Immortality Discovered

sealover wrote:
Spongy Iris, I apologize for hijacking your thread with discussion of the interstitium. In my defense, I do believe it is directly related to many of your other posts. Perhaps not a path to immortality, but a way to improve the quality of our mortality.

I encourage you to continue your own theme on your own thread (this one).

I suspect that this thread will get bumped to the top repeatedly.

THIS thread is where Into the Night provided his definition for what HE claims the interstitium is. Actually, it's just a list of what it is NOT.

NOT an organ, NOT comprised of collagen or fibers, NO compartments, etc.

He will surely be heckling like crazy, insisting "NO, it's NOT!". He will try to weasel out of being pinned down on his absurd claims here on this thread with "RQAA". So, THIS thread will keep getting bumped to show what his "RQAA" really was.

He clearly stated that the interstitium is NOT pretty much ALL the things that scientists say that it IS. He will deny it with "RQAA". This thread will get bumped repeatedly to display what he unambiguously stated here.

Because the new "interstitium" thread will probably get more attention and "views" than anything here about biogeochemistry.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You don't have to take my word for it.

Just type into your Google Search Engine:

Telomerase Cancer

And voila!

How Telomerase Causes Cancer & Promotes Growth.

Replicative Immortality: Normal cells have telomeres that shorten with each division, eventually leading to senescence (death). Cancer cells reactivate telomerase to rebuild these ends, achieving "limitless replicative potential".

Bypassing Crisis: When cells should die from critically short telomeres, telomerase activation allows them to survive, mutate further, and form tumors.

Beyond Telomeres (Extratelomeric Functions): The catalytic component of telomerase (TERT) also acts as a signaling molecule that promotes tumor growth, helps cells avoid apoptosis (programmed cell death), and aids in angiogenesis (blood vessel formation for tumors).

There is your answer. To achieve immortality, get cancer!

Im a BM wrote:
I know that you probably don't particularly appreciate what I've been doing here, Spongy Iris.

However, I want you to know that I am genuinely grateful to you.

You played a significant role in helping me find my path again, and FINALLY publish the last deep investigation I ever did as a scientific researcher.

Im a BM wrote:
The references come from medical journals, physiology textbooks, etc.

Im a BM wrote:
Quite a shift from biogeochemistry, with little or no connection to the environment. Except for all the exgoneous chemicals our interstitium has to deal with.

Im a BM wrote:
It would never have occurred to me to do this at this time in this way, except that your posts provided so many examples of health problems that I have no doubt are directly related to the interstitium.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
WOW! Obviously, you are trained as a medical doctor in addition to being a "chemist".

No, but I know basic anatomy. Apparently you don't. You forget I make sensors for the medical uses.

Im a BM wrote:
Multiple assertions about what the interstitium is NOT.

Because you made multiple assertions that are just flat wrong.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course, Into the Night wouldn't even know how to look it up in order to articulate what the interstitium IS. Kind of like pH. Just can't say what it IS.
...remaining rant deleted...

Fluid spaces between cells.
It's basically saltwater.
It can be found in all multicellular animals.

It is not an organ. It contains no tissue. It does not have compartments. It is not an exit from the body. It has no 'pump'. It does not 'evolve'.

Im a BM wrote:
THIS is Into the Night's first definitive declaration about the nature of the interstitium. He has made it clear that he will make it his mission to troll any future discussion of this topic. When he invokes "RQAA", we will need to return to THIS original definition he provided.

Definition of the Interstitium, according to Into the Night:

"It's basically saltwater."
"It is not an organ. It contains no tissue. It does not have compartments."

So, he will be having many tantrums as the medical journal articles are cited about the network comprised of "connective tissue", made of collagen and elastin, in a lattice of flexible fibers, with many interconnected compartments, that behaves VERY MUCH as an organ. More than just saltwater.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
THIS is Into the Night's first definitive declaration about the nature of the interstitium. He has made it clear that he will make it his mission to troll any future discussion of this topic. When he invokes "RQAA", we will need to return to THIS original definition he provided.

Definition of the Interstitium, according to Into the Night:

"It's basically saltwater."
"It is not an organ. It contains no tissue. It does not have compartments."

So, he will be having many tantrums as the medical journal articles are cited about the network comprised of "connective tissue", made of collagen and elastin, in a lattice of flexible fibers, with many interconnected compartments, that behaves VERY MUCH as an organ. More than just saltwater.

