The process

image

About cryonics

Cryonics is the process in which those who have died are preserved by keeping them at a very low temperature until a means is developed to reverse the cryonics process and a cure for their illness or death is found.

So far cryonics is only a theory. No adult human has ever been revived as a result of a cryonics procedure. Although human embryos can be successfully cryopreserved and revived.

The cryonics procedure is begun when the heart stops beating – cardiac arrest (legal death). Blood circulation and oxygenation are restored in the cryogenics patient, to prevent deterioration, and the cryonics preservation procedures begin.

It costs between $80 and $130,000 depending on whether you request whole body to neuropreservation. Many people pay for it with life insurance.

The majority of cryonics organisation are situated in the US. Michigan-based Alcor, for example, has 650 future patients signed-up and 59 cryopatients. Future patients have wristbands and a card giving detailed instructions on what should happen on their death ie that no post mortem is carried out.

Cryonics Europe, based in the UK, has a team of volunteers trained to carry out the first stages of the preservation process. This includes putting the body in a portable bath filled with dry ice and attaching it to a machine designed to maintain circulation – this stops the further deterioration of cells. The blood is then drained off and replaced with a glycerol which works a bit like anti-freeze. Then the corpse is wrapped in polythene, submerged in alcohol, placed with ice and insulated in a fibre-glass box before being airlifted to Alcor in Michigan. Once in Michigan is it immersed in liquid nitrogen which sends its temperature plunging to -196C.

More detailed information on the procedure can be obtained from the Alcor web site and the contacts in this section.

Delay in cancer drug treatment for UK women

London: Victims of breast cancer face an agonising three-year wait on the UK’s National Health Srvice for a drug hailed as the biggest breakthrough in 30 years. Doctors say Arimidex could save or prolong the lives of thousands of women.

It dramatically reduces the chances of the cancer spreading and cuts the risk of severe side- effects. But a decision on approving the drug is not due until March 2007.

Between now and then, the disease will claim the lives of nearly 30,000 women. At least 10,000 new patients a year would be suitable for Arimidex while thousands of others could switch treatments.

The annual bill for each woman’s treatment would be £800, compared to about £70 for tamoxifen, the current standard treatment.

After stunning trial results were unveiled yesterday, doctors want Arimidex to become the first-line therapy for early breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

But NHS patients will have to wait – unless they go private and can find a specialist prepared to prescribe the drug.

At the moment, it is only allowed for women who cannot tolerate tamoxifen and for advanced cancer cases.

Drug regulatory officials are considering whether to license Arimidex for initial therapy.

But even then, it still has to be approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence before being prescribed widely.

Its decision is not due before March 2007, leaving thousands of women uncertain if they are getting the best treatment.

Professor Jeffrey Tobias, one of the trial investigators, said: ‘It is clear that if Arimidex prevents the disease recurring at distant sites in the body, there is a good chance the cancer won’t come back at all.

‘More women would be surviving for longer periods, free of disease and possibly cured.’

Dr Tobias, Professor of Cancer Medicine at University College and Middlesex School of Medicine, said breast cancer therapy was at a turning point.

‘For the first time, we have a more effective and safer treatment than tamoxifen,’ he said.

‘It’s very unusual for something to emerge that is much more effective than the standard therapy.’

Although tamoxifen was cheaper, Arimidex was ‘good value for money’, he added.

Data from the biggest study of its kind showed that women on the new drug have a 10 per cent higher survival rate after five years of treatment.

It cuts the chances of breast cancer recurring by 26 per cent – over and above the 50 per cent reduction provided by tamoxifen.

Women also run less risk of the cancer spreading to distant parts of the body.

Serious side-effects, such as endometrial cancer and bloodclotting disorders, are also significantly lower. Doctors predict Arimidex will become a bigger life-saver than tamoxifen, which is credited with helping more than 20,000 British women survive since its launch in the 1980s.

Early indications suggest the death rate might be cut by a further 13 per cent compared with tamoxifen.

