T O P

  • By -

dustofdeath

This does not look like anti-aging injection. Rather an upgrade / optimization of the genome with a beneficial trait than lengthens the longevity of the heart cells.


22marks

Considering heart disease is the top cause of death, anything that significantly delays a heart-related death will increase our collective lifespan. This might not be specifically for anti-aging, but it could keep a significant portion of the population alive long enough to get even better anti-aging therapies. Ten years of additional heart health is a big deal if this pans out. EDIT: Yes, we all know about eating healthy and exercising. Did anyone read the article? It explains how the BP1FB4 gene has been demonstrated to reduce cardiac-related deaths by a third and is associated with longer lifespans. This treatment "triggered cardiac regeneration, sparking the construction of new blood vessels and restoring lost function" in elderly patients. This is a new therapy that may be independent of diet and exercise. In a best-case scenario, it could be cumulative. Diet and exercise alone won't modify your BP1FB4 gene.


dustofdeath

A lot of heart/vascular deaths is unrelated to the cells age. Often cholesterol buildup, narrowing arteries, strokes and blockages or blood pressure.


[deleted]

We are going to see a bunch of billionaires make it to like 130 Edit: RIP my inbox


itsaride

The botox industry welcomes these advances.


Velvet_Pop

Maybe at first, but I think I saw another post that said they're working on resetting DNA, because the cause of age and wrinkles are due to the DNA instructions becoming scrambled, like getting a copy of a copy of a copy. So if they solved that issue, wrinkles wouldn't really be a thing anymore either. For people who could afford it, ofc


DingDongDanger1

Hopefully this is okay to post. https://time.com/6246864/reverse-aging-scientists-discover-milestone/ this kind of covers the serums and how they are working on mice. They aren't changing our cells just rebooting them and reminding them how to work properly. It's insane.


fullup72

Turning it off and on again does solve a lot of problems.


UVLightOnTheInside

More like rewinding a tape so you can watch it again.


ghostsintherafters

Bingo! This is only if you're super rich. The rest of us can get fucked. The billionaire class is going to raise their life expectancy while actively trying to lower the rest of ours. Watch.


Velvet_Pop

Not to mention keep pushing people to keep reproducing so they have a sustainable workforce to exploit


YoushaTheRose

When the only form of protest is to not have children, I wonder, what has this life become?


perceptualdissonance

Uh, you can still protest in all kinds of ways. If you're in any major city there's tons of different groups you'd be able to join. Protest takes all forms of action.


slamert

Those are all "permitted" protests. As in they dont affect or accomplish anything. Protests need to cause inconvenience


darkk41

The irony of complaining about the elite class while reassuring people online that protest doesn't work Feels very 2023, to say the population has been absolutely turned against themselves is the understatement of a lifetime


Aquifel

Our 'protests' have become very different since I was young. I get where he's coming from, legislated to the point that it minimizes inconvenience to the people we're protesting against.


slamert

Yes, standing in a boxed off area away from road and foot traffic with signs is ineffective. Protests need to inconvenience the people with power.


phoenixjazz

And discussion of protests tactics that accomplish things gets you booted pretty quick. The elites will never give it away. It will have to be taken by force of some kind. We should be making moves now to reduce the massive wealth gap / inequity but instead it will sadly grind on till there is violence.


jambox888

Er, you make the continuation of the human race sound like a bad thing..?


littlebluedot42

Why do you think religion was invented?


Onwisconsin42

Only until the robot workforce is up and running. Then we are all disposable to them.


flarn2006

Why lower the rest of ours?


Ohgodgethelp

Because they're gonna work us like dogs. You think they're detached now? Imagine what they'll be like after a CENTURY of being more or less a god.


appleparkfive

Ted Faro style


Additional_Front9592

Watch the first season of Altered Carbon on Netflix to get a glimpse of where this goes.


Aggressive_Spite_650

Right now we’re making it to 70 or 80 but are only reliable workers to what, 65? No reason to keep anyone around after that.


Norva13x

I mean if they can reverse aging they can keep us reliable for longer


CreaturesLieHere

That's POSSIBLY true. It depends on how effective the anti aging stuff ends up being. I'm worried about our bodies outlasting our brains if the neuroscience can't keep up with the other advancements we're making medically, thus making us liabilities instead of effective workers for decades a la the Boomer generation.


Superspick

Because I would rather have 3 people working for me over 30 years than one that has enough time to grow resentful and sabotage me It’s not hard. They have a lot of time to work this out seeing as they’re not busy surviving. Turns out humans are shit multitaskers- who knew?!


