Methuselah Foundation Cofounder thinks Longevity Escape Velocity could be here by 2030

David Gobel cofounded the Methuselah Foundation with Aubrey de Grey and continues to run the Methuselah Foundation today.

Methuselah Foundation has given millions of dollars to regenerative medicine research, backing ventures such as Organovo, Oisin Biotechnologies, and SENS Research Foundation.

Organovo invented and is now selling high-fidelity 3D human liver and kidney tissues to the research market, is providing contract services, and is on track to deliver a 3D liver patch to the clinic in two years.

Silverstone Matchgrid, has saved the lives of over 1,000 people due to our investment in its paired kidney donation software. The software is now used in over 35 hospitals in the U.S., Europe, and soon, Saudi Arabia.

They have very high expectations for Oisin Bio and OncoSenX. They should be in Phase 1 safety trials by mid-2019. They hope to provide it to some patients much sooner than previously possible, as the FDA is liberalizing treatment availability via the recently passed “Right to Try” legislation.

There are two major challenges to clearing senescent cells using the Oisin approach.

* First is to design and create the DNA construct that recognizes that a cell has become senescent, and then destroys it.
* Second is to safely and efficiently deliver this construct into cells throughout the body.

Both goals have been achieved in their pioneering proof of concept experiments in 2016.

Oisin first demonstrated the ability to transduce cells both in vitro (cell culture) and in vivo (in aged mice). Then we showed that p16 positive senescent cells can be killed on demand in both in vitro and in vivo environments. Now they are embarked on experiments that will show improvements in both healthspan and lifespan in model organisms from mice to primates.

Leucadia Therapeutics is a startup focused on defeating Alzheimer’s disease. This is progressing and promising. They hope to have major news later this year.

David Gobel was the first to put forward the concept of longevity escape velocity, or LEV. How far are we from LEV, assuming the current pace of research and no serious showstoppers?

Twelve years, or 2030, is David’s best guess based on what is known today. He anticipates that within 3 years, some interventions will be available via safety trials and that people who are treated will receive benefits that put them on a path toward LEV. He believe things will accelerate from there, as vastly more attention is triggered by early advances. We are seeing the first glimmers of this already.

242 thoughts on “Methuselah Foundation Cofounder thinks Longevity Escape Velocity could be here by 2030”

  1. That’s what I said below: Escape velocity”” implies a ballistic trajectory”””” we need powered flight.”””

    Reply
  2. It is also called the biological singularity. Think of it something like this: you are a land animal and a massive wave hit the shore the moment you were born and will eventually reach you and kill you. You can’t run far enough away from the coast in your brief lifetime to escape it. But you try (everyone runs), even though you know you can’t outrun it (despite the fact you never stop, don’t need sleep, etc.) and in a broad sense, know when it is surely going to catch you (unless it comes early). At some point, you know it is overtaking you (because it moves, say, eight times faster than you can possibly run) and likely to get you within, perhaps, twenty years. At that point you discover a bicycle and double your speed. Now the wave is only moving at four times your speed. It will still get you, but probably not, on average, for about forty years. Twenty years later, without the bike, you would likely have already been dead or dying, but now you still have twenty years left. At this point, you discover a solar-powered car that can go twice as fast as the bike. Now you have forty years again, because the wave is only moving at twice your speed. Thirty years later, without the bike and the car, you would likely have long since been dead. But now you discover a solar-powered plane that can go double the speed of the car. Even with the car, you would have been dead in ten years, but now that ten years is forever (barring malfunctions or pilot error . . . or the sun going kaput). The wave is going the same speed so it cannot catch you. Further, even if the wave did you catch you, you are too high for it to hit. Also, any wall in your way, if not already passed, might be easily surmounted. George Church suggests we will pretty much bypass this holding point and go straight to the next phase (it would only be momentary, in any case.) But you are not satisfied. Perhaps you are no longer aging, but you are still aged. Then you make improvements to the solar-powered p

    Reply
  3. It is also called the biological singularity. Think of it something like this: you are a land animal and a massive wave hit the shore the moment you were born and will eventually reach you and kill you. You can’t run far enough away from the coast in your brief lifetime to escape it. But you try (everyone runs) even though you know you can’t outrun it (despite the fact you never stop don’t need sleep etc.) and in a broad sense know when it is surely going to catch you (unless it comes early). At some point you know it is overtaking you (because it moves say eight times faster than you can possibly run) and likely to get you within perhaps twenty years. At that point you discover a bicycle and double your speed. Now the wave is only moving at four times your speed. It will still get you but probably not on average for about forty years. Twenty years later without the bike you would likely have already been dead or dying but now you still have twenty years left. At this point you discover a solar-powered car that can go twice as fast as the bike. Now you have forty years again because the wave is only moving at twice your speed.Thirty years later without the bike and the car you would likely have long since been dead. But now you discover a solar-powered plane that can go double the speed of the car. Even with the car you would have been dead in ten years but now that ten years is forever (barring malfunctions or pilot error . . . or the sun going kaput). The wave is going the same speed so it cannot catch you. Further even if the wave did you catch you you are too high for it to hit. Also any wall in your way if not already passed might be easily surmounted. George Church suggests we will pretty much bypass this holding point and go straight to the next phase (it would only be momentary in any case.)But you are not satisfied. Perhaps you are no longer aging but you are still aged. Then you make improvements to the solar-powered plane even a very

    Reply
  4. Can I go ahead and subtract 40 years from that?” Great, you’ll be 57 and still not old enough to buy alcohol in many countries.

    Reply
  5. Can I go ahead and subtract 40 years from that?””Great”””” you’ll be 57 and still not old enough to buy alcohol in many countries.”””

    Reply
  6. It is not actually relevant whether it is non-profit or not. Non profit organisations still use, and hence want, money. Non-profit organisations still pay their workers. They still have expenses. They still buy equipment and pay for services. Hence, they still want to fundraise. In fact, just about EVERYONE wants money, including just about all of us. So the fact that someone is raising funds is neither positive or negative.

    Reply
  7. It is not actually relevant whether it is non-profit or not. Non profit organisations still use and hence want money.Non-profit organisations still pay their workers. They still have expenses. They still buy equipment and pay for services.Hence they still want to fundraise.In fact just about EVERYONE wants money including just about all of us. So the fact that someone is raising funds is neither positive or negative.

    Reply
  8. Yes, really: Here, “slated” basically means it was written down on a slate, and thus scheduled. How did it get to mean criticized over on the other side of the Atlantic, I wonder? Ok, a bit or research suggests it’s because slate can be “torn apart”.

    Reply
  9. Yes really: Here slated”” basically means it was written down on a slate”” and thus scheduled. How did it get to mean criticized over on the other side of the Atlantic I wonder? Ok”” a bit or research suggests it’s because slate can be “”””torn apart””””.”””

    Reply
  10. It is to avoid triggering human coping mechanisms and the pro-aging trance. Talking about indefinite lifespans seems fantastical and forces people to think about death, and peoples minds are programmed to quickly change the subject rather than really think about their own looming deaths. Talking about health, or living to 120 doesn’t seem to trigger the coping psychological response. Leafscience also advocate a similar approach to David Gobel when selling fundraising for longevity research.

    Reply
  11. It is to avoid triggering human coping mechanisms and the pro-aging trance. Talking about indefinite lifespans seems fantastical and forces people to think about death and peoples minds are programmed to quickly change the subject rather than really think about their own looming deaths. Talking about health or living to 120 doesn’t seem to trigger the coping psychological response.Leafscience also advocate a similar approach to David Gobel when selling fundraising for longevity research.

    Reply
  12. David seems to be overly careful with his statements. If I get another 40 years at age 90 it would be silly to assume that technological advance in that 40 years will not give me even more years. That Wall at 115, if it is real, will be another wall to be broken.

    Reply
  13. David seems to be overly careful with his statements. If I get another 40 years at age 90 it would be silly to assume that technological advance in that 40 years will not give me even more years. That Wall at 115 if it is real will be another wall to be broken.

    Reply
  14. Right to waive” isn’t enough. There would still be reputational damage to a company if someone taking an untested drug and appeared to have side effects/death. The placebo group in a trial is not there just to prove that a drug is having an effect over and above a placebo effect. It is there to try and prove that any adverse events were not caused by the drug, but were just random events. As drugs are used by sick people, you can expect a certain percentage of them to get worse over time with or without the treatment. About the only way to get things working would be for a rich individual to pay for a trial with a placebo group, and for some drug doses for poorer people not on the trial on a compassionate basis (as well as a non trial dose for themselves): w­ww.medium.c­om/mosaic-science/a-plutocratic-proposal-deba1f979bff “Lanciano’s solution to the problem is best illustrated by an example. Let’s say a wealthy individual is diagnosed with a mid-gut neuroendocrine tumour. He gives £2 million to the Dating Agency, which then hands it across to a biotech company that has a promising new but underfunded drug for this type of cancer. The £2 million is used to produce 100 doses of the potential medication. As soon as the drug is manufactured to the correct standard for human testing, the biotech company gives ten of the doses back to the Dating Agency and uses the remainder to run its trials, conduct further tests, etc. One of these ten donated doses is guaranteed to be given to the donor, which leaves nine doses for the Dating Agency to distribute to poorer patients. In total, therefore, the donor is now paying for all the people on the trial to have the drug, plus a further nine people who can’t join the trial for whatever reason but are suitable for a compassionate usage exemption.”

    Reply
  15. Right to waive”” isn’t enough. There would still be reputational damage to a company if someone taking an untested drug and appeared to have side effects/death. The placebo group in a trial is not there just to prove that a drug is having an effect over and above a placebo effect. It is there to try and prove that any adverse events were not caused by the drug”” but were just random events. As drugs are used by sick people you can expect a certain percentage of them to get worse over time with or without the treatment.About the only way to get things working would be for a rich individual to pay for a trial with a placebo group”” and for some drug doses for poorer people not on the trial on a compassionate basis (as well as a non trial dose for themselves):w­ww.medium.c­om/mosaic-science/a-plutocratic-proposal-deba1f979bff””””Lanciano’s solution to the problem is best illustrated by an example.Let’s say a wealthy individual is diagnosed with a mid-gut neuroendocrine tumour. He gives £2 million to the Dating Agency”” which then hands it across to a biotech company that has a promising new but underfunded drug for this type of cancer. The £2 million is used to produce 100 doses of the potential medication. As soon as the drug is manufactured to the correct standard for human testing the biotech company gives ten of the doses back to the Dating Agency and uses the remainder to run its trials conduct further tests etc. One of these ten donated doses is guaranteed to be given to the donor which leaves nine doses for the Dating Agency to distribute to poorer patients. In total therefore the donor is now paying for all the people on the trial to have the drug”” plus a further nine people who can’t join the trial for whatever reason but are suitable for a compassionate usage exemption.”””””””””””

    Reply
  16. There are only 7-9 classes of damage, depending on how you group damage, and whether you think nuclear DNA damage is significant beyond cancer in 150 year time frame. Why does that matter? Because if you develop a technology to successfully remove one type of damage in a class, you can adapt that technology to remove all types of damage in that class. E.g. right now Covalent Biosciences are developing catalytic antibodies to remove amyloid beta clumps that appear in the brain with Alzhiemer’s disease, but they can also use this technology to remove TTR amyloids that accumulate throughout the body and can cause heart disease: w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/alzyme/ w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/cardizyme/ If aging was 90,000 types of damage, and we had to start at square one with developing a therapy for each, then SENS would be a fools errand, but this doesn’t appear to be the case.

    Reply
  17. There are only 7-9 classes of damage depending on how you group damage and whether you think nuclear DNA damage is significant beyond cancer in 150 year time frame.Why does that matter? Because if you develop a technology to successfully remove one type of damage in a class you can adapt that technology to remove all types of damage in that class. E.g. right now Covalent Biosciences are developing catalytic antibodies to remove amyloid beta clumps that appear in the brain with Alzhiemer’s disease but they can also use this technology to remove TTR amyloids that accumulate throughout the body and can cause heart disease:w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/alzyme/w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/cardizyme/If aging was 90000 types of damage and we had to start at square one with developing a therapy for each then SENS would be a fools errand but this doesn’t appear to be the case.”

    Reply
  18. Slated means “Scheduled” in USA? Really?? I wonder how many misunderstandings that has caused. Because slated=harshly criticised is a fairly common word in my culture. Once again, American culture proves to be firmly rooted.

    Reply
  19. Slated means Scheduled”” in USA? Really??I wonder how many misunderstandings that has caused. Because slated=harshly criticised is a fairly common word in my culture.Once again”””” American culture proves to be firmly rooted.”””

    Reply
  20. They really need an associated “right to waive” bill that lets a patient legally waive any rights to sue so that someone can give them a risky new treatment without the need to protect themselves from litigation in case the risks eventuate. But that might be impossible under the current legal-political framework.

    Reply
  21. They really need an associated right to waive”” bill that lets a patient legally waive any rights to sue so that someone can give them a risky new treatment without the need to protect themselves from litigation in case the risks eventuate.But that might be impossible under the current legal-political framework.”””

    Reply
  22. But there is no top to the mountain. That’s the issue with the escape velocity metaphor. That once you get far enough you can keep coasting to the next galaxy. With this mountain, there is no top. It just keeps going higher and higher. Once you’ve solved the problems with getting to 200, it turns out there is stuff that starts to go wrong at the age of 230. Oh sure, EVENTUALLY we’ll be completely renewing every part of every cell, transferring memories undamaged to the new brain matter, dealing with the need for ever larger long term storage, and whatever psych issues come with it. And at that point we just have a half-life based on accidents and murder. But we can’t even see that distant peak yet. We just assume it’s somewhere in the clouds.

    Reply
  23. But there is no top to the mountain. That’s the issue with the escape velocity metaphor. That once you get far enough you can keep coasting to the next galaxy. With this mountain there is no top. It just keeps going higher and higher. Once you’ve solved the problems with getting to 200 it turns out there is stuff that starts to go wrong at the age of 230.Oh sure EVENTUALLY we’ll be completely renewing every part of every cell transferring memories undamaged to the new brain matter dealing with the need for ever larger long term storage and whatever psych issues come with it. And at that point we just have a half-life based on accidents and murder. But we can’t even see that distant peak yet. We just assume it’s somewhere in the clouds.

    Reply
  24. Hi Brian, David has since clarified the response to the LEV question over at Fight Aging: “Here is a clarification of what David meant: “I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030. When I was a boy, most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth, haggard faces, heart attacks aplenty, incurable glaucoma, often crippled etc. etc. So, from the standpoint of 1960, our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious, but much more modest than LEV. Also, we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.” We have revised our interview to make this clearer as there was possibly some confusion. More accurately he thinks we have a shot at making 90 the new 50 by 2030.

    Reply
  25. Hi Brian David has since clarified the response to the LEV question over at Fight Aging:Here is a clarification of what David meant: “”I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030. When I was a boy”” most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth haggard faces heart attacks aplenty incurable glaucoma often crippled etc. etc. So from the standpoint of 1960 our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious but much more modest than LEV. Also”” we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.”””” We have revised our interview to make this clearer as there was possibly some confusion. More accurately he thinks we have a shot at making 90 the new 50 by 2030.”””

    Reply
  26. Brian, thanks for covering our interview but David did not say LEV by 2030. Here is a clarification of what he meant: “I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030. When I was a boy, most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth, haggard faces, heart attacks aplenty, incurable glaucoma, often crippled etc. etc. So, from the standpoint of 1960, our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious, but much more modest than LEV. Also, we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.” Source: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/09/an-interview-with-david-gobel-of-the-methuselah-foundation/#comments

    Reply
  27. Brian thanks for covering our interview but David did not say LEV by 2030. Here is a clarification of what he meant:I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030.When I was a boy” most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth haggard faces heart attacks aplenty incurable glaucoma often crippled etc. etc.So from the standpoint of 1960 our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious but much more modest than LEV.Also” we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.””Source: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/09/an-interview-with-david-gobel-of-the-methuselah-foundation/#comments“””

    Reply
  28. It is also called the biological singularity. Think of it something like this: you are a land animal and a massive wave hit the shore the moment you were born and will eventually reach you and kill you. You can’t run far enough away from the coast in your brief lifetime to escape it. But you try (everyone runs), even though you know you can’t outrun it (despite the fact you never stop, don’t need sleep, etc.) and in a broad sense, know when it is surely going to catch you (unless it comes early). At some point, you know it is overtaking you (because it moves, say, eight times faster than you can possibly run) and likely to get you within, perhaps, twenty years. At that point you discover a bicycle and double your speed. Now the wave is only moving at four times your speed. It will still get you, but probably not, on average, for about forty years. Twenty years later, without the bike, you would likely have already been dead or dying, but now you still have twenty years left. At this point, you discover a solar-powered car that can go twice as fast as the bike. Now you have forty years again, because the wave is only moving at twice your speed. Thirty years later, without the bike and the car, you would likely have long since been dead. But now you discover a solar-powered plane that can go double the speed of the car. Even with the car, you would have been dead in ten years, but now that ten years is forever (barring malfunctions or pilot error . . . or the sun going kaput). The wave is going the same speed so it cannot catch you. Further, even if the wave did you catch you, you are too high for it to hit. Also, any wall in your way, if not already passed, might be easily surmounted. George Church suggests we will pretty much bypass this holding point and go straight to the next phase (it would only be momentary, in any case.) But you are not satisfied. Perhaps you are no longer aging, but you are still aged. Then you make improvements to the solar-powered p

    Reply
  29. It is also called the biological singularity. Think of it something like this: you are a land animal and a massive wave hit the shore the moment you were born and will eventually reach you and kill you. You can’t run far enough away from the coast in your brief lifetime to escape it. But you try (everyone runs) even though you know you can’t outrun it (despite the fact you never stop don’t need sleep etc.) and in a broad sense know when it is surely going to catch you (unless it comes early). At some point you know it is overtaking you (because it moves say eight times faster than you can possibly run) and likely to get you within perhaps twenty years. At that point you discover a bicycle and double your speed. Now the wave is only moving at four times your speed. It will still get you but probably not on average for about forty years. Twenty years later without the bike you would likely have already been dead or dying but now you still have twenty years left. At this point you discover a solar-powered car that can go twice as fast as the bike. Now you have forty years again because the wave is only moving at twice your speed.Thirty years later without the bike and the car you would likely have long since been dead. But now you discover a solar-powered plane that can go double the speed of the car. Even with the car you would have been dead in ten years but now that ten years is forever (barring malfunctions or pilot error . . . or the sun going kaput). The wave is going the same speed so it cannot catch you. Further even if the wave did you catch you you are too high for it to hit. Also any wall in your way if not already passed might be easily surmounted. George Church suggests we will pretty much bypass this holding point and go straight to the next phase (it would only be momentary in any case.)But you are not satisfied. Perhaps you are no longer aging but you are still aged. Then you make improvements to the solar-powered plane even a very

    Reply
  30. Can I go ahead and subtract 40 years from that?””Great”””” you’ll be 57 and still not old enough to buy alcohol in many countries.”””