Study leader Anthony Howell, of the Christie Hospital, Manchester, said patients on tamoxifen should be switched to Arimidex at the ‘earliest opportunity’.

Each year, 41,000 women in the UK develop breast cancer – 30,000 of them after the menopause.

A total of 100,000 would be eligible for the new drug.

Arimidex only helps patients after the menopause as it works by shutting down the body’s supply of the female hormone oestrogen.

Professor Jack Cuzick, of Cancer Research UK, which helped fund the study, said: ‘We are very excited by these results.’

Dr Sarah Rawlings, of the charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said: ‘Tamoxifen has made a big impact but other treatment like Arimidex could also make a big difference.’

Sue Green, of CancerBACUP, said: ‘Women taking tamoxifen should be assured that the treatment is very effective. Anyone concerned should discuss it with their doctor.

‘We would also urge NICE to assess the data urgently so health professionals are given clear guidance.’

Tamoxifen is cheaper as it has been available in generic form for years.

Arimidex has cost millions to develop and is protected by a patent.

The study results were announced at a conference in the U.S. and on the website of medical journal The Lancet.

Lead in water pipes may cause cataracts, say US scientists

Lead in drinking water pipes could increase the risk of cataracts, it has emerged.
Researchers claim a build-up of lead in the body over the years from older plumbing systems could help trigger the eye disorder.

U.S. scientists working on the Normative Ageing Study in Boston checked lead levels in 795 men with an average age of 69. Cataracts were found in 122 of them.

They discovered that men in the top fifth of the lead level range were almost three times more likely to have a cataract than those in the bottom fifth.

The team, who published their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association, said: ‘Results suggest that cumulative lead exposure is a risk factor for cataracts. Reduction of lead exposure could help decrease the global burden of cataracts.’

Cataracts cause the eye lens to cloud over, leading to impaired vision or even blindness. Threequarters of people aged over 85 have a cataract bad enough to affect their sight, with women more likely to be affected than men.

Anita Lightstone, head of eye health at the Royal National Institute for the Blind, said: ‘We would not wish people to be unduly alarmed as in a large number of cases cataracts can be removed with an operation and good vision can be restored.’

Another American study – published yesterday in the Journal of Nutrition – suggests eating dark green leafy vegetables, such as spinach and kale, can help prevent cataracts.

Too much red meat may cause rheumatoid arthritis, say researchers

London: Eating lots of red meat increases the risk of rheumatoid arthritis, say researchers at Manchester University. And smoking increases the risk of chronic ageing diseases.

Epidermiologists from the university researched 25,000 people aged between 45 and 75. They compared the diets of the 88 diagnosed with rhumatoid arthritis, the condition causes membranes lining the joints to become inflamed, leading to pain and swelling, with those in a control group of 175 others. The findings are published in the Arthritis and Rheumatism journal.

They discoverd that those who ate large mounts of red meat and who smoked were more likely to have inflammatory arthritis.

Only 35 per cent of those who suffered from arthritis had never smoked, compared with 85 per cent of the control group.

The researchers concluded that the eating of red meat would likely only affect those predisposed to the condition.

‘It may be that the high collagen content of meat leads to collagen sensitisation and consequent production of anticollagen antibodies, most likely in a subgroup of susceptible individuals,’ the team said.

‘Meat consumption may be linked to either additives or even infectious agents, but again there is no evidence as to what might be important in relation to rheumatoid arthritis.’

Experts said last night that while people who eat large quantities of red meat should consider cutting down, they should not panic.

A spokesman for the Arthritis Research Campaign, which funded the study, said: ‘This provides further evidence that environmental factors can help to trigger rheumatoid arthritis.

‘In the light of this new evidence, we would suggest that, as part of a healthy lifestyle, people should cut down the amount of red meat they eat.’

But he added: ‘We wouldn’t want people to think that if they eat four burgers a week they are going to develop rheumatoid arthritis the following week, because there are other risk factors that come into play – genetic susceptibility, smoking and low intake of Vitamin C.

‘Red meat in itself is not dangerous to health, but should be eaten in moderation as part of a balanced, healthy diet.’

Humans could live 5000 years say scientists

Blame it on boomers – people born between 1946 and 1965. The baby boom generation now makes up more than a quarter of the US population population -some 77.5 million people, with more than 160,000 in San Diego. One-third are over age 50.

Every seven seconds, another boomer joins that group. In just seven years, the first boomers will hit official retirement age. By 2030, boomers 65 and older will represent one in every five people.

For them, 65 will be the new 45. Or so they hope, and so many claim.

From self-described anti-aging institutes to miracle elixirs to how-to manuals for living a century or more, boomers (and just about everyone else) want to live longer than those in previous generations.

These days, the average American has a life expectancy of 76.9 years — a little more for females, a little less for males.

Most people, of course, want to live much longer than the average. But what are the odds of living to the century mark and beyond? And how much beyond is possible?

The good news is that most scientists think human life expectancies can be substantially stretched. The not-so-good news, some experts say, is that the estimated maximum human life span — about 125 years — seems fairly fixed and that most of us will never get close.

“Longevity is really a modern phenomenon,” said S. Jay Olshansky, a demographer and biologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “The vast majority of humans ever born died before the age of 10, usually from infectious diseases.

“We’ve done fabulous things to boost the survival rates of the young — improved sanitation, new medicines — but now it’s a whole different ballgame. It’s not so easy to add 70 years of life to somebody who’s already 70 years old.”

No doubt. But a number of scientists and doctors think it’s too early to start talking about a “finished” line. They assert, in principle, that there is no maximum human life span.

Aubrey de Grey, a biogerontologist at the University of Cambridge in England, says that under the right circumstances, humans born in the 22nd century (just 96 years away) could live up to 5,000 years.

De Grey, who advocates using technology to develop a “true cure for aging,” is indisputably at the optimistic extreme. But plenty of others see longer lives ahead.

“I think people will someday live substantially longer than today,” said Steven Austad, a biologist at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio. “(Living) into your 100s will be fairly routine, up to 150 for the outlier (a longer-lived person who is the exception to the rule). I think this because we have been so successful at figuring out how to make animals live longer.

“The arguments (against appreciably longer life spans),” he added, “are based so far as I can tell on ignoring a huge pile of research done over the past 15 years and the mystical belief that longevity, unlike every other human trait we know of, is impossible to change.”

Wear and tear

In biological terms, aging is usually defined as the accumulation of random damage to the building blocks of life, most notably DNA. The damage starts in early childhood and accelerates after age 30 or 40.

Over time, the accrued, unfixed damage impairs bodily functions. Cells, tissues, organs and systems work less well.

The immune system of a typical 65-year-old, for example, is only one-tenth as effective as that of a teenager. With less protection comes greater vulnerability to disease.

“Aging, in our view, makes us ever more susceptible to such ills as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, stroke and cancer,” Olshansky wrote, along with Leonard Hayflick, a gerontologist at the University of California San Francisco, and Bruce A. Carnes, a professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, in an online essay published this year by Scientific American magazine.

But conditions like heart disease are age-related, not the actual equivalent of aging, the scientists note. And aging is not the same as longevity.

Even if modern medicine could eradicate all the leading causes of death among the elderly, says Hayflick, an early pioneer in gerontology research, human life expectancy would increase no more than 15 years.

People would still age, he said. Other afflictions would rise up to exact their deadly toll. The maximum human life span would remain unchanged.

Age-old questions

If scientists want to boost that maximum life expectancy of about 125 years, most experts say, they’ve first got to solve the questions of how we age and why.

All organisms age, but the process, called senescence, is variable and, in some species such as the giant tortoise and rougheye rockfish, it’s virtually negligible.

The tortoise is known to live for 150 years or more; the rockfish more than two centuries. Both exhibit almost no signs of aging.

Variable senescence among species suggests to researchers that there are biological mechanisms, as yet undiscovered or understood, that might be altered, replaced or removed to effectively slow or even reverse aging in humans.

De Grey at the University of Cambridge says biotechnology is the answer.

