03-22-2012, 02:18 AM
Quote:Don’t Be Conned By The Resveratrol ScamFull Article: http://doctorsaredangerous.com/articles/...l_scam.htm
by Dr Raymond Peat
A year ago GlaxoSmithKline bought Sirtris, a company focusing on the biological effects of resveratrol, for $720,000,000. Harvard Medical School’s website, and broadcasts by Barbara Walters and Morley Safer have publicized resveratrol as a longevity-increasing drug, and millions of people are spending large amounts of money for resveratrol capsules.
The main claim being made about resveratrol is that it can mimic the anti-aging effects of calorie restriction, without having to restrict food consumption. This involves silencing genes, blocking their production of RNA and protein.
The mass media and some medical journals aren’t giving a balanced description of the biological effects of resveratrol, but many biologists are being influenced too, by the same simple arguments that the television reporters summarized. The academic biology culture, the medical culture, and the basic American culture itself, are all permeated by the idea of genetic determinism, so when a DNA molecule in yeast is identified as the “anti-aging gene,” and a molecule is found that activates it, that molecule, or something similar, seems to them clearly to be an anti-aging drug.
Part of the cultural framework that makes it easy to sell that idea is the old “rate of living” theory of aging, the idea that we have only so many heartbeats in a lifetime, that we can use only so many calories and so much oxygen in a lifetime, and that organisms with a low metabolic rate therefore live longer than those with a high metabolic rate. The rate of living theory is closely related to the “wear and tear” theory of aging, that our bodies are (except for our germ cells) made up of “post-mitotic cells,” unable to continue dividing once growth is complete, and so must die when those cells are “worn out.” By the middle of the 20th century, those ideas had been disproved in many ways, but in the 1960s Leonard Hayflick renewed for a time the doctrine of aging as the wearing out of unrenewable cells, with his doctrine that somatic cells (non-germ cells) have an absolute limit of 50 replications. Producing cloned animals from somatic cells, and the subsequent excitement about stem cells, made that theory obsolete (again).
[Edit: (previewed link with intro) FastTadpole March 22nd]