X-Message-Number: 26552
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 00:01:22 +0800 (CST)
From: kurt2100kimo <>
Subject: Suing Religion

I have been following the discussion about suing
organized religion. I think this rather impractical
and wrong-headed. It is not religion that should be
sued, it is the federal government. This is less loopy
than it seems at first and I feel that we actually
have a case.

As many of you may or may not be aware of, age
discrimination in the career world is a major and
growing problem. Forbes, Fortune, and other magazines
have run articles with catchy titles like "Finished at
40" and "Over at 50" that have highlighted this
problem. Recruiters that I have talked to tell me that
what these articles cover is real and that it is
pervasive in almost EVERY industry sector.

There was a recent SCOTUS ruling that relaxed the
criterion on how businesses can be sued for age
discrimination. That ruling, however, stopped short of
reversing a previous ruling from the early 1970's that
refused to place age discrimination on the same legal
footing as race and gender discrimination because
actual physiological functional decline is associated
with increased age. There were several appelate and
circuit court rulings in the 90's that said
essentially the same thing. In otherwords, the courts
have very clearly ruled that aging is a disease or
medical condition.

Why then, does both the FDA and the medical
establishment refuse to classify aging as a disease?
The current policy of the FDA is that aging is not a
disease and, therefor, it will not approve any medical
therapy designed to treat aging, even if it does work
and is safe.

Our country, the U.S.A., was founded on the social
contract that the individual, if he or she is willing
to think and work hard and smart, should have access
to unlimited opportunity to improve his or her own
life and financial situation. Yet, much like
African-American during the Jim Crow time, there is a
growing number of our citizens that are being denied
this basic right due to a disease condition that the
federal courts have already recognized as such and
yet, the federal bureaucracy refuses to do so is such
a manner as to facilitate the most rapid development
of effective cures for it.

This is outrageous. By refusing to recognize aging as
a disease, the federal government is no longer
protecting our rights and liberties to unlimited
opportunity to the individual. The cornerstone of our
country.

I believe that a class action lawsuit should be
brought against the federal government on the part of
anyone who has either suffered from age discrimination
or has felt the impact of reduced economic opportunity
as a result of age. This is a rather large number of
people. The purpose of the lawsuit should not only to
seek compensation for damages, but to provide the
legal foundation for the following:

1) Reform of the FDA: The FDA should be required to
recognize aging as a disease and should give
  fast-track   approval for therapies designed to
combat it, similar to the fast track approval process
for AIDS therapies. The FDA should be forever banned
from interfering with the manufacture, sale, and
consumption of vitamin and other supplements as
recognized by the 1994 supplements act. Lastly, the
FDAs mandate should be restricted to ensuring safety
of new therapies only, not proof of efficacy.

2) Reform of the medical establishment: The AMA should
no longer be allowed to have influence over medical
schools or to restrict admission into medical schools.
All licensed MDs should be required to have technical
undergraduate degrees. No more liberal arts MDs.

3) The federal government should be required to set up
a fund of $10 billion that is to be awarded to
researchers on a   X   (or M) prize basis for
innovative work aimed at curing aging.

4) A separate   X-prize   like fund should be
established for the purpose of developing and making
available to the public affordable effective suspended
animation for those of us who cannot live long enough
for the SENS therapies to be developed.

5) Lastly, the presidents bioethics committee should
be purged of any member who questions the
individual  s right to an unlimited healthy youthful
lifespan. Its mandate should be limited to discussions
of reproductive issues ONLY.

A cure for aging would benefit everyone in our
country. Restoring our population to youthful
functionality would increase the productivity of our
population and would, in turn, increase the productive
output of our economy. This benefits everyone. If you
become healthy and strong, you make more money and I
can make more money selling products and services to
you. There is no downside for anybody. The government
itself benefits because it gets increased tax revenue
because for people are prosperous. Since people no
longer grow old, social security and medicare programs
can be eliminated, thus freeing up even more capital
for economic growth.

Its time we sue the federal government.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26552