Posts Tagged ‘FDA’

Aging Is A Disease. To Improve Wisdom, Fight It.

October 23, 2015

The Food & Drugs Administration does not think of aging as a disease. However the FDA only allows to test drugs which potentially fight a disease. One disease. Just one disease. This has practical consequences: the FDA cannot authorize testing drugs which would combat aging. Since, according to the FDA, aging is not a disease.

I disagree. Philosophically considered, aging is obviously a disease. On the face of it, dis-ease means one is not at ease anymore. Not only is aging  a reduction of comfort: watch old people bent over, shrunk, transpierced by various pains related to all sorts of inflammations. Moreover nearly all diseases which affect people, and are ultimately impossible to treat are age related. But, moreover, clearly, aging is not comfortable:

Brigitte Bardot In Her 20s, & More recently: If That’s Not A Disease, What Is? Aging Is A Disease, Like Elephantiasis

Brigitte Bardot In Her 20s, & More recently: If That’s Not A Disease, What Is? Aging Is A Disease, Like Elephantiasis

The FDA’s position is arguably the greatest obstacle to progress in health care. Why? If aging is not a disease, and no drug can be developed to cure this non-disease, most diseases known will not be treated, as most diseases are age-related: when people are in their prime, say between 25 and 45 years of age, they are pretty much disease free.

Theories of how aging proceeds exist. They are not complete, but they fit well with the plausible modes of action of the five substances which are known to have anti-aging effects.

Some will philosophically object to the desire of having people live 1,000 years or so. However, suppose people did. It would be then very easy to persuade people to save the biosphere from the Greenhouse Gas catastrophe.

The one billion people living within 10 meter elevation from the sea would not appreciate to see their properties flooded within a small fraction of their lifetimes. Indeed, it’s pretty much guaranteed that sea level will go up tens of meters in a few centuries, displacing billions of people. Such a displacement of population will bring huge wars, and misery, among other problems.

Thus with long lives will come a better stewardship of the planet.

Some have dared to idiotically proffer that we would not want to live that long. Well, I am all for voluntary euthanasia: let them idiots and people of little appreciation die, that will help the biosphere. And it will help the ambiance too: who wants people in such a bad mood, with a jaundiced attitude to life, sticking around? Would not they start wars, just to get out of their colossal ennui?

Not fighting aging is tantamount to calling death a necessary calling, short-term, of the human experience. It’s nearly tantamount to approving of young people dying in war. It’s the reign of the philosophy of the Dark Side posing as Enlightened.

Ageing as something to be respected has to be disposed of, be it just to improve the philosophical mood of humanity.

Patrice Ayme’

Financial Devils Administration.

September 6, 2009

 

WHY TO BE SO CAREFUL WITH MEDICAL INNOVATION, WHEN FINANCIAL INNOVATION, WHICH IS MUCH MORE LETHAL, IS LEFT ALONE TO FESTER AS IT WISHES?

 

Time For Financial Devils Attenuation?

The somewhat health care challenged Obama has a health adviser (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel) who wants to "attenuate the chances" of "those with chronic diseases or towards the end of their lives". Emanuel calls that the "full life system". Presumably when Emanuel has determined that your life is full, it gets "attenuated".

Oh how nice it would be if the Obama administration showed the same scalpel approach to finance! But let’s deepen that health care analysis. The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, decides if drugs, or treatments, the products of the health care industry, are "safe and effective". Then only the products of the health care industry that are "safe and effective" are allowed for consumption by the market. In other words, innovation in health care is seriously regulated.

The bankers always advance the argument that they need to be unregulated, because only then can they "innovate". To those who talk of that concept, please point out at one recent financial innovation with public utility. Say in the last twenty years.

That one innovation ought to be allowed, should it exist (it does not).

But that innovation with a putative utility should only be allowed once, and only if, it is proven to be safe and effective. All others ought to be forbidden. And proposed new financial "innovation" ought to be legally permitted only after a careful review by the appropriate agency, the FINANCIAL DEVILS ADMINISTRATION. After all new drugs are studied for years through a legislatively mandated process. Although medical drugs are invented to save lives. Instead financial innovation are only invented to “attenuate” the lives of others, as they presumably go through what the good plutophile Emanuel has determined to be their “full life”.

Now, of course, the financial devils will rush out of the temples of high finance in their own defense, and certify that they do not kill. We heard that sort of defense before: I was not there, I did not do that. We heard it even at the Nuremberg trial (not a coincidence, see below).

The malignant growth of the financial sector has sucked up most of the innovative capacity of the economy, not just by prostituting the very concept of "innovation", but by sucking a lot of the available capital, and a lot of the human capital (the best and brightest are diverted from activities with public utility to activities more akin to old fashion piracy), besides capturing the political process, and elevating profit to the new golden calf to be adored in the guise of absolute morality.

