Viser arkivet for stikkord process

Healthcare queues.

Queues in healthcare is in the case of Norway, a sign of a healthy healthcare system. Increasing queues mean we are keeping people alive longer.
There is some confusion about how to deal with it in politics all over the world.

The healthcare system is like a dam, that slowly is filled with water from a river. Every year you have to spend X amount to keep the dam intact, and every year you must increase the size of the dam if you do not control how fast the water enters the dam. What you can do is this:
1. Decrease the amount of water that enters the dam.
2. Increase the size of the dam so it holds more water.
3. Increase the amount of water you release.
Translated to healthcare:
1. Increase research into the aging process.
2. Increase the amount of healthcare resources (beds, people etc).
3. Let more people die. This last one is obviously not an option.

For every person we put into making the dam bigger, we must put at minimum two people into decreasing the amount of water that fills the dam (rule of thumb, the real answer is a complex function).

In 2012 Norway spent 139 000 000 000 NOK keeping the dam intact. 3 000 000 000 NOK more to make the dam bigger from the previous year. But the increase in funding for stopping the dam filling up was in the millions, not billions. It is then not a surprise that the dam fills up even more, even faster, and next year we must add more billions to the dam to make it bigger.
Unless we do some serious effort into stopping the dam from filling up we will very quickly have to increase taxes for everyone, rich AND poor, and that will also just be temporary effect.
It will take a decade or two before we see any large scale benefit from research because a decade is about the time it takes to discover something new and make it into a medicine approved to be used on humans. So it is imperative that we do so right now, this instant. Because the longer we wait the more the queue will cost us, its like interest on interest.

At this point you no doubt think aging is a law of physics akin to “what goes up must come down”, but its not technically true, if you add energy to something you can have it fly continually, and never come down. Aging is chronic, you can’t remove it without changing pretty much everything, but you can treat it, you can “live with it”, as it were. You can never stop rust from occurring on a car without pretty much changing everything, but you CAN remove rust often enough for the car to never break down. Regularly fixing the damage Accumulated in the body as a result of the energy processes in the body.
If we had our bodies and brains in for regular service, lets say every decade or every other decade, then we would greatly decrease the cost of healthcare and live substantially longer (then with young capable bodies and brains, not old farts that can’t ski). But to do that we need research into how to do services on human bodies and brains, how to fix the rust, as it were.

Here is an example. They recently found out how to “do a service” so to speak, on mice, and by doing it they increased the lifespan of the mice by 24%, with just ONE service. Imagine if the services were done at regular intervals and pre-planned dates and times.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120514204050.htm
This is what we should make the goal for everyone. The medical knowledge to be able to perform regular service on human bodies and brains so that we do not rust away like some crappy car no one bothers to restore. Services that regularly removes some of the molecular damage we accumulate from ionizing radiation, metabolic functions, DNA replication etc. Tell your friends and governments.

PostScript: Check the bar at the top of the page that says “Together we can end the diseases of aging. SENS Foundation”.

Aging and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Is underfunding of research into the aging process against the European Convention on Human Rights?

The European Convention on Human Rights reads as follows:
SECTION I
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ARTICLE 2
Right to life
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
( c ) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Age related disease daily deprive life from over 100 000 people worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

Are these deaths caused intentionally by not funding research into the aging process? All the arguments against funding research on the aging process are irrelevant to this discussion, as they are not mentioned in the second part of Article 2 of ECHR.

Is life adequately protected by law? The law of most nations protect rather well against war, which only accounts for 0.3% of annual deaths in 2002. See list of causes by death by rate link. But the law of most nations protect extremely poorly against cardiovascular disease, infectious and parasitic diseases, ischemic heart disease, cancers and stroke, which account for 29.34%, 23.04%, 12.64%, 12.49% and 9.66% of annual deaths in 2002 respectively.

It could be relevant to this discussion that Article 13 reads:
Right to an effective remedy.
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

Here is the European Convention on Human Rights in its full, from the European Court of Human Rights website: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/Convention_ENG.pdf

To summarise: Is life protected by law? Are people being deprived of life intentionally? (Intentional inaction/action)
What do you think?

This survey finds that 79% of Americans wish that life-extending treatments should be given to all who want them. This implies they also want us to develop life-extending treatments for those who want them.

Short about life-extending treatments: Aging is not to be mistaken as growth, they are two separate things that both change the body. But growth stops when the body is fully-grown (around 25 years for humans). At which point aging becomes the sole changing force of the body. Aging can be described as decay, like a boat that slowly fills with seawater due to imperfections in the hull. All you need to do to turn back aging a bit is to remove some of the seawater in the boat. It still fills slowly, but as long as you bail fast enough you can have a low chance of sinking for quite some time. There are only 7 types of decay. A guesstimate for how expensive it is to develop life extending treatments (that extend life substantially, by decades), puts it at around what the human genome project cost. So in todays money 5.5 billion NOK annually for 15-20 years. See the book Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey, PhD, for a thorough walkthrough of strategies for how to develop these treatments. If you work in the Norwegian government, ask the Norwegian ministry of Health to borrow a copy, I have made sure they have eight. But really if those don’t work, its just a matter of trying other strategies. 5.5 billion Norwegian Kroners annually gets a lot of research. When the human genome project was started many experts did not think it was possible, because none of the technology they needed, existed. But today, 8 years after they had mapped the first human genome completely, a human genome can be read for only 35 000 NOK. Much of biotech research is done with computers and machines.

I think life is inadequately protected by law, and that inaction daily deprives 100 000 people who die of what we call “natural causes”. Article 2 does not add that people can be deprived of life from “natural causes” either. No doubt because certain states would argue that “natural causes” include a vast amount of unethical things.
Click the button at the top of this website that says “SENS Foundation”.