Medicine 2.0 – Successful Repair of Aging Damage

Antiaging expert Aubrey de Grey says there is a 50% chance that we reach longevity escape velocity by 2035.

This means that the aging damage repair thesis is broadly correct. It also means that the most advanced aging reversal treatments are highly promising. Some treatments will not work and some antiaging companies will fail. However, Aubrey must believe that the current hot antiaging treatments must be highly promising. Having risks of getting a major setback in the theoretical foundation of antiaging and aging reversal would cause multi-decade setbacks in the timeline.

An antiaging funding winter must also have a very low probability.

This would also mean that there would need to be an antiaging funding boom in the next 0-5 years triggered by the first moderately effective antiaging treatments. The broad antiaging scientific community would need to be confident in saying publicly that escape velocity antiaging had a reasonable chance of being achieved with Manhattan Project funding or a COVID vaccine warp speed program. Funding would need to explode from a couple of billion in private funding to tens of billions and then hundreds of billions every year. We would need to get a partial combination treatment or a very effective single treatment deployed within 3-7 years to be remotely on track for longevity escape velocity by 2035.

A broad shift in public perception would need to happen within 3-7 years. Delays in creating multiple antiaging warp speed programs would reduce the odds of a broad and meaningfully comprehensive result by 2035.

Huge achievements and huge shifts would need to start happening on a fairly regular and timely basis to achieve this difficult challenge and transformation on a large population scale.

Aubrey co-founded the Methuselah Foundation in 2001. The Foundation’s mission? is to make 90 the new 50 by 2030. Reaching longevity escape velocity by 2035 means broadly creating the science and medicine to make 90 the new 50 by 2030 and then getting it approved in various jurisdictions around the world.

The Methuselah Mouse prize would need to be won in the next few years. This would be to begin aging reversal treatments on middle-aged mice and have them live to over 5 years on average. This would be equivalent to human ages of 180.

The antiaging and aging reversal treatments could not be the weak equivalent of proper oil changes and tire rotations on a car. Given the wide variation in human health, the treatments would need to broadly rejuvenate immune systems and clear out high levels of aging damage.

Some version of combination Senolytics and Stem cells would need to have a significant effect. More treatments could be needed but there has to be a belief that getting rid of most bad cells and have the means to replace them with young healthy cells is likely foundational to a broad regimen of rejuvenation.

Another potential problem is tissue atrophy, resulting from a massive removal of senescent cells by senolytic drugs. Accumulation of senescent cells varies between tissues during normal aging, being 2% to 5% on average for most tissues, yet up to 25% in the fat tissue. Senescent cells play a role at least in part to support the structure of old tissues and thus their abrupt removal may lead to atrophy, depending on the levels of senescent cells that reside in the tissue.

Recent rapid progress in senolytics revolutionizes the field of aging research and makes it realistic to develop therapeutic strategies for delaying human aging. Although our current understanding of senotherapy is not complete yet, it is a matter of time to improve it through the development of new senolytic and senostatic approaches. With more weapons in our hands, one day it might be possible to treat many age-related diseases as a manner of ‘one-size-fits-all’ and eventually enhance healthy human lifespan.

Just dialing back the aging damage from 90 to 70 would not reduce the chance of dying enough. If you are 70, you currently have between a 1.5% and 2.2% chance of dying every year. Someone who has the health and aging profile of a 50-year-old would have a 0.3 to 0.5% chance of dying every year. If someone had aging repair procedures every decade to restore to 50-year old damage levels then they would have 4-6% chance of dying every decade. This would be about 20-35% chance of dying over 50 years.

This would make 70 the new 35 or 40. This would be 0.15 to 0.25% chance of dying every year or 2-3% every decade. This would be 10-18% over 50 years.

Details of Longevity Escape Velocity – Repairing Damage to Pull Away from Frailty and Death

Frailty is common for people over the age of 70. Frailty basically is where you have about half of the lean muscle mass that you had when you were about 25. Frailty also involves weak bones and diminished lung capacity and reduced organ functions.