He thinks current and foreseeable medical technologies, from drugs that repair or prevent cellular damage to organ regeneration and replacement, may soon be able to reverse the effects of aging. He predicts that researchers will actually do so in mice during this decade.

“Intervention to remove the accumulating damage . . . has the potential to postpone aging indefinitely,” he said.

A big key will be genes, which researchers say dictate and exert influence over roughly 30 percent of the aging process.

“As we begin to learn more about genetics, we see that there perhaps are certain genes that enable people to cope better with stress, react better to hormones and possibly regulate the rate of aging,” said Dr. Robert Butler, president of the International Longevity Center-USA, a New York City-based think tank.

Scientists are pushing hard to find such genes.

In 2001, Harvard University physicians and molecular biologists conducted tests on people who were all at least 90 years old and found they shared one or two genes on a specific chromosome. The exact function of these genes, however, has not been determined.

More recently, Olshansky and colleagues have launched a global project to identify so-called longevity genes by sampling DNA from exceptionally elderly people in places where very long life spans are common, such as Okinawa, Japan; the Vilcabamba valley in Ecuador; and the Hunza region of Pakistan.

Such efforts, though, won’t mean more birthdays for everyone anytime soon.

Most researchers are skeptical that there will ever be a one- stop genetic remedy. They note that aging involves lots of other factors, not to mention the considerable ethical and social issues attached to significantly modifying the human genome.

“Is the purpose of medicine and biotechnology, in principle, to let us live endless, painless lives of perfect bliss?,” the President’s Council on Bioethics asked in a report last year. “Or is their purpose rather to let us live out the humanly full span of life within the edifying limits and constraints of humanity’s grasp and power?”

The council expressed concern that a world full of centenarians and a diminished sense of mortality might result in problems no one can imagine or resolve.

Others suggest that such worries miss a more pertinent point.

Tom Perls, a geriatrician who runs the New England Centenarian Study, says most people are already genetically well-equipped to live reasonably healthy lives well into their 80s. The only requirement: They take good care of themselves.

Dr. Dilip V. Jeste, director of the Stein Institute for Research on Aging at UCSD, agrees.

“The obstacles over which we have control (of aging) are primarily environmental and behavioral,” Jeste said. “These include smoking, use of drugs of abuse as well as excessive alcohol, sedentary habits, poor nutrition, etc.

“The prevention of hypertension, diabetes and obesity may help increase life span significantly,” he said. “Resilience, optimism, adaptation to changing circumstances and optimal coping style are also important.”

Jeste said the focus of aging science should be less about extending life spans and more about making aging a “successful process associated not only with longevity, but also with a high level of activity of brain and mind.”

The record for the longest documented life is held by Jean Calment, who died in France in 1997. She was 122. The last years, however, were not kind. She was blind, deaf, incontinent and unable to care for herself.

Quantity wasn’t quality, and Calment most likely longed for the youth of her 90s.

Life expectancy by country

image

LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH – BY COUNTRY
Source World Health Organisation 2002

For more detailed information and statistics go to www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/index.htm

As you will see there are huge differences between life expectancy in the developed countries of the world and those living in the poorer countries such as Africa.

In March of this year it has been reported that life expectancy in Zimbabwe has almost halved under dictator Robert Mugabe’s rule. The average Zimbabwean is lucky to reach his or her 33rd birthday. Just 20 years ago life expectancy in this country was 63 – the highest in sub-Saharan Africa. This is less than half than of a Briton. In neighbouring South Africa it is 44, in Kenya 45 and in Nigeria 50.

An interesting book by economist Richard Tren and Roger Bate, Despotism and Disease, examines the policies of Mugabe and the terrible effect on the people of Zimbabwe.

The country’s health service is unable to cope as preventable diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis increase along with an increasing number of AIDs victims.

In the West we have our own preventable diseases caused conversely by the excesses of our lifestyles such as obesity, smoking, alcohol and too little exercise.

