2482:"Outside of affecting nutritional deficiencies or medical conditions that are due in part to gut pathogen dysbiosis, it seems unlikely that large gains in the human lifespan are going to be realized. However, the deleterious aspects of aging may be slowed or even partly reversed with these approaches if enough translational funding opportunities become available. We could certainly expect an improved quality of life and maybe a longer health-span from these technologies. In this regard, a few concepts should be mentioned starting with Caleb “Tuck” Finch’s idea of negligible senescence, which was further refined by Aubrey de Grey as Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS), aimed at developing a better understanding or even “cure” for aging . Perhaps the rate of achieving these strategies would be hastened though the microbiota and its tremendous potential for revolutionary transformation. This new approach will likely culminate in novel therapies and technologies capable of repairing the known and future forms of accumulated cellular and molecular age-related damage. "
3890:
regular podcasts. It caught my attention since
Kennedy contributed to the cited 2005 MIT criticisms yet made the statements I mentioned above. The interview with De Grey and Olshansky took place on The Healthspan Show, owned by LSX Ltd, which hosts events on topics in biotech. It's also unaffiliated. I noticed that interview because Olshansky was an author of the cited 2005 EMBO Reports criticism but made those positive statements recently in 2021 in the interview. Is it unusable if posted/accessed on youtube? If you have the time and inclination, they're both interesting interviews to listen to. The quotes above are transcriptions of comments by Kennedy and Olshansky (who themselves are reliable sources) from those publicly available, recorded, unaffiliated interviews. I think they reliably show an important, relevant evolution of opinion by Kennedy and Olshansky compared to 2005 on the value of medical research on age-related damage repair from Aubrey and SENS. Do you think this should be in the article in some way?
3328:
just consider sources as "reliable" when they say something you think is true but when better sources says otherwise you consider them as "unreliable" and use a completely different set of rules for the sources you don't agree with. The supporters of the "criticism" section are the only ones who made interpretations here, because they took baseless opinions and decided that there are probably some studies behind those claims despite the fact that non is provided in the sources for those claims, the criticism just takes every statement made by a criticizer of SENS and treat it as a fact. but when I provide relevant sources that prove that the scientific opinion on SENS's goals have changed(again, the article's criticism is about SENS's goal of curing aging) it is completely dismissed. There are plenty of secondary sources that support SENS's strategy and its obvious that even if their strategy might not be 100% complete/perfect it is the right way toward the goal of curing aging. --
2476:"Newly armed with an idea of how humans age, numerous companies and government-funded programmes have sprung up to address human ageing as a problem in and of itself, rather than trying to address the diseases of ageing separately. High profile examples include the (formerly Google) Alphabet-funded ageing research venture, Calico (California Life Sciences Company); the interventions testing program (ITP) run by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), designed to test the longevity-enhancing potential of a variety of different drugs; and Human Longevity Inc., co-founded by J. Craig Venter, which aims to elucidate and treat the (epi)genetic causes of age-related diseases. Furthermore, the SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) Research Foundation performs its own research and helps fund the research of other institutes, and focuses on utilising combinations of regenerative medicine, gene therapy and pharmacology to reverse ageing."
3199:
implementable in the foreseeable future" and not just about SENS's methods in doing so. You also need to realize that you decide that sources are reliable/unreliable according to your own opinion on the subject. A reaction of those biogerontologists to Aubrey de Grey isn't considered as neither a secondary or primary source or as more reliable than actual primary and secondary sources. You are ignoring more recent and factual source that doesn't just support SENS's agenda but also SENS in particular. And no, the source doesn't need to focus on SENS the same way your reaction paper is focused on Aubrey de Grey. You are also ignoring several secondary sources that prove that many if not all of SENS strategies of curing aging are compatible with current knowledge in the field. All this because a reaction article that was made 16 years ago... and yes, age does matter:
3683:
curing aging and you actually commented about them and dismissed them because they "just" mention SENS and its goals or "just" said that perhaps SENS research will be accelerated due to discoveries on gut microbiota. Your condition for a source that explicitly says "SENS is approved by the gerontology community" is completely ridiculous and its obvious that you can't find such statement about 99.99% of medical organizations regardless of their success. The sources shows that the scientific community support the fact that SENS target major causes of aging phenotypes and we don't need more than this to prove that SENS isn't "fringe science" and can help the effort of curing aging. And there is nothing that says otherwise since the "source" behind the "criticism" isn't even considered as a real and reliable source. --
2619:. As the other editors explained above, changing the section would require specific claims, by reliable sources, that indicate the medical community has changed its opinion about the viability of SENS and its research. The first source that ThunderheadX refers to above simply states that SENS exists and its research goals; the second source says simply that SENS "should be mentioned" and that "perhaps" it would result in treatments for aging. Aging is only a peripheral topic in the article, reducing its use for this article anyway (it's about "gut microbiota"). The third and fourth articles do not mention SENS at all. The fifth article states that SENS has a "mechanistic ontology" of aging.
3098:
the criticism is clearly focused on SENS's goals and even made an exception for SENS's research that is focused on "diseases" like curing cancer and alzheimer and calls it "broadly supported by the medical research community" despite the fact that we have virtually zero progress in alzheimer research and according to our current knowledge we can't consider curing alzheimer as more plausible than SENS's goals of curing aging. The article have no source that prove that SENS research is ineffective, and this is without even mentioning the fact that SENS also focus on funding and supporting other research groups in the field of curing aging. --
2970:
branches that are "broadly supported by the medical research community" and SENS goals of curing aging as if there is nothing to support the possibility of this idea. The criticism ignore the fact that there are many companies and studies focused on curing aging, mainly because the criticism is mostly 16 years old and a lot have changed in those years. Some of the editors mentioned the fact that the studies I bring here are in-vitro or on animals and say that we should ignore those studies because of this while the entire "criticism" isn't backed by any kind of research. --
3048:. If some recent independent mainstream sources refute some of that criticism, it could be mentioned. From my (non-expert) impression, when I see a list of symptoms associated with a list of hypothetical treatments, with a conclusion that those continued therapies would solve the cause of those symptoms, and that some of the tenets are still being debated (like the DNA damage theory of aging), the practical aspect is not very convincing or remains highly theoretical, possibly even science fiction at the moment... Then I see sources agreeing with that. —
1929:. If you believe a particular addition uses an inappropriate source please start with discussion on the talk page, then escalate to a citation needed if no one engages, then finally escalate to targeted content deletion if you still do not receive engagement. The goal of Knowledge (XXG) is to aggregate content, and mass deletions of content that includes a variety of sources across a variety of sub-topics does not align with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. Reversion should be the last step, and it should be targeted at specifically bad material not bulk.
1401:
was incorrect, and that I had read the wrong conclusion into the article, and was asked directly by Aubrey deGrey to remove the text which had misattributed his position, which (apparently) has not changed or softened. I don't know why this was reverted to readd text that I think might be incorrect, particularly since I added it in the first place. I don't know what rule of
Knowledge (XXG) I am not following, as stated on my talk page- making bold edits and removing potentially incorrect or misleading information are the rules I am attempting to follow.
3146:
than trying to address the diseases of ageing separately", but you just dismissed it and said that they just mentioned SENS. You need to stop confusing between criticizing SENS's goal(the main subject here) and criticizing SENS methods/strategy of achieving this goal. And for the criticism on SENS's methods, the "source" behind the criticism just said that Aubrey de Grey didn't shown that SENS strategies like removing senescence cells can extend lifespan but today it is proven that senescent cells does play a significant role in aging and its diseases:
3920:, YouTube videos as sources are discouraged, although they can inherit the reliability of the verified account that posted them. I'm not familiar with The Healthspan Show, but since they are a non-news business, I don't know how much editorial oversight and independence they would have. I agree that Olshansky changing his opinion about SENS would be notable and worthwhile including in the article (esp. given his 2013 article "Science Fact versus SENS Foreseeable"), but I think we'd need to find a higher quality source than the interviews, given the
169:
2567:". The article adds that it is still premature to claim that we know everything about the aging process, but it is obvious that scientists know enough to research and develop therapies for aging. The statement from the "criticism" is just part of the "initial delusions of complexity" the article is talking about and this is the problem with using "scientific opinions" that were made around 15 years ago, it isn't a scientific fact but an opinion that gets outdated after several years even if it was true/accepted when it was made. --
3026:
and NIH pieces that mention SENS, but I'm just not seeing any significant coverage where they use the word "Controversy" or that "exceptionally optomistic" could be summarized as describing a "Controversy". I suggest relabel, decrease these 5 paragraphs down to two, and conclude with what the judges said about "have not demonstrated that SENS is unworthy of discussion, but the proponents of SENS have not made a compelling case for it." That's not as sensational but is seems the reality isn't sensational. Cheers
1448:, and it was unchanged since I had added it. If I summarize primary literature and then decide later the summary is inaccurate, why shouldn't I remove it? I don't claim ownership of the words, but I do take accountability for what I add. If you would like to review the referenced material and provide your own summary of it, please do so. I don't understand why you oppose, in this case, what is effectively me reverting myself, attempting to remove what is potentially a poorly sourced statement.
153:
2372:
worth to mention that in his criticism
Kyriazis said about Glucosepane, the main AGE cross-link in the body: "there is little clinical information on this product, making it difficult to suggest concrete therapies that can deal with this particular compound" and today due to SENS funded research such therapies are close to be commercialized. It demonstrates how the "criticism" mentioned in the article can become completely irrelevant after few years of scientific progress.
3366:
the right way(it targets many types of age-related damage that are responsible for many of the symptoms of aging and this is enough for saying that SENS is on the right way for curing aging), you also give a lot of weight for "sources" which aren't even considered as secondary or primary sources and are nothing more than opinions expressed as a comment to someone else. You should stop letting your personal opinion affecting the way you judge different sources. --
621:
2380:
difficult than SENS's goals yet we don't see this type of criticism, The reason for that is much more cultural than scientific, fighting aging itself is culturally deemed as "fighting nature" and "playing god" and not as something legitimate like fighting something that is seen as a disease by society unlike aging which is "natural". Cultural norms are the main reason behind the "Scientific controversy" section and the "criticism" inside of it. --
2401:
in the foreseeable future and this is simply not a real criticism against SENS's research and goals. Its like criticizing cancer research that was made many years ago just because it had goals that were found out to be unachievable in the "foreseeable future" of its time. This kind of "criticism" doesn't make sense even if their prediction about the "foreseeable future"(which are nothing more than a calculated guess) was true back then or today.
