In your lifetime, you have seen many impossible things come true: telephones without wires, pocket-sized computers, space shuttles and moon landings. We now take these impossible things for granted.
In the fields of molecular nutrition and antiaging medicine, “impossible” advances are happening rapidly- and many have already happened. We now have agents that are proven to slow, and in some cases reverse, certain symptoms of the master disease. Our work focuses on the safe, natural phytochemical agents that have these proven properties.
I am here to tell you that the world is no longer flat. Some understand this and will benefit far sooner. Most of our generation will march in lockstep to the grave, with a great deal of needless suffering on the way. Flat-worlders to the end.
I am here to present a new paradigm.
First, we must separate chronological age from biological age. Aging does not have to equal age-related disease and decline. I am 50 this year, and healthy by any measure. I am often judged to be 10 years younger. I have all my hair, my mind is sharp, my skin shows little wrinkling. Of course, I do not discount being blessed with good genes. But besides choosing our parents wisely, what can we do to slow age-related disease and decline?
The New Paradigm of Aging proposes the following:
1) Biological aging can and must be separated from chronological aging. Chronological aging is defined as length of life span of the organism. Biological aging is defined as the age-related disease and decline of the organism.
2) Every disease known to be related to, an ordinary consequence of, or commonly exacerbated by chronological aging is redefined as a symptom of the master disease- biological aging.
3) There exist today known agents that are proven in cell, animal and human studies to slow and even reverse certain symptoms of biological aging without damage to the organism.
4) Increases in quality of life span supercede improvements in quantity of life span. Extension of chronological age, while interesting and worthy of study, is useless without concomitant increase in quality of life span.
5) Each individual must decide at what point the existing research is sufficient to justify personal use of a particular therapy to interfere in biological aging.
6) A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to take full advantage of present and future advances.
7) Rapid and inevitable advances in research and treatments will benefit only those who remain alive and healthy enough to utilize them.
8) There is no financial incentive for any doctor, drug company, or government to help you stay healthier or live longer. In fact, powerful financial disincentives are deeply entrenched.
9) Every single substance the organism absorbs- food, water, nutrient, hormone, light wave, vibration, and pathogen- attenuates the biological aging of the organism. Consequently, every incidence of absorption is an opportunity to positively or negatively effect biological aging.
10) The world is no longer flat.
This new paradigm relegates the possibility of regrowing hair, for instance, to secondary importance. If unwanted hair loss is one symptom of aging, and if we are able not only to slow its progression but in some cases actually reverse this symptom, it begs the larger and much more important question: how is the biological aging of the organism affected? Even more intriguing: if an agent is able to reinvigorate hair follicles to a more youthful state of function, what else can it do? What else is going on in other organ systems, tissues and cells of the organism?
I propose that hair growth and central adiposity are important as indicators of the overall state of biological aging, the health of the organism, and its quality of life. Now we’re getting somewhere.
From this vantage point, it is easier to understand how one agent may have such disparate effects in the organism- in this example, reducing hair loss and organ fat. The latest research indicates that free radical activity is a factor in over 100 human diseases. Damage to the organism and its decline in function can be measured, studied and affected at the molecular level.
The soundness of this theory- the Free Radical Theory of Aging, proposed in 1950 by Denham Harman, MD- is overwhelmingly supported in 50+ years of research. The problem is this: you must have agents that are potent and available enough to affect the redox balance of the organism. They must be absorbed in doses that are biologically relevant.
Agents that are: 1) potent enough to affect the human body’s antioxidant balance, 2) able to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, and 3) cause no collateral damage to the organism, are very recent developments. We have identified certain phytochemical agents with all of these qualities. More and better ones are on the way.
As stated above, exogenous antioxidants are not the whole answer to biological aging. The new paradigm calls for a multidisciplinary approach. But I can say without hesitation that if you are not currently using agents that meet these criteria on a daily basis, you do not understand the single most important advantage you have right now to slow biological aging.
I will stop here, before this turns into my next book.
At 50, I personally spend over a thousand dollars a month on my own antiaging program. Few people are this serious, but I must ask them: “What is more important than increasing the quality of your health and life?” For me, there aren’t many things more important. They have names like wife, sister, brother, son and daughter and precious grandchild. Beyond these, nothing is more important to me than staying healthy, youthful, disease- and pain-free for as long as possible, no matter how “impossible” the flat-worlders insist it is.
The impossibilities of the past are the technologies of the future. You have witnessed it in your own lifetime.
If you’ve read this far, congratulations. You are an educated, thoughtful person and I look forward to a dialogue with you. You may still be skeptical. That’s fine.
Here is the important question.
What if I’m right?