Any broadly successful antiaging-aging reversal treatment would have to remove most people from a state of frailty. If this could not be done then it would have no chance of getting close to longevity escape velocity.

There is an antiaging paper that describes 37 health factors that need to be maintained at a non-frail level.

There is a 76-page Methuselah Foundation study of the physical and biological tests to determine what success would mean for someone who is 90 years old to be as healthy as someone who is 50.

The study looks at 37 medical tests or assessments.

Some People Trying Early Versions of Treatments in These Categories

There are a few hundred to few thousand people who are early adopters of early versions of senolytic treatments. The early versions of treatments even if they are in the right category may not work or may not be effective at a truly useful level. The hope is that health would be improved for those at more advanced ages to improve longevity and healthspan while waiting for the hopefully better versions.

The early adopters will in theory continue to upgrade as better treatments become available. This could improve access times by 5-10 years or more versus the general public.

SOURCES- SENS, Aubrey de Grey
Written by Brian Wang,

93 thoughts on “Medicine 2.0 – Successful Repair of Aging Damage”

  1. Nearly every technology and new product is scarce and expensive when it first becomes commercially available….

    Provided government regulation allows it. As well, biotechnology is a far different animal than consumer electronics, which you seem to use as your barometer.

    The fact is, there's a much higher degree of government regulatory burden on anything having to do with healthcare, and you're hard pressed to find one example of biotechnology in the United States that didn't endure over a decade FDA demanded testing, which only added to the cost of consumers.

    The idea of "it will be reserved for the rich and powerful" is mostly untrue…

    Well, Elon Musk is trying to change the calculus on spacecraft, but that has less regulatory hurdles that biotech. SpaceX can envision a new rocket design, and start the process of bring it to fruition as fast as he wants, but the same can't be said of medical technology. Everything in the biotech field, be it pharmaceuticals or prosthetics, has a built-in cost to cover, just not potential lawsuits when the product is released to the general population, but to also cover the years of FDA mandated studies.

    Case in point… the stem cell spray gun… … over a decade in the making, and still not widely available.

    But my real point, in the end, the elite of society don't want the hoi polloi living 150+ years and they'll do everything to put barriers in front of that.

  2. social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but then I think they will already be gone by 2035.

    The US national income was $21T in 2019 and SS benefits of $1T & Medicare et al $1.1T.

    I wouldn't worry, I think everything will be just fine. Most of the people's chosen elected officials simply prefer to avoid the further taint of socialism for as long as they can possibly put it off.

    2035 there will be celebrations of more socialism or 45M retired Americans will be seeking their daily bread in the nearest landfill.

  3. OTOH, a lot more people that currently pay them next to nothing, suddenly are hooked on periodic rejuvenation treatments. Don't be so sure that they won't profit.

  4. It makes more financial sense for governments to keep the population young-like and productive, than pay pension and healthcare expenses for ever-more old and frail.

    Rejuvenation treatment subsidies can be substituted for pension (choose one or the other, not both) by both goverments and insurance companies. The former has better ROI.

    As for the medical companies, they'd want to maximize their profits. That means expand their market. You can expect them to use their lobby power to promote that.

    Btw, cellphones were only for the rich initially too. Now they're everywhere. The rich are often the early adopters, but it rarely stops there.

  5. yes my dentist pointed out that teeth wearing out is a mechanical problem that anti-ageing drugs won't fix. Eyes are probably less of a problem, they can likely regenerate.

  6. Big pharma have a huge problem if people stop or reverse ageing. Suddenly the demand will plummet for many of their very profitable drugs. Their income heavily depends on people getting age related diseases.

  7. The masses will be replaced by the sons and daughters of the long living people.
    These will be with higher IQ. And will be able to afford rejuvenation technologies.

    On the other hand, I think these therapies, when mass deployed, will be reasonably cheap.
    The positive part is idiots and stupids and psychopathic rarely live long and prosper anyway.

    But smart people, with the opportunity of living forever, will not put up with the idea of enduring eternity under some stupid government preying on their wealth.

  8. I agree.
    The best thing is to keep the government meddling with their bureaucracies away from science. Otherwise it become politicized, real science suffer and progress halt.