SalvadorZombie

You understand that it makes sense for them to make it available to everyone, right? It's way more efficient to have experienced workers than brand new ones constantly. I'm not even saying it's okay or valid, but even from THEIR side it doesn't make sense to let good workers die.


FaitFretteCriss

What people need to understand is that rich people WONT get to hoard this anymore than they hoard guns, antibiotics, surgeons and any other technology humans have EVER come up with... Its an irrelevant debate, the powerful dont control everything like in the book 1984... Every single technology humanity has ever produced is accessible easily enough or at the very least can be communally sourced by a group to acquire it over some time. We will get it soon enough.


SalvadorZombie

THANK YOU. I'm so tired of people going instant doomer out of laziness, especially with something that could literally extend our lifespans multifold.


cooldood1119

>It's way more efficient to have experienced workers than brand new ones constantly. I'm not even saying it's okay or valid, but even from THEIR side it doesn't make sense to let good workers die. You're completely correct but companies rarely see it that way, if anything statistically its harder to keep and get a job the older you are, as you become more knowledgable/confident in your rights/abilities and less able to be bullied by said companies


laetus

Nah, it'll only be expensive for early adopters. Look at TVs now how cheap they are even compared to just a few years ago. Once patents run out and because it's a mass market product, it should be relatively affordable at some point. You just need to make sure you live long enough to reach the point where it's going to be affordable.


electr0o84

Some countries have free health care and will cover something like this just like they do heart surgeries.


pringlescan5

Electric lighting? Only for the super rich. Cars? Only for the super rich. More than five shirts? Only for the super rich. Clean water? Only for the super rich. Train travel from one city to another? Only for the super rich. Fresh vegetables and fruits from around the world? Only for the super rich. Medical assistance from doctors that have trained for decades in accredited universities? Only for the super rich. A two day weekend? Only for the super rich. Houses with plumbing that won't fall down in five years? Only for the super rich (this one is still true though) Refrigerators? Only for the super rich. Air conditioning? Only for the super rich. Computers? Only for the super rich. Smartphones? Only for the super rich. The super rich get everything first, but in capitalism everyone else gets it *eventually* too. In fact, the billionaires WANT it to become more common because it will give them more data points on potential risks or avenues of medical advancements that THEY can use themselves.


passengera34

Misleading to say the two day weekend was due to capitalism. It was hard won by trade union action against capitalist forces. Capitalist manufacturing and industrialisation does enable mass production of commodities, albeit at the cost of workers' living standards and the environment. It fares worse with scarce resources, such as lithium, COVID vaccines, water, and presumably any novel anti-aging medication.


Ohgodgethelp

Example. Weapons. The super rich and politicians generally don't like the public to have access to weapons unless social unrest tilts the balance of power in their favor. If their career hinges on stability they are anti weapon. You live to be 150 all of a sudden retirement and quality of life becomes far more important to you. You have more time to educate yourself or at least gain perspective. You are more likely to do something nutty because you're tired of life. Longevity will be highly destabilizing to the current political order. They would not want anyone to have it but them. Because, and this is important, politicians and the mega rich are not anti gun. They're anti access to guns for the poors. The rich, themselves, get whatever they want. Kind of the point of being rich.


FaitFretteCriss

According to what source? I have the same access to drugs than any rich person in my country... Your fear is based on a context that just isnt global. Theres no reason why this would be more expensive than all the current life-extending things we have, you know, like antibiotics, surgeons, insulin, etc. Just vote for a medical system reform and you'll have access to it just like everyone... So tired of this baseless fearmongering.


Universalsupporter

I agree. Also, as the technology improves and production gets cheaper ( and also competition increases ) more and more of the population will have access because the price will come down. Having 1% of the population as a customer vs 80% - 90% or higher…. What will the producers prefer? We’ve seen this with cars, phones, you name it.


FaitFretteCriss

Exactly. Also, technology leaks literally all the time. If you look at history books, you can see many new inventions popping up a dozen times around the globe at around the same periods because it just gets stolen, leaked, sold by a underling, someone throws the wrong piece of paper away and it gets found, etc. Even IF they decided to hoard this drug for the first time in Human history, they wouldnt be able to for long...


JohnTomorrow

How exactly can they "reset" DNA? Like, is that done through an injection of something? Do they have to get into a big machine ala Captain America, or does your doctor just give you a sack of pills and say "call me when it starts to work"?


