/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12064204
Slowing down is very realistic I think, they're testing a lot of stuff for that already. Halting is a maybe I think.

>>12064204
I hope you like cancer.

>>12064204
They will find the cure right after you die, don't worry.

>>12064204
Nothing they find will benefit you because body that's already collapsing is harder to fix that creating embryo that will take a lot longer to grow old and die.

>>12064204
Unlikely. The medical establishment is hellbent on using the faulty theory of the membrane-pump which prevents us having a proper understanding of the cell.

>>12064216

>>12064241
Could you elaborate on this? I'm interested in learning more. Google isn't giving me much. What is that theory and why is it faulty?

If we'll get AI, then it will solve aging, but then biological bodies will be irrelevant anyway.
If AI progress will halt, you will get a few decades more max.

>>12064292
>biological bodies will be irrelevant anyway
This will never be true. Dream all you like.

I will forever curse Hollywood for convincing you brainlets that silicon transistors are a somehow better alternative to the existing platforms for the most complex machines in the universe.

>>12064204
Yes, it's quite possible that we will discover the methods too, but I doubt we will have the ability to use those tools properly until we understand human gene expression more completely.

So, maybe, but probably "no".

>>12064204
Extremely unrealistic. Nobody who claims to be working on it has been. They've just been taking your money and buying coke and whores. This is from 1992.

>>12064307
>I will forever curse Hollywood for convincing you brainlets that silicon transistors are a somehow better alternative to the existing platforms for the most complex machines in the universe.
You can already notice it by using calculator.

Death hungers, but it can be denied

>>12064204
It's less about extending lifespan and more about extending healthspan.
Cellular senescence has never been demonstrated in vivo (within organisms), but has been demonstrated in culture. Conceptually, however, it's been thought that (if senescence exists in vivo) it's useful for limiting cancer as the rate of mutations accumulating over ~50 cell divisions would be low enough that the likelihood of oncogenesis is fairly minimal (thus, other events would need to occur and even then - how much mitogenic potential does a differentiated cell have? hence why stem cell theory of cancer is so popular). My personal bet is that tissue/organ culture is going to have the biggest impact on healthspan - growing histocompatible tissue would be a lot safer and reliable than attempting transplant at an old age. iPSC's have potential but they've been demonstrated to have a lot of oncogenic potential depending on how they were transformed. The real issue is that immortalization is most readily achieved through the same mechanisms that cancer takes advantage of. So all the meme bullshit that you see getting thrown around as "the cure for aging" is usually a shortcut to cancer. Another possibility with potential is immunotherapy - both in treating age-related cancer and general failures of the immune system in aging individuals.

The harsh truth, however, is that this won't be covered under any but the absolute pinnacle health insurance, and I sincerely doubt it would be covered under any government-provided healthcare. So, ultimately, this will only advantage the wealthiest individuals, or potentially you will see superficial types going into substantial debt over this.

>>12064335
Your brain is a better calculator. Just because you're shit at math doesn't mean the human brain can't handle complex equations better than any calculator, excepting a supercluster which really is just expediting a process that humans could theoretically perform just as well in a significantly slower timeframe

>>12064216
likelihood of cancer increases with biological age. reversing aging would decrease that probability.

>>12064204
stem cells

basically inyecting embryos pulp solution directly into bloodstream, thus harvesting those sweet stem cells into you organs

but, is very unethical tho... they said...

>>12064360
Not if this plutocrat hack is the one in charge.

We have no real idea why people age. So before we solve aging I think we should understand why it happens at all. We're still in the dark, mostly.

>>12064417
>>12064384

telomere degeneration via mitosis is the cause, theres a limit that those telomeres can be pushed, we need to find how to elongate them, or replace them, at biomolecular level without transforming everything up into cancer

do you even bio, nigga???

>>12064384
>It's less about extending lifespan and more about extending healthspan.
extending the health span would extend life span. the only reason something dies is because it get so unhealthy it cannot function.

>>12064428
This is not a real concern. It's an excuse that's been trumped up by grifters who want to take your money and give you nothing but empty promises in return. Immunotherapy cures cancer. You don't need to worry about it. And as the technology improves, cancer could be entirely eliminated as a disease...assuming the for-profit healthcare industry doesn't prevent it from happening.

>>12064204
It already exists. Look up metformin.

>>12064384
>It's less about extending lifespan and more about extending healthspan.
True fact: an NPC will repeat literally any propaganda you feed it.

