Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

paperburn1
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby paperburn1 » Sat May 18, 2019 2:51 am

breakthrough it determining cell degreation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gxogiUvVkk
telomeres and triggers
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

williatw
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Thu May 23, 2019 11:32 am

22May2019

Considering the Experience of Being One of the Last Mortals


Ever-growing lifespans are the result of regular advances in medical science. In 1900 the three leading causes of death in the United States were pneumonia/influenza, tuberculosis, and diarrhoea. Only a century and a bit on, many of the major acute illnesses are tractable. Every month brings striking new medical advances. Increasingly, medical research is shifting from acute conditions such as influenza towards chronic conditions including diabetes and Alzheimer's. Ageing is the ultimate chronic condition, and there seems to be no reason, in principle at least, that would prevent us from discovering a means of halting or reversing ageing itself.

What if that all happens sooner rather than later? But what if it's not soon enough? Imagine that, after a few more breakthroughs, a scientific consensus emerges that we will have conquered illness and ageing by the year 2119; anyone alive in 2119 is likely to live for centuries, even millennia. You and I are very unlikely to make it to 2119. But we are likely to make it relatively close to that date - in fact, relative to the span of human history, we've already made it very close right now. Think that through, carefully. What would it mean to realize that you very nearly got to live forever, but didn't? What would it mean if, in our looming senescence, we were increasingly forced to share social space with young people whose anticipated allotment of time massively dwarfs our own? We would then be the last mortals.


https://www.fightaging.org/archives/201 ... t-mortals/


The comments (some of them) are more interesting than the article they are commenting about:

Sadly and however much life extensionists are loath to admit it, the real doom line isn't chronological age but income, since those who can afford experimental therapies and are cued in enough to know that they exist (education is in itself a marker of wealth) will be able to reduce their yearly risk of death much sooner than the frey. Which means that it's entirely plausible for the odds to LEV of a population of rich 60 (or even 70) year olds to be higher than those of a population of poor 40 year olds.


There's a scary little word at the end of the TLS article, one that isn't as much as whispered in our community even though it nags at the back of everybody's mind. Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, and we should know better than stoke the fire: my beloved Eternal Youth... if I can't have you, nobody else will.


Posted by: John S at May 22nd, 2019 9:23 PM

To me it doesn't make sense at all to draw the line of doom at 40, which is the conventional beginning of middle age. In fact, it doesn't make much sense to draw it at 60, since as Antonio said a 40 year old woman in Spain is already expected to live to 90. This includes smokers, the obese, couch potatoes etc. so it's reasonable to believe that a clean living woman will reach 95. But wait, I was talking about a 60 year old, which means adding another couple of years to the total since we have already eliminated all the deaths occurring between 40 and 59.

To this intervention-less life expectancy of 97 we can add the 3 years or so (very, very conservative estimate) that will be brought on by a combination of NAD+, metformin, rapamycin, and cancer immunotherapy - just to mention stuff that exists. Plus 5 years from senolytics, if we are being conservative too, for a grand total of 105.

So now we can expect 50% of all 60 year old women in Spain to make it to 2064. Does anyone really believe that in almost half a century we will be stuck with the same therapies of today? SENS is supposed to repair the damage caused by aging, so by then we should have enough first or even second generation treatments not to slow the rate at which these centenatians keep aging, which would be pointless, but to shave off at least 20-30 years from their biological age (= statistical risk of death).

Of course the yearly risk of death of an 80 year old woman is pretty high, so without any additional breakthrough she wouldn't last much longer, and precisely, according to current mortality rates which are a gross underestimate, 11 years. Now it's 2075... at which point there will likely be a bunch of ways to avoid death in addition to cell repair, from mind uploading to reliable suspended animation, via more esoteric stuff like body transplants and robotics.

The usual objection here is that SENS may repair damage comprehensively enough only in those who aren't literally aged to death, which would disqualify our 105 year olds... IF these therapies went from being fantasy in 2063 to hitting the market all at once in 2064, which clearly won't be the case. My point is, the 105 year old women queuing for the latest rejuvenation trearment in 2064 will be biologically younger than any current 105 year old thanks to the cumulative rejuvenating effects of all the post-senolytic therapies that will gradually become available from, say, the mid 2020s onwards.

Sadly and however much life extensionists are loath to admit it, the real doom line isn't chronological age but income, since those who can afford experimental therapies and are cued in enough to know that they exist (education is in itself a marker of wealth) will be able to reduce their yearly risk of death much sooner than the frey. Which means that it's entirely plausible for the odds to LEV of a population of rich 60 (or even 70) year olds to be higher than those of a population of poor 40 year olds.

What I am getting at is that we shouldn't be talking about odds to biological immortality in terms of generations. Firstly because the thinking is flawed, and secondly because it doesn't help our cause given that the vast majority of radical life extension supporters - and those we need the help of - are already middle aged, close to it, or well above.

There's a scary little word at the end of the TLS article, one that isn't as much as whispered in our community even though it nags at the back of everybody's mind. Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, and we should know better than stoke the fire: my beloved Eternal Youth... if I can't have you, nobody else will.



https://www.fightaging.org/archives/201 ... /#comments


The last mortals may be ghosts before their time, destined to look on in growing envy at the enormous stretches of life left to their near-contemporaries. In one sense, it will be the greatest inequity experienced in all human history.


https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/publ ... mortality/

williatw
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:38 am

Another update from Bill Andrews:


Sierra Sciences LLC

Brent Nally interviews Dr. Bill Andrews @ Sierra Sciences about curing human aging & chronic disease

This video is an interview of Dr. Bill Andrews along with a tour of his company, Sierra Sciences, office on May 30, 2019. My wife, Lauren Nally, was our camerawoman. We had to stop filming for a bathroom break. We also had to keep our voices down during the office tour due to employees working. I believe we can get closer to reversing human aging by finding stronger human telomerase activators if Sierra Sciences receives more funding ($50 million USD would probably be enough for Dr. Andrews and his team to discover stronger human telomerase activators within a year).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx9yG6iTROQ

To help the time/patience constrained, the interesting part about the long promised first human trial with his telomerase therapy by Libella is around 56:40. He (Andrews) is now saying it hasn't happen yet but will sometime in June of this year at an overseas location. He alluded again to his selected "patient zero", who is suffering from advanced dementia/Alzheimer. He is saying this treatment is like a more advanced version of the one Liz Parrish received over three years ago.

paperburn1
Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby paperburn1 » Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:32 pm

China now claims to have two "Enhanced babies" with a third on the way. At first it was touted that is was just HIV resistance but with the third birth it was also shown intelligence and memory enhancements were part of the package.

Image
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

williatw
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:33 pm

paperburn1 wrote:China now claims to have two "Enhanced babies" with a third on the way. At first it was touted that is was just HIV resistance but with the third birth it was also shown intelligence and memory enhancements were part of the package.



China’s CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced


New research suggests that a controversial gene-editing experiment to make children resistant to HIV may also have enhanced their ability

Image


The brains of two genetically edited girls born in China last year may have been changed in ways that enhance cognition and memory, scientists say.

The twins, called Lulu and Nana, reportedly had their genes modified before birth by a Chinese scientific team using the new editing tool CRISPR. The goal was to make the girls immune to infection by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Now, new research shows that the same alteration introduced into the girls’ DNA, deletion of a gene called CCR5, not only makes mice smarter but also improves human brain recovery after stroke, and could be linked to greater success in school.

“The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains,” says Alcino J. Silva, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, whose lab uncovered a major new role for the CCR5 gene in memory and the brain’s ability to form new connections.

“The simplest interpretation is that those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins,” says Silva. He says the exact effect on the girls’ cognition is impossible to predict, and “that is why it should not be done.”




https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6129 ... s-altered/


Addendum:

China gene babies' mutation linked to higher mortality: study

The genetic mutation given to Chinese twins last year rendering them immune to the HIV virus may significantly reduce life expectancy, scientists said Monday in a fresh warning against human gene-editing.

He used a gene-editing tool known as Crispr to insert a mutated variant of a CCR5 gene -- known as Delta32 -- into the girls' chromosome at the embryo stage meaning they are now immune to the AIDS-causing HIV virus.