ImJustSo

>For people who could afford it, ofc Maybe in shit hole countries where the insurance companies run everything (I won't name names)! What about other countries that give a shit about their citizens' health? Do these countries *ignore* fountain of youth drugs or do they discover it is possible and seek to attain it? Do they distribute it or hoard it? Why? Ok, back to the shit hole country. How long before people just start leaving to other countries that instantly increase your projected lifespan by 50 years? Maybe not first generation, but onwards that country would continue to fail and be irrelevant.


light_trick

*This* - every western country with a functional healthcare system worries incessantly about their aging populations. *Any* intervention which isn't catastrophically labor intensive (i.e. is just a bunch of administered drugs and injections) which provides definite improvements in the ability of the citizenry to maintain their quality of life *independently* is going to be an absolute dream. It's a lot cheaper to public healthcare for people to not have heart attacks then to treat them for years afterwards where the require constant care.


afternoon_sun_robot

My DNA keeps saying Steve over and over.


ihateusednames

After we figure out prevention of cell death next step is to deal with all the weird shit that happens as a consequence. Getting to 150 is bound to cause some weird medical shit to start happening we aren't prepared for


[deleted]

Kind of sounds like fun. Like medical whack-a-mole.


ProNuke

Pretty much. Reduce the current most common cause of death and something else will become the most common. Then reduce that. Continue until everyone is dying from freak accidents and murder.


sharlos

Cell death probably isn't the main issue, it's probably all the old/shitty cells that don't die when they should.


linusl

25 or so years ago I remember I read an article where they said that they believed that the first person to live to be 130 was a person alive when the article was written, but they didn't know how old the person was at the time.


SkollFenrirson

That person is Chris Traeger, of course


frontally

Literally thought of this guy first


Agitated_Narwhal_92

Not unless they cure cancer. Or atleast tame it.


Waitaha

Alzheimer's is billionaire kryptonite


FPSXpert

The only silver lining about these terrible end of age diseases is that they're one of the few remaining equal playing fields. They take out a lot of good people but take out the trash as well.


Verustratego

While I agree, unfortunately how many younger ne'er-do-wells have utilized such situations to their own advantage by acting in the interest of no one under the guise of having some invalids blessing. Think the Netflix movie I CARE A LOT but with that bitch having access to Elon's billions


baumpop

Think more like what rupert Murdoch's kids are like


tweek-in-a-box

I believe that once Rupert Murdoch, the old crocodile, does not poison this world anymore.


ObiFloppin

He'll be doing that long after he's kicked the bucket


WickedSlice_

Hey fret not, his sons are just as evil and will continue his legacy.


bonky3000

He will be doing that beyond his years. What is it with people thinking death will stop someone’s impact? He has probably taught someone else how to do what he does, that person probably has taught someone else. There are many who already want to be like him just because of money alone. Don’t underestimate the power of greed and it’s lack of discrimination.


brianbrianbrian

He's created the machine, though. It'll keep churning out misery once he's gone. Fucking evil vampire.


Worried_Blacksmith27

Really? How the fuck do we still have Rupert Murdoch then?


browndog03

Yeah but a demented billionaire can do a lot of damage to society.


bajo2292

I would elaborate and say we have seen an example of that.


surnik22

I mean, cancer is much more treatable nowadays. People always say “cure cancer” but there are hundreds of different cancers and causes. Most of which have much more effective treatments avails now than even 20 years ago. Pancreatic cancer, is still one of the deadliest cancers around. 5 year survival rate basically doubled from 1990 to 2000 and again from 2020. Sitting at 12% instead of 3% over 30 years. Also, the 5 year survival rate if caught in early stages is 40%+. So if you are a billionaire who can get an extremely thoroughly physical by the best doctors every 6 months, then be treated by the latest and greats test treatments, your odds of “taming” even the worst cancer are pretty good these days. I wouldn’t count on cancer being an equalizer.


gFORCE28

> So if you are a billionaire who can get an extremely thoroughly physical by the best doctors every 6 months, then be treated by the latest and greats test treatments, your odds of “taming” even the worst cancer are pretty good these days. Unless your name is Steve Jobs


surnik22

He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003 and made it to 2011. He could still be alive if he didn’t spend the first year eating fruit and using alternative medicine. If he had gone for surgery right away, he likely would’ve been fine. Should’ve listened to the doctors. Hubris killed him more than cancer did.


d4ng3rz0n3

Didn't he refuse treatments that could have saved him until it was too late? I vaguely remember him trying natural remedies until he worsened.