It is not connective tissue. It is not tissue at all. No collagen. No elastin. No lattice of fibers. No compartments. It is not an organ.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
THIS is Into the Night's first definitive declaration about the nature of the interstitium. He has made it clear that he will make it his mission to troll any future discussion of this topic. When he invokes "RQAA", we will need to return to THIS original definition he provided.

Definition of the Interstitium, according to Into the Night:

"It's basically saltwater."
"It is not an organ. It contains no tissue. It does not have compartments."

So, he will be having many tantrums as the medical journal articles are cited about the network comprised of "connective tissue", made of collagen and elastin, in a lattice of flexible fibers, with many interconnected compartments, that behaves VERY MUCH as an organ. More than just saltwater.

It is not connective tissue. It is not tissue at all. No collagen. No elastin. No lattice of fibers. No compartments. It is not an organ.

You have made it very clear you intend to troll the thread with unsupported contrarian assertions.

The closest you came to defining what the interstitium actually IS is to say that "It's basically saltwater." Otherwise, you just keep saying "No, it's not". And you have no actual information about WHY anyone would think that it's not. Without knowing it, obviously, you keep insisting that it is NOT exactly what scientists are revealing that it IS. (Collagen, elastin, fibers, compartments, connective tissue, etc.)

A rational adult would realize that they have NOTHING OF VALUE to contribute to a discussion of a topic they have NO KNOWLEDGE of.

Yup, it's basically saltwater.

But you are addicted to trolling

And I won't even start the new thread it in that case.

Maybe Branner will let me have just ONE thread that you don't get to contaminate with incessant and OBNOXIOUS trolling, trolling, trolling.

Im a BM wrote:
You have made it very clear you intend to troll the thread with unsupported contrarian assertions.

Im a BM wrote:
The closest you came to defining what the interstitium actually IS is to say that "It's basically saltwater." Otherwise, you just keep saying "No, it's not". And you have no actual information about WHY anyone would think that it's not. Without knowing it, obviously, you keep insisting that it is NOT exactly what scientists are revealing that it IS. (Collagen, elastin, fibers, compartments, connective tissue, etc.)

Im a BM wrote:
A rational adult would realize that they have NOTHING OF VALUE to contribute to a discussion of a topic they have NO KNOWLEDGE of.

Im a BM wrote:
Yup, it's basically saltwater.

But you are addicted to trolling

And I won't even start the new thread it in that case.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe Branner will let me have just ONE thread that you don't get to contaminate with incessant and OBNOXIOUS trolling, trolling, trolling.

sealover wrote:

Google and the Interstitium

I learned the term "interstitium" in 2018, along with the rest of the scientific community. I dedicated hundreds of hours investigating it in medical journals, physiology textbooks, anatomy textbooks, etc. I had a dog in this fight, and I was committed.
[quote]sealover wrote:
I used Google to find the term "interstitium" for the first time about a week ago.

sealover wrote:
I was very disappointed at how thin Google's answer was. If I added better keywords to my inquiries, I could nudge Google closer to a synthesis that was consistent with all the research I had done. For example, I had to suggest some of the OTHER "organ" functions the interstitium might be performing before it would realize they too were there to be listed, with sources. It has been barely more than 7 years, but there is already an "old school" paradigm about the adaptive value of the interstitium as physical protection - a shock absorber to cushion vital organs. And that's ALL! A new wave of fluid transport enthusiasts
are noticing all the useful things the interstitium does for the body. And cancer researchers fear they have discovered a significant transport mechanism for solid objects to cross from one tissue to another, moving malignant cancer cells to colonize new tissues.

sealover wrote:
The local Heckler in Chief, a scientifically illiterate troll called Into the Night, has siezed upon use of Google references as proof of ignorance. Apparently, I'm letting AI substitute for my own brain.

sealover wrote:
In fact, I make Google inquiries most often with the expectation that I know exactly what it will reveal. If it does not, I refine the search using terms that should guide it to the sources that I KNOW exist to be referenced. Sometimes it even shows me things I didn't already know.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:

Google and the Interstitium

I learned the term "interstitium" in 2018, along with the rest of the scientific community. I dedicated hundreds of hours investigating it in medical journals, physiology textbooks, anatomy textbooks, etc. I had a dog in this fight, and I was committed.
[quote]sealover wrote:
I used Google to find the term "interstitium" for the first time about a week ago.

