Thread: Aging Cause and Cure

The most widely accepted theory on aging is that free radicals (highly reactive molecules) cause cell damage and this causes aging.
Where do the free radicals come from?
Cells oxidize or burn food for energy. This creates oxidation products. Your body cleans the oxidation products out of the cells and this goes into the urine to be expelled from the body. If the oxidation products are not cleaned out fast enough, background radiation will change them into free radicals and this will cause cell damage. Cell damage slows down all of the functions of the cells. It slows down the rate at which cells divide. More cells start dying than what are being reproduced, and this is the cause of aging. Less living cells in the glands decreases harmone production. When damaged (old ) cells divide they pass on the cell damage to the next generation of cells.
The cure for aging is to increase the speed at which oxidation products are cleansed from the cells. So there will be no free radical damage, cell divisions don't slow down, causing no aging.
Antioxidant vitamins were found to slow the aging process around the early 1970s. They allow the body to clean the oxidation products out of the cells faster, causing more unination.
The theory is simple. Megadose [Very Large Doses] on vitamins that slow aging and clean the oxidation products out much faster, and aging can be stopped or reversed.
A tug of war with time. Pull faster backwards then time is pulling forward, and aging goes backwards; you get younger. [8 hours sleep per day minimum required]
I cannot prove this to you over the internet.
I have already proven this theory to be true.
I am a 57 year old teenager. I have been seriously trying to get younger for the last 17 years. Since I was 21 in 1973, I have been megadosing on vitamins. In 1992 I saw that I could push it further and reverse aging; I looked about 27 in 1992 when I was 40.
During the last 2 years, I have seen, [and the people I work with have seen] my face get younger by about 6 years. I am putting on more living tissue all over my face. I use the face as the indicator, but this works on the whole body.
I appear to be about 18 years old. I do have thin hair, and some grey but I am expecting this to get younger later. I still have a full head of hair if I do a comb over.
I stand up for 7 hours per day cleaning a bakery warehouse and stacking pallets with heavy items. I can do martial arts like a young man and can do a fast 100 yard dash like a track and field guy. I can out work many young men.
I am physically able to do things that a 57 year old man cannot do.
I have informed government scientists and doctors about this, about a year ago, and have seen various people checking me out.
Note: Megadosing on vitamins must be done with a knowledge of what you are doing. Too much vitamin A or D can kill you. Too much C also has side effects.
I learned by experience though the years what to do about the side effects, and just keep on taking the large doses of vitamins.
I seriously believe I have succeeded in reversing aging on the cellular level.
Every cell is young and undamaged and naturally want to divide fast.
I don't need to use Human growth harmone to try to force fast divisions like some are doing.

April fools day was yesterday.

Originally Posted by Darius

April fools day was yesterday.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance!"
--Albert Einstein

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--Herbert Spencer

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on."
--Winston Churchill

Cute, but I've already investigated the matter. You're incorrect for a number of reasons. First, we do not simply age because we eat. It is certainly a major factor, and caloric restriction can (for most) elongate lifespan by a number of years. However, at most, that is ALL it will do. It cannot reverse aging, merely slow it down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging#Theories

As you can plainly see even from a wiki article, Telomeres, cell mutation, etc, all have potential parts to play in aging. Thus fully illustrating how caloric restriction can merely slow the aging process. Also consider the fact that you are a genetic marvel, because there are some people that are 90 and look 30 or 40 (sans white hair and so on). The aging process is a combination of diet, exercise, and genetics.

What you should learn from this is that short responses usually mean you're being obtuse, rather than intelligent or oppressed. A simple look at wikipedia would have been sufficient to prove you wrong.

Aging is accumulating chromosome damage (division errors, chemicals, free radicals, etc). This equates to lost information, which cannot be re-acquired by taking vitamins or anything else.

Don't quote other people about being incredulous. It does not constitute an argument.

Originally Posted by Darius

Cute, but I've already investigated the matter. You're incorrect for a number of reasons. First, we do not simply age because we eat. It is certainly a major factor, and caloric restriction can (for most) elongate lifespan by a number of years. However, at most, that is ALL it will do. It cannot reverse aging, merely slow it down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging#Theories

As you can plainly see even from a wiki article, Telomeres, cell mutation, etc, all have potential parts to play in aging. Thus fully illustrating how caloric restriction can merely slow the aging process. Also consider the fact that you are a genetic marvel, because there are some people that are 90 and look 30 or 40 (sans white hair and so on). The aging process is a combination of diet, exercise, and genetics.

What you should learn from this is that short responses usually mean you're being obtuse, rather than intelligent or oppressed. A simple look at wikipedia would have been sufficient to prove you wrong.

Agree with you regarding the content of OP's post, but terse replies tell him nothing at all, other than that you're dismissing him. That could be for all sorts of reasons to do with him or you. Your second reply is right on the money, if there's one thing we can be sure of regarding ageing, it's that there does not seem to be an easy cure or quick fix. There's certainly not much evidence to back up the claim that large doses of vitamins are beneficial to anyone. In general vitamin supplements are of dubious benefit to the average person at any dose. The meta-analyses combining the large scale studies just don't show anything compelling. Some of them (I'm thinking of Vit E and D I think) even show a slightly increased mortality rate.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I am a 57 year old teenager.

how sad - there comes a time when you have to stop pretending you're only a tad over 21
if you have any children i'm sure they'd be mightily embarrassed by statements like this

This is a joke right?

Originally Posted by Darius

Cute, but I've already investigated the matter. You're incorrect for a number of reasons. First, we do not simply age because we eat. It is certainly a major factor, and caloric restriction can (for most) elongate lifespan by a number of years. However, at most, that is ALL it will do. It cannot reverse aging, merely slow it down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging#Theories

As you can plainly see even from a wiki article, Telomeres, cell mutation, etc, all have potential parts to play in aging. Thus fully illustrating how caloric restriction can merely slow the aging process. Also consider the fact that you are a genetic marvel, because there are some people that are 90 and look 30 or 40 (sans white hair and so on). The aging process is a combination of diet, exercise, and genetics.

What you should learn from this is that short responses usually mean you're being obtuse, rather than intelligent or oppressed. A simple look at wikipedia would have been sufficient to prove you wrong.

Experimental results in science are the determining factor in what is true. I have the experimental results. A teenager body at 57.
There are others that say all of the effects of aging can be traced back to free radical damage. Teleomeres, on the end, are prime targets for free radicals.
Vitamins boost the immune system. To look at it another way. Megadosing on vitamins can boost the immune system so high, that it heals aging as if it were a disease. A very high immune system will kill mutated cells such as cancer cells.
A theory is that everyone every day gets cancer cells, but the immune system kills them. If the immune system is allowed to be too low, for a long period of time, like 10 years, then the cells are not killed and allowed to grow into a tumor. A low immune system is caused by not enough vitamin intake.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Darius

Cute, but I've already investigated the matter. You're incorrect for a number of reasons. First, we do not simply age because we eat. It is certainly a major factor, and caloric restriction can (for most) elongate lifespan by a number of years. However, at most, that is ALL it will do. It cannot reverse aging, merely slow it down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging#Theories

As you can plainly see even from a wiki article, Telomeres, cell mutation, etc, all have potential parts to play in aging. Thus fully illustrating how caloric restriction can merely slow the aging process. Also consider the fact that you are a genetic marvel, because there are some people that are 90 and look 30 or 40 (sans white hair and so on). The aging process is a combination of diet, exercise, and genetics.

What you should learn from this is that short responses usually mean you're being obtuse, rather than intelligent or oppressed. A simple look at wikipedia would have been sufficient to prove you wrong.

Agree with you regarding the content of OP's post, but terse replies tell him nothing at all, other than that you're dismissing him. That could be for all sorts of reasons to do with him or you. Your second reply is right on the money, if there's one thing we can be sure of regarding ageing, it's that there does not seem to be an easy cure or quick fix. There's certainly not much evidence to back up the claim that large doses of vitamins are beneficial to anyone. In general vitamin supplements are of dubious benefit to the average person at any dose. The meta-analyses combining the large scale studies just don't show anything compelling. Some of them (I'm thinking of Vit E and D I think) even show a slightly increased mortality rate.