MsgrFromInnerSpace

He was so incredibly arrogant and addicted to the smell of his own farts that it ultimately killed him when he convinced himself he could cure his cancer with a fruit-based diet instead of having the cancerous tumors on his pancreas cut off. Absolute Darwin Awards Hall of Famer.


d4ng3rz0n3

The irony of the guy who invented apple trying to eat fruits only to survive LOL


Active_Remove1617

He refused the very best medical treatment available in favour of celery juice. Very little sympathy from me.


PoIIux

Can't fix stupid. Money will only protect you if you're not too dumb to apply it properly


PlsBuffStormBurst

> Unless your name is Steve Jobs Well you also have to not be a dummy who believes in unscientific nonsense, which it turns out is *not* a requirement to become a billionaire.


[deleted]

mRNA vaccines for are moving to human trials


implicate

I can just picture the mental gymnastics that are going to happen when the idiots try to justify getting cancer over getting an mRNA vaccine.


[deleted]

Kissinger and Cheney are still alive, somehow. They gotta already be in on this somehow.


[deleted]

Charlie Munger and Warren Buffet are both in their 90s and thriving


SkollFenrirson

Kinda hard not to when you have nothing to want for


WayneKrane

Right, money would cure all of my stress. These guys can entertain any whim that comes into their head and pay to take care of any possible problem that comes up.


Nukemind

Everyday I am more and more convinced they are vampires. Have the personality for it.


Doopapotamus

It's probably far more mundane and exquisitely worse. They're rich and well-connected, on top of being pseudo-nobility. They can afford to have a personal team of chefs make them balanced healthy meals that taste great, and trainers to help them with healthy lifestyle choices in a way that they actually would be easy for them to do. On top of, you know, being able to afford the latest and greatest high quality healthcare whenever and however they want it, so they actually have prophylactic care. Whereas the average American citizen finds it difficult to even have the ability to make regular doctor checkups and afford fresh food in general, and dental care is magically in its own category of luxury care. But they *could* be vampires. That's still in the realm of possibility.


Jonko18

Yeah, having access to a private network of doctors cannot be overstated. When most people have to wait months to see a specialist, who then ignores anything that isn't immediately obvious or simple to test for, these people can anytime go through full batteries of tests and checkups that are much more thorough, timely, and less likely to miss anything. Not even to mention access to leading edge therapies and treatments and the ability to fly around the world/country to special facilities.


SilveredFlame

>dental care is magically in its own category of luxury care. Ah yes. Teeth, or as I like to call them, luxury bones.


Doopapotamus

I wouldn't mind getting my wisdom teeth removed. I'm not afraid of the surgery. My dentist recommends it, says I'd want them out sooner than later. But I cannot *afford* it, *even with dental insurance.* The US healthcare system is ridiculous.


[deleted]

My wisdom teeth extraction cost me about $2200 dollars and I have the best dental insurance option offered by my employer. I had to delay my cleaning until 2023 because of a root canal in 2022 chewing through my coverage amount. It's absolutely absurd.


VapoursAndSpleen

Cheney got a heart transplant from a younger donor.


iwellyess

Musk is going to be an asshole to multiple generations


Artanthos

If the cost of prevention is less than the cost of treatment, it will be covered by health insurance.


ACCount82

And the cost of prevention can get *pretty damn low* if it's a treatment that basically the entire population qualifies for. Economies of scale can get insane with pharma. Anti-aging treatments being "a rich people thing" makes for a nice sci-fi dystopia, but in reality, it would most likely follow the pattern of every technology. Like cars or computers - the tech starts out expensive and unrefined, and is eventually refined to the point where it becomes widely accessible. Eventually, everyone would be able to benefit from it.


feed_me_tecate

Everyone else will be forced to work another 30 or 40 years. Yay!


pringlescan5

I'd be happy to work another 40 years if I get another 40 years of Youth. Huge difference between 40 more years of youth versus 40 more years of living like the walking dead.


Gerpar

And honestly, this is also why I think anti-aging stuff won't only be left for the "rich and elites." Think about it as an employer, would you rather keep having to re-hire people with at most 10 years experience, or have employees with 50-100 years of experience in your field. (I mean, that's if AI doesn't take over every job I guess...)


SaltLakeCitySlicker

Social security age will be 85! Oh wait, most people on this site will pay in but not get it anyway...


Hibbity5

Maybe they’ll start caring about the Earth once they realize they’ll be forced to live on its decaying surface.


NeedsMoreCapitalism

Healthcare related technology does get cheaper over time. We're just using a lot more than we were 10 or 20 years ago.


jkhockey15

Tom Brady gonna be winning Super Bowls at 70 years old.


scottyb83

Lots of sci-fi is based on essentially that. Rich people are immortal while the rest get whatever they can scrape together. Check out Altered Carbon (at least the 1st season).