    Reply
  31. It is not actually relevant whether it is non-profit or not. Non profit organisations still use, and hence want, money. Non-profit organisations still pay their workers. They still have expenses. They still buy equipment and pay for services. Hence, they still want to fundraise. In fact, just about EVERYONE wants money, including just about all of us. So the fact that someone is raising funds is neither positive or negative.

    Reply
  32. It is not actually relevant whether it is non-profit or not. Non profit organisations still use and hence want money.Non-profit organisations still pay their workers. They still have expenses. They still buy equipment and pay for services.Hence they still want to fundraise.In fact just about EVERYONE wants money including just about all of us. So the fact that someone is raising funds is neither positive or negative.

    Reply
  33. It is also called the biological singularity. Think of it something like this: you are a land animal and a massive wave hit the shore the moment you were born and will eventually reach you and kill you. You can’t run far enough away from the coast in your brief lifetime to escape it. But you try (everyone runs), even though you know you can’t outrun it (despite the fact you never stop, don’t need sleep, etc.) and in a broad sense, know when it is surely going to catch you (unless it comes early).

    At some point, you know it is overtaking you (because it moves, say, eight times faster than you can possibly run) and likely to get you within, perhaps, twenty years. At that point you discover a bicycle and double your speed. Now the wave is only moving at four times your speed. It will still get you, but probably not, on average, for about forty years. Twenty years later, without the bike, you would likely have already been dead or dying, but now you still have twenty years left.

    At this point, you discover a solar-powered car that can go twice as fast as the bike. Now you have forty years again, because the wave is only moving at twice your speed.

    Thirty years later, without the bike and the car, you would likely have long since been dead. But now you discover a solar-powered plane that can go double the speed of the car. Even with the car, you would have been dead in ten years, but now that ten years is forever (barring malfunctions or pilot error . . . or the sun going kaput). The wave is going the same speed so it cannot catch you. Further, even if the wave did you catch you, you are too high for it to hit. Also, any wall in your way, if not already passed, might be easily surmounted. George Church suggests we will pretty much bypass this holding point and go straight to the next phase (it would only be momentary, in any case.)

    But you are not satisfied. Perhaps you are no longer aging, but you are still aged. Then you make improvements to the solar-powered plane, even a very small improvement would serve, so it can go even faster than the wave and the gap between you and it opens up until it is as far away as when you were biologically young and you will thereafter always have a full lifetime ahead of you.

    Eventually you might even discover a spaceship and remove yourself from all concerns about planet bound waves (i.e. freeing human life processes from biological constraints altogether).

    Reply
  34. Yes, really: Here, “slated” basically means it was written down on a slate, and thus scheduled. How did it get to mean criticized over on the other side of the Atlantic, I wonder? Ok, a bit or research suggests it’s because slate can be “torn apart”.

    Reply
  35. Yes really: Here slated”” basically means it was written down on a slate”” and thus scheduled. How did it get to mean criticized over on the other side of the Atlantic I wonder? Ok”” a bit or research suggests it’s because slate can be “”””torn apart””””.”””

    Reply
  36. It is not actually relevant whether it is non-profit or not.

    Non profit organisations still use, and hence want, money.
    Non-profit organisations still pay their workers. They still have expenses. They still buy equipment and pay for services.

    Hence, they still want to fundraise.

    In fact, just about EVERYONE wants money, including just about all of us. So the fact that someone is raising funds is neither positive or negative.

    Reply
  37. It is to avoid triggering human coping mechanisms and the pro-aging trance. Talking about indefinite lifespans seems fantastical and forces people to think about death, and peoples minds are programmed to quickly change the subject rather than really think about their own looming deaths. Talking about health, or living to 120 doesn’t seem to trigger the coping psychological response. Leafscience also advocate a similar approach to David Gobel when selling fundraising for longevity research.

    Reply
  38. It is to avoid triggering human coping mechanisms and the pro-aging trance. Talking about indefinite lifespans seems fantastical and forces people to think about death and peoples minds are programmed to quickly change the subject rather than really think about their own looming deaths. Talking about health or living to 120 doesn’t seem to trigger the coping psychological response.Leafscience also advocate a similar approach to David Gobel when selling fundraising for longevity research.

    Reply
  39. David seems to be overly careful with his statements. If I get another 40 years at age 90 it would be silly to assume that technological advance in that 40 years will not give me even more years. That Wall at 115, if it is real, will be another wall to be broken.

    Reply
  40. David seems to be overly careful with his statements. If I get another 40 years at age 90 it would be silly to assume that technological advance in that 40 years will not give me even more years. That Wall at 115 if it is real will be another wall to be broken.

    Reply
  41. Right to waive” isn’t enough. There would still be reputational damage to a company if someone taking an untested drug and appeared to have side effects/death. The placebo group in a trial is not there just to prove that a drug is having an effect over and above a placebo effect. It is there to try and prove that any adverse events were not caused by the drug, but were just random events. As drugs are used by sick people, you can expect a certain percentage of them to get worse over time with or without the treatment. About the only way to get things working would be for a rich individual to pay for a trial with a placebo group, and for some drug doses for poorer people not on the trial on a compassionate basis (as well as a non trial dose for themselves): w­ww.medium.c­om/mosaic-science/a-plutocratic-proposal-deba1f979bff “Lanciano’s solution to the problem is best illustrated by an example. Let’s say a wealthy individual is diagnosed with a mid-gut neuroendocrine tumour. He gives £2 million to the Dating Agency, which then hands it across to a biotech company that has a promising new but underfunded drug for this type of cancer. The £2 million is used to produce 100 doses of the potential medication. As soon as the drug is manufactured to the correct standard for human testing, the biotech company gives ten of the doses back to the Dating Agency and uses the remainder to run its trials, conduct further tests, etc. One of these ten donated doses is guaranteed to be given to the donor, which leaves nine doses for the Dating Agency to distribute to poorer patients. In total, therefore, the donor is now paying for all the people on the trial to have the drug, plus a further nine people who can’t join the trial for whatever reason but are suitable for a compassionate usage exemption.”

    Reply
  42. Right to waive”” isn’t enough. There would still be reputational damage to a company if someone taking an untested drug and appeared to have side effects/death. The placebo group in a trial is not there just to prove that a drug is having an effect over and above a placebo effect. It is there to try and prove that any adverse events were not caused by the drug”” but were just random events. As drugs are used by sick people you can expect a certain percentage of them to get worse over time with or without the treatment.About the only way to get things working would be for a rich individual to pay for a trial with a placebo group”” and for some drug doses for poorer people not on the trial on a compassionate basis (as well as a non trial dose for themselves):w­ww.medium.c­om/mosaic-science/a-plutocratic-proposal-deba1f979bff””””Lanciano’s solution to the problem is best illustrated by an example.Let’s say a wealthy individual is diagnosed with a mid-gut neuroendocrine tumour. He gives £2 million to the Dating Agency”” which then hands it across to a biotech company that has a promising new but underfunded drug for this type of cancer. The £2 million is used to produce 100 doses of the potential medication. As soon as the drug is manufactured to the correct standard for human testing the biotech company gives ten of the doses back to the Dating Agency and uses the remainder to run its trials conduct further tests etc. One of these ten donated doses is guaranteed to be given to the donor which leaves nine doses for the Dating Agency to distribute to poorer patients. In total therefore the donor is now paying for all the people on the trial to have the drug”” plus a further nine people who can’t join the trial for whatever reason but are suitable for a compassionate usage exemption.”””””””””””

    Reply
  43. Yes, really: Here, “slated” basically means it was written down on a slate, and thus scheduled. How did it get to mean criticized over on the other side of the Atlantic, I wonder? Ok, a bit or research suggests it’s because slate can be “torn apart”.

    Reply
  44. It is to avoid triggering human coping mechanisms and the pro-aging trance. Talking about indefinite lifespans seems fantastical and forces people to think about death, and peoples minds are programmed to quickly change the subject rather than really think about their own looming deaths. Talking about health, or living to 120 doesn’t seem to trigger the coping psychological response.

    Leafscience also advocate a similar approach to David Gobel when selling fundraising for longevity research.

