SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Apparently, Peter Thiel Is Very, Very Interested in Young People's Blood
According to the article, ...
More than anything, Peter Thiel, the billionaire technology investor and Donald Trump supporter, wants to find a way to escape death. ... if there's one thing that really excites Thiel, it's the prospect of having younger people's blood transfused into his own veins. ... according to Thiel, it's a potential biological Fountain of Youth - the closest thing science has discovered to an anti-ageing panacea.
[...] After decades languishing on the fringes, it's recently started getting attention from mainstream researchers, with multiple clinical trials underway in humans in the U.S. and even more advanced studies in China and Korea.
[...] In Monterey, California, about 120 miles from San Francisco, a company called Ambrosia recently commenced one of the trials. Titled "Young Donor Plasma Transfusion and Age-Related Biomarkers," it has a simple protocol: Healthy participants aged 35 and older get a transfusion of blood plasma from donors under 25, and researchers monitor their blood over the next two years for molecular indicators of health and ageing. The study is patient-funded; participants, who range in age from late 30s through 80s, must pay $8,000 to take part, and live in or travel to Monterey for treatments and follow-up assessments.
I thought I would bring this development to the attention of the Soylent News community. I also have a question. The article claims that the practice is known as parabiosis. But Wikipedia says "parabiosis is a class of techniques in which two living organisms are joined together surgically and develop single, shared physiological systems, such as a shared circulatory system." This definition seems to include the relevant 1950s rat experiments. But I believe it does not cover the Monterey experiment, nor the kinds of human treatment that Thiel and others are seeking. Am I right about this? And if so, is there better word to use?
Also, feel free to comment any fictional examples you know of. Did Montgomery Burns ever partake, for example?
[Continues...]
Want to stay/get younger? Inject plasma from a younger person...
Now a startup has launched a "clinical trial" to test the antiaging benefits of such treatment...but it's pay-per-view. Writing in Science today, Jocelyn Kaiser reports on the ethical, and other, aspects of this project. From her article, "Young blood antiaging trial raises questions":
[...] The company, Ambrosia in Monterey, California, plans to charge participants $8000 for lab tests and a one-time treatment with young plasma. The volunteers don't have to be sick or even particularly aged--the trial is open to anyone 35 and older. Karmazin notes that the study passed ethical review and argues that it's not that unusual to charge people to participate in clinical trials.
To some ethicists and researchers, however, the trial raises red flags, both for its cost to participants and for a design that they say is unlikely to deliver much science. "There's just no clinical evidence [that the treatment will be beneficial], and you're basically abusing people's trust and the public excitement around this," says neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, who led the 2014 young plasma study in mice. [In which injecting old mice with the plasma portion of blood from young mice seemed to improve the elderly rodents' memory and ability to learn.]
[...]
To bioethicist Leigh Turner at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, the study brings to mind a growing number of scientifically dubious trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov by private, for-profit stem cell clinics. The presence of such trials in the database confers "undeserved legitimacy," he says.
The scientific design of the trial is drawing concerns as well. "I don't see how it will be in any way informative or convincing," says aging biologist Matt Kaeberlein of the University of Washington, Seattle. The participants won't necessarily be elderly, making it hard to see any effects, and there are no well-accepted biomarkers of aging in blood, he says. "If you're interested in science," Wyss-Coray adds, why doesn't such a large trial include a placebo arm? Karmazin says he can't expect people to pay knowing they may get a placebo. With physiological measurements taken before and after treatment, each person will serve as their own control, he explains.
[Ed Note: The second sub was added about 15 minutes after the first story went live on the main page.]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Tuesday August 02 2016, @11:56AM
7 billion people and counting on the planet - what we really need is to extend our life-span. Yes, that was sarcasm. I'm guessing this is going to be one of those "for rich people only" things.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:02PM
Old and tired disinformation. BUUUUUUUURP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsNNUEx5OkU [youtube.com]
If you don't have the time to watch the whole thing, I'll get you the timestamps later.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Wednesday August 03 2016, @08:47PM
Yes please, if you'd be able to get them without too much effort.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 05 2016, @03:48PM
00:00:10 [youtu.be] - Introduction
00:04:10 [youtu.be] - Why have we not had success against the diseases of old age?
00:05:20 [youtu.be] - What is aging?
