Was George Washington the first or the ninth president of the United States? Despite considering myself a relatively informed person, I wasn't even AWARE there was a debate, let alone a "conspiracy theory" tag associated with this question.
Reading Time: 4 minutes
Happy 4th of July! – Now who REALLY was our first president?

Was George Washington the first or the ninth president of the United States?  Despite considering myself a relatively informed person, I wasn’t even AWARE there was a debate, let alone a “conspiracy theory” tag associated with this question.  Haven’t heard of it either? Well, here is a list of “CNN’s 11 Political Myths and Conspiracy Theories that still persist”

I would consider the 11 entries in this piece of (ahem) “journalism” totally unworthy of being lumped together because they represent opinions that are not easily verifiable. So we really have to wonder, who is the real winner and who is the loser when we lump them together?

The winner is mainstream media if you believe this reporter’s oversimplifications.  The loser is the official historical record if you don’t bother to critically evaluate each one.  But what is the game we are playing?

The game is the fight for the created matrix of reality or our “hearts and minds”. This particular iteration is the “FUD” game or – Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.  Generation of FUD is meant to generate FEAR in holding an unpopular belief (aka a conspiracy theory or myth). But that is just the opening move.  The middle game is generate UNCERTAINTY of one’s own faculties to judge the veracity of anything. The end game is the DOUBT required to cede all judgement of objective truth to someone else.


But back to George Washington.

The Second Continental Congress declared independence on July 4th, 1776.  The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1881 and they set forth a one-year office known as the “President of the United States in Congress Assembled.”  Since we generally consider the independence of our country and its wholeness as beginning with 1776 or 1781, some have argued that there were 8 presidents before Washington.  The orthodox opinion, as we can now fully appreciate, is that the deletion of the words “in Congress Assembled” makes the first eight non-presidents ineligible because the Constitution is what defines our nation. 

(WARNING: Soap box ranting about to begin)

Give our dear leaders’ acts to curtail constitutional significance, at least with regard to the Bill of Rights, I would argue that what defines our nation is more a matter of who controls the military and the press and that the experiment of using the constitution to define our nation has been abandoned in favor of national security.  How did this happen? Why? Because of the FUD associated with the unpatriotic act of questioning The Patriot Act in times of alleged perpetual war and group sacrifice.

I concede that reasonable people can certainly ‘agree to disagree’ on whether John Hanson, not George Washington, was the real the first president


“Washington, Schmoshington! What am I.. chopped liver?”


But I really must insist that facts are always important. Subjective interpretation is even more important. But what should be LEAST important to thinking people are conclusions.  Yet sadly, they are the only thing of interest in the sound bite/Huffington Post-driven drivel that passes for journalism and informed opinion these days.  It reminds me of the abstracts (summary paragraphs) of medical studies that I always warn you in this blog about telomerase possibly causing cancer

So are we working towards an America and a new world order where the only opinion that matters is the group/state/sanctioned one?   I hope not.  But we do appear to be growing a crop of youngsters who might someday champion these “doublespeak” aphorisms of Orwell’s dystopian “1984“:





What is my evidence? Well, just consider that Janis Joplin’s diatribe of “great social and political import” can be used to sell the conspicuously-consumed cars that she was railing against, without irony or outrage:

Mercedes Benz


In fact, “IRONY IS THOUGHTCRIME” might be a catchphrase of our new republic until the concept of irony disappears from the vocabulary all together.  And speaking of all together, the sheep are a nice touch. Reminds me of an important black comedy from Australia called Bliss. in which an advertising exec, after a near-death-experience, realizes that he is peddling lies and covering up corporate carcinogenesis.

So, Dr. Park….just what is the tie-in to telomeres?  Glad you asked 🙂

15,000 studies, a 2009 Nobel Prize, and simple reason indicate that my Stem Cell Theory of Aging is superior to a notion of divine providence. But everyone insists on starting from the conclusion that Aging is natural because it hasn’t been understood or treated yet.  That “teleological” thinking (or working backwards from a conclusion) is the reason we don’t can’t invent an airplane or read at night.  If mankind were meant to fly, or read books like “1984″, we would have been grown wings and candles on our fingers, right? I’m being ironic, or facetious.  But whatever I’m trying to be, you all need to wake up!  Aging is not normal. It is the result of simple and reversible mechanical shortening of telomeres in our stem cells.

(End of rant. Thank you)

3 thoughts on “Happy 4th of July! – Now who REALLY was our first president?”

  1. John Bonifant

    Dear Dr. Park I assume you are aware of Aubrey De Grey. I am currently reading his book “Ending Aging”which in my opinion is the treatise of anti-aging literature.

    I have read your book, “Telomere Timebombs”, twice now -superb. Thank you for taking the time to write it for us (humanity). My only major problem with your book is the lack of a glossary and index. I wish you would consider this in the book.s next edition. See how De Grey did “Ending Aging”.

    This immediately adds value to your work. Instead of just writing a book you will be then writing a reference manual. doctors, medical students, nurses and the rest of us will be able to use your book to better spread the word of telomere biology.

    I listened to a Michael Fossel telomere presntation last week also, where he said he only thinks stopping the shortening of telomeres or even lengthening them is only about 5% of the answer to stopping aging. What do you think?

    Also, from Fossel, he said his ideal telomere repair was HTERT + HTERC = telomarse which stimulates ( I guess catalizes) ( once again I think) adds aminio acids to the telomeres. He then states he wants the telomerase to disappear.

    How does he expect this? Since telomearse is an enzyme and since enzymes are substances that enter into chemical reactions without themselves being change (At least that is what I was taught in 1963 high school biology class). Does Dr. Fossel propose that lisosomes, or perhaps another cell oraganelle, dismantle telomearse after it has done its job and recycle it? Or perhaps exocytoisis? Any ideas?. Perhaps let’s recycle telomearse complete to the end of another shortened telomere? In other words let telomearse be the brick layer who just keeps laying the bricks, isn’t this Bill Andrews idea?

    How many 1st presidents does it take to cap a telomere anyway?!

  2. Joshua' Paul

    Would Like to see your answer t the above and explain your answer to us non-doctor types ! Thank You !

  3. Hello, John and Joshua.

    Thank you for reading my book- twice! I will definitely include a glossary if the book is picked up by a bigger publisher.

    I posted the Michael Fossel lecture which may be where you were introduced to it. Since I have received a few queries about it, I will try to respond.

    To the best of my knowledge, telomerase is an enzyme which is assembled in the cytoplasm of each stem cell but works primarily in the Cajal bodies of the nucleus of those specialized, immortalizing cells. Telomerase serves to repair and restore the ends. Obviously, the enzyme must be able to cross the from the cytoplasm (the big bag) into the nucleus (the smaller bag inside the bag) by crossing the nuclear membrane, so perhaps it can cross the cellular membrane after Dr. Fossel injects it into the bloodstream.

    But the bigger problems is that it is not specific to the cells that would need it. By design, only the immortal stem cells use telomerase so the introduction of this capacity to less preserved and less mission-critical differentiated cells changes the playing field and introduces a whole other level of variance which could have adverse consequences.

    In contrast, the small molecule telomerase activators can cross into all cells and be used only by the ones who need it (i.e. the stem cells). I believe this preserves the “lokahi” or balance and flow as the system was designed.

    Hope that makes sense!
    Read my book for more clear and complete insights.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

How can I help you?

Drop me a line to find out