    Reply
  45. There are only 7-9 classes of damage, depending on how you group damage, and whether you think nuclear DNA damage is significant beyond cancer in 150 year time frame. Why does that matter? Because if you develop a technology to successfully remove one type of damage in a class, you can adapt that technology to remove all types of damage in that class. E.g. right now Covalent Biosciences are developing catalytic antibodies to remove amyloid beta clumps that appear in the brain with Alzhiemer’s disease, but they can also use this technology to remove TTR amyloids that accumulate throughout the body and can cause heart disease: w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/alzyme/ w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/cardizyme/ If aging was 90,000 types of damage, and we had to start at square one with developing a therapy for each, then SENS would be a fools errand, but this doesn’t appear to be the case.

    Reply
  46. There are only 7-9 classes of damage depending on how you group damage and whether you think nuclear DNA damage is significant beyond cancer in 150 year time frame.Why does that matter? Because if you develop a technology to successfully remove one type of damage in a class you can adapt that technology to remove all types of damage in that class. E.g. right now Covalent Biosciences are developing catalytic antibodies to remove amyloid beta clumps that appear in the brain with Alzhiemer’s disease but they can also use this technology to remove TTR amyloids that accumulate throughout the body and can cause heart disease:w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/alzyme/w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/cardizyme/If aging was 90000 types of damage and we had to start at square one with developing a therapy for each then SENS would be a fools errand but this doesn’t appear to be the case.”

    Reply
  47. Slated means “Scheduled” in USA? Really?? I wonder how many misunderstandings that has caused. Because slated=harshly criticised is a fairly common word in my culture. Once again, American culture proves to be firmly rooted.

    Reply
  48. Slated means Scheduled”” in USA? Really??I wonder how many misunderstandings that has caused. Because slated=harshly criticised is a fairly common word in my culture.Once again”””” American culture proves to be firmly rooted.”””

    Reply
  49. They really need an associated “right to waive” bill that lets a patient legally waive any rights to sue so that someone can give them a risky new treatment without the need to protect themselves from litigation in case the risks eventuate. But that might be impossible under the current legal-political framework.

    Reply
  50. They really need an associated right to waive”” bill that lets a patient legally waive any rights to sue so that someone can give them a risky new treatment without the need to protect themselves from litigation in case the risks eventuate.But that might be impossible under the current legal-political framework.”””

    Reply
  51. But there is no top to the mountain. That’s the issue with the escape velocity metaphor. That once you get far enough you can keep coasting to the next galaxy. With this mountain, there is no top. It just keeps going higher and higher. Once you’ve solved the problems with getting to 200, it turns out there is stuff that starts to go wrong at the age of 230. Oh sure, EVENTUALLY we’ll be completely renewing every part of every cell, transferring memories undamaged to the new brain matter, dealing with the need for ever larger long term storage, and whatever psych issues come with it. And at that point we just have a half-life based on accidents and murder. But we can’t even see that distant peak yet. We just assume it’s somewhere in the clouds.

    Reply
  52. But there is no top to the mountain. That’s the issue with the escape velocity metaphor. That once you get far enough you can keep coasting to the next galaxy. With this mountain there is no top. It just keeps going higher and higher. Once you’ve solved the problems with getting to 200 it turns out there is stuff that starts to go wrong at the age of 230.Oh sure EVENTUALLY we’ll be completely renewing every part of every cell transferring memories undamaged to the new brain matter dealing with the need for ever larger long term storage and whatever psych issues come with it. And at that point we just have a half-life based on accidents and murder. But we can’t even see that distant peak yet. We just assume it’s somewhere in the clouds.

    Reply
  53. David seems to be overly careful with his statements. If I get another 40 years at age 90 it would be silly to assume that technological advance in that 40 years will not give me even more years. That Wall at 115, if it is real, will be another wall to be broken.

    Reply
  54. “Right to waive” isn’t enough. There would still be reputational damage to a company if someone taking an untested drug and appeared to have side effects/death. The placebo group in a trial is not there just to prove that a drug is having an effect over and above a placebo effect. It is there to try and prove that any adverse events were not caused by the drug, but were just random events. As drugs are used by sick people, you can expect a certain percentage of them to get worse over time with or without the treatment.

    About the only way to get things working would be for a rich individual to pay for a trial with a placebo group, and for some drug doses for poorer people not on the trial on a compassionate basis (as well as a non trial dose for themselves):

    w­ww.medium.c­om/mosaic-science/a-plutocratic-proposal-deba1f979bff

    “Lanciano’s solution to the problem is best illustrated by an example.

    Let’s say a wealthy individual is diagnosed with a mid-gut neuroendocrine tumour. He gives £2 million to the Dating Agency, which then hands it across to a biotech company that has a promising new but underfunded drug for this type of cancer. The £2 million is used to produce 100 doses of the potential medication. As soon as the drug is manufactured to the correct standard for human testing, the biotech company gives ten of the doses back to the Dating Agency and uses the remainder to run its trials, conduct further tests, etc. One of these ten donated doses is guaranteed to be given to the donor, which leaves nine doses for the Dating Agency to distribute to poorer patients. In total, therefore, the donor is now paying for all the people on the trial to have the drug, plus a further nine people who can’t join the trial for whatever reason but are suitable for a compassionate usage exemption.”

    Reply
  55. Hi Brian, David has since clarified the response to the LEV question over at Fight Aging: “Here is a clarification of what David meant: “I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030. When I was a boy, most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth, haggard faces, heart attacks aplenty, incurable glaucoma, often crippled etc. etc. So, from the standpoint of 1960, our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious, but much more modest than LEV. Also, we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.” We have revised our interview to make this clearer as there was possibly some confusion. More accurately he thinks we have a shot at making 90 the new 50 by 2030.

    Reply
  56. Hi Brian David has since clarified the response to the LEV question over at Fight Aging:Here is a clarification of what David meant: “”I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030. When I was a boy”” most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth haggard faces heart attacks aplenty incurable glaucoma often crippled etc. etc. So from the standpoint of 1960 our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious but much more modest than LEV. Also”” we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.”””” We have revised our interview to make this clearer as there was possibly some confusion. More accurately he thinks we have a shot at making 90 the new 50 by 2030.”””

    Reply
  57. Brian, thanks for covering our interview but David did not say LEV by 2030. Here is a clarification of what he meant: “I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030. When I was a boy, most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth, haggard faces, heart attacks aplenty, incurable glaucoma, often crippled etc. etc. So, from the standpoint of 1960, our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious, but much more modest than LEV. Also, we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.” Source: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/09/an-interview-with-david-gobel-of-the-methuselah-foundation/#comments

    Reply
  58. Brian thanks for covering our interview but David did not say LEV by 2030. Here is a clarification of what he meant:I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030.When I was a boy” most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth haggard faces heart attacks aplenty incurable glaucoma often crippled etc. etc.So from the standpoint of 1960 our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious but much more modest than LEV.Also” we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.””Source: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/09/an-interview-with-david-gobel-of-the-methuselah-foundation/#comments“””

    Reply
  59. People do not want their comfortable status quo disrupted. Flux is a pain in the ass for them. The flip side of the coin is that they are left with very little wiggle room once it is their own life imminently ending before they would like it to. It’s a very tragic state of mind plumbed in the human psyche for thousands of years, but thankfully (hopefully) not for much longer.

    Reply
  60. People do not want their comfortable status quo disrupted. Flux is a pain in the ass for them. The flip side of the coin is that they are left with very little wiggle room once it is their own life imminently ending before they would like it to.It’s a very tragic state of mind plumbed in the human psyche for thousands of years but thankfully (hopefully) not for much longer.

    Reply
  61. People do not want their comfortable status quo disrupted. Flux is a pain in the ass for them. The flip side of the coin is that they are left with very little wiggle room once it is their own life imminently ending before they would like it to. It’s a very tragic state of mind plumbed in the human psyche for thousands of years, but thankfully (hopefully) not for much longer.

    Reply
  62. People do not want their comfortable status quo disrupted. Flux is a pain in the ass for them. The flip side of the coin is that they are left with very little wiggle room once it is their own life imminently ending before they would like it to.It’s a very tragic state of mind plumbed in the human psyche for thousands of years but thankfully (hopefully) not for much longer.

    Reply
  63. There are only 7-9 classes of damage, depending on how you group damage, and whether you think nuclear DNA damage is significant beyond cancer in 150 year time frame.

    Why does that matter? Because if you develop a technology to successfully remove one type of damage in a class, you can adapt that technology to remove all types of damage in that class. E.g. right now Covalent Biosciences are developing catalytic antibodies to remove amyloid beta clumps that appear in the brain with Alzhiemer’s disease, but they can also use this technology to remove TTR amyloids that accumulate throughout the body and can cause heart disease:

    w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/alzyme/

    w­ww.covalentbioscience.c­om/index.php/cardizyme/

    If aging was 90,000 types of damage, and we had to start at square one with developing a therapy for each, then SENS would be a fools errand, but this doesn’t appear to be the case.

