[HN Gopher] Japanese scientists develop vaccine to eliminate cel...
___________________________________________________________________
Japanese scientists develop vaccine to eliminate cells behind aging
Author : olalonde
Score : 309 points
Date : 2021-12-12 14:23 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.japantimes.co.jp)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.japantimes.co.jp)
| hourislate wrote:
| >When the team administered the vaccine to mice....
|
| There is something that already exists that's free. Multi day
| fasting to induce autophagy. It's not pleasant or as convenient
| as getting a shot/taking pills but it's been perfected over the
| last couple of million years with no side affects except
| discomfort. You might also try adding a dose of exercise (more
| discomfort) and cutting out things like Fructose (20% of the
| American diet) completely.
| manmal wrote:
| Fisetin is quite cheap and has been shown to eliminate senescent
| cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30279143/
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I tried fisetin once. No obvious effects (I am 43 only), save
| one: in the week afterwards, I lost about 4 pounds of weight
| effortlessly.
| manmal wrote:
| I don't recommend this, nor have I tried it: Some people
| experiment with high doses, like 1-2g, within one day, twice
| a week. Anecdotal reports of scars fading, but also scary
| effects like hypocoagulation (won't stop bleeding). Just
| internet rumors though, I'd wait for clinical studies.
| arboghast wrote:
| Doses used in the Mayo Clinic trial was about 1.5g to 2g for
| humans, 5 days per month, iirc. Also keep in mind that if you
| are young and healthy you won't notice much and it's the kind
| of treatment like most that are long-term, meaning you can't
| do it 3 months and expect results.
| pcrh wrote:
| >Fisetin reduced senescence in a subset of cells in murine and
| human adipose tissue, demonstrating cell-type specificity.
|
| As someone who works and publishes in a related field, this
| particular phrasing should be interpreted as meaning that
| Fisetin is unproven as a senolytic.
| rp1 wrote:
| From reading that paper, the purpose of senescent cells is to
| prevent tumor growth. I don't know if I'd want to suppress or
| eliminate that functionality over a long period of time.
| salehenrahman wrote:
| Senescent cells themselves do not exist to prevent tumor
| growth.
|
| Cells becoming senescent is a mechanism that exists to
| prevent them from becoming a possible tumor, due to DNA
| damage.
|
| The problem with senescent cells is that accumulation of them
| results in tissues not functioning correctly. Eliminating
| them should make tissues function better.
|
| After all, your own immune system gets rid of senescent cell,
| but as we age, I believe your immune system is unable to keep
| up.
| rp1 wrote:
| The paper says fisetin reduced the number of senescent
| cells in a sample. It's not clear if that means the cells
| were eliminated or if the were prevented from entering a
| senescent state. Do you know the answer? The former sounds
| better than the later.
| salehenrahman wrote:
| I have no idea.
|
| All I can say is that the paper overwhelmingly uses the
| term "senolytic", which means to "kill off the senescent"
| (I'm assuming that it refers to senescent cells), as
| opposed to "senostatic", which means to "delay
| senescence".
|
| Additionally, the concern brought up by the paper, is
| that senescent cells are known to be resistant against
| something called "apoptosis", which is a term to describe
| "programmed cell death". The goal of the paper is to
| explore a compound--fisetin--for its senolytic
| capabilities. Whether it is successful at finding that, I
| haven't fully read the paper to see if they have
| identified fisetin as a senolytic, or a senostatic agent.
|
| With that said, however, some of the graphs in the paper
| does highlight that as fisetin dose increases, not only
| do senescent cells get depleted, but so do total number
| of cells. If we were working with a purely senostatic
| agent, relative to a control, the senescent cells would
| be much lower, but the overall cell count would be much
| higher, which is not the case with fisetin. Does this
| mean that fisetin is a senolytic? Maybe not; it could
| just indiscriminately target all cells, resulting in
| fewer cells. Or maybe it is. Who knows.
|
| Or maybe my logic about cell counts regarding senostatic
| vs senolytic may be entirely wrong.
|
| Whatever it is, I haven't read the whole paper.
| shon wrote:
| Sometimes I hit the comments first because at times they've been
| more interesting than the article as topically educated folks
| weigh in on the content.
|
| What happened?
| penjelly wrote:
| the comments saying they get any and every vaccine implying each
| one is like a new superpower lmao.. society is in for a wild ride
| the next 100 years
| obblekk wrote:
| 1. Removing senescent cells extends life by 30-40% with huge
| quality of life improvements in the last 25% of the life
| (relative to control), in mice. This isn't an elimination of all
| aging, but quite a valuable thing regardless. Eventually, other
| causes of aging would kick in and still cause death, without a
| single senescent cell in your body (e.g. DNA methylation).
|
| 2. I believe all governments should create Warpspeed for this
| approach. At the depths of covid lockdowns, GDP was down 20%.
| Imagine the massive GDP creation from making every 65+ year old
| feel 40 again. They'd work, consume, and generally flourish. Even
| if it's only 10 more years of quality life, this is the greatest
| good that could be done for humanity. To avoid another 10 years
| of my parents death is something I'd do a lot for. Economically
| and ethically, we should prioritize this research above most
| else.
|
| 3. This approach is scientifically sound. Certain aspects of
| aging cures are approaching engineering levels of work rather
| than pure science. We simply know that many diseases are caused
| or amplified by senescent cells. And we have ample evidence that
| elimination of these cells reverses diseases in complex mammals,
| as long as you don't remove too many, too quickly. The rest, is
| the engineering problem of how to remove the right cells at the
| right cadence.
|
| 4. This is the kind of thing biohackers should hack on. Find an
| aging part of your skin, and attempt to convince your body to
| kill the senescent cells. If you succeed, you will have benefited
| humanity, become beautiful, become wealthy, and be remembered
| forever (is there any other fundamental need humans have, not
| covered)?
|
| Let the race begin!
| abletonlive wrote:
| I'm sorry but so many people are waiting for the boomers to die
| and relinquish control over our lives. I'm not sure we should
| warp speed this quite yet
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| >Economically and ethically, we should prioritize this research
| above most else.
|
| This research and all similar research (and sentiments like
| yours, which I strongly agree with) remind me of the classic
| Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant.[0] It feels as though we are
| finally on the cusp of learning the shape of the armaments that
| will one day slay the dragon. And I wish the world could band
| together the way we attacked COVID to attack this problem.
|
| >the king answered in a broken voice: "Yes, we did it, we
| killed the dragon today. But damn, why did we start so late?
| This could have been done five, maybe ten years ago! Millions
| of people wouldn't have had to die."
|
| [0]https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html
| sumedh wrote:
| > They'd work
|
| So less jobs for young people.
| ColFrancis wrote:
| Jobs shouldn't be a limited resource.
| novok wrote:
| We also have to take care of old people, and the less we have
| to do that for the period of their lives, the cheaper
| everything could be because there are less dependents to
| support. A countries economy is often reflected in their
| dependent / non-dependent ratio, and the less non-dependents
| you have, the better economies perform!
| dennis_jeeves wrote:
| >So less jobs for young people.
|
| They can live in their parent's basement! ( rule for parent
| =we make you young, in turn you house your brat in the
| basement)
|
| By seriously, raylad's and cblconfederate's comment are very
| pertinent.
| arcticbull wrote:
| (a) In the current economic model jobs are simply not a
| limited resource. For instance, immigration creates jobs
| because among other things, you need more resources to
| sustain more people.
|
| (b) In the future, there will be more humans than jobs
| _anyways_ thanks to automation and this is a problem we are
| going to have to face one way or another. Social contract
| will change, and the economy will need to be refactored
| commensurately.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| This is a deep misunderstanding of what jobs are.
|
| They're not "things" that exist in a limited supply.
|
| You can think of them as relationships between people.
|
| When population increases, no one worries that society will
| "run out" of friendships or marriages. Jobs work the same
| way.
| raylad wrote:
| Jobs are not the sole way to distribute resources. In fact
| they are a rather recent way (in human history) to do so.
|
| And they're going away anyway soon enough, as automation
| develops.
| cellis wrote:
| Great, a gigantic underclass of people forever stuck with
| no upward mobility!
| arcticbull wrote:
| Yes, what will we do without the famous upward mobility
| of the factory worker?
|
| Seriously though, the majority of humans never see
| material upward mobility in their lifetimes, and a world
| without mandatory low-wage jobs per se isn't necessarily
| a world without upward mobility.
| TOMDM wrote:
| So, not much has changed?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| or less work for everyone
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > A Japanese research team said it developed a vaccine to remove
| so-called zombie cells that accumulate with age
|
| So it's designed to make humans immortal? Sounds like it's more
| likely to create zombies than destroy them. I half suspected the
| article to say that this vaccine was a product of the Umbrella
| Corporation.
| kiba wrote:
| It will hardly make a human immortal. That's just fixing one
| problem with the human body, if the vaccine's promise is to be
| believed.
|
| It will probably be incredibly cheap to make and administer,
| but not a silver bullet.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Sign me up for this the second it is available.
|
| As an aside, to spite anti vaxxers I'm on a mission to get every
| vaccine I can. I want my bloodstream to be like the Library at
| Alexandria before it burned down.
| plumeria wrote:
| Did you get the rabies vaccine, yet? Also, the Dengvaxia is
| supposedly not recommended unless you've contracted Dengue
| already.
| slickrick216 wrote:
| I hope this is satire. The medical industry doesn't always have
| your best intentions at heart. From talcum powder to
| thalidomide. Be careful.
| freen wrote:
| You assume thalidomide was intentional?
| blip54321 wrote:
| You already have the Library of Alexandria. That's your lymph
| nodes.
|
| What vaccines do is move some books to the front of the
| building, so your dentritic cells don't have to spend a few
| days finding them.
|
| You want the right books at the front. A mission to move all
| the books to the front is perhaps misguided.
| catillac wrote:
| I'm not sure this is fully accurate, but I would like the
| analogy of vaccines being like an LRU cache.
| lvs wrote:
| No, your analogy is wrong. You have a million monkeys with a
| million typewriters. Vaccination just reproduces the things
| that look like books.
| cma wrote:
| I think it is more like the library of Borges, but with stuff
| that would interact with self culled.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| We have an infinite library, but the literary criticism
| section has been carefully curated to remove all criticism
| of books in this library. The Library of Burges, though, we
| are happy to criticize unto oblivion.
| contravariant wrote:
| The lymph nodes are more like the library of babel, endlessly
| toiling to find those rare 'books' that actually contain
| meaningful information.
| tux3 wrote:
| You have antibodies that will bind to just about anything
| foreign, including viruses that your body has never seen
| before, M-type immunoglobulin (IgM). It's the kind of
| antibodies that responds in the first phases of an infection.
|
| The problem is that IgMs are not very specific. They bind to
| a lot of things, but they bind poorly. In the library of
| Alexandria analogy, it's like a book that happens to mention
| a subject you care about, but only in passing.
|
| Vaccines (and infections) result in your immune system
| developing IgG. That's the hyper-specific books for the
| pathogen you care about.
|
| So it's not that the book wasn't at the front. Your immune
| system has to write the book on the fly, during the fight,
| using chopped up pieces of pathogen gathered by antigen-
| presenting cells.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Is there a good resource to learn more about this without a
| Biology degree? I always assumed the body generated
| matching snippets at random and the law of large numbers
| would result in a match eventually.
| therec wrote:
| I like the videos of the Amoeba Sisters. I'm not a
| biologist, but I feel they go really deep in the subjects
| while still being relatively easy to understand. Immune
| system: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fSEFXl2XQpc
| Vaccines: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uVUf_pt7Sh0
| tux3 wrote:
| >Is there a good resource to learn more about this
| without a Biology degree? Immunology is _complicated_.
| Some people call it the second most complicated system,
| behind the human brain.
|
| Someone else has mentioned the Kurzgesagt resources,
| which are great. If you want something more formal, OME
| is also a great resource I think.
|
| https://onlinemeded.org/spa/immunology
|
| >I always assumed the body generated matching snippets at
| random and the law of large numbers would result in a
| match eventually.
|
| Right. Antibodies have a Y shape, where the two tips of
| the Y are variable, and the base is fixed. The IgM are
| the completely random snippets that happen to match a
| wide variety of things. However, because it's chemistry,
| it's more subtle than match or no match. Think of it like
| a variable degree of stickiness.
|
| When a pathogen is found, your body is going to
| iteratively mutate new antibodies and select those that
| bind the best to the collected antigens, until you have
| something very specific (= sticks very readily). I'm
| simplifying a _little bit_ , but that's the process for
| generating IgGs that I was talking about.
| pas wrote:
| Do we know how exactly this happens? How fast this
| process "converges"? How big is the search space and how
| fast new candidates are generated?
| tux3 wrote:
| About 3e11 combinations are possible, about 10 billions
| different antibodies will be generated by a human body
| (numbers I just sourced from Wikipedia).
|
| The shuffling is done by recombination, which means
| joining segments of DNA in a random fashion (a similar
| recombination process is actually used for DNA repair,
| though with somewhat less randomness!)
|
| There's a lot more to say about all of this, but I don't
| know how much immunology I can usefully describe in a few
| HN comments =]
| cipheredStones wrote:
| (10 billion (1e9) / 3e11 ~= 3%, for those like me who
| don't have powers of 10 memorized.)
|
| Does that imply that there's a good chance someone's
| immune system will just fail to generate any appropriate
| antibodies against a novel intruder? Or does the "fuzzy
| matching" aspect mean that exploring a small percentage
| of the space mean you're very likely to get at least some
| degree of success?
| mmastrac wrote:
| This is a very helpful start for me, thank you
| brutuscat wrote:
| This book was written by makers of the Kurzgesagt's
| YouTube channel recently.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/-/es/gp/aw/d/0593241312/ref=tmm_hr
| d_s...
|
| Pretty cool illustrations too.
| Griffinsauce wrote:
| Just read this, it's amazing and also funny, fits the
| bill perfectly.
| sova wrote:
| Tangentially relevant is the way CRISPR works, and I
| would recommend the Nobel acceptance speeches by Jennifer
| Doudna and Charpentier.
| mmastrac wrote:
| I found a speech by Jennifer Doudna here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSrSIErIxMQ
|
| Listening now, thanks!
| webwielder2 wrote:
| https://www.amazon.com/Immune-Kurzgesagt-gorgeously-
| illustra...
| majkinetor wrote:
| AFAIK it does.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| That implies that each new vaccine diminishes other
| immunities, making it a zero sum game.
|
| Is that actually how it works in any sense?
| Retric wrote:
| No
| junon wrote:
| No, the analogy doesn't really stand up tbh.
| hn_go_brrrrr wrote:
| Some libraries don't have certain books. Vaccines buy those
| books for your library (and, as you say, put them in the
| front).
| majkinetor wrote:
| Not those books. More like snippets of those books.
| trhway wrote:
| and then second edition of the book comes out with that
| snippet deleted or updated to look completely different.
| Jansen312 wrote:
| Yeah, why be immuned when you can be invincible. Keep us
| updated when you gotten all the vax injected. How you plan to
| deal with recurring one that become ineffective fast like the
| rabbies vax. You scheduled every couple of weeks? Maybe an
| online blog and checklist to motivate others to compete who get
| jabbed the most.
| postsantum wrote:
| That's tribal thinking, "us vs them". You want to spite "them",
| who ostensibly don't know a thing about vaccine, but you never
| bothered to learn it yourself
| devmunchies wrote:
| The worse part is that anti-vax can just mean anti-mandate.
| Spiting in that context doesn't make any sense since anti-
| vaxers still believe in effectiveness of vaccines.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| I do not recommend getting vaccinated for dengue fever :P
| web3fixescensor wrote:
| Enjoy your heart attack in 3 to 6 months.
| hnbrainwashed wrote:
| Enjoy dying a slow painful dead you piece of shit :)
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I'm with you. I've gotten vaccinated for everything my doctor
| lets me. Japanese Encephalitis? Pshaw. I don't even know what
| it is, but good luck with my immune system.
|
| It's like getting a superpower in a video game!
|
| And, vaccines have general positive effects of health:
| https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
| devmunchies wrote:
| > It's like getting a superpower in a video game
|
| It's more like rare candy in Pokemon, which isn't as good as
| naturally leveling up your Pokemon.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Were you hoping to get autism? To get programming superpowers
| or something.
| tux3 wrote:
| I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong, but I would be
| more careful than that.
|
| Infections can be the trigger for auto-immune diseases. We're
| not sure precisely how, but there seems to be a complex
| combination of genetic and environmental factors.
|
| Your immune system is very much not playing games, it's in
| the business of reacting on a hair trigger, and doing more
| damage to foreign bodies than it does to your own body. It
| has an intricate system to avoid turning against yourself,
| but the system can fail.
|
| If a B cell that produces auto-antibodies falls through the
| cracks, it will not die. You now have the problem of being in
| a permanent fight against your own immune system, with a
| variety of unfortunate results.
|
| Now that's a lot of scary outcomes, and thankfully those
| diseases are uncommon. The system almost always works well.
| But it's a very complex system with ugly failure modes, so I
| wouldn't encourage you to poke the beast too much.
| kijin wrote:
| The risk/benefit calculation depends on where you live
| and/or plan to travel. I fear I'm beginning to forget what
| life was like before Covid, but IIRC people used to travel
| quite a lot.
|
| For example, Japanese encephalitis is rare in Japan, but
| only because many Japanese people have been vaccinated
| against it. It's endemic in most other parts of east,
| southeast, and south Asia. It kills 10K+ people every year,
| and it spreads through mosquito bites just like malaria.
| But most travelers only worry about malaria.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| This would be like being worried about playing outside and
| being exposed to germs. Yes, it's true that every new
| infection has the possibility of killing you. But, now we
| have evidence that exposure to diverse mild pathogens
| actually makes your immune system less dangerous to the
| self. Otherwise it would be safer to live in a clean room.
| tux3 wrote:
| I agree you should not try to live in a clean room, and
| you shouldn't be worried about being exposed to normal
| amount of germs.
|
| When you say "exposure to diverse mild pathogens actually
| makes your immune system less dangerous to the self", I
| suspect you're referring to the hygiene hypothesis that
| has become part of popular culture.
|
| It's important to know that that hypothesis, nowadays, is
| about early exposure to benign microbes. Meaning from in
| utero exposure to early childhood at the latest.
|
| I have seen no evidence that voluntarily exposing
| yourself to pathogens is a good idea. The point to my
| post was that you shouldn't understand the immune system
| like an RPG element that needs training to level up.
|
| Please do get vaccinated for relevant diseases, but I
| would not go too far in the direction of treating your
| immune system like a safe thing to play with.
| freen wrote:
| There is strong evidence that young children in
| congregate daycare have substantially stronger immune
| systems than children cared for at home who are only
| exposed to family members.
| tux3 wrote:
| Could you link to that strong evidence?
|
| A lookup of systematic reviews on Cochrane &
| Epistemonikos paints the opposite picture, with a
| positive correlation between daycare attendance and
| respiratory tract disorders or asthma.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| You got it: Roslund, M. I., Puhakka, R., Gronroos, M.,
| Nurminen, N., Oikarinen, S., Gazali, A. M., ... & ADELE
| research group. (2020). Biodiversity intervention
| enhances immune regulation and health-associated
| commensal microbiota among daycare children. Science
| advances, 6(42), eaba2578.
| tux3 wrote:
| Thank you! Interesting to see an intervention trial. n=75
| is what it is, given the possible confounders (could not
| control home environment, etc) but I'll be interested to
| read that in more details =)
| [deleted]
| ekianjo wrote:
| > And, vaccines have general positive effects of health:
| https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-
| maga...
|
| If you believe that vaccines may have potentially positive
| effects beyond their original scope, you must also be ready
| for the opposite, potential negative effects beyond their
| original scope. If you don't, you are just being brainwashed
| by big Pharma.
| junon wrote:
| I wish I had the time to make a chrome extension that
| replaced all usages of "big pharma" with "a thing I don't
| personally understand but hand-wave away because I refuse
| to do proper research on my own".
|
| It would make such comments much more meaningful and
| honest.
| Glench wrote:
| Here you go chief: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/det
| ail/replacerator/gaajh...
| bavell wrote:
| Does this apply to all usages of "Big Tech" as well? Or
| is that different?
| junon wrote:
| Depends on the context. "Big Tech" can mean working for a
| large, often FAANG company. But there are markedly less
| conspiracies cooked up about big tech than there are
| about big pharma.
| aasasd wrote:
| I opened Wikipedia to see what you mean with the mention of the
| library, and there I read:
|
| > _Despite the widespread modern belief that the Library of
| Alexandria was burned once and cataclysmically destroyed, the
| Library actually declined gradually over the course of several
| centuries._
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| And yet you still won't be fully protected. Seems to me there's
| lots of vaxx regret from the double dosed, when they find out
| about omicron.
|
| I'll check if you post in a few months. Otherwise, thank you
| for your contribution to science. In the mean time, don't
| recommend taking up competitive soccer.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| Vaxx regret? Nah, I'm good.
| natded wrote:
| We are going to see just how much people love The Science when
| they make mRNA vaccine to cure homosexuality.
| bool3max wrote:
| You sound as if your mental capacity is severely limited.
| juanani wrote:
| Signalling pride in your own ignorance is effective trolling.
| One can always hide behind that one razor.
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| An old friend of mine used to compare getting a vaccine to
| getting a power-up in Mario.
| majkinetor wrote:
| I am pretty sure this would lead to more faster aging. Immune
| system ages itself, and collateral damage it does during fight
| response is not 0. There is limited amount of resources for
| stuff, it the only stuff you do is fighting various shit
| around, the body will probably turn off other non important
| stuff for immediate survival.
|
| Also, you should think sometimes about aspirin and Spanish
| fever phenomena.
| pininja wrote:
| For people like me who weren't familiar, aspirin toxicity may
| have led to the extreme mortality at the peak of the Spanish
| flu. [0]
|
| > The hypothesis presented herein is that aspirin contributed
| to the incidence and severity of viral pathology, bacterial
| infection, and death, because physicians of the day were
| unaware that the regimens (8.0-31.2 g per day) produce levels
| associated with hyperventilation and pulmonary edema in 33%
| and 3% of recipients, respectively.
|
| [0] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441
| majkinetor wrote:
| Its more fact then hypothesis. There was also a control
| group, something we don't have now with vaccines.
|
| 5% death in military vs 1% in sanitoriums which used heat
| therapy. Its amazing what modern medicine did back then,
| and you know... history repeats.
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| Before signing up for this particular vaccine you might want to
| read up on what inhibition of antiapoptotic & apoptotic
| pathways means for your health.
| [deleted]
| kiba wrote:
| It's probably not a good idea to get every single vaccines
| that's not recommended to you by the CDC/your doctor.
|
| Vaccines could potentially trigger some dangerous side effects,
| however rare it is.
| Frost1x wrote:
| Definitely. We have a _tremendous_ amount of risk aversion
| these days and a culture that has disdain for risk, even
| calculated abstract risks. What many don 't realize is being
| too risk averse comes with its own risks, it also requires
| accurate risk assessment so you can make the correct
| decisions on when to take a risk and not. You could lockup in
| complete fear akin to analysis paralysis where non-zero risk
| keeps you from doing anything.
|
| Just skimming the CDC list of common vaccines in use in the
| US, do most _really need_ vaccines for everything: anthrax,
| Japanese encephalitis, polio, rabies, smallpox, tetanus,
| tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and yellow fever? If you 're not
| traveling outside the US and living a fairly normal life,
| most likely not and some of these have potentially nasty yet
| rare side effects. If they were given/taken at the scale
| COVID vaccines were, many would die from such side effect who
| otherwise would have lived healthy lives, all because they
| took an unnecessary risk trying to prevent a _very low_ risk.
| COVID is an exception because of exposure and
| transmissibiliy, the rare side effects are worth the risk for
| most people because the chance of getting it and having a
| life ending result is relatively high.
|
| TB, tetanus, and rabies may be useful vaccines for some
| professions or life exposures in high risk cases, say
| veteranarians and healthcare workers, but for the most part,
| _you_ probably don 't need it. If you travel a lot to certain
| locations and say do missionary type work or whatever,
| perhaps some others make sense as well. Should every sexually
| active person take PrEP regularly since HIV is a potential
| risk to everyone? No, there are populations of risk exposure
| where it makes sense though. Your dentist only takes x-rays
| every so often because the x-ray exposure increases risk of
| various forms of cancer. You could get x-rays more frequently
| to detect issues that might not be obvious to your dentist
| but it's pretty low risk, there has been a lot of study into
| the rate of progression of disease and risk tradeoff to help
| your dentist determine a reasonable frequency for x-rays vs
| radiation exposure.
|
| If you start looking at your regular risks, you take many
| risks across a lot of aspects of life every single day, even
| in a modestly safe life style, from hopping in a car to
| picking up takeout at a local resturaunt or even walking down
| a street. A massive unknown asteroid could be on a collision
| course with Earth right now that results in mass extinction
| ending the human race or a gamma ray burst from inside our
| galaxy could set the atmosphere on fire and radiate us all to
| death near instantly... they are all non-zero yet incredibly
| low risk to our understanding probabilisticly. They're so low
| and some even inactionable that we need to ignore them and/or
| treat them with low priority and continue on with life.
|
| It's good to have a preventative mindset and take
| preventative action to try and control and manage risk, but
| in order to do this effectively, be sure you assess your
| risks, or have someone knowledgable (like a doctor when it
| comes to vaccines) lay it out for you so you can make a good
| decision about what you should or shouldn't do. If you truly
| can do the assessment yourself then by all means do it but it
| doesn't hurt to explain your assessment and rationale to
| someone knowledgeable to make sure you're not overlooking
| something. It certainly is possible to perform a better risk
| assessment for yourself than anyone else will be able to
| because you can know your behaviors and exposures better than
| anyone else but be careful playing this game.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| We are very risk averse of taking vaccines, while they are
| _incredibly_ safe and barely have any risk associated with
| them. Probably more harm is done because people are too
| afraid of taking a vaccine than the opposite (not only
| looking at covid19 vaccines). The biggest harm done by
| taking vaccines you don 't really need is probably that the
| money could have been used for something more useful.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > while they are incredibly safe and barely have any risk
| associated with them
|
| Alternative explanation: nobody knows the risks in
| details, and side-effects are widely under-reported
| anyway. Ask any doctor how often they report even serious
| side effects, you will be very surprised.
| majkinetor wrote:
| Barely have any acute risk. Its almost impossible to find
| out what happens after long time, say a decade, with the
| current approach.
|
| > The biggest harm done by taking vaccines you don't
| really need is probably that the money could have been
| used for something more useful.
|
| What kind of nonsense is that? Its the same as saying
| "there is no problem in taking any drug, the worst it can
| get is lose some money". You can't clamp entire
| technology as good or wrong. Vaccine as technology
| obviously has merit. Any particular vaccine may be
| problematic or not. Think H1N1 and narcolepsy, anthrax
| vaccine in gulf war etc.
|
| This kind of trash talk is exactly the same as anti-vax
| talk. I have no sympathy for either clan. As usual,
| people convert complex topic into binary decision which
| is madness.
| derefr wrote:
| > Its almost impossible to find out what happens after
| long time, say a decade, with the current approach.
|
| Most vaccines are much older than a decade. We know who
| gets vaccines; it's in their medical record, if not
| centralized anywhere. Longitudinal studies aren't
| impossible. So any random hospital could do a
| longitudinal retrospective data-collection study on the
| consequences for their own patients of either having
| received a given vaccination decades previous or not, no?
|
| > What kind of nonsense is that?
|
| I understood what they meant, and they're right. They're
| making an incomplete-information decision-theory
| argument. To rephrase them with more precision:
|
| Selecting a person from the population at random; and
| taking the category of "vaccines that will confer
| absolutely no benefits to that person specifically", and
| selecting a vaccine at random from that category; that
| person will, with high probability, incur _more_ QALY-
| risk from _paying_ for the vaccine (because they 'll then
| have fewer dollars to pay for unplanned expenses, which
| can be quite problematic for the median member of the
| population), than they will from any iatrogenic illness
| induced by getting the vaccine itself.
|
| Outlier vaccines do nothing to change this, any more than
| those few poisoned bottles of aspirin did anything to
| increase the _non-contingent_ risk profile of taking
| aspirin. Especially because, like the poisoned aspirin,
| outlier vaccines aren 't on the market for very long
| compared to safe vaccines.
| majkinetor wrote:
| > study on the consequences for their own patients of
| either having received a given vaccination decades
| previous or not, no?
|
| No! If you think its possible to pin point exactly what
| is the source of the problem with decade of various
| stressors piling up on anybody you should think again. It
| basically has infinite confounding variables.
|
| > those few poisoned bottles of aspirin did anything to
| increase the non-contingent risk profile of taking
| aspirin.
|
| Please educate more about this - do you know that
| ibuprofen is result of long time search to replace
| aspirin due to its toxicity (such as stomach bleeding
| that you will get sooner or later).
|
| Its insane that people outsource medicine. One should
| strive to know as much as possible about it, with focus
| on prevention.
| kiba wrote:
| That's why if you hadn't done your homework, I believe
| you should just follow the recommendation of your doctor
| and/or the CDC.
|
| They likely laid all the groundwork for you in term of
| cost/benefit.
|
| But there's no point in blindly taking vaccines for the
| sake of taking vaccines and increasing your risk of
| becoming part of the fatality statistics.
| derefr wrote:
| A few "yes, but..."s:
|
| > If you're not traveling outside the US and living a
| fairly normal life
|
| Globally, given an at-least-middle-class lifestyle (and any
| other years than 2020-2021), "not travelling outside [your
| home country]" is actually rather abnormal. It's mostly an
| American thing.
|
| I've seen it hypothesized that higher risk-aversion from a
| media-inculcated culture of fear could be responsible for
| Americans' unique disinterest in international travel.
|
| If that were true, then "properly calibrating your risk-
| aversion" as we're talking about here, would potentially
| result in the average American desiring to travel a lot
| more -- which would then mean that the extra vaccinations
| would have rather more justification.
|
| > Should every sexually active person take PrEP regularly
| since HIV is a potential risk to everyone? No, there are
| populations of risk exposure where it makes sense though.
|
| I mean, if we just had a huge supply of PrEP laying around
| so that we could afford to be wasteful with it, we _could_
| just give it to every sexually-active person for a while to
| stop transmission, and so effectively eradicate HIV.
| (Everyone already infected would keep taking it until
| death, but nobody new would be getting infected, so as soon
| as all those people passed away, there 'd be no more HIV.)
|
| Personally, I'd see it as my duty as a citizen of the world
| to participate in a program like that. I want to live to
| see that virus die.
|
| But moreover, doing so would eliminate _the risk of anyone
| ever contracting HIV again_ ; which doesn't just have
| personal consequences for arbitrary individuals from the
| population; but also has _societal_ effects (in any country
| with socialized healthcare), and even _cultural_ effects
| (in terms of changing the landscape of sexual mores.) Those
| effects _could_ have net-positive utility that greatly
| outweighs the personal calculus of "am I more likely to
| get HIV, or an iatrogenic illness from PrEP." (I don't
| think anyone's done the true cost-benefit for the societal-
| level effects. It'd be interesting to see.)
|
| See also: the argument to eliminating homelessness. Where,
| in that case, the societal-level "economically externalized
| from the individual" effects (e.g. fewer unpaid ER visits
| per homeless person) clearly _do_ come out highly net-
| positive, such that we should strive to do that even if
| such programs were economically net-negative per homeless
| person. Thus thinking like "just give every homeless
| person a house."
|
| > Your dentist only takes x-rays every so often because the
| x-ray exposure increases risk of various forms of cancer.
|
| X-rays are an outmoded technology, though. If we could make
| MRI machines cheap enough, dentists could do what they do
| now with X-rays, by instead taking MRI captures and using a
| spectrum that highlights the bone-density sections.
|
| In that hypothetical world, there'd be no downside to
| getting a new MRI every time you visit the dentist.
| simplestats wrote:
| > Globally, given an at-least-middle-class lifestyle (and
| any other years than 2020-2021), "not travelling outside
| [your home country]" is actually rather abnormal. It's
| mostly an American thing.
|
| Japanese people don't leave Japan much either. And
| between those two countries we've now called half the
| developed world "abnormal". It may be just as accurate to
| say Europe is the outlier, especially when you consider
| all of humanity and all of civilized history. Also it
| obviously depends where people travel to, developed or
| otherwise.
|
| Either way though, the vaccination recommendations in the
| US (as I'm sure every country) vary depending on whether
| you plan to travel or not. There isn't a fixed policy for
| everyone, at least when it comes to recommendations.
| DFHippie wrote:
| > I've seen it hypothesized that higher risk-aversion
| from a media-inculcated culture of fear could be
| responsible for Americans' unique disinterest in
| international travel.
|
| I suspect it has more to do with the distance between
| most of the US and other nations combined with the
| variety Americans perceive within their own borders.
| Hawaii and Alaska are very different climatically and to
| a lesser degree culturally from Iowa. In many other
| nations national borders are closer and there's no
| intervening ocean, or perhaps only a narrow,
| theoretically swimmable strait, separating you from the
| next nation over.
| jws wrote:
| MRI is much lower resolution than X-ray. Dental
| researchers are speculating about using MRI for some
| uses, like implant planning, but the laws of physics are
| not in favor of reducing the voxel size to match the
| small features identified with X-rays.
|
| My dentist just upgraded their gear, the tech no longer
| leaves the room when shooting the image, and I didn't get
| a lead blanket. Presumably that means the technology
| improved again and the total X-ray energy went down.
| derefr wrote:
| I don't know much about MRI technology, but would you get
| an improvement in resolution if the whole machine was
| scaled down (i.e. because it only needs to fit someone's
| head in it, rather than their whole body)?
| Kliment wrote:
| There's already head-only MRI machines. Like all MRI
| machines, they are phenomenally expensive to operate, eat
| shittons of energy, and only make sense if they're in
| constant use. But yes, reducing bore size improves
| resolution.
| hasmolo wrote:
| don't drive cars, they can crash and it can be fatal while
| having other side effects, however rare they are.
| hattar wrote:
| Ignoring the sarcasm, more than 32,000 people are killed
| and 2 million are injured each year from motor vehicle
| crashes in the US. It's no heart disease (600,000+ deaths -
| leading cause in the US) but for the healthy and young,
| it's a leading cause of death/side effects (injury). So in
| some sense you're probably right.
| saltyfamiliar wrote:
| Cars are the worst. Side effects include air pollution,
| cancer, death of nearby pedestrians, municipal neglect of
| sidewalks, extreme inefficiency of resources resulting from
| rolling around a 2000 pound hunk of metal for every 180
| pound person that wants get anywhere, sprawling asphalt
| deserts, weight gain and death. Don't bother contacting
| anyone if you experience one or more of these symptoms.
| majkinetor wrote:
| There seem to be a lot of "side effects" of driving cars,
| in fantastic amounts, you isolated only 1:
|
| 1. You can become invalid
|
| 2. You can kill buss of kids
|
| 3. You can go to jail
|
| 4. It can be very hard on your finance
|
| 5. You can have your car stolen
|
| 6. You can lose your nerves
|
| 7. There are bunch of diseases involved due to gasses
|
| etc...
|
| Basically, every single person I know had some problem with
| the car. Probably the best not to have them.
| newsbinator wrote:
| I agree with that statement (not sarcastic)
| TravHatesMe wrote:
| One is a conscious decision the other is rolling the dice.
| wesleywt wrote:
| Both are rolling dice/die?
| dunefox wrote:
| Both are the same.
| userbinator wrote:
| I don't know anyone who finds getting vaccinated to be
| pleasurable, unlike driving.
| freen wrote:
| Now you have an N of one.