>>12064438
Does nothing in people without diebetes. The tests that claimed it did were flawed.

>>12064428
Unnecessarily increasing telomere length reduces apoptosis and causes cancer. Not a good idea to mess with it.

>>12064428
Also there are X years before every cell is replaced in your body with X becoming longer the older you are

>>12064428
>telomere degeneration via mitosis is the cause,

This was disproved years ago.

>>12064458
No it wasn't. That's a blatant lie. Unfortunately, a common phenomenon in modern "science".

Rapamycin is the answer. A marmoset study is showing zero side effects so far after several years.

>>12064468
read this

https://www.senescence.info/telomeres_telomerase.html

>>12064475
No. I know more about the subject than you do.

We already know how to slow aging. Don't smoke, don't live in a polluted area, eliminate stress, don't drink alcohol, don't expose your body to toxins such a certain recreational drugs, and don't get overweight.

>>12064482
That doesn't slow aging. That only prevents it from speeding up. Those aren't the same things.

>>12064476
sure you do

>>12064266
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18613639/#:~:text=To%20keep%20the%20membrane%20theory,the%20expense%20of%20metabolic%20energy.

>>12064501
https://www.gilbertling.org/lp6a.htm

>>12064497
I've studied anti-aging medicine for about half a decade. I know all the gimmicks and snake oils and false cures. See: >>12064317 Most of this same shit was being talked about 30 years ago. I waded through fucking years of bullshit Resveratrol, bullshit Rapamycin and now bullshit Metformin. I don't know what will be next, but I can guarantee it will be a single drug that does nothing to actually extend lifespan and a bunch of retards spend the next decade dissecting only to abandon like they've done to countless others.

>>12064435
Well, there's nuance to that: your body starts to go to shit well before retirement age. The idea of extending healthspan is more about making the most of the time you have. Also, it's not necessarily unilateral: let's say you're getting organs and tissue replaced as they fail - it's going to continually get expensive, for one thing, and there are other things to address - whats going on with your stem cells, how easily can that be treated, how effectively could your immune system be bolstered? Is it possible that your immune system will eventually reach a point where your body can't fight off disease, even with tissue/organ replacement? And furthermore - we don't exactly have an answer for dementia (alzheimers is a different story, since we do understand the root cause, but alzheimers != dementia), and really, that constant surgery could take a toll on a person, recovery from heavy surgery is not fun, even at a young age (speaking from experience), we haven't exactly done anything like tissue/organ culture for *indefinite* replacement before, so it's hard to say how that would end up. Bolstering the immune system shows a lot of promise, though, but how do you do that while minimizing risk of cytokine storm or autoimmune issues, etc? Lots of questions, not many answers
>>12064428
Lmao, shows how much you know. Maybe in culture, not so much in humans, although elevated hTERT expression occurs in 80-90% of tumors, so have fun with that :)

>>12064503
This man is the end stage of longevity and health research after waddling through heaps of shit

>>12064204
Not very. Don't get your hopes up. I've been down that road.

>>12064554
The saddest thing is, I KNOW they must've made some progress by now and are just keeping it quiet, because they were onto some serious progress in the fucking 90s, let alone the past 10 years. It's just like aerospace tech. The patron saint of reddit Elon Musk is still using fucking rockets. Rockets. Century old nazi technology. It's shit. We had better designs than that on the drawing board BEFORE the Space Shuttle was SETTLED ON to cut costs.

>>12064398
Indeed. If we reverse life expectancy we'll finally get rid of most cancers.

>>12064569
All the good shit is secret, and that secret will only be released during war. Publicly we are decades behind in the know. Sad but that's how things work.

>>12064335
>energy it takes to run the human body: 2000 kcals cooled with sweat
>energy it takes to run alphago: a small powerplant with refrigeration units

you VASTLY under estimate how much computational power our brain has and its even more impressive when you consider the fact our energy consumption is much lower than any computer.

>>12064576
Not for long. Those who consider themselves "ascended" and gods lording over the "little people" stuck in the muck that they created will soon fall.

>>12064398
reversing biological age means more cell divisions to create new cells, which means increasing the probability of cancer. it's a push and pull between those things, an impossible balance to strike long term.

>>12064598
Please cease and desist spreading your anti-life, pro-death propaganda.

>>12064204
Scientifically, yes.

Realistically, no. Sickness is a great money maker. Who would profit if aging and disease cease to exist as we know it?

>>12064610
Lmao
>please stop triggering me by shitting on my fantasies with actual science
can you possibly cope any harder?
if there were calculus and other hard science captchas on /sci/ retards like you wouldn't be able to post
>__<

>>12064665
I know enough about the science to know you're full of shit and this is literally a propaganda talking point that has been pushed HARD.

>>12064503
What about CRISPR?

>>12064699
It's nonsense.

>>12064653
Living people add to the GDP retard
>>12064598
This is factually incorrect, part of longevity is cancer prevention, obviously. You are a retard.
>>12064569
>>12064576
No, retards, because they would be billionaires who'd have changed the world forever. The military doesn't have shit that isn't directly beneficial to national security.
>>12064503
You're an exceptionally prideful retard who doesn't really know anything, Dunning Kruger in full effect.
If you seriously believed any of those drugs / supplements you mentioned would cure aging, you're probably the biggest retard here.
Metamorfin is a diabetes medication. Something tells me it's right up your alley.
>>12064708
The most revolutionary discovery in biology since the discovery of DNA is not "nonsense".

>>12064725
What makes you think it isn't billionaires who are hoarding these technologies?

>If you seriously believed any of those drugs / supplements you mentioned would cure aging, you're probably the biggest retard here.
Nigger you can't even read and you're accusing others of Dunning-Kruger?

>The most revolutionary discovery in biology since the discovery of DNA is not "nonsense".
Show proof of it actually working.

>>12064580
Energy is irrelevant since you can't feed human twice more food (or some uranium) to make him do twice more work.

>>12064746
Well.. you can with starving African children.

>>12064725
>part of longevity is cancer prevention, obviously
If you live long enough, various defects will send the probability of getting cancer to 1.

>>12064504
jokes on you

Im just a dumb frogposter posing as a smart Ranidaeposter

btw our axolotl cousins have the inmortality secrets, and you are a so inferior class to even figure it out. useless mamalian

>>12064665
>calculus and other hard science
calculus isn't hard

>>12064799
Based mamalian.

>>12064653
Why do doctors tell you to drink tea, blow your nose and cough into your elbow instead of shoving you into a hospital every time you have a minor cold and using whatever you cough out on others?

You fucking nigger, this is a sub for science, not tinfoil hatting.

>>12064204
There is no such a thing as aging. It's just poison. Excess calcium intake results in thymus involution, bone damage, and tissue calcification. Once your bones fill up, the calcium starts ruining the rest of the body.
Iron in excess invades other tissues, and replaces manganese in enzymes. This turns the MnSOD in mitochondria from protective to harmful.
Zinc depletes copper from the body and replaces other transition metals due to its ability to bind almost anywhere. Those enzymes don't work with zinc, or work poorly.

>>12064580
When are scientists going to create a huge bio-brain super-intelligent monstrosity?
I want to see this happen.

>>12065298
not sure if complete bullshit or 900IQ

>>12064475
>inb4 some spaztard REEEEEEs about how his p53 research went nowhere

>>12064412
You need embryonic cells which are genetically identical to yourself. Essentially you need to transform your own cells into pluripotent stem cells, grow them in culture, and inject yourself with them.
This does have some scientific backing as working, but obviously ethics have stopped it from being properly explored.

>>12064241
Based Ling-poster

>>12064554
Based Peat-poster

>>12064204
The Salk Institute already rejuvenated mouses by 30% in 206, so you should expect the first life extension medicine arrive in the 30s.

>>12064763
If CRISPR edits your cells and repairs damage cells, you don't have an increased risk of cancer. In fact, because it would make your genes perfect and you won't get cancer any more often than we already do. Your body is full of cancer cells, your immune system just kills them.

>>12066371
Sucks ass our Uncles and Aunts are probably going to die early before the treatment.

>>12064204
We already have it. 3-12mg Rapamycin once per week will alone probably increase lifespan by 10-20 years. We don't need to waste 20 years for the FDA to tell us.

>>12064241
holy fucking based
>>12064554
sadly, peat is just one guy. Even if his combined theory is 100% perfectly put together to the best of his knowledge, there's just so much we haven't looked into properly or just plain don't know. I don't think he expects that, in the best case, his lifestyle additions would do anything more than maybe let everyone live to 100 without any real health problems. Of course, that's still a massive improvement from what we have now.