COUNTRY MALE FEMALE
Afghanistan 41.9 43.4
Albania 67.3 74.1
Algeria 67.5 71.2
Andorra 76.8 83.7
Angola 37.9 42
Antiga 69 73.9
Argentina 70.8 78.1
Armenia 67 73
Australia 77.9 83
Austria 76.4 82.2
Azebaijan 63 68.6
Bahamas 69 75.2
Bahrain 72.1 74.5
Bangladesh 62.6 62.6
Barbados 70.5 77.9
Belarus 62.6 74.3
Belgium 75.2 81.5
Belize 67.4 72.4
Benin 50.1 52.4
Bhutan 60.2 62.4
Bolivia 61.8 64.7
Bosnia &Herzagovinia 69.3 76.4
Botswana 40.2 40.6
Brazil 65.7 72.3
Brunei 74.8 77.4
Bulgaria 68.7 75.3
Burkina Faso 40.6 42.6
Burundi 38.7 43
Cambodia 51.9 57.1
Cameroon 47.2 49
Canada 77.2 82.3
Cape Verde 66.6 72.9
Central African Republic 42.1 43.7
Chad 46.1 49.3
Chile 73.4 80
China 69.6 72.7
Colombia 67.5 76.3
Comoros 61.6 64.9
Congo 51.6 54.5
Cook Islands 69.2 74.2
Costa Rica 74.8 79.5
Côte d’Ivoire 43.1 48
Croatia 71 78.6
Cuba 75 79.3
Cyprus 75.5 79.1
Czech Republic 72.4 79
Democratic Republic of Korea 64.4 67.1
Democratic Republic of the Congo 41 46.1
Denmark 74.8 79.5
Djibouti 48.6 50.7
Dominica 71 75.8
Dominican Repubic 64.9 71.5
Ecuador 67.9 71.5
Egypt 65.3 69
El Salvador 66.5 72.8
Equatorial Guinea 51.9 54.8
Eritrea 55.8 59.3
Estonia 65.1 77.1
Ethiopia
Fiji 64.6 70.3
Finland 74.8 81.5
France 75.9 83.5
Gabon 57.3 61.4
Gambia 55.4 58.9
Georgia 68.4 75
Germany 75.6 81.6
Ghana 56.3 58.8
Greece 75.8 81.1
Grenada 65.9 68.8
Guatamala 63.1 69
Guinea 50.9 53.7
Guinea-Bissau 45.7 48.7
Guyana 61.5 66.9
Haiti 49.1 51.1
Honduras 64.2 70.4
Hungary 68.4 76.8
Iceland 78.4 81.8
India 60.1 62
Indonesia 64.9 67.9
Iran 66.5 71.7
Iraq 59.1 63.1
Ireland 74.4 79.8
Israel 77.3 81.4
Italy 76.8 82.5
Jamaica 71.1 74.6
Japan 78.4 85.3
Jordan 68.6 73.3
Kazakhstan 58.7 68.9
Kenya 49.8 51.9
Kiribati 61.8 66.7
Kuwait 75.8 76.9
Kyrgyzstan 60.4 68.9
Lao People’s Democratic Republic 54.1 56.2
Latvia 64.6 75.8
Lebanon 67.6 72
Lesotho 32.9 38.2
Liberia 40.1 43.7
Libya 70.4 75.5
Lithuania 66.2 77.6
Luxembourg 75.7 81.7
Madagascar 54.4 58.4
Malawi 39.8 40.6
Malaysia 69.6 74.7
Maldives 66.5 65.6
Mali 43.9 45.7
Malta 75.9 80.3
Marshall Islands 61.1 64.6
Mauritania 49.8 54.5
Mauritius 68.4 75.6
Mexico 71.7 77
Micronesia 64.9 68.1
Monaco 77.8 84.5
Mongolia 60.1 65.9
Morocco 68.8 72.8
Mozambique 41.2 43.9
Myanmar 56.2 61.8
Namibia 48.1 50.5
Nauru 59.7 66.5
Nepal 59.9 60.2
Netherlands 76 81.1
New Zealand 76.6 81.2
Nicaragua 67.9 72.4
Niger 42.6 42.7
Nigeria 48 49.6
Niue 67.6 73.3
Norway 76.4 81.7
Oman 71 76.3
Pakistan 61.1 61.6
Palau 66.4 70.9
Panama 72.8 78.2
Papua New Guinea 58.4 61.5
Paraguay 68.7 74.7
Peru 67.5 72
Philippines 65.1 71.7
Poland 70.6 78.7
Portugal 73.6 80.5
Qatar 74.5 73.8
Republic of Korea 71.8 79.4
Republic of Moldova 64 71.6
Romania 68 75
Russian Federation 58.4 72.1
Rwanda 41.9 46.8
Saint Kitts & Nevis 68.7 72.2
St Lucia 69.8 74.4`
St Vincent and the Grenadines 67.8 71.9
Samoa 66.8 69.7
San Marino 77.2 84
Sao Tom & Principe 61.7 63.6
Saudi Arabia 68.4 73.9
Senegal 54.3 57.3
Serbia & Montenegro 62.7 64.9
Seychelles 67 77.2
Sierra Leone 32.4 35.7
Singapore 77.4 81.7
Slovakia 69.8 78.3
Slovenia 72.8 80.5
Solomon Islands 63.6 67.4
Somalia 43 45.2
South Africa 48.7 52.6
Spain 76.1 83
Sri Lanka 667.2 74.3
Sudan 54.9 59.3
Surinam 64.4 70.8
Swaziland 36.9 40.4
Sweden 78 82.6
Switzerland 77.7 83.3
Syria 68.8 73.6
Tajukistan 61 66.5
Thailand 66 72.7
Macedonia 69 75.1
Timor-Leste 54.8 60.5
Togo 50 53.3
Tonga 70 71.4
Trinidad & Tobago 67.1 72.8
Tunisia 69.5 73.9
Turkey 67.9 72.2
Turkmenistan 58.8 66.9
Tuvalu 60 61.4
Uganda 48.9 50.8
Ukraine 61.7 72.9
United Arab Emirates 71.31 75.1
UK 75.8 80.5
Tanzania 45.5 47.5
US 74.6 79.8
Uraguay 71 79.3
Uzbekistan 65.6 70.8
Vanuatu 66.4 69.1
Venezuela 71 76.8
Vietnam 67.1 72.2
Yemen 58.7 62.2
Zambia 39.1 40.2
Zimbabwe 37.7 38

