Samvel Geletsyan (Naukella = scientific novel)
yandex images: direct and mirror image of the scientist: econet.ru (collage)
The debates about whether aging is a disease or aging is an independent natural process that induces age-related diseases has been going on for thousands of years.
It should be noted that so far the advantage is on the side of those who are "for aging-a disease." This is not surprising, because the external manifestation of the aging process is diseases and various disorders of vital activity.
In contrast, an aging inducer (if it exists) outwardly, it does not manifest itself in any way. That is, it is elusive, neither supporters nor opponents have yet been identified, even with modern achievements of science and technology.
A stalemate?
It turned out that the stalemate that had lasted for thousands of years had come to an end. The reason for the "end" of the eternal dispute is the discovery of the first real Mechanism of Aging (MS) in 2016. This MS is relatively simple. It carries out the aging of the male body.
The author of the discovery is the author of this note, S.G. Geletsyan.
Next, Samvel Grigoryevich managed to discover a whole series of MS (women, super-centenarians), MS of the gastrointestinal tract, show the aging factor and the onset of aging, explain the well-known demographic fact of the non-identical course of the aging process in the elderly and in super-centenarians, the cause of SWR (midlife crisis), and formulate the Axiomatics (laws and regulations) of the phenomenon "Aging."
All these results indicate that:
THE DISPUTE "AGING IS A DISEASE" AND "NOT A DISEASE" HAS LOST NOT ONLY
RELEVANCE, BUT ALSO MEANING
It is not easy to get used to and admit this fact, but it is necessary from the standpoint of reasonableness. But not necessarily for everyone.
(in parentheses) The self-esteem and pride of our scientists (academicians, faculty members and others) are hurt. This led to the categorical denial of the author's discovery by members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who have their own ambitions and goals.
It's time to move to a consensus and discuss the positions of the parties: "for the disease" and "against".
Obviously, aging is a natural process. In addition, it is inevitable for those who have lived to a certain age. The age when there is a change in the vector of ontogenesis and SWR occurs. It does not matter whether this new (crucial) period is called a "disease" or not. The fact of the total inevitability of the march of aging is important.
This "certain" age is not identical for different individuals. For example, the author managed to show why he depends. And also to show that Lermontov had it about 10 years earlier than Pushkin.
And diseases are not inevitable and obligatory for everyone. In fact, the fundamental difference lies in this: natural inevitability versus non-obligation.
Disease (in a broad sense) and aging are cognizable. Both. This is what they have in common. The author has the right to assert this thesis, because he knows the Stimulants and the real Mechanisms of Aging (MS). This happened in the period from 2016 to 2019. At the same time, there are many differences.
New knowledge COULD become the property of official science. The recognition and use of the Discovery, based on their own interests, was prevented by scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences (this is documented).
The core essence (as well as the stimulant) aging is identical for each group (men, women, centenarians). But in each group, the mechanisms have serious distinctive features. This is reflected in the author's Axiomatics of aging – in a group of conclusions and provisions united under the general name "laws of aging".
What was said in the previous paragraph is science, not science.
Diseases (curable and incurable, pandemics and rare diseases) are diverse. In each case, the onset and course depend on stimulants (for example, viruses, colds, oncology) are different depending on the specific circumstances.
Currently, there are no similar laws on aging in medicine. This is one of the fundamental differences (and advantages) of the author's theory of aging. But the point is not in the author.
The two points presented above point to the key differences between disease and aging (abstracting from the nuances, that is, "in its pure form").
THEREFORE, AGING AND DISEASE ARE
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT NATURAL PHENOMENA
That's exactly the point.
The confusion "aging - disease" arose because the aging process (natural degradation of the body) often induces changes and diseases of various etiologies: senescence, decrepitude and a whole set of the list, depending on the prevailing conditions in the body at the beginning and during aging.
All senile "charms" are induced by MS. They do not arise out of nothing.
If there were no MS, characteristic senile diseases would not occur.
We have a causal relationship in front of us. What does this mean and what does it indicate?
This means that real (and not named by Moskalev) MS are PRIMARY, and characteristic senile diseases are secondary.
This is enough to eliminate the confrontation of the type:
"aging is aging" and "aging is a disease." Both of them together form a single chain of the second half of ontogenesis (for the first half we take the periods of growth, development and puberty, reproduction).
Based on the above, I propose to conclude a SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT between the warring parties.
Do you want to stay in your position? PLEFSE! Write scientific articles about incomplete experimental results – they will be useful for a career! Career is more important, I know from well-known examples. For example, having accumulated up to a thousand publications in your piggy bank, you can reach the heights of a career in science.
Based on the above, I once again propose a settlement agreement for the benefit of science and people.
p 13\01\2024