00:07:00 [youtu.be] - Why is it important to define aging? (categories of disease)
00:09:26 [youtu.be] - People get the categories of disease wrong
00:11:00 [youtu.be] - Geriatrics vs. Gerentology, and the complexity of metabolism
00:14:40 [youtu.be] - Maintenance approach
00:16:32 [youtu.be] - Problem of aging described in 7 categories of damage
00:18:19 [youtu.be] - How to fix the damage?
00:19:17 [youtu.be] - Credibility of SENS
00:21:10 [youtu.be] - Pace of progress
00:22:58 [youtu.be] - Accumulation of molecular waste products
00:25:45 [youtu.be] - Longevity of humans, "longevity escape velocity"
00:28:40 [youtu.be] - People will be forced to confront this, soon
00:29:45 [youtu.be] - Basic objections to life extension addressed
Q&A
00:33:26 [youtu.be] - What does it mean for people who are say, aged 80, today.
00:34:48 [youtu.be] - Overpopulation?
00:38:52 [youtu.be] - Telomeres: Aging vs. cancer tradeoff
00:40:26 [youtu.be] - Aubrey shit talks Google/Alphabet subsidiary Calico
00:43:08 [youtu.be] - Will everybody get access to these therapies? Will it be affordable?
00:45:15 [youtu.be] - Will humans be able to psychologically handle "immortality"?
00:46:46 [youtu.be] - Why should Grandma want to live "forever" when she believes in God?
00:48:12 [youtu.be] - Will these developments have a big impact on how people think (like the development of nuclear weapons)? Will society adapt?
00:49:40 [youtu.be] - Are people prepared for this?
00:51:57 [youtu.be] - More about the longevity escape velocity.
00:55:25 [youtu.be] - How would increased funding speed up this research?
00:56:30 [youtu.be] - How can a scientist help achieve life extension?
00:58:09 [youtu.be] - What is your opinion about transhumanism, mind uploading, cyborgs, etc.?
01:01:11 [youtu.be] - Short answer on philosophical arguments related to life extension.
01:01:50 [youtu.be] - Optimism? Why does today's medicine not measure up?
01:07:05 [youtu.be] - Longevity based on your lifestyle/environment?
01:09:29 [youtu.be] - Would offspring inherit longevity benefits?
01:11:46 [youtu.be] - Longevity for animals?
01:13:33 [youtu.be] - Dictators forever? Term limits? Opportunities for the young?
01:15:22 [youtu.be] - Can these therapies be used cosmetically?
01:17:34 [youtu.be] - Age of giving birth. Will people run out of things to do/achieve?
(Score: 1) by Open4D on Friday August 05 2016, @05:42PM
Thanks! Very detailed info.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:07PM
Rates of population growth are unsustainable. But not in the way you are thinking. Once a society achieves enough wealth, fertility rate drops below replacement levels. At that point you need to find some way of creating new workers to replace the people who age out. Immigration from less wealthy countries is the historical method. But that's also unsustainable because we are running out of poor countries. China in particular is super fucked with a billion+ population there just aren't enough potential immigrants from poorer countries to fill the gap as the chinese age out. Automation can help, but not significantly because while robots are great for dedicated manufacturing tasks, they are still many decades away from doing generalized service work. Extending human lifespans and thus the years of employability is another approach.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:18PM
Confusing wealth with income inequality.
Also demographic replacement means the civilization will collapse. Obviously the rise of civ A was because of the people in civ A not the mere dirt on the ground. So replacing the population of civ A with civ B who never discovered the wheel, means civ A will collapse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @03:42PM
Not necessarily. Neandertals are thought to have picked up techniques like jewelry and makeup from their interactions with homo sapiens, and would likely have never come up with them on their own. During the replacement process, unless you wait until civ A has already completely collapsed before civ B moves in (which then isn't a replacement via immigration, its a new civilization settling on old ruins), you have a period where its both civ A + B, and during this time civ B picks up many of civ A's techniques, allowing civ A to continue on if in diminished form. It is in fact this exact process which has made America great and caused it to thrive, adding and integrating many other cultures rather than stagnating as a single homogenous group. The trick is that you have to start integrating civ B while civ A is not already in massive decline, otherwise civ B can "destroy" civ A by replacing them rather than integrating.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @09:14PM
that sounds familiar...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03 2016, @01:33AM
Well these savages have picked up explosive, beheading and AK-47 techniques.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @07:26PM
> Obviously the rise of civ A was because of the people in civ A not the mere dirt on the ground.
