Live data from Hacker News

Anti-aging drug for dogs moves closer to gaining FDA approval

foxnews.com

121–125 of 125 posts

Re: Anti-aging drug for dogs moves closer to gaining FDA approval

#121
post #43

In addition, if anyone has an older dog, they should also immediately look into Librela: https://www.zoetisus.com/products/dogs/librela/ This is a miracle drug that pretty much instantly changed both my (older) dogs' lives. Every vet tech I've spoken to (it's a monthly injection) agrees it is amazing.

What does it cost?

In the UK we paid £90/month for a 32Kg dog. If you have the money it's worth every penny.

Re: Anti-aging drug for dogs moves closer to gaining FDA approval

#122

Discussion from 12 days ago, 187 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38447491

Thanks! Macroexpanded:

Reasonable expectation of effectiveness for large dog lifespan extension - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38447491 - Nov 2023 (186 comments)

Re: Anti-aging drug for dogs moves closer to gaining FDA approval

#123
post #91
post #31

After transhumanism, here comes transanimalism. I understand one may really like its dog/cat/... but, why not just accept time passes ? (I've lost a goldfish and I was not happy, proper burial helped a lot)

Why just accept that time passes?

Most interesting answer for me... Dunno... I guess we're on the ethical plane here and that answers depend from one person to another.

Re: Anti-aging drug for dogs moves closer to gaining FDA approval

#124
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this widespread belief is that there is no such thing as a "pit bull". Or rather, there are many and some of the breeds are entirely unrelated. Likewise news stories are usually thin on the specifics and fail to identify exact breeds or may mislabel them entirely. Generally most people shouldn't have dogs because they lack the time and energy to properly train them (or in the case of adult dogs: to c…

Not enough nuance in your comment. Shepherds are mouthy, bitey breeds as part of their bred disposition to herd -- they can draw blood and hurt infants, but they tend to have a "gentle" bite with their families -- they are strongly protective. Pits have a different lineage and a different neural pathway with their biting instincts.

Okay, how's this for nuance? There are plenty of news stories about shepherds killing or severely injuring toddlers. Heck, even the POTUS' shepherd has injured and hospitalized multiple people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67015811

People make up all kinds of pseudoscience about why pit bulls are involved in so many severe attacks (e.g. the myth of "locking jaws" after a bite - which isn't a thing in any dog breed). The core problem with most of these claims is that "pit bull" is not a breed but actually a number of different breeds and mutts, many of which aren't even related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

All of these contribute to statistics involving "pit bulls" (contrast this with German shepherds, which are very narrowly defined) and even then this ignores that people looking for aggressive dogs often want "pit bulls" because of their reputation and make them aggressive (i.e. traumatized) before they eventually end up as rescues in situations where the aggression endangers children.

I don't like dogs, generally, and I don't like most "pit bulls" because of their looks alone, but most of the studies people like to cite uses garbage data that fails to consistently define "pit bulls" (if you look at the methodology the groupings usually rely on what breed the dog is registered as which tells you nothing given that "pit bull" isn't a breed and various mutts will be lumped in as well) on top of being misrepresented by people trying to reaffirm their biases instead of looking at the complex socio-cultural context. Heck, most studies don't even correct for population sizes (i.e. giving statistics about registered dog breeds relative to the number of dogs registered for each breed).

Most of the difference between dog breeds are cosmetic, some are physical, very few are "neurological" but at the end of the day, all dogs are domesticated predators, all dogs can bite and dog bites can be life threatening to humans. All things considered, dog breed is one of the least important factors to whether a given dog poses a threat or not. Yeah, big dogs are more likely to bite in a way that is life threatening and anxious dogs are more likely to bite and abused dogs are more likely to be anxious and dog breeds seen as "aggressive" are more likely to be abused. But given how diverse and hetereogenous the group of dogs classified as "pit bulls" is, any genetic argument is clearly nonsense and just because you can misinterpret studies to reaffirm your biases that doesn't mean you're not just trying to find a simple and easy to reason about explanation to a very complex problem.

Re: Anti-aging drug for dogs moves closer to gaining FDA approval

#125
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting it is 10 times less stressful than fighting it. Also most of these issues are brought by dumb breeding practices...

Yes, simply accepting the inadequacy of our current technology is always going to be easier than working to improve it. It's also going to lead to infinitely less progress. Humanity is eventually going to be able to extend lifespans indefinitely. Whether that happens sooner or later depends on how many people decide not to go gentle into that good night.

> Humanity is eventually going to be able to extend lifespans indefinitely

Can you prove that ? Or is it just wishful thinking ?

Post reply on HN