Great video! Increasingly our behavior determines our longevity. Just as weight scales provide transparency and motivate dieting, epigenetic tests now make biological age (as distinct from chronological age) more transparent and motivate us to adopt right behaviors to help us live longer.
I'd like to see more human studies on commonly used HDAC inhibitors (eg Valproate) for altering abilities that are locked in during early childhood. Doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00102 Histone-deacetylase inhibitor Valproic Acid may reopen the critical learning period for acquiring perfect pitch (an ability that is locked in at an early age). For victims of early childhood trauma, we could picture a treatment like this that allowed for re-nurturing to modulate over active stress responses.
Well, immunoregulation shares an interface with the gut, brain, bone and endocrine system, so maybe it would be possible to understand the changes in the epigenetic landscape caused by childhood trauma and possibly inherited by the next generation, by studying the epigenetic modifications taking place during immune cell activation, and not only by looking inside the brain?
THANK YOU for making this info available to us, the Great Unwashed. Loved it. But...seriously..PLEASE take a shot of Afrin nose spray before next one! ; )
Ack. I just watched Dr. Carey's RI presentation from 2015 - this one's 2021, and I was hoping for new material. But then it's kicking off with exactly those same two quotes. I'm going to plow along, but I hope it's not just the same stuff re-iterated. Later: Yeah, looks like exactly the same slide deck. :-( :-( :-(
This info needs to be processed into the public health as a first response to physical and mental health... So basically both current processes need a major redesigned change! Every person on this planet has experienced trauma at one point...we all need this method of treatment.
I'm just a n average person who is trying to learn about things in general. Watching this video, the only thing I find extraordinary is a an educated person who is talking about epigenetics and how external environment, stimulus has a dramatic change in your make up is drinking "zero coke". One would think that she should know better than to put that stuff in your body. Regardless of you are breeding or not. I'm quite shocked
I find a lack of logic in Carey's thinking - I was sceptical when I read her books. She says that we needed something more than DNA to explain how different cell types form. We didn't. In saying this she is ignoring all prior knowledge of 'genetic cascades', whereby a gene generates a product that turns on another gene, and may even turn itself off. These products, 'transcription factors' are proteins that persist in the cell, and are passed on when the cell divides. Much had been written about gene cascades before epigenetics arrived - see for example, 'The Control of Gene Expression In Animal Development' by J B Gurdon of Cambridge University. Here we have quite an adequate mechanism to explain cell types and more. Then Carey talks of psychological conditions as being affected by epigenetics, but ignores the brain. We know already that the brain has long-term memory, and that the primitive emotional areas of the brain record trauma. Is their memory determined by epigenetics? I think not, we already have mechanisms for it from neuroscience in terms of proteins and synapses. We are left with the real question; what IS epigenetics for? I don't think Carey has the answer. I have my own hypotheses and think we should consider a Lamarckian role, though it seems that epigenetic markers are overwhelmingly (but perhaps not entirely) erased in gamete formation. The whole business of 'turning genes on and off' is talked of too glibly. Bacteria turn on genes for a particular food source when it appears in their surrounding - because it is sensed and enables gene transcription at the promoter. No other mechanism needed! Regulation of gene products in general needs precision and generally involves feedback mechanisms - it is not clear that epigenetics has a role here; the RNA world clearly does have a role, most obviously in controlling the degrading rate of mRNA..
