both can be true? They said it is “really a marketing for bespoke medicine.” That implies only (or mostly) useful to bespoke medicine as a marketing tool. Demonstrating any significant other utility falsifies that statement.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Still both can be true. I'd say it's even a common thing in medicine. Researchers may be researching something real with well-defined range of effect/application, meanwhile many a scoundrel will pick up the same term to market their bullshit treatments or lifestyle advice, and when interrogated, they'll actually point at some of the published studies of the real thing, hoping people won't understand the difference.

> Not really that useful in that field Source? Because I know people working on it as a target measure at a national lab in India as well as at Pfizer (in America) and Novartis (in Switzerland).

renewiltord 3y ago
If they think so, and I don't, then we just disagree on this and history will see who is right.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > then we just disagree on this and history will see who is right That’s not how science works. Epigenetic age prediction is an area of active research for general diagnostic and treatment vectors [1]. There are peer-reviewed studies on the stuff. You claimed “really a marketing tool for bespoke medicine”. That appears to be false. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34415665/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34415665/
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    All right. Use it as a health target for yourself. It's no skin off my back.
nradov 3y ago
Here's one source. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001 Epigenetic alterations such as DNA methylation are only one hallmark of aging, and not the most useful one in most cases. Interventions to reduce those epigenetic alternations have generally not proven effective in extending lifespans or improving health outcomes.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Epigenetic alterations such as DNA methylation are only one hallmark of aging, and not the most useful one in most cases. Interventions to reduce those epigenetic alternations have generally not proven effective in extending lifespans or improving health outcomes Thank you. And I totally agree. It reminds me of telomere craze in the early noughties. It not being a panacea, however, is different from it being useless. Marking it as pure marketing makes it sound like it's cosmetics. It's not. The first research on chronological age prediction dates from 2011; we're still in the basic research phase. (Which the article mentioned is. It's not marketing any treatment.) To the degree it's being turned into a scam it's in supplements, not bespoke medicine.
dahinds 3y ago
That doesn't really contradict the post you're responding to, does it? (they say it is not that useful for bespoke medicine, you say that people are using it for research purposes, both can be true?)
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > they say it is not that useful for bespoke medicine, you say that people are using it for research purposes, both can be true? They said it is “really a marketing for bespoke medicine.” That implies only (or mostly) useful to bespoke medicine as a marketing tool. Demonstrating any significant other utility falsifies that statement.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Still both can be true. I'd say it's even a common thing in medicine. Researchers may be researching something real with well-defined range of effect/application, meanwhile many a scoundrel will pick up the same term to market their bullshit treatments or lifestyle advice, and when interrogated, they'll actually point at some of the published studies of the real thing, hoping people won't understand the difference.