SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scientists claim to have reversed some aspects of aging in mice by using a modified FOXO4-p53 interfering peptide:
A drug that can reverse aspects of ageing has been successfully trialled in animals, say scientists. They have rejuvenated old mice to restore their stamina, coat of fur and even some organ function. The team at Erasmus University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, are planning human trials for what they hope is a treatment for old age. A UK scientist said the findings were "impossible to dismiss", but that unanswered questions remained.
The approach works by flushing out retired or "senescent" cells in the body that have stopped dividing. They accumulate naturally with age and have a role in wound healing and stopping tumours. But while they appear to just sit there, senescent cells release chemicals that cause inflammation and have been implicated in ageing. The group of scientists created a drug that selectively killed senescent cells by disrupting the chemical balance within them. "I got very rebellious, people insisted I was crazy for trying and for the first three times they were right," Dr Peter de Keizer told the BBC.
Also at Science Magazine and NBF.
Targeted Apoptosis of Senescent Cells Restores Tissue Homeostasis in Response to Chemotoxicity and Aging (DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.02.031) (DX)
The accumulation of irreparable cellular damage restricts healthspan after acute stress or natural aging. Senescent cells are thought to impair tissue function, and their genetic clearance can delay features of aging. Identifying how senescent cells avoid apoptosis allows for the prospective design of anti-senescence compounds to address whether homeostasis can also be restored. Here, we identify FOXO4 as a pivot in senescent cell viability. We designed a FOXO4 peptide that perturbs the FOXO4 interaction with p53. In senescent cells, this selectively causes p53 nuclear exclusion and cell-intrinsic apoptosis. Under conditions where it was well tolerated in vivo, this FOXO4 peptide neutralized doxorubicin-induced chemotoxicity. Moreover, it restored fitness, fur density, and renal function in both fast aging XpdTTD/TTD and naturally aged mice. Thus, therapeutic targeting of senescent cells is feasible under conditions where loss of health has already occurred, and in doing so tissue homeostasis can effectively be restored.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @04:32AM (8 children)
Just because it worked in mice doesn't mean it will work in humans.
Even if it does, no one of a net worth of under 10 million will be able to get within a mile of the drug. My guestimate is that they will ask at least that amount for a single treatment regime.
On the bright side it won't extend life forever, and the people who take will eventually just up and die suddenly. Or it only ends up adding 4 or 5 years of life.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday March 25 2017, @04:51AM (1 child)
I was under the impression that brain cells stop dividing....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @03:14PM
Only during a math test which is why it's so traumatic.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 25 2017, @05:18AM
Don't worry, the pharma will outsource the production to India and lots of generics will be on the market. Via Taiwan and HK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by Justin Case on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:11PM (4 children)
no one of a net worth of under 10 million will be able to get within a mile of the drug.
We're a long way from a working medication, much less getting it approved by the FDA and on the market to know a price.
But let's just imagine you're right and the initial price tag* is in the millions per person. Which future would you prefer?
1. Some people live longer.
2. Nobody lives longer.
Just wondering if you are willing to put your true feelings down in black and white.
* Do you remember the initial price for the first few computers?
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Sunday March 26 2017, @02:59AM (3 children)
I'd pick 2. Our society is regrettably built around the concept of competition, so I'd prefer that the "rich", who already have tons of advantages over the rest of us, didn't get any more that they can use to screw the rest of us over. Sure, I see your implication of "trickle down", and maybe in 100 years the poor will be able to live 10-20 years longer, but by then the rich will have 100-200 years more, if not true immortality by that point. So they can use it to accumulate even more wealth, power, and can you imagine how this will affect copyrights (based on "life of the author +X years")?
No, the only good solution will come when everyone has equal access to this stuff (like anything else). Unless of course you're (not directed just at you there) one of those people that believes that people should only get things that they "deserve" for whatever reason.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday March 26 2017, @11:50PM (2 children)
I appreciate your reply. In my opinion, justice means you get what you earn. Work hard, or invent something that benefits millions: you should get a reward. Sleep all day, play video games instead of doing your homework, abuse alcohol or other drugs, shovel down the doughnuts... those choices will also earn you a consequence and you should be allowed to experience the result of the choices you've made. It may motivate you to correct your decision making to improve your future. Failing that, at least you can serve as a warning for others.
For all the talk of a "post artificial scarcity" world we're not there yet. For now, there is not an unlimited supply of the things people want. That means there has to be a way to decide who gets what. The world where everybody gets everything they want is at present still impossible, and you're on record that you'd rather see people die than give up that fantasy.
All I can say to that is that I sincerely wish there were a way to put people who think like you on a separate planet from people who don't. Marxism, communism, socialism, equality, liberalism, progressive-ism, leftism... whatever new label you invent to dodge the bloodstains of history -- here we see clearly why yours is called the ideology of death.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Monday March 27 2017, @06:51AM (1 child)
I appreciate your reply.
I'm sure you do. You certainly seemed to have a jolly old time demonizing me, someone you don't even know.
In my opinion, justice means you get what you earn. Work hard, or invent something that benefits millions: you should get a reward. Sleep all day, play video games instead of doing your homework, abuse alcohol or other drugs, shovel down the doughnuts... those choices will also earn you a consequence and you should be allowed to experience the result of the choices you've made. It may motivate you to correct your decision making to improve your future. Failing that, at least you can serve as a warning for others.
Yeah, I understand that view, and I even understand its appeal. And I'll certainly admit that it's better than many other philosophies out there. I think that it is an important step in the development of civilization. But I also think that we've learned a lot since those ideas were first developed, and can make an even better society than we have now based on that knowledge. So it's not that its bad per se, just that we can do better now, and we should.
For all the talk of a "post artificial scarcity" world we're not there yet.
Actually we've been able to do it since about the 1920s, but I can't fault you for now knowing that since those that benefit most from the current system don't really want it known. It'd be an end to their privileged lives. Heck, I'm sure most of them don't even know about it any more.
For now, there is not an unlimited supply of the things people want.
See, that right there is one of those myths that gets thrown around to keep people thinking that such stuff is impossible. But the fact is that you don't need "unlimited" anything to get post-scarcity, you just need "more than enough". And yes, peoples "wants" are unlimited, but that only further obfuscates the issue. There are physical limits to how much they can consume, and when looked at that way, we (as in North America at least) can produce "more than enough" to give everyone a very high standard of living. We just need to let go of limiting concepts like artificial scarcity, and outdated concepts like "who deserves what".
Oh, and I noticed that you did call it "post artificial scarcity", and not just "post scarcity" like most people. If you admit that the scarcity we have is artificial in nature, then that means that it is only a matter of choice to do away with it, and instead choose to live in a society of abundance.
you're on record that you'd rather see people die
Whoa there! You sound like a mean school principal: "This is going on your permanent record! Everyone is going to see it! Prospective employers are going to see it. Prospective girlfriends too. Everyone will know your dirty little secret! Bwahaha!" Really, you think anyone is going to look up my comments on a fringe website? What are you trying to make me fear here? Oh yeah, your demonizing slant on what I said. You make it sound like I want to kill them all, when I have said nothing of the sort. I was simply saying that I don't think that it was a good idea to limit such advantages to a few instead of giving it to everybody. And besides, if these people are responsible for a lot of the harm and misery in the world, then by your own views don't they deserve what's coming to them?
All I can say to that is that I sincerely wish there were a way to put people who think like you on a separate planet from people who don't. Marxism, communism, socialism, equality, liberalism, progressive-ism, leftism... whatever new label you invent to dodge the bloodstains of history -- here we see clearly why yours is called the ideology of death.
I'm really sorry for whatever experiences you've had that have twisted your perceptions of these kinds of things, because you don't seem to understand them at all. I mean, even equality? You don't even believe that bit about "all men are created equal"? And instead you want to send us all to the interplanetary gulag just for thinking that it'd be swell if people were nice to each other for a change, instead of thinking "what's in it for me?" And somehow *I'm* the bad guy.
O.k. I get it. You look at anything "leftist" and instantly you think "Stalin!" That's fine, many people do. Of course that's all part of the plan to make people hate leftism by conflating politics with economics. Stalin's atrocities (or any other example you care to come up with) were due to his being a dictator, not a socialist or communist. He was authoritarian on the political scale, but you can be leftist on the economic scale and not be an authoritarian. Go ahead and check out the Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] sometime so you can see all the different combinations of politics and economics that are possible. It may open your eyes to some new possibilities. Then maybe we can talk about that post-scarcity stuff.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Monday March 27 2017, @01:43PM
You certainly seemed to have a jolly old time demonizing me, someone you don't even know.
You're right. It is wrong to think of people as groups such as "the left" or "the rich". My comments were based on conversations with many others who hold views similar to what you expressed, such as hating "the rich" so much you want them to die.
Actually we've been able to do it [post scarcity] since about the 1920s
In the context of this article, we're not yet able to reverse aging today. And you don't want us to move toward that future until the supply of materials and skilled people is enough to extend the lives of some 7 or 8 billion people. If we can't save everyone, you want us to save no one. Because equality.
OK, let's talk about equality. Proponents frequently conflate the concepts of equal opportunity and equal outcome. The existence of different results is proof of injustice, because since everyone is identical, different outcomes can only be explained by discrimination and hate. C'mon, does anyone really believe that or are those just the talking points? If you take two people, give them equal opportunity to participate in a race, and one runs while the other relaxes in the shade, who is responsible for the unequal outcomes?
you're on record that you'd rather see people die
Most won't own up to this facet of their beliefs. You did. That's rare and noteworthy. Because many lefties seem to be ruled by the feelz, they tend to flinch away from the cognitive dissonance of openly acknowledging the natural outcome of their propaganda, even though, secretly or sometimes not so secretly, they hate "the rich" so much they want to see them all suffer and die. (After which, I wonder, from whom do they plan to steal next?)
I don't think that it was a good idea to limit such advantages to a few instead of giving it to everybody.
You're still pretending there's enough to go around. What happens when there isn't? Who is going to "give" it to everybody? The omnipotent benevolent politicians? They don't have it to give. All they can do is take from the only group that it is still OK to hate, "the rich".
atrocities ... were due to his being a dictator, not a socialist or communist. He was authoritarian on the political scale
But you can't steal on such a mind-boggling scope without being an authoritarian. And yes I'm familiar with the multi-dimensional political compass.
So let's get back to "the rich". You know each of them, personally? You have examined their lives and found that every one of them obtained their wealth through crime, fraud, and so on? Not one of them ever earned anything? Not even your sports or entertainment heroes? So "the rich" get your death sentence for their imagined crimes. This, sir, is groupthink and prejudice. If you have evidence that some subset of "the rich" have stolen, defrauded etc., (and I'm not denying that some have) then you and I would agree (I think) that those individuals (not the group) should return their ill gotten gains plus a penalty. But to paint them all with one brush and then condemn them to death for unspecified flaws... well that doesn't fit any concept of justice that I recognize.