Serious Significant Upfront Cash Inquiries Only


Liz’s Bio Viva La Scam™ IS A Pseudoscientific Scam

Liz Parrish presents one viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all scientists when just the opposite is true: CRISPR (Clustered Regulatory Interspersed Short Palindromic Repeats) is proven to exist, therefore lengthening Telomeres, utilizing Myostatin inhibition gene therapy, applying the gene follistatin MUST WORK. Thereby attempting to drain the doubting individual into agreement by using fancy scientific terms, pseudoscientific quackery and by ‘psychological contagion’.


Carol Greider, Ph.D., who, along with legendary scientists Elizabeth Blackburn and Jack Szostak won the in Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 2009 for her work establishing telomere biology Dr. Greider isn’t convinced by Bioviva’s efforts, even though they’re based on the foundations she and her colleagues laid down early in their careers.
“We don’t have any compound that will actually elongate telomeres, despite what you can read on many websites,” Greider tells Inverse. “Of course, because we have patients in the hospital dying of these diseases, if there was some sort of a treatment, we would be looking into it. But we have looked into those things that are out there, and it’s basically snake oil.”
The human body is a system that has been fine-tuned over evolutionary time, and everything — including cell death — has its place. The natural tendency for telomeres to shorten over time will eventually lead to cell death, University of California, Berkeley cell and developmental biology assistant professor Dirk Hockemeyer, Ph.D. tells Inverse, but shortening telomeres also prevent cancer. His work suggests that, if you run Parrish’s telomere-lengthening experiment to its logical extreme, what you’ll likely end up with are cancerous tumors.
“Long telomeres are generally associated with cancer, and short telomeres are generally associated with stem cell failure,” he says. It’s not clear whether the relationship between long telomeres and cancer is a casual one, but it does appear that they former helps create the necessary conditions for the latter to thrive.
The simple blood work that Parrish offers as evidence of her lengthened telomeres actually indicates anything. A spokesperson from SpectraCell tells Inverse that the black line represents average telomere length values, determined “at 5-year intervals based on a database of about 12,000 patient results.” SpectraCell Laboratories, the company that analyzed her blood before and after the BioViva procedure, uses a technique called PCR — polymerase chain reaction — to measure telomere lengths, and Greider cautions that this method can show differences in telomere length that don’t really exist.
“If you took a sample from somebody and assayed that sample three times, you’d get three different answers within 30 percent different from each other. So we don’t use that in the clinical analysis to identify patients who are at risk for deadly disease,” she says.
Aging, Not a Disease
Immortality, or even a close approximation to it, is both impossible and undesirable.
Why is it impossible? I’ll cite the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy rules. There is no escaping it. When we’re looking for ways to prolong life indefinitely, I don’t think there’s enough appreciation of the inevitability of information loss in any system in dynamic equilibrium, which is what life is — a chemical process in dynamic equilibrium. What that means is that our existence isn’t static at all, but involves constant turnover, growth, and renewal.
We already have a potent defense against death put in place by evolution: it’s called more death. That sounds contradictory, I know, but that’s the way it works. Every cell replication has a probability of corruption and error, and our defense against that is to constrain every subpopulation of cells and tissues with a limited lifespan, with replacement by a slow-growing population of stem cells (which also accumulates error, but at a slower rate). We permit virtual immortality of a lineage by periodic total resets: reproduction is a process that expands a small population of stem cells into a larger population of gametes that are then winnowed by selection to remove nonviable errors…but all of the progeny carry “errors” or differences from the parent.
In all the readings from transhumanists about immortality that I’ve read, none have adequately addressed this simple physical problem of the nature of life, and all have had a naively static view of the nature of our existence.
The undesirability of immortality derives from the proponents’ emphasis on what is good for the individual over what is good for the population. There’s a kind of selfish appeal to perpetuating oneself forever, but from the perspective of a population, such individuals have an analog: they are cancers. That’s exactly what a cancer is: a unit of the organism, a liver cell or skin cell, that has successfully shed the governors on its mortality and achieved immortality…and grows selfishly, at the expense of the organism. Transhumanists certainly had an ambitious vision for the future — they talked rather blithely about living for billions of years or more, but just their idea of individuals living for 10,000 years seemed naive and unsupportable to me. I don’t think it’s even meaningful to talk about “me”, an organic being living in a limited anthropoid form, getting translated into a “me” existing in silico with a swarm of AIs sharing my new ecosystem. That’s a transition so great that my current identity is irrelevant, so why seek to perpetuate the self?
Scientific disputes
Worst of all, some transhumanists outright what people in the fields they’re interested in tell them; a few AI boosters, for example, believe that neurobiology is an outdated science because AI researchers can do it themselves anyway. They seem to have taken the analogy used to introduce the computational theory of mind, “the mind (or brain) is like a computer”, and taken it literally. Of course, the mind/brain is not a computer in the usual sense. Debates with such people can take on the wearying feel of a debate with a creationist or climate change denialist as such people will stick to their positions no matter what. Indeed, many critics are simply dismissed as luddites or woolly-headed romantics who oppose scientific and technological progress.
Ethical and political criticism
Transhumanism has often been criticized for not taking ethical issues seriously on a variety of topics, including life extension technology, cryonics, mind uploading and other enhancements leading to eugenics. Francis Fukuyama (in his doctrinaire neoconservative days) caused a stir by naming transhumanism “the world’s most dangerous idea.” One of Fukuyama’s criticisms, that implementation of the technologies transhumanists push for will lead to severe inequality, is a rather common one.
One of the most common concerns is the abuse of hypothetical future brain implant technology by governments, militaries, coorporations or any other nefarious acting groups & individuals. The premise of having implants and surgeries which could alter your brain and personality, threaten your mental autonomy & privacy, and/or allow strangers to potentially read or control your thoughts and behavior, is not something that would appeal to most sane individuals. Being forced or pressured to receive unwanted surgeries and implants in the future due to societal pressure to keep up with “enhanced” individuals is another major concern. Many transhumanists either ignore these concerns or insist that their vision of the future is the “right” or “natural” path of humanity, regardless if many people fear or disagree with it. They often present their future cyborg vision of humanity with a very forceful, “Resistance is Futile” undertone. Rather than viewing them as “utopian idealists”, many people view their vision for the future as a dystopian nightmare.


Liz’s Scam’s Worth Nothing: Here’s Why

CRISPR (Clustered Regulatory Interspersed Short Palindromic Repeats) lengthening Telomeres, utilizing Myostatin inhibition gene therapy, applying the gene follistatin MUST WORK. If not the foundation for Liz and Bio Viva La Scam© “PseudoSciences” entire theories that “aging is a disease that can and will be cured“ crumbles into dust of pseudoscientific quackery. Just as Antonio Regaldo from MIT said; “A New Low In Medical Quackery.”

To Parrish, aging MUST BE a deadly disease, one that can, should, and will be overcome by scientists who are willing to go outside the boundaries of conventional academic research. Bio Viva La Scam© and her entire scam are dependent upon it.