Literal repudiation of that unsupported assumption: Guns, Germs and Steel [wikipedia.org]
The book attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (including North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while arguing against the idea that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate primarily in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures (for example, by facilitating commerce and trade between different cultures) and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:10PM
Of course it will be for the wealthy and politically powerful. 'sarcasm' Didn't you know they are a better breed of human compared to the poorer masses? 'sarcasm'
Never mind there is a positive biological benefit to a finite lifespan, chief among them is allowing the offspring a better chance of survival.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:16PM
Yes, never mind that, since it isn't relevant to most humans anymore.
Next you'll be telling us we need natural selection.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday August 02 2016, @05:16PM
The old generation dying off is how radical new ideas get accepted.
I would not rule out the role of evolution; even in modern society.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 02 2016, @05:56PM
Relying on time and old age to change society is the way of cowards, and will obviously be subverted by anti-aging. If you really want change, you need to slaughter the elites now. If there is not enough popular support to do that, then things aren't bad enough yet.
Less violent solutions to solving that "problem" include periodic mandatory retirement and term limits.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday August 02 2016, @08:13PM
I was not just referring to the elites. Social values change a surprising amount over 3 generations.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 02 2016, @08:27PM
And again, if you require biological planned obsolescence to force change on social issues or power structures, you are going to have a problem.
Let's say that life extension therapy is perfected, keeping users youthful and healthy indefinitely. Would you attempt to ban it for ethical reasons? Failing that, would you refuse to take such therapies yourself (assume they cost as little as $1/day altogether in this scenario)?
If you answered "yes" to the first question, you are going to get into a fight I don't think you will win. If you answered "yes" to the second question, you and others morally opposed to life extension will die, leaving the rest of people more pro-life extension.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Tuesday August 02 2016, @12:35PM
7 billion people and counting on the planet - what we really need is to extend our life-span. Yes, that was sarcasm. I'm guessing this is going to be one of those "for rich people only" things.
From the Devil's advocate department:
I think there's a distinction to be made between lifespan extension (...at which we have already been spectacularly successful, doubling the typical human lifespan from its 'natural' state) and anti-ageing. People are now far more likely to be living into their 80s and 90s but at the huge expense - to then or to society - of having to treat all the debilitating, but non-fatal, long-term effects of ageing. We're stopping people dying "early" only for them to end up needing a decade or two of extensive & expensive care (and possibly poor life-quality). Effective anti-ageing treatments could drastically reduce that cost, increase the supply of skilled and experienced labour and, even, reduce the birth rate (you don't need kids and grandkids to guarantee your comfort in your 80s).
Also, given human nature, it may be that even plutocrats will be a bit more inclined to think of long-term consequences when the future at stake is theirs and not their hypothetical grandchildren's...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @03:43PM
Well, sortof. For human adults there has been basically no improvement in lifespan. The big success in the last hundred years or so, is a massive reduction of infant and child mortality, to the point that almost all children in developed nations survive to become adults. This is what brings the average "life expectancy" way up for everyone.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:28PM
Well, sortof. For human adults there has been basically no improvement in lifespan.
Sure, infant mortality is the biggest change, but I think its wrong to say there's no other improvement. There's some stats on "life expectancy at age x" here [infoplease.com] and its quite clear that the expectancies are going up across the board. (I lost another link saying that the number of centenarians is rising) It's self evident that many people are now surviving heart disease etc. in middle age that would have been death sentences a few decades back and going on to live into their 70s and 80s.
Anyway, however you cut the stats, the "ageing population" is a thing, and even a reduction in child mortality (not to mention the number of mothers dying in childbirth) ends up with more people reaching old age. Averages do make sense sometimes.
(Score: 2) by skater on Tuesday August 02 2016, @04:35PM
My problem: Hey, we're all living longer, yay! Oh, but wait, now we have to increase the retirement age... You can't retire at 62 any more, you have to wait until you're 67. And a half. I could be Duncan McLeod, but I'm going to have to have a full time job forever, too.
When do we get to take advantage of all of this technology, and get more free time?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 02 2016, @06:47PM
Increasing the retirement age is good because it keeps laborers working longer, it increases the competition among them, so we can pay them lower wages. Ultimately we want to eliminate state-run pensions. Join us. [neoliberals.org]