  9. Thanks a great deal. Sounds like I'm going to have to start fasting again, just when I've gotten old enough it's not required of me.

  10. I once worked with some fancy machine parts that looked like they should cost around 30 bucks apiece. Instead, they cost tens of thousands each (and would cost a lot more nowadays), because an entire factory had to be tooled to make them, and only a few hundred were ever going to be needed — but they were absolutely essential.

    That's the same way a lot of stuff we buy in Wal-Mart would be if there weren't a lot of people buying it. Even billionaires wouldn't be happy with paying those kind of prices.

  11. Indefinite lifespans is also referred to by some as the "biological singularity." This is because what would emerge on the other side is probably not something we can anticipate (just as nomads that planted grass seeds so they could make beer the next time they roamed back, never envisioned that this thing — that we call agriculture — would lead to the rise of cities and what that, in turn, would lead to).

    Our last singularity was the internet around 1993, which followed electronics in the 1930s. The next is due in the early 2020's (cognitive automation), followed by one in the 30s (hopefully indefinite lifespans) a couple in the 40s (possibly either narrow or general AI, and the man-machine interface). Then things just go bonkers in the early 2050's.

    If you buy into technological singularities.

  12. So far as pensions, social security and such? Right, at some point, they become unsustainable. It which case laws change and they get to do lump sum buy outs. And don't expect much from social security, at best they will probably just start decreasing it until it is zero (because the money was already stolen by Congress generations ago).

    As far as overpopulation? I expect the only countries with masses of people able to afford radical life extension will be ones that are already falling below sustainment levels on population (and not all of those). Also, what is the price of losing someone with a lifetime of experience? It takes decades to produce skilled workers. Doctors can spend up to half their adult working years in education and training. Extending lives solves many problems, including how to take care of so many old people.

    Do you believe the people that would have been old and infirm will still retire and be liabilities to society? Probably not, at least not for very long. Even most rich people work. The difference being that they work at what they want to work at, and when and where they want to work at it, and that's not a bad thing at all.

  13. Unlikely, but let's say it costs ten dollars a day. That's three hundred dollars a month for you (and again for your spouse and any other loved ones that can't afford it themselves.

    That won't stop people in industrial countries that want it. Some won't. And some won't keep up with it. That's in the nature of people.

    What about the third world? Won't the masses riot when they see their elites become quasi-immortal while it is an impossible expense for them? Meh, probably not. The have-nots in those kind of societies put up with a lot of inequity, in many cases much worse, and always have. That also seems to be in the nature of people.

  14. Keeping everyone young would have a remarkable effect on medical treatment expenditures as the bulk of medical expenses in a person's lifetime are incurred in old age.

    As for eyes? I rather expect at some point that bionic eyes will be considered preferable to the real thing. There is also serious work being done to produce tooth buds that could be implanted and grown into new teeth. Arthur C. Clarke once speculated that it might even be possible to some day alter such buds so as to produce teeth that are primarily made of diamond (which, admittedly, is a form of carbon, already one of our 4 main constituents).

  15. I'm not sure that atrophy of fat tissue, in particular, as a result of clearing senescent cells, is that big an issue.

    Granted, fat has some functions beyond merely storing energy, such as cushioning organs, and creating some of the facial features, but most people would actually appreciate a bit of fat 'atrophy'.

  16. Are there any parallel developments in optics and dentistry? Or are we all going to end up 150 years old with a 30 year old physique, jam jar glasses and dentures? I joke, of course, but I think there is a semi-serious question in there somewhere, since those two areas in particular tend to fall under a separate remit due to cultural and historical reasons. It will be interesting to see how everything is amalgamated in the future. I'm from the UK, so I understand it's probably not quite the same in the US; although I know Aubrey is English, so he might share my perspective and, of course, from a UK standpoint we have the NHS to consider – that might be an interesting point of questioning too. Does he see this as necessitating a gradual shift to privatised healthcare in the UK, or does he imagine treatment being available for free on the NHS at some point? (That idea probably sounds very weird to Americans, I know!) Is that what he is eluding to when he talks about it being rolled out to everyone eventually as it ultimately saves costs, which I imagine that it would in fact do; after all, there's a lot of wealth currently locked up in ill health – money spent on medicines, surgeries, treatments, social care, hospices, managing chronic illnesses, and millions of lost work hours; all of which could be unlocked by defeating the big diseases and, ultimately, ageing itself.

