Young blood as an anti-aging remedy for the rich? Why do I imagine it being sipped from golden goblets in darkened castle halls?
Sounds like a plot point from Berserk...
Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
21–30 of 47 posts
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#22Great! It doesn't work (, and the original study ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7027/abs/nature03... ) never said it did. Parabiosis seems to work because you're basically using the young mouse as a breathing dialysis unit for the older mouse, not because there's any secret sauce in their blood per se.
Your claim ("it doesn't work") requires evidence, which you haven't presented. The evidence that it does work already exists: "When Wyss-Coray’s team tried a simpler experiment than parabiosis—giving old mice injections of plasma from young mice—they saw similar effects on the hippocampal neurons. The old mice also performed significantly better than untreated animals on tests of learning and memory." http://www.scie…
That's not how science works. The onus isn't on someone to "prove it doesn't work" - the onus is on the person making the claim that it does work.
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#23Exercise, good nutrition, and low stress would probably do a lot more than this treatment (if effective).
Telomeres, lifestyle, cancer, and aging:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370421/
Better choice of diet and activities has great potential to reduce the rate of telomere shortening or at least prevent excessive telomere attrition, leading to delayed onset of age-associated diseases and increased lifespan.
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#24Elizabeth Bathory, eat your heart out.
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#25This popular science piece is characteristic of a prevalent and hostile view of the growing practice of patient-funded clinical trials. In this model the patient pays a sizable portion of the costs, which certainly makes it a lot easier to gather larger amounts of data, as the trial organizers don't have to seek the funding themselves. On the other hand, it tends to rule out the ability to carry out a blind trial in…
The prevalent and hostile view exists because this is a pretty dubious study design, and there's a ridiculous degree of financial entanglement in many of these "trials". Lots of bad data doesn't necessarily help anyone.
If the problem really is "This area doesn't have enough money", then the same money being used to buy into the trial could have funded a proper double-blind trial.
And this is from the perspective of someone who does support the use of non-randomized evidence in medicine.
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#26Elizabeth Bathory, eat your heart out.
She would have.
Or at least used it as a loofah.
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#27If it's found to work well, it will be great for the young people struggling with money. The bar to entry of such a business is very low - you just have to test the blood donors for disease, which can be outsourced to numerous labs.
Maybe there is a startup opportunity to sell spare kidneys, and even lungs and liver-halfs too! Maybe even a cash-for-corpses business, we need to get rid of these ridiculous self-serving medical regulations. DISRUPT!
You know you make new blood, and people donate blood regularly? Apart from small slices of liver, your organs don't really regrow. You could donate/sell one of your kidneys, but we now know there are negative long-term effects of that.
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your claim ("it doesn't work") requires evidence, which you haven't presented. The evidence that it does work already exists: "When Wyss-Coray’s team tried a simpler experiment than parabiosis—giving old mice injections of plasma from young mice—they saw similar effects on the hippocampal neurons. The old mice also performed significantly better than untreated animals on tests of learning and memory." http://www.scie…
That's not how science works. The onus isn't on someone to "prove it doesn't work" - the onus is on the person making the claim that it does work.
Whoever makes the claim, has to present the evidence. If I claim your brain doesn't work, it's not your job to prove me wrong.
Science (natual ones) can't prove anything, only disprove the hypothesis.
Science's default position is "we don't know" or "there's no evidence", not "it doesn't work".
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how science works. The onus isn't on someone to "prove it doesn't work" - the onus is on the person making the claim that it does work.
Whoever makes the claim, has to present the evidence. If I claim your brain doesn't work, it's not your job to prove me wrong. Science (natual ones) can't prove anything, only disprove the hypothesis. Science's default position is "we don't know" or "there's no evidence", not "it doesn't work".
Science's default position -- the null hypothesis -- is that there is no relationship between two phenomena.
In this case, the phenomena are "administering treatment" and "seeing positive results".
If the null hypothesis is accurate, and there is no relationship between treatment and outcomes, then it doesn't work. So yes, that is indeed science's default position.
Re: Questionable “Young Blood” Transfusions Offered in U.S. As Anti-Aging Remedy
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoever makes the claim, has to present the evidence. If I claim your brain doesn't work, it's not your job to prove me wrong. Science (natual ones) can't prove anything, only disprove the hypothesis. Science's default position is "we don't know" or "there's no evidence", not "it doesn't work".
Science's default position -- the null hypothesis -- is that there is no relationship between two phenomena. In this case, the phenomena are "administering treatment" and "seeing positive results". If the null hypothesis is accurate, and there is no relationship between treatment and outcomes, then it doesn't work. So yes, that is indeed science's default position.
No, in this case, the phenomena are "administering treatment" and "seeing results" (not just positive). You start off with "we don't know if it makes humans better or worse or does absolutely nothing, let's do a bunch of tests". Also, when it comes to clinical tests, you almost never do simply control/placebo vs treatment. There are usually a few groups with various degrees of treatment.