>>12064317
>injection of youthful blood
They managed to make some improvements in aging mice via removing some blood and replacing it with just albumin/saline solution

Church has shown age reversal in mice and he's as legit as you can get.

>>12065184
Hard in the sense of hard/soft science, not difficulty. Poor description on my part

>>12064598
Not true. Cancer is a sort of metabolic derangement where the cell chimps out and reverts to bacterial metabolism instead of the fine tuned multicellular proliferative metabolism.

>>12064502
>>12064241
>>12064501
I am pretty sure this should be researchable. Why don't somebody just prove or disporve this.....

Ling brings some valid points and I found other papers on this shit, but it's all about how modern science has difficulty to change it's established views. Why tf doesn't somebody already just do some legit experiments and measurements

>>12067003
>>12066371
www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(16)31664-6?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867416316646%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Stuff is happening.

We're supposed to die. Just give up and die. Living forever would be terrible.

>>12067270
They have, and spoiler: Ling is wrong
There's crackpoint scientists in every discipline. They all scream "You can't change the status quo!" yet it happens all the time. If you can present data suggestion a long-held belief in science is wrong, you become a rock-star famous scientist overnight.
If you present data like "the na-k pump is bullshit! Can't create a gradient!" you would be politely ignored by people like me who work on the cell membrane and often do experiments that only make sense if the na-k pump can create a gradient (mostly osmolarity and channel-pump knockouts, etc)
His "papers" and obsession over yelling about the pumps not being real definitely is crackpot-shit
>Why tf doesn't somebody already just do some legit experiments and measurements
That's how we came up with Na-k pumps in the first place. You can look at all the original papers and their data. His weird obsession is with old-ass 1960s papers and artificial membranes (which, spoiler, they DON'T act like cell membrane in most settings. We see certain things like fusion events with SNAREs occur an order of magnitude faster and membrane flow is completely, completely different).
In fact, the fluid-mosaic model of membrane flow has been around just as long, and guess what- someone recently published a couple of papers suggesting that membrane DOESN'T flow/disperse tension non-locally, which is completely counter to convention and dogma, and they got damn famous for it; there's a lot of hype around it

>>12067003
>Church
I used to work near him, actually (lab a building over), met him at the harvard genetics retreat a few years ago. Cool, cool dude.
He had this fun project he did (I think it was his lab) where they inserted the book of Genesis (or maybe it was a passage?) translated to DNA, into an apple tree. As a science and art thing.
But yeah, I was there when his paper saying "CRISPR is actually, actually legit" came out and became a huuuuge sensation. I felt really bad for the lab next to us, because they had just invested a shit-ton into TALENs

>>12067480
what do you think about Exclusion Zone water (Gerald Pollack)? It seems like that theory/phenomenon is adjacent to Lings views. Also, is there any possibility that the pumps don't have the pump function and rather something else related to ion gradients? What's the deal with energy requirements?

>>12067512
>Exclusion Zone water
Don't know enough about chemical stuff to comment accurately, and I'd have to take more than a brief look at the research, so unfortunately I don't have an opinion
>Also, is there any possibility that the pumps don't have the pump function
Not really. I say this because we have explored every amino acid the pump. We have crystal structure of the whole pump, with each subunit defined, and we have crystal structure of it "in action". We know what every inch of it looks, in a sense. We even know medications/drugs that inhibit the NA-K pump, and we even have crystal structures of a drug bound to the NA-K pump, showing where/how it interferes with the pump.
>What's the deal with energy requirements?
What do you mean? Why does it require energy to maintain a gradient? Because its going against the flow of entropy. If it were just a hole for K to travel through, then K would go from high-to-low concentration until both sides of the membrane were equalized. You need energy input to create a gradient.
There's some uknown when it comes to the very, very nitty gritty, but we even have evidence of exactly how the ions interact with which side chains as it moves through the pump, but that gets into a bit of fuzziness.

>>12067557
>what do you mean
https://www.gilbertling.org/lp6a.htm
someone posted this before, he discusses the energy needed for the pump function being way too high

>>12067479
>We're supposed to die.
Says who? The only morality and values thatcan exist is by human design, living forever would be everything.