Science isn't a community.
Science isn't a journal.
Science isn't a book.
Science isn't anatomy.
Science isn't a dog.
You are not committed, but maybe you should be.

sealover wrote:
I was very disappointed at how thin Google's answer was. If I added better keywords to my inquiries, I could nudge Google closer to a synthesis that was consistent with all the research I had done. For example, I had to suggest some of the OTHER "organ" functions the interstitium might be performing before it would realize they too were there to be listed, with sources. It has been barely more than 7 years, but there is already an "old school" paradigm about the adaptive value of the interstitium as physical protection - a shock absorber to cushion vital organs. And that's ALL! A new wave of fluid transport enthusiasts
are noticing all the useful things the interstitium does for the body. And cancer researchers fear they have discovered a significant transport mechanism for solid objects to cross from one tissue to another, moving malignant cancer cells to colonize new tissues.

Google isn't sentient. The interstitium is not an organ. It is not a shock absorber. It is not cancer.

sealover wrote:
The local Heckler in Chief, a scientifically illiterate troll called Into the Night, has siezed upon use of Google references as proof of ignorance. Apparently, I'm letting AI substitute for my own brain.

That you are!

sealover wrote:
In fact, I make Google inquiries most often with the expectation that I know exactly what it will reveal. If it does not, I refine the search using terms that should guide it to the sources that I KNOW exist to be referenced. Sometimes it even shows me things I didn't already know.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And you try to justify using GoogleAI as a substitute for your brain!

Im a BM wrote:
"Science isn't a dog." - Into the Night

Maybe not, but is science a CAT? Into the Night already weighed in on that one.

This is from the "Does Anyone Know Anything about Polyphenols" thread, started by IBdaMann, in May, 2024

In a June 3, 2024 post, Im a BM wrote: "Science is not a cat."

Into the Night replied: "Guess you never heard of Shrodinger and his cat."

So damn CLEVER with the word games!

Okay,... okay... we'll think of something.

ITN says "Science isn't a dog.", so I come back with...
"Guess you never heard of 'Science' the Dog."

Whoever comes up with the best word games proves they understand science.

But what IS science? Well, it's NOT a dog, community, journal, book, blah blah blah, and I prove some point about "science" by listing a thousand things that it is NOT.

I guess all those "science is not" lines provide filler for an otherwise empty post.

Here's a dirty little secret about the dog whose owner chose the name "Science".

"Science" isn't just a dog. SCIENCE IS A BITCH!

Im a BM wrote (in dfferent thread):
Give me a chance!

"Dysfunction" was the wrong word. Indeed, some of the most painful symptoms are when it functions properly. Some of the symptoms are unmasked by finally rehydrating dry "compartments". Doctors often encourage patients NOT to go through with it. Pain is unacceptable and must be avoided. Immune response, "allergic" reactions, inflamation, etc. are unacceptable and must be avoided.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote (in dfferent thread):
Give me a chance!

"Dysfunction" was the wrong word. Indeed, some of the most painful symptoms are when it functions properly. Some of the symptoms are unmasked by finally rehydrating dry "compartments". Doctors often encourage patients NOT to go through with it. Pain is unacceptable and must be avoided. Immune response, "allergic" reactions, inflamation, etc. are unacceptable and must be avoided.

Everybody wants a quick fix, including me TBH.

But if my interstitium dysfunction got rectified as quickly as I wanted it to be, I probably would have been killed on the toilet, atop a 10 feet tall mountain of bloody poop.

Im a BM wrote:
Generic Diagnosis and Generic Treatment for Interstitium-related Ailments.

Patient is suffering.. maybe it's the bowels.. skin... joints.. breathing problems.. sinus issues...

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Generic Diagnosis and Generic Treatment for Interstitium-related Ailments.

Patient is suffering.. maybe it's the bowels.. skin... joints.. breathing problems.. sinus issues...

Question: If a patient "transitions" by getting interstitium reassignment surgery, what pronouns will zhwey have to use?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote (in dfferent thread):
Give me a chance!

"Dysfunction" was the wrong word. Indeed, some of the most painful symptoms are when it functions properly. Some of the symptoms are unmasked by finally rehydrating dry "compartments". Doctors often encourage patients NOT to go through with it. Pain is unacceptable and must be avoided. Immune response, "allergic" reactions, inflamation, etc. are unacceptable and must be avoided.

Everybody wants a quick fix, including me TBH.