1204:
306:
1294:
811:
790:
642:
253:
447:
422:
3624:
to specifically mention SENS, we don't need a source to prove that when SENS talk about "senescent cells" they actually talk about senescent cells and asking for such source is simply ridiculous. My secondary sources are much more meaningful than a letter that was written by some gerontologists to Aubrey de Grey 16 years ago. This letter isn't even considered as neither secondary or primary source according to
740:
722:
1712:"...the number of Americans stricken with AD will rise from 4 million today to as many as 16 million by midcentury. This means that more people in the United States will have AD by 2050 than the entire current population of the Netherlands. Globally, AD prevalence is expected to rise to 45 million by 2050, with three of every four patients with AD living in a developing nation."
391:
517:
493:
3494:. As far as bioscience goes, this is basically WP:CALC - SENS's approach is obviously parallel to Hallmarks, and the current criticism section could therefore be applied to Hallmarks, as the criticisms (now discredited) would be the same - suggesting that a paper with over 7000 citations is fringe. I don't know about you, but I feel that triggers false balance.
3973:; we need to use the best sources for this page. An informal interview published to YouTube or an another commercial podcast is just not the same quality/reliability as an academic journal. As soon as there's a reliable, secondary source, preferably a literature review, that updates the field's view of SENS, those views can be included. Until then, we have to
3470:
527:
2413:
something that is supported scientifically. You need some actual study to support the statements when you present them as "scientific opinions" or facts and there is a need to separate those scientific opinions or conclusions from some non scientific statements made as a personal reaction to something even if it is published in some medical journal.
3269:
field (7296 - an incredibly impressive number). It is not established fact, but it now a very well-grounded theory on the causes of aging, with a number of different branches of thought (such as those which highlight chronic inflammation as a result of hallmark accumulation - suggesting that this inflammation is a pacemaker for the whole process).
3777:. Second, obviously, a popular, judged contest is not consistent with the academic standard of peer review. Finally, of the judges panel, several were computer scientists or entrepreneurs—not exactly qualified for judging biomedical claims. I'm thinking of splitting that subsection off into something else. What do others think? —
2647:
isn't controversial and that there is a significant progress in this field that shows that the criticism against SENS agenda is just wrong. You just conclude that the sources I provided doesn't imply that SENS itself is able to help curing aging and it isn't just wrong it also have nothing to do with the subject here.
3498:
questions how quickly that benefit may come about - if it would be as extreme as quickly as SENS proposes. None outright dismissed it, and I have spoken to four separate experts on the subject - I again invoke false balance, and would suggest we also de-categorize it from 'fringe science' and 'alternative medicine'.
2592:). ThunderheadX replied on my talk page and claimed that I inadequately explained my reversion. I strongly believe that removing criticism for SENS were not justified by ThunderheadX's sources or at least that section blanking was too simplistic a solution, given the opinions expressed on this talk page.
3889:
I don't know of published articles, and I'm only aware of these two interviews. Mendelspod is unaffiliated. The interview with De Grey and
Kennedy by Mendelspod took place at a conference organized in part by SENS Research Foundation, but Mendelspod interviews different researchers every month in its
3097:
despite the fact that the sources in the criticism aren't based on any kind of research on humans and aren't considered as either primary or secondary sources according to the article. Some editors confuse between criticism on SENS's goals and criticism on SENS's strategy of achieving those goals and
2909:
criticism by the medical community. The sources currently used in the section could be better or more current. Still, they are not so doubtful or easily contradicted that the entire section merits blanking. I'm open to proposals that weave that criticism into the article in a way that doesn't violate
2400:
I am 5.22.135.25 and I didn't talked just about the fact that the criticism is outdated, I am saying that the arguments in the "criticism" can't be count as criticism regardless of their source. The main argument in all of that criticism in the article is about how the goals of SENS aren't achievable
2379:
The "criticism" in the "Scientific controversy" section don't say much other than pointing out that it is difficult to achieve SENS's goals in the "foreseeable future"(which was 15 years ago) and nothing more than that. There are so many kinds of research ongoing on so many things that are even more
2354:
Claims like "SENS agenda is fanciful and the highly complicated biomedical phenomena involved in the aging process contain too many unknowns for SENS to be fully implementable in the foreseeable future" that were made in 2005 are time dependent(even if they were true) and are no longer valid in 2020.
2065:
My primary interest is in following the
Knowledge (XXG) ethos that adding/including content is generally preferred over removing/censoring content. If there is a good reason to remove some particular content from Knowledge (XXG) then I believe we should do that, but I don't believe that we should be
1857:
But who decided that SENS is a "minority opinion"?, claims like "SENS agenda is fanciful and the highly complicated biomedical phenomena involved in the aging process contain too many unknowns for SENS to be fully implementable in the foreseeable future" that were made in 2005 are time dependent(even
3949:
Thanks for your explanation. What are your thoughts on
Mendelspod with Kennedy? I also thought perhaps the interviews would still be acceptable since the issue revolves around stated opinions rather than traditional peer-reviewed scientific research; and that their statements in the interviews would
3805:
was an author (among others) in the 2005 EMBO Reports article, but in a 2021 interview alongside De Grey, Olshansky said, "There's a lot of exciting work that's going on right now including work that's going on in Aubrey's lab and some of the folks that he's been involved with." I think this updated
3656:
this discussion by repeatedly posting subtle variations on the same argument over and over. Until you provide a single, reliable, independent source that says "SENS is approved by the gerontology community" (for the umpteenth time, your sources do not mention SENS at all), I will remain unconvinced.
3438:
Just to add, if you actively search the hallmarks of aging paper itself, under the relevant sections they will describe the same features SENS describe. Aggregates and all. A cursory search or ctrl+f shows that they clearly refer to the same thing. Misfolded proteins aggregate, which is exactly what
3342:
It's not a problematic "double standard." It is the policy of this encyclopedia. As I have explained, SENS is in the area of both medical sources and fringe theories, which require higher standards of evidence than other topics. It is also telling that your support for blanking this section is based
3327:
You said "claim that research and treatment of
Alzheimer's should be held to the same standards as SENS (which I disagree with)", That is the double standards I talked about before, you have different standards for sources that support SENS and other standards when it comes to criticism of SENS. you
3272:
I would suggest the following: Add a note that SENS focuses on preclinical research that has not yet finished human trials, and that it is one of multiple competing theories. Highlight its similarity to the respected 'Hallmarks of Aging' paper, but note that it focuses on the early stage of research
3140:
article: " summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies". The sources(especially the one article that is referenced 4 times in the criticism) in the criticism aren't
3117:
on medical sources says "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources." That is why the current sources in the article are secondary-source review papers and not primary-source experiments. Alzheimer's research has
3088:
There is a lot of double standards from the supporters of the "criticism" section. One article with nothing but someone who claim that SENS goals are "fantasy rather than science" is considered reliable source but when I provide studies about reversing aging in the lab(there are even in-vivo studies
3025:
for prominence over other NAS and NIH pieces -- and the section title "Controversy" seems inappropriate wording. Also giving the
Technology Review 2006 competition re SENS that did not discredit it also does not seem particularly worth this much space or to be a "controversy". There are other NAS
2416:
You can add various speculations and "scientific opinions" about when the SENS goals might be achieved(and they need to be relatively updated because 15 years is a lot of time) but the "scientific controversy" section make it look like there is some fundamental problem with SENS's goals and there is
2371:
The part in the criticism that say that " such therapies, even if developed in the laboratory, would be practically unusable by the general public" is nothing but a personal baseless opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article if there is no explanation for why he thinks like that. It also
2118:
is a content guideline that is extremely harsh on sources for anything touching even tangentially on medicine, and has very strong consensus. You may consider application of either of these "censoring" - as you put it - but you're going against both policy and consensus there, and probably shouldn't
1990:, thanks for the link! It does clearly state that "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." However, it is worth noting that
3623:
and nobody had anything to say against the fact that there is a scientific consensus behind SENS strategy and agenda in general. The secondary and primary sources I provided here(both in the fringe board and this RfC) prove that SENS target known and significant causes of aging, and they don't need
3365:
You just decided to call SENS a "fringe theory" without anything to back your claim. Links to some discussion with some editor considering SENS as fringe isn't a proof for anything. Your double standards aren't just about you dismissing secondary and primary sources that prove that SENS strategy is
3268:
SENS has had a long history, but its position has mostly been adopted by the wider community, though under a different name. The
Hallmarks of Aging, writen by Lopez-Otin et al in 2012, describes the same position as SENS - plus a few other additons - and is by far the most highly cited paper in the
3264:
Coming from the position of someone with a degree in this field, I can maybe describe this a bit more succinctly than
Thunderhead. Yes, SENS is preclinical. All preclinical research comes with the heavy caveat of not having yet gone through human trials - but all medicine goes along this stage, and
3179:
and therefore don't show that SENS is compatible with or influencing the wider medical community (I will explain more in a response to Alyarin9000 below). For the Warner article, it matters that 28 biogerontologists criticized the SENS method—what is established is the view of the field on the SENS
2646:
You are confusing between criticism about SENS itself and criticism about SENS's goal which is curing aging. The criticism in this article is about SENS's agenda of curing aging and not about the ability of SENS itself of doing it. What I am showing in my sources is that SENS's goal of curing aging
2485:
I think it is clear that today the scientific community take anti aging treatments seriously and that many other organizations with similar goals as SENS have established as a result of the progress made in the field of treating the aging problem. And since there is an actual progress in that field
2448:
It depends on the context. In this case in vitro study or even completely theoretical research is enough to refute claims like that reversing the damage of aging is "fantasy rather than science". And what kind of research was behind the statements in the "criticism" section? it definitely wasn't an
2408:
There is nothing in the "criticism" that should led someone to believe that we shouldn't support the goals of SENS. Much of the "criticism" is nothing but non scientific statements like that the SENS goals are "fantasy rather than science", like what this statement even means? that it is impossible
2404:
The studies I provided are just an example for the advancements that was made in the years after the "criticism" was made. I don't need to provide any kind of statement from someone who endorse SENS's goals in the same way nobody need to endorse the goals of an organization that work to find better
1899:
Big part of this skepticism about rejuvenation(especially today) is just a result of cultural reasons because most people got used to see aging as natural inevitable thing and to see the pursuit of preventing/reversing it as something that belongs to mad people. Even in movies everyone who wants to
3734:
Is just trying to attack me because he can't face my arguments and he want to ignore the secondary sources I provided here. There is no rule in wikipedia that say that you should ignore wiki editors just because they have few edits outside of one subject(I only had two edits in SENS article, and a
3198:
First of all you need to stop changing the subject, the criticism talk about SENS's agenda of curing aging in general: "many critics arguing that the SENS agenda is fanciful and the highly complicated biomedical phenomena involved in the aging process contain too many unknowns for SENS to be fully
3145:
prove that the scientific community views on SENS's goal(curing aging) have changed and is now in support of treating aging: "Newly armed with an idea of how humans age, numerous companies and government-funded programmes have sprung up to address human ageing as a problem in and of itself, rather
2564:
For much of the 20th century the ageing process was thought to be the result of the interplay of many different biological processes, each with relatively small effects on organismal lifespan. However, this model is no longer tenable. Rather it seems a few biological mechanisms, including nutrient
2532:
in the criticism) you can reverse this damage with SENS's 'ApoptoSENS' program for removing problematic cells like senescent cells and the body even ends up with less cells with DNA damage. So when you consider this fact or other kinds of rejuvenation therapies developed by SENS you can't say that
1400:
I have been notified that I should not remove text that I added and my change was reverted. My reading of the listed primary literature had led me to understand that the position of Aubrey deGrey had been softened based on the cited evidence, and after receiving an email stating that the paragraph
3858:
This merging/growing closer of positions is definitely something that came up in the RfCs. I think we'd need at least a reliable-source news story to be able to discuss it in the article. Do you know of any unaffiliated news or published articles that reflect this more recent consensus? A Youtube
2522:
Some biogerontologists question that such a thing as "accelerated aging" actually exists, at least partly on the grounds that all of the so-called accelerated aging diseases are segmental progerias. Many disease conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, etc., are associated with increased
2375:
Big part of this skepticism about rejuvenation(especially today) is just a result of cultural norms because most people got used to see aging as natural inevitable thing and to see the pursuit of preventing/reversing it as something that belongs to mad people. Even in movies everyone who wants to
3800:
was an author (among others) in one of the MIT Technology Review submissions, but in a 2015 interview alongside De Grey, Kennedy said, "I think that at least superficially there was a significant difference in what we were saying ten years ago - and in reality there was some difference too - but
3505:
What I will state is the CURRENT controversy around SENS and the field in general is the question of how effective it may be. It could be a highly effective treatment strategy for individual diseases, say, but would it really cause such a huge boost in lifespan? As far as i'm aware, the field is
2654:
have nothing to do with my criticism against the sources in the "scientific controversy" section, removing statements that proved to be wrong by new studies is just common sense. The sources also talk about things like "current technology" and "foreseeable future" which are very time dependent.