You are quite wrong about the low benefits of vitamins.
The average diet is vitamin deficient; vitamins are high in fresh killed meat and food fresh out of the field. The vitamin content is very low by the time you get it at the supermarket.
The American medical association has downplayed the effectiveness of vitamins mostly because they cannot make money off of them. They and the pharmaceutical companies are money oriented.
Go to the health food store and get a book by nutrition experts on vitamin research and see how beneficial they really are.
Actually, you need about 8 times the minimum dailly dose of everything to be really healthy. The min. dose is what was necessary to keep a soldier barely alive in World War 1.
A study was done as to why Japanese women don't hardly ever get breast cancer. It was found that selenium is high in Japanese soil and in the crops. Selenium will prevent breast cancer. The study was done around 1969, and as usual, completely disregarded by the AMA; they can't make money from selenium.
Bee stings have proven to heal arthritis and even Multiple sclerosis. But, as usual, bee sting therapy is disregarded by the AMA. They cannot make money from bees.
How effective you think vitamins are depends on who you are reading; the AMA or the nutritionists.
Note: If everyone walked around with boosted immune systems, from vitamins, the AMA would make a lot less money.

Originally Posted by dickies994

This is a joke right?

This is not a joke. If we had a free press in this country I would probably be on the news already. But I found out that the Roman catholic spy network controls the news media. I am a protestant that sometimes speaks against catholicism.
The news media won't favor me no matter what I accomplish.
If I was catholic, and taking orders from the priesthood, this may have already been on the news.
I have seen vitamin documentaries. There was a woman megadosing like me and she was in her 50s and was still in her 30s physically. But, I have even her beat.

A photo with you next to an older photo would be nice.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

But I found out that the Roman catholic spy network controls the news media. I am a protestant that sometimes speaks against catholicism.

omg ! not another conspiracy theorist !
way to go if you want to lose credibility on this forum

"the reason why i fail to convince anyone is not that my ideas are crap, but that the whole world is conspiring against me because i'm ... (fill in whatever repressed minority you feel you want to represent)"

I do not care what he is. All that matter is what currently comes out of his mouth. If everyone else thought this way, we'd be a lot farther along. However, this most certainly belongs in pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Agree with you regarding the content of OP's post, but terse replies tell him nothing at all, other than that you're dismissing him. That could be for all sorts of reasons to do with him or you. Your second reply is right on the money, if there's one thing we can be sure of regarding ageing, it's that there does not seem to be an easy cure or quick fix. There's certainly not much evidence to back up the claim that large doses of vitamins are beneficial to anyone. In general vitamin supplements are of dubious benefit to the average person at any dose. The meta-analyses combining the large scale studies just don't show anything compelling. Some of them (I'm thinking of Vit E and D I think) even show a slightly increased mortality rate.

You are quite wrong about the low benefits of vitamins.
The average diet is vitamin deficient; vitamins are high in fresh killed meat and food fresh out of the field. The vitamin content is very low by the time you get it at the supermarket.

If I'm wrong, please show me the randomised controlled trials which prove it. You'll need to go to the primary literature for that. So consider looking on Pubmed or Google Scholar. You need to show that most people in the developed world are vitamin deficient and that multivitamin tablets are of benefit to normal people. Treating serious illnesses, not interested.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

The American medical association has downplayed the effectiveness of vitamins mostly because they cannot make money off of them. They and the pharmaceutical companies are money oriented.

Sorry but that's pure nonsense. The pharmaceuticals companies are the ones selling you the vitamins. Seven Seas is owned by Merck, Centrum multivitamins is made by Pfizer/Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline make vitamin pills too. That's most of the Big Pharma companies accounted for. So clearly they know that they can make money from vitamins and are not at all worried that it'll impact on their other sales. Generally they market this stuff under alternative brand names. I'm sure they promote the natural versus evil Big Pharma conspiracy you've latched on to here because that way they can make money off both sides. Big Pharma are indeed evil, but just not for the reasons most people think.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Go to the health food store and get a book by nutrition experts on vitamin research and see how beneficial they really are.

Why would I do that when I can get the results of large scale trials instead? Those trials tell me that folate is indeed beneficial (at least for women), but that Vitamin C supplements are useless unless you're clinically deficient (very rare) and Vit E and D do pretty much nothing for normal people and may actually reduce survival rates when taken regularly at a range of doses from normal up to very large doses.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Actually, you need about 8 times the minimum dailly dose of everything to be really healthy. The min. dose is what was necessary to keep a soldier barely alive in World War 1.

We're not squatting in freezing damp trenches in the middle of a muddy wasteland for 18 months with no fresh fruit and veg to hand, so I think I can reasonably say that this comparison is meaningless.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

A study was done as to why Japanese women don't hardly ever get breast cancer. It was found that selenium is high in Japanese soil and in the crops. Selenium will prevent breast cancer. The study was done around 1969, and as usual, completely disregarded by the AMA; they can't make money from selenium.

How do the AMA make money from the sale of conventional pharmaceuticals? Or from illness in general? Surely if they could make money from that, they could also make it from multivitamin sales? It's not as if multivitamins are even a one-shot cure for anything- assuming they work they have to be taken constantly so they represent an essentially endless income source. I really don't follow your logic on this. The AMA are a representative association. The AMA published a study on selenium, Vit D and Vit E in 2007, so I don't think you can really say they're ignoring this at all. Here it is:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/842

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Bee stings have proven to heal arthritis and even Multiple sclerosis. But, as usual, bee sting therapy is disregarded by the AMA. They cannot make money from bees.

They can't make money from antibiotics either, but they don't dismiss those. Why don't you link that bee sting study? I'd be very interested in reading it.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

How effective you think vitamins are depends on who you are reading; the AMA or the nutritionists.
Note: If everyone walked around with boosted immune systems, from vitamins, the AMA would make a lot less money.

Why? By that logic, the AMA should be opposing or dismissing vaccination also. If they make money from the conventional pharma model and the concept of repeated treatment and keeping people sick, then surely they should be undermining vaccines and promoting antiviral drugs and antibiotics instead. But they're not. Vaccines are proven to work and the AMA can't get around that reality, even if they had motive to do so.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Agree with you regarding the content of OP's post, but terse replies tell him nothing at all, other than that you're dismissing him. That could be for all sorts of reasons to do with him or you. Your second reply is right on the money, if there's one thing we can be sure of regarding ageing, it's that there does not seem to be an easy cure or quick fix. There's certainly not much evidence to back up the claim that large doses of vitamins are beneficial to anyone. In general vitamin supplements are of dubious benefit to the average person at any dose. The meta-analyses combining the large scale studies just don't show anything compelling. Some of them (I'm thinking of Vit E and D I think) even show a slightly increased mortality rate.

You are quite wrong about the low benefits of vitamins.
The average diet is vitamin deficient; vitamins are high in fresh killed meat and food fresh out of the field. The vitamin content is very low by the time you get it at the supermarket.

If I'm wrong, please show me the randomised controlled trials which prove it. You'll need to go to the primary literature for that. So consider looking on Pubmed or Google Scholar. You need to show that most people in the developed world are vitamin deficient and that multivitamin tablets are of benefit to normal people. Treating serious illnesses, not interested.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

The American medical association has downplayed the effectiveness of vitamins mostly because they cannot make money off of them. They and the pharmaceutical companies are money oriented.

Sorry but that's pure nonsense. The pharmaceuticals companies are the ones selling you the vitamins. Seven Seas is owned by Merck, Centrum multivitamins is made by Pfizer/Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline make vitamin pills too. That's most of the Big Pharma companies accounted for. So clearly they know that they can make money from vitamins and are not at all worried that it'll impact on their other sales. Generally they market this stuff under alternative brand names. I'm sure they promote the natural versus evil Big Pharma conspiracy you've latched on to here because that way they can make money off both sides. Big Pharma are indeed evil, but just not for the reasons most people think.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Go to the health food store and get a book by nutrition experts on vitamin research and see how beneficial they really are.