But if my interstitium dysfunction got rectified as quickly as I wanted it to be, I probably would have been killed on the toilet, atop a 10 feet tall mountain of bloody poop.

Generic Diagnosis and Generic Treatment for Interstitium-related Ailments.

Patient is suffering.. maybe it's the bowels.. skin... joints.. breathing problems.. sinus issues...

Doctor knows that the patient's natural responses have run amok and must be suppressed with corticosteroids. Better turn off that annoying fire alarm with some painkillers. And soon enough we'll get you started with antibiotics, because you won't be able to fight off infectios so well...

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote (in dfferent thread):
Give me a chance!

"Dysfunction" was the wrong word. Indeed, some of the most painful symptoms are when it functions properly. Some of the symptoms are unmasked by finally rehydrating dry "compartments". Doctors often encourage patients NOT to go through with it. Pain is unacceptable and must be avoided. Immune response, "allergic" reactions, inflamation, etc. are unacceptable and must be avoided.

Everybody wants a quick fix, including me TBH.

But if my interstitium dysfunction got rectified as quickly as I wanted it to be, I probably would have been killed on the toilet, atop a 10 feet tall mountain of bloody poop.

Generic Diagnosis and Generic Treatment for Interstitium-related Ailments.

Patient is suffering.. maybe it's the bowels.. skin... joints.. breathing problems.. sinus issues...

Doctor knows that the patient's natural responses have run amok and must be suppressed with corticosteroids. Better turn off that annoying fire alarm with some painkillers. And soon enough we'll get you started with antibiotics, because you won't be able to fight off infectios so well...

Man past week or so, my tinnitus is like a non-stop deep vibration coming from the right ear.

Is that part of your list of 5? I think it should be.

Every time I think I finally got rid of that sumbitch, it comes back raging! Like somebody wants me to think they are invincible.

Im a BM wrote:

Absolutely, yes, that will be among the first. I don't believe it is coincidence that it manifests much more on the right side, if not exclusively on the right side. I dare suggest you might have a corresponding symptom in the lower half of your body that is much more on the left side, if not exclusively on the left side.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Generic Diagnosis and Generic Treatment for Interstitium-related Ailments.

Patient is suffering.. maybe it's the bowels.. skin... joints.. breathing problems.. sinus issues...

Question: If a patient "transitions" by getting interstitium reassignment surgery, what pronouns will zhwey have to use?

You and Into the Night have made it clear you cannot resist the compulsion to troll any thread I might start in regard to the interstitium.

As usual, your comments are not worthy of acknowledgement.

You do not "debate" in good faith, and you are nearly unteachable.

You should have been banned from this forum more than 10 years ago.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:



Absolutely, yes, that will be among the first. I don't believe it is coincidence that it manifests much more on the right side, if not exclusively on the right side. I dare suggest you might have a corresponding symptom in the lower half of your body that is much more on the left side, if not exclusively on the left side.

I'm unable to identify as big a nuisance on the lower left half of my body corresponding to the right ear tinnitus. Sumbitches be deceptive like that. I had heard the lower left corresponds with the upper right before. For example, they say many right brained people are left handed.

I can tell you, if I hold my phone to my left ear, and the sound is, say, on the twangy side, my right ear will start to feel like there's a woodpecker banging on the ear drum. So maybe the tinnitus trigger originates in the left brain, but manifests in the right ear. If I hold the phone to my right ear, it usually won't trigger that woodpecker tinnitus.

My tinnitus started shortly after I broke my right hand.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Absolutely, yes, that will be among the first. I don't believe it is coincidence that it manifests much more on the right side, if not exclusively on the right side. I dare suggest you might have a corresponding symptom in the lower half of your body that is much more on the left side, if not exclusively on the left side.

I'm unable to identify as big a nuisance on the lower left half of my body corresponding to the right ear tinnitus. Sumbitches be deceptive like that. I had heard the lower left corresponds with the upper right before. For example, they say many right brained people are left handed.

I can tell you, if I hold my phone to my left ear, and the sound is, say, on the twangy side, my right ear will start to feel like there's a woodpecker banging on the ear drum. So maybe the tinnitus trigger originates in the left brain, but manifests in the right ear. If I hold the phone to my right ear, it usually won't trigger that woodpecker tinnitus.