2322:, you have 150 edits, a large proportion of which appear to be to a subject where you have a conflict of interest. David edits more articles in an average day than you have in your entire time here. Lecturing him on policy, rather than listening to his explanations of policy, is a terrible idea.
2022:
objectionable content. Reversions are meant for dealing with vandalism and un-salvageable edits. In this case, there are numerous sources cited that may not be primary sources including: MIT Technology Review, PubMed and NextBigFuture. Have you checked each of these sources to see if they are
3682:
when I repeat some of the points I made earlier when I simply talk about both the discussion in this RfC and the very short one in the fringe board. You say that non of my sources mention SENS at all? I posted here at least two sources that mention SENS as one of the organizations that work for
2768:
grounds are, upon closer investigation, arguments that particular sources used to support the criticism of the SENS hypothesis are unduly prominent. There are other editors that argue that criticism is actually covered in due proportion so at most, this can at most taken as an argument that the
3497:
When I have discussed SENS with colleagues, I have had a coworker in a university lab state that one of his prior coworkers was fascinated with SENS. A lecturer stated that it may be so effective as to be immoral, and another colleague agrees that SENS's approach would likely hold benefit, but
2969:
As I said earlier, there is a wide scientific support for SENS goals and many organizations share the same goals, and I provided a link to a research that point out this fact. the "criticism" in the article criticize SENS goals of curing aging and made a clear distinction between SENS research
3465:
above. The paper, as far as I can tell, doesn't cite SENS theorists (admittedly, I'm not an expert in this area). Ideally what we'd have is an independent, secondary source that says something along the lines of "The Hallmarks of Aging model built on the work of the SENS framework," and in my
2412:
You can't take any statement made by a scientist(Marios Kyriazis isn't really a scientist but a medical doctor) as a fact or as "scientific opinion" when there is no actual study or known facts to support it. Having some statement being published in a medical journal doesn't make it a fact or
2367:
The criticism also mentions "specific proposals" of SENS but that also was 15 years ago. The criticism in the article is made up from out dated opinions and is also quite subjective like "increased basic research, rather than the goal-directed approach of SENS, is presently the scientifically
1875:
The criticism also mentions "specific proposals" of SENS but that also was 15 years ago. The criticism in the article is made up from out dated opinions and is also quite subjective like "increased basic research, rather than the goal-directed approach of SENS, is presently the scientifically
1889:
It also worth to mention that in his criticism Kyriazis said about Glucosepane cross-link cleavage: "there is little clinical information on this product, making it difficult to suggest concrete therapies that can deal with this particular compound" and today due to SENS funded research such
3501:
Maria Blasco, one of the co-authors of the Hallmarks of Aging, now sits on SENS's scientific advisory board, showing some level of agreement, and lending authority. SENS frequently speaks at conferences attended by the authors of the hallmarks paper and serious Yale scientists, I could go
2449:
in vivo research. The statements in the "criticism" part of the article have no research behind them and are not even scientific claims that can be validated by any kind of research, they are nothing but non-scientific statements that are presented as "scientific opinion" in the article.--
1885:
The part in the criticism that say that " such therapies, even if developed in the laboratory, would be practically unusable by the general public" is nothing but a personal baseless opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article if there is no explanation for why he thinks like
3461:, this probably seems pedantic, but the "Hallmarks of Aging" authors don't seem to explicitly link their criteria to those of SENS—it makes it hard to tell whether SENS has influenced current medical theories of aging or if there's just a coincidence in terms, which is why I mentioned
2409:
to reverse the biological damage that cause aging as we know it?, you need to prove that something completely brakes the laws of physics in order to deem it "impossible" technologically and this statement is almost completely refuted by current studies including those I provided here.
2145:
advocated that some of the sources in the edit were good, and your revert removed both the good sources (and content) and the bad sources (and content). I support the removal of the bad sources and content, but I do not support the removal of good sources and content along with it.
2234:
Why don’t you you a series of much smaller edits, starting with the least controversial. I don’t think you should try to sneak your poor content into the article alongside a potential nugget of good stuff. I will continue to remove any nonsense you add. Find consensus.
3564:
I think reassessing the 'fringe' designation is an important step to inform any further action on the page. Were it not fringe, the exact nature of the rewrite, and the context of editing the controversy section etc would be entirely different. I'll give them a ping
2368:
appropriate goal.", That claim also got refuted since it is a SENS funded research that actually made the first progress in clearing out the main AGEs cross-links in the body(Glucosepane) which have a major role in skin aging and also aging in general.
2624:
Again, the criteria for removing the section would be a reversal of the medical community's opinion on SENS in particular and proof that those controversies are no longer notable for readers. None of the sources provided by ThunderheadX meet that bar.
1876:
appropriate goal.", That claim also got refuted since it is a SENS funded research that actually made the first progress in clearing out the main AGEs cross-links in the body(Glucosepane) which have a major role in skin aging and also aging in general.
2036:), a full reversion is an inappropriate solution to this problem. I recommend issuing an edit that only cuts out the content that is unsalvageable, and leaves the content that is salvageable. If you aren't sure which content is salvageable per
3141:
a secondary sources, they are opinions and reactions to Aubrey de grey and contains no primary sources/studies for their claims. You just decided to see those articles as "secondary sources". One of the articles I provided in the discussion:
3423:
As you can see, especially if you read hallmarks of aging, both theories are effectively identical, with HoA just building atop SENS a little. SENS was the precursor. You could argue it's incomplete compared to HoA, but that isn't damning.
146:
1236:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge (XXG)'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
3043:
I can't say "yes" or "no": criticism and controversy sections are discouraged by the manual of style, but due criticism isn't (and can also be inline and other sections). At first glance it does seem to me that some of the criticism is
1730:: Gjerde, Jon & Grepperud, Sverre & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2009. "On adaptation, life-extension possibilities and the demand for health," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2001:7, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
161:
3542:, I think we would need a separate RfC on their noticeboard? That is where the consensus that SENS is fringe was made. It might be a good idea to ping them on their talk page, although I'm trying to figure out whether I would be
3118:
nothing to do with the sources in this article. I, above, explain why each of the sources you have used has very little, if any, bearing on SENS. The criticism sources, in contrast, explicitly claim that SENS is unreliable. —
3439:
loss of proteostasis describes. ECM crosslinking arguably fits under proteostasis, as these are modified proteins - but additional papers can easily be found which highlight the relevance of this crosslinking to aging (see
959:
2777:
that the Knowledge (XXG) community considers SENS to be a fringe theory, further supporting retention on those grounds. In summary, both the number and strength of arguments below demonstrate that there is a consensus to
2031:
disallows primary sources for medical information, it does not disallow primary sources for general information. I see at least a few citations that are being used for general information. This suggests to me that (per
55:
3235:
Didn't called you a hypocrite. I just said that there is a serious problem with the way you judge sources. The way you judge sources and evidences just doesn't make sense and have nothing to do with wikipedia's rules.
2260:
we should assume that isn't the case here (unless there is evidence I'm not aware of) and the author was simply trying to improve Knowledge (XXG) and in the process of that included some content that goes against
3309:, because those sources do not mention SENS by name or mention it only in passing.) Just because there might be a valid theory of how to treat aging medically does not mean that SENS inherits that reliability. —
1786:
The "fantasy rather than science" sources aren't MEDRS either. But don't worry, I'll not write anymore in this bureaucratic unciclopedia nor link it from anywhere, so you can maintain its uninformative purity.
2363:
SENS helped to fund the study) which are one of the main reasons for skin aging and there is actually a new company that is working to commercialize those AGEs degrading enzymes called "Revel Pharmaceuticals".
1866:
SENS helped to fund the study) which are one of the main reasons for skin aging and there is actually a new company that is working to commercialize those AGEs degrading enzymes called "Revel Pharmaceuticals".
2255:
I am not the original author of this edit. If the author of the edit has a history of trying to "sneak in nonsense" then I feel like action should be taken to address that user, but under the presumption of
182:
2525:" so the term "accelerated aging" is subjective and if some disease that impair DNA repair cause symptoms that are called "accelerated aging" it doesn't prove that DNA damage is the main reason for aging.
3509:
If you would like, I could write a draft alternative version of the controversy section, highlighting its parallels to Hallmarks, the current question of if it is overstating its potential efficacy etc?
