wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

It has been more than ten years since I last discussed this with a
specialist in the genetics of animal development. At that time at least, it
was believed that the suite of introns used to form a gene varies through
development, so, for example, the actual composition of your hemoglobin
right now is different from what it was when you were a kid, and will be
different again when you're an ol' fossil like me. So, according to what
she told me, what counts as an intron or exon (what some refer to as junk)
will depend on age as well as the gene in question. Alas, she didn't have
answers for many of my questions, like "How exactly does the selection of
introns vs exons happen?" or "How is the gene constructed from the introns
once the introns have been made?"

There is a set of proteins (and some neat RNA molecules) in place
that takes care of splicing in your cells. That is what happens, the
full length message RNA is created from the DNA, exons (the coding bits)
and introns (the non-coding bits) both. It is rapidly processed by the
splicing machinery, which deletes the introns from the message, which is
then used as the template to create a protein. I haven't heard about
the age thing, but it is true that there can be many different messages
made from one template. This is called alternate splicing. Different
forms of a protein can be made by adding or removing exons from the
list, although I think they stay in order. So you can get protein ABCD,
BCD, ACD, etc. (where the letters represent an exon). Some of those
splice forms may be functional, some maybe not. The specifics of how
splicing occurs are pretty well worked out (it is complicated, of
course). The specifics of how the cell controls which splice form to
make are a little less clear, I think, although that isn't my area of
expertise.

or "Is there any intermingling of introns
from different genes (e.g. is it possible to have an intron from one gene in
between the introns of some other gene); if so, how does the cell know which
introns are part of a given gene?

I don't think this is a frequent occurance. There are 'chimeric'
proteins, I know of a few involved in cancer, but I think those are
usually created by recombination of the genomic DNA, not the message. I
have heard of something called 'trans-splicing', which would seem to be
what you suggest, although I know absolutely nothing about it.

or "How is the correct sequence of
introns in the gene stored and later recovered for use?"

The correct sequence is stored in the genomic DNA. This isn't at
all affected by splicing. Message is created from the DNA template,
that RNA (message RNA, or mRNA) is then spliced. So you don't have to
worry about destroying the information. There is something called
recombination, which is particularly prevalent in creation of
antibodies, where the actual DNA of the antibody producing cell is
changed for the immunoglobulin genes. This is what allows you to make
such a large variety of antibodies (the number of possible combinations
is staggering). Or at least that is what I learned several years
ago... It is a special case though, and those rearrangements don't
carry over to your offspring.

or "Does all this
happen in the nucleus?" or

Pretty much.

"How does the mechanism in a given nucleus know
what the age of the organism is in order to know which introns to use at any
given time?"

This isn't my specialty either, but if this does happen, it is
probably a function of telomere length. The telomeres are repetitive
sequence at the end of each chromosome. Due to the way DNA replication
works, you lose a little bit of telomere with every cell division. So,
the sorter the telomeres, the older the organism. Neat... I think this
is one of the more prevalent hypotheses about how the aging function
works. There is probably also a contribution from DNA damage, your DNA
accumulates various mutations and damage over time, and there are
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

You learn all sorts of things from an orchid newsgroup... *grin*

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

It has been more than ten years since I last discussed this with a
specialist in the genetics of animal development. At that time at least, it
was believed that the suite of introns used to form a gene varies through
development, so, for example, the actual composition of your hemoglobin
right now is different from what it was when you were a kid, and will be
different again when you're an ol' fossil like me. So, according to what
she told me, what counts as an intron or exon (what some refer to as junk)
will depend on age as well as the gene in question. Alas, she didn't have
answers for many of my questions, like "How exactly does the selection of
introns vs exons happen?" or "How is the gene constructed from the introns
once the introns have been made?"