But a new wide-ranging study of genetic make-up and death registry information suggests individuals carrying the D32 mutation face a 20-percent higher risk of early death compared with the global population.
The research, published in the journal Nature Medicine, doesn't explain why the mutation increases mortality risk, but the authors said there was a clear statistical trend that should discourage repeats of He's experiment.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-gene-b ... 15160.html

Well if you want to be a "super-soldier" or some such you have to be prepared to face the price; like the fictional "Replicants" in the original Blade runner from 1982 who had had a four year life span. Although in their case it was a deliberately engineered failsafe not an "error".

krenshala
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby krenshala » Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:05 pm

Here's to hoping this is not the official start of what causes the Eugenics Wars (Star Trek), or the battles against the Sauron Supermen (Niven's Known Space).

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby TDPerk » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:40 pm

williatw wrote:22May2019

Considering the Experience of Being One of the Last Mortals


Ever-growing lifespans are the result of regular advances in medical science. In 1900 the three leading causes of death in the United States were pneumonia/influenza, tuberculosis, and diarrhoea. Only a century and a bit on, many of the major acute illnesses are tractable. Every month brings striking new medical advances. Increasingly, medical research is shifting from acute conditions such as influenza towards chronic conditions including diabetes and Alzheimer's. Ageing is the ultimate chronic condition, and there seems to be no reason, in principle at least, that would prevent us from discovering a means of halting or reversing ageing itself.

What if that all happens sooner rather than later? But what if it's not soon enough? Imagine that, after a few more breakthroughs, a scientific consensus emerges that we will have conquered illness and ageing by the year 2119; anyone alive in 2119 is likely to live for centuries, even millennia. You and I are very unlikely to make it to 2119. But we are likely to make it relatively close to that date - in fact, relative to the span of human history, we've already made it very close right now. Think that through, carefully. What would it mean to realize that you very nearly got to live forever, but didn't? What would it mean if, in our looming senescence, we were increasingly forced to share social space with young people whose anticipated allotment of time massively dwarfs our own? We would then be the last mortals.


https://www.fightaging.org/archives/201 ... t-mortals/


The comments (some of them) are more interesting than the article they are commenting about:

Sadly and however much life extensionists are loath to admit it, the real doom line isn't chronological age but income, since those who can afford experimental therapies and are cued in enough to know that they exist (education is in itself a marker of wealth) will be able to reduce their yearly risk of death much sooner than the frey. Which means that it's entirely plausible for the odds to LEV of a population of rich 60 (or even 70) year olds to be higher than those of a population of poor 40 year olds.


There's a scary little word at the end of the TLS article, one that isn't as much as whispered in our community even though it nags at the back of everybody's mind. Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, and we should know better than stoke the fire: my beloved Eternal Youth... if I can't have you, nobody else will.


Posted by: John S at May 22nd, 2019 9:23 PM

To me it doesn't make sense at all to draw the line of doom at 40, which is the conventional beginning of middle age. In fact, it doesn't make much sense to draw it at 60, since as Antonio said a 40 year old woman in Spain is already expected to live to 90. This includes smokers, the obese, couch potatoes etc. so it's reasonable to believe that a clean living woman will reach 95. But wait, I was talking about a 60 year old, which means adding another couple of years to the total since we have already eliminated all the deaths occurring between 40 and 59.

To this intervention-less life expectancy of 97 we can add the 3 years or so (very, very conservative estimate) that will be brought on by a combination of NAD+, metformin, rapamycin, and cancer immunotherapy - just to mention stuff that exists. Plus 5 years from senolytics, if we are being conservative too, for a grand total of 105.

So now we can expect 50% of all 60 year old women in Spain to make it to 2064. Does anyone really believe that in almost half a century we will be stuck with the same therapies of today? SENS is supposed to repair the damage caused by aging, so by then we should have enough first or even second generation treatments not to slow the rate at which these centenatians keep aging, which would be pointless, but to shave off at least 20-30 years from their biological age (= statistical risk of death).

Of course the yearly risk of death of an 80 year old woman is pretty high, so without any additional breakthrough she wouldn't last much longer, and precisely, according to current mortality rates which are a gross underestimate, 11 years. Now it's 2075... at which point there will likely be a bunch of ways to avoid death in addition to cell repair, from mind uploading to reliable suspended animation, via more esoteric stuff like body transplants and robotics.