3203:. according to the article, sources older than 5 years should be superseded by more up to date sources, And your "source"(it isn't even considered as a reliable source to begin with) is 16 years old.--
1998:
applies (particularly to primary sources). I still stand by my assertion though that mass reversion is not the solution to the problem, though targeted reversion may be appropriate. Please read over
1944:
Your latest reversion was in direct violation of the awareness notice concerning fringe topics that had literally just been posted to your talk page. Your understanding of the sourcing requirements of
3801:
there has been a lot of convergence on both sides so that I doubt that our messages are that much different now." Kennedy is also now a member of the SENS Research Foundation research advisory board.
3859:
video is not citable for WP articles; I am not familiar with Mendelspod but if they are unaffiliated with any of the research centers / researchers mentioned, it might be usable. I'm going to review
1312:
224:
2510:
The growing evidence that reprogramming of somatic cells from aged individuals rejuvenates them to their embryonic stage is giving rise to the idea that the epigenome is the central driver of aging
2015:* In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement.
1820:
3769:
To reflect some of the RfC consensus that a section title should not contain "controversy", I changed that section to "Scientific reception". However, the more research into the the 2005 MIT
2265:. The issue I'm bringing up here isn't that "this edit was good, it should be retained". It is that, "this edit had some good content, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water".
2174:(which is policy) is on its advocates to show that this is appropriately sourced material that belongs in the article. So, this is the point for you to show your skill at persuading others -
4010:
2746:...those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue...
1858:
if they were true) and are no longer valid in 2020. Many things have changed and there were some important scientific progress in the field of treating aging. from rejuvenating human cells(
3531:, it's medical science. I said why the linking of another paper's reliability to SENS is both non-obvious and not supported by current sources. I described a specific kind of source that
2283:
just stop adding nonsense please. If you think there is worthwhile content, add it, just don’t expect people to separate out the wheat from your chaff for you. We aren’t paid for that.
369:
3265:
highlighting that as a controversy is misleading. Before they finished their trials, did the covid vaccine pages have a 'controversy' section? Didn't think so. That would be harmful.
195:
3440:
3390:
itself - its targets are effectively identical to SENS's suggestions, it just adds two. To list them (Hallmarks lifted from the HoA paper itself, SENS lifted from the SENS site)...
545:
3301:
to SENS' proposed research program? One of the problems with the claims that SENS should not contain criticism is that the sources used to defend it, in large part, would require
2536:
It is also worth to mention that in most cases DNA damage can be repaired and there is actually a clinical trial for a drug that was found to fix age-related DNA damage in mice
1271:
453:
427:
2893:
2838:, for more clarity on whether SENS falls under fringe theories. To avoid confusion, this thread should still be the primary point of discussion about the controversy section. —
1813:
Why is this so poorly weighted? It comes across as if SENS has almost no support, this isn't the case, and even if it was, a Knowledge (XXG) article should still be balanced.
3200:
549:
3630:], this letter to Aubrey de Grey shouldn't be considered as a source to begin with and obviously not as something more reliable than the secondary sources I provided here. --
3294:'s claim that research and treatment of Alzheimer's should be held to the same standards as SENS (which I disagree with), not that I think Alzheimer's is unrelated to aging.
272:
3735:
similar number of edits on unrelated articles) he just act as if there is such rule because he keep looking for an excuse to ignore any fact that contradict his opinion. --
2586:
proceeded to delete the scientific controversies section of this article. I believed that those edits were against the consensus established here and reverted them (diffs:
1890:
therapies are close to be commercialized. It demonstrates how the "criticism" mentioned in the article becomes completely irrelevant after few years of scientific progress.
4065:
3796:
Thanks for your editing, Wingedserif. To keep the article neutral, I think it's also important to note how the reception has publicly changed for some writers since 2005.
3697:
The above is not a personal attack. It could be considered an aspersion, but the evidence speaks for itself on this page and the FTN thread, then SPA is a simple fact of
1479:
Great explanation. I just brought this up because it always looks strange to me when I see someone remove a lot of sourced content without making a note on the talk page.
1261:
969:
756:
3954:. The 2005 criticisms (and the other 2013 writing from Olshanksy you mentioned) are after all a contest submission and opinion articles, albeit in notable publications.
2935:
The material should stay, though a different section title should be appropriate. Fringe ideas must be presented in the context of sensible mainstream science for NPOV.
1639:
1635:
1621:
864:
1444:
I added the info based upon my reading of the sourced material, which on second review and additional discussion seems to present an inaccurate view of the situation.
3524:
If you'd like to draft an alternative version, that would probably help; since it's hard to know whether a new approach would be an improvement w/out one to look at.
1348:
4070:
1571:
1225:
35:
1237:
4055:
4045:
2556:
SENS agenda is fanciful and the highly complicated biomedical phenomena involved in the aging process contain too many unknowns for SENS to be fully implementable
854:
3273:
and thus the validity of its approach has not yet been conclusively proven. And rename the 'criticism' section to 'validity', to maintain a more neutral stance.
704:
1110:
747:
727:
90:
3261:
Wingedserif, respectfully, Alzheimer's research is entirely relevant to aging research. Alzheimer's disease is arguably just a manifestation of aging itself.
2769:
controversy section is weighted to the wrong sources, not that it is non-policy-compliant as a whole. The arguments in favor of retention which reference the
3535:
meet the criteria, and I don't think you've provided one, since what you've referred to is either a non-citable conversation or a form of original research.
1034:
603:
4060:
4035:
694:
3466:
searching, I haven't found anything like that. The second paper you linked does cite de Grey, which helps, but he also seems to have advised on the paper.
2740:
By the raw numbers, there are more editors favoring retaining a controversy section than removing it but assessing consensus is not merely an exercise in
900:
317:
1140:
1353:
1232:
1209:
4020:
2700:
The table in the article is from 17 years ago and is different from The table in the SENS website that describe their strategies for fighting aging.--
964:
593:
923:
4040:
1509:
Turtles can live to be about 100 or more. That is because they do not experience cell loss and atrophy. Their organs do not break down as they age.
3441:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342138218_Stochastic_non-enzymatic_modification_of_long-lived_macromolecules_-_A_missing_hallmark_of_aging
2774:
2523:
mortality. Without reliable biomarkers of aging it is hard to support the claim that a disease condition represents more than accelerated mortality
2470:
There are also other scientific papers that imply that reversing aging is a possible goal that is being sought by other companies including SENS:
1965:
670:
96:
4050:
4025:
2212:. I believe there were other quotes worth keeping as well, but we can probably benefit from focusing on one for now since my general argument is
202:
3628:, so even if we ignore the fact that it is 16 years old and should've been replaced by a more recent source more than a decade ago according to
2486:
that is recognized by others there is no sense in questioning the anti-aging goals of SENS and treating it as a "fantasy rather than science".--
1772:
The source is not MEDRS and the formatting is invalid - we don't do embedded URLs. It also being added only to the lead and not in the body.
3833:
1028:
1008:
887:
830:
821:
795:
554:
332:
4005:
2952:
per reasons already stated above. This is far, far from being an established scientific theory and should be treated as such by the article.
2506:
However, wherever normal marine or terrestrial earth conditions prevail, cumulative DNA damage does not seem to play a relevant role in aging
1742:
3021:
The section just seems exaggeratied and inappropriately labelled. Giving a single 2005 Warner piece of no particular note a section seems
2356:
1859:
327:
4030:
41:
1706:
As an economist, this subject was new to me, and I find the text a little bit hard to follow as it contains a lot of medical expressions.
910:
2355:
Many things have changed and there were some important scientific progress in the field of treating aging. from rejuvenating human cells(
2012:* Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit
1546:
1513:
1103:
1022:
3649:
649:
626:
209:
4015:
3698:
2018:
The key takeaway from those two articles and associated essays is that reverting isn't an appropriate tool when a large edit includes
1824:
1794:
579:
905:
323:
110:
3955:
3891:
3807:
2381:
1901:
1424:- it looks like a well-sourced paragraph to me and Knowledge (XXG) is typically not improved by the removal of good cited material.
3969:
After the amount of RfCs and discussion on this page about this topic—I don't think this meets the "non-controversial" criteria of
3306:
2723:
2540:
So even if SENS is wrong about DNA damage that doesn't give any scientific backing for the "criticism" mentioned in the article. --
2520:
for further reading and in that article there is a section about "Debate concerning "accelerated aging"" in which it is said that "
936:
540:
498:
115:
31:
3595:
2097:
326:
at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
2170:, me) and two who wanted it in (an IP and you). This indicates a genuine dispute over the quality of the sourcing. As such, the
1047:
85:
3773:
contest I do, the more skeptical I become that it meets that description. First, the contest was partially funded by de Grey's
2798:
2431:
Your two examples are in vitro research reports, which Knowledge (XXG) does not accept as reliable sources for medical topics.
1717:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
188:
2596:
2209:
2192:
section was basically a list of past event dates. The sources were mostly primary sources, which are acceptable according to
914:
402:
291:
260:
2517:
2785:
1051:
941:
76:
3420:(with the addition of HoA: Altered intercellular communication. SENS also doesn't quite do epigenetic alterations justice.)
3760:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3619:
You should point out the fact that nobody had anything meaningful to say against SENS in the fringe theories noticeboard:
2857:
2500:
And for the part about the DNA damage theory of aging, new studies and experiments refute the DNA damage theory of aging(
2205:
1720:
We believe Dr. Kverndokk has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
755:
related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
669:
related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
287:
3678:
You keep ignoring my arguments and use personal attacks instead of actually facing my arguments. Then you blame me for
919:
305:
928:
176:
17:
3990:
3963:
3937:
3899:
3876:
3815:
3790:
3744:
3723:
3692:
3670:
3639:
3610:
3578:
3559:
3519:
3485:
3452:
3433:
3375:
3360:
3337:
3322:
3282:
3245:
3230:
3212:
3193:
3170:
3131:
3107:
3077:
3060:
3035:
3013:
2996:
2979:
2961:
2944:
2927:
2877:
2851:
2820:
2801:
2764:
content guideline. To take these arguments in order from the most important to least: The arguments for removal on
2709:
2689:
2664:
2638:
2576:
2549:
2513:
2495:
2458:
2440:
2426:
2389:
2335:
2298:
2274:
2250:
2225:
2183:
2155:
2128:
2101:
2060:
1977:
1957:
1938:
1909:
1852:
1828:
1802:
1781:
1709:
There must be something wrong with the maths in the following text copied from "Social and economic implications":
1685:
1554:
1536:
1521:
1494:
1474:
1457:
1439:
1410:
1390:
1378:
219:
3414:
SENS: Cancerous cells. HoA: All cancer is caused by epigenetic alterations or genomic instability. Both hallmarks.