    Reply
  64. Ironic, in that a cannon ball was the original thought experiment illustrating the idea of orbits and escape velocity. Metaphorically, though, we’re cannon balls in an atmosphere, we need to switch to powered flight… But I agree that the concept of longevity escape velocity is incoherent; Longevity increasing more than one year per year in no way implies that people don’t die of old age, different cohorts accumulate damage at different rates, having lived their lives under earlier conditions. LEV does, however, indicate that you’re getting close to actually solving the problem of aging.

    Reply
  65. Ironic in that a cannon ball was the original thought experiment illustrating the idea of orbits and escape velocity. Metaphorically though we’re cannon balls in an atmosphere we need to switch to powered flight…But I agree that the concept of longevity escape velocity is incoherent; Longevity increasing more than one year per year in no way implies that people don’t die of old age different cohorts accumulate damage at different rates having lived their lives under earlier conditions.LEV does however indicate that you’re getting close to actually solving the problem of aging.

    Reply
  66. Ironic, in that a cannon ball was the original thought experiment illustrating the idea of orbits and escape velocity. Metaphorically, though, we’re cannon balls in an atmosphere, we need to switch to powered flight… But I agree that the concept of longevity escape velocity is incoherent; Longevity increasing more than one year per year in no way implies that people don’t die of old age, different cohorts accumulate damage at different rates, having lived their lives under earlier conditions. LEV does, however, indicate that you’re getting close to actually solving the problem of aging.

    Reply
  67. Ironic in that a cannon ball was the original thought experiment illustrating the idea of orbits and escape velocity. Metaphorically though we’re cannon balls in an atmosphere we need to switch to powered flight…But I agree that the concept of longevity escape velocity is incoherent; Longevity increasing more than one year per year in no way implies that people don’t die of old age different cohorts accumulate damage at different rates having lived their lives under earlier conditions.LEV does however indicate that you’re getting close to actually solving the problem of aging.

    Reply
  68. Are you sure you meant “slated”? In *English* English it means “harshly criticized”, (Just now found that out.) While in American English it means “scheduled”; Quite a difference! Anyway, seems really easy to test, either in vitro or vivo.

    Reply
  69. Are you sure you meant slated””?In *English* English it means “”””harshly criticized”””””””” (Just now found that out.) While in American English it means “”””scheduled””””; Quite a difference!Anyway”” seems really easy to test”” either in vitro or vivo.”””

    Reply
  70. Are you sure you meant “slated”? In *English* English it means “harshly criticized”, (Just now found that out.) While in American English it means “scheduled”; Quite a difference! Anyway, seems really easy to test, either in vitro or vivo.

    Reply
  71. Are you sure you meant slated””?In *English* English it means “”””harshly criticized”””””””” (Just now found that out.) While in American English it means “”””scheduled””””; Quite a difference!Anyway”” seems really easy to test”” either in vitro or vivo.”””

    Reply
  72. Slated means “Scheduled” in USA? Really??

    I wonder how many misunderstandings that has caused. Because slated=harshly criticised is a fairly common word in my culture.

    Once again, American culture proves to be firmly rooted.

    Reply
  73. Forgot to add whitespaces to the link, here it is again: w­ww.ipscell.c­om/2018/07/perspectives-on-uncritical-nyt-coverage-of-cardiac-mitochondrial-transplant-trial/

    Reply
  74. Forgot to add whitespaces to the link here it is again:w­ww.ipscell.c­om/2018/07/perspectives-on-uncritical-nyt-coverage-of-cardiac-mitochondrial-transplant-trial/”

    Reply
  75. Forgot to add whitespaces to the link, here it is again: w­ww.ipscell.c­om/2018/07/perspectives-on-uncritical-nyt-coverage-of-cardiac-mitochondrial-transplant-trial/

    Reply
  76. Forgot to add whitespaces to the link here it is again:w­ww.ipscell.c­om/2018/07/perspectives-on-uncritical-nyt-coverage-of-cardiac-mitochondrial-transplant-trial/”

    Reply
  77. Vuukle is rather relentless about deleting anything that looks like a link. You have to either obfuscate it with spaces or (my preference) offer a search string that’s specific enough to guarantee the intended link is in the first few results.

    Reply
  78. Vuukle is rather relentless about deleting anything that looks like a link. You have to either obfuscate it with spaces or (my preference) offer a search string that’s specific enough to guarantee the intended link is in the first few results.

    Reply
  79. Vuukle is rather relentless about deleting anything that looks like a link. You have to either obfuscate it with spaces or (my preference) offer a search string that’s specific enough to guarantee the intended link is in the first few results.

    Reply
  80. Vuukle is rather relentless about deleting anything that looks like a link. You have to either obfuscate it with spaces or (my preference) offer a search string that’s specific enough to guarantee the intended link is in the first few results.

    Reply
  81. They really need an associated “right to waive” bill that lets a patient legally waive any rights to sue so that someone can give them a risky new treatment without the need to protect themselves from litigation in case the risks eventuate.
    But that might be impossible under the current legal-political framework.

    Reply
  82. But there is no top to the mountain. That’s the issue with the escape velocity metaphor. That once you get far enough you can keep coasting to the next galaxy. With this mountain, there is no top. It just keeps going higher and higher. Once you’ve solved the problems with getting to 200, it turns out there is stuff that starts to go wrong at the age of 230.

    Oh sure, EVENTUALLY we’ll be completely renewing every part of every cell, transferring memories undamaged to the new brain matter, dealing with the need for ever larger long term storage, and whatever psych issues come with it. And at that point we just have a half-life based on accidents and murder. But we can’t even see that distant peak yet. We just assume it’s somewhere in the clouds.

    Reply
  83. But extending your analogy, if anyone reaches the top of the mountain, everyone wins a huge prize. But right now it is as if 5 people are trying to climb the very lower reaches of the mountain. Everyone else thinks that the mountain is ‘far to high to climb in their lifetime’, or can’t even think about climbing the mountain due to fear of yetis (the pro-aging trance). When it is obvious that people have reached within 1,000m of the summit, the going will be much more difficult, but 50,000 people will be trying to climb it.

    Reply
  84. But extending your analogy if anyone reaches the top of the mountain everyone wins a huge prize. But right now it is as if 5 people are trying to climb the very lower reaches of the mountain. Everyone else thinks that the mountain is ‘far to high to climb in their lifetime’ or can’t even think about climbing the mountain due to fear of yetis (the pro-aging trance). When it is obvious that people have reached within 1000m of the summit the going will be much more difficult but 50000 people will be trying to climb it.

    Reply
  85. But extending your analogy, if anyone reaches the top of the mountain, everyone wins a huge prize. But right now it is as if 5 people are trying to climb the very lower reaches of the mountain. Everyone else thinks that the mountain is ‘far to high to climb in their lifetime’, or can’t even think about climbing the mountain due to fear of yetis (the pro-aging trance). When it is obvious that people have reached within 1,000m of the summit, the going will be much more difficult, but 50,000 people will be trying to climb it.

    Reply
  86. But extending your analogy if anyone reaches the top of the mountain everyone wins a huge prize. But right now it is as if 5 people are trying to climb the very lower reaches of the mountain. Everyone else thinks that the mountain is ‘far to high to climb in their lifetime’ or can’t even think about climbing the mountain due to fear of yetis (the pro-aging trance). When it is obvious that people have reached within 1000m of the summit the going will be much more difficult but 50000 people will be trying to climb it.

    Reply
  87. I should note, of course, that there are obvious risks even if it works, of ending up with an existing cancer suddenly having an adequate source of energy.

    Reply
  88. I should note of course that there are obvious risks even if it works of ending up with an existing cancer suddenly having an adequate source of energy.

    Reply
  89. I should note, of course, that there are obvious risks even if it works, of ending up with an existing cancer suddenly having an adequate source of energy.

    Reply
  90. I should note of course that there are obvious risks even if it works of ending up with an existing cancer suddenly having an adequate source of energy.

    Reply
  91. I think we can add mitochondrial replacement therapy to the list. It’s already being used in some limited circumstances on the newborn. Search for “Dying Organs Restored to Life in Novel Experiments” A lot of senescent cells are senescent exactly because they’ve been taken over by mutant, non-functioning mitochondria. They can be either rescued or induced to suicide by fixing that. This is an existing treatment, though considered experimental, and would be relatively easy to test as an anti-aging treatment, given that there’s no need for special drugs or oddball equipment.

    Reply
  92. I think we can add mitochondrial replacement therapy to the list. It’s already being used in some limited circumstances on the newborn. Search for Dying Organs Restored to Life in Novel Experiments””A lot of senescent cells are senescent exactly because they’ve been taken over by mutant”” non-functioning mitochondria. They can be either rescued or induced to suicide by fixing that.This is an existing treatment though considered experimental and would be relatively easy to test as an anti-aging treatment”” given that there’s no need for special drugs or oddball equipment.”””

    Reply
  93. I think we can add mitochondrial replacement therapy to the list. It’s already being used in some limited circumstances on the newborn. Search for “Dying Organs Restored to Life in Novel Experiments” A lot of senescent cells are senescent exactly because they’ve been taken over by mutant, non-functioning mitochondria. They can be either rescued or induced to suicide by fixing that. This is an existing treatment, though considered experimental, and would be relatively easy to test as an anti-aging treatment, given that there’s no need for special drugs or oddball equipment.