Why would I do that when I can get the results of large scale trials instead? Those trials tell me that folate is indeed beneficial (at least for women), but that Vitamin C supplements are useless unless you're clinically deficient (very rare) and Vit E and D do pretty much nothing for normal people and may actually reduce survival rates when taken regularly at a range of doses from normal up to very large doses.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Actually, you need about 8 times the minimum dailly dose of everything to be really healthy. The min. dose is what was necessary to keep a soldier barely alive in World War 1.

We're not squatting in freezing damp trenches in the middle of a muddy wasteland for 18 months with no fresh fruit and veg to hand, so I think I can reasonably say that this comparison is meaningless.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

A study was done as to why Japanese women don't hardly ever get breast cancer. It was found that selenium is high in Japanese soil and in the crops. Selenium will prevent breast cancer. The study was done around 1969, and as usual, completely disregarded by the AMA; they can't make money from selenium.

How do the AMA make money from the sale of conventional pharmaceuticals? Or from illness in general? Surely if they could make money from that, they could also make it from multivitamin sales? It's not as if multivitamins are even a one-shot cure for anything- assuming they work they have to be taken constantly so they represent an essentially endless income source. I really don't follow your logic on this. The AMA are a representative association. The AMA published a study on selenium, Vit D and Vit E in 2007, so I don't think you can really say they're ignoring this at all. Here it is:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/842

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Bee stings have proven to heal arthritis and even Multiple sclerosis. But, as usual, bee sting therapy is disregarded by the AMA. They cannot make money from bees.

They can't make money from antibiotics either, but they don't dismiss those. Why don't you link that bee sting study? I'd be very interested in reading it.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

How effective you think vitamins are depends on who you are reading; the AMA or the nutritionists.
Note: If everyone walked around with boosted immune systems, from vitamins, the AMA would make a lot less money.

Why? By that logic, the AMA should be opposing or dismissing vaccination also. If they make money from the conventional pharma model and the concept of repeated treatment and keeping people sick, then surely they should be undermining vaccines and promoting antiviral drugs and antibiotics instead. But they're not. Vaccines are proven to work and the AMA can't get around that reality, even if they had motive to do so.

Those large scale trials are not at all what I am talking about.
I said megadose. Very large dose. Nutritionists did studies on these.
As for C, I have a book about megadosing on C.
Boosts immune system, kills viruses [strong viruscide]--used to heal colds and flu and other things. On TV a study was talked about where intravenous drip of constant vitamin C, caused full scale AIDS to go into remission.
It is a natural antihistamine, produces so much collagen that the tissues get so firm, cancer cannot spread and will be held in place while the immune system kills it. Calcium in bones hooks on to collagen, so C will cause stronger bones. Is also a natural laxative. Strengthens the heart muscle. Side effects include diarhea as excess is expelled and it can stop up the sinuses and brochial tubes with thick mucous so much so that you can't breathe through your nose. Stop taking it for 2 or 3 days and all of that clears out.
I just recently had flu like symptoms. I took 30,000 mg of vitamin C per day for about 4 days. Cured it. [Healing by boosting the immune system can take as little as 7 hours or as long as 24 hours or more for symptoms to start going away; but when it works it really works.
Medicines don't heal, they just deal with symptoms. Boosting the immune system heals.
Try to take 30,000 mg when not sick and you get diarhea.
Take that much when sick and you don't. The body uses all of it to fight the disease.
Most vitamins are produced in China.--read that on internet

Saw the bee sting study on the discovery channel.
Vitamin E helps skin, hair, greatly increases cell divisions.
E put in a cell culture increased cell divisions by 50%.
Virility vitamin. E increases sperm count and sex drive.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

A photo with you next to an older photo would be nice.

Have no way of sending photo. Photos can be faked. I told you I cannot prove it over the internet.
A year ago, my vehicle broke down and I had to take the bus and trolley to work.
College age and high school age girls were looking at me like they wanted me for a boyfriend. You know the sort of things they do to attract a guy.
They don't know I may be 20 years older than their dad.
That was a year ago, I looked about 21 or 20. Now I look 17 or 18.
I had forgotten how young I would end up looking. I have a picture from 1970 when I was really 18. I look about 15. I have a symetrical cute baby face with a round face and an upturned nose; makes me always look at least 3 years younger.
Now, what is happening now is--- my age is still going backwards. Look a little younger every week. I think it can reach the end of puberty and stop. I hope it stops there. Testosterone must prevent it from going below puberty.
I should look about 15, with muscles and a comb over, within 4 months.
I originally wanted to go back to 18 and start my life over, 17 years ago when I started this experiment. I did not consider how young I would end up looking.
College age girls may soon think I am too young for them.
I don't like that.
I over did my experiment. It is going to play itself out; I cannot stop it now.
I am a born again Christian [I believe liars go to hell so don't think I am lying.]
I had thought to use this to prove scientifically that the people in the book of genesis could have really lived as long as it says in the bible.
Adam--950 years, methuselah 969 years Noah, over 600 years, etc.

Ghost does not understand that medical science no longer advocates issues over case studies. The problem is that medicine has to deal with many issues and it is only through carefully run studies with sufficient samples that any statement can be made with any certainty.

This thread has clearly shown Ghost that there are many issues to aging. He chooses to present his case through:
conspiracy claims - rogue nuns with tommy guns I suppose
religion - Adam's lifespan
case studies - look at me
marketing ploys - the chicks adore me, Medicines don't heal, they just deal with symptoms.

This is a con man of the Lily The Pink ilk.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Those large scale trials are not at all what I am talking about.
I said megadose. Very large dose.

Did you even look at the JAMA paper I linked? The meta analyses cover doses up to about 1000x normal multivitamin dose. If that's not a "megadose", then what is?

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Nutritionists did studies on these.

So link them. I don't give much weight to the work of "nutritionists", the term is not protected in the US or UK meaning that pretty much any can- and does- claim to be a nutritionist. Take "Dr." Gillian McKeith, who has exactly zero peer-reviewed papers and got her PhD. from a non-accredited institution. In the post.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

As for C, I have a book about megadosing on C.

So give us the name of the book. Tell us what pages back up your assertions.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Boosts immune system, kills viruses [strong viruscide]--used to heal colds and flu and other things. On TV a study was talked about where intravenous drip of constant vitamin C, caused full scale AIDS to go into remission.
It is a natural antihistamine, produces so much collagen that the tissues get so firm, cancer cannot spread and will be held in place while the immune system kills it. Calcium in bones hooks on to collagen, so C will cause stronger bones. Is also a natural laxative. Strengthens the heart muscle. Side effects include diarhea as excess is expelled and it can stop up the sinuses and brochial tubes with thick mucous so much so that you can't breathe through your nose. Stop taking it for 2 or 3 days and all of that clears out.

Link us the papers which support these claims, please. Because the last paper I read on Vit C which combined the results of multiple studies over about 50 years showed no benefit in reducing the symptoms of colds.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...l.pmed.0020168

Mainstream coverage:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-the-cold.html

So that's one "well known" function which actually doesn't exist at all. What about the rest?

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I just recently had flu like symptoms. I took 30,000 mg of vitamin C per day for about 4 days. Cured it. [Healing by boosting the immune system can take as little as 7 hours or as long as 24 hours or more for symptoms to start going away; but when it works it really works.

So what? I've never had a cold that lasted longer than 4 days either way. How do you know the cold was shortened by Vit C? What can you compare against? Other colds you've had under differing conditions at different times in your life potentially caused by entirely different viruses? There's a reason we do large scale studies, and a reason we need placebo controls.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Medicines don't heal, they just deal with symptoms. Boosting the immune system heals.