3153:(both are secondary sources)and the same goes to advanced-glycation-end products(Extracellular matrix stiffening)(
2562:, the belief that the aging process is extremely complex and unknown for us is wrong and isn't accepted anymore, "
2193:
932:
120:
1470:
1453:
1406:
1057:
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see
2071:
1840:
1638:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1323:
279:
233:
1738:
829:
related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the
137:
3621:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence
3344:
2903:
2900:
2897:
2606:
2603:
2600:
408:
2528:
It is also important to remember that even if DNA damage is a cause for Cellular senescence(according to the
2615:
section of this article is cited with reliable sources. Removing those sections for age alone would violate
1798:
1550:
1517:
3959:
3951:
3895:
3860:
3834:
https://mendelspod.com/podcasts/brian-kennedy-and-aubrey-de-grey-their-converging-approaches-aging-research
3811:
2685:
2385:
2213:
2085:
2067:
2033:
2009:* Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing.
1999:
1905:
1816:
1790:
1327:
458:
432:
237:
3740:
3717:
3688:
3635:
3604:
3371:
3333:
3241:
3208:
3166:
3103:
3054:
2975:
2705:
2660:
2572:
2545:
2491:
2454:
2422:
2293:
2245:
2179:
2124:
2056:
1973:
1953:
1848:
1599:
1487:
1432:
1072:
1058:
3970:
3543:
3302:
2651:
2616:
2357:
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/old-human-cells-rejuvenated-with-stem-cell-technology.html
2257:
1860:
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/old-human-cells-rejuvenated-with-stem-cell-technology.html
290:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
283:
66:
3986:
3933:
3872:
3786:
3774:
3666:
3598:
to an extension to this discussion that should ideally be resumed here rather than at the other page. —
3574:
3555:
3515:
3481:
3448:
3429:
3356:
3318:
3278:
3226:
3189:
3127:
3031:
3009:
2957:
2923:
2873:
2847:
2816:
2634:
2436:
1677:
1657:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1645:
1374:
3736:
3684:
3679:
3653:
3645:
3631:
3367:
3329:
3291:
3237:
3204:
3162:
3099:
2971:
2701:
2656:
2583:
2568:
2541:
2487:
2450:
2418:
2360:
1994:
does not blacklist primary sources for all cases, and it includes some specific examples where regular
1863:
945:
81:
3570:
3511:
3458:
3444:
3425:
3274:
3027:
3005:
2827:
2516:
have a section named "Inherited defects that cause premature aging", that section mention the article
3158:
2270:
2221:
2151:
2093:
1934:
1466:
1449:
1402:
1386:
752:
390:
3073:
2807:
Should the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence article contain a controversy section? —
2795:
2051:
You appear to be reaching for any excuse to keep bad sources. Can you find good sources instead? -
1734:
3921:
3539:
3443:
for further information on this ECM crosslinking, if you don't think it quite fits proteostasis.)
3201:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Use_up-to-date_evidence
3114:
2770:
2761:
2565:
sensing, telomere attrition and cellular senescence, mediate large effects on health and longevity
2512:". and the article talk more about the problems with the DNA damage theory of aging. The article
2003:
1463:
2672:
Agreed. Citing 13 year old research as "controversy" is now so outdated as to be misleading
2537:
2137:
advocated in this discussion to keep bad sources, outside of my lack of knowledge early on about
1329:
1170:
238:
3917:
3625:
3462:
3343:
on your belief that SENS is "the right way toward the goal of curing aging." Knowledge (XXG) is
3137:
3094:
3022:
2911:
2753:
2262:
2197:
2138:
2115:
2079:
2037:
2028:
2024:
1991:
1987:
1945:
1836:
1642:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
3620:
3417:
SENS: Cell loss, tissue atrophy (SENS strategy: introduce stem cells) HoA: Stem cell exhaustion
3217:
I'm so tired. Please stop criticizing me and calling me a hypocrite for disagreeing with you. —
3147:
2831:
1658:
3728:
3712:
3599:
3049:
2992:
2940:
2284:
2236:
2175:
2167:
2120:
2066:
removing large swaths of content because it is more convenient than doing targeted edits (see
2052:
1969:
1949:
1922:
1844:
1581:
1532:
1480:
1425:
62:
3974:
3806:
information is relevant and important, but I don't know how to best include it. Any thoughts
3528:
2171:
1095:, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see
1085:
1012:
585:
3980:
3927:
3866:
3802:
3797:
3780:
3731:
3701:. The !votes above were not tagged as such, but it's common practice to mark them with the
3675:
3660:
3616:
3566:
3549:
3491:
3475:
3386:
Ah, thank you for the clarification. As to the sources that connect them - just look at the
3350:
3312:
3220:
3183:
3121:
2953:
2917:
2867:
2841:
2810:
2643:
2628:
2445:
2432:
2119:
expect others to just go along with keeping bad sources in the article for the sake of it -
1777:
1673:
1325:
1293:
641:
620:
235:
3045:
2906:
2861:
2835:
2765:
2757:
2749:
2741:
1966:
Knowledge (XXG):Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence
1665:
1417:
3845:
2773:
guideline carry greater weight than those that refer to MOS or essay grounds. It has also
2679:
2529:
2319:
2266:
2217:
2147:
2133:
I think this discussion would proceed smoother if you try to avoid straw manning. I have
2089:
1930:
1589:
1382:
532:
3405:
SENS: Intracellular aggregates. HoA: Wow, SENS likes (hates?) their loss of proteostasis.
2111:
1995:
1096:
3387:
3142:
3090:
2501:
2479:
2473:
3069:
2790:
1624:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1545:
It is partially our fault. Human activity has been causing trouble for them. -Anonymous
1224:
1203:
1064:
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see
268:
1664:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1631:
3999:
3154:
2330:
2204:
parts of the edit were bad goes against the Knowledge (XXG) ethos as laid out in the
1176:
1158:
826:
662:
658:
264:
252:
3705:
2988:
2936:
2074:, I think we should strongly avoid mass reverts like this. Secondarily, there are
1528:
1154:
1065:
2200:. It could use a couple minor touchups, but throwing out the entire edit because
810:
789:
3150:
2559:
1071:
Add ] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the
1019:
Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members
2760:
policy. The arguments to retain this section are couched mostly in terms of the
1773:
739:
721:
3472:, which suggests some increasing popular acceptance of SENS ideas after 2005. —
446:
421:
3950:
be treated similarly to statements made on a personal website as mentioned on
2675:
2359:) to reversing Advanced Glycation end Products(AGEs) accumulation in the body(
1862:) to reversing Advanced Glycation end Products(AGEs) accumulation in the body(
1630:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
666:
522:
3527:
Otherwise, I don't know what to say. If anything is not under the purview of
2070:). I'm reasonably confident this edit is salvagable, and in an effort to be
1462:
The burden of proof is on me, as the person who added the original material.
1102:
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see
3765:
Should MIT Technology Review contest be in the Scientific Reception section?
2162:
Well, that's easily enough resolved - there's three editors who removed it (
1925:
Mass reversion of content created by an honest user should not be occuring,
1092:
886:
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the
2417:
no actual "scientific opinion" that support this attitude toward SENS. --
2324:
2163:
136:
3402:
SENS: Extracellular matrix stiffening. HoA: Again, loss of proteostasis.
2533:
they are wrong when they say that DNA damage is only matter for cancer.
1586:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
2114:
is policy that any material, when challenged, must have good sourcing.
1600:
https://web.archive.org/20090225054539/http://mfoundation.org:80/UABBA/
654:
2608:), suggesting it should be treated with care like other fringe topics.
1948:- which this article covers - also seem to be in need of refreshing -
1699:, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
2860:
of this RfC fairly soon, as conversation has slowed both here and at
2748:
the arguments for removing it are couched mainly in terms of the the
3652:
who has already made your views abundantly clear, I ask you to stop
2361:
https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/67/Supplement_1/1229-P
1864:
https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/67/Supplement_1/1229-P
1603:
516:
492:
3305:, interpretation on editors' part. (That violates our rules about
3159:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(16)30502-2.pdf
1594:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
1046:
Use a "standard" layout for transhumanism related articles (see:
552:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at
152:
3411:
SENS: Mitochondrial mutations. HoA: Mitochondrial dysfunction.
2538:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170323150518.htm
1330:
1287:
588:
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
584:
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
384:
247:
239:
26:
1446:
I had originally added this summary of the primary literature
544:, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the
3148:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-020-01287-0
2078:
sources in the reverted edit, along with some bad ones (per
1609:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1420:
any article, it does not matter who added the information.
3399:
SENS: Extracellular aggregates. HoA: Loss of proteostasis.
2914:, but I don't think the information should be taken out. —
278:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
1358:
1091:
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be
160:
2350:
The "Scientific controversy" section needs to be removed
1570:
I have just added archive links to one external link on
468:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
263:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
3846:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDIUCywerf8&t=1400s
2590:
2587:
2040:, we can go over some of it here prior to making edits.
1900:
fight aging is usually a villain like an evil witch. --
1766:
1761:
1756:
1696:
1575:
1445:
1421:
1084:
Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see
999:
995:
991:
987:
362:
3408:
SENS: Death-resistant cells. HoA: Cellular senescence.
3161:) and the rest of SENS's targets for curing aging. --
825:, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide
3143:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161440/
3091:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5679279/
2905:) that needs to be treated with care, which includes
2502:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6296020/
2480:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6631383/
2474:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161440/
2376:
fight aging is usually a villain like an evil witch.
1927:
even on a page that is under administrative sanctions
2744:. After disregarding irrelevant arguments, that is,
2722:
The following discussion is an archived record of a
1396:
reverted my own edit after email discussion with AdG
986:
751:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
653:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
336:
of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
18:
Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
2732:
No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1634:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
981:
208:
3175:I will repeat: your sources do not reference SENS
3155:https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-021-00561-7
2987:A section should be created for it in the article.
4011:C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
471:Template:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
3004:Rename it to "Validity" and make major changes.
2395:If the criticism is out-of-datre, it should be p
1373:I suggested adding material about this topic to
876:For more information and how you can help click
817:Strategies for engineered negligible senescence'
765:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Alternative medicine
456:, a project which is currently considered to be
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
3290:My statement about Alzheimer's was replying to
3157:a secondary source) and mitochonrial mutations(
3136:Read the definition of secondary source in the
2027:? Some might be, some might not. Also, while
1704:
1572:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
548:and that biomedical information in any article
312:Strategies for engineered negligible senescence
36:Strategies for engineered negligible senescence
3863:and some related RS pages to think about it. —
3151:https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/504845
2560:https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/504845
2082:), and I'm not arguing to keep the bad ones.
