People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.
Comments
Have to say that I'm not convinced that this is the right way to defend parliamentary privilege. Just because you have the right to say anything you like in the House, does not mean that you should and there are time-honoured parliamentary rules about not prejudicing live cases. If the case has a superinjunction, then - in principle - it should be live and pending a full hearing (although that doesn't always happen).
Shouldn't you be upholding the rule of law - except for cases of clear injustice?