There is a set of proteins (and some neat RNA molecules) in place
that takes care of splicing in your cells. That is what happens, the
full length message RNA is created from the DNA, exons (the coding bits)
and introns (the non-coding bits) both. It is rapidly processed by the
splicing machinery, which deletes the introns from the message, which is
then used as the template to create a protein. I haven't heard about
the age thing, but it is true that there can be many different messages
made from one template. This is called alternate splicing. Different
forms of a protein can be made by adding or removing exons from the
list, although I think they stay in order. So you can get protein ABCD,
BCD, ACD, etc. (where the letters represent an exon). Some of those
splice forms may be functional, some maybe not. The specifics of how
splicing occurs are pretty well worked out (it is complicated, of
course). The specifics of how the cell controls which splice form to
make are a little less clear, I think, although that isn't my area of
expertise.

or "Is there any intermingling of introns
from different genes (e.g. is it possible to have an intron from one gene in
between the introns of some other gene); if so, how does the cell know which
introns are part of a given gene?

I don't think this is a frequent occurance. There are 'chimeric'
proteins, I know of a few involved in cancer, but I think those are
usually created by recombination of the genomic DNA, not the message. I
have heard of something called 'trans-splicing', which would seem to be
what you suggest, although I know absolutely nothing about it.

or "How is the correct sequence of
introns in the gene stored and later recovered for use?"

The correct sequence is stored in the genomic DNA. This isn't at
all affected by splicing. Message is created from the DNA template,
that RNA (message RNA, or mRNA) is then spliced. So you don't have to
worry about destroying the information. There is something called
recombination, which is particularly prevalent in creation of
antibodies, where the actual DNA of the antibody producing cell is
changed for the immunoglobulin genes. This is what allows you to make
such a large variety of antibodies (the number of possible combinations
is staggering). Or at least that is what I learned several years
ago... It is a special case though, and those rearrangements don't
carry over to your offspring.

or "Does all this
happen in the nucleus?" or

Pretty much.

"How does the mechanism in a given nucleus know
what the age of the organism is in order to know which introns to use at any
given time?"

This isn't my specialty either, but if this does happen, it is
probably a function of telomere length. The telomeres are repetitive
sequence at the end of each chromosome. Due to the way DNA replication
works, you lose a little bit of telomere with every cell division. So,
the sorter the telomeres, the older the organism. Neat... I think this
is one of the more prevalent hypotheses about how the aging function
works. There is probably also a contribution from DNA damage, your DNA
accumulates various mutations and damage over time, and there are
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

You learn all sorts of things from an orchid newsgroup... *grin*

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Thanks for bringing me up to date Rob.


"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Ted Byers wrote:

It has been more than ten years since I last discussed this with a
[snip]
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?

;-)

Thanks

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Thanks for bringing me up to date Rob.


"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Ted Byers wrote:

It has been more than ten years since I last discussed this with a
[snip]
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?

;-)

Thanks

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Thanks for bringing me up to date Rob.


"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Ted Byers wrote:

It has been more than ten years since I last discussed this with a
[snip]
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?

;-)

Thanks

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.



Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?



I don't want to go there because I don't really know the answer.
*grin* But for a sundae (in hand), I'd make a point of finding out...

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.



Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?



I don't want to go there because I don't really know the answer.
*grin* But for a sundae (in hand), I'd make a point of finding out...

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.



Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?



I don't want to go there because I don't really know the answer.
*grin* But for a sundae (in hand), I'd make a point of finding out...

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"J Fortuna" wrote in message ...
I think I read somewhere that orchids
are mainly or only identifiable as orchids because of the flowers, and so I
am thinking that there could be a plant species out there that would be an
orchid if only it did flower but it never does.

I'm reading what everybody is writing here and trying to absorb it.

I did just want to add something to J Fortuna's sentence above. It's
kind of an aside...

