Karel1
#52
@AnUser
I remember that an attack on multiple Russian ships with Ukrainian drones was stopped by interrupting the GPS. For Ukrain this meant many more attacks by the black sea fleet and many lifes lost…
Bill and Melissa Gates spend a fortune on charity.
So what billionaires do CAN make a lot of difference for the good or for the bad.
2 Likes
Bicep
#53
Especially if they manage to get things mandated for the rest of us:
But in general I think I finally agree with you on this. They invest in crazy tech that might never happen otherwise…
1 Like
AnUser
#54
You shouldn’t still compel anyone what they should do with their money or health. More power to the billionaires who live forever.
1 Like
Its interesting, I think that perhaps one of the “unintended consequences” of improved longevity drugs and treatments is that you have have much more “activist” employees, investors and citizens, who are much more incentivized to do everything possible to get elderly people blocking the rise of others out of their positions of power…
Imagine all the CEOs who never want to leave their jobs because of the status, power, money, etc. they are receiving (and all the people under them who would like them out of that position). The more that these people are blocking advancement to others below them, the more these people will risk to remove these people… because they can live much longer (longer, probably, than the people below them who don’t get paid as much, or get rewarded as much). People have a strong tendancy to over-value their own contributions to organizations, and want to hold on far past their “sell-by” date.
… there are few scenarios in which a middle-aged corporate executive can be treated like an aging rock star by thousands of fawning employees. But on this day, Ballmer was doing something truly admirable: He was retiring. “Microsoft is like a fourth child to me,” he said as he left the company’s stage, his eyes glistening with tears, to the opening chords of “(I’ve Had) The Time of My Life.”
Ballmer’s retirement earned him the corporate equivalent of a Viking’s funeral. But most people seemed to agree that his departure, 14 years after he took over the company from his college classmate Bill Gates, should have happened years earlier. Around the time Ballmer announced his plans to go, the company’s stock price was lower than when he started the job. The media was bemoaning Microsoft’s “lost decade.” While its tech rivals had seized on new markets, Microsoft had changed fairly little. Apple dominated smartphones, Google prevailed in search and giants like Facebook — which didn’t even exist when Ballmer took the reins — stood atop a whole new sector of the economy. With the arrival of Ballmer’s successor, Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s stock price soared.
2 Likes
Neo
#57
4 Likes
I think this is “remaining lifespan” in the main.
3 Likes
Neo
#59
Yes, we’ll see more towards the end of the year it sounds. Quite powerful design if correct that it had 1000 mice. And this is from a single shot, one time, not a multiple repeat, repeat, repeat life long intervention. And its reversal type of approach, not just slow aging like sleep, rapa, CR, etc.
For me it’s impressive that a top, top, top mainstream scientist like Rick Klausner (former head of National Cancer Institute - the largest of all NIH institutes!!!) and a giant in biotech is focusing his life and on longevity via partial reprogramming.
Altos with their $3billion in funding, multiple Nobel Prize Laureates, etc have been quite quiet about their work until now, so also very exciting that they are starting to share some of what they are seeing.
4 Likes
This is the kinda stuff that allows us to go beyond the 120 barrier.
2 Likes
Bicep
#61
Wonder what they’ll charge?
Yes. It’s really interesting. He mentioned a hard limit. That the mice seemed to die no matter how many further injections they were given. This aligns with my hunch that we all have a built in expiry date. I expect it will be incredibly challenging to overcome that. Finding out what’s killing the mice will be huge. That said, I’d take an extra twenty five percent in good health.
1 Like
jakexb
#63
Whatever ultimately causes the death of the mice, it’s still “just biology”. Not downplaying the work that will go into solving it, but it’s all just biology. We shouldn’t think of these current upper limits as universal laws or witches’ curses. They will eventually be figured out.
3 Likes
It strikes me that what they are doing has a limited ability to improve something (possibly some aspect of mitochondrial function) and once they have maximised that other processes dominate.
1 Like
Neo
#65
@John_Hemming @Paul_2.0
It actually does not seem to be what Dr Klausner is saying, but what David Barzalai (@agingdoc ) - incorrectly (?) says in his tweet? Or do you have any other reason to believe it is remaining life span? Dr Klausner seems to say that it is average lifespan - not remaining.
See here from the original source that Barzalai has as the basis of his on tweet:
3 Likes
You may be right. Time will tell.
Hello Neo. Hope everyone in biohacking-land are doing well, staying healthy but not doing anything too crazy (I’m an evidence-based biohacking physician-scientist myself so intended playfully) 
For the record, spelled Barzilai (just like Nir’s spelling, no close relation to our knowledge: https://youtu.be/R8RYk_ULAaE)… as for this study, it’s not yet a preprint so early to say.
Keep in mind everything tends to get hyped-up in longevity and while I believe the field is making great progress, this latest work coming out of Altos Labs not yet even pre-print. “Remaining life” can be quite misleading even when, for example, controls are short lived or even with long-lived controls if the mice are close to the natural expected survival (taken to an absurd extreme extending expected life from 1 day to two is technically a “doubling” of expected remaining lifespan).
Altos Labs is doing some incredible work. Stay tuned for preprints. My Twitter (X) account makes an effort to keep up-to-date with the latest research (both good and bad, regardless how I feel about the study); I’ll try to remember to post an update when more details come out beneath my original post here: x.com
Oh, in case anyone is curious what I think about longevity communication and biohacking from Dublin Longevity Summit: x.com.
Best wishes to all. 
7 Likes
AnUser
#68
I don’t know, the recent threads about importing vials of peptides for injection from Russia…
4 Likes
Neo
#69
Thanks for engaging Dr. Barzilai.
100% agree that there is a lot of hype and that we have to be careful to not overshoot.
Still some people exagerate, some (but fewer) people understate and others are less biased in either way. I haven’t followed Dr Klausner closely, but from what I’ve seen from him say about Altos in the past, from that he seemed to be balanced and not hyping things from the Aspen panel where he discussed the increase in lifespan and given his background with eg having been the Director of the National Cancer Institute, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt to not be on the hype spectrum until we see him say hyped things.
100% agree and this was an issue with the Rejuvate Bio study that anchored to remaining life.
What I don’t understand is why “remaining” life is being discussed in the context of Altos work? That is not how they discussed the result in the clip you shared.
Is there any other source or reason for why remaining life metric is relevant here?
Otherwise it seems like, while we of course should be cautious and wait for the paper(s), we should not change what Dr Klausner said, and he clearly says 25% increase in average lifespan and he does not mention any weird metric like “remaining”.
Am I missing something? Do you not agree that he says 25% increase in average lifespan?
—
Thanks for all you do in general, have found your twitter feed very informative and helpful! 
4 Likes
A thoughtful and balanced response Neo. We need more of that, and not only among educated longevity enthusiasts but also within the scientific community itself.
“…they still die; they die about 25% longer, but they still die…”
Indeed, there is ambiguity there, which is the point I tried to make. Namely, until we have the preprints in our hands, both the rigor of design and the significance of this statement can’t be elucidated.
Regardless of this particular study, I am a cautious optimist that partial epigenetic rejuvenation and related methods hold significant potential. They are less validated in animal models than, say, rapamycin (have more to prove), but there are also theoretical reasons to hypothesize a higher potential ceiling, given adequate time. We will see, and as I do for rapalog (and other nutrient-sensing and metabolic modulators), I would like to see this work supported. Kind regards.
3 Likes
If it’s good enough for Putin, it’s good enough for me. 
5 Likes
