“Anti-aging” - My thoughts on the subject

In view of the large number of people who have asked me if I've seen the article on Fantástico on 08/05/12 on the subject (the link to it is at the end of this text) and what I thought of it, I thought I'd express my opinion: in summary, I believe that the term “anti-aging” is inadequate to describe what most ethical professionals actually do, which is to help patients to have a healthier and more functional aging process, with well-being, quality of life, productivity and as few losses as possible with advancing age (without promising rejuvenation or “miraculous” results), but always within what is scientifically proven and reasonable. Below are my considerations:

✅ The title of the article is already excessively sensationalist and seems more focused on causing fear than informing: “Doctors offer hormone treatments condemned by the Council - In the last three years, five doctors have been revoked by the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) for hormone therapies that are not recognized in Brazil”. Hormone treatments are not condemned by the CFM, otherwise specialties such as Endocrinology and Gynecology would not exist. If doctors were banned, it would be for the way they used these hormonal therapies in their clinical practices, not for the therapies themselves.

Anyone who wants to “stay young at any price” and “live forever” is already mistaken, because their quest is not for health, but for unbridled longevity. This type of patient is not a valid parameter for useful comparisons in medicine and health.

✅ The article begins by stating that doctors who work with anti-aging “are doctors who”... This is already a mistake, because it generalizes and puts all professionals who work with anti-aging in the same group, as if they were the same. On this, I have to say

• If a patient comes into my office saying that they want treatment to stop aging or even to rejuvenate, I will explain that, biologically and according to what I know about medicine, this is impossible. If he insists, I'll suggest he see another doctor. I believe that longevity with functionality is, above all, a consequence of obtaining and maintaining good health in an integral way. It's true that scientific experiments have already achieved rejuvenation in rats and science is advancing rapidly every day. It may already be possible in humans, although I don't know of any cases, or that it will be soon. We shouldn't have the arrogance and lack of common sense to say that this will always be impossible, because no human is God, right?

• Human beings tend to live longer, but not necessarily with quality of life. It is therefore important to act on the basic causes of aging, rather than just trying to minimize its consequences. The purpose of the “anti-aging” strategy, in my opinion, is not to “stop time”, but to try to significantly reduce the speed with which it happens, while at the same time improving the quality of the process.

• If a patient gets good results from a doctor and reports feeling “younger”, spreading this perception among their acquaintances, does this make the doctor an “anti-aging” specialist? If a doctor's work enables his patients to live better, with more functionality, well-being and quality of life, and consequently feel “younger” than their biological age, is this wrong or does it fall under “anti-aging”, and should the doctor be punished for it? In other words, every doctor who really cares about their patient is pursuing, directly or indirectly, what is proposed by so-called “anti-aging” (a more appropriate label would be “longevity with health”).

• The doctor who really seeks to help his patient age more healthily and functionally (which is the true meaning of the term “anti-aging” when practiced ethically) never prioritizes just hormone replacement, but rather comprehensive patient care, improving lifestyle habits, detoxification, nutrient replacement, fighting free radicals, among others. In other words, hormones, when necessary, are used within a complex and individualized context, according to the needs of each patient. And these concepts go beyond the need to have one medical specialty or another in order to be applied in practice.

✅ A recent study revealed that science has already succeeded in reversing biological age in mice, which suggests the possibility of achieving the same in humans soon, although I don't know if this has already happened. After all, entire organs are already created from stem cells, aren't they?

Promising specific results to a patient is a risky and inappropriate practice, because the results depend not only on the doctor's knowledge, the prescribed treatment and laboratory tests, but also, and above all, on the patient's body and their cooperation in the process. So I reiterate the obvious: in every area of human knowledge there are good and bad professionals (and even the good ones can make mistakes, because “to err is still human”). This does not mean that an entire area of medicine should be condemned, or its good practitioners, for the actions of a few.

In developed countries, criticism of so-called “antiaging” (the father of Brazilian anti-aging) is becoming less and less accepted, given the great acceptability of the therapy, backed up by thousands of scientific papers and big names in medicine.

Of course, whenever possible, it's best for tests to corroborate any prescription or treatment. But isn't it true that the maxim of medicine, explained in various books and technical texts, states that “The Clinic is Sovereign”? In other words, the patient's clinical condition is the best support a professional can have to support their conduct. Or, for particular areas of medicine, are there different weights and measures for the same subject? In addition, there are hormones whose dosage is not commercially available, such as melatonin: its production drops from the age of 30-35 and, above all, the patient's report is what guides the doctor as to its possible deficiency.

Any excess is bad for you and can cause cancer, whether it's painkillers, anti-inflammatories, minerals or hormones. These are among the most feared due to the countless mistakes made in their prescription since the recent past, largely backed up by scientific studies that are now recognized to be of poor quality and/or biased, but accepted at the time. However, in physiological doses, studies show that hormonal balance even tends to help protect against numerous disorders. And one more detail: anyone who still says that testosterone causes cancer seems to be unaware that estrogen and dihydrotestosterone are the main villains in this matter, as well as unaware of the work of Prof. Abraham Morgentaler (perhaps a research failure for the article).