With respect, this video rates four genes out of a possible of ten. Undoubtedly, Dr. Nessa is technically very competent. She knows the meanings to the words, she knows the subject matter reasonably well, she knows how all the moving parts fit together and she knows how to present a narrative. So, why only 4 out of 10 for the video? Answer: Lack of insight. No “spark.” Is that important? Watching the video, Dr. Carey strikes me as a very technically competent individual. I would hire her as an expert witness, for example, or to head a regulatory compliance committee, but I would not hire her as an instructor or a research assistant. She describes herself as a “scientist,” but I would judge her as a “technologist.” Her presentation demonstrates good knowledge, but lack of understanding. An analogy would be that of an automotive engineer: a chap who can recite the entire history of the automobile, and can give you ASE specifications for oil from memory and knows the names of all the parts in a vehicle and how they connect - but who otherwise can’t change a puncture on his own car, doesn’t know who Roberto Guerrero is or who died on February 18, 2001, during the Daytona 500, never experienced “push” in a corner at 120 mph and can’t even work on his wife’s car. The famous physicist Stanley Jaki warned of dogmatic science as “stillbirth science” as did his predecessor Pierre Duhem who cautioned “The history of science alone can keep the physicist from the mad ambitions of dogmatism as well as the despair of pyrrhonian scepticism.” Dogmatic “scientists” like Dr. Carey begin with an a priori dogma into which all evidence SHALL fit like Procrustean’s Bed, and if the evidence doesn’t fit, then demmit, lop off the bits that are too big, and stretch the bits that are too small and MAKE it fit the desired outcome. So it is with Dr. Carey - listen closely to what she says. Real scientists, by contrast have the courage to look at the evidence and allow the evidence to lead the conclusions - however terrible and uncomfortable the path. Like the ironic inaugural Huxley speech in Sept. 1876, where Huxley implored his audiance to “follow the evidence” (Huxley himself was terrified of evidence, and eschewed allowing evidence to lead to conclusions unless those conclusions fit into his own Procrustean Bed). To her credit, Dr. Carey identifies herself as a “Materialist” and thereby honestly informs her audience of her self-imposed constraints on what she thinks is “science” - But by those constraints, she limits her ability to possess “insight” and “spark;” the intangible marks of real scientists. Her video (and presumably her book) therefore is presented exclusively within the limited confines of those constraints. There is no point in standing on the shoulders of giants if you fear the sight of the new horizon- or worse, refuse to accept that there is a new horizon to be seen. I would recommend Dr. Carey’s video if one is only interested in knowing the meanings of technical terms and how those terms relate to each other. If one wants to ask the “But how can this be?” question - then look elsewhere, because this video is not for you. With respect and charity, and no offense intended to Dr. Carey, who is probably a very nice person.
Good to see that someone else has these reservations - I was sceptical when I read her books. You do not give examples of her lack of true logic though. Here are things that trouble me. She says that we needed something more than DNA to explain how different cell types form. We didn't. In saying this she is ignoring all prior knowledge of 'genetic cascades', whereby a gene generates a product that turns on another gene, and may even turn itself off. These products, 'transcription factors' are proteins that persist in the cell, and are passed on when the cell divides. Much had been written about gene cascades before epigenetics arrived. Here we have quite an adequate mechanism to explain cell types and more. Then Carey talks of psychological conditions as being affected by epigenetics, but ignores the brain. We know already that brain has long-term memory, and that the primitive emotional areas of the brain record trauma. Is their memory determined by epigenetics? I think not, we already have mechanisms for it from neuroscience. We are left with the real question; what IS epigenetics for? I don't think Carey has the answer. I can think of some things. The whole business of 'turning genes on and off' is dubious. Bacteria turn on genes for a particular food source when it appears in their surrounding - because it is sensed and enables gene transcription at the promoter. No other mechanism needed!
Reviewing this comment I find that it is full of butt hurt remarks and has a general tone of pretentiousness only seen in people that have an inflated sense of self worth and someone who takes things too seriously.
I was reading a chapter in your first book when I chanced upon this video. This lecture complements the book perfectly. Thank you Dr. Carey.
Dr Nessa is an amazing speaker, I love this thank you for making it public on RUclips such a great resource!
Excellent! Not many people can structure thoughts and knowledge from the simple to the complex , this amazing scientist does
Bravo Dr. Carey! She is brilliant, humble, informed, balanced, and a wonderful teacher! Thank you for posting this. She is simply delightful!
Great video! Increasingly our behavior determines our longevity. Just as weight scales provide transparency and motivate dieting, epigenetic tests now make biological age (as distinct from chronological age) more transparent and motivate us to adopt right behaviors to help us live longer.
I'd like to see more human studies on commonly used HDAC inhibitors (eg Valproate) for altering abilities that are locked in during early childhood.
Doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00102 Histone-deacetylase inhibitor Valproic Acid may reopen the critical learning period for acquiring perfect pitch (an ability that is locked in at an early age).
For victims of early childhood trauma, we could picture a treatment like this that allowed for re-nurturing to modulate over active stress responses.
Wow! I enjoyed this so much! I was actually able to comprehend it without any background in the field.
Thank you!
Thank you
Well, immunoregulation shares an interface with the gut, brain, bone and endocrine system, so maybe it would be possible to understand the changes in the epigenetic landscape caused by childhood trauma and possibly inherited by the next generation, by studying the epigenetic modifications taking place during immune cell activation, and not only by looking inside the brain?
THANK YOU for making this info available to us, the Great Unwashed. Loved it.
But...seriously..PLEASE take a shot of Afrin nose spray before next one! ; )
I'm going to learn this and see if can Master number 22 it because that's my life path
Lamark revisited. 30 years ago this would have been taboo.
Ack. I just watched Dr. Carey's RI presentation from 2015 - this one's 2021, and I was hoping for new material. But then it's kicking off with exactly those same two quotes. I'm going to plow along, but I hope it's not just the same stuff re-iterated.
Later: Yeah, looks like exactly the same slide deck. :-( :-( :-(
This is an OK intro to epigenetics, especially if you prefer analogies over technical explanations. Not so good if you suffer from misophonia :(
Being in a state of ketosis is the biggest epigenetic factor a human can do to improve health.
Between Danny de Vito and Clooney, I'll always chose the funny Danny
This was great! Thanks
This info needs to be processed into the public health as a first response to physical and mental health...
So basically both current processes need a major redesigned change!
Every person on this planet has experienced trauma at one point...we all need this method of treatment.
Lee Robert Hall Cynthia Taylor Sharon
Charmingly utterly compelling 💕 prior agility explained in a sophisticated and unassuming presentation.
9:01 ♂️ & temperatures
Excellent
@47:34 Ewok
Gold
The facts were excellent. The opinions were the opposite.
Well, now I crave jelly 😅
I'm just a n average person who is trying to learn about things in general. Watching this video, the only thing I find extraordinary is a an educated person who is talking about epigenetics and how external environment, stimulus has a dramatic change in your make up is drinking "zero coke". One would think that she should know better than to put that stuff in your body. Regardless of you are breeding or not.
I'm quite shocked
who said that scientists must be role models? Should a shoemaker wear shoes or should he just do his job conscientiously?
I find a lack of logic in Carey's thinking - I was sceptical when I read her books.
She says that we needed something more than DNA to explain how different cell types form. We didn't. In saying this she is ignoring all prior knowledge of 'genetic cascades', whereby a gene generates a product that turns on another gene, and may even turn itself off. These products, 'transcription factors' are proteins that persist in the cell, and are passed on when the cell divides. Much had been written about gene cascades before epigenetics arrived - see for example, 'The Control of Gene Expression In Animal Development' by J B Gurdon of Cambridge University. Here we have quite an adequate mechanism to explain cell types and more.
Then Carey talks of psychological conditions as being affected by epigenetics, but ignores the brain. We know already that the brain has long-term memory, and that the primitive emotional areas of the brain record trauma. Is their memory determined by epigenetics? I think not, we already have mechanisms for it from neuroscience in terms of proteins and synapses. We are left with the real question; what IS epigenetics for? I don't think Carey has the answer. I have my own hypotheses and think we should consider a Lamarckian role, though it seems that epigenetic markers are overwhelmingly (but perhaps not entirely) erased in gamete formation.
The whole business of 'turning genes on and off' is talked of too glibly. Bacteria turn on genes for a particular food source when it appears in their surrounding - because it is sensed and enables gene transcription at the promoter. No other mechanism needed! Regulation of gene products in general needs precision and generally involves feedback mechanisms - it is not clear that epigenetics has a role here; the RNA world clearly does have a role, most obviously in controlling the degrading rate of mRNA..
👍
Bravo
You have an exciting future as an alcoholic kindergarten teacher 🍷 🐥
With respect, this video rates four genes out of a possible of ten. Undoubtedly, Dr. Nessa is technically very competent. She knows the meanings to the words, she knows the subject matter reasonably well, she knows how all the moving parts fit together and she knows how to present a narrative. So, why only 4 out of 10 for the video? Answer: Lack of insight. No “spark.” Is that important?
