FROM JEFF CHILDERS

Fully’s Comment : This is a horror story now ! Sometimes we smugly sit and thinkk…well we told you so…but this is way beyond that now and it all makes me physiclly ill to think about what they have done

………………

I’m sure it was completely unrelated, but the New York Post also ran a cancer story yesterday, this one headlined “Cancer rates rising in young people due to ‘accelerated aging,’ according to ‘highly troubling’ new study.” Whoops.

image 2.png
Washington University researchers presented their new study this week at the American Association for Cancer Research’s swanky annual meeting in San Diego, California. One of the researchers, Ruiyi Tian (if that’s her real name), explained current cancer trends took the industry by surprise. “The realization that cancer, and now aging, are becoming significant issues for younger demographics over the past decades was unexpected,” she explained.

Unexpected! And they just suddenly noticed. So … sudden and unexpected.

Let’s not move past that too quickly. Take a moment to fully appreciate the researcher’s remark. Young people are having significant new issues with cancer, we already knew about that one, thanks to Princess Kate Middleton’s cancer confessional video, which was almost certainly, or at least probably, okay possibly it wasn’t an AI deepfake.

image 3.png
But now, adding insult to young people’s many injuries, in addition to significant issues of cancer, young people are dealing with significant issues of aging, which is sort of an oxymoron, if you think about it. I mean, in one sense we are all dealing with ‘significant issues of aging,’ but that’s beside the point, since that’s not the sense they are talking about.

If there is one thing from which young people deserve to be free, it’s significant issues of aging. Those should be reserved for the elderly, who’ve already enjoyed their carefree salad years during which they get to believe they’ll never get old, not like all those relics clogging up the care homes. Young people get to believe science will sooner or later come up with a drug that stops aging, or at least slows it down.

See where I’m going?

The one thing young people should never have to deal with is being coerced into taking a drug that speeds up aging. Which is what “accelerating aging” means, after all.

The researchers delivered the bad news in the cancer context, since four years ago cancer was always considered a disease of the elderly. So accelerated aging also predicts more cancer, which is just what we are seeing. But that’s too narrow a focus. Aging brings more problems than just cancer, and so “accelerated aging” seems like a useful euphemism for some more specific problem.

In this study, researchers surveyed 150,000 bloodwork reports from the British Biobank database for patients under 55 years old. They estimated each patient’s “biological age” using nine blood biomarkers — then compared the calculated biological age to the patients’ actual chronological age.

In other words, the concept of blood-based “biological age” is a descriptor for a patient’s internal biochemical health. If “aging” biomarkers appear, the patient’s blood resembles someone older and less healthy. Dr. Brett Osborn, a Florida neurologist and longevity expert, explained “Typically, the older someone is chronologically, the greater the chance of developing diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart attack and stroke.” And “if one’s biological age is higher than their calculated biological age — it means they are aging at an accelerated rate relative to their chronological age.”

Not too good.

The Post finally got around to the most important fact in the third sentence from the end of the article:

Beyond cancer, Osborn predicted that a spike would also be detected for other age-related diseases.
Aha. A spike. Good one. But like all the other recent trending cancer articles and related limited hangouts, this article attempted to characterize the problem — without exactly saying so — as a long-term problem that has been slowly building for decades since 1965. But to believe that, a reader must be willfully blind. They can’t help giving away the game, like in this quote, the quote that jumped into the article’s headline:

Regarding the new Washington University study, Dr. Osborn called the findings “highly troubling.”
If it were truly a long-term trend — since 1965! — there is no way Dr. Osborn, a neurologist and longevity expert, would have called the results “highly troubling.” Instead, he would have said, “it’s more evidence of the long-term downward slide in health” or something like that. He’d say it that way because other researchers would have already published “accelerated aging” papers, tons of them, over the decades since 1965. It would be old news to longevity experts like Dr. Osborn by now.

So that is clearly a lie.

Young people do not deserve this. They deserve to enjoy their youth and not worry about cancer and strokes and chronic disease. This is an indescribable tragedy of incalculable proportions. But the problem isn’t limited to young people. If an “environmental factor” is accelerating aging for young people under 55, that same “environmental factor” — whatever it is — is almost certainly accelerating aging in people over 55, too.

The “accelerated aging” label itself is deceptive. Remember, when they say “accelerating aging,” they really mean blood pollution. Young, old, we’re all in the same sinking mRNA boat.