1620:This message was posted before February 2018.
2735:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
2210:Knowledge (XXG):List_of_guidelines#Behavioral
1246:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Alternative Views
546:Manual of Style for medicine-related articles
168:
8:
3469:For the record, I did find this news source
1369:Is this a subtopic of regenerative medicine?
3977:and follow the existing reliable sources. —
3711:template at deletion or RFC discussions. —
2696:The strategies table is extremely outdated
2683:
2595:First, SENS has appeared several times in
2083:
1814:
1788:
1337:
1198:
872:
784:
716:
615:
487:
416:
341:
300:
4066:Low-importance Alternative Views articles
2023:primary sources or secondary sources per
839:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Transhumanism
768:Template:WikiProject Alternative medicine
555:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Medicine
2206:Knowledge (XXG):List_of_policies#Conduct
454:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
3826:
2006:. Here are some salient bullet points:
1691:Dr. Kverndokk's comment on this article
1690:
1340:
1200:
786:
718:
617:
489:
418:
388:
4071:WikiProject Alternative Views articles
3068:, per Wingedserif's explanation above.
2745:
1821:2A02:C7D:7B3E:A700:C46F:8446:F050:4D24
1249:Template:WikiProject Alternative Views
1117:
1005:
679:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Skepticism
4056:Low-importance Transhumanism articles
4046:B-Class Alternative medicine articles
3297:Do you have any sources that connect
474:Chemical and Bio Engineering articles
194:
7:
1230:This article is within the scope of
745:This article is within the scope of
647:This article is within the scope of
564:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Medicine
538:This article is within the scope of
452:This article is within the scope of
407:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
4061:B-Class Alternative Views articles
4036:Low-importance Skepticism articles
915:Knowledge (XXG):Research resources
911:Links to Transhumanism information
842:Template:WikiProject Transhumanism
586:project-independent quality rating
25:
1604:http://www.mfoundation.org/UABBA/
1574:. Please take a moment to review
61:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
4021:Low-importance medicine articles
3756:The discussion above is closed.
3538:For re-categorizing SENS as not
3506:effectively split 50/50 on that.
1292:
1223:
1202:
809:
788:
748:WikiProject Alternative medicine
738:
720:
640:
619:
550:use high-quality medical sources
525:
515:
491:
445:
420:
389:
304:
251:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
4041:WikiProject Skepticism articles
2715:RfC on SENS controversy section
1266:This article has been rated as
859:This article has been rated as
699:This article has been rated as
682:Template:WikiProject Skepticism
598:This article has been rated as
4051:B-Class Transhumanism articles
4026:All WikiProject Medicine pages
2558:". according to this article:
2518:DNA repair-deficiency disorder
1125:Notable transhumanist articles
1073:list of transhumanism articles
1009:Join WikiProject transhumanism
322:nominee, but did not meet the
318:Natural sciences good articles
1:
3490:It does seem pretty pedantic
2577:16:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
2336:01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
2299:17:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
2275:15:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
2251:14:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
2226:23:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
2184:22:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
2156:22:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
2129:22:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
2102:22:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
2061:21:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1978:17:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1964:Call for more eyes posted to
1958:17:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1939:13:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
1853:22:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
1829:19:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
1555:19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
1537:03:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
1522:02:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
1377:, you might be interested in
1233:WikiProject Alternative views
978:
771:Alternative medicine articles
759:and see a list of open tasks.
673:and see a list of open tasks.
567:Template:WikiProject Medicine
292:contentious topics procedures
53:Put new text under old text.
4006:Former good article nominees
3546:if I did so at this point. —
2780:retain a controversy section
1686:00:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
1391:20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
465:Chemical and Bio Engineering
428:Chemical and Bio Engineering
4031:B-Class Skepticism articles
2896:, SENS is a fringe theory (
2710:14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
2550:19:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
2496:19:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
2459:02:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
2441:01:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
2427:22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
2390:03:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
1986:Ah, I wasn't familiar with
1918:David Gerard Mass Deletions
1910:00:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
1695:Dr. Kverndokk has reviewed
1130:Shorten / merge into others
4087:
3745:12:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
3724:18:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
3693:02:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
3671:23:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
3640:22:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
3579:19:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3560:17:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3520:16:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3486:11:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3453:22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3434:22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3376:16:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3361:11:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3338:23:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3323:21:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3283:21:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3246:17:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3231:17:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3213:17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3194:11:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3171:20:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3132:19:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3108:14:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
3078:13:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
3061:20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
3036:04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
3014:21:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2997:14:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2980:12:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
2962:13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
2945:05:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
2928:04:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
2878:22:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
2852:18:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
2821:04:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
2665:01:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
2639:00:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
2514:DNA damage theory of aging
1651:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1592:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
1567:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1495:19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
1475:19:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
1458:18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
1440:10:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
1411:00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
1272:project's importance scale
1252:Alternative Views articles
1161:- discuss whether you are
970:New Transhumanism articles
865:project's importance scale
705:project's importance scale
604:project's importance scale
330:. Editors may also seek a
280:purpose of Knowledge (XXG)
4016:C-Class medicine articles
3991:03:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
3964:03:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
3938:23:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
3900:16:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
3877:15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
3816:00:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
3611:12:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
2690:08:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
1752:About the content added:
1743:16:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
1697:this Knowledge (XXG) page
1265:
1218:
1111:write for an encyclopedia
871:
858:
822:WikiProject Transhumanism
804:
733:
698:
635:
597:
583:
510:
440:
415:
344:
340:
294:before editing this page.
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
3791:17:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
3758:Please do not modify it.
3388:Hallmarks of Aging paper
3093:) some editors bring up
2892:: as I explained in the
2729:Please do not modify it.
1803:16:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
1782:12:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
1422:Here is what you removed
1148:Your immediate attention
288:normal editorial process
3699:the public edit history
3307:WP:No original research
2802:22:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
2775:recently been confirmed
2188:To keep it simple: the
1563:External links modified
1527:Then why do they die? —
275:as a contentious topic.
3650:single-purpose account
3299:The Hallmarks of Aging
3113:The first sentence of
2856:Update: I will likely
2613:Scientific controversy
2405:treatments for cancer.
1714:
1505:RepleniSENS in turtles
1175:Clarify references in
1104:transhumanism articles
920:Writing about religion
845:Transhumanism articles
650:WikiProject Skepticism
397:This article is rated
284:standards of behaviour
86:avoid personal attacks
3924:status of the page. —
3775:Methuselah Foundation
2597:WP:Fringe noticeboard
2582:After posting above,
1375:regenerative medicine
965:Transhumanism article
401:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
324:good article criteria
134:Find medical sources:
111:Neutral point of view
1632:regular verification
1617:to let others know.
1578:. If necessary, add
1141:a transhumanism stub
762:Alternative medicine
753:Alternative medicine
728:Alternative medicine
541:WikiProject Medicine
370:Good article nominee
116:No original research
2724:request for comment
2554:For the statement "
1622:After February 2018
1613:parameter below to
1059:navigation template
1048:The perfect article
1023:Help with articles.
924:Article development
890:for more details.
685:Skepticism articles
3648:, since you are a
2836:fringe noticeboard
1627:InternetArchiveBot
1379:discussing it here
1179:, using footnotes.
1033:Help out with the
403:content assessment
345:Article milestones
261:contentious topics
140:
97:dispute resolution
58:
3836:| timestamp=03:46
3771:Technology Review
2858:request a closure
2789:
2786:non-admin closure
2692:
2334:
2290:
2242:
2104:
2088:comment added by
1923:User:David Gerard
1831:
1819:comment added by
1805:
1793:comment added by
1684:
1652:
1366:
1365:
1336:
1335:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1243:Alternative Views
1210:Alternative Views
1197:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1079:Maintenance / Etc
1052:Featured articles
1029:adopt an article.
1027:See this month's
942:Assume good faith
937:Original research
933:Verifying sources
833:for more details.
783:
782:
779:
778:
715:
714:
711:
710:
614:
613:
610:
609:
570:medicine articles
486:
485:
482:
481:
383:
382:
379:
378:
299:
298:
271:, which has been
246:
245:
139:Source guidelines
138:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
4078:
3848:
3843:
3837:
3831:
3803:S. Jay Olshansky
3798:Brian K. Kennedy
3720:
3715:
3710:
3704:
3607:
3602:
3057:
3052:
2793:
2783:
2731:
2397:
2396:
2328:
2288:
2240:
2194:WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD
1680:
1679:Talk to my owner
1675:
1650:
1649:
1628:
1593:
1585:
1492:
1491:
1485:
1437:
1436:
1430:
1338:
1331:
1296:
1288:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1227:
1220:
1219:
1214:
1206:
1199:
1097:deletion process
979:
873:
847:
846:
843:
840:
837:
813:
806:
805:
800:
792:
785:
773:
772:
769:
766:
763:
742:
735:
734:
724:
717:
687:
686:
683:
680:
677:
644:
637:
636:
631:
623:
616:
572:
571:
568:
565:
562:
535:
530:
529:
528:
519:
512:
511:
506:
503:
495:
488:
476:
475:
472:
469:
466:
449:
442:
441:
436:
424:
417:
400:
394:
393:
385:
365:
342:
308:
301:
255:
248:
240:
213:
212:
198:
172:
164:
156:
142:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
4086:
4085:
4081:
4080:
4079:
4077:
4076:
4075:
3996:
3995:
3853:
3852:
3851:
3844:
3840:
3832:
3828:
3767:
3762:
3761:
3718:
3713:
3708:
3702:
3605:
3600:
3086:
3055:
3050:
2886:
2804:
2791:
2782:at this time.
