Healthy Life Extension

Simple Solution to Healthcare Crisis

posted on March 29, 2011

Don’t you just love results?

What if you knew the U.S. government could save $1 Trillion of taxpayers’ dollars a year, every year, by taking one simple step? What if that step would also increase productivity and ease suffering? Would you tell your congressman? It probably won’t do you any good. I’ll tell you why in a moment.

First, let me recommend…

…Life Extension Express’ Top 6 Supplements

If you want a streamlined list for basic yet potent longevity purposes, here is what we suggest you take on a regular basis:

1. Bioavailable glutathione
2. High quality fish oil
3. Vitamin D3
4. High potency multi vitamin/mineral
5. Telomerase activators—see www.MaxLife.org/telomeres for breaking news
6. PQQ

 

Maximum Life Foundation’s advisors estimate the top three cost about $55 per month and could potentially slash healthcare costs in half. That means a savings in the U.S. of up to $1.2 trillion a year; year after year, after year. The cost to supplement the 250 million adults would be about $165 billion annually. That comes out to a net annual savings of over $1 trillion—plus the benefits of increased productivity and less suffering. Good return on investment, don’t you think?

Is anyone awake in Washington?

Apparently not.

According to an article and interview with Michael F. Holick, PhD, MD, in the September, 2010 issue of Life Extension Magazine, VitaminD3 alone could eliminate 25% of our healthcare costs across the board. And it’s dirt cheap. Dr. Holick is a professor of medicine, physiology, and biophysics at Boston University Medical Center. He is also the director of the General Clinical Research Unit, the Bone Health Clinic, and the Heliotherapy Light and Skin Research Center at BUMC. He speaks worldwide about the benefits of vitamin D and has been featured in The New York Times, Forbes, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Men’s Health, and Scientific American.

Saving 25% means this one basic supplement could save $600 billion annually. What would it cost? About $96 per year for each adult, or less than $25 billion for a net annual savings of $575 billion.

D3 plus fish oil would cost only about $22 per month, or $264 per year. The combination of D3 and fish oil could cut 1/3 or more of the $2.4 trillion healthcare costs or $800 billion. Some authorities say this one two punch would actually cut healthcare costs by 50%. But let’s use the more conservative number, subtract the less than $60 billion cost, and we save $740 billion.

Fish oil shows over 28% reduction in cardiac death and a 36% reduction in all cause mortality. Just the 250,000 fewer cardiac events in this country alone would reduce the health care cost in the neighborhood of 30%, and this uses the current low dose recommendations. Also understand that fish oil as been studied for over 40 years.

I can’t find the projected savings on the more expensive, but still moderately priced bioavailable glutathione, but I think it could be even more effective than D3 or fish oil. I take all three.

Now why do I suggest Washington won’t listen to you? Because Life Extension Foundation already offered to provide D3 to the government, but they were ignored.

How do we stem the tide of runaway government spending, over-regulation and insane domestic and international policies? The novel Atlas Shrugged predicted many of these problems is 1957. It remains a best seller after 54 years, having sold over 500,000 copies in 2009. Rumors of a movie have circulated for decades. Finally, on April 15th (tax day), this potentially tide-stemming movie, Atlas Shrugged,  will be released. Timing could not be better.

Since most of the budget was devoted to producing the movie, very little was tagged for marketing. Although it will be widely released, you may need to request a viewing in your location. You can do so by going to http://eventful.com/performers/atlas-shrugged-part-1-/P0-001-000245241-9/demands.

See the trailer at http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/.

Long Life,
David Kekich
____________________________

LATEST HEADLINES FROM FIGHT AGING!

IMMUNE THERAPY VERSUS PANCREATIC CANCER Friday, March 25, 2011 http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/immune-therapy-versus-pancreatic-cancer.php
An example of the sort of immune system engineering that is presently taking place in the laboratory: "Until this research, we thought the immune system needed to attack the cancer directly in order to be effective. Now we know that isn't necessarily so. Attacking the dense tissues surrounding the cancer is another approach, similar to attacking a brick wall by dissolving the mortar in the wall. Ultimately, the immune system was able to eat away at this tissue surrounding the cancer, and the tumors fell apart as a result of that assault. These results provide fresh insight to build new immune therapies for cancer. Pancreatic cancer patients received standard gemcitabine chemotherapy with an experimental antibody [that] binds and stimulates a cell surface receptor called CD40, which is a key regulator of T-cell activation.