    Reply
  94. I think we can add mitochondrial replacement therapy to the list. It’s already being used in some limited circumstances on the newborn. Search for Dying Organs Restored to Life in Novel Experiments””A lot of senescent cells are senescent exactly because they’ve been taken over by mutant”” non-functioning mitochondria. They can be either rescued or induced to suicide by fixing that.This is an existing treatment though considered experimental and would be relatively easy to test as an anti-aging treatment”” given that there’s no need for special drugs or oddball equipment.”””

    Reply
  95. The catch with the “right to try” bill, is that, while the government can’t prohibit you from trying, nobody is obligated to help you. You’re going to find that the medical community isn’t going to cooperate in a lot of cases, particularly the pharmaceutical companies, due to concerns about potential liability, and limited supplies of drugs not already in production. OTOH, for off-label usages, it might be of some help.

    Reply
  96. The catch with the right to try”” bill”” is that while the government can’t prohibit you from trying nobody is obligated to help you. You’re going to find that the medical community isn’t going to cooperate in a lot of cases particularly the pharmaceutical companies due to concerns about potential liability and limited supplies of drugs not already in production.OTOH for off-label usages”” it might be of some help.”””

    Reply
  97. The catch with the “right to try” bill, is that, while the government can’t prohibit you from trying, nobody is obligated to help you. You’re going to find that the medical community isn’t going to cooperate in a lot of cases, particularly the pharmaceutical companies, due to concerns about potential liability, and limited supplies of drugs not already in production. OTOH, for off-label usages, it might be of some help.

    Reply
  98. The catch with the right to try”” bill”” is that while the government can’t prohibit you from trying nobody is obligated to help you. You’re going to find that the medical community isn’t going to cooperate in a lot of cases particularly the pharmaceutical companies due to concerns about potential liability and limited supplies of drugs not already in production.OTOH for off-label usages”” it might be of some help.”””

    Reply
  99. That’s true, there’s a phenomenon in chemotherapy, “Tumor lysis syndrome”, where it’s just too effective, all the cancer dies at once, and your body collapses under the flood of toxins released by all the dying cells. I was treated for lymphoma back in 2010, and could have been at risk for this if the cancer had been more advanced. OTOH, I don’t know what fraction of of the body can be composed of senescent cells without you already being dead. And if you’re prepared for this, you can deal with it using multiple blood transfusions to clear the toxins.

    Reply
  100. That’s true there’s a phenomenon in chemotherapy Tumor lysis syndrome””” where it’s just too effective all the cancer dies at once and your body collapses under the flood of toxins released by all the dying cells. I was treated for lymphoma back in 2010 and could have been at risk for this if the cancer had been more advanced.OTOH I don’t know what fraction of of the body can be composed of senescent cells without you already being dead. And if you’re prepared for this”” you can deal with it using multiple blood transfusions to clear the toxins.”””

    Reply
  101. That’s true, there’s a phenomenon in chemotherapy, “Tumor lysis syndrome”, where it’s just too effective, all the cancer dies at once, and your body collapses under the flood of toxins released by all the dying cells. I was treated for lymphoma back in 2010, and could have been at risk for this if the cancer had been more advanced. OTOH, I don’t know what fraction of of the body can be composed of senescent cells without you already being dead. And if you’re prepared for this, you can deal with it using multiple blood transfusions to clear the toxins.

    Reply
  102. That’s true there’s a phenomenon in chemotherapy Tumor lysis syndrome””” where it’s just too effective all the cancer dies at once and your body collapses under the flood of toxins released by all the dying cells. I was treated for lymphoma back in 2010 and could have been at risk for this if the cancer had been more advanced.OTOH I don’t know what fraction of of the body can be composed of senescent cells without you already being dead. And if you’re prepared for this”” you can deal with it using multiple blood transfusions to clear the toxins.”””

    Reply
  103. If if was just reliant on Unity’s small molecule approach, there would be a fairly decent chance of failure or limited applicability due to off target effects in the next 12 years. However, there are three approaches relying on entirely new technology platforms that have only matured in the last few years – The DRI technology from Cleara Biotech, Oisin’s lipid nanoparticles with fusogenix proteins attached for cell fusion, and Ichor/Antoxerene’s RPtag technology which can be used to isolate and stabilize large proteins such as p53 for better small molecule screens. w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/cleara-biotech-launches-to-develop-senolytic-therapies-based-on-foxo4-dri/ w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/juvenescence-announces-a-small-molecule-senolytics-joint-venture-with-antoxerene/ ­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/oncosenx-is-the-oisin-biotechnologies-spinoff-targeting-cancer/ Any one of these approaches has better odds than the traditional small molecule approach.

    Reply
  104. If if was just reliant on Unity’s small molecule approach there would be a fairly decent chance of failure or limited applicability due to off target effects in the next 12 years. However there are three approaches relying on entirely new technology platforms that have only matured in the last few years – The DRI technology from Cleara Biotech Oisin’s lipid nanoparticles with fusogenix proteins attached for cell fusion and Ichor/Antoxerene’s RPtag technology which can be used to isolate and stabilize large proteins such as p53 for better small molecule screens.w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/cleara-biotech-launches-to-develop-senolytic-therapies-based-on-foxo4-dri/w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/juvenescence-announces-a-small-molecule-senolytics-joint-venture-with-antoxerene/­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/oncosenx-is-the-oisin-biotechnologies-spinoff-targeting-cancer/Any one of these approaches has better odds than the traditional small molecule approach.”

    Reply
  105. If if was just reliant on Unity’s small molecule approach, there would be a fairly decent chance of failure or limited applicability due to off target effects in the next 12 years. However, there are three approaches relying on entirely new technology platforms that have only matured in the last few years – The DRI technology from Cleara Biotech, Oisin’s lipid nanoparticles with fusogenix proteins attached for cell fusion, and Ichor/Antoxerene’s RPtag technology which can be used to isolate and stabilize large proteins such as p53 for better small molecule screens. w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/cleara-biotech-launches-to-develop-senolytic-therapies-based-on-foxo4-dri/ w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/juvenescence-announces-a-small-molecule-senolytics-joint-venture-with-antoxerene/ ­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/oncosenx-is-the-oisin-biotechnologies-spinoff-targeting-cancer/ Any one of these approaches has better odds than the traditional small molecule approach.

    Reply
  106. If if was just reliant on Unity’s small molecule approach there would be a fairly decent chance of failure or limited applicability due to off target effects in the next 12 years. However there are three approaches relying on entirely new technology platforms that have only matured in the last few years – The DRI technology from Cleara Biotech Oisin’s lipid nanoparticles with fusogenix proteins attached for cell fusion and Ichor/Antoxerene’s RPtag technology which can be used to isolate and stabilize large proteins such as p53 for better small molecule screens.w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/cleara-biotech-launches-to-develop-senolytic-therapies-based-on-foxo4-dri/w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/juvenescence-announces-a-small-molecule-senolytics-joint-venture-with-antoxerene/­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/oncosenx-is-the-oisin-biotechnologies-spinoff-targeting-cancer/Any one of these approaches has better odds than the traditional small molecule approach.”

    Reply
  107. Hi Brian, David has since clarified the response to the LEV question over at Fight Aging:

    “Here is a clarification of what David meant:

    “I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030.

    When I was a boy, most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth, haggard faces, heart attacks aplenty, incurable glaucoma, often crippled etc. etc.

    So, from the standpoint of 1960, our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious, but much more modest than LEV.

    Also, we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.”

    We have revised our interview to make this clearer as there was possibly some confusion. More accurately he thinks we have a shot at making 90 the new 50 by 2030.

    Reply
  108. Brian, thanks for covering our interview but David did not say LEV by 2030. Here is a clarification of what he meant:

    “I said we are aiming to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. I did not say we would achieve LEV by 2030.

    When I was a boy, most everyone who was 50 already looked 70-75 by todays standards. Flase teeth, haggard faces, heart attacks aplenty, incurable glaucoma, often crippled etc. etc.

    So, from the standpoint of 1960, our 75 has become the new 50. Our goal is NOT to achieve LEV by 2030. It is audacious, but much more modest than LEV.

    Also, we don’t say that everyone will have access to such treatments. We are saying that we aim along with others to make it possible.”

    Source: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/09/an-interview-with-david-gobel-of-the-methuselah-foundation/#comments

    Reply
  109. People do not want their comfortable status quo disrupted. Flux is a pain in the ass for them. The flip side of the coin is that they are left with very little wiggle room once it is their own life imminently ending before they would like it to.

    It’s a very tragic state of mind plumbed in the human psyche for thousands of years, but thankfully (hopefully) not for much longer.

    Reply
  110. When the Methuselah Foundation started talking about making “90 the new 50” life expectancy in the developed world was around 80. What I think they are talking about is making life expectancy around 120 by the year 2030. That means a 90 year old can expect to live another 30 years, just like a 50 year could a while back. I think David Gobel is making this a target, rather than LEV, to get around the objectors who say that there will be some part of the bodies damage that just cannot be repaired, or won’t be repaired for 150 years. It focuses minds on the fact that even extending average lifespan to 120 (in good health) would bring immense changes and benefits to the human condition and society, something that is often missed in the debates about LEV.