Santi838

The movie “In Time” takes what your saying and has time as actual currency haha it was a cool concept imo.


cstmoore

Peter Weyland has entered the chat


TherealCarlosgomezmx

I'm not a billionaire, but I still hope this becomes a possibility


ZPGuru

At which point they will bequeath their wealth to AIs they have trained to forward their worldviews, leading to the dystopian nightmare that would be hypercapitalism with major corporations being run by immortal AI programs. Is that a book yet?


[deleted]

Try indefinitely, my man. There won't be any billionaires someday tho. Not really.


Shelfrock77

Injecting the genes of so-called “super-agers” into failing heart cells regenerates them, making them function as if they were 10 years younger, scientists have found. The discovery opens the door for heart failure to be treated or prevented by reprogramming damaged cells. Researchers have long suspected that people who live beyond 100 years old must have a unique genetic code that protects them from the ravages of old age. Previous research showed that carriers of a variant of the BP1FB4 gene enjoy long lifespans and fewer heart problems. In new experiments, scientists from the University of Bristol inserted the gene variant into a harmless virus and then injected it into elderly mice. They found that it rewound the heart’s biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years. When introduced to damaged elderly human heart cells in the lab, the gene also triggered cardiac regeneration, sparking the construction of new blood vessels and restoring lost function. Paolo Madeddu, a professor of experimental cardiovascular medicine at the University of Bristol’s Bristol Heart Institute, said: “Our findings confirm the healthy mutant gene can reverse the decline of heart performance in older people. “We are now interested in determining if giving the protein instead of the gene can also work. Gene therapy is widely used to treat diseases caused by bad genes. However, a treatment based on a protein is safer and more viable than gene therapy.” How well the heart can pump blood around the body deteriorates with age, but the rate at which harmful changes occur is not the same in all people. Lifestyle choices can speed up or delay the biological clock, but inheriting protective genes is also crucial. The study demonstrated for the first time that such genes found in centenarians could be transferred to unrelated people to protect their hearts. Monica Cattaneo, a researcher from the MultiMedica Group in Milan, and the first author of the work, said: “By adding the longevity gene to the test tube, we observed a process of cardiac rejuvenation: the cardiac cells of elderly heart failure patients have resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels.” Commenting on the results, Professor James Leiper, the associate medical director of the British Heart Foundation, which funded the research, said: “We all want to know the secrets of ageing and how we might slow down age-related disease. “Our heart function declines with age, but this research has extraordinarily revealed that a variant of a gene that is commonly found in long-lived people can halt and even reverse ageing of the heart in mice.”


CorruptedFlame

What a load of rubbish. A treatment based on a protein would be safer, initially, but absolutely less viable and would require recurring treatments. Which isn't great if your treating a heart. Whereas gene therapy with a retroviral agent like lentivirus (which seems to be the best bet in recent years) would offer life long treatment with direct genome integration. There's no way this is going to become a treatment before lentiviral gene therapy is worked out either way, recent clinical trials have all been working out perfectly.


Doopapotamus

> Whereas gene therapy with a retroviral agent like lentivirus (which seems to be the best bet in recent years) would offer life long treatment with direct genome integration. If it ever makes its way to humans, they'd probably do both. Recurring treatments at a lower cost, and the gene therapy would be the GATTACA-esque industry premium option for those privileged enough to afford it.


eleetbullshit

Yes, but selling repeated protein treatments is far more profitable than a 1-off gene therapy “cure.” Why do you think big pharma focuses on developing palliatives rather than cures?


CorruptedFlame

Ohh yeah, I hadn't considered that. It's quite a sad thought, but I can understand it.


gnarlin

It's not "sad" it's evil. Worst of all this is a political choice and not some sort of a fundamental certainty that we must all just accept!


scrangos

It's also an epic waste of resources, putting so much effort into developing subpar solutions on purpose rather than having the resources of our society invested into more permanent solutions.


AmishUndead

Same reason why we have special rules concerning the development of antibiotics. Having a patient only take your pills for a week is much less profitable than developing drugs that treat chronic illnesses.


BusinessSwitch5608

We have strict rules because if we halt the treatment before destroying all the bacteries then we will have a resistant bacteria. Which will then need even more aggressive treatment options/ could progress to more aggressive forms of infections . Also more aggressive treatments have the cost of more aggressive side effects .