Vaccines are medicines. They boost the immune system. Good medicine is about combining treatments to give the patient the best chance of recovery/

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Try to take 30,000 mg when not sick and you get diarhea.
Take that much when sick and you don't. The body uses all of it to fight the disease.
Most vitamins are produced in China.--read that on internet

Super. So what? Just go Google the names of the top selling vitamin supplements, then check who owns the brand name. It's still Merck, GSK, Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer-Wyeth that are making the bulk of the money off that industry. You think you're defying Big Pharma and all you're doing is buying the alternative they made up for you.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Saw the bee sting study on the discovery channel.

The Discovery Channel is not a scientific journal. It performs no scientific research. They report on research that has been done and they select whatever is most controversial or exciting-sounding. Rigorously critical they are not. It's a mainstream news outlet, basically. Little more relevant or trustworthy than The Daily Mail. Entertaining, sure. But not your final word for science. At most it should be step one in your research, after which you go and read the actual studies they mention and judge whether they're any good.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Vitamin E helps skin, hair, greatly increases cell divisions.
E put in a cell culture increased cell divisions by 50%.

I know that, I've read those studies. I do cell culture studies and you know what? I'm not daft enough to assume that results in cell culture translate to what happens in a living human. You have to do large scale animal studies and then do large scale human trials to see whether those results reflect a real benefit for humans. Studies like the one I linked about selenium Vit E and Vit D. The benefit was there in cell culture but it vanished in human trials because humans and dishes of cells are really nothing alike. Cell culture work is a justification for expanding your research, not for claiming Chemical X is good for you.

Lets imagine for a moment that you cell culture result did reflect results in a human- how do we know that increased cell division is a benefit? Increased cell division is the main trait of a tumour and those sure aren't beneficial.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Virility vitamin. E increases sperm count and sex drive.

To put it in colloquial terms, "prove it".

I've linked a couple of big studies here and you're yet to give us any evidence at all. Start linking papers or please stop making all these grand claims.

Originally Posted by hokie

Ghost does not understand that medical science no longer advocates issues over case studies. The problem is that medicine has to deal with many issues and it is only through carefully run studies with sufficient samples that any statement can be made with any certainty.

This thread has clearly shown Ghost that there are many issues to aging. He chooses to present his case through:
conspiracy claims - rogue nuns with tommy guns I suppose
religion - Adam's lifespan
case studies - look at me
marketing ploys - the chicks adore me, Medicines don't heal, they just deal with symptoms.

This is a con man of the Lily The Pink ilk.

You are incorrect. Everything I said is true to the best of my knowledge.
If you saw me in person I suspect you would have a very interesting look on your face. One of the people checking me out looked like she was having a trauma.
I have had people checking me out ever since I started telling about this on the internet. There is a will call where I work; customer pick up.
I overheard a man talking to a woman as I walked near.
He said... Ummmmm... he looks like a little boy.
That was about a month ago. I look younger than that now.

Believe whatever you want. People do that anyway.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Those large scale trials are not at all what I am talking about.
I said megadose. Very large dose.

Did you even look at the JAMA paper I linked? The meta analyses cover doses up to about 1000x normal multivitamin dose. If that's not a "megadose", then what is?

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Nutritionists did studies on these.

So link them. I don't give much weight to the work of "nutritionists", the term is not protected in the US or UK meaning that pretty much any can- and does- claim to be a nutritionist. Take "Dr." Gillian McKeith, who has exactly zero peer-reviewed papers and got her PhD. from a non-accredited institution. In the post.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

As for C, I have a book about megadosing on C.

So give us the name of the book. Tell us what pages back up your assertions.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Boosts immune system, kills viruses [strong viruscide]--used to heal colds and flu and other things. On TV a study was talked about where intravenous drip of constant vitamin C, caused full scale AIDS to go into remission.
It is a natural antihistamine, produces so much collagen that the tissues get so firm, cancer cannot spread and will be held in place while the immune system kills it. Calcium in bones hooks on to collagen, so C will cause stronger bones. Is also a natural laxative. Strengthens the heart muscle. Side effects include diarhea as excess is expelled and it can stop up the sinuses and brochial tubes with thick mucous so much so that you can't breathe through your nose. Stop taking it for 2 or 3 days and all of that clears out.

Link us the papers which support these claims, please. Because the last paper I read on Vit C which combined the results of multiple studies over about 50 years showed no benefit in reducing the symptoms of colds.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...l.pmed.0020168

Mainstream coverage:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-the-cold.html

So that's one "well known" function which actually doesn't exist at all. What about the rest?

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I just recently had flu like symptoms. I took 30,000 mg of vitamin C per day for about 4 days. Cured it. [Healing by boosting the immune system can take as little as 7 hours or as long as 24 hours or more for symptoms to start going away; but when it works it really works.

So what? I've never had a cold that lasted longer than 4 days either way. How do you know the cold was shortened by Vit C? What can you compare against? Other colds you've had under differing conditions at different times in your life potentially caused by entirely different viruses? There's a reason we do large scale studies, and a reason we need placebo controls.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Medicines don't heal, they just deal with symptoms. Boosting the immune system heals.

Vaccines are medicines. They boost the immune system. Good medicine is about combining treatments to give the patient the best chance of recovery/

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Try to take 30,000 mg when not sick and you get diarhea.
Take that much when sick and you don't. The body uses all of it to fight the disease.
Most vitamins are produced in China.--read that on internet

Super. So what? Just go Google the names of the top selling vitamin supplements, then check who owns the brand name. It's still Merck, GSK, Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer-Wyeth that are making the bulk of the money off that industry. You think you're defying Big Pharma and all you're doing is buying the alternative they made up for you.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Saw the bee sting study on the discovery channel.

The Discovery Channel is not a scientific journal. It performs no scientific research. They report on research that has been done and they select whatever is most controversial or exciting-sounding. Rigorously critical they are not. It's a mainstream news outlet, basically. Little more relevant or trustworthy than The Daily Mail. Entertaining, sure. But not your final word for science. At most it should be step one in your research, after which you go and read the actual studies they mention and judge whether they're any good.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Vitamin E helps skin, hair, greatly increases cell divisions.
E put in a cell culture increased cell divisions by 50%.

I know that, I've read those studies. I do cell culture studies and you know what? I'm not daft enough to assume that results in cell culture translate to what happens in a living human. You have to do large scale animal studies and then do large scale human trials to see whether those results reflect a real benefit for humans. Studies like the one I linked about selenium Vit E and Vit D. The benefit was there in cell culture but it vanished in human trials because humans and dishes of cells are really nothing alike. Cell culture work is a justification for expanding your research, not for claiming Chemical X is good for you.

Lets imagine for a moment that you cell culture result did reflect results in a human- how do we know that increased cell division is a benefit? Increased cell division is the main trait of a tumour and those sure aren't beneficial.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Virility vitamin. E increases sperm count and sex drive.

To put it in colloquial terms, "prove it".

I've linked a couple of big studies here and you're yet to give us any evidence at all. Start linking papers or please stop making all these grand claims.

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL11215708M...uide-Series%29
vitamin C updated: part of the good health guide series. Go to website.
I left out that vitamin C also changes bad cholesterol into good cholesterol so no plaque buildup on the veins.
It is a small book. YOU can thumb through the pages to find it.
Edited by two phds: Richard A Passwater and Earl Mindell

The Disease of aging"; is another part of the series that I used, to formulate my experiment.--another book in the series

The antioxidants: another book in the series I used.
These books have lists of the research that was done to verify their statements.

Get on google and enter good health guide series along with the names of the books.

Multivitamins contain only minute traces of each vitamin in them. 1000 times that much is not a megadose.

