Raelians Reverse Aging Process?
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Raelians are at it again, claiming another amazing scientific advance despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to back any of it up. In this new case, they are alleging that they managed to find a way to use stem cells to turn back the body's aging process. They seemed to take great pleasure in the last hoax, so I wonder how much fun they are having this time?
James Langton writes for the Evening Standard:
Experts have admitted the techniques used are "good science" and that reversing ageing is "theoretically possible". However, they criticise the Raelians for refusing to reveal their methods and proof of their claims. Cult chief Dr Brigitte Boisselier, 47, is set to reveal the details of the work at a conference in London next week. However, organisers, who say the cult used a false name to book their facilities, have now cancelled it.
In an exclusive interview with the Evening Standard, Dr Boisselier said the cult had set up a new company, Stemaid, which is using stem cells. At least two patients are being treated; one has a brain tumour and the other is paralysed after a spinal cord injury. "We have found a way to cure so many diseases and a way to look like you are 17 years old," she said. "There will be six to nine months demonstrating and then we will be showing everything."
Boisselier was the lead person for the cloning hoax, and now she's heavily involved with this. I wonder if, when she is alone at night, she feels any embarrassment or remorse over what she does. It would require something of a sociopathic personality to participate in continual lies and deception without ever feeling the slightly pangs of guilt. Someday, perhaps, the effects of aging will be reversible - but it won't be the Raelians who figure out how it is done.
Read More:
Comments
Reversing aging is a controversial subject. For us normal people, it is best to concentrate on eating a clean diet of lots of raw veggies and fruits. This is about all we can do as of now.
Reversing aging should not be so controversial, there are more than the immediately obvious benefits that would make such a technology worthwhile.
For example, a society where people are of greater age, have had more time to experience life, experience mistakes and ultimately learn from them and develop understanding, could quite possibly lead to a somewhat more peaceful cooperative society where people have a better understanding of the necessity of mankind to work together in order to achieve a greater lifestyle for all.
Also what we may wish to note is that if ‘we’ mankind, have this ability to continue our life, to prolong it, then why do our neighbours care? If I want to live longer, why should you have a say in it -I’m not forcing it on you. It is just as illogical as those people who condemn the lifestyle of gays (you know the sort I mean). What personal matters our fellow man conduct is not of relevance to us if it is not involving/harming those who do not wish to participate, but yet we have this profound ideology that this personal aspect of other people’s lives should be at our control –“what the…?
If you don’t want to live longer, then don’t, move on and let the rest of us do as we will.
Now I know, I know, I’ve heard people mention this whole, “Oh, the world is going to over populate” idea -ironically, the more, is not necessarily the merrier. But, newsflash everyone, the population IS growing, and it’s doing it right now, even as you read this, who knows how many additional people have just popped into this world by the time you finish reading this comment (probably a million judging by this comments growing length -you can laugh out loud at that if you want)!
This over population issue, is not exclusive to a world where people live longer, it is happening right now, and it will eventually become a massive issue no matter what path we take, it will have to be confronted. But, do not fear, we humans are apparently very good at adapting, no doubtedly we will find a way to practice population control.
One thing that always annoys me about this subject is those religious freaks. Yes the one’s that have a rather creative view at looking at mankind’s origin and attempt to handball this to others, they tend to keep bringing up “oh this isn’t what God would want” or “it’s not natural”. These arguments are completely invalid, there has been no proven existence of God/s, and the latter statement usually based upon the former notion is also invalid therefore.
Sure, many of you religious people probably have a great arsenal of arguments to contradict these claims, but nevertheless, it remains unproven that God/s exist whether or not you ‘want’ to believe it.
Also note that natural is hard to define. Exactly what is natural and what isn’t? Is it natural to prefer strawberry ice cream to chocolate? Is it natural to love another man as oppose to a woman? If a product is made from processed foods, is it still natural? How far can we process elements of the ‘natural’ environment before it’s no longer natural?
It also remains that much of mankind is divided as to who is God and what values ‘He’ represents or what manner in which ‘He’ would have us conduct ourselves, and therefore it’s completely reasonable that the entire religious subject area be excluded from our points of argument.
‘He’ may exist in your opinion, and maybe in that other man’s opinion also, however ‘He’ may be different in the eyes of that man.
God is a personal issue, so you religious folk please back off with your preaching.
And yes, trying to prove God exists is like trying to prove Tom Cruise is gay, it just isn’t going to happen…at least anytime soon (yes that was a bit of humour –who really knows what the deal is with that guy).
Thanks for you attention.
John.