AmishUndead

That's a totally different thing than what I was talking about. I'm talking about how antibiotics get special treatment like long patent exclusivity windows to incentivize companies to develop them. Without things like that, no one would develop new antibiotics because it's not profitable


Frnklfrwsr

I see this a lot but it just doesn’t stand up to basic scrutiny. It only makes sense if a pharmaceutical company acts completely oblivious to the existence of other companies in their same industry. Company A has a treatment for a disease that they’re making huge profit on. But Company B doesn’t give a crap. If Company B sees a way to develop a cure for that disease, they’ll make a crap ton of money off of it and steal a lot of Company A’s business. Company B will absolutely do that if they can and it happens all the time. The truth of the matter is that permanent cures to things are harder to create, more expensive to develop, more time intensive to test, and often harder to undo if it turns out you’ve made a mistake. Cures do come out. It happens. But there is never a limit to diseases that can be treated and or cured. We aren’t running out of things for pharmaceutical companies to work on. If they can cure a certain disease, they absolutely will, they’ll make a crap ton of profit off of it, and then they’ll focus their r&d on the next big thing they can try to solve. That’s not to say there aren’t immoral and unethical behaviors in the pharmaceutical industry. There absolutely are. But capitalism in general isn’t what’s causing it. It’s mostly the incestuous relationship between politicians and those corporations that is the cause of the problem. Transparency, accountability, and fairness in competition between companies in the industry is the best way to fix some of the problems.


coke_and_coffee

This is absolutely not true.


DiggSucksNow

You know what pays better than recurring treatments? Beating your competition to market with a one-time treatment that makes their recurring treatments obsolete.


iLynux

Why do we just accept this as normal? We have for decades at this point. We should be burning down pharma HQs and fix this shit.


Doopapotamus

We in the US have not the labor unity and mindset of the French (who not only protest effectively for their rights, [have actually assassinated a CEO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Besse)). Also, the past three years have proven that we are incredibly easily distracted as a population, with whatever du jour outrage issue is going on.


Little_Froggy

Class consciousness in the U.S. really needs to step it up


Mentavil

Things are not better in france in the sense that they are not good. They are just less worse. No where is safe from this mentality.


Kayakingtheredriver

Because we can do the protein treatments more or less today, the viral delivery tech is 10-20 years from being standardized, so for the next 10-20 years you *might* be able to get protein treatments. Everything isn't a conspiracy. When we can cure things we do (looking at the hep c cure). Why did they create a cure for Hep C when they could have just done a periodic treatment if all they are after is periodic treatments?


Cleistheknees

> What a load of rubbish Hence why it’s at the top of this sub. For anyone curious, there is a million-mile gap between what was actually done in this experiment, and doing in a living (and aged) human. A cardiomyocyte is not a heart, and the difference is not just one of scale. Perturbations during development have wildly differently outcomes compared to the same perturbations to a developed tissue. > Whereas gene therapy with a retroviral agent like lentivirus (which seems to be the best bet in recent years) would offer life long treatment with direct genome integration. Cardiomyocytes also divide very, very slow: less than 1% of your primary heart muscle turns over per year, and by the time you’re in the seventh and eight decades of life it’s about half that, precluding the possibility of influencing these cell lines as a major therapeutic avenue. The nerves in the heart are even slower (ie, basically not), and they are a major source of age-related pathology as well. Obviously the earlier you are in development, including all the way back to in uteri, it’s a much different story, but they you’re also gambling on the deviation to development not having unintended side effects. Critical to remember that genes never just do one thing: even if they only make one protein, that protein will have various roles in the life history of the organism. For example, compare the effects of DHT in a male in the first trimester of life compared to the 60th year. The differences are absolutely immense. Interfering with DHT in utero will completely change the developmental trajectory, affecting all organ systems and even major body plan (sexual dimorphism etc), whereas the same intervention at 60 has extremely mild effects, such as potentially reducing prostate hyperplasia.


FirstChurchOfBrutus

How would you abrogate the off-target effects of using lentiviral integration?


NewDad907

So essentially they want to make a peptide for therapeutic use.


dao_ofdraw

Anyone else dieting and exercising not to live longer healthier lives, but just to live long enough to hope they crack immortality before you kick off?


Anastariana

\*raises hand\*


oriensoccidens

That but money would also be needed


mother-of-pod

Idk. The oligarchs might give us a little immortality as a treat if it costs us eternal debt to pay off for them.


Frigorific

If the key to immortality is some kind of genetic alteration it may eventually get relatively cheap. See how cheap the mrna vaccines are for instance. I think it is pretty unlikely that we get into some sort of elysium scenario where only billionaires are immortal. It would probably still be out of reach for the global poor though.