You are a scientist; am I correct in that. You know how to do your own research, am I correct in that. [I have a Bachelor of Science physics, and am trained in scientific method. I consider what I have done a valid experiment.]
So I say Vitamin C and other vitamins heal colds; you say your peers say it don't.
I say they don't know how to do it properly.
Because of legal considerations I am not telling anyone to do the following. If you choose to do it, then do it at your own risk.
OK, scientist listen up!
Healing a cold or flu or any disease with nutrition. [Did this sort of thing many times already.]
Now if I had the controversy you have, does C heal colds or not.
I might, do my own research. Find somone with a cold or better yet, the flu or laryngitis; ask him politely to rub his nose and then shake my hand. [Colds transmitted by hand shakes--Science news magazine
When the symptomse start. sneezing, running nose, sore throat, etc.
1 blow nose
2 nasal spray
3 coffee or tea for the caffeine
4 sinus tablet
5 12 echinacea capsules broken open and mixed in cup of water, followed by 8 more.
6 Prepare a good meal, well balanced carbs, protein, fiber. Get a big TV dinner
7 Everytime I drink to wash down the food with water take a tablet.
Tablets: 8000 iu Vit. A (one)
15000 mg of C ;15 1000mg tablets (natural vitimin C with rose hips; mild one like at walgreens)
natural is the potent kind; synthetic is much weeker
1200 iu vitamin E 3 400iu tablets
One stress tab containing the B complex vitamins [Drink a sip of bicarbonate of soda [baking soda] in milk to neutralize eccess acid. C is ascorbic acid.]
Keep taking the sinus tablets until symptoms go.
About 5 hours after a good bowel movement the body is using the vitamins to boost the immune system. Constipation will hold up the whole process.
12 hours later and every 12 hours for 3 or 4 days, repeat the above steps except I won't need the nasal spray. Stop the steps in 3 or 4 days; I can still take the others but stop taking the C, for a day or 2 to test if disease is gone. If symptoms return do the steps again.--for maybe another 2 days The large dose of C must be stopped to allow thick mucous to clear. It will look like thick yellow green snot. It cannot run it is so thick.

What to expect. Strong fever in maybe 20 hours more or less. After that symptoms go away. If I stop taking it too soon symptoms come back.
[Symptoms may try to come back only a little bit for maybe an hour every 12 hours for the 2nd day, but the symptoms will quickly go away again; the echinacea tends to prevent these relapses.] 3rd and 4th day no smptoms at all.
You said the cold would heal in 4 days anyway.
The difference is this. You would have 4 days of symptoms and drowsiness on sinus tablets. The megadosing will produce 4 days of no significant symptoms and no need for drowsy sinus tablets. My voice might only sound a little different.
The vitamin C goes to work killing the viruses; it causes the body to produce larger numbers of the virus killers. Echinacea helps get the virus killers to the right place quicker. It works in the lymph system, the surface immune system.

I worked with a guy that tried the C megadose. He did not take sinus tablets. He took the whole bottle of C. Came in with nose running, sneezing, miserable and said to me, this stuff don't work, and he threw it in garbage can in front of me.
The next day, maybe 30 hours later, he came in and said hello, there were no symptoms at all.

A book I can't access. From 1982. I can thumb through it, can I? Why don't you just quote the relevant parts? You're the one with the case to prove here, not me. Burden of evidence and whatnot.

I'm not concerned with who it is edited by. PhDs are no guarantee of credibility and science is not based on authority. What matters is the content, the evidence presented.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

A book I can't access. From 1982. I can thumb through it, can I? Why don't you just quote the relevant parts? You're the one with the case to prove here, not me. Burden of evidence and whatnot.

I'm not concerned with who it is edited by. PhDs are no guarantee of credibility and science is not based on authority. What matters is the content, the evidence presented.

I do present the evidence to people around me and people checking up on me. You need to meet me in person to see the evidence. Cannot prove it on the internet. I have the book on C right here, but no scanner. I am not going to type all of that stuff. Let me just say it is a real scientific book with the references to the doctors doing the research.

Another important part of the experiment is excercise. Excercise is needed for a male to have a strong immune system. I chose martial arts as the excercise to do. I practice, kung fu, kick boxing, jiu jitsu, mixed martial arts. I don't fight with real people because I am a Christian; but I am well trained to do that.
I chose fast movement excercise because young people think fast and move fast.
Martial arts will make you do that.
I used movie actors as a great study on aging. When young their faces change expression faster, they talk faster, move faster. In another movie, just 15 years later you can see how much aging slowed them down.
One of the main things aging does is slow you down.

herbs to consider:
Gotu Kola --proven to increase Intelligence --causes more blood to flow to the brain. You use more of the brain than other people.
Eyebrite---causes more blood to flow to the eyes. Improves vision.

One more point though you might not consider this anything.
The human body has an energy field around it called an aura. It can be filmed by a process called Kirlian photography. I think it is the product of the physical and chemical reactions going on the cells. Look at it like the countenance or feel of the personality of the person. An old person with damaged cells, will still "feel" like an old person if you stand next to them, even though they may have cosmetic surgery to look young. A truly young person with undamaged young cells will "feel" like a young person if you stand next to them. They have a young aura energy surrounding them.
I think I must have a young aura energy around me because of the undamaged young cells I have. I would "feel" like a genuinely young person if you stood next to me.

Subjective estimate;
I once estimated that the amount of vitamins that I use to heal a cold or the flu would make my age go backwards about 4 months. That is to say, 3 years later I would only be about 2 years and 8 months older, and not 3 years older.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I do present the evidence to people around me and people checking up on me. You need to meet me in person to see the evidence. Cannot prove it on the internet.

Well I've been able to show many of your points to be completely incorrect just by finding sources on the internet, so far the best you've done is show me the cover of an extremely outdated book.

Perhaps what you should do is present yourself to a qualified medic who is prepared to write a case report about you. Your story would then be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That would clear all of this up.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I have the book on C right here, but no scanner. I am not going to type all of that stuff. Let me just say it is a real scientific book with the references to the doctors doing the research.

So what? What you're not getting here is that a book being edited by PhDs and having references does not make it reliable or right. All of the modern nutritionists books feature references to primary papers. Have you tried following them up? Do you have the tools to critically appraise those references? In principle that is what they're supposed to be there for, but in practice they're put into these books to add weight to the argument and nothing more. They expect you to accept their word on authority based on the mere presence of those references.

You already hinted at what some of those references say- talk of cell culture research. That's weak.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Another important part of the experiment is excercise. Excercise is needed for a male to have a strong immune system. I chose martial arts as the excercise to do. I practice, kung fu, kick boxing, jiu jitsu, mixed martial arts. I don't fight with real people because I am a Christian; but I am well trained to do that.
I chose fast movement excercise because young people think fast and move fast.
Martial arts will make you do that.

Yeah, and the doctors you claim are only interested in selling you things agree completely. This has been standard medical advice for decades: eat a varied and balanced diet, drink plenty of fluids and get regular excercise.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I used movie actors as a great study on aging. When young their faces change expression faster, they talk faster, move faster. In another movie, just 15 years later you can see how much aging slowed them down.
One of the main things aging does is slow you down.

I think we all have a fair idea of what ageing does to people. Doing a "study" on movie actors tells us nothing new other than confirming that everyone gets old.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

herbs to consider:
Gotu Kola --proven to increase Intelligence --causes more blood to flow to the brain. You use more of the brain than other people.
Eyebrite---causes more blood to flow to the eyes. Improves vision.

One more point though you might not consider this anything.
The human body has an energy field around it called an aura. It can be filmed by a process called Kirlian photography. I think it is the product of the physical and chemical reactions going on the cells. Look at it like the countenance or feel of the personality of the person. An old person with damaged cells, will still "feel" like an old person if you stand next to them, even though they may have cosmetic surgery to look young. A truly young person with undamaged young cells will "feel" like a young person if you stand next to them. They have a young aura energy surrounding them.
I think I must have a young aura energy around me because of the undamaged young cells I have. I would "feel" like a genuinely young person if you stood next to me.

Subjective estimate;
I once estimated that the amount of vitamins that I use to heal a cold or the flu would make my age go backwards about 4 months. That is to say, 3 years later I would only be about 2 years and 8 months older, and not 3 years older.

Citations needed, as Wikipedia would say.

ghost, either you provide us with links to reliable sources of empirical evidence for your claims, or this thread will be moved to pseudoscience.