    Reply
  111. When the Methuselah Foundation started talking about making 90 the new 50″” life expectancy in the developed world was around 80. What I think they are talking about is making life expectancy around 120 by the year 2030. That means a 90 year old can expect to live another 30 years”” just like a 50 year could a while back.I think David Gobel is making this a target rather than LEV to get around the objectors who say that there will be some part of the bodies damage that just cannot be repaired or won’t be repaired for 150 years. It focuses minds on the fact that even extending average lifespan to 120 (in good health) would bring immense changes and benefits to the human condition and society”” something that is often missed in the debates about LEV.”””

    Reply
  112. When the Methuselah Foundation started talking about making “90 the new 50” life expectancy in the developed world was around 80. What I think they are talking about is making life expectancy around 120 by the year 2030. That means a 90 year old can expect to live another 30 years, just like a 50 year could a while back. I think David Gobel is making this a target, rather than LEV, to get around the objectors who say that there will be some part of the bodies damage that just cannot be repaired, or won’t be repaired for 150 years. It focuses minds on the fact that even extending average lifespan to 120 (in good health) would bring immense changes and benefits to the human condition and society, something that is often missed in the debates about LEV.

    Reply
  113. When the Methuselah Foundation started talking about making 90 the new 50″” life expectancy in the developed world was around 80. What I think they are talking about is making life expectancy around 120 by the year 2030. That means a 90 year old can expect to live another 30 years”” just like a 50 year could a while back.I think David Gobel is making this a target rather than LEV to get around the objectors who say that there will be some part of the bodies damage that just cannot be repaired or won’t be repaired for 150 years. It focuses minds on the fact that even extending average lifespan to 120 (in good health) would bring immense changes and benefits to the human condition and society”” something that is often missed in the debates about LEV.”””

    Reply
  114. I think this will go more like a cannon ball in a parabolic trajectory, hitting a wall at different heights according to their starting angle and speed (how old you were when you first got the treatments and which version of them), arriving a point where no matter what you do, the subtle accumulated damage is too great to fix at certain very advanced age and you simply start keeling over dead for weird, unexplainable reasons, as if your system just gave up. But I think the maximum height the cannon ball can reach (maximum reachable age) will certainly go upwards. How much, it’s pending to be seen. I would be very surprised if we really can ward off death forever. Entropy and chaos are pretty nasty and persistent enemies.

    Reply
  115. I think this will go more like a cannon ball in a parabolic trajectory hitting a wall at different heights according to their starting angle and speed (how old you were when you first got the treatments and which version of them) arriving a point where no matter what you do the subtle accumulated damage is too great to fix at certain very advanced age and you simply start keeling over dead for weird unexplainable reasons as if your system just gave up.But I think the maximum height the cannon ball can reach (maximum reachable age) will certainly go upwards. How much it’s pending to be seen.I would be very surprised if we really can ward off death forever. Entropy and chaos are pretty nasty and persistent enemies.

    Reply
  116. I think this will go more like a cannon ball in a parabolic trajectory, hitting a wall at different heights according to their starting angle and speed (how old you were when you first got the treatments and which version of them), arriving a point where no matter what you do, the subtle accumulated damage is too great to fix at certain very advanced age and you simply start keeling over dead for weird, unexplainable reasons, as if your system just gave up. But I think the maximum height the cannon ball can reach (maximum reachable age) will certainly go upwards. How much, it’s pending to be seen. I would be very surprised if we really can ward off death forever. Entropy and chaos are pretty nasty and persistent enemies.

    Reply
  117. I think this will go more like a cannon ball in a parabolic trajectory hitting a wall at different heights according to their starting angle and speed (how old you were when you first got the treatments and which version of them) arriving a point where no matter what you do the subtle accumulated damage is too great to fix at certain very advanced age and you simply start keeling over dead for weird unexplainable reasons as if your system just gave up.But I think the maximum height the cannon ball can reach (maximum reachable age) will certainly go upwards. How much it’s pending to be seen.I would be very surprised if we really can ward off death forever. Entropy and chaos are pretty nasty and persistent enemies.

    Reply
  118. This whole “escape velocity” metaphor strikes me as fundamentally flawed. Physical escape velocity can function because as soon as you are above the atmosphere there is nothing left to slow you down. If you have enough velocity you really will just keep going until you “escape” But longevity isn’t like that at all. It’s more like climbing a mountain. As you go up you keep encountering more and more obstacles. (Snow, low oxygen, attacking yeti…) Even if you are travelling very quickly at one stage in the climb you can’t maintain that velocity. The later stages of the climb are likely to be more difficult, and slower, than the earlier stages. The exact reverse of space launch. Having said that, being strong and healthy to my first century is a good thing, even if we hit a wall at 125.

    Reply
  119. This whole escape velocity”” metaphor strikes me as fundamentally flawed.Physical escape velocity can function because as soon as you are above the atmosphere there is nothing left to slow you down. If you have enough velocity you really will just keep going until you “”””escape””””But longevity isn’t like that at all. It’s more like climbing a mountain. As you go up you keep encountering more and more obstacles. (Snow”” low oxygen attacking yeti…) Even if you are travelling very quickly at one stage in the climb you can’t maintain that velocity. The later stages of the climb are likely to be more difficult and slower than the earlier stages. The exact reverse of space launch.Having said that being strong and healthy to my first century is a good thing”” even if we hit a wall at 125.”””

    Reply
  120. This whole “escape velocity” metaphor strikes me as fundamentally flawed. Physical escape velocity can function because as soon as you are above the atmosphere there is nothing left to slow you down. If you have enough velocity you really will just keep going until you “escape” But longevity isn’t like that at all. It’s more like climbing a mountain. As you go up you keep encountering more and more obstacles. (Snow, low oxygen, attacking yeti…) Even if you are travelling very quickly at one stage in the climb you can’t maintain that velocity. The later stages of the climb are likely to be more difficult, and slower, than the earlier stages. The exact reverse of space launch. Having said that, being strong and healthy to my first century is a good thing, even if we hit a wall at 125.

    Reply
  121. This whole escape velocity”” metaphor strikes me as fundamentally flawed.Physical escape velocity can function because as soon as you are above the atmosphere there is nothing left to slow you down. If you have enough velocity you really will just keep going until you “”””escape””””But longevity isn’t like that at all. It’s more like climbing a mountain. As you go up you keep encountering more and more obstacles. (Snow”” low oxygen attacking yeti…) Even if you are travelling very quickly at one stage in the climb you can’t maintain that velocity. The later stages of the climb are likely to be more difficult and slower than the earlier stages. The exact reverse of space launch.Having said that being strong and healthy to my first century is a good thing”” even if we hit a wall at 125.”””

    Reply
  122. Are there really people who think the world is flat? They strike me as trolls poking fun at the people they trigger with their outlandish claims.

    Reply
  123. Are there really people who think the world is flat? They strike me as trolls poking fun at the people they trigger with their outlandish claims.

    Reply
  124. Are there really people who think the world is flat? They strike me as trolls poking fun at the people they trigger with their outlandish claims.

    Reply
  125. Are there really people who think the world is flat? They strike me as trolls poking fun at the people they trigger with their outlandish claims.

    Reply
  126. The “longevity escape velocity” is an empirically false claim, at least for the population of the United States. American life expectancy has been trending downwards in recent years. If the trend continues, Americans in the 2020’s will be sicker and dying earlier than they have until recently.

    Reply
  127. The longevity escape velocity”” is an empirically false claim”” at least for the population of the United States. American life expectancy has been trending downwards in recent years. If the trend continues”” Americans in the 2020’s will be sicker and dying earlier than they have until recently.”””

    Reply
  128. The “longevity escape velocity” is an empirically false claim, at least for the population of the United States. American life expectancy has been trending downwards in recent years. If the trend continues, Americans in the 2020’s will be sicker and dying earlier than they have until recently.

    Reply
  129. The longevity escape velocity”” is an empirically false claim”” at least for the population of the United States. American life expectancy has been trending downwards in recent years. If the trend continues”” Americans in the 2020’s will be sicker and dying earlier than they have until recently.”””

    Reply
  130. Ironic, in that a cannon ball was the original thought experiment illustrating the idea of orbits and escape velocity. Metaphorically, though, we’re cannon balls in an atmosphere, we need to switch to powered flight…

    But I agree that the concept of longevity escape velocity is incoherent; Longevity increasing more than one year per year in no way implies that people don’t die of old age, different cohorts accumulate damage at different rates, having lived their lives under earlier conditions.

    LEV does, however, indicate that you’re getting close to actually solving the problem of aging.

    Reply
  131. Are you sure you meant “slated”?

    In *English* English it means “harshly criticized”, (Just now found that out.) While in American English it means “scheduled”; Quite a difference!

    Anyway, seems really easy to test, either in vitro or vivo.