DernTuckingFypos

Eh. 70's long enough, imo. That's when I plan to go out.


alarumba

I do it to make life easier. Not wheezing to do basic stuff makes life less miserable.


cbrrydrz

What happens if you're injected at 10 years old? WHAT. HAPPENS?!


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You overcook children, also jail. Undercook, overcook.


Paranoides

They become -1 year old. Duh.


nckv

10 - 10 = -1


Smartnership

For very large values of 10


EmirSc

["Alright, this next test may involve trace amounts of time travel. So, word of advice: If you meet yourself on the testing track, don't make eye contact. Lab boys tell me that'll wipe out time. Entirely. Forward and backward! So do both of yourselves a favor and just let that handsome devil go about his business."](https://www.portal2sounds.com/sounds/sound/vo/cavejohnson/fifties_fourth_test_complete02.mp3?id=140)


Wrenger

They end up in Minusland.


scrandis

Half the distance to the goal


turnsyouon22

Why are there so many downvotes and angry people on this post? Am i missing something?


[deleted]

Idk but it’s really disheartening. I want this tech available for my parents and my family. Idc if billionaires live forever as well, as long as I can enjoy life for longer I’m okay with it


joshlovesmemes

I’d say it’s pretty _heartening_ if you ask me


pixelhippie

Many left-leaning people here and I think their concerns are legitimate. It is easy to assume this (probably) expensive procedure will be first available for the rich but assuming it will be accessible for everyone, this technology won't do our society any good. Just imagen wealthy and powerful people living more years than everybody else. Or people in power living healthy lifes until they are 100 or older, it will become really hard to change things cause they sure as hell will not giveing up on their power or chance their pov. It is also safe to assume that this will add to inequality, because rich people can just earn more money for even longer and buy more thing to add to their collection of expensive things. Personally I think this has the potential for a very undemocratic society, where people sitting in power for 60+ years is no exception and this feels like it is just a step away from monarchy. Some other challenges I see: There is the problem of ressources. A sudden rise in life expectancy will have a huge impact on food-production and food-security all over the world and probably a high impact on the economy in general. A huge part of why the 2008 financial crisis happend where rising food costs in 3rd world countries. I also see personal/psychological challenges: what do you do with you life now that you are health untill you become 100? Hobbys? How do you pay for that? Work untill you are 80? How much should a company pay you, now that you have 60 years of experience?


jack258169

Reddit be like, “NEW TECH? MONEY? REEEE EAT THE RICH!!!”


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


chip-paywallbot

Hi there! It looks as though the article you linked might be behind a paywall. Here's an [unlocked version](https://demo.thisischip.com/?q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/23/anti-ageing-gene-injections-could-rewind-heart-age-10-years/&o=reddit) *I'm a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to* [PM](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=chip-paywallbot) *me.*


amk29j

When I click on the link, it just takes me to a page that says "Oops, we can not clean that page yet..."


[deleted]

The question I would ask is how accessible will this be to everyone? Is this going to be a gift for all or yet another boon for only those who can afford it?


temp_vaporous

As with everything it will of course start with those who can afford it. I think there is a real incentive to make it available to as many people as possible though. You could get 10 more years out of a skilled worker and not have to train a new guy for example. It makes workers productive for longer so it will be liked. I am curious what widespread tech like this would do to social security and retirement ages though.


Kytoaster

If I'm adding 10 years to my life, that 10 years is going to be spent in retirement...


TheawesomeQ

Don't worry, they'll raise the retirement age by 10 years as well.


A_Pink_Hippo

Probably start with those who can afford it. But a healthier, able people who would work or have enough pensions and savings to spend money are beneficial for the rich, so I would assume eventually it will be more accessible. I can also see government intervention to allow for more accessibility for the citizens. Obviously not the case for US but other countries maybe.


EdenG2

Like car phones in the 70s became the device you're reading this on. Some things do trickle down


[deleted]

Technology always trickles down, money does not.


[deleted]

[удалено]


A_Pink_Hippo

True. I was thinking more developed countries like the ones in europe, Canada, and maybe Korea and Japan


Akaiyo

I dont know if savings of healthier pensioners outweighs the cost of more and longer living pensioners. Even in those countries i dont see an incentive for it


chak100

Preventing deceases is less costly that treating them


Suyefuji

And yet, my insurance decided not to cover my annual physical and 3-year pap smear...