✅ Melatonin is not “banned” in Brazil: its sale is prohibited, for reasons that it would be up to the health authorities to explain (I don't know and neither do most of the professionals I know), but its medical prescription is permitted and there are countless national and international studies proving its dozens of possible benefits (of course, like everything else in life, when used properly).

No doctor can sell products they prescribe in their own clinic, as this is unquestionably unethical.

Procainotherapy is banned by the CFM in Brazil, but it is allowed and used with numerous reports of excellent results in several countries around the world, many of them first world countries.

It is the patient who should be treated, not their tests. They help to analyze the case, but they are no more important than the patient's clinical condition. Besides, everyone wants to be healthy, but they have to settle for merely “acceptable” tests? For example, the patient in the article: testosterone of 234 in a “normal” range of 131 to 640 pmol/L. It's not because the patient has a result considered “normal” - which in my opinion seems to be below average, as in fact it's closer to the minimum acceptable - and patients in this situation often have symptoms that improve with treatment, that they can't have symptoms. In such cases, the question arises: isn't this value already a sign of a disorder for that patient? How can they criticize the evaluation of a mere test without correlating it with all the tests and the clinical condition of the patient in question?

Patients with “bad results” have plenty of space to talk about their problems, but those with “good results” have less time and don't even say what they've improved and how intensely they've been treated, something that's quite curious in an article that's supposed to be a wake-up call for the community's health.

Beta-HCG therapy and diet are still being studied, but are already widely used (with good results, according to numerous reports) abroad. Curiously, many therapies that are accepted, effective and recommended abroad are blocked in Brazil, often for no apparent reason, as is the case with ozone therapy, for example.

✅ As for the mention of Dr. Jeffry Life's case, I wonder if his case doesn't “bother” the reporter (and who he “represents”) more because he is living proof that what is being criticized so much, when scientifically and ethically applied to a patient willing to cooperate, simply works! Form your own concept by knowing his story: https://drlife.com/meet-dr-life/ (After all, as I always say: look for a basis before forming and issuing an opinion; after all, we can all be very wise in one area and be total ignoramuses in others, even related ones).

Side effects or adverse effects are always possible, even when all the care in the world is used, whether for ordinary medicines or hormones. They depend on the dose and characteristics of the substances, but above all on the susceptibilities of each patient, which are often unpredictable.

Regarding the papers analyzed, it struck me that out of 4,000 papers, only 49 were considered worthy of analysis and, of these, none concluded anything positive about longevity with health. I think it's clear by now that, for me, “anti-aging” is really about promoting healthy aging with functionality, well-being and quality of life, in other words, with fewer dysfunctions that many believe are “natural to age”. Or is it just me who finds this strange, to say the least?

Does society need to report irregularities? Of course, and always, in all areas. But what are the criteria for judging something as irregular? For example, how can we be sure that a doctor has prescribed a substance to artificially try to prolong a patient's life and not to correct some organic irregularity detected by a clinical condition associated with changes in tests (when possible)? Whoever answers these questions really needs to have an unbiased and well-founded judgment, and of course, be continually updating themselves, since in science what is the “undisputed right” of today can become the big nonsense, even harmful and contraindicated, of tomorrow.

✅ Finally, one last consideration: especially in health, poor quality information can harm in many ways, including generating fear that keeps people away from treatments that could effectively help them recover their health and live better. Is this right? No, and perhaps even worthy of a serious article entitled: “Programs offer information condemned by society”.

Finally, I would like to reproduce here the “Open Letter to the Brazilian Population”, widely published today by Dr. Ítalo Rachid, one of the people mentioned in the Fantástico story. This letter complements and reiterates very well what I tried to express above, in my opinion on the whole subject.

“Dear friends,

Good morning!!!

The mission to introduce a new concept of medicine in our country, where preventive and predictive actions are privileged over the pure and simple treatment of diseases, is an arduous one, full of mishaps, pitfalls and, even more critically, it goes against powerful interests.

And this Sunday night will go down in history as one of those dark moments where, for a few minutes, we went back in time to the time of the Inquisition, when people were burned alive for defending their ideas and speaking out against the status quo.

What should be emphasized is that the model of medicine that we practice and defend does not take the form of any specialty, since our work is based on human physiology, the physiology of aging and hormonal physiology.

As such, it can be practiced by any doctor, as long as they are properly trained and qualified to do so.

And it is precisely for this reason that we do not recognize the authority of any medical specialty, acting in isolation, to pass judgment on the subject.

It is also important to emphasize that the therapeutic modalities we offer our clients go far beyond hormones, and include:

• Detoxification;
• Food re-education;
• Stress management;
• Regular physical activity;
• Diagnosis and correction of mitochondrial fatigue;
• Diagnosis and correction of sub-clinical inflammatory activity;
• Genetic mapping;
• Genetic counseling;
• Functional nutraceutical supplementation;
• Nanostructured bioidentical hormone modulation.

