Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

Post by tchaffee » Mon, Aug 14, 2017, 2:55 AM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #20

tchaffee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the wording of the marketing? As soon as the author sees the word detoxification, he is triggered? While seeing the word "detox" in marketing materials might be a good heuristic if you need to make a snap decision, there is enough time to evaluate the scientific claims and make a decision based on that. If you're going to put a substance in your body on a daily basis for the rest of your life, one would ho…

Except the scientific claims won't be resolved anytime soon.

So instead use a heuristic based on the wording of the marketing? I'd rather just say there isn't enough evidence to decide yet and leave it at that.

Post by Doxin » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 2:13 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #18

beagle3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "toxins" induces guilt by association because most who use it are quacks. However, there definitely are substances that are toxic and get stored e.g. in adipose tissue and only removed under specific circumstances. But we have to find new names for those substances and processes because of that guilt by association.

But there's a whole scientific field called "toxicology". Anyway, I don't like the phrase "anyone who ... is likely to be ..." in the linked article. It's basically an ad hominem attack, and not very scientific in itself (unless you take it literally, but in that case the author should have been more explicit imho, to avoid confusion/insinuation).

Correct, and a toxicologist would be able to tell you which toxin specifically is being targeted by a treatment. A quack not so much.

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)

Re: Leonard Guarente’s Anti-Aging Pill (2016)