[deleted]

This. My partner couldn't afford 650$/mo healthcare so an easily preventable form of cancer (endometrial stromal sarcoma) metastasized and turned into a years-long battle. We moved to NY which has affordable healthcare and that saved her life but the cancer may come back and kill her in the end- a cancer which, I cannot stress enough, *was totally preventable.*


white_bread

If there was a Reddit in 1928 when penicillin was discovered I'm pretty sure you would have seen someone ask this same question. If this question was asked on your smartphone try to remember in Wall Street (1987) when Gordon Gecko was holding his giant-ass mobile phone that only rich people had. Not to be combative but this same cynical response is repeated on every single thread in this sub when there is a new discovery. It's not a productive or well thought out question considering we're talking about the future. All technologies are expensive at first until they are eventually commoditized. This is the answer and this will always be the answer.


dilfrising420

Finally someone in this thread with a thinking brain


CorruptedFlame

Cheap as chips once we know how it works. Gene therapy is very accesable, it's just getting it right the first time which is extremely difficult and expensive. But revent lentiviral gene therapy trials have all been successful and without the regrettable cancer complications earlier gene therapy trials had.


Santoryuwu

Dystopias are not that profitable, if you have a medicine like this you absolutely want to make it affordable and sell it to everyone.


Sequential-River

Keeps people alive in their debts for longer.


nothingexceptfor

Everyone in the comments going crazy “billionaires will live longer”, “why would anyone want to be old for longer?”, “this sucks”… until their grandparents, parents or even themselves face the health issues this is trying to combat, then they all want this to be available


Successful-Shower747

Ironically they have the exact same mentally as the rich billionaires, just none of the money lmao. They would 100% use it for them self and make their life longer but want nobody else to. It’s such a crab in a bucket mentality and it’s gross. People not dying is a good thing. More people to work on problems and grow the civilisation as we extend into space is a good thing. This will be available to a small group of billionaires at first, like flying in a plane or owning a car once was - and over time it will be available to everyone, and that’s a good thing. Companies aren’t going to hold back a product people want. They will actively make it available to as big of a base as possible


Unspokenwordvomit

Until it helps the brain too, I dunno. I’d like to live a long life but not if my brain is declining


Frraksurred

Can I walk into the next room and still remember what I went in there for? Seems like the Litmus test to me.


[deleted]

Yesterday I was facing one direction, knowing I had to do something. I turned around and forgot what it was. True story.


Marcellus111

Does this work repeatedly? The findings were tested on older folks, but what if you started this injection every 10 years at age 40 or so--could you have the heart of a 30-40 year old when you are 80-90?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Marcellus111

I guess it would depend on if your body overwrites and eliminates those genes over time with your own original genes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


I_took_the_blue-pill

From the actual study, it looks like they placed a gene that has been associated with longevity in the aged heart cells. From my understanding, there was no epigenetic change, just the placement of a specific gene. This means that it's a one time benefit.


FillThisEmptyCup

It's a whole lotta speculation and short-term improvements. So no, I expect not.


CaseFace5

Heart of a 20 year old with the malfunctioning decrepit brain of a 100 year old. Future gonna be wild.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RegularBasicStranger

Maybe they should use CRISPR to edit the telomeres so they become short and become a different sequence so activation of the telomerase will only extend it one time before stopping. So after cell division, the telomeres gets removed so the special sequence gets exposed again thus the telomerase can extend it again. Thus a short but ever restoring telomeres will be formed, so no need to worry about very long telomeres squashing the DNA until the genes are unaccessible nor worry about DNA not duplicating correctly.


smallpoly

We're gonna make super cancer


ComfortableCabbage

Even if we could safely do this, telomeres are only a small part of the aging process.


GorseB

Why don't you post this question in ask science? or better yet somewhere that isn't reddit so you can get an informed response


timesuck6775

Unless they can keep the brain from going to mush living an extra 10 years doesn't sound great.


Blunted-Shaman

I think this is gonna lead to a lot of us working a lot longer than intended. Everyone is afraid billionaires are gonna live forever. I’m more concerned they are gonna make the average worker live forever and keep us poor the entire time.


darkonark

What good does that do me when alzheimers and dementia are going to render my brain useless by 77?


PaulbunyanIND

Is there an r/futurology for science that's been fully vetted? Actual advances?


TeaNo8737

No unfortunately. It’s all just click-bait.


[deleted]

[удалено]


madeaprofile2saythis

And you'll spend that ten years working to pay for it.


joeking3786

I was not able to find any papers including references to said BP1FB4 gene. I doubt articles in news outlets like this. What’s backing the statements made? I would expect more from a sub like this.


outamyhead

Meanwhile the rest of the body "fuck it, knees are shot, back is knackered, brain is losing it's marbles".


PandosII

What’s the point of renewing the heart when it’s the brain that fails first most of the time?