I generally don't appreciate being sent into a rats nest of cross-linked pages. Fightaging.org is like an echo chamber of link bait. This is what you see again and again in communities like that of Autism/Vaccines, Lorenzo's Oil, SENS, and the like. All evidence is positive and no statement is falsifiable or at risk.
But I think I've found the paper that you're talking about:
Seralini's paper on GMOs is more convincing than this not-statistically-significant pos...paper. It provides no insights on how one could target delivery of the active compound into mitochondria. It offers no good evidence. It is also not clear that MitoSENS has any proof of its claims, either. Moving mito genes into germ line DNA has fizzled. Mito as a source of damage has no evidence. I'm not going to go into depth debunking MitoSENS here because I have done so elsewhere, and because I publish under a real name, I can be fact checked on that.
Show me papers, not links I have to filter through. Show me where [10-(6'-plastoquinonyl) decyltriphenylphosphonium] is proven to get into mitochondria in real cells, because I see claims, not evidence. It better not be http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/663.full.pdf, because that paper used isolated "mitochondria" (how they can do this and have them anywhere functioning like real cells is beyond me). Show me a single piece of in vitro literature that mentions an ion without its counterion, because counterions matter.
The supplementary materials are even more telling: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2009/12/18/0910216107.DCSupplemental/pnas.0910216107_SI.pdf here, they claim success with a molecular simulation that has very little correspondence to real world chemistry. And perhaps you can explain why
Carbonyl cyanide-p-trifluoromethoxyphenylhydrazone Is at all relevant to the paper?
The PNAS paper has a great quote:
We confirmed the data of Murphy and coworkers on the anti- oxidant activity of MitoQ but found that it turns to prooxidant one when the concentration was slightly increased (14) (see also refs. 15–17),
Herein lies the problem with all antioxidant studies. The belief that there exists a window, some critical exact value that lies on a tightrope of health surrounded by a sea of death, is not only scientifically suspicious and inconsistent with years of evidence that "the dose makes the poison" (to quote our nuts and berries ancestor, Paracelsus), but also clinically unachievable.
Show me a single scientific paper you have contributed to. Show me that you are actually doing DIYBio experiments. Because whether you are deluded enough or not to believe Reason is your real name, or went to the insane length of changing it legally, your so called "privacy" is a smokescreen, no one with common sense believes someone who says "I have all the facts, but they are private and I won't share, trust me". That's not in keeping with the ethos of DIYBio.
SENS has been debunked, in my opinion. Those who cling to it like a religion are spending more of their energy fooling themselves rather than making any attempt whatsoever to present these things in testable or falsifiable form.
Matt Harbowy -hbergeronx@gmail.com
Matt Harbowy -hbergeronx@gmail.com
650 243 8467 - @hbergeronx on Twitter
On 04/23/2014 04:44 PM, Matt Harbowy wrote:
Antioxidants. Targeted at mitochondria. Slowing aging. Really? I hope you've got a paper to back that claim up.
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/10/more-robust-data-on-the-effect-of-mitochondrially-targeted-antioxidants-on-fly-life-span.php
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/12/the-latest-mitochondrially-targeted-antioxidant-research.php
If you want to debate whether life span extension equates to slowing aging, sure. That debate is being had over rapamycin, so equally valid to have it for plastiquinone derivatives.
But again this is all irrelevant to meaningful life extension in humans. Though plastinquinones or SS-31 or some other mitochondrially targeted antioxidant could wind up to be a better therapy for some specific conditions than presently exist, such as some forms of deterioration in the eye.
That is quite a claim. So no-one in the aging research community can do any better than the nuts and berries folk? I think that really just shows that you're not reading widely enough in the field. What exactly is wrong with the compound SENS explanation for aging, for example? Please do critique in detail, but note that the roots of this do not originate with the SENS crowd, as it is a synthesis of the consensus mechanistic explanations for degeneration culled from across the breadth of the medical research community. By which I mean people who are earnestly trying to find the causes of - and cure - diseases such as macular degeneration, heart failure, and atherosclerosis with modern medicine, not by feeding patients different types of food.And I have yet to see a serious paper out of anyone showing that they understand aging any better than the "nuts and berries as medicine" crowd. The most recent I've seen suggested they slowed aging because they had reduced biomarkers of aging, not that they had a meaningful impact of actual lifespans.
Or for that matter, what exactly is wrong with this detailed set of SENS-like proposals for the causes of aging and how to address them published by a completely different group of noted researchers?
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/06/a-good-scientific-polemic-on-aging.php
Or for that matter once again, perhaps you could critique the new and detailed theories proposing aging as a genetic program that are emerging from the Russian research community and related scientific groups. I don't agree with them myself, but at least I've looked it over:
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/07/biochemistry-moscows-issue-on-programmed-aging.php
I'm also averse to people hiding behind a pseudonym meant to convey how much smarter or more logical they are.
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/05/on-the-topic-of-my-name.php
Reason
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/53583D53.3050206%40fightaging.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment