[ExI] reverse aging
possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 1 01:22:24 UTC 2010
Stuart, and so was this simply a first step toward rejuvenating
normally aged mice? And do you think within 10-15 years we could be
at the point where humans are being restored, despite the major
differences between humans and mice?
On 11/30/10, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>
>> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 5:22:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] reverse aging
>> My understanding is that to do the same in humans (much easier said
>> than done) would make the test subjects very vulnerable to cancers.
>> But some researchers actually contend that is not true.
>> And how many years do you think we are away from a *successful*
>> treatment being developed? I say this because at least in theory, if
>> this is perfected, we have firmly landed our feet on the launching pad
>> of longevity escape velocity! : )
> Aside from valid cancer concerns, I would like to stress that the scientists
> the Nature paper did not reverse normal aging in mice. Instead what they did
> was first cause premature aging in mice by taking away telomerase. Then they
> reversed the premature aging that they caused by putting telomerase back.
> Therefore they would not, for example, qualify for the Methuselah Mouse
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat