Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : vitamins herbs supplements longevity and aging -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jazzlover2 who wrote (17107)	1/31/2026 4:36:58 AM
From: Yorikke	2 Recommendations Recommended By jazzlover2 Pogeu Mahone Respond to of 17109

I noted that the article concentrated on 'exceptionally long' telomeres, and the statistical significance being related to Cancer in older individuals. ie...have long telomeres and live longer....in fear of, or by dying of Cancer or some other genetically mutant prone disease. More importantly the implication was that longer telomeres only affect life by 5-10 years. While I believe that at any point in human development, we face certain limitations, I think concentrating on the extremes is missing the point. We are a population with a fat bell shaped nature in most everything. The question and concern of the article seems to have missed the average person's possibility to change telomere length or better yet to maintain it and generally improve life. Research analysis like that presented is just a 'Set-up', an excuse to conclude that decreasing an obvious factor like telomere length degradation is not really worth the effort across the broad population. Why? Because those with excessively long telomeres have a tendency to acquire diseases like cancer and die in that 5 to 10 year extension window. Like a lot of that crap being thrown at us in the last decade, it is mostly a shibai, a scheme to steal dollars for research that justifies not doing anything of value. Or worse to justify screwing people over when they most need it. Why look into Telomere research when it already indicates that even people with the 'best' (longest) telomeres get very little value out of that fact. Better to do research to prove it is ineffective, particularly when you've already done a card deck of Ponzi schemes to steal tax dollars. Marginal changes in health are a favorite game. If you are all pumped up on a particular substance or group of substances aimed at treating a particular issue, then the marginal increase in health will likely be minimal. The greatest gains occur at the bottom of the range where the need for these substances is the greatest. But given that, screaming about how the treatment does little good in a group of highly treated people is cause to charge others with screaming fire in a theater. It's the D3 issue in a white coat. Diversions to avoid the truth. Anyway whose five years are they saying is not worth the effort. My guess it's yours and mine. We will of course be offered a plethora of worthless expensive shit touted to do the the job better and cost 20 time as much.