The team initially hypothesized that the CD40 antibodies would turn on the T cells and allow them to attack the tumor. The treatment appeared to work, with some patients' tumors shrinking substantially and the vast majority of tumors losing metabolic activity after therapy, although all of the responding patients eventually relapsed. When the researchers looked at post-treatment tumor samples, obtained via biopsy or surgical removal, there were no T cells to be seen. Instead, they saw an abundance of another white blood cell known as macrophages. When the investigators treated mice that developed pancreatic cancer with gemcitabine in combination with CD40 antibodies, the results looked like those of the human trial. Some mouse tumors shrank and were found to be loaded with macrophages but contained few or no T cells. Closer inspection showed that the macrophages were attacking what is known as the tumor stroma, the supporting tissue around the tumor. Pancreatic tumors secrete chemical signals that draw macrophages to the tumor site, but if left to their own devices, these macrophages would protect the tumor. However, treating the mice (or patients) with CD40 antibodies seemed to flip that system on its head. It is something of a Trojan horse approach. The tumor is still calling in macrophages, but now we've used the CD40 receptor to re-educate those macrophages to attack - not promote - the tumor."

TOWARDS STEM CELL THERAPY FOR MACULAR DEGENERATION Thursday, March 24, 2011 http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/towards-stem-cell-therapy-for-macular-degeneration.php
Small steps: "The notion of transplanting adult stem cells to treat or even cure age-related macular degeneration has taken a significant step toward becoming a reality. Researchers have demonstrated, for the first time, the ability to create retinal cells derived from human-induced pluripotent stem cells that mimic the eye cells that die and cause loss of sight. Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) [gradually] destroys sharp, central vision needed for seeing objects clearly and for common daily tasks such as reading and driving. AMD progresses with death of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), a dark color layer of cells which nourishes the visual cells in the retina.

While some treatments can help slow its progression, there is no cure. The discovery of human induced pluripotent stem (hiPS) cells has opened a new avenue for the treatment of degenerative diseases, like AMD, by using a patient's own stem cells to generate tissues and cells for transplantation. For transplantation to be viable in age-related macular degeneration, researchers have to first figure out how to program the naive hiPS cells to function and possess the characteristics of the native retinal pigment epithelium, RPE, the cells that die off and lead to AMD. This is the first time that hiPS-RPE cells have been produced with the characteristics and functioning of the RPE cells in the eye. That makes these cells promising candidates for retinal regeneration therapies in age-related macular degeneration."

A POPULAR SCIENCE ARTICLE ON AUTOPHAGY AND LONGEVITY Wednesday, March 23, 2011 http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/a-popular-science-article-on-autophagy-and-longevity.php
From Science News: "the cells of organisms from yeast to humans regularly engage in self-cannibalism. Cells chew on bits of their cytoplasm - the jellylike substance that fills their bellies - and dine on their own internal organs. It may sound macabre, but gorging on one's own innards, a process called autophagy, is a means of self-preservation, cleansing and stress management. A munch here gets rid of garbage that might otherwise clog the system. A nibble there rids cells of malfunctioning parts. One chomp disposes of invading microbes. In lean times, all that stands between a cell and starvation may be the ability to bite off and recycle bits of itself. And in the last decade or so it has become clear that self-eating can also make the difference between health and disease. Starvation inhibits an important biological signaling system, known as the mTOR pathway - named for a key protein involved in regulating cell growth and survival, cell movement and protein production. The inhibition of mTOR sets off a cascade of reactions inside the cell that end in autophagy and may be crucial to prolonging cell life and ultimately fending off cancer. A drug that inhibits mTOR, called rapamycin, has been shown to extend life span in mice. It and calorie restriction are [amongst a handful of] methods proven to prolong longevity, suggesting both may work through autophagy to make cells live longer."

A NECESSARY LEVEL OF SKEPTICISM Tuesday, March 22, 2011 http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/a-necessary-level-of-skepticism.php
Much as we'd like it to be otherwise, humans don't live as long as many people like to claim that they do. The tendency to make and believe outlandish claims of human longevity is examined in this open access paper: "People have long been fascinated with claims to extreme longevity. Ancient Roman historians attempted to tally reports of extreme age in local villages. Medieval European alchemists kept tabs on reports of centenarians, possibly to find a 'cure' for old age (the Fountain of Youth). Inexplicably, various historians and even 'scientists' such as Roger Bacon accepted outlandish and wild reports of extreme age prima facie, without a critical examination or inquiry into whether the ages reported were true. It was not until the 18th century, with the advent of demographers such as Georges Buffon (1707-1788) that a limit to the human life span was proposed, with Buffon stating that 'the man who does not die of incidental diseases reaches everywhere the age of ninety or one hundred years'.