Y'all got away with some off-topic snarking because I wasn't on duty for the past couple of days. Any further posts that are not on topic will be edited or deleted. If this thread stays in Biology, that is.

/moderator mode

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1933587

"The absence of telomerase activity in most human somatic cells results in telomere shortening during aging. Telomerase activity can be restored to human cells by hTERT gene transduction or potentially via drug therapy; such extended-lifespan cells could be useful in forms of cell therapy to be developed for age-related diseases. On the other hand, the absence of telomerase acts as a limitation on cancer growth unless telomerase becomes reactivated."

I think if superdosing on vitamins is all that is needed we would have figured this out a long time ago, it reminds me of a man in a nursing home who felt god had given him a second chance to live his life again, when he was 50 he says he started over inside, he only looked about 50 too and he was now 90, this added to his belief, but I don't think it was true. Some people are very fortunate that they will stay looking young, your body has already started aging however, you mentioned you are somewhat bald, this is from a release of too much DHT (a form of testosterone) when overabundant will cause people genetically predisposed to male pattern baldness to get bald, so once you hit a certain age hormones changed and you started a balding process. how long did it take or grandfather or other bald relatives to get bald, is it at the same rate as yours? We can never underestimate the placebo effect, but on a scale this big, I kinda have to. You should live your life and not worry about this. Top scientist are doing this, spend the money to support them rather then buying mutivitamins, it's a great cause.

Originally Posted by paralith

ghost, either you provide us with links to reliable sources of empirical evidence for your claims, or this thread will be moved to pseudoscience.

Y'all got away with some off-topic snarking because I wasn't on duty for the past couple of days. Any further posts that are not on topic will be edited or deleted. If this thread stays in Biology, that is.

/moderator mode

http://longevity.about.com/od/longev...tioxidants.htm

Question: How do Antioxidants Slow Aging?

Answer: Antioxidants neutralize free radicals, which damage cells, clog arteries and contribute to chronic illness and aging. Antioxidants are found in leafy vegetables, fruits, wine, and chocolate. Antioxidants can also be found in certain vitamins and minerals such as vitamins A, C and E, zinc and selenium.

I use the supplements in that article, along with calcium, which is necessary for bones and teeth.
But, I use certain of them in very high doses.

http://longevity.about.com/od/resear...e_radicals.htm

Free radicals are a byproduct of normal cell function. When cells create energy, they also produce unstable oxygen molecules. These molecules, called free radicals, have a free electron. This electron makes the molecule highly unstable. The free radical bonds to other molecules in the body - causing proteins and other essential molecules to not function as they should. Luckily, antioxidants can minimize free radical damage.

Antioxidants - the Free Radical Sponge:
Antioxidants are substances found in plants that soak up free radicals like sponges. If your body has plenty of antioxidants available, it can minimize the damage caused by free radicals. Get your antioxidants from eating plants. There is some evidence that we can only get the full antioxidant benefits from eating real plants and other foods. Supplements appear not to be as effective.

I disagree with the last sentence of that article. I have found supplements to be more effective because they allow for much larger doses to be taken.

However, natural vitamin C, which is sold with rose hips, has chemicals in the rose hips that make them much more potent. Purely synthetic vitamin C, with no rose hips, is much less potent. So, you see the chemicals in the rose hips add excipients that cause the full benefit. So, there is a small amount of truth in the last sentence of that article.


http://longevity.about.com/od/resear...e_radicals.htm
How Free Radicals Cause Aging:
This theory asserts that many of the changes that occur as our bodies age are caused by free radicals. Damage to DNA, protein cross-linking and other changes have been attributed to free radicals. Over time, this damage accumulates and causes us to experience aging.

The Evidence:
There is some evidence. Studies have shown that increasing the amount of antioxidants in the diets of mice and other animals can slow the effects of aging. This theory does not fully explain all the changes that occur during aging. It is likely that free radicals are only one part in the aging

Do you know of any research articles that have done experiments with antioxidants and aging? About.com doesn't list any in support of the statements it makes, so there's no way of assessing their validity.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Originally Posted by paralith

ghost, either you provide us with links to reliable sources of empirical evidence for your claims, or this thread will be moved to pseudoscience.

Y'all got away with some off-topic snarking because I wasn't on duty for the past couple of days. Any further posts that are not on topic will be edited or deleted. If this thread stays in Biology, that is.

/moderator mode

http://longevity.about.com/od/longev...tioxidants.htm

Question: How do Antioxidants Slow Aging?

Answer: Antioxidants neutralize free radicals, which damage cells, clog arteries and contribute to chronic illness and aging. Antioxidants are found in leafy vegetables, fruits, wine, and chocolate. Antioxidants can also be found in certain vitamins and minerals such as vitamins A, C and E, zinc and selenium.

I use the supplements in that article, along with calcium, which is necessary for bones and teeth.
But, I use certain of them in very high doses.

http://longevity.about.com/od/resear...e_radicals.htm

Free radicals are a byproduct of normal cell function. When cells create energy, they also produce unstable oxygen molecules. These molecules, called free radicals, have a free electron. This electron makes the molecule highly unstable. The free radical bonds to other molecules in the body - causing proteins and other essential molecules to not function as they should. Luckily, antioxidants can minimize free radical damage.

Antioxidants - the Free Radical Sponge:
Antioxidants are substances found in plants that soak up free radicals like sponges. If your body has plenty of antioxidants available, it can minimize the damage caused by free radicals. Get your antioxidants from eating plants. There is some evidence that we can only get the full antioxidant benefits from eating real plants and other foods. Supplements appear not to be as effective.

I disagree with the last sentence of that article. I have found supplements to be more effective because they allow for much larger doses to be taken.

However, natural vitamin C, which is sold with rose hips, has chemicals in the rose hips that make them much more potent. Purely synthetic vitamin C, with no rose hips, is much less potent. So, you see the chemicals in the rose hips add excipients that cause the full benefit. So, there is a small amount of truth in the last sentence of that article.

These sources just state these things as facts, they don't say why we should believe any of this. The word of About.com is little different to your word. Why should we believe either? Basically, how do you know that these antioxidants do as you say here? What is the evidence that this works in humans?

If orally-administered antioxidants can effectively mop up free radicals in a manner that is clinically significant, how do you know that large doses cannot cause a dangerous deficiency of free radicals? How do you know that mega-doses of antioxidants are safe?

Originally Posted by paralith

Do you know of any research articles that have done experiments with antioxidants and aging? About.com doesn't list any in support of the statements it makes, so there's no way of assessing their validity.

http://www.uv.es/frag/longevity.htm

http://www.uv.es/frag/oxidative_stress.htm

I found those research articles on google in just a few minutes. There are many articles on the internet about free radicals and antioxidant research. This research has been going on for many years.

He is right in that respect. Drinking tea, for example, promotes good health. While antioxidants promote good health and reduce some effects of aging, they do not reverse the aging process. What he is experiencing is merely the effects of caloric restriction combined with an incredibly clean system. It does make you feel (and look) years younger, but you are by no means immortal. You're simply very healthy.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Originally Posted by paralith

Do you know of any research articles that have done experiments with antioxidants and aging? About.com doesn't list any in support of the statements it makes, so there's no way of assessing their validity.

http://www.uv.es/frag/longevity.htm

http://www.uv.es/frag/oxidative_stress.htm

The first is the homepage of a research group. Perhaps you could indicate what part of it supports your assertions? The second is a primer on oxidative stress- can you explain what this has to do with your claims? Are there some specific primary papers that support you? These pages you've linked to are not peer-reviewed.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I found those research articles on google in just a few minutes. There are many articles on the internet about free radicals and antioxidant research. This research has been going on for many years.

Yes it has, and I'd say there are several of us here quite familiar with the research on the matter. But the overall conclusion to date has been that there seems to be little benefit to administration of supplements to otherwise healthy people, let alone the kinds of advantages you're describing. Did you read the research I linked earlier in the thread? They look at antioxidants, in the "megadose" range and cover the results of multiple studies. And there doesn't seem to be much good going on at all.