    Reply
  132. Vuukle is rather relentless about deleting anything that looks like a link. You have to either obfuscate it with spaces or (my preference) offer a search string that’s specific enough to guarantee the intended link is in the first few results.

    Reply
  133. But extending your analogy, if anyone reaches the top of the mountain, everyone wins a huge prize. But right now it is as if 5 people are trying to climb the very lower reaches of the mountain. Everyone else thinks that the mountain is ‘far to high to climb in their lifetime’, or can’t even think about climbing the mountain due to fear of yetis (the pro-aging trance). When it is obvious that people have reached within 1,000m of the summit, the going will be much more difficult, but 50,000 people will be trying to climb it.

    Reply
  134. What fraction of the body’s cells can be culled/eliminated in a single treatment without jeopardizing your life? I’d be worried that if a single treatment was too drastic, it could result in organ failure, etc.

    Reply
  135. What fraction of the body’s cells can be culled/eliminated in a single treatment without jeopardizing your life? I’d be worried that if a single treatment was too drastic it could result in organ failure etc.

    Reply
  136. What fraction of the body’s cells can be culled/eliminated in a single treatment without jeopardizing your life? I’d be worried that if a single treatment was too drastic, it could result in organ failure, etc.

    Reply
  137. What fraction of the body’s cells can be culled/eliminated in a single treatment without jeopardizing your life? I’d be worried that if a single treatment was too drastic it could result in organ failure etc.

    Reply
  138. I think we can add mitochondrial replacement therapy to the list. It’s already being used in some limited circumstances on the newborn. Search for “Dying Organs Restored to Life in Novel Experiments”

    A lot of senescent cells are senescent exactly because they’ve been taken over by mutant, non-functioning mitochondria. They can be either rescued or induced to suicide by fixing that.

    This is an existing treatment, though considered experimental, and would be relatively easy to test as an anti-aging treatment, given that there’s no need for special drugs or oddball equipment.

    Reply
  139. The catch with the “right to try” bill, is that, while the government can’t prohibit you from trying, nobody is obligated to help you. You’re going to find that the medical community isn’t going to cooperate in a lot of cases, particularly the pharmaceutical companies, due to concerns about potential liability, and limited supplies of drugs not already in production.

    OTOH, for off-label usages, it might be of some help.

    Reply
  140. That’s true, there’s a phenomenon in chemotherapy, “Tumor lysis syndrome”, where it’s just too effective, all the cancer dies at once, and your body collapses under the flood of toxins released by all the dying cells. I was treated for lymphoma back in 2010, and could have been at risk for this if the cancer had been more advanced.

    OTOH, I don’t know what fraction of of the body can be composed of senescent cells without you already being dead. And if you’re prepared for this, you can deal with it using multiple blood transfusions to clear the toxins.

    Reply
  141. You don’t need all 7 for LEV. I’m not sure if you even need one. LEV just means that life expectancy increases by at least one year for every year that passes. That could happen with just conventional medicine, but probably not in 12 years.

    Reply
  142. You don’t need all 7 for LEV. I’m not sure if you even need one. LEV just means that life expectancy increases by at least one year for every year that passes. That could happen with just conventional medicine but probably not in 12 years.

    Reply
  143. You don’t need all 7 for LEV. I’m not sure if you even need one. LEV just means that life expectancy increases by at least one year for every year that passes. That could happen with just conventional medicine, but probably not in 12 years.

    Reply
  144. You don’t need all 7 for LEV. I’m not sure if you even need one. LEV just means that life expectancy increases by at least one year for every year that passes. That could happen with just conventional medicine but probably not in 12 years.

    Reply
  145. If if was just reliant on Unity’s small molecule approach, there would be a fairly decent chance of failure or limited applicability due to off target effects in the next 12 years.

    However, there are three approaches relying on entirely new technology platforms that have only matured in the last few years – The DRI technology from Cleara Biotech, Oisin’s lipid nanoparticles with fusogenix proteins attached for cell fusion, and Ichor/Antoxerene’s RPtag technology which can be used to isolate and stabilize large proteins such as p53 for better small molecule screens.

    w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/cleara-biotech-launches-to-develop-senolytic-therapies-based-on-foxo4-dri/

    w­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/juvenescence-announces-a-small-molecule-senolytics-joint-venture-with-antoxerene/

    ­ww.fightaging.o­rg/archives/2018/07/oncosenx-is-the-oisin-biotechnologies-spinoff-targeting-cancer/

    Any one of these approaches has better odds than the traditional small molecule approach.

    Reply
  146. When the Methuselah Foundation started talking about making “90 the new 50” life expectancy in the developed world was around 80. What I think they are talking about is making life expectancy around 120 by the year 2030. That means a 90 year old can expect to live another 30 years, just like a 50 year could a while back.

    I think David Gobel is making this a target, rather than LEV, to get around the objectors who say that there will be some part of the bodies damage that just cannot be repaired, or won’t be repaired for 150 years. It focuses minds on the fact that even extending average lifespan to 120 (in good health) would bring immense changes and benefits to the human condition and society, something that is often missed in the debates about LEV.

    Reply
  147. I think this will go more like a cannon ball in a parabolic trajectory, hitting a wall at different heights according to their starting angle and speed (how old you were when you first got the treatments and which version of them), arriving a point where no matter what you do, the subtle accumulated damage is too great to fix at certain very advanced age and you simply start keeling over dead for weird, unexplainable reasons, as if your system just gave up.

    But I think the maximum height the cannon ball can reach (maximum reachable age) will certainly go upwards. How much, it’s pending to be seen.

    I would be very surprised if we really can ward off death forever. Entropy and chaos are pretty nasty and persistent enemies.

    Reply
  148. This whole “escape velocity” metaphor strikes me as fundamentally flawed.
    Physical escape velocity can function because as soon as you are above the atmosphere there is nothing left to slow you down. If you have enough velocity you really will just keep going until you “escape”
    But longevity isn’t like that at all. It’s more like climbing a mountain. As you go up you keep encountering more and more obstacles. (Snow, low oxygen, attacking yeti…) Even if you are travelling very quickly at one stage in the climb you can’t maintain that velocity. The later stages of the climb are likely to be more difficult, and slower, than the earlier stages. The exact reverse of space launch.

    Having said that, being strong and healthy to my first century is a good thing, even if we hit a wall at 125.

    Reply
  149. David Gobel said he hopes to make 90 the new 50 by 2030, he does not think LEV will have been achieved by 2030. 2030 is only 12 years away, and it is unlikely that all 7 (or 9) areas of damage will have reasonably comprehensive therapies by that date. However if you had treatments for damages in 3-5 categories you might be at a point where people are already live longer healthier lives.

    Reply
  150. David Gobel said he hopes to make 90 the new 50 by 2030 he does not think LEV will have been achieved by 2030. 2030 is only 12 years away and it is unlikely that all 7 (or 9) areas of damage will have reasonably comprehensive therapies by that date.However if you had treatments for damages in 3-5 categories you might be at a point where people are already live longer healthier lives.

    Reply
  151. The “longevity escape velocity” is an empirically false claim, at least for the population of the United States. American life expectancy has been trending downwards in recent years. If the trend continues, Americans in the 2020’s will be sicker and dying earlier than they have until recently.

    Reply
  152. I really think this will happen even sooner than 2030. If you notice these articles, technological advances are coming faster and faster. At with just the slightest practical advance in longevity, the money that is pouring in for the research will become a flood.

    Reply
  153. I really think this will happen even sooner than 2030. If you notice these articles technological advances are coming faster and faster. At with just the slightest practical advance in longevity the money that is pouring in for the research will become a flood.

    Reply
  154. I’m just cautiously optimistic. In the mean time I am making myself healthier to bridge the gap. The worst that could happen is I get healthier. Win, win.

    Reply
  155. I’m just cautiously optimistic. In the mean time I am making myself healthier to bridge the gap. The worst that could happen is I get healthier. Win win.

    Reply
  156. What fraction of the body’s cells can be culled/eliminated in a single treatment without jeopardizing your life? I’d be worried that if a single treatment was too drastic, it could result in organ failure, etc.

    Reply
  157. You don’t need all 7 for LEV. I’m not sure if you even need one. LEV just means that life expectancy increases by at least one year for every year that passes. That could happen with just conventional medicine, but probably not in 12 years.

    Reply
  158. A terrific amount of people are in denial of this happening. 🙂 The same kind of reasoning as those people that think the world is flat. Ignore research, ignore facts.

    Reply
  159. A terrific amount of people are in denial of this happening. :-)The same kind of reasoning as those people that think the world is flat. Ignore research ignore facts.

    Reply
  160. David Gobel said he hopes to make 90 the new 50 by 2030, he does not think LEV will have been achieved by 2030. 2030 is only 12 years away, and it is unlikely that all 7 (or 9) areas of damage will have reasonably comprehensive therapies by that date.

    However if you had treatments for damages in 3-5 categories you might be at a point where people are already live longer healthier lives.

    Reply
  161. I really think this will happen even sooner than 2030. If you notice these articles, technological advances are coming faster and faster. At with just the slightest practical advance in longevity, the money that is pouring in for the research will become a flood.

    Reply

Leave a Comment