[Even today] political, national, religious, and other motivations have led the media and even scientists to errantly accept extreme longevity claims prima facie. Understanding various causes of false extreme age claims is important for placing current, past, and future extreme longevity claims in context and for providing a necessary level of skepticism. To provide a current context to unsubstantiated age claims, we provide here some statistics concerning supercentenarian (a person age 110 years or older) prevalence. Kestenbaum and Ferguson at the U.S. Social Security Administration reported Medicare data indicating that, in 2000, there were 32,920 centenarians and out of these, 105 or 0.3% were 110 years old and older. Of 2,700 people who reportedly reached the age of 110+ years between 1980 and 1999, according to the SSA, only 355 (13%) could be confirmed."

DON'T GET FAT, AND DON'T STAY FAT Tuesday, March 22, 2011 http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/dont-get-fat-and-dont-stay-fat.php
More data to quantify just how bad excess body fat is for you: "researchers have found the number of years individuals live with obesity is directly associated with the risk of mortality. The research shows that the duration of obesity is a strong predictor of mortality, independent of the actual level of Body Mass Index (BMI). As the onset of obesity occurs earlier and the number of years lived with obesity increases, the risk of mortality associated with adult obesity in contemporary populations is expected to increase compared with previous decades.

Using data from the Framingham Heart Study, 5209 participants were followed up for 48 years from 1948. The current study however only included participants who were free from pre-existing diseases of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer.
The research showed that for those who had a medium number of years lived with obesity (between five years and 14.9 years), the risk of mortality more than doubled than for those who had never been obese. The risk of mortality almost tripled for those with the longest duration of obesity (more than 15 years). Furthermore, the research showed for every additional two years lived with obesity, the risk of mortality increased by between six and seven per cent. Before now, we did not know whether being obese for longer was any worse for your health than simply being obese. However, this research shows for the first time that being obese for longer increases your risk of mortality, no matter how heavy you actually are."

THE STATE OF RESEARCH INTO HUMAN LONGEVITY IS PRESENTLY FAR FROM IDEAL Monday, March 21, 2011 http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/the-state-of-research-into-human-longevity-is-presently-far-from-ideal.php
It is always good to see some of the important ideas making their way out into the world, even in forms that are not ideal. Here, for example, the idea that all is not as it should be in medical and aging research, and that far more could be done to tackle aging: "Scientists who study the biology of aging - the basic mechanisms of how our cells and tissues change with age - believe the aging process is modifiable. Even better, scores of peer-reviewed studies have proven that decelerating the aging process in lab animals also offers huge health benefits, dramatically delaying and lowering their incidence of chronic disease. If we could achieve the same exciting results in humans, we could transform the lives of older people and achieve what aging researchers call a longer healthspan. So what's stopping us?

Putting a man on the moon was a defining national goal in the 20th century; in the 21st century, it should be decoding the biology of aging to find the fountain of health. Unfortunately, this potentially transformative work is a poor stepchild in the biomedical research enterprise. Older Americans tend to develop multiple chronic diseases [but] most research funding gets siloed into grants that study individual diseases, produce therapies that treat only one aspect of a patient's complex condition, and may add few, if any, very expensive months to life. Aging research has far greater potential to repay the public's investment than disease-centric research, because the best defense is a good offense. Getting at the root cause of a range of diseases can ultimately help us keep millions of people from developing those conditions in the first place. Although the National Institutes of Health budget exceeds $31 billion annually, the vast majority of those funds are allocated to research on specific diseases rather than the basic biology of aging, despite its potential to provide many preventive and curative strategies."

AN OPTIMISTIC RESPONSE TO DATA ON HUMAN LONGEVITY Monday, March 21, 2011 http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/an-optimistic-response-to-data-on-human-longevity.php
Singularity Hub has an optimistic response to recent announced updates to life expectancy data: "A new record high in US life expectancy begs the question, what will your children do with 0.2 more years of living? Well, that's not exactly how life expectancy works, but it's still a time to celebrate! While these statistics tell us that a child born in 2009 has a good chance of living into their seventies, here at the Hub we think the real expectancy should be a hundred years more than that as upcoming technologies will continue to boost lifespans, as we fight illness, poverty, and hunger. For now, the National Vital Statistics System report shows us what progress we've already made. 10 of the 15 top causes of death are dropping, infant mortality is falling, and most age groups are doing better as well.

Statistically speaking, it's a great time to be alive. And it's only going to get better. While the causes of death are many, and the factors behind its variation complex, it is reassuring to see that there are many emergent technologies that may help us not only live longer, but healthier as well. We're getting closer to being able to grow new organs to replace faulty ones, whether their damage comes from genetics or our own malfeasance. Or perhaps we'll augment our organs with machines, letting cybernetics extend our lives and expand our capabilities. There are institutions dedicated to taking all these emerging forms of technology and using them to help the billions in the developing world. Other groups are struggling to find the root causes of aging, and extend not just life expectancy, but our maximum lifespan as well."

Back to Top