This all has practical consequences. The financial devils have been mentoring politicians for generations in the USA. Only in the last 15 years or so have they been able to make a frontal attack against the work of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Congress in 1933. But their nefarious influence extended subterraneanly well before that. Starting in 1934, they fought subterraneanly the French menace, because France was not keen to let plutocrats play Hitler like a violin.

The crazy policy pursued with Arab Muslim fundamentalists (Osama bin Laden and company) in Afghanistan under Reagan to fight the forces of progress, so as to serve the perceived interests of the oil plutocrats, is another subterraneous example. So now people are being killed by the thousands, there, in Afghanistan, because plutocratic conspiracies of the oily type led us where we are, without any democratic debate.

These are not just slogans: bin Laden and company were taught to attack soft, public targets, such as schools. As far as those who held the purse strings at the time, it sounded smart, just as it sounds smart to shed crocodile tears about it now.

Another smart plutocratic move was to foster a Muslim fundamentalist constitution in Afghanistan. That would keep the Afghans divided, dumb and corrupt, and thus, the West forever in Afghanistan, and the oil flowing. Unfortunately the (huge) Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP) was stalled by the Taliban in 2006 (because of its control of the Afghan south, just where the most recent and fiercest NATO offensives were conducted, by the greatest of coincidence).

Of course Afghanistan is just a small, baby example, but typical. American, and not just American, most of the West’s policies, have been guided by the financial devils. Time to put them back in the box.

(By the way, the notes below are worse than the preceding, and ought to be omitted by the overly sensitive.)

***

Patrice Ayme

http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

http://patriceayme.com/

***

Note 1: CIA IN AFGHANISTAN MESSING UP SINCE 1973: Roger Morris, a Foreign Service Officer and National Security Council member under presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, and others, have pointed out that as early as 1973-74, the CIA began offering covert backing to Islamic radical rebels in Afghanistan under the pretext that the right-wing, authoritarian government headed by Mohammed Daoud Khan was too progressive. Daoud Khan was the first cousin of the Afghan King, who he overthrew for blatant stagnation. At the time, little girls were going to school.

Thus we can safely say that the West has been messing up with, and aggressing Afghanistan since 1973. Of course the average person in the West is not aware of that: most of what they know is doing what they are told, whining, or dying on command.

Millions of Afghans died, because of the West, and then the West whines about itself, because bin Laden used in the USA what he had been instructed to use in Afghanistan. This is typical of the sort of mentally dysfunctional situations the financial devils of the West have maneuvered us in. Worse is to come, if we do not now react.

Note 2: WALL STREET AND AUSCHWITZ: As I have argued elsewhere, the powers that be on Wall Street created, at the very least, many of the instruments of Nazism as early as 1922. Although the perspective of the superior race on Nazism is a valid one (namely that the Nazis became what they did because they believed in the racial superiority illusion), and so was the seduction that fascism exerted, these are not the perspectives that enabled Nazism the most. For the latter a totally amoral part of international finance of Anglo-American (mostly American) origin was necessary (there are lots of technical details involved here, that i have addressed in other essays).

Thus Nazism can be viewed as an example of American financial deregulation pushed to extremes.

The American government led Nuremberg trials arrived to this conclusion, when it was determined that the largest companies in the world, some American (Standard Oil), some German Nazi (IG Farben, fourth largest company in the world) had secretly conspired together to violate many laws, going all the way to mass murder. Curiously, this has been forgotten. When I mentioned this and related facts on the European Tribune site, amazingly, angry bankers wrote to me decrying my insanity, arguing about side issue (such as the exact names of some subsidiaries), and threatened punishment. I was duly "banned" from the site within hours (I never looked at it again). I was told I fostered "hatred". A similar chain of events happened with the "Daily Kos" (which is busy publishing the same bonus bankers).

Well, the truth is often the object of hatred. Verily, it is exhausting to reprogram one’s brain, so we as well hate those what and who threatens to do so.

(For those who wonder why the American government was so honest in 1945/46, while it is so dishonest more recently, let’s not forget that in 1946, the influence of the just deceased American president Roosevelt’s was still great. Roosevelt was no blind friend of those he called the "banksters". He had to fight them to save the USA from the Great Depression.

Nevertheless, of course, by 1945, the new order was put in place. Just an example: the station chief of the OSS in Berlin was Dulles, lawyer to 100 Nazi firms, just five years earlier: you can imagine with how much enthusiasm he pursued his clients and associates… The Dulles brothers would direct American policy for the next 15 years at least.)