My tinnitus started shortly after I broke my right hand.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Absolutely, yes, that will be among the first. I don't believe it is coincidence that it manifests much more on the right side, if not exclusively on the right side. I dare suggest you might have a corresponding symptom in the lower half of your body that is much more on the left side, if not exclusively on the left side.

I'm unable to identify as big a nuisance on the lower left half of my body corresponding to the right ear tinnitus. Sumbitches be deceptive like that. I had heard the lower left corresponds with the upper right before. For example, they say many right brained people are left handed.

I can tell you, if I hold my phone to my left ear, and the sound is, say, on the twangy side, my right ear will start to feel like there's a woodpecker banging on the ear drum. So maybe the tinnitus trigger originates in the left brain, but manifests in the right ear. If I hold the phone to my right ear, it usually won't trigger that woodpecker tinnitus.

My tinnitus started shortly after I broke my right hand.

I propose that we continue this discussion, but using PM instead of public posts.

I could spend a week getting feedback/questions from you before I even think about a public post. I'll probably give you my email address as well, because at some point I can have polished essays in a wordprocessing program.

It will be very valuable for me to do this for AT LEAST a week in advance of posting ANYTHING more about the interstitium in the public forum.

You will be the first "layperson" I will ever try to share this with, and it will be very useful to me try to explain it clearly and find out if is understood or understandable.

Another big advantage of PMs is that I no longer want to talk about my personal medical history or yours in the public forum. In the privacy of one-on-one, back-and-forth exchange, I know it would be a valuable learning experience for ME. Probably yield something much better when I finally share it with someone else after you help me see the strengths and weaknesses of my first attempt. And I don't want to refer to any symptoms or medical history as being yours OR mine when I finally put it in the public forum.

I may not even publish it here at all. Not without some kind of pest control.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Absolutely, yes, that will be among the first. I don't believe it is coincidence that it manifests much more on the right side, if not exclusively on the right side. I dare suggest you might have a corresponding symptom in the lower half of your body that is much more on the left side, if not exclusively on the left side.

I'm unable to identify as big a nuisance on the lower left half of my body corresponding to the right ear tinnitus. Sumbitches be deceptive like that. I had heard the lower left corresponds with the upper right before. For example, they say many right brained people are left handed.

I can tell you, if I hold my phone to my left ear, and the sound is, say, on the twangy side, my right ear will start to feel like there's a woodpecker banging on the ear drum. So maybe the tinnitus trigger originates in the left brain, but manifests in the right ear. If I hold the phone to my right ear, it usually won't trigger that woodpecker tinnitus.

My tinnitus started shortly after I broke my right hand.

I propose that we continue this discussion, but using PM instead of public posts.

I could spend a week getting feedback/questions from you before I even think about a public post. I'll probably give you my email address as well, because at some point I can have polished essays in a wordprocessing program.

It will be very valuable for me to do this for AT LEAST a week in advance of posting ANYTHING more about the interstitium in the public forum.

You will be the first "layperson" I will ever try to share this with, and it will be very useful to me try to explain it clearly and find out if is understood or understandable.

Another big advantage of PMs is that I no longer want to talk about my personal medical history or yours in the public forum. In the privacy of one-on-one, back-and-forth exchange, I know it would be a valuable learning experience for ME. Probably yield something much better when I finally share it with someone else after you help me see the strengths and weaknesses of my first attempt. And I don't want to refer to any symptoms or medical history as being yours OR mine when I finally put it in the public forum.

I may not even publish it here at all. Not without some kind of pest control.

No offense, it may seem crazy, but I prefer to talk about these concerns in a public forum.

I find I'm less likely to make an error, quicker to catch an error, and more likely to have an epiphany, when venting my concerns in a public forum.

Climate-debate.com is my favorite social media site. Another niche social media site I visit is DenyIgnorance.com. Blogspot is where I like to publish my personal work, and they have a comment section too. YouTube is just good for music. X, Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram should be avoided like they are porn, though I sometimes vent on small niches of X and Reddit.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Absolutely, yes, that will be among the first. I don't believe it is coincidence that it manifests much more on the right side, if not exclusively on the right side. I dare suggest you might have a corresponding symptom in the lower half of your body that is much more on the left side, if not exclusively on the left side.

I'm unable to identify as big a nuisance on the lower left half of my body corresponding to the right ear tinnitus. Sumbitches be deceptive like that. I had heard the lower left corresponds with the upper right before. For example, they say many right brained people are left handed.