2752:or the related
2750:manual of style
2727:
2717:
2698:
2352:
2072:WP:Inclusionism
1920:
1841:WP:FALSEBALANCE
1811:
1809:Unduly negative
1750:
1693:
1683:
1678:
1643:
1636:have permission
1626:
1587:
1579:
1565:
1507:
1489:
1488:
1481:
1467:MatthewEHarbowy
1450:MatthewEHarbowy
1434:
1433:
1426:
1403:MatthewEHarbowy
1398:
1371:
1332:
1326:
1301:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1212:
976:
954:See changes to:
844:
841:
838:
835:
834:
798:
770:
767:
764:
761:
760:
684:
681:
678:
675:
674:
629:
569:
566:
563:
560:
559:
533:Medicine portal
531:
526:
524:
504:
501:
473:
470:
467:
464:
463:
430:
398:
361:
282:, any expected
242:
241:
236:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
4084:
4082:
4074:
4073:
4068:
4063:
4058:
4053:
4048:
4043:
4038:
4033:
4028:
4023:
4018:
4013:
4008:
3998:
3997:
3994:
3993:
3947:
3946:
3945:
3944:
3943:
3942:
3941:
3940:
3907:
3906:
3905:
3904:
3903:
3902:
3882:
3881:
3880:
3879:
3850:
3849:
3838:
3825:
3824:
3820:
3819:
3818:
3766:
3763:
3755:
3754:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3750:
3749:
3748:
3747:
3654:WP:BLUDGEONing
3614:
3613:
3596:Here is a link
3592:
3591:
3590:
3589:
3588:
3587:
3586:
3585:
3584:
3583:
3582:
3581:
3544:forum-shopping
3536:
3525:
3507:
3503:
3499:
3495:
3467:
3436:
3421:
3418:
3415:
3412:
3409:
3406:
3403:
3400:
3394:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3384:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3378:
3295:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3253:
3252:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3248:
3085:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3063:
3038:
3016:
2999:
2982:
2964:
2947:
2930:
2885:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2854:
2805:
2756:essay and the
2742:counting noses
2739:
2738:
2737:
2718:
2716:
2713:
2697:
2694:
2688:comment added
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2648:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2609:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2351:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2278:
2277:
2229:
2228:
2159:
2158:
2106:
2105:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2016:
2013:
2010:
2007:
1981:
1980:
1961:
1960:
1919:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1887:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1835:Please review
1810:
1807:
1770:
1769:
1764:
1759:
1749:
1746:
1735:ExpertIdeasBot
1732:
1731:
1723:
1716:
1702:
1692:
1689:
1676:
1670:
1669:
1662:
1607:
1606:
1598:Added archive
1564:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1540:
1539:
1506:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1483:Blue Rasberry
1460:
1428:Blue Rasberry
1397:
1394:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1359:External links
1356:
1351:
1343:
1342:
1334:
1333:
1328:
1324:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:(to July 2008)
1307:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1297:
1291:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1268:Low-importance
1264:
1258:
1257:
1255:
1228:
1216:
1215:
1213:Low‑importance
1207:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1173:
1144:
1143:
1127:
1126:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1107:
1100:
1089:
1086:citing sources
1076:
1075:
1069:
1062:
1055:
1038:
1037:
1031:
1025:
1020:
1003:
1002:
985:
977:
975:
974:
973:
972:
967:
962:
955:
951:
950:
949:
948:
939:
929:Citing sources
926:
917:
908:
906:Article layout
903:
901:Main talk page
896:
892:
882:
881:
869:
868:
861:Low-importance
857:
851:
850:
848:
814:
802:
801:
799:Low‑importance
793:
781:
780:
777:
776:
774:
757:the discussion
743:
731:
730:
725:
713:
712:
709:
708:
701:Low-importance
697:
691:
690:
688:
671:the discussion
645:
633:
632:
630:Low‑importance
624:
612:
611:
608:
607:
600:Low-importance
596:
590:
589:
582:
576:
575:
573:
537:
536:
520:
508:
507:
505:Low‑importance
496:
484:
483:
480:
479:
477:
450:
438:
437:
425:
413:
412:
406:
395:
381:
380:
377:
376:
373:
366:
358:
357:
354:
351:
347:
346:
338:
337:
309:
297:
296:
269:fringe science
256:
244:
243:
234:
232:
231:
228:
227:
215:
214:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4083:
4072:
4069:
4067:
4064:
4062:
4059:
4057:
4054:
4052:
4049:
4047:
4044:
4042:
4039:
4037:
4034:
4032:
4029:
4027:
4024:
4022:
4019:
4017:
4014:
4012:
4009:
4007:
4004:
4003:
4001:
3992:
3988:
3984:
3983:
3982:
3976:
3972:
3968:
3967:
3966:
3965:
3961:
3957:
3953:
3952:WP:Interviews
3939:
3935:
3931:
3930:
3929:
3923:
3919:
3915:
3914:
3913:
3912:
3911:
3910:
3909:
3908:
3901:
3897:
3893:
3888:
3887:
3886:
3885:
3884:
3883:
3878:
3874:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3862:
3861:WP:Interviews
3857:
3856:
3855:
3854:
3847:
3842:
3839:
3835:
3830:
3827:
3823:
3817:
3813:
3809:
3804:
3799:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3792:
3788:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3776:
3772:
3764:
3759:
3746:
3742:
3738:
3733:
3730:
3727:
3726:
3725:
3721:
3716:
3707:
3700:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3690:
3686:
3681:
3677:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3668:
3664:
3663:
3662:
3655:
3651:
3647:
3644:
3643:
3642:
3641:
3637:
3633:
3629:
3627:
3622:
3618:
3612:
3608:
3603:
3597:
3594:
3593:
3580:
3576:
3572:
3568:
3563:
3562:
3561:
3557:
3553:
3552:
3551:
3545:
3541:
3537:
3534:
3530:
3526:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3517:
3513:
3508:
3504:
3500:
3496:
3493:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3483:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3471:
3468:
3464:
3460:
3456:
3455:
3454:
3450:
3446:
3442:
3437:
3435:
3431:
3427:
3422:
3419:
3416:
3413:
3410:
3407:
3404:
3401:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3395:
3389:
3385:
3377:
3373:
3369:
3364:
3363:
3362:
3358:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3346:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3335:
3331:
3326:
3325:
3324:
3320:
3316:
3315:
3314:
3308:
3304:
3300:
3296:
3293:
3289:
3288:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3280:
3276:
3270:
3266:
3262:
3247:
3243:
3239:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3228:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3210:
3206:
3202:
3197:
3196:
3195:
3191:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3178:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3168:
3164:
3160:
3156:
3152:
3149:
3144:
3139:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3129:
3125:
3124:
3123:
3116:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3096:
3092:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3064:
3062:
3058:
3053:
3047:
3042:
3039:
3037:
3033:
3029:
3024:
3020:
3017:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3003:
3000:
2998:
2994:
2990:
2986:
2983:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2968:
2965:
2963:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2948:
2946:
2942:
2938:
2934:
2931:
2929:
2925:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2913:
2908:
2904:
2901:
2898:
2895:
2891:
2888:
2887:
2883:
2879:
2875:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2844:
2843:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2803:
2800:
2797:
2794:
2787:
2781:
2776:
2772:
2767:
2763:
2759:
2755:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2736:
2733:
2730:
2725:
2720:
2719:
2714:
2712:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2695:
2693:
2691:
2687:
2681:
2677:
2673:
2666:
2662:
2658:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2623:
2618:
2614:
2610:
2607:
2604:
2601:
2598:
2594:
2593:
2591:
2588:
2585:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2566:
2561:
2557:
2552:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2534:
2531:
2526:
2524:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2498:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2483:
2481:
2477:
2475:
2471:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2447:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2438:
2434:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2398:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2362:
2358:
2349:
2337:
2332:
2327:
2326:
2321:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2300:
2297:
2296:
2292:
2287:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2259:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2239:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2214:WP:DONTREVERT
2211:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2190:SENS Meetings
2187:
2186:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2160:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2117:
2113:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2068:WP:DONTREVERT
2064:
2063:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2039:
2035:
2034:WP:DONTREVERT
2030:
2026:
2021:
2017:
2014:
2011:
2008:
2005:
2001:
2000:WP:DONTREVERT
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1962:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1917:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1888:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1865:
1861:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1808:
1806:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1768:
1765:
1763:
1760:
1758:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1747:
1745:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1729:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1721:
1718:
1713:
1710:
1707:
1703:
1700:
1698:
1688:
1687:
1681:
1674:
1667:
1663:
1660:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1647:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1623:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1591:
1583:
1577:
1573:
1568:
1562:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1547:173.57.44.147