For the masses of us, orchids are 'mainly' identified by specific
flower parts that other flowering plants don't have, i.e. the column
and by the arrangement of petals and sepals and that odd
petal-turned-lip-or-pouch thingy. However, the seed is very different
and probably unique to the family and so is the recently germinated
baby plant; before the embyro develops leaves, roots or stems, it
makes something called a protocorm, (which may be stem tissue for all
I know). If you gave me a sufficiently large bit of pollen from a
plant I would probably be able to tell if it came from an orchid.
It's that unique. Pollen from the slipper group would probably prove
my undoing. Maybe.

I want to understand this stuff, but it is way beyond me. Only the
most general concepts just beyond red and white pea plants are firmly
fixed...

wild to cultivated changes?
 

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.

Go ahead, go there...

Rob Halgren wrote in message ...
This isn't my specialty either, but if this does happen, it is
probably a function of telomere length. The telomeres are repetitive
sequence at the end of each chromosome. Due to the way DNA replication
works, you lose a little bit of telomere with every cell division. So,
the sorter the telomeres, the older the organism. Neat... I think this
is one of the more prevalent hypotheses about how the aging function
works. There is probably also a contribution from DNA damage, your DNA
accumulates various mutations and damage over time, and there are
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

You learn all sorts of things from an orchid newsgroup... *grin*

Rob

wild to cultivated changes?
 

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.

Go ahead, go there...

Rob Halgren wrote in message ...
This isn't my specialty either, but if this does happen, it is
probably a function of telomere length. The telomeres are repetitive
sequence at the end of each chromosome. Due to the way DNA replication
works, you lose a little bit of telomere with every cell division. So,
the sorter the telomeres, the older the organism. Neat... I think this
is one of the more prevalent hypotheses about how the aging function
works. There is probably also a contribution from DNA damage, your DNA
accumulates various mutations and damage over time, and there are
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

You learn all sorts of things from an orchid newsgroup... *grin*

Rob

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Al wrote:

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.



Ok, I'll go there. There is a critter called telomerase which adds
telomere repeats to the ends of chromosomes. In the real world, it is
only expressed in a very limited set of cells, for a very limited time.
So your germ cells may have this enzyme turned on, but your skin cells
won't. In fact, turning on telomerase activity in somatic (body) cells
has been associated with cancer progression. So, since Dolly was cloned
from a somatic cell (I don't know which kind), the poor little ewe
started out with shorter telomeres than she should have.

So, we could turn telomerase back on in all your cells... This
might make your cells 'young' again. However, you would get terrible
cancers and die. So that isn't really the answer now, is it? *grin*

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Al wrote:

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.



Ok, I'll go there.

Thanks!

This is greatly appreciated!

I'll get you a sundae if, or when, we meet (possibly at a show in Michigan,
if I get a chance to go, or at a SOOS show in Toronto, should you get a
chance to attend that ;-) I'll even throw in a coffee ;-).

There is a critter called telomerase which adds
telomere repeats to the ends of chromosomes. In the real world, it is
only expressed in a very limited set of cells, for a very limited time.
So your germ cells may have this enzyme turned on, but your skin cells
won't. In fact, turning on telomerase activity in somatic (body) cells
has been associated with cancer progression. So, since Dolly was cloned
from a somatic cell (I don't know which kind), the poor little ewe
started out with shorter telomeres than she should have.

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?

So, we could turn telomerase back on in all your cells... This
might make your cells 'young' again. However, you would get terrible
cancers and die. So that isn't really the answer now, is it? *grin*

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Al wrote:

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.



Ok, I'll go there.

Thanks!

This is greatly appreciated!

I'll get you a sundae if, or when, we meet (possibly at a show in Michigan,
if I get a chance to go, or at a SOOS show in Toronto, should you get a
chance to attend that ;-) I'll even throw in a coffee ;-).

There is a critter called telomerase which adds
telomere repeats to the ends of chromosomes. In the real world, it is
only expressed in a very limited set of cells, for a very limited time.
So your germ cells may have this enzyme turned on, but your skin cells
won't. In fact, turning on telomerase activity in somatic (body) cells
has been associated with cancer progression. So, since Dolly was cloned
from a somatic cell (I don't know which kind), the poor little ewe
started out with shorter telomeres than she should have.

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?

So, we could turn telomerase back on in all your cells... This
might make your cells 'young' again. However, you would get terrible
cancers and die. So that isn't really the answer now, is it? *grin*

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Evidence of ghosts in the machine! ;-) ;-)

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Evidence of ghosts in the machine! ;-) ;-)

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness.

Thanks. The disease is diabetes, and the symptom that is particularly
debilitating is the neuropathy that comes with it. This nueropathy
generally results in altered sensation: temperature extremes are often not
felt (and since they're not felt, it is easy to receive even third degree
burns without knowing it), and physical damage is often not felt (which is
why diabetics frequently lose limbs - they've stepped on broken glass or a
mail or something, and the resulting would got sufficiently badly infected
that gangrene sets in leading to the loss of the limb if detected early
enough to prevent death), and finally, if often produces phantom pain in
which it feels like you're enfuring the worst imaginable tortures and yet
there is no corresponding injury. And then, of course, there ae all the
other diseases, such as kidney disease, heart disease, &.c for which
diabetics are quite vulnerable. There isn't an organ in the body that isn't
at risk because of diabetes. Low blood sugar can lead to a coma, while high
blood sugar levels does plenty of damage to all organs in the body.

While insulin and medications like metformin, and a couple others, are
useful in controlling blood sugar levels, there is nothing that can be done
for the neuropathy that I believe to be both safe and effective.

And diabetes will become an ever increasing problem since the incidence of
it in north america is increasing (not too surprising since the single
largest factor in its onset appears to be stress).

The worst day above
:-)

This can be taken two more ways (both being logically valid, given implied
assumptions).

1) The worst day in heaven is better than the best day on earth.
2) The worst day on earth is better than the best day in hell.

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness.

Thanks. The disease is diabetes, and the symptom that is particularly
debilitating is the neuropathy that comes with it. This nueropathy
generally results in altered sensation: temperature extremes are often not
felt (and since they're not felt, it is easy to receive even third degree
burns without knowing it), and physical damage is often not felt (which is
why diabetics frequently lose limbs - they've stepped on broken glass or a
mail or something, and the resulting would got sufficiently badly infected
that gangrene sets in leading to the loss of the limb if detected early
enough to prevent death), and finally, if often produces phantom pain in
which it feels like you're enfuring the worst imaginable tortures and yet
there is no corresponding injury. And then, of course, there ae all the
other diseases, such as kidney disease, heart disease, &.c for which
diabetics are quite vulnerable. There isn't an organ in the body that isn't
at risk because of diabetes. Low blood sugar can lead to a coma, while high
blood sugar levels does plenty of damage to all organs in the body.

While insulin and medications like metformin, and a couple others, are
useful in controlling blood sugar levels, there is nothing that can be done
for the neuropathy that I believe to be both safe and effective.

And diabetes will become an ever increasing problem since the incidence of
it in north america is increasing (not too surprising since the single
largest factor in its onset appears to be stress).

The worst day above
:-)

This can be taken two more ways (both being logically valid, given implied
assumptions).

1) The worst day in heaven is better than the best day on earth.
2) The worst day on earth is better than the best day in hell.

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Evidence of ghosts in the machine! ;-) ;-)

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Evidence of ghosts in the machine! ;-) ;-)

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness.

Thanks. The disease is diabetes, and the symptom that is particularly
debilitating is the neuropathy that comes with it. This nueropathy
generally results in altered sensation: temperature extremes are often not
felt (and since they're not felt, it is easy to receive even third degree
burns without knowing it), and physical damage is often not felt (which is
why diabetics frequently lose limbs - they've stepped on broken glass or a
mail or something, and the resulting would got sufficiently badly infected
that gangrene sets in leading to the loss of the limb if detected early
enough to prevent death), and finally, if often produces phantom pain in
which it feels like you're enfuring the worst imaginable tortures and yet
there is no corresponding injury. And then, of course, there ae all the
other diseases, such as kidney disease, heart disease, &.c for which
diabetics are quite vulnerable. There isn't an organ in the body that isn't
at risk because of diabetes. Low blood sugar can lead to a coma, while high
blood sugar levels does plenty of damage to all organs in the body.

While insulin and medications like metformin, and a couple others, are
useful in controlling blood sugar levels, there is nothing that can be done
for the neuropathy that I believe to be both safe and effective.

And diabetes will become an ever increasing problem since the incidence of
it in north america is increasing (not too surprising since the single
largest factor in its onset appears to be stress).

The worst day above
:-)

This can be taken two more ways (both being logically valid, given implied
assumptions).

1) The worst day in heaven is better than the best day on earth.
2) The worst day on earth is better than the best day in hell.

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness.

Thanks. The disease is diabetes, and the symptom that is particularly
debilitating is the neuropathy that comes with it. This nueropathy
generally results in altered sensation: temperature extremes are often not
felt (and since they're not felt, it is easy to receive even third degree
burns without knowing it), and physical damage is often not felt (which is
why diabetics frequently lose limbs - they've stepped on broken glass or a
mail or something, and the resulting would got sufficiently badly infected
that gangrene sets in leading to the loss of the limb if detected early
enough to prevent death), and finally, if often produces phantom pain in
which it feels like you're enfuring the worst imaginable tortures and yet
there is no corresponding injury. And then, of course, there ae all the
other diseases, such as kidney disease, heart disease, &.c for which
diabetics are quite vulnerable. There isn't an organ in the body that isn't
at risk because of diabetes. Low blood sugar can lead to a coma, while high
blood sugar levels does plenty of damage to all organs in the body.

While insulin and medications like metformin, and a couple others, are
useful in controlling blood sugar levels, there is nothing that can be done
for the neuropathy that I believe to be both safe and effective.

And diabetes will become an ever increasing problem since the incidence of
it in north america is increasing (not too surprising since the single
largest factor in its onset appears to be stress).

The worst day above
:-)

This can be taken two more ways (both being logically valid, given implied
assumptions).

1) The worst day in heaven is better than the best day on earth.
2) The worst day on earth is better than the best day in hell.

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Wow, out of control software... Not sure how that last one ended up
getting sent three times. Guess it was a spectacularly good post!!

Evidence of ghosts in the machine! ;-) ;-)

Cheers,

Ted

wild to cultivated changes?
 

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness.

Thanks. The disease is diabetes, and the symptom that is particularly
debilitating is the neuropathy that comes with it. This nueropathy
generally results in altered sensation: temperature extremes are often not
felt (and since they're not felt, it is easy to receive even third degree
burns without knowing it), and physical damage is often not felt (which is
why diabetics frequently lose limbs - they've stepped on broken glass or a
mail or something, and the resulting would got sufficiently badly infected
that gangrene sets in leading to the loss of the limb if detected early
enough to prevent death), and finally, if often produces phantom pain in
which it feels like you're enfuring the worst imaginable tortures and yet
there is no corresponding injury. And then, of course, there ae all the
other diseases, such as kidney disease, heart disease, &.c for which
diabetics are quite vulnerable. There isn't an organ in the body that isn't
at risk because of diabetes. Low blood sugar can lead to a coma, while high
blood sugar levels does plenty of damage to all organs in the body.

While insulin and medications like metformin, and a couple others, are
useful in controlling blood sugar levels, there is nothing that can be done
for the neuropathy that I believe to be both safe and effective.

And diabetes will become an ever increasing problem since the incidence of
it in north america is increasing (not too surprising since the single
largest factor in its onset appears to be stress).

The worst day above
:-)

This can be taken two more ways (both being logically valid, given implied
assumptions).

1) The worst day in heaven is better than the best day on earth.
2) The worst day on earth is better than the best day in hell.

Cheers,

Ted