I can tell you, if I hold my phone to my left ear, and the sound is, say, on the twangy side, my right ear will start to feel like there's a woodpecker banging on the ear drum. So maybe the tinnitus trigger originates in the left brain, but manifests in the right ear. If I hold the phone to my right ear, it usually won't trigger that woodpecker tinnitus.

My tinnitus started shortly after I broke my right hand.

I propose that we continue this discussion, but using PM instead of public posts.

I could spend a week getting feedback/questions from you before I even think about a public post. I'll probably give you my email address as well, because at some point I can have polished essays in a wordprocessing program.

It will be very valuable for me to do this for AT LEAST a week in advance of posting ANYTHING more about the interstitium in the public forum.

You will be the first "layperson" I will ever try to share this with, and it will be very useful to me try to explain it clearly and find out if is understood or understandable.

Another big advantage of PMs is that I no longer want to talk about my personal medical history or yours in the public forum. In the privacy of one-on-one, back-and-forth exchange, I know it would be a valuable learning experience for ME. Probably yield something much better when I finally share it with someone else after you help me see the strengths and weaknesses of my first attempt. And I don't want to refer to any symptoms or medical history as being yours OR mine when I finally put it in the public forum.

I may not even publish it here at all. Not without some kind of pest control.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay. Well, I won't be posting anything more about this topic here publicly for at least a week, I think. Just digesting all the stuff I found by, FINALLY, using Google as the Interstitium search tool. I had never looked up "interstitium" in Google before this past week. I was pleasantly amazed by some things that I thought were still just in the theoretical stage.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Another observation I'm pretty sure I have accurately made, is from the age of 45 to 46, I think I have grown about half an inch.

Never good enough tho is it? Holding a pencil at the top of my head and marking the height on the wall is subject a margin of error...

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Another observation I'm pretty sure I have accurately made, is from the age of 45 to 46, I think I have grown about half an inch.

Never good enough tho is it? Holding a pencil at the top of my head and marking the height on the wall is subject a margin of error...

I'm not trying to "one up" you, and I am curious if you asked any doctors about it.

My older son was growing fast until the age of 15. According to the charts he was expected to reach six feet four inches eventually, but he suddenly stopped at five feet eleven. At age 28, he started growing again. Finally stopped at six feet two inches. Now he's 42. We gave up on getting a doctor to take the question seriously. Haven't gotten past the disbelief and dismissal stage to where anyone is willing to even look at his previous height recorded over years of medical history. We're always there for something else, so they always change the subject back to the matter at hand.

Now, you have me thinking I'd like to push the question again. I never made it a high priority to get an answer. Maybe I should start with the Ripley's Believe-it-or-not Museum for a methodological approach. I've never tried a Google search either. So, before I finish writing this I'll ask..

"Is is possible for a man to grow another half inch in height from age 45 to 46?"

This is a rare KIND of Google search for me. I usually just want Google to find a reference to something that I already know exists. I don't have a freakin' clue what Google might say to this one, unless it acts like an impatient doctor in a hurry to change the subject.

And now I know.

Either my son gets a place in the freak show or Google is misinformed.

Google says: "It is highly unlikely for a man to grow new bone height from age 45 to 46, as growth, as the growth plates fuse in the late teens to early twenties. However, a half inch gain is possible through postural improvement, spinal decompression, or reversing age related compression."

Okay, now I'm in.

Google, "Is is possible for a man to grow another three inches in height from age 28-33, after remaining five feet, eleven inches tall since age 15?"

Google says: "It is highly improbable... a three inch increase at that age is likely due to improved posture, not bone growth."

Well, I must have watched his posture improve dramatically without realizing it. The growth spurt coincided with his moving into his own apartment. Barefoot, he could touch the ceiling with his fingertips. By the time he moved out he could stand barefoot on the same linoleum floor and nearly flatten his palm on the ceiling.

I had two points of reference to compare. The ceiling was one. My own eye level was the other. I used to look slightly down to make eye contact. More and more, I was looking up. Either the ceiling had gotten lower and I had gotten shorter, or my son had gotten taller. I saw no discernable change in posture.

Next time I'll ask Google if it is simply IMPOSSIBLE or if there are any known recorded cases of such a thing... Maybe my son can become a famous freak.

I can ABSOLUTELY correlate his growth spurt with simultaneous changes that occurred in my son's intertitium-related health conditions.