The usual objection here is that SENS may repair damage comprehensively enough only in those who aren't literally aged to death, which would disqualify our 105 year olds... IF these therapies went from being fantasy in 2063 to hitting the market all at once in 2064, which clearly won't be the case. My point is, the 105 year old women queuing for the latest rejuvenation trearment in 2064 will be biologically younger than any current 105 year old thanks to the cumulative rejuvenating effects of all the post-senolytic therapies that will gradually become available from, say, the mid 2020s onwards.

Sadly and however much life extensionists are loath to admit it, the real doom line isn't chronological age but income, since those who can afford experimental therapies and are cued in enough to know that they exist (education is in itself a marker of wealth) will be able to reduce their yearly risk of death much sooner than the frey. Which means that it's entirely plausible for the odds to LEV of a population of rich 60 (or even 70) year olds to be higher than those of a population of poor 40 year olds.

What I am getting at is that we shouldn't be talking about odds to biological immortality in terms of generations. Firstly because the thinking is flawed, and secondly because it doesn't help our cause given that the vast majority of radical life extension supporters - and those we need the help of - are already middle aged, close to it, or well above.

There's a scary little word at the end of the TLS article, one that isn't as much as whispered in our community even though it nags at the back of everybody's mind. Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, and we should know better than stoke the fire: my beloved Eternal Youth... if I can't have you, nobody else will.



https://www.fightaging.org/archives/201 ... /#comments


The last mortals may be ghosts before their time, destined to look on in growing envy at the enormous stretches of life left to their near-contemporaries. In one sense, it will be the greatest inequity experienced in all human history.


https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/publ ... mortality/


" Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, " <-- It is the hook the Democrats and all Leftists hang their hat on. It is where and how they live.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

kurt9
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby kurt9 » Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:24 pm

Of course. Leftism, as an ideology is not about value creation. It about taking value from those who create it and giving it to those who do not. In other words, its pure parasitism.

Having said that, there are two ways around the problem of not making it due to cost. The first is DIY approaches with various supplements and compounds (senolytics being examples of this) as well as potentially international treatments (stem cells, etc.) that are cheaper than here in the U.S. The second approach is plan "C", "C" meaning cryonics, which can be paid for with life insurance.

Most of us are not rich. I, for one, cannnot afford to shell out $2 million for that gene therapy or for Bill Andrew's telomere elongation therapy. However, there are ways to accomplish this on the cheap.

williatw
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Sat Jun 15, 2019 11:34 pm

TDPerk wrote:" Sabotaging those who have what we crave is a universal, if dark, human response, " <-- It is the hook the Democrats and all Leftists hang their hat on. It is where and how they live.



kurt9 wrote:Of course. Leftism, as an ideology is not about value creation. It about taking value from those who create it and giving it to those who do not. In other words, its pure parasitism.


Yes pure politics of envy; if I can't have it why should you? Then all that is needed is for some kind of demagogue type to come along and articulate that feeling with some kind of convincing sounding rhetoric. Something that convinces the target audience that the rich person "stole", "exploited", etc. their wealth/success, therefore it is only "fair", just", etc. for the government to take it away for the "common good".


kurt9 wrote:Most of us are not rich. I, for one, cannnot afford to shell out $2 million for that gene therapy or for Bill Andrew's telomere elongation therapy. However, there are ways to accomplish this on the cheap.


But what about:

williatw wrote:At around 07:41 in the clip he says the treatment would cost around 400K; this is considerably cheaper he says then the 3 million he was saying it would have caused some months ago. According to him they have made great progress in lowering cost; not that much more expensive at this point then what we do now to treat the diseases of aging. How much does cancer/heart disease/Alzheimer’s treatments cost in aggregate over a lifetime now? To say nothing of nursing home care? And you end up dying anyway? Versus 400K to make you young/healthy/continually working tax paying again. And that is even assuming no economies of scale to lower costs further once production is ratcheted up.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3504&p=132036&hilit=400K#p132036

He (Bill Andrews) says he has lowered the cost to 400K; that is to the cost of a house kurt9; people arrange that kind of financing all the time. You wouldn't be willing to do the same to not die? Although of course "cost" isn't the same thing as price but still.

While I don't have any figures on Church's "doggie" treatments, I somehow I doubt they are costing "$2 million "; even a rich person might balk at that for their pooch. Although of course it might run considerable more to treat people; unless as it is likely you have to go overseas on some sort of medical holiday/vacation to get it.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests