Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

footurist t1_j2mh5ns wrote

Reply to comment by Crypt0n0ob in A Drug to Treat Aging May Not Be a Pipe-Dream by Mynameis__--__

Well, remember that author is talking about the potential success of one of the more targeted treatments, e.g. the senolytics drugs for macular degeneration, which would pave the way for future complimentary drug development to one day cover most of what's causing aging. He doesn't mean "signs of ultimate anti aging drug end of 2023".

And if one has read a bit into the topic, one knows that the aging process is mostly understood in this way aswell, e.g. by Aubrey de Grey.

11

civilrunner t1_j2mpo36 wrote

In my view Aubrey De Gray also isn't at the cutting edge that much anymore in the longevity field. Sinclair has a good overview of the aging process but is also too focused on supplements like metformin and NMN.

Cellular reprogramming has been absurdly promising though and has countless highly funded startups bringing it to market.

6

footurist t1_j2muc6c wrote

Isn't the major problem with cellular reprogramming accidental introduction of fatal side effects like cancer? I haven't been reading much about this topic, though.

1

civilrunner t1_j2mved9 wrote

Yes, though Sinclair's lab found that simply ignoring one of the yamanaka factors prevented the cancerous growths while still reversing significant damage without reverting the cellular identity to a stem cell.

They're already approaching clinical trials for Cellular reprogramming in some specific targets like heart tissue in heart attack survivors and more.

Calico funded by alphabet, Altos Labs funded by Bezos, and countless others are focused on bringing cellular reprogramming to market and have billions in funding to do so.

5

footurist t1_j3i0j06 wrote

It's relevant to mention here that Sinclair is on a different train than De Grey. He thinks getting to 150 years is possible in a reasonable time frame. De Grey thinks LEV is possibly and subsequently functional immortality.

So maybe ignoring this factor reduces the potential quite a bit.

1

civilrunner t1_j3i0xjm wrote

I actually think Sinclair is simply saying 150 to not sound crazy. He clearly believes that epigenetic reprogramming can be done unlimited times and therefore there is no biological limit, if we can get to 150 then we can have no biological age limit.

1

footurist t1_j3i1dwu wrote

Could be. On altos labs landing page I noticed a surprising lack of the word "age", lol.

1

civilrunner t1_j3i1y5s wrote

Yeah, all of them want to stay away from saying immortal or LEV to distance themselves. When or if we see people reversing in age due to body wide epigenetic reprogramming then we'll know we got to the point when aging is no a limit to longevity.

1

GhostInTheNight03 t1_j2nzfse wrote

Guarantee it will be AI at the forefront within the next decade, not any individual person

1