Did you ever ask a doctor? If so, did you succeed at getting an answer?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Another observation I'm pretty sure I have accurately made, is from the age of 45 to 46, I think I have grown about half an inch.

Never good enough tho is it? Holding a pencil at the top of my head and marking the height on the wall is subject a margin of error...

I'm not trying to "one up" you, and I am curious if you asked any doctors about it.

My older son was growing fast until the age of 15. According to the charts he was expected to reach six feet four inches eventually, but he suddenly stopped at five feet eleven. At age 28, he started growing again. Finally stopped at six feet two inches. Now he's 42. We gave up on getting a doctor to take the question seriously. Haven't gotten past the disbelief and dismissal stage to where anyone is willing to even look at his previous height recorded over years of medical history. We're always there for something else, so they always change the subject back to the matter at hand.

Now, you have me thinking I'd like to push the question again. I never made it a high priority to get an answer. Maybe I should start with the Ripley's Believe-it-or-not Museum for a methodological approach. I've never tried a Google search either. So, before I finish writing this I'll ask..

"Is is possible for a man to grow another half inch in height from age 45 to 46?"

This is a rare KIND of Google search for me. I usually just want Google to find a reference to something that I already know exists. I don't have a freakin' clue what Google might say to this one, unless it acts like an impatient doctor in a hurry to change the subject.

And now I know.

Either my son gets a place in the freak show or Google is misinformed.

Google says: "It is highly unlikely for a man to grow new bone height from age 45 to 46, as growth, as the growth plates fuse in the late teens to early twenties. However, a half inch gain is possible through postural improvement, spinal decompression, or reversing age related compression."

Okay, now I'm in.

Google, "Is is possible for a man to grow another three inches in height from age 28-33, after remaining five feet, eleven inches tall since age 15?"

Google says: "It is highly improbable... a three inch increase at that age is likely due to improved posture, not bone growth."

Well, I must have watched his posture improve dramatically without realizing it. The growth spurt coincided with his moving into his own apartment. Barefoot, he could touch the ceiling with his fingertips. By the time he moved out he could stand barefoot on the same linoleum floor and nearly flatten his palm on the ceiling.

I had two points of reference to compare. The ceiling was one. My own eye level was the other. I used to look slightly down to make eye contact. More and more, I was looking up. Either the ceiling had gotten lower and I had gotten shorter, or my son had gotten taller. I saw no discernable change in posture.

Next time I'll ask Google if it is simply IMPOSSIBLE or if there are any known recorded cases of such a thing... Maybe my son can become a famous freak.

I can ABSOLUTELY correlate his growth spurt with simultaneous changes that occurred in my son's intertitium-related health conditions.

Did you ever ask a doctor? If so, did you succeed at getting an answer?

I wouldn't bother consulting a doctor unless I had better proof.

Do you have some opinions of remedies you have found to be successful for interstitium related issues you would like to share?

Perhaps you are planning to share with a more thorough synopsis next week...

sealover wrote:
Next week's synopsis probably won't be at this website.

sealover wrote:
Unless Branner makes it possible to prevent the trolls from shitting all over it, I will NOT present that information here.

sealover wrote:
I would say that roughly HALF the ads I see for pharmaceuticals are for intertitium-related conditions. Some form of corticosteroid is the universal treatment.

sealover wrote:
The diagnostics for most of those conditions reveal that DEPRESSION is a common symptom as well. People whose lives would appear to be perfect from the outside find themselves in profound despair.

sealover wrote:
The prescription was programmed during evolution. Tears are needed to irrigate the interstitium. Sometimes they are needed in large supply, out of medical necessity. Sometimes things get so dysfunctional that unusual pressure must be applied to get water past hydrophobic barriers, upon which it will get sucked in with strong tension. The prescription is to cry. Cry like a baby. Sob as hard as you can for as long as they will let you. And PUSH as you exhale with your eyes closed tight shut. Be sure to stay hydrated, drinking LOTS of water. The exhalation may require a conscious effort to push hard on the diaphragm, while pinching off the exit route at the pharynx.. Be sure to keep your eustachian tubes open is wide as you can, because tears need to be able to get in freely, very close to the inner ear.

sealover wrote:
What I hope to publish for the layman, rather than the scientific community, wouldn't have many big "buzzwords". "Interstitium" might be the only word in the whole thing they wouldn't already know.

sealover wrote:

"Cry or Die! Irrigating the Interstitium"

And I would have died, because I sure wasn't crying enough, and multiple systems in my body were failing.

