Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SoylentRox t1_ix9pyt3 wrote

Reply to comment by Homie4-2-0 in Would like to say that this subreddit's attitude towards progress is admirable and makes this sub better than most other future related discussion hubs by Foundation12a

Do they even have de aged rats or primates yet?

Like again I know it can be done. I think we will need AI driven life support to do it in a way that works every time. AI driven life support is basically an AI system that looks at the results of thousands of blood tests and other tests for you, and takes into account the outcomes for millions of other people, and then decides what treatment to give you. And the machine doesn't leave the room, it reevaluates every second or so.

With good software design and so on and the fact that the machine takes into account more information than any human can learn in their life you can expect much better results.

3

Homie4-2-0 t1_ix9syzm wrote

They've de-aged immune cells and seen significant improvement in function. That's one of Turn Bio's first clinical trials if I recall correctly. David Sinclair's lab was also able to reverse damage to the optic nerve of mice using the Yamanaka factors. There have also been studies on human skin cells in vitro where it has shown age reversal. Studies on mice and their organs show similar results. The evidence is looking extremely promising so far. Ai will speed this process up and yield even better results, but then again, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

3

SoylentRox t1_ix9tmx9 wrote

Yeah I know. Messed up thing is if this is correct the actual cause of aging is our bodies are sabotaged. Just telling the cells they are young again makes them work harder.

Real treatments might have to be starting with 1 cell, patching any mutations - you might generate the 1 cells genome from scratch. So it has all new genes. The differentiate it to 0 age stem cells then inject those. So your skin gets fixed by thousands and thousands of microjnjections of new stem cells. Your liver gets surgically reduced then a regrown lobe is spliced in. Heart gets muscle microjnjections. Arteries similar. And so on.

A lot of careful work and any mistake and you die.

2

Homie4-2-0 t1_ix9xfgz wrote

I don't think genetic mutations are the main concern right now. If I recall correctly, you have around 4000 single-point mutations by the age of 100 out of 6 billion letters in your genome. Of course, eventually, this will start causing problems, but if we reverse the more near-term causes of age-related mortality, that will give us more time to solve that problem down the line. If we can extend life span by a couple of decades over the next few decades, we'll have enough time to improve the accuracy and cost of base editors to start large-scale editing of genetic mutations.

3

SoylentRox t1_ixa20m8 wrote

The reason is that if you reset their bio clocks so the cells give an effort as large as if you were a baby any mutations in functional genes can cause a tumor and kill you. An aggressive fast growing tumor. So you need to be sure there genes are correct and probably to bring in cancer detection genes from people more resistant to cancer than you are or animals if your immune system will permit it. Those naked mole rats probably have some great genes to borrow.

And if it all fails this is where you need that Ai life support so you live through a stay in the ICU while huge surgeries are done against your various tumors.

2

Homie4-2-0 t1_ixa6y8i wrote

Couldn't it also be the opposite? I do know that teratomas are a concern, but couldn't a younger functioning epigenome and immune system also suppress cancer?

2

SoylentRox t1_ixa7i22 wrote

Yes. And maybe early on pre AI revolution or whatever patients will benefit from sloppier treatments. But like the kind of pristine, works every time, and your body looks like a supermodel when done, with cosmetic fixes so you are stronger and smarter and better looking than original...yeah that's gonna take AI. Easy to describe what we want the outcomes to be, very difficult millions of steps to achieve.

2

Homie4-2-0 t1_ixabm6g wrote

Those things are definitely further out. I don't think the modeling of different genetic outcomes is that far out, but getting superficial treatments that involve gene editing through the FDA is going to be a hard sell in the near-medium term. Even things with weak genetic causality targeting disease are going to be difficult. Hopefully, we'll end up adding years faster than they're taken away until we get to that point, even if it's sloppy work.

2

SoylentRox t1_ixackl6 wrote

So again I think real medicine - my definition of real medicine is one where the error rate and speed of responsiveness is such that deaths are almost never from all causes - isn't compatible with the FDA.

At a certain point you need the AI system and doctors overseeing it to do what needs to be done and theres no way to regulate it by chemical compounds used. You would need to use anything and everything, often synthesizing what you need right before use. Not to mention gene edits would be patient specific done by a learning algorithm that changes by the hour.

One way around this would be to offer the treatment in other jurisdictions. If the group doing this has an AGI and singularity grade robotics it's going to actually work. Once enough wealthy people are restored you'd start a political campaign to have the FDA abolished and replaced with an outcome based agency.

There could amusingly be an edge period, where medicare is tired of paying nursing home and hospice bills so it sends the patients to Antigua or whatever to be regenerated and legally no longer eligible for Medicare. But the FDA is still fighting it's abolition and USA hospitals are still running and filling their morgues with their mistakes.

3

Homie4-2-0 t1_ixag75o wrote

I doubt the FDA will be abolished. The agency has too much political momentum for that. I do think that it will eventually be reformed once the tech proves itself. However, if the past reforms are any indication, they will drag their feet for years before that point.

Edit: Doesn't that edge scenario already exist with private insurance? I recall hearing about how an insurance company was paying people to go to Mexico because it was cheaper. It would be peak comedy if the government started doing that because of their own regulations xD.

2

SoylentRox t1_ixahf5k wrote

Yeah. And mexico and India are mostly cheaper because of regulations that artificially restrict how many doctors can be trained and how difficult it is to get a license to produce generic medicine.

3

FomalhautCalliclea t1_ixaotq9 wrote

I know i'm probably interrupting the both of you, but thank you both for this enlightening conversation, lots of information there, delightful !

2

iNstein t1_ixa8g5o wrote

Don't take anything David Sinclair says at face value. He is a known crook and liar. He sold his company for $700 million with claims about Resveratrol and their secret alternative that was 1000x more effective. It was all lies (look it up). Any research he is involved in is discredited and should be ignored. Plenty of good real researchers working in the field to follow instead.

−1

Homie4-2-0 t1_ixaaot9 wrote

I've heard about those complaints, but I don't think we should dismiss all the research that he's been involved in either. We have to see if the claims can be reproduced, and so far it's looking promising.

2