Pratica di Shadowing: The medicine myth | Denis Noble, Nessa Carey, Guy Brown - Impara a parlare inglese con i video

Is it a mistake to imagine that medicine is gradually expanding lifespan and will continue to do so?

Dennis, would you like to sum it up in three minutes for us?

The first thing to say is, as the Irishman would say when you ask him where the way is to Belfast,

I wouldn't start from where you are.

Now it's a serious point because unfortunately over the last 20 years

or so we've focused on the dots in the print of a message without paying attention to the message itself.

Those dots are the genes and the genomics in which we spent hundreds of billions as a world in understanding,

documenting and getting the information on.

But the trouble is that those dots don't tell us what the message is.

So the first point I would make is I wouldn't start from where we are.

How do we now look at the situation going forward though?

I think we have to reorientate our way of thinking about how to deal with the more complex diseases.

And I'll illustrate that very briefly with work on the heart.

If I ask the question, where is a heart arrhythmia?

Where is the extraordinary circulation of electricity called a fibrillation,

which unfortunately kills people suddenly and in good health normally? Where is that?

It's not in the genes.

It's actually at the high level, even above the level of cells,

let alone molecules, in the way in which the process occurs at the level of the organ as a whole.

We will have therefore to start paying attention to the different levels of organization in biological systems

and focus where the disease is.

If I want to cure an arrhythmia I'm going to have to focus at a much higher level than the individual molecules.

That doesn't mean to say that they are not doing something there are mutations in genes

that will predispose people to arrhythmia for example.

But that is not the level at which to understand the arrhythmia and how you may treat it.

So I think roughly speaking we wouldn't want to start from where we are but we have to.

The Irishman was right.

But what now we do is open to a lot of very careful thinking

because thinking about higher levels of organization in biology is much more difficult than thinking about the level of molecules and genes.

There's my brief statement.

Thank you Dennis.

Nessa, what do you think?

Is it a mistake to imagine that medicine is going to gradually expand and save us all?

As you can see, if you can read my t-shirt, I'm very, my jumper, I'm very clearly a member of team science here,

and And science has made enormous impacts on human lifespan.

That's incontrovertible.

Sometimes it wasn't just science, it was things like soap was created before we understood about germs, and that made a huge difference too.

But science has made an enormous difference.

However, lots of those differences have been at the level of childhood diseases.

So lots of people died very, very young, which doesn't happen anymore because of vaccination.

But if there's one thing that science's impact on health has taught us is that we're all going to die of something.

So we all worry now about why so many people die from cancer.

It's because they're not dying from heart attacks.

Things like the statins have made an enormous difference.

I don't believe you can expand human lifespan indefinitely because I think it makes no evolutionary sense.

We already live far longer than we should in evolutionary terms.

We live long beyond our reproductive capacity.

So we're already stretching things.

Also it's not about how long you live, it's about how well you live.

Most people would prefer to die in a good state of

health at 85 than to live another 10 years in terrible, terrible health.

And so when we think about longevity we need to think about do we mean actual years

or do we mean quality of life up to a certain stage.

I think though even if we could extend to say a healthy lifestyle to the age of a 120, 130, would it be morally responsible to do so?

The massively climbing human population has nothing to do with birth rates.

Birth rates have been dropping for decades.

It's because people aren't dying as early.

And now I have no intention as an individual volunteering to take one for the planetary team on that, but that is what is driving population growth.

And if we do start massively extending population age say 85 to 120.

That's not going to be happening in the lower middle income countries.

That's going to be because of things we do to ourselves in the highly developed economically, developed economically countries.

That made no sense at all, you know what I mean.

And we're already the ones driving destruction of the planet because our consumption is so high.

So I think there are both scientific questions and I don't think we can live forever.

And there are ethical questions.

And there There are also economic questions.

Everyone talks about we need new antibiotics.

We have new antibiotics.

The last two companies to develop new antibiotics went bankrupt within six months.

We need new economic models to promote greater health for the global population,

which will lead to longer-term healthy life for everybody not just for a few individuals in the developed North.

Thank you, thank you.

So we would end up with the haves and have-nots becoming worse it would be the lives and live-nots.

Health inequalities the most damaging people would be alive longer to do more

and more damage and and create greater problems for the have-nots.

Guy, what do you think?

Thanks.

So the title of this session is Medicine Myth, and I want to talk about three different but related medical myths.

The first is that medicine is about preventing death, or should be about preventing death.

The problem is that medicine and public health generally has been very successful on this, and this resulted in a large extension of lifespan on average.

It's more than doubled in the last 200 years.

So that's a good thing, but the problem is that we've done nothing about the rate of aging.

And because aging increases exponentially with the age that you live, we end up aging much more before we die,

and that's associated with many different age-related diseases such as dementia and extreme aging.

So you end up with a degenerative end to life.

The second myth that I want to explore is that aging is natural.

Many people say that aging is natural and therefore we shouldn't do anything about it.

Well the opposite is the case.

Aging is very rare in animals in the wild.

And it was very rare, or extreme ageing was extremely rare, for humans before civilisation up to a few hundred years ago.

So ageing is not natural, it's a product of a culture,

our culture, and it's a culture that has continually targeted acute causes of death,

resulting in a large increase in lifespan, resulting in extreme ageing.

The third myth that I wanted to explore in relation to medicine is the Hippocratic Oath.

So we should do no harm.

The issue is that with a degenerative end to life

and some people experiencing at the end of life a negative quality of life,

wanting to die because they have degenerative diseases,

it would be rational to have assisted dying in the specific conditions where you have degenerative disease.

100

But that is an issue in relation to the Hippocratic Oath, so I'd like to also discuss that.

101

Thank you, thank you.

102

Since we're all, as you said, we're all going to die of something, what is it that we're going to die of?

103

Because we've talked about two different things.

104

There's just the mechanical something's going to fall off or stop working.

105

Presumably there's a finite number of things that can just stop working, but then there's things that have nothing to do with us, outside diseases like viruses.

106

Is there an indefinite amount of things that we could die of?

107

Or is there a list that medicine is going to get through? Could you...?

108

We'll always see particularly the emergence of new zoonotic diseases coming from the animal kingdom,

109

and that will only get worse because we're breaking down the boundaries with the animal kingdom.

110

So unless we have ecosystem restoration at a global level, that's going to continue happening.

111

However, I think science will get much, much better at dealing with those.

112

The response to COVID is a scientific miracle if such a thing exists.

113

It's extraordinarily how fast, particularly the vaccines, were developed.

114

But we will constantly see new diseases emerging.

115

And we, as Dennis said, we are extraordinarily complex organisms.

116

If you fix one bit, it just creates space for another bit to go wrong.

117

So I think we might find new interesting ways to die.

118

But I don't think we'll ever stop it.

119

I think we are finding new interesting ways to die.

120

Your question was, is there a fixed number of diseases or is there potentially infinite number one?

121

Well, historically, we have targeted as a society, whatever is the main cause of death.

122

and we've had increased lifespan and that reveals new diseases because aging is not one, it's dozens or maybe hundreds of different processes.

123

And as you go into extreme aging, you reveal more and more processes and more and more diseases.

124

So in the last 20 or 30 years, many new diseases have been seen because people are living to longer and longer years.

125

And that's obviously a problem.

126

The main cause of death now in the UK is dementia.

127

That is the main cause and has been well, prior to the pandemic, during the pandemic, COVID was the main cause of death,

128

but it was closely followed by dementia and dementia is now

129

again the main cause of death and obviously that is a problem.

130

But if you remove dementia, then another thing will be removed, will be revealed by extreme aging.

131

Right.

📺 Stesso Canale

What neuroscience reveals about free will and psychopaths | Sam Harris, Roger Penrose, Sophie Scott

IELTS PrepTOEFL Prep+2

✨ Video consigliato

66 frasi

Cos'è la tecnica dello Shadowing?

Shadowing è una tecnica di apprendimento delle lingue supportata da studi scientifici, originariamente sviluppata per la formazione dei traduttori professionisti e resa popolare dal poliglotta Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Il metodo è semplice ma potente: ascolti un audio in inglese di madrelingua e lo ripeti immediatamente ad alta voce — come un'ombra che segue il parlante con un ritardo di solo 1–2 secondi. A differenza dell'ascolto passivo o degli esercizi di grammatica, lo shadowing costringe il tuo cervello e i muscoli della bocca a elaborare e riprodurre simultaneamente i modelli di discorso reale. La ricerca dimostra che migliora significativamente la precisione della pronuncia, l'intonazione, il ritmo, il discorso connesso, la comprensione dell'ascolto e la fluidità del parlato — rendendolo uno dei metodi più efficaci per la preparazione alla prova di speaking dell'IELTS e per la comunicazione reale in inglese.

Tecnica dello shadowing: leggi la guida completa passo dopo passo →

Pratica di Shadowing: The medicine myth | Denis Noble, Nessa Carey, Guy Brown - Impara a parlare inglese con i video

What neuroscience reveals about free will and psychopaths | Sam Harris, Roger Penrose, Sophie Scott

What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think

Personalised Cancer Care - Prof Mark Middleton

Homeostasis - How Your Body Keeps its Balance - Physiology Series

The Heart Structures and Agency

Why do people smoke?

How Depression Affects The Brain - Yale Medicine Explains

Human Immortality 4K | Can Science Defeat Aging?

MRI-Negative Epilepsy

Anna Lembke on Pleasure, Pain, and Recovery in a Dopamine-Driven World

The Future Of Reasoning

Medicine and Pharmaceutical Drugs | How Are Medicines Made? | Types of Drugs

Why Religious Beliefs Aren't Just Silly

Informazioni su questa lezione

Cos'è la tecnica dello Shadowing?