Originally Posted by Darius

He is right in that respect. Drinking tea, for example, promotes good health. While antioxidants promote good health and reduce some effects of aging, they do not reverse the aging process. What he is experiencing is merely the effects of caloric restriction combined with an incredibly clean system. It does make you feel (and look) years younger, but you are by no means immortal. You're simply very healthy.

Is there research that really backs that up? I've never seen it and to be honest, if antioxidants in tea are bioavailable enough and strong enough to be of benefit then surely drinking lots of tea could be dangerously immunosuppressive? If you have some good meta-analysis on that it'd make some really interesting reading.

The problem is the research largely disagrees on everything. Especially on antioxidants. Some studies say drinking/eating something with a lot of antioxidants is healthy, others say "no dice". Tea itself has a huge list of "kind of sort of" beneficial aspects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potenti..._tea_on_health

To my knowledge, antioxidants don't really change the immune system. They simply relieve stress on your cells from oxidants/free radicals/whatever, thus allowing your body to function better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxi...Health_effects

There is, however, no research I know of that studies megadosing on antioxidants or vitamins. What you generally see are studies on the potential health effects of moderate daily doses, not to excess. In fact, according to wiki, antioxidants have no known effect on life expectancy.

Originally Posted by Darius

The problem is the research largely disagrees on everything. Especially on antioxidants. Some studies say drinking/eating something with a lot of antioxidants is healthy, others say "no dice". Tea itself has a huge list of "kind of sort of" beneficial aspects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potenti..._tea_on_health.

Well that's why I was suggesting a meta analysis, like perhaps something from the Cochrane Library or similar. They combine the results of multiple comparable studies selected blind to the outcome. Quality is determined by methodology, so you end up effectively getting a huge study (I read one that had a combined study group of over 200,000) that takes all your good positive and negative studies and gives you a clearer picture. The ones I've read on antioxidants have basically indicated that in most circumstances they have no measurable benefit, and may even reduce lifespan. But readouts on these studies are rarely in terms of how youthful the participants look.

Originally Posted by Darius

To my knowledge, antioxidants don't really change the immune system. They simply relieve stress on your cells from oxidants/free radicals/whatever, thus allowing your body to function better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxi...Health_effects

Scroll on down to the section on adverse effects there. Some of those could well be due to a negative impact on macrophage or cytotoxic T cell function. Colon cancer risk increase is a particular alarm bell on that one.

Originally Posted by Darius

There is, however, no research I know of that studies megadosing on antioxidants or vitamins. What you generally see are studies on the potential health effects of moderate daily doses, not to excess. In fact, according to wiki, antioxidants have no known effect on life expectancy.

Sure there is, I posted a link to a JAMA paper on that topic earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Darius

The problem is the research largely disagrees on everything. Especially on antioxidants. Some studies say drinking/eating something with a lot of antioxidants is healthy, others say "no dice". Tea itself has a huge list of "kind of sort of" beneficial aspects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potenti..._tea_on_health.

Well that's why I was suggesting a meta analysis, like perhaps something from the Cochrane Library or similar. They combine the results of multiple comparable studies selected blind to the outcome. Quality is determined by methodology, so you end up effectively getting a huge study (I read one that had a combined study group of over 200,000) that takes all your good positive and negative studies and gives you a clearer picture. The ones I've read on antioxidants have basically indicated that in most circumstances they have no measurable benefit, and may even reduce lifespan. But readouts on these studies are rarely in terms of how youthful the participants look.

Originally Posted by Darius

To my knowledge, antioxidants don't really change the immune system. They simply relieve stress on your cells from oxidants/free radicals/whatever, thus allowing your body to function better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxi...Health_effects

Scroll on down to the section on adverse effects there. Some of those could well be due to a negative impact on macrophage or cytotoxic T cell function. Colon cancer risk increase is a particular alarm bell on that one.

Originally Posted by Darius

There is, however, no research I know of that studies megadosing on antioxidants or vitamins. What you generally see are studies on the potential health effects of moderate daily doses, not to excess. In fact, according to wiki, antioxidants have no known effect on life expectancy.

Sure there is, I posted a link to a JAMA paper on that topic earlier in the thread.

I went to the Jama article. It is not about fighting aging. It is about alleviating disease symptoms. Also, the vitamins were taken singly or in pairs.
Fighting aging with megadoses is a different thing.
The nutritionist findings in the book I used said, a combination of vitamins works far more effectively than a single vitamin.
The mean time of duration of the studies was about 3 years.
If you do it correctly, fighting aging, my research shows it will only start working against aging in about 2.75 years, and it will start slow and then accelerate.
That study you refered to was not investigating any effects on slowing aging and it did not last long enough. Also singly or in pairs, vitamins are not that effective against aging. I was taking 9 supplements in combination to fight aging and high doses of 2 of them. The duration of my first attempt to slow aging was 19 years at lower doses, to get an idea of what was going on. I was about 26 at the chronological age of 40. The duration of the attempt to reverse aging at higher doses lasted for 17 years [During that time I did not need to work for 3 periods of time, 11 months, a year and 5 months, and five months] I got about 10 or 11 hours sleep per day during those three periods trying to force more growth harmone. [Even if I stayed awake I would stay there trying to sleep to fulfill the time.] Most growth harmone is produced in sleep.
What I did and the duration of it is signifigantly different from what the Jama people were doing.
My method don't show results against aging for almost 3 years and then it is only a little bit. But, as time goes by it accelerates. Cells divide, 2, 4, 8 16 32 -- many more divisions in each succeeding generation so you get rapid acceleration as time goes by.
Now, I was taking an estimate of 10000 plus, tablets or capsules per year, for 17 years. It may be more than that.
What I was doing is very different from what the Jama people were doing.
Consider this: aging is killing you at the rate of maybe 200,000 cells per day [whatever the number is]. 60 years of that and you are crippled and headed for the grave yard. I consider this important enough to justify such a radical experiment that I did.
It looks to me like I have put on more living tissue all over my face, for at least the last year and a half, and I have a face that looks 17 or 18. --Excellant results for a man whose chronological age is 57.
I consider the experiment a success. [Still waiting for the hair to get younger at a later time.] I am now decreasing doses to a level I think would keep me healthy and young. I am greatly decreasing the C dose now to allow sinuses and bronchial tubes to clear of thick mucous.
I intend to use a lower dose level to stay at the same young age.

ghost, one study on one person is simply not scientifically rigorous. If what you say about yourself is true then those results will need to be replicated by other researchers before we can draw any truly meaningful conclusions. Nor do we have any way to assess the validity of what you're telling us. Unless you have sources of other researchers who have gotten similar results with what you claim to have gotten for yourself, then this conversation has no where to go.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I went to the Jama article. It is not about fighting aging. It is about alleviating disease symptoms. Also, the vitamins were taken singly or in pairs.
Fighting aging with megadoses is a different thing.

Paralith has already addressed the rest of your post ably, single person studies are of little worth even when properly documented. When presented by the person themselves on an internet forum with zero evidence, well that's just a story, isn't it? Your point about fighting ageing: the JAMA article looks at mortality. If mortality is not a good generalised readout for ageing then I don't know what is. They showed no change or reduced survival time in some cases. I'm not sure what good there is in looking younger if you die at the same time or earlier, but I certainly don't think that it would count as a "cure for ageing". If you can find me a study of similar rigour with specific regard to multivitamin dosing and ageing however you like to define it then I will gladly read it. But so far you have given us basically nothing as regards useful evidence.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by ghost7584

I went to the Jama article. It is not about fighting aging. It is about alleviating disease symptoms. Also, the vitamins were taken singly or in pairs.
Fighting aging with megadoses is a different thing.