  17. I'm mostly curious about what can affordably be done today to stretch things out while waiting. It would be nice if there were a regularly updated "best practices" for slowing aging.

  18. you say "…reserved for the wealthy and connected…" this is disingenuous. he obviously meant 'due to price', the wealthy and connected will most likely get a disproportionate amount earlier. If not, he is delusional. No one refuses to let a poor person pay a ridiculously high price for something.
    Though, i do agree that there have probably been things developed for elites – maybe special medications for the political reps meant to survive a nuclear war – experimental anti-raditation drugs, etc. One of a kind things. Maybe things for astronauts or those subject to special conditions. Good homework assignment to find out what.

  19. you overvalue the 'low-risk living comfort' of the species over the value of individual 'informed' choice. Technology does not advance well under such a value system.

  20. T2 Diabetic? There may be some progress in treating that:

    "Researchers from the Netherlands have developed a novel therapy which
    has been seen to reduce or completely alleviate insulin dependency in a
    small group of type 2 diabetes patients. The research, presented at UEG
    Week 2020, could have drastic implications for the treatment of the
    disease if it can validate these early results during further study."


  21. 73 here, but I'm T2 diabetic. I have an odd feeling that I'll make it, unless there's warfare in the southeastern US.
    It occurred to me 20 years ago, that there was a chance I could be in the first group of people to reach indeterminate life span. That's what comes of reading science fiction novels. I initially thought that if I could make it to 2029, I'd have a good chance. Running a bit late.

  22. Yeah, I was hoping Poppy Bush would mysteriously start seeming younger, or maybe just mysteriously disappear. I'm now watching George Soros, and *President Biden with interest. So far, *President Biden continues to deteriorate.

  23. What about the American revolution? I'd say the American Republic is much better than the British Monarchy it replaced on it's territory.

  24. The most important social/cultural/economic development since the agricultural, and industrial revolutions that made reaching old age a common thing.

  25. Government financed healthcare would make care worse for the average patient. What is needed is the elimination of the FDA, and a return to an environment similar to that before thalidomide.
    There is one area of medicine that has lowered costs in both nominal, and real terms over the last 20 years, cosmetic surgery. That's because it deals with less red tape, and government oversight since it is not paid with insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, and because patients seek out better value for their money.

  26. More like the early adopters will be the test subjects for the first treatments, and finance the development of better treatments. You can certainly make money catering to the wealthy, but to make the really big bucks you need to sell to the middle class.
    Consider the difference in the profits of Rolls Royce, compared to Toyota.

  27. I would say that aging escape velocity would destroy all defined benefit pensions, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but then I think they will already be gone by 2035.
    As for overpopulation, until mind downloads are available, I propose life extension be offered only to the childless. Those who have made children have already chosen their preferred immortality.

  28. At least some of the agents will get through the regulatory nightmare as nutrional supplements. Others will pass as medical procedures that are regulated by the states. Is a replenishment of stem cells that different than a skin(tissue) graft, which has stem cells in it? Particularly if the stem cells are autologous, the medical procedure argument will be easy to make.

  29. Consider what is now spent on women's cosmetics, and cosmetic plastic surgery. Imagine what would be spent if treatments actually made recipients look younger, feel younger, and perform more youthfully. I doubt funding will be a problem.

    Escape velocity in '35, so maybe a half year gained per year in '30?

  30. Uhm either one of those are the same thing xD
    You arbitrarily choose to age, or to not age.

    Signing off, gn

  31. Do you mean: Because most people don't seem ready to deal with the consequences of arbitrary NOT aging.

  32. So, if the world's most powerful politicians, say US presidential candidates, suddenly started being older and older with each election?

  33. 18th century?