Watching the video, Dr. Carey strikes me as a very technically competent individual. I would hire her as an expert witness, for example, or to head a regulatory compliance committee, but I would not hire her as an instructor or a research assistant. She describes herself as a “scientist,” but I would judge her as a “technologist.”
Her presentation demonstrates good knowledge, but lack of understanding. An analogy would be that of an automotive engineer: a chap who can recite the entire history of the automobile, and can give you ASE specifications for oil from memory and knows the names of all the parts in a vehicle and how they connect - but who otherwise can’t change a puncture on his own car, doesn’t know who Roberto Guerrero is or who died on February 18, 2001, during the Daytona 500, never experienced “push” in a corner at 120 mph and can’t even work on his wife’s car.
The famous physicist Stanley Jaki warned of dogmatic science as “stillbirth science” as did his predecessor Pierre Duhem who cautioned “The history of science alone can keep the physicist from the mad ambitions of dogmatism as well as the despair of pyrrhonian scepticism.” Dogmatic “scientists” like Dr. Carey begin with an a priori dogma into which all evidence SHALL fit like Procrustean’s Bed, and if the evidence doesn’t fit, then demmit, lop off the bits that are too big, and stretch the bits that are too small and MAKE it fit the desired outcome. So it is with Dr. Carey - listen closely to what she says.
Real scientists, by contrast have the courage to look at the evidence and allow the evidence to lead the conclusions - however terrible and uncomfortable the path. Like the ironic inaugural Huxley speech in Sept. 1876, where Huxley implored his audiance to “follow the evidence” (Huxley himself was terrified of evidence, and eschewed allowing evidence to lead to conclusions unless those conclusions fit into his own Procrustean Bed).
To her credit, Dr. Carey identifies herself as a “Materialist” and thereby honestly informs her audience of her self-imposed constraints on what she thinks is “science” - But by those constraints, she limits her ability to possess “insight” and “spark;” the intangible marks of real scientists. Her video (and presumably her book) therefore is presented exclusively within the limited confines of those constraints.
There is no point in standing on the shoulders of giants if you fear the sight of the new horizon- or worse, refuse to accept that there is a new horizon to be seen.
I would recommend Dr. Carey’s video if one is only interested in knowing the meanings of technical terms and how those terms relate to each other. If one wants to ask the “But how can this be?” question - then look elsewhere, because this video is not for you.
With respect and charity, and no offense intended to Dr. Carey, who is probably a very nice person.
That's besides the fact that she is blatantly on coke and can't help with the sniffles.
You looking for work?
Scriptwriter or Podcaster?
Good to see that someone else has these reservations - I was sceptical when I read her books. You do not give examples of her lack of true logic though. Here are things that trouble me.
She says that we needed something more than DNA to explain how different cell types form. We didn't. In saying this she is ignoring all prior knowledge of 'genetic cascades', whereby a gene generates a product that turns on another gene, and may even turn itself off. These products, 'transcription factors' are proteins that persist in the cell, and are passed on when the cell divides. Much had been written about gene cascades before epigenetics arrived. Here we have quite an adequate mechanism to explain cell types and more.
Then Carey talks of psychological conditions as being affected by epigenetics, but ignores the brain. We know already that brain has long-term memory, and that the primitive emotional areas of the brain record trauma. Is their memory determined by epigenetics? I think not, we already have mechanisms for it from neuroscience. We are left with the real question; what IS epigenetics for? I don't think Carey has the answer. I can think of some things.
The whole business of 'turning genes on and off' is dubious. Bacteria turn on genes for a particular food source when it appears in their surrounding - because it is sensed and enables gene transcription at the promoter. No other mechanism needed!
Reviewing this comment I find that it is full of butt hurt remarks and has a general tone of pretentiousness only seen in people that have an inflated sense of self worth and someone who takes things too seriously.
@@lindosland if you can tell me where in the brain memory is stored I will give you (add local currency here) 10