Paralith has already addressed the rest of your post ably, single person studies are of little worth even when properly documented. When presented by the person themselves on an internet forum with zero evidence, well that's just a story, isn't it? Your point about fighting ageing: the JAMA article looks at mortality. If mortality is not a good generalised readout for ageing then I don't know what is. They showed no change or reduced survival time in some cases. I'm not sure what good there is in looking younger if you die at the same time or earlier, but I certainly don't think that it would count as a "cure for ageing". If you can find me a study of similar rigour with specific regard to multivitamin dosing and ageing however you like to define it then I will gladly read it. But so far you have given us basically nothing as regards useful evidence.

Indeed, and fighting disease symptoms is an important component of aging - it's taxing on your body to fight disease. It will either leave permanent damage to your organ systems or use up energy that would otherwise have been used for upkeeping your body or both, leading to increased chances of dying as you increase in age. One of my professors does work on aging and he sees disease as a major driver of human lifespan.

Originally Posted by Darius

He is right in that respect. Drinking tea, for example, promotes good health. While antioxidants promote good health and reduce some effects of aging, they do not reverse the aging process. What he is experiencing is merely the effects of caloric restriction combined with an incredibly clean system. It does make you feel (and look) years younger, but you are by no means immortal. You're simply very healthy.

Exactly he is probably just really healthy from it. It is not going to prolong his life and he is still going to die just like everyone else. Aging is a natural process it is going to happen whether we like it or not

Originally Posted by paralith

ghost, one study on one person is simply not scientifically rigorous. If what you say about yourself is true then those results will need to be replicated by other researchers before we can draw any truly meaningful conclusions. Nor do we have any way to assess the validity of what you're telling us. Unless you have sources of other researchers who have gotten similar results with what you claim to have gotten for yourself, then this conversation has no where to go.

http://www.mothernature.com/Library/...ooks/10/27.cfm

A lot of research has been done to show that ageing is slowed down by vitamins. I first read of it in science news magazine in the 1970s.
Note in the article at that website that there is a growing conscensus that free radicals are the root cause of ageing.
I simply reasoned that if something slows ageing then take more of it and you slow it more. Take more of it and you stop it. Take more of it still and it will go backwards.
The doses recommended by researchers on the internet are lower than what can be tolerated. Legal conscerns such as malpractice law suits tend to make researchers cautious about the doses they recomend.
I took much more than what is recommended in that article and for many years.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

The most widely accepted theory on aging is that free radicals (highly reactive molecules) cause cell damage and this causes aging.
Where do the free radicals come from?.

---------------------------
Do free radicals contribute to ageing because it affects the "mitochondria" of the body's cells?

--------------------------
?.[/quote]
The theory is simple. Megadose [Very Large Doses] on vitamins that slow aging and clean the oxidation products out much faster, and aging can be stopped or reversed.
Megadosing on vitamins must be done with a knowledge of what you are doing. Too much vitamin A or D can kill you. Too much C also has side effects.
.[/quote]
-------------------------
And regarding the suggestion of bombarding the body with supplements it seems to not address any possible health risks associated with overuse of them.By that I mean that you've acknowleged that but haven't suggested specifically how that will be managed safely. whilst I read that you've mentioned some of the risks associated for example, the fat soluable vitamins A & D as well as the vitamin c water soluable vitamin. It still reads a little shortsighted to me , in that it doesn't seem to have any actual parameters for usage just broad overviews .I would have some level of concern for people taking this advice and acting on it without some futher investigation.

Originally Posted by ghost7584

Originally Posted by paralith

ghost, one study on one person is simply not scientifically rigorous. If what you say about yourself is true then those results will need to be replicated by other researchers before we can draw any truly meaningful conclusions. Nor do we have any way to assess the validity of what you're telling us. Unless you have sources of other researchers who have gotten similar results with what you claim to have gotten for yourself, then this conversation has no where to go.

http://www.mothernature.com/Library/...ooks/10/27.cfm

A lot of research has been done to show that ageing is slowed down by vitamins. I first read of it in science news magazine in the 1970s.
Note in the article at that website that there is a growing conscensus that free radicals are the root cause of ageing.
I simply reasoned that if something slows ageing then take more of it and you slow it more. Take more of it and you stop it. Take more of it still and it will go backwards.
The doses recommended by researchers on the internet are lower than what can be tolerated. Legal conscerns such as malpractice law suits tend to make researchers cautious about the doses they recomend.
I took much more than what is recommended in that article and for many years.

Again, all you're doing is accepting some source at it's word and expecting us to do the same. Which science magazine stated this about multivitamins and what were their sources? Is this still the consensus of the scientific community? This is a science forum and you're presenting us with a series of stories.

As far as I can tell, these attitudes you describe from the 1970's (assuming there was a real consensus) have changed because they did the research and found that the assumption was not upheld by the evidence. As for linking to a website that sells multivitamins, I don't even know where to start with telling you how that's no good.

A 3 minute pubmed search, copy and paste job.

I'm not saying this is a good study btw.

PMID: 19279081

BACKGROUND: Telomere length may be a marker of biological aging. Multivitamin supplements represent a major source of micronutrients, which may affect telomere length by modulating oxidative stress and chronic inflammation. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine whether multivitamin use is associated with longer telomeres in women. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data from 586 early participants (age 35-74 y) in the Sister Study. Multivitamin use and nutrient intakes were assessed with a 146-item food-frequency questionnaire, and relative telomere length of leukocyte DNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: After age and other potential confounders were adjusted for, multivitamin use was associated with longer telomeres. Compared with nonusers, the relative telomere length of leukocyte DNA was on average 5.1% longer among daily multivitamin users (P for trend = 0.002). In the analysis of micronutrients, higher intakes of vitamins C and E from foods were each associated with longer telomeres, even after adjustment for multivitamin use. Furthermore, intakes of both nutrients were associated with telomere length among women who did not take multivitamins. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first epidemiologic evidence that multivitamin use is associated with longer telomere length among women.

Unfortunately:
PMID: 15618136

However, it is unsettled whether human telomere dynamics is only a proxy for fundamental mechanisms that govern the course of aging or a key determinant in its progression.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

A 3 minute pubmed search, copy and paste job.

I'm not saying this is a good study btw.

PMID: 19279081

BACKGROUND: Telomere length may be a marker of biological aging. Multivitamin supplements represent a major source of micronutrients, which may affect telomere length by modulating oxidative stress and chronic inflammation. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine whether multivitamin use is associated with longer telomeres in women. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data from 586 early participants (age 35-74 y) in the Sister Study. Multivitamin use and nutrient intakes were assessed with a 146-item food-frequency questionnaire, and relative telomere length of leukocyte DNA was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: After age and other potential confounders were adjusted for, multivitamin use was associated with longer telomeres. Compared with nonusers, the relative telomere length of leukocyte DNA was on average 5.1% longer among daily multivitamin users (P for trend = 0.002). In the analysis of micronutrients, higher intakes of vitamins C and E from foods were each associated with longer telomeres, even after adjustment for multivitamin use. Furthermore, intakes of both nutrients were associated with telomere length among women who did not take multivitamins. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first epidemiologic evidence that multivitamin use is associated with longer telomere length among women.

Unfortunately:
PMID: 15618136

However, it is unsettled whether human telomere dynamics is only a proxy for fundamental mechanisms that govern the course of aging or a key determinant in its progression.

Yeah, it's not hard to find the evidence in support of the OP. And lots of contradictory studies too of course, which is why I think the systematic reviews are so valuable in this particular case. No idea why the OP is so obsessed with all these commercial sites and "My First Web Page"-style efforts.

I would imagine that this kind of people never dare to go beyond what is safe.

Never mind that actual scientific data is within easy reach.

ghost, popular websites without references to primary literature are not acceptable sources. And as the others have amply point out, there is evidence both for and against vitamins helping with aging, and there definitely doesn't seem to be any evidence that other people have replicated what you claim to have accomplished with yourself. I am closing this thread because I don't really think it has anywhere to go; if you want to keep having this discussion, it will have to be in Pseudoscience. PM if that's what you'd like.
/moderator mode