Talk:Rejuvenation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rejuvenation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Alternative views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Should nanotechnology-induced dechronification be mentioned in the introductory paragraph? Isn't that only one out of many possible ways of achieving rejuvenation? I think its place is somewhere after the table of contents. Alex.g 10:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an inappropriate reference. In fact, I have just removed the dechronification links (dead links) altogether. It was an historical artifact. I do think it is worth alluding to stem cells, and molecular repair, so the last sentence of the intro paragraph now does that. --Ben Best 14:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background

I have placed a "not verified" tag on this section because I feel that the text of the section is too general and does not cite even a remote reference, while some other parts are entirely unexplained ("Since the emergence of philosophy, sages and self-proclaimed wizards always made enormous efforts to find the secret of youth" is an example). I'm currently looking for myths connected to forced rejuvenation but this article does not help me in more than telling me that there are supossedly examples of people sleeping with younger people. I hope someone can clear this up. AdamDobay 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category & research centers

Currently Regenerative medicine redirects to stem cells, and there is no obvious category Regenerative medicine to sit above both stem cell treatments and Rejuvenation (aging). If there is no objection, I will create the category in a day or two.

Also organizattiosn such as New York Stem Cell Foundation‎ and McEwan Center for Regenerative Medicine do not have a clear category. What are some of the organizations for this page?

Any ideas? History2007 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the only organizations devoted entirely to rejuvenation are the ones associated with Aubrey de Grey, namely the Methuselah Foundation and other project associated with his Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. --Ben Best (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then my guess is that other researchers use "other terms" to refer to their work in the same field. How can someone own an entire scientific field? I guess I have to do more Google searches, but I have seen a few researchers before, so I am think there are others, but we probably have a terminology gap. History2007 (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many biomedical gerontologists devoted to anti-aging, but only Dr. de Grey is specifically devoted to rejuvenation, to my knowledge. --Ben Best (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, I recognized some of those names. Some were serious, some were marketing types. I will have to do more resaerch here. A few of the articles on these topics are very close to advertisements. At least de Grey has written a Cambridge sanctioned book and has some degree of science, but a few of those people who have wikipedia pages have MD degrees from places like Belize (it says hidden in their bio!) and just sell, sell, sell. Those wikepedia articles need clean up. History2007 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anyone on that list with an MD from a place like Belize. Aslan, Kyriazis and Pearson are the closest to hucksters of any of them. Some might call Sinclair a huckster, but with his Harvard education and situs his credentials cannot be challenged. Garan and Pearson are the only ones on the list without PhDs, and I believe that almost all on the list have PhDs from very reputable institutions, as you can easily verify by reading their respective Wikipedia entries. --Ben Best (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I told you it was hidden in the detail of the resume. Goldman was educated as an MD in Belize. See: http://www.worldhealth.net/pages/dr_robert_goldman_resume History2007 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Aging is an accumulation of damage to macromolecules, cells, tissues and organs. If any of that damage can be repaired, the result is rejuvenation."

A damage of cells en macromolecules can also happen with an accident. If the organ is replaced for example with stem cells then this is just repair and not rejuvenate. Rejuvenate means that you can for example replace the cells end organs by younger ones. For example you can replace a hand that looks 40 years with one that looks 30 years and the "new" hands process of aging is normal . That means you can add 10 years of life. If however the hand is damaged when you are 40 years old and is repaired by stem cells and the hand looks like 40 years old again(but is functioning healthy again) then it is just repair. For my understanding that last one does not means rejuvenating. If however stemcell therapy is rejuvenating then we allready have a reciepe for eternal life. Resource: Junying Yu e.a.: ‘Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells’, Sciencexpress, 22 november 2007

Kazutoshi Takahashi e.a.: ‘Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult fibroblasts by defined factors’, Cell, 30 november 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.69.35 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sentence "Noteworthy people who had the surgery included Harold McCormick, chairman of the board of International Harvester Company,[3] and the aging premier of Turkey.[4]" I checked the references and as long as could understand it was only a rumour at that time but in the article it is given as a proven fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.224.130 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rejuvenation is distinct from life extension

Some people do not seem to know the difference. The section on telomeres might be relevant to life extension, but it is not relevant to rejuvenation. Or if it is, there is no indication in the text as to why it is relevant. I am deleting that section. GirlForLife (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links section

I would like to add a link on the "external links" section to my wiki on rejuvenation called Rejuvepedia. I am the administer of Rejuvepedia and would like to get the opinion of other editors if it is ok to link to the website inline with: "It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide."

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest

The address is http://www.rejuvepedia.org

All harsh, but ultimately constructive, criticisms are highly welcome. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caston81 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rasayana Chikithsa?

I reverted these edits by Palashpaul (talk · contribs). First of all, the etymology for "rejuvenation" is re- (Latin: "again") + juvenis (Latin: "young"). The rest was not in line with WP:MEDRS. Gabbe (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rejuvenation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was moved to Talk:Rejuvenation (disambiguation). – wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]