All this leads us to the basic observation that none of the subjects listed above are part of the training program of a geriatrician, endocrinologist or gynecologist.

Therefore, because these are subjects that are completely outside the traditional doctor's knowledge, domain or universe, they are not in a position to give a proper opinion on something they don't know in its entirety.

Likewise, the argument that there are occasional reports of people showing supposed “side effects” to hormones is also unfounded, since it is not possible to clearly identify which hormones were used, or what quality, dose and therapeutic indication were used to prescribe these supposed hormones.

What needs to be made clear to the public is that practicing medicine is not risk-free.

We've all heard of people who have been seriously mutilated during plastic surgery, others who have lost their lives during liposuction, or surgeons who have forgotten tweezers and scissors inside patients' abdomens, people who have had anaphylactic shock after taking a simple aspirin, and not for this reason are we allowed to denigrate plastic surgeons, general surgeons or the specialties indirectly involved in the facts.

Like other areas of medical practice, Longevity Medicine, although not risk-free, is safe, being a model based on science, evidence and the direct practice of thousands of doctors, scientists and researchers around the world.

What happened today was a summary judgment, hasty and contrary to all the evidence that this is good medicine and medicine that simply works!

An issue of this magnitude requires a broad, long and time-consuming multidisciplinary debate, with representatives from all areas and specialties of medicine who could potentially benefit from it.

The doctors, scientists and researchers who practice and defend it must necessarily be listened to.

Similarly, the voice of thousands of Brazilian citizens who benefit from it today cannot be silenced by the ignorance and blindness of a few who, with the veiled intention of maintaining privileges and vested interests, try to hide the truth contained in physiology.

On behalf of the Healthy Longevity Group and the doctors and citizens who believe in this model of medicine and have made a free and consensual choice for it, we inform you that all medical, technical and legal resources and instruments will be adopted in order to guarantee and safeguard our sacred and constitutional rights of freedom of choice and expression.

Let's stick together, with a serene and calm mind, believing firmly, resolutely and unshakably that the truth will prevail.

Complementary Reflections:

From the very beginning, when I took up this cause some 14 years ago, in mid-1997, I was driven and motivated by two unshakeable certainties:

- The first was that, after getting to know this movement, its foundations and the people who were benefiting from it, I would never be able to practice traditional medicine again, because, from that moment on, it no longer made sense to me, as I no longer believed in it, although I respected it and still do, as well as those who practice it;

- The second was that the road to introducing these concepts in our country would be long and challenging.

After 12 years of an incessant struggle, in which we have to literally slaughter two hungry and ferocious lions a day, what we are witnessing today in our country is a movement that has established its foundations, is used by more than 500,000 people and has reached a critical point from which there is no return.
The current moment is more than understandable.

The current moment was and is entirely predictable.

Not only because of the doctors and users who already form a respected and large group, but above all because it is a model solidly based on science and evidence!

And this has upset many more people and contradicted many more interests than we are all capable of imagining.

We have to see between the lines and understand that for every strong position, there will always be strong opposition.
This is a model of medicine that produces concrete and proven clinical results.

This is a fact.

And there are no arguments against facts!

It's as simple as that!

Time is the sweet medicine that cures everything.

Time cures blindness, ignorance, injustice and always conspires in favor of the just, the noble of character and, above all, time always conspires in favor of the truth!

Let's remember that evil doesn't exist.

Evil is a mere illusion, perceived only by the mind of someone who has not occupied it with the concrete and real mentalization of good.

Let us all seek inspiration, strength and energy in God and in the just and perfect Universe created by HIM.

I want you to know that I feel privileged and proud to be able to share this space with people as special as you, whom I don't hesitate to call a great family.

Thank you for the belief, energy and dedication with which you believe in, defend and give to our cause!

A warm hug,

Italo Rachid.”

There was a text about the report taken from: http://fantastico.globo.com/Jornalismo/FANT/0,,MUL1681512-15605,00-MEDICOS+OFERECEM+TRATAMENTOS+HORMONAIS+CONDENADOS+PELO+CONSELHO.htm on 08/06/12, but the post is no longer available on Rede Globo's channels, only the full report on GloboPlay - https://globoplay.globo.com/v/2075070/.

Would you like to read more about this? Then I suggest you reflect on these points:

The CFM condemns “anti-aging therapy”, which, in my opinion, is regrettable and a step backwards for health in the country. Check out CFM portal.

I just hope you have the good sense to consider (better late than never) everything we've written in the articles below (read and form your own well-founded opinion) and this:

1. It's not because a doctor prescribes hormone replacement, vitamins and minerals for a patient whose clinical condition (and tests, when possible and necessary) indicate the need, that they are doing the “anti-aging” that they are banning.
2. Any doctor who really cares about their patient and does their best to guide them and help them age with quality, with more functionality and well-being, is doing “antiaging”.
3. They are “attacking” a misinterpreted label which, for those who do it ethically, has nothing to do with rejuvenation or overloading anything to stop ageing.

And frankly: society has to speak out about all this! After all, it has everything to be the most affected by the negative repercussions...

Hugs, Icarus