"Until recently, everyone had ignored moles [...] Most people start losing them around the age of 40, but we now know people who don't age and are baby-faced at 60 are likely to have lots of them."
Ageless baby-faced super-
model Cindy Crawford
model Cindy Crawford
We bring you the details in glorious One-sentence-per-paragraphvision:PEOPLE with lots of moles are genetically protected from many of the ravages of time, British scientists have discovered.Most of this work was published in 2007,* and the journalists who are presently all a-twitter about the long-life / pigmented-nævus connection became equally exercised back then too. Evidently breathless agitation is not good for long-term memory. What makes it "new research" now -- worthy of space on the front page of the Com-Post's international section -- is that KCL sent out a press release to advertise a talk by Dr Veronique Bataille to the Royal Society of Medicine (in which she mentioned the old work) and someone in the PR section had the bright idea of making Cindy Crawford the lede. That is why PR people earn the big bucks.
This means the secret of supermodel Cindy Crawford's ageless allure may be out.
New research suggests those with plenty of moles may not only develop fewer wrinkles in old age, but also have stronger bones and tauter muscles.
Moles or beauty spots -- for which Crawford is famous -- are formed by rapidly dividing cells that start producing dots of dark pigment on children as young as four, but which usually vanish from about the age of 40.
In some people, however, they continue to spread as they grow older, producing a smooth and wrinkle-free complexion that can make a woman look at least seven years younger than her age.
A study of 1200 identical and non-identical female twins, aged 18-79, showed that those with more than 100 moles on their bodies also had tougher bones and were therefore 50 per cent less likely to develop osteoporosis than women with fewer than 25 moles.
The findings, by a team at King's College London, were presented at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine last week. [...]
Three genes associated with telomere length and mole development have been identified, although others may be involved.
* To be fair, the "three genes... identified" addendum to the study is quite recent.
--------------------------------------
Drs Spector and Bataille are basically trying to redress a balance here, since the presence of moles and longer telomeres have long been recognised as risk factors for skin cancer. Now moles become a Good Thing and a Bad Thing, so tabloid readers can be anxious whether they have them or not. This is a godsend for the Daily Mail with its "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into the ones that either cause or prevent cancer".**
Moles are also associated with increased mortality from burning for witchcraft.** © Ben Goldacre
14 comments:
And wouldn't you know my pet store doesn't have any. DAMMIT.
And you scoff, but that smoking man with the enormous mole is at least SEVEN YEARS OLDER than you think he is. Not that you can pull your eyes away to see the rest of his face, but still.
I hope you recognise him, or there will be serious loss of cred. Also slammed doors and painful silences at the Riddled office.
Lemmy don't care.
It looks like a pair of giant moles wearing a Lemmy overcoat, but it's hard to tell because OMG MOLES.
Looking at the 2007 paper, the impressive thing is how weak the association is between telomere length and number of moles. The regression line through the smear of points is almost flat. The correlation is significant (because hey, 1800 cases) but so small that the authors don't even give a figure.
Dr Veronique Bataille turns up a lot in the Intertubes, arguing that the role of sunlight in causing skin cancer has been exaggerated and we need to spend more time in the sun.
Fairness forces me to mention that she also has a lucrative gig as a consultant for L'Oreal, pimping their skin-care products for people who have been encouraged to spend more time in the sun.
I hold the moles to my face and end up with many wounds. What am I doing wrong?
You may need to use a lower molar concentration.
Wait. Cindy Crawford has a twin? Uh... I... uh... I'll be in my bunk.
You may need to use a lower molar concentration.
That's exactly what the Doktorling's orthodontist keeps saying.
I don't see a person in the picture.
I got a pair of moles as an anniversary gift back in '89. They stayed with me for quite a while, through romance and adventure alike, but sure enough, one morning in the late summer of '97 I woke up and they were gone. To be fair, they did leave a note formed with their little feces on the kitchen floor, but their eyesight was so poor it was illegible, so I swept it up, filled in their burrow and got on with my life.
Now that I understand that losing one's moles is just a natural part of the aging process, the pain is muted, and kind of bittersweet...
I got a pair of moles as an anniversary gift back in '89.
One can only hope they matched.
something about smoking a large bowl? wait, what?
Post a Comment