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:173.57.44.147
1510:
1504:
1496:
1493:
1486:
1484:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1438:
1431:
1429:
1423:
1419:
1416:Since no one
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1395:
1393:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1368:
1360:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1339:
1321:
1320:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1289:
1273:
1269:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1256:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1178:
1177:Transhumanism
1174:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:false dilemma
1156:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:Be consistent
1036:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
984:
980:
971:
968:
966:
963:
961:
960:Core articles
958:
957:
956:
953:
952:
947:
943:
940:
938:
934:
930:
927:
925:
921:
918:
916:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
898:
897:
894:
893:
891:
889:
884:
883:
879:
875:
874:
870:
866:
862:
856:
853:
852:
849:
836:Transhumanism
832:
828:
827:Transhumanism
824:
823:
818:
815:
812:
808:
807:
803:
797:
796:Transhumanism
794:
791:
787:
775:
758:
754:
750:
749:
744:
741:
737:
736:
732:
729:
726:
723:
719:
706:
702:
696:
693:
692:
689:
672:
668:
664:
663:pseudohistory
660:
659:pseudoscience
656:
652:
651:
646:
643:
639:
638:
634:
628:
625:
622:
618:
605:
601:
595:
592:
591:
587:
581:
578:
577:
574:
557:
556:
551:
547:
543:
542:
534:
523:
521:
518:
514:
513:
509:
500:
497:
494:
490:
478:
461:
460:
455:
451:
448:
444:
443:
439:
434:
429:
426:
423:
419:
414:
410:
404:
396:
392:
387:
386:
374:
372:
371:
367:
364:
363:June 28, 2008
360:
359:
355:
352:
349:
348:
343:
339:
335:
334:
329:
325:
321:
320:
319:
313:
310:
307:
303:
302:
295:
293:
289:
285:
281:
276:
274:
270:
266:
265:pseudoscience
262:
257:
254:
250:
249:
230:
229:
226:
223:
221:
217:
216:
211:
207:
204:
201:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
183:ScienceDirect
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
141:
135:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
3979:
3978:
3971:WP:ABOUTSELF
3948:
3926:
3925:
3865:
3864:
3841:
3829:
3821:
3779:
3778:
3770:
3768:
3757:
3737:ThunderheadX
3729:PaleoNeonate
3685:ThunderheadX
3659:
3658:
3646:ThunderheadX
3632:ThunderheadX
3615:
3548:
3547:
3532:
3474:
3473:
3368:ThunderheadX
3349:
3348:
3345:not advocacy
3330:ThunderheadX
3311:
3310:
3303:WP:SYNTHESIS
3298:
3292:ThunderheadX
3271:
3267:
3263:
3260:
3238:ThunderheadX
3219:
3218:
3205:ThunderheadX
3182:
3181:
3176:
3163:ThunderheadX
3120:
3119:
3100:ThunderheadX
3087:
3065:
3040:
3018:
3001:
2984:
2972:ThunderheadX
2966:
2949:
2932:
2916:
2915:
2894:thread above
2889:
2866:
2865:
2840:
2839:
2809:
2808:
2806:
2779:
2734:
2728:
2721:
2702:ThunderheadX
2699:
2684:— Preceding
2674:
2671:
2657:ThunderheadX
2652:WP:Recentism
2627:
2626:
2617:WP:Recentism
2612:
2611:Second, the
2584:ThunderheadX
2569:ThunderheadX
2563:
2555:
2553:
2542:ThunderheadX
2535:
2527:
2521:
2509:
2505:
2499:
2488:ThunderheadX
2484:
2478:
2472:
2469:
2451:ThunderheadX
2419:ThunderheadX
2378:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2353:
2323:
2294:
2285:
2258:WP:GOODFAITH
2246:
2237:
2201:
2189:
2176:David Gerard
2168:Roxy the dog
2142:
2134:
2121:David Gerard
2084:— Preceding
2075:
2053:David Gerard
2019:
1970:David Gerard
1950:David Gerard
1926:
1921:
1845:David Gerard
1815:— Preceding
1812:
1795:80.31.30.144
1789:— Preceding
1785:
1771:
1751:
1733:
1727:
1722:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1705:
1701:
1694:
1671:
1646:source check
1625:
1619:
1614:
1610:
1608:
1569:
1566:
1511:
1508:
1482:
1427:
1399:
1372:
1354:Citation bot
1298:
1267:
1231:
1166:
1162:
1155:false choice
1147:
1146:
1145:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1119:
1118:
1078:
1077:
1040:
1039:
1007:
1006:
982:
888:project page
885:
877:
860:
831:project page
820:
816:
746:
700:
648:
599:
553:
539:
457:
409:WikiProjects
368:
333:reassessment
331:
316:
315:
311:
277:
258:
218:
205:
199:
191:
185:
179:
173:
165:
157:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
3981:Wingedserif
3956:65.50.153.6
3928:Wingedserif
3892:65.50.153.6
3867:Wingedserif
3808:65.50.153.6
3781:Wingedserif
3732:Wingedserif
3680:WP:BLUDGEON
3676:Wingedserif
3661:Wingedserif
3617:Wingedserif
3571:Alyarin9000
3567:Wingedserif
3550:Wingedserif
3512:Alyarin9000
3492:Wingedserif
3476:Wingedserif
3459:Alyarin9000
3445:Alyarin9000
3426:Alyarin9000
3351:Wingedserif
3313:Wingedserif
3275:Alyarin9000
3221:Wingedserif
3184:Wingedserif
3122:Wingedserif
3028:Markbassett
3006:Alyarin9000
2954:PraiseVivec
2918:Wingedserif
2868:Wingedserif
2842:Wingedserif
2830:has posted
2828:Alyarin9000
2811:Wingedserif
2644:Wingedserif
2629:Wingedserif
2446:David notMD
2433:David notMD
2382:5.22.135.25
2267:Micah Zoltu
2218:Micah Zoltu
2148:Micah Zoltu
1902:5.22.135.25
1169:this merge
1109:And always
1035:To-do lists
983:To Do List:
895:Quick help:
819:is part of
328:renominated
42:not a forum
4000:Categories
3822:References
3180:program. —
3089:like this
3084:Discussion
2320:MicahZoltu
2289:the PROD.
2241:the PROD.
2090:MicahZoltu
1931:Micah71381
1728:Reference
1383:Paradoctor
1238:discussion
1093:neologisms
676:Skepticism
667:skepticism
627:Skepticism
375:Not listed
273:designated
3922:WP:FRINGE
3540:WP:FRINGE
3115:WP:MEDPRI
3070:Idealigic
2799:(contrib)
2792:Eggishorn
2771:WP:FRINGE
2762:WP:FRINGE
2599:threads (
2530:reference
2004:WP:REVEXP
1666:this tool
1659:this tool
1512:Anonymous
1464:WP:BURDEN
1313:Archive 1
286:, or any
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
3918:WP:RSPYT
3626:WP:MEDRS
3463:WP:SYNTH
3138:WP:MEDRS
3095:WP:MEDRS
3023:WP:UNDUE
2912:WP:CRITS
2832:a thread
2826:Update:
2754:WP:CRITS
2263:WP:MEDRS
2198:WP:MEDRS
2139:WP:MEDRS
2116:WP:MEDRS
2098:contribs
2086:unsigned
2080:WP:MEDRS
2038:WP:MEDRS
2029:WP:MEDRS
2025:WP:MEDRS
1992:WP:MEDRS
1988:WP:MEDRS
1946:WP:MEDRS
1837:WP:MEDRS
1817:unsigned
1791:unsigned
1672:Cheers.—
1582:cbignore
1349:Analysis
1299:Archives
1066:info box
946:be civil
561:Medicine
499:Medicine
459:inactive
433:inactive
220:Archives
189:Springer
154:Cochrane
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
3975:WP:WAIT
3719:Neonate
3606:Neonate
3529:WP:CALC
3056:Neonate
3041:Comment
2989:Sea Ane
2937:Alexbrn
2834:to the
2686:undated
2172:WP:ONUS
1682::Online
1611:checked
1576:my edit
1529:Tamfang
1341:Toolbox
1270:on the
1167:against
1013:be bold
992:history
863:on the
703:on the
655:science
602:on the
502:C‑class
399:B-class
353:Process
3177:at all
3046:WP:DUE
2907:WP:DUE
2884:Survey
2862:WP:FTN
2796:(talk)
2766:WP:DUE
2758:WP:DUE
1774:Jytdog
1590:nobots
1490:(talk)
1435:(talk)
1135:Expand
1120:Create
1050:, and
405:scale.
356:Result
314:was a
177:OpenMD
147:PubMed
3714:Paleo
3601:Paleo
3533:would
3051:Paleo
2676:Simul
2331:help!
2286:Roxy,
2238:Roxy,
2202:other
2141:. I
2112:WP:RS
1996:WP:RS
1886:that.
1748:Mouse
1157:into
1000:purge
996:watch
203:Wiley
95:Seek
3987:talk
3960:talk
3934:talk
3916:Per
3896:talk
3873:talk
3812:talk
3787:talk
3741:talk
3689:talk
3667:talk
3636:talk
3575:talk
3556:talk
3516:talk
3482:talk
3457:Hi,
3449:talk
3430:talk
3372:talk
3357:talk
3334:talk
3319:talk
3279:talk
3242:talk
3227:talk
3209:talk
3190:talk
3167:talk
3128:talk
3104:talk
3074:talk
3032:talk
3010:talk
2993:talk
2976:talk
2958:talk
2941:talk
2924:talk
2874:talk
2848:talk
2817:talk
2706:talk
2680:talk
2661:talk
2650:And
2635:talk
2573:talk
2546:talk
2508:", "
2504:), "
2492:talk
2455:talk
2437:talk
2423:talk
2386:talk
2295:wooF
2271:talk
2247:wooF
2222:talk
2208:and
2196:and
2180:talk
2152:talk
2143:have
2125:talk
2094:talk
2076:good
2057:talk
2020:some
2002:and
1974:talk
1954:talk
1935:talk
1906:talk
1849:talk
1839:and
1825:talk
1799:talk
1778:talk
1767:here
1762:here
1757:here
1739:talk
1615:true
1551:talk
1533:talk
1518:talk
1471:talk
1454:talk
1418:owns
1407:talk
1387:talk
1171:here
1011:and
988:edit
944:and
935:and
922:and
913:and
878:Show
665:and
350:Date
267:and
259:The
196:Trip
170:Gale
162:DOAJ
84:and
3706:spa
3502:on.
3347:. —
3066:Yes
2985:Yes
2950:Yes
2933:Yes
2890:Yes
2864:. —
2682:)
2325:Guy
2164:JzG
2135:not
1640:RfC
1602:to
1262:Low
1165:or
1163:for
855:Low
695:Low
594:Low
210:TWL
4002::
3989:)
3962:)
3936:)
3898:)
3875:)
3814:)
3789:)
3743:)
3722:–
3709:}}
3703:{{
3691:)
3669:)
3638:)
3609:–
3577:)
3569:.
3558:)
3518:)
3484:)
3451:)
3432:)
3374:)
3359:)
3336:)
3321:)
3281:)
3244:)
3236:--
3229:)
3211:)
3192:)
3169:)
3130:)
3106:)
3076:)
3059:–
3034:)
3019:No
3012:)
3002:No
2995:)
2978:)
2967:No
2960:)
2943:)
2926:)
2876:)
2850:)
2819:)
2726:.
2708:)
2663:)
2655:--
2637:)
2605:,
2602:,
2589:,
2575:)
2548:)
2494:)
2457:)
2439:)
2425:)
2388:)
2273:)
2224:)
2216:.
2182:)
2166:,
2154:)
2127:)
2100:)
2096:•
2059:)
1976:)
1968:-
1956:)
1937:)
1908:)
1851:)
1843:-
1827:)
1801:)
1780:)
1741:)
1653:.
1648:}}
1644:{{
1588:{{
1584:}}
1580:{{
1553:)
1535:)
1520:)
1473:)
1456:)
1409:)
1389:)
1381:.
998:-
994:-
990:-
931:,
661:,
657:,
65:;
3985:(
3958:(
3932:(
3894:(
3871:(
3810:(
3785:(
3739:(
3687:(
3665:(
3657:—
3634:(
3573:(
3554:(
3514:(
3480:(
3447:(
3428:(
3370:(
3355:(
3332:(
3317:(
3277:(
3240:(
3225:(
3207:(
3188:(
3165:(
3126:(
3102:(
3072:(
3030:(
3008:(
2991:(
2974:(
2956:(
2939:(
2922:(
2902:,
2899:,
2872:(
2846:(
2815:(
2788:)
2784:(
2704:(
2678:(
2659:(
2633:(
2625:—
2571:(
2544:(
2490:(
2453:(
2435:(
2421:(
2384:(
2333:)
2329:(
2291:.
2269:(
2243:.
2220:(
2178:(
2150:(
2123:(
2092:(
2055:(
1972:(
1952:(
1933:(
1904:(
1847:(
1823:(
1797:(
1776:(
1737:(
1668:.
1661:.
1549:(
1531:(
1516:(
1469:(
1452:(
1405:(
1385:(
1274:.
1240:.
1113:.
1106:)
1099:)
1088:.
1068:)
1061:)
1054:)
880::
867:.
707:.
606:.
580:C
558:.
462:.
435:)
431:(
411::
225:1
222::
206:·
200:·
192:·
186:·
180:·
174:·
166:·
158:·
150:·
144:·
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