    Do you really think that iron and steel would have been developed without kings and lords pushing for arms and armour? That clockwork would have been developed without a duke wanting a fancy time telling machine? That oceanic sailing vessels would be made without Prince Henry the Navigator and Zheng He pushing for a deliberate technology development program?

    No, we wouldn't be at the 18th century.

  34. And it'll probably eventually reach the point where not using said tech makes you such a drain on the public health spending that it will become mandatory to use at least a minimum level.

    Fill in "rejuvenation technology" or "physical exercise" as appropriate.

  35. In what way would future medical advances be reserved for the wealthy and connected when this hasn't happened for the previous centuries of medical advances?

    Or for that matter advances in transport technology (cars, planes were once the preserve of super rich "jet set"), telecommunications (I remember when a mobile phone was limited to Wall Street or Hollywood big wigs), air conditioning, refrigerators, home electrification….

    Can you actually point to any example at all?

  36. civil disobedience has never lead to any proactive change, just previous and obvious injustices and only in a formal way (not necessarily generally accepted) rather than a culturally-accepted way – Arab Spring – total bust and useless. Anti-ageing – just some rich country's way of increasing inequality. Fighting ageing will simply be healthy and rich people integrating extra-healthy interventions to live an extra 5, 10, 20+ years. The Bell curve just got fatter at the bottom. No Ageing-Victory Day – just the ambitious and privileged taking advantage — all others just living it as they always have — unless they put 'It' in the water or make it multi-vitamin cheap.

  37. Yes.
    Other concerns for the average person, longevity as a service leading to indentured servitude or a 30 year longevity mortgage. Work a low wage job to pay it off just in time for your next treatment, instead of just in time for one foot in the grave as with current practice.

  38. I am putting article(s) together. But a preview is that there has not been a breakthrough in antiaging science. The streamlining of vaccine development in response to COVID is a restructuring which will help speed the distribution and development for antiaging once antiaging treatments get accepted as being close and achievable. If a foundational pillar of preventing the next pandemic has "strengthen or rejuvenate immune systems" then that would defacto incorporate large scale work towards antiaging.

  39. What's naive about government handouts (whether it's medicare or corporate bailouts) being overwhelmingly supported by the electorate of one of the nations most likely to lead the way?

    Curing aging is not going to be just another fad. It is arguably the single most important social issue in the history of mankind. It isn't going to just go up for a vote and then slip out of people's minds.

    People have voted en masse, rioted, changed nationality, cheated and killed, etc, for less.

  40. of course, if it weren't for the 'skills and drive' of the wealthy and connected we would all still be 18th century savages living on our own self-taught skills and common sense knowledge. Most wealthy and connected are almost top 10% in motivation, productivity, creativity — from early age on through — very few who don't deserve to be wealthy remain wealthy in the G7. Most good things (basic infrastructure) were built by bad people (narcisists and wealth-at-all-costers). Disparage not the self-interested, self-righteous, and selfish who made it — it's the essence of capitalism and western society.

  41. there will be a 'point' of success – that one first time where we instigated a procedure that 'tipped' us over to the Possible. That will be the kernel of the whole regime of interventions. But i agree – many will be more suitable and easier patients.

  42. In the US, it takes up to ten years and up to a $1.3 billion dollars to get a new drug through the regulatory process and made available to the public. These are phase 1-5. How does that factor into his timeline projections? Are we looking at ten years to start the process, or ten years to complete the process?

    "A new study in 2020 estimated that the median cost of getting a new drug into the market was $985 million, and the average cost was $1.3 billion, which was much lower compared to previous studies, which have placed the average cost of drug development as $2.8 billion.
    Cost of drug development – Wikipedia"

    "Drug Development Phases
    Phase 1: Discovery and Development.
    Phase 2: Preclinical Research.
    Phase 3: Clinical Research.
    Phase 4: FDA Review.
    Phase 5: FDA Post-Market Safety Monitoring.
    Stages of New Drug Development – Investopedia"

  43. not convinced that it will: simply 'become commercially available'. There are likely so many interventions, commitments, expenses, side effects, non-responsive patients, various means and methods of prescribing, etc. I think it'll be more like physical exercise — a million ways of doing it from cheap and easy to having a strict, multi-disciplinarian super-team with hours of weekly commitments and untold $1000s. The key will be the monitoring: are you still dying? — or is your body and its interventions overcoming the damage? Monitor and repeat. It may be a simple procedure once-a-week for the already super-healthy, self-care crowd and constant 'tear-down' attention for the Keith Richards out there.

  44. agreed. it wouldn't be necessary if it came like a minimum wage – basic service with all jobs and EI. You can agree to take on as little or much as you can afford or what your work benefits provide. Going completely without is like driving without insurance – fools game.

  45. need a craig ventner type 'map the genome' kind of initiative. Govt vs private — enable reduced oversight and quick-and-simple clinical trials

  46. Yes, human brains consume 30% of the body (resting) energy, and there is not that much to do. So even starving the rest of the body helps only moderately

  47. The original SENS program is based on the idea that aging consists of exactly seven categories of damage, and that eliminating these types of damage from an aged organism would result in rejuvenation. Given Aubrey's past commitments, I'm sure he'd answer that the treatments he is interested in will have immediate benefit to already-aged people (as, indeed, senolytics actually seem to have as based on recently published results in humans). I'm one of the "early adopters" of senolytics btw, foxo4-dri, and dasatinib + quercetin.

  48. Nearly every technology and new product is scarce and expensive when it first becomes commercially available.

    Then they gradually improve and become commonplace and cheap, if they're allowed to follow their development path without major statist interference.

    The idea of "it will be reserved for the rich and powerful" is mostly untrue. Except for a few things like space travel, which really has remained the domain of the rich and powerful due to its very high entry barrier and the creation of bureaucratic entities 'owning' it.

    Or nuclear energy, which is heavily regulated and out of reach of normal people. But the technology itself would be very cheap by now if it wasn't so surrounded by regulation, due to some real and a few imagined dangers.

    By the way: some things are fine to keep out of public's reach, I'm not arguing against that. Radioactive pollution isn't a transient problem, but a persistent, cumulative one, and it makes a lot of sense to keep the technology under locks to stop untrusted parties from having access to it.

  49. In fact, to make it effective you need a large usebase for statistics and testing and optimizing. You cannot perfect it with a tiny number of cases.

  50. It will be prioretized to wealthy and connected as all good things in life. But once possible there is only question of R&D to make it cheap(er) and available. Now you cannot get it at any cost. Ask Steve Jobs and Buffet

  51. Indeed with calorie restriction alone the murine lifespan can be increased up to 45%. For primates and humans this approach seems to add at most 10%. There is a huge difference in healthspan, though. …Especially for the ones prone to obesity and access to easy calories…

  52. what about upgrades and augmentations? also, if the therapy requires many hours a week of commitment and $1000s who will want to live longer for that… MJackson lived in an oxygen tank for a large part of his day… worth it?

  53. G7 socialized medicine is about choice not mediocrity… the wealthy and motivated can still seek out private clinics. Its about raising all boats, even if some can still almost touch the floor still. The sheer number of participants also has an economics of scale benefit — witness drug prices. No one goes without but all have opportunity. No down side unless you feel a few extra points of tax receipt is money poorly spent. The top 10% who exercise their private option get equal or better service to any elite private clinic and the remaining get life improving benefits — how this bottom 90% compares to the wide range of 'insured' coverage through work, etc., is open for debate.

  54. agreed. get to the first 120-yr old by 2040 based on a methodical therapeutic system of more money pooled into fewer approaches.

  55. It's about investors, visionaries, reining in the various 'approaches' to allow a focused business approach, and creating a methodology that works within the FDA — look at cosmetic surgery, they do much and get funded much and improve much — yet oversight is less obstructionist. Don't throw all the SENS approaches against the Wall and see what sticks – focus. Do 3 in 5 years than 7 in 20 years — show progress – you want accelerated progress, show early results. Better to spend $500M in a dedicated way over 5 years, than $50B in a haphazard way over 20 years.

  56. Ageing is factored into human biology and it is a mechanism actively promoted by evolution in species that are not subject to extensive predation. Cellular senescence contrasts the onset of early (or relatively early) tumor development and tissue ageing reduces the metabolic upkeep costs (even considering that senescent tissues are less energy efficient). How do age reversal therapies account for the differences in mice at cellular level (mouse cells have long telomeres and express telomerase while human cells don't) and at full body level (mice have a very different metabolism compared to primates given their small size, relatively short lifespan, reduced energy upkeep for their brains, presence of hibernation mechanisms and so on…)? All this to say that mice age reversal could be way easier and not representative of what to do in humans

  57. How applicable is being able to extend the lifespans of some of the shortest living mammals (mice) when it comes to applying the findings to some of the longest living mammals (humans)?
    What can people do today, either on their own or with a doctor's prescription, beyond the obvious things like diet (including choloric restriction), exercise, elimination of smoking and drinking, to extend lifespans? I'm assuming if one does all the above, then healthspan is already increased.
    2035 is too far off. What can be done to speed up the timeline of available treatments, outside the mice lab?

  58. Tens of millions will die every year through 2036 – maybe a billion deaths by then.
    Is everything that can reasonably be done, getting done?
    Is funding a significant bottleneck?

    For those who are too old and aren't likely 'escape', is any of the on-going research likely to yield results sooner that could offer a modest increase of healthier old age? Or is it going to be 'all or nothing'?

  59. He has defined Robust Mouse Rejuvenation as making a bunch of already 2 year old mice and making them live to 5 years old on average, rather than 1 more year on average. How many and what types of damage removal does he think are necesary to achieve this given that senolytics only seem to extend mouse lifespan by 25 to 30%?

  60. If it becomes inexpensive like the human genome mapping, How and why would it be reserved for the wealthy and connected? Great advances generally are not reserved that way.

  61. What challenges does he see from society and government to expediate?
    One of the worst fears will be that this will be available only for the rich. What does Aubrey think about it?
    Staying longer might increase loneliness, boredom etc how will human tackle this?

  62. Are the benefits of anti-aging therapies likely to mainly apply to long term use – analogous to needing to continuously tend to one's health – or will some be of near-immediate benefit to someone who is already old? It seems like the latter would be far easier to validate… so if there are to be any aging reversal therapies, might they arrive sooner than those that resist the effects of aging?

  63. You're naive. Everything is rationed… either by price or availability, which is why cancer treatment under socialized systems take months before it starts, provided the patient doesn't die waiting.

  64. What are the known, proven ways to mitigate aging right now (excluding known things exercise, fasting, diet). Things like hormone therapy, supplements, etc. Or even the most promising.

  65. I’d be interested in hearing his thoughts on the Conboy’s most recent work with blood substitution not using young plasma but saline and albumin. Thanks

    And along those lines, Harold Katcher had made some pretty stunning claims that Steve Horvath seems to be vouching for- at least in terms of epigenetic reversal.

    I’d be very interested in hearing Aubrey’s take in that as well.

  66. Because somehow the overwhelming majority of people will refuse to vote for an improved version of universal healthcare.

  67. What political obstacles does he foresee. At least local to him, and if interview time permits, in the world at large.

    Because most people don't seem ready to deal with the consequences of arbitrary aging.

  68. It would be useful to know if 2036 means

    • when such treatments are appearing in the lab or
    • when such treatments are available at my local clinic

    Because that's a big difference in practical terms

  69. It would be good to know his thinking that underlies/justifies his 2036 prediction.

    I tend to be interested in current related developments so I can gauge how far along r&d has come. Although, I tend to be less interested in actual predictions themselves because I believe the timings of technological breakthroughs cannot be predicted.

  70. I am going to talk to Aubrey tomorrow. Let me know what questions you want me to ask. I have interviewed and spoken with Aubrey dozens of times. His confidence around major developments must be very, very high based upon new data and results. He also has to see a very good path to near perfect rejuvenation and damage repair. But I will update after my conversation tomorrow.

Comments are closed.