cron-web.org

[MR]

Subject:
Re: Tokyo weighs in on common deletion in the heart; The end of de Grey?

CRON4healthyfuture wrote:

> > Here it is, an abstract from February 2003, and we are still awaiting
> > experimental confirmation of de Grey's hypothesis from 1996.

As I just noted, MiFRA has predicted several experimental findings in
the last few years; and, of course, the theory itself is based on
extensive (and otherwise apparently inexplicable) experimental findings.

> > Let's take a look at what these researchers said.

Ok, let's.

> > ----------------------------
> >
> > "The common 4977-bp deletion was detected in 156 cases (95.7%), showing no
> > significant difference among these age groups and no relation to CV
> > diseases."
> >
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > To paraphrase the imminent scholar Ray Stevens, "It's everywhere, It's
> > everywhere!"

Umm, WHAT is?

> > -----------------------------
> >
> > "By long-PCR, multiple deletions in cardiac mtDNA were found in 33 (20.2%)
> > of 163 cases. The proportion of the mtDNA deletion in the nineties (46.2%)
> > was significantly higher than those in the younger (15.3%, p < 0.05)."
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Wow, more deletions with age. Should I call Reuters, or just go straight
> > to the Associated Press?

Ie, no news here: they confirm a widely-known finding. What is the exact
target of the above attempt at sarcasm?

> > -----------------------------
> >
> > "Female predominance was significantly found in the group with the mtDNA
> > deletion (p < 0.05). Multiple deletions of mtDNA were not significantly
> > related to ischemic change, valvular diseases, left ventricular
> > hypertrophy, congestive heart failure, coronary sclerosis, or heart weight
> > except for right ventricular hypertrophy."
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > "CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there is a close relationship
> > between aging and deletion of mtDNA, and that the ratio of deleted mtDNA to
> > total mtDNA increases with advancing age. Age-related deletion of mtDNA may
> > have little influence on CV diseases except for right ventricular
> > hypertrophy."
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Again, I ask, what is the common deletion doing that is so bad? If you
> > think everyone dies of right ventricular hypertrophy, then "beam me up".

CRON4healthyfuture, surely you must understand that MiFRA is a theory of aging, not
a theory of the aetiology of any particular disease. There's no reason
to predict that the 'common deletion' will be associated with any
particular age-related pathology or death-certificate cause of death.

Perhaps if you spent less time erecting straw men, you'd have some time
to read the book whose theory you transparently don't understand yet
continue to insist is mistaken.

> > Sapient Wannabe wrote:
>> > > Also, I can't resist adding a comment about your attitude about de
>> > >Grey. You've developed a credibility issue here, and I think the
>> > >intellectually honest thing for you to do at this point is to go read
>> > >the book **exactly because you disagree with it**. Seeking information
>> > >that supports your conclusions is easy and tempting; seeking
>> > >information that refutes them is what leads to progress in science.
> >
> > Exactly. You see, on this list, the "orthodoxy" has been de Grey for a
> > long time.

What are you talking about, CRON4healthyfuture? AFAIK, only 2 active participants
on the List have even read de Grey (Dean and I), and the subject rarely
comes up, except when you are (in complete ignorance, and with a
remarkable number of bad guesses) claiming to refute it.

> > I see weak spots in this theory base,

Since you transparently don't understand the theory (which is hardly
unexpected, as you've never read his book) and haven't even looked at
the data on which it is based, you are in no position to see weak spots
in the theory's base.
>> > >
>> > > If you can do the latter, and *especially* if you find and admit that
>> > >you're wrong(*), you'll establish credibility and the community will be
>> > >a better place for your contributions.
>> > >
>> > >(*) I have no opinion on that, as I haven't read the book either.
> >
> > Heh, only time will indicate who is wrong. But I will say this, I do not
> > know which iteration of de Grey's theory is currently the "right one",

MiFRA came together with the Reductive Hotspot Hypothesis in ; it has
not materially changed since. It wouldn't matter, of course: you haven't
familiarized yourself with the theory at any stage in its development,
but are quite happy to misrepresent it, pontificate on its inaccuracy,
and interpret the data in relation to the straw men upon whose chests
you keep sticking "Hi! My name is Aubrey!" nametags.

> > but
> > the one detailed in that book, as de Grey conceptualizes it, is
> > basically "already" wrong, if you interpret recent experimental findings in
> > an objective sense.

Ie, a sense which involves replacing MiFRA with whatever fantasy you may
choose to weave.

-MR

> > =-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=
> >
> > Aging Clin Exp Res. 2003 Feb;15(1):1-5.
> > Age-related mitochondrial DNA deletion in human heart: its relationship
> > with cardiovascular diseases.
> > Arai T, Nakahara K, Matsuoka H, Sawabe M, Chida K, Matsushita S, Takubo K,
> > Honma N, Nakamura K, Izumiyama N, Esaki Y.
> > PMID: 12841411 [PubMed - in process]

[MR]

"CRON4healthyfuture " wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 Anotehr CRONie wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Since MR is waiting apparently for you to read the book by de
> > grey,
> >
> > Heh, he can keep on waitin'. ;p

In the interim, it'd sure be nice if you'd stop pretending to understand
its contents and to thus be in any way qualified to comment thereon.

>> > >I will say a few words. These results seem to be quite consistent with
>> > >those of PMID: 12781642 [PubMed - in process], which found a large role for
>> > >the common deletion of mitochondrial DNA in cancer. The hypertrophy in the
>> > >heart is consistent with a cancer-like phenotype, I would suggest. And not
>> > >rapidly turning over tissue such as in the heart may not be subject to the
>> > >pathologies seen in tissues that do.
> >
> > Nice try stickin' up for the bearded one from Cambridge here, but you
> > misinterpreted PMID: 12781642. You see, those "crazy Brasileros" are
> > saying that the common deletion is *protective* against cancer.

Um, which is an hypothesis -- and one about cancer, not aging. So what?
> >
> > You see, we have all been conditioned by the pill-pushers into thinking
> > that ROS are always bad, and that mutations are also always bad. Has
> > anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps certain mutations are protective,
> > essentially biologically mediated "roadblocks" that slow down cells that
> > get more and more unruly with age?

Then (ipso facto) they wouldn't be mutations, would they? That'd be like
saying that AGE are essentially enzymatically-mediated glycosylation products.

> > This *would* help explain why Barja's grant money is drying up when he
> > failed to produced the H2O2 or ATP "goods".

1. What evidence do you have that Barja's grant money is drying up?
2. The "failure" claim is, as previously noted, false.