I have no idea what you meant by the first line. Also, I have noticed people here keep trolling me, or being rude. That isn't working, so please stop (I'm just saying this so you won't waste your lines on it).
Your grammar causes me mental anguish.
Noun:
Severe mental or physical pain or suffering.
Yeah, eyesight might be bad at some point in life, but how do you conclude there are many people with bad genes for eyesight?
Bad eyesight is hereditary. There are other factors, such as literacy, but there's a large number of people in the world who have bad eyesight. Those genes should have died off when they couldn't hunt enough food because they couldn't see, and yet either they came back, or survived in some recessive form, or the parents took care of kids when they were unable to see, and the body worked to correct itself.
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
Bad eyesight is hereditary.
I'd hate to say this, but... Source?
"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."
-NudeRaider
Bad eyesight is hereditary. There are other factors, such as literacy, but there's a large number of people in the world who have bad eyesight. Those genes should have died off when they couldn't hunt enough food because they couldn't see, and yet either they came back, or survived in some recessive form, or the parents took care of kids when they were unable to see, and the body worked to correct itself.
Except there are an awful lot of people with bad eyesight around who have parents without any sight problems at all.
Really this tells us several things:
1. Vision is very complicated
2. The genes that control vision are quite fragile and it is easy for slight mutations or differences in expression to create an individual with bad eyesight from a variety of causes
3. Conditions during pregnancy also likely play a part
None.
it might be hereditary to somer degree, ok, but it can bw screwed up to early in development. at any rate, the kind which can be solved by corrective lenses is mainly related tzo the optical system, which is not such of an issue. problems could be in a few enzimes (or those influencin g the folding of it, or in the muscles of the lenses, which can be a general smooth muscle problem (that being the worst case).
To sacr.. someething (never able to remember
). Yeah, the reseeding with stem cells part might be complicated, but u know, tumoprs grow out from a fdew cells, so hey have to divide a lot. Most cancers survive that division, by activate telomerase. Now telomerase removed means they wont lengthen their telomers, so they tumors stop growing early, befor being a major concern. Now it means that tumors will only have a slight chance of survival, that is acquiring a muation causing eronous dna replication cycle, and having genes copied many times, plus chromosomes being attached to oneanother. Reaquisition of telomer lengtzhening is not a concern. Genetical predisposition to tumors, means, that eventually only regenerative medicine solvees that, but something (reg med+maintanence threatment for neurons) has to solve aging also.
None.
Bad eyesight is hereditary.
I'd hate to say this, but... Source?
---
To sacr.. someething (never able to remember
). Yeah, the reseeding with stem cells part might be complicated, but u know, tumoprs grow out from a fdew cells, so hey have to divide a lot. Most cancers survive that division, by activate telomerase. Now telomerase removed means they wont lengthen their telomers, so they tumors stop growing early, befor being a major concern. Now it means that tumors will only have a slight chance of survival, that is acquiring a muation causing eronous dna replication cycle, and having genes copied many times, plus chromosomes being attached to oneanother. Reaquisition of telomer lengtzhening is not a concern. Genetical predisposition to tumors, means, that eventually only regenerative medicine solvees that, but something (reg med+maintanence threatment for neurons) has to solve aging also.
Telomerase inhibitors are a proposed treatment for cancer cells, so they'll hit the Hayflick limit. The problem lies with identifying cancer cells and not harming the surrounding tissue, or the entire body. If we could detect the cancer cells so easily, then we would have a much easier time killing them. This is why cancer is so dangerous, it's a part of you, and your body recognizes as you and nonmalignant once it gets big enough.
None.
Bad eyesight is hereditary.
I'd hate to say this, but... Source?
---
To sacr.. someething (never able to remember
). Yeah, the reseeding with stem cells part might be complicated, but u know, tumoprs grow out from a fdew cells, so hey have to divide a lot. Most cancers survive that division, by activate telomerase. Now telomerase removed means they wont lengthen their telomers, so they tumors stop growing early, befor being a major concern. Now it means that tumors will only have a slight chance of survival, that is acquiring a muation causing eronous dna replication cycle, and having genes copied many times, plus chromosomes being attached to oneanother. Reaquisition of telomer lengtzhening is not a concern. Genetical predisposition to tumors, means, that eventually only regenerative medicine solvees that, but something (reg med+maintanence threatment for neurons) has to solve aging also.
Telomerase inhibitors are a proposed treatment for cancer cells, so they'll hit the Hayflick limit. The problem lies with identifying cancer cells and not harming the surrounding tissue, or the entire body. If we could detect the cancer cells so easily, then we would have a much easier time killing them. This is why cancer is so dangerous, it's a part of you, and your body recognizes as you and nonmalignant once it gets big enough.
u got it wrong. what i was talking about (wilt) is actually whole body deletion of telomerase, so we are not talking about inhibitors, but deleting the whole gene from every cells in the body (then later after that done, i bet targeted readdition in germlinwe cells have to take place) The research was about finding ou if two telomerase having other functions or not besides lengthening telomeres. Many of the bodies cells hs no active teloerase, nbesides germ line cells, and probably a few kind of blood cell progenitors. The proposal states (and it follows logically as well) thet residing with telomer legthened progemitor cells must take place in some decade periods [which is not a big deal, as far as efficient culturing of progenitror cells is possible].
None.
Sounds like a good way to kill someone. The cancer cells are going to last just as long as the non-cancer ones.
I don't know if this genetic therapy is a viable solution, I think other options are more appealing/safer.
None.