Then my younger son died. The dam broke with all those tears, and a whole lot of dried out "compartments" of my interstitium FINALLY got rehydrated. Kind of ironic that his death saved my life.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Good. Stop spamming.

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Annnnnnd there's that Magick Word again!

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Synthesis. Corticosteroid is not a chemical, drug, or treatment.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

What 'conditions'. Void argument fallacy.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Tear glands are not the interstia. The tear glands are not in the inner ear.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Science is not a community.

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Tears don't hydate anything but the surface of the eye.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Good. Stop spamming.

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Annnnnnd there's that Magick Word again!

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Synthesis. Corticosteroid is not a chemical, drug, or treatment.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

What 'conditions'. Void argument fallacy.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Tear glands are not the interstia. The tear glands are not in the inner ear.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Science is not a community.

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Tears don't hydate anything but the surface of the eye.

Deleting the spam allows Into the Night's argument to stand alone as a superb science lesson.

The resident expert in anatomy really clarifies what the interstitium is, elucidating all the reasons it is NOT what they say it is.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Good. Stop spamming.

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Annnnnnd there's that Magick Word again!

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Synthesis. Corticosteroid is not a chemical, drug, or treatment.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

What 'conditions'. Void argument fallacy.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Tear glands are not the interstia. The tear glands are not in the inner ear.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Science is not a community.

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Tears don't hydate anything but the surface of the eye.

Deleting the spam allows Into the Night's argument to stand alone as a superb science lesson.

The resident expert in anatomy really clarifies what the interstitium is, elucidating all the reasons it is NOT what they say it is.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Good. Stop spamming.

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Annnnnnd there's that Magick Word again!

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Synthesis. Corticosteroid is not a chemical, drug, or treatment.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

What 'conditions'. Void argument fallacy.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Tear glands are not the interstia. The tear glands are not in the inner ear.

sealover wrote:(deleted spam)

Science is not a community.

sealover wrote:
(deleted spam)

Tears don't hydate anything but the surface of the eye.

Deleting the spam allows Into the Night's argument to stand alone as a superb science lesson.

The resident expert in anatomy really clarifies what the interstitium is, elucidating all the reasons it is NOT what they say it is.

Tear glands are not the interstitia.

Im a BM wrote:
Tear glands are an important source of water for some parts of the interstitium.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Tear glands are an important source of water for some parts of the interstitium.

Teat gland are not part of the interstitia, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Tear glands are an important source of water for some parts of the interstitium.

Teat gland are not part of the interstitia, Robert.

"Nobody ever said that it was, dumbass." - Into the Night

Teat glands, mammary fun pillows, are most certainly linked to the interstitium, but are not alleged to be part of is as an organ.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted infantile fixation...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Tear glands are an important source of water for some parts of the interstitium.

Teat gland are not part of the interstitia, Robert.

"Nobody ever said that it was, dumbass." - Into the Night

Teat glands, mammary fun pillows, are most certainly linked to the interstitium, but are not alleged to be part of is as an organ.

Mammary glands are not part of the interstitia. The interstitia has no glands at all.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted infantile fixation...

Grow up.

Im a BM wrote:
You do not make yourself any more credible as a "chemist" by insisting that I am NOT a "chemist".

By attempting to belittle and dismiss all that makes me credible among the scientific community, you simply beg the question of what makes YOU credible at all among ANY community.

You belittle and dismiss the scientific journals where my chemistry discoveries were published. "Nature is a shit rag." And as for my major pub in the journal Biogeochemistry? "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'."

You simply beg the question of which MORE credible journals YOUR discoveries were published in.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no such thing as pyrotechnic chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
You belittle and dismiss the academic institutions where I earned advanced degrees. UC Berkeley and UC Davis are not good enough to impress you as a place where I could have learned any legitimate chemistry.

You simply beg the question of which MORE scientifically credible institutions of higher learning YOU acquired YOUR "chemistry" training from. Was your high school really a place where the chemistry instruction was far superior to UC Berkeley or UC Davis. At least they didn't teach you COMMIE chemistry!

Im a BM wrote:
You belittle and dismiss the value of my credentials and academic training. Master's degree, doctorate, post doctoral research. You simply beg the question of what makes your high school diploma and "license" from the Feds and State government to play with pyrotechnics so superior as a credentials that validate you are a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted remaining irrelevant material...