>>12067572
The dude seems to be stuck in the 1950s, ignoring any and all research that has come out since then, and is talking about some old-ass experiments that are not nearly a high enough resolution to make the statement he's making. He's literally ignoring the entire field of cell biology. I think what he's done is decided he's right, then went and kept looking for old/obscure papers that are not quite good enough to tell one way or the other (I guess?) what this energy point he's try to make is, and then decide that those papers are somehow in support of his conclusion.
He's trying to say "Lets look at these measurements from the 1950s, therefore pumps don't exist" when we literally have crystal structures of it existing. We can see the VTPAse. We can count how many ATPs are consumed per each set of NA/K that is pumped. It's like trying to go through tax records to determine if wal-mart is open or not while standing outside the store, refusing to look at the building itself.
I have no idea where he gets "high energy phosphate bonds don't exist", its not in either of the papers he quoted. We know how ATP and ADP work, I use purified ATP/ADP for assays.
If you want a review, which goes in-depth into what we know about the NA/K pump including reference links, read this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267510/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1097/00004647-200110000-00001
for example, shows the energy use of the brain including all of the energy needed for NA/K ATPase pumps.
Attached is from Thomas, '72 - Electrogenic Sodium Pump in nerve and muscle cells

>>12064204
It's ok we're all gonna die soon

>>12068049
>>12067572
My hunch is that he's lying to himself about the high-energy bonds not existing:
"The term 'high energy' with respect to these bonds can be misleading because the negative free energy change is not due directly to the breaking of the bonds themselves. The breaking of these bonds, like the breaking of most bonds, is endergonic and consumes energy rather than releasing it. The negative free energy change comes instead from the fact that the bonds formed after hydrolysis - or the phosphorylation of a residue by ATP - are lower in energy than the bonds present before hydrolysis. "
He probably read studies showing the negative free energy != the bond breaking, and....somehow distorted that into "energy is different", but the negative deltaG values have been known forever.
Anyways, the evidence overwhelmingly flies in his face and disproves his assertions. Using modern-day techniques, we have visualized the NA/K pump (cystal structure), we've measures a trillion times over the rate of NA/K flux and every time it comes out the same, we've calculated energy cost/requirement in total tissues and cells and know the density of the pumps (cool single-particle density estimation here), all the evidence agrees with all the other evidence.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29694368/

I don't understand how in this day and age where we literally know the genomic location of the genes that make up the NA/K ATPase, we can synthesize and purify the full protein, we can make choice mutations in the ATP binding to prevent binding of ATP and the pump doesn't work, we can predict that drug X will block NA/K ATPase activity, show that its the case, AND we get crystal structures of the drug bound, that anyone can call themselves a scientist and say that NA/K pump doesn't exist or what have you.

>>12068116
>>12068049
Interesting. Do you think there's any validity to the idea that the cytoplasm is more ordered than the typical textbook illustration where you basically have just a balloon with one protein and one molecule and the impression it gives off is that this is microscopic construct is the same thing as a 1 ml beaker, it's just a normal solution? I'm very intrigued by the idea of ordered cytoplasm and sort of would like it to be true.

>>12064204
Extremely unlikely to halt. We have a better chance of waking up from cryonics.

>>12064307
>implying I'm one of those hipsters that would let my consciousness run on some filthy old fashioned silicone substrate

>>12068319
>Do you think there's any validity to the idea that the cytoplasm is more ordered than the typical textbook illustration where you basically have just a balloon with one protein and one molecule and the impression it gives off is that this is microscopic construct is the same thing as a 1 ml beaker, it's just a normal solution? I'm very intrigued by the idea of ordered cytoplasm and sort of would like it to be true.
You mean like liquid-liquid phase transition? Certainly does exist, and there's plenty of evidence that it may help order proteins in the cytoplasm- for example, bringing together a critical concentration of a certain protein for it to act on its substrate or something. I'm not sure where that research is at the moment, but almost all of the results coming out as of a few years about were pointing to membrane-less domains/organelles in the cytoplasm.
I do hate the way they teach textbook cell biology. Cell biology is one of those fields where we have incredible advanced microscopy imaging that is just fantastic to look at, but usually all you get are cartoons and a couple of fluorescence pics. We even have single-particle tracking of proteins which we can watch dimerize/heterodimerize on the surface of cells; we have all kinds of intuitive stuff that I wish was taught alongside the pathways.

>>12064204
Delaying death is a foolhardy endeavor.
You will die one day. It is predetermined and inevitable.

>>12069020
Medicine is now about tiny, incremental progress. Some people can't handle that because they're impatient