Robert Coyote wrote:
> Could one say aging is not a "disease" and be correct, even if scientific
> consensus shows otherwise if it is not legally (institutionally) recognized
> as true?
Yes, but when it is said by an FDA representative it carries a
certain amount of weight -- the tone suggested it was being
used in the context of -- "since it isn't a disease, we aren't
going to approve any drugs or devices that prevent it".
That is precisely the case with Alteon's protein un-crosslinker.
Its being approved a a blood-pressure lowering drug -- not an
anti-aging therapeutic. While that strategy may work for some
of the more serious aspects of aging, when we start to get into
more subtle effects (where it is very hard to show clinical
symptons, but the effects of having them for many years --
as is the case with diabetes -- is to shorten your life.
It took many many years to recognize that close regulation
of glucose levels has a health enhancing and life prolonging
effect even though I think the protein glycosylation theory
of aging is one of the oldest.
One of the problems with the field of "anti-aging" medicine is that due
to the activities of less-than-rigorous organizations (e.g. A4M) a lot
of hype has crept into the field. That annoys the FDA, perhaps
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT