Sadly there is an article dated today which is called "FDA says NMN cannot be sold as a dietary supplement in the US" (at https://longevity.technology/news/fda-says-nmn-cannot-be-sold-as-a-dietary-supplement-in-the-usa/ ). I am upset with the FDA saying NMN cannot be sold as a dietary supplement in the US, and as a result I might try to buy it this week from a local vitamin store before it is too late!
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
99
If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?
by Disillusioned JW insometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
99
If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?
by Disillusioned JW insometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Article about longevity: "The Science Behind NMN–A Stable, Reliable NAD+Activator and Anti-Aging Molecule" (at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7238909/ ). The article says in part the following.
"In June of 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the 11th edition of its International Classification of Diseases, and for the first time added aging.1 The classification of aging as a disease paves the way for new research into novel therapeutics to delay or reverse age-related illnesses such as cancer, cardiovascular and metabolic disease, and neurodegeneration.2,3 Nutrient sensing systems have been an intense focus of investigation, including mTOR (the mammalian target of rapamycin) for regulating protein synthesis and cell growth; AMPK (activated protein kinase) for sensing low energy states; and sirtuins, a family of seven proteins critical to DNA expression and aging, which can only function in conjunction with NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide), a coenzyme present in all living cells.4
Across the kingdom of life, an increase in intracellular levels of NAD+ triggers shifts that enhance survival, including boosting energy production and upregulating cellular repair.5 In fact, the slow, ineluctable process of aging has been described as a “cascade of robustness breakdown triggered by a decrease in systemic NAD+ biosynthesis and the resultant functional defects in susceptible organs and tissues.”6 Aging is marked by epigenetic shifts, genomic instability, altered nutrient sensing ability, telomere attrition, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, stem cell exhaustion, and dysregulated intercellular communication.7,8
By middle age, our NAD+ levels have plummeted to half that of our youth.9 Numerous studies have demonstrated that boosting NAD+ levels increases insulin sensitivity, reverses mitochondrial dysfunction, and extends lifespan.10,11 NAD+ levels can be increased by activating enzymes that stimulate synthesis of NAD+, by inhibiting an enzyme (CD38) that degrades NAD+, and by supplementing with NAD precursors, including nicotinamide riboside(NR) and nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN).12,13 A conceptual framework called NAD World, formulated over the last decade by developmental biologist Shin-ichiro Imai, MD, PhD, of Washington University School of Medicine, posits NMN as a critical, systemic signaling molecule that maintains biological robustness of the communication network supporting NAD+.6
Taken orally, NMN is rapidly absorbed and converted to NAD+.14 In numerous studies, supplementation with NMN has increased NAD+ biosynthesis, suppressed age-related adipose tissue inflammation, enhanced insulin secretion and insulin action, improved mitochondrial function, improved neuronal function in the brain, and more. Here, we look at the science behind NMN, its stability, possible pharmacokinetics, transport, function, and ability to induce biosynthesis of NAD+.15 Supplementing NMN may be an effective nutraceutical anti-aging intervention, with beneficial effects on a wide array of physiological functions.16"
I plan to start taking NMN supplements. The scientist who authored the book called Lifespan: Why We Age-And Why We Don't Have To" says he takes NMN and resveratrol supplements and has reduced his biological age by 10 years. I started taking resveratrol more than a month ago, but I have temporarily paused my intake of it.
-
99
If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?
by Disillusioned JW insometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?
' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?
' what do you folks say?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
News article: Those in the USA who don't believe in God are a fast-growing force in politics – and they’re typically even more politically active than white evangelicals, according to an article! See https://theconversation.com/americans-who-arent-sure-about-god-are-a-fast-growing-force-in-politics-and-theyre-typically-even-more-politically-active-than-white-evangelicals-193073 (published on October 27, 2022). The article was written by an Assistant Professor of Political Science.
The author defines atheists and agnostics as follows. "Atheists believe that there is no higher power in the universe, while agnostics contend that a higher power may exist but it’s impossible to know for certain." He next says the following. "By 2021, that share had risen to just about 12%. But atheists and agnostics are often left-leaning in their political persuasion, and their rapid ascendance in the American religious landscape is proving much more consequential to the Democratic Party than the GOP." According to the political scientist who wrote the article the following is the case.
"Just 4% of people who align with the Republican Party say that they are atheist or agnostic. That same figure was 3% when Barack Obama won the White House in 2008.
However, according to my analysis of the CES data, 1 in 5 Democrats today are atheist or agnostic, an increase of eight percentage points from 2008.
... when it comes to political protests, there’s no doubt that secular Americans are more politically engaged. In 2020, 18% of atheists and 16% of agnostics said that they had gone to a march or rally about a political issue, versus just 5% of white evangelicals, based on CES data. When it comes to donations, the gulf is even wider. In 2020, half of all atheists made a political donation, along with 43% of agnostics. In comparison, only about a quarter of white evangelicals made a political donation to a candidate or party."
The growing proportion of non-God believers who are very active in voting and funding in USA politics might have been a huge factor why the Democratic party did so much better in this month's mid-term USA elections than what the Republican party expected.
I became a voter in political elections (in 2008) after I stopped considering myself a believing JW. About two years after casting my first political vote, I ceased believing in God/god and in everything supernatural. Since becoming a voter I have been very active in voting. All of the Democrats (and all or nearly all of the ballot measures) I voted for in the primary and general elections of this year (in both the partisan races and in the nonpartisan races) won in my state! I voted very progressive.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Vidqun, just because CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere that doesn't mean it has an insignificant effect on the global air temperature. My study of science books and my own experiences with human made greenhouses makes that very clear.
If you have a car think of how hot the air in the car gets inside of the car (relative to the air outside of the car) on a sunny hot day when the windows are closed and sunlight is entering the car through the closed glass windows. The glass is much thinner (less than half an inch) than the several foot length of air in the car, but it is enough to let in UV waves (which are later converted into infrared waves) and to trap in infrared waves, and that results in the air within the car becoming considerably hotter than the air outside of the car. That is the greenhouse effect in work.
Likewise in greenhouses in which plants are grown, the length of air from the ground to the top of the greenhouse is even much greater than the length of air in a car, though the thickness of the glass is about the same as that of the car, yet the greenhouse effect is still produced. Some greenhouses used to grow plants, don't even use glass, using only plastic sheets (and thus much thinner than glass panes) yet a greenhouse effect is still produced, allowing the plants in the greenhouse to grow.
In my metropolitan area I have personally noticed that the summers and early portion of fall have become hotter over recent years, and that the winters have become warmer over recent years. I have also noticed that wildfires in my state have increased dramatically over recent years, resulting in the smoke from the distant wildfires getting into the air of my metro area on several days of each recent year. I don't remember such smoke every being in the air of my metro area prior to a few years ago, except on extremely rare occasions.That is extremely alarming to me. Furthermore, when I watch the televised news I see that such warming of the climate and increasing frequency of wildfires are happening across much of my nation and in many other nations.
I thus see the very clear evidence from my personal experiences. I also see the data presented in scientific sources about the Earth's climate. It is undeniable to me.
Whether global warming needs to be limited to 1 degree Celsius, 1.5 degrees Celsius, 2 degrees Celsius, 2.5 degrees Celsius, 3 degrees Celsius, or by some other amount, over pre-industrial levels, it is very clear to me that is needs to be limited in order for the human species (and numerous other species) on the planet to survive and in order for it (and them) to continue to thrive. [Life on Earth is interdependent. For example, the continued existence of our species is dependent upon the continued existence of numerous other species.] It also very clear to me that humans need to do more to reduce their CO2 emissions, in order to limit increases in the global temperature.
-
12
How strong is our faith on this issue of the Blood?
by wannabe inhow strong is our faith on this issue of the blood?.
what is it we need more than anything else, if we are told by a member of the medical profession that we will die if we do not accept a blood transfusion?
i myself have heard those word spoken, so i know how scary a life threatening situation like that is, and of course that would frighten anyone half to death.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Something which the NT attributes as a saying of Jesus might indicate that the biblical Jesus would be fine with a human receiving a transfusion of blood which came out of the body of a willing human, in order to save the life of a human. See John 6:53–57:
'53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, the one who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.'
Whether or not these words attributed to Jesus are meant to be understood literally or only metaphorically, it would seem to indicate that according the gospel writer that Jesus didn't consider it forbidden under God's law for a human to ingest human blood which was donated by the human whose internal organs made the blood. In other words, if according to Bible (and the writer of the gospel named John) God prohibited every situation of a human ingesting another human's blood, then surely Jesus wouldn't have said, even with a metaphorical meaning, the words mentioned in John 6:53-57.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
road to nowhere, neither I nor climate scientists are saying we need to live in a a pre-industrial world, except in regards to limiting the world's CO2 emissions to very close to such an era. The idea is do such by using different sources of energy (such as solar and wind) than those which primarily fueled the industrial era. It is also by using energy more efficiently (such as in automotive transportation) than that done during the 20th century.
Vidqun, I don't believe everything I read and hear, but apparently you and I disagree about some sources in regards to whether they are reliable.
-
146
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW ina news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .
the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.
this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Hello Anony Mous. I notice you wrote the following. "The book you spoke of was written in the 70s, we are now 50 years further and we’re still talking about 2.5C in the next 30 years and the change since 1970 has been minimal, 0.5C with the predicted 1C change being extended from 1980s to now 2050." That is somewhat a different impression than what I got from the book. The book was copyright in 1977 and it said "[m]ajor policy decisions will have to be taken" within 30 years from 1977, thus by 2007, to prevent serious problems by 60 years from 1977, thus by 2037.
Notice the book also said the following. "The results of global warming of 2.5°C, the anticipated outcome of a dramatic rise in the carbon dioxide level within sixty years, are virtually unimaginable.Major policy decisions will have to be taken with the next thirty years if this prospect is diverted." The book thus said the major problems would happen by the year 2037 (1977 + 60 years) if not enough is done by the year 2007. Nations have taken some actions by 2007 and some further actions were from 2008-2021, to avert the problem which the book says will happen by the year 2037 if not enough major action is taken. The actions which have been done have not stopped the warming, but they might have bought us some time in delaying a warming of 2.5 degrees Celsius above 1977 levels.
When scientists today talk about averting 2.5C increase they don't mean a 2.5 degree Celsius from today's temperature, but rather from a level prior level. They mean from above pre-industrial levels. The target level to avoid has thus not moved, though some say that even a smaller increase is dangerous.
See https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-between-15c-2c-global-warming-2021-11-07/ which says the following. "The 2015 Paris Agreement commits countries to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C. ... Already, the world has heated to around 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels. Each of the last four decades was hotter than any decade since 1850." Notice that is says the temperature has already raised to
1.1°C above pre-industrial levels.Similarly https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/ says the following. "At the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in December 2015, 195 nations adopted the Paris Agreement2. The first instrument of its kind, the landmark agreement includes the aim to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by ‘holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’.
...Summary: Human-induced warming has already reached about 1°C above pre-industrial levels at the time of writing of this Special Report. By the decade 2006–2015, human activity had warmed the world by 0.87°C (±0.12°C) compared to pre-industrial times (1850–1900). If the current warming rate continues, the world would reach human-induced global warming of 1.5°C around 2040.
... In the decade 2006–2015, warming reached 0.87°C (±0.12°C) relative to 1850–1900, predominantly due to human activity increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Given that global temperature is currently rising by 0.2°C (±0.1°C) per decade, human-induced warming reached 1°C above pre-industrial levels around 2017 and, if this pace of warming continues, would reach 1.5°C around 2040.
While the change in global average temperature tells researchers about how the planet as a whole is changing, looking more closely at specific regions, countries and seasons reveals important details. Since the 1970s, most land regions have been warming faster than the global average, for example. This means that warming in many regions has already exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Over a fifth of the global population live in regions that have already experienced warming in at least one season that is greater than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."
The Reuters' article I quote from above also says the following.
'So far, the climate pledges that countries have submitted to the United Nations' registry of pledges put the world on track for 2.7°C of warming. The International Energy Agency said Thursday that new promises announced at the COP26 summit - if implemented - could hold warming to below 1.8°C, although some experts challenged that calculation. It remains to be seen whether those promises will translate into real-world action.
Warming of 2.7°C would deliver "unliveable heat" for parts of the year across areas of the tropics and subtropics. Biodiversity would be enormously depleted, food security would drop, and extreme weather would exceed most urban infrastructure's capacity to cope, scientists said.
"If we can keep warming below 3°C we likely remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, but at 2.7°C warming we would experience great hardship," said Mann.'
The book from 1977 (and thus despite being 45 years old), in regards to what I quoted from it about climate change, is thus very much in agreement with what climate scientists are saying today.
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Though Jane Goodall believes in some kind of a Supreme Being, I think she no longer believes in the God of the NT Bible. I think that because of the following which is posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall , since she said the Creator is unknown and unknowable.
'In her foreword to the 2017 book The Intelligence of the Cosmos by Ervin Laszlo, a philosopher of science who advocates quantum consciousness theory, Goodall wrote: "we must accept that there is an Intelligence driving the process [of evolution], that the Universe and life on Earth are inspired and in-formed by an unknown and unknowable Creator, a Supreme Being, a Great Spiritual Power."[79] '
Since she said the above she probably doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as a means of salvation nor as the son of God, for if she believed in such she probably would believe that she knows much about Jesus Christ and of one whom the NT says is his Father, and she would believe that the Father (and possibly also the Christ) is God.
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
jhine, I've been aware of Hugh Ross for a number of years. Hugh Ross doesn't accept biological macroevolution. He is an old Earth progressive creationist who accepts an old biosphere and much of science, but not evolution. His ideas are much better than those of most non-evolutionary creationist apologists, but he nonetheless does not believe in evolution. I do wish that the WT's form of non-evolutionary creation had been the kind of Hugh Ross, and that the WT had not sharply criticized evolution so much. Ross has a very good knowledge of modern science. If the WT had used Ross' approach I would not have been scared to study evolution during my grade school, high school, and college years and thus possibly would have accepted evolution much sooner than I did.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(astrophysicist) which says the following. "Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian astrophysicist, Christian apologist, and old-Earth creationist. ... He established his own ministry in 1986, called Reasons to Believe, which promotes progressive and day-age forms of old-Earth creationism, by developing what the ministry calls a "testable creation model".[5] Ross rejects both abiogenesis and evolution as explanations for the origin and history of life, contrary to the scientific consensus.[6] "
-
36
The question`s GOD beleiver / Creationists ignore or don`t / won`t / can`t answer ?
by smiddy3 inthe common thread of beleivers / creationists of a god creating life is design .. and if something / anything is designed it must have a designer ?.
however this reasoning is discarded when talking about the existence of god.. and if such a being as god somehow existed without a designer why not all forms of life itself as existing on earth ?.
coming into existence without a designer ?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Yes waton I can perceive the two energies, but I can also think of them together as being zero in some sense. However, it hard for me to think of them together as being zero, since they are separated into separate energies. Even the alleged singularity 9in the big bang theory) is thought of as having much chaotic dynamic energy and such makes it hard for me to think of it as being nothing. Likewise an atom of neutral electrical charge has a net electrical charge of zero, but it contains both negative charge(s) and positive charge(s).