About Elixir

image

Avril O’Connor is the Editor of Elixir News and Elixir magazine. It has been developed from a passion which began in 2002 when there was a proliferation of web sites selling anti-ageing products and services….but few with an independent voice.

In April 2005 Elixir News was born. It is editorially independent enabling consumers to better make informed choices about their health and anti-ageing products and services.

We do not accept payment to write endorsements of products and services or for the inclusion of experts and services in our directories. This enables Elixir News to be a credible and independent news source, as well as including all the services and professional experts that we consider relevant to our readership. Nevertheless inclusion is not an endorsement by us and should it come to our attention that any business mentioned on our site is being conducted in an illegal or unethical manner we will remove it from our directories.

Visitors to our site should also bear in mind that many claims are made for anti-ageing products and services that are not necessarily substantiated by scientific evidence and should always take the expert advice of a qualified medical doctor.

It is the intention of Elixir News to fairly report and investigate the facts. If we consider that any claims for products/services are bogus or unsubstantiated we will say so. If you have had negative experiences with businesses in this sector please let us know and we will take up the challenge. We also report on our positive experiences with products and services. Advertising or sponsorship is clearly labelled as such.

We hope that you will find our web site useful in arming you with knowledge that can help you live a longer and happier life. But once again we do advise anyone with persistent health problems to consult a qualified medical practitioner/doctor. Anyone embarking on a intensive anti-ageing programme should, in particular, seek the advice of a qualified specialist about the supplements they plan to take and in what quantities, as they may conflict with drug therapy and certain medical conditions. The doctor may advise certain blood and other tests to determine your individual needs.

Please do let us know about your experiences and feedback on the information within this site. Email us at info@elixirnews.com