|
| I found it highly pleasurable.
| nend wrote:
| I mean driving is easily the most dangerous thing people do
| on a daily basis. It's the leading cause of death for
| Americans under 55. You're not really making the point you
| think you are.
| matbatt38 wrote:
| This but unironically
| kiba wrote:
| Taking vaccine is a cost/benefit tradeoff, even if the
| tradeoff is often lopsided in favor of vaccine.
|
| However, vaccine for incredibly rare or non-existent
| disease isn't likely worth the tradeoff. Or maybe a
| particular vaccine is too dangerous or experimental.
|
| Anyway, if the CDC recommend a vaccine for something, it's
| likely that they had looked into it and decided that the
| upside is worth more than the risk.
| ralusek wrote:
| Vaccines are also, themselves, not exactly GOOD for you.
| They're just eliciting an immune response in order to obtain
| immunological defense at a theoretically/hopefully lower cost
| than the alternative infection.
|
| Subjecting yourself to immune response, which for some
| vaccines can have high amount of reactogenicity, is having
| your body undergo heavy inflammation, a fair amount of tissue
| damage, etc. The people that just treat vaccines like they're
| a wheatgrass shot is pretty strange.
| DeWilde wrote:
| I have a rare condition related to insulin resistance and
| diabetes, blood sugar spikes greatly worsen my health.
|
| Discovered that vaccines spike sugar prety significantly
| after getting my two shots this year. Won't be getting
| boosters anytime soon as the side effects were gruesome.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Wouldn't that make you an antivaxxer? You surely don't
| want to be mixed up with that crowd, do you?
| mlyle wrote:
| If someone has a demonstrated reaction to the vaccine --
| e.g. much worse blood sugar levels -- they can rationally
| decide that they may not want to get another dose based
| on an earnest assessment of the risk from not getting
| dosed vs. the risk of getting dosed.
|
| People with e.g. allergies to polysorbate choosing not to
| get vaccinated are not "antivaxxers".
| bavell wrote:
| I completely agree with you but I think OP is poking fun
| at the overzealousness of some people accusing others of
| being anti-vax when the covid vaccines are the only ones
| those people oppose. Of course there are actual
| antivaxxers out there who believe in microchips, etc but
| now even people who have gotten the vaccine but oppose
| mandates are labelled "antivaxxers" by dictionaries these
| days: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-
| vaxxer
|
| I wish we could have a rational discussion around these
| topics without accusations being fired back and forth in
| bad faith. It just drives people further into their
| existing positions and hardens them to criticism.
| mlyle wrote:
| > I wish we could have a rational discussion around these
| topics without accusations being fired back and forth in
| bad faith. It just drives people further into their
| existing positions and hardens them to criticism.
|
| Well, trying to "poke fun" like this, with Poe's law
| being what it is, does nothing to bring the temperature
| down.
|
| Our choices are:
|
| * "Poking fun" is intended and this is likely to provoke
| people who label others as antivax without adding
| anything to the discussion.
|
| * or this is sincere.
|
| Neither is a great look.
| ncmncm wrote:
| I would like to be able to discuss vaccines, side
| effects, contraindications, without hysteria. But that
| has become impossible.
|
| E.g., I have seen a peer-reviewed RCT report that loading
| up on argenine reduces side effects from COVID spike-
| protein vaccines, in people who have trouble with those.
| It seems like an easy choice, because argenine is easy to
| spike -- just eat lots of nuts -- and is at worst mostly
| harmless. That seems like something that could be
| discussed sanely, but it draws trouble.
| progman32 wrote:
| Let's debate the merit of the poster's argument instead
| of casting labels around. Do you think there's no scope
| for medical exemptions for vaccine requirements? High
| blood sugar is dangerous, and the OP specifically said:
|
| > blood sugar spikes greatly worsen my health.
|
| I'm curious what the condition is, and if there's
| mitigations available or if one vaccine is worse than the
| other.
| DeWilde wrote:
| It worsens my health by increasing the amount of insulin
| my body secretes and if pushed too high this can cause
| type 2 diabetes.
|
| Other side effects include cysts and cystic acne. The
| amount these occurred after both shots was pretty high
| and the occurrence was pretty persistent for two months
| after each shot (AZ with 3 months in-between shot).
|
| While both times I had Covid, before and after the
| vaccine, my insulin stayed within normal ranges. So maybe
| the attenuated virus vaccines can be used for people like
| me? Or maybe none, if no risk factors like obesity or old
| age are present as the side effects are also life
| shortening.
| ncmncm wrote:
| I wonder if you already eliminated fructose from your
| diet.
| [deleted]
| eloff wrote:
| My parents both reported consistent elevated blood sugar
| levels after getting the Pfizer vaccine. Not sure if it
| was related or just coincidence, but there seem numerous
| reports of the same online. It should be temporary
| though.
| DeWilde wrote:
| The immune response causes elevated blood sugar, among
| other things, for around 2 weeks.
|
| For most people this is not really harmful but for people
| with blood glucose problems it can cause severe issues.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I'd suggest the antispitefulness vaccine
| pseudolus wrote:
| In a somewhat similar vein on the mouse research circuit "Grape
| seed extract found to extend lifespan of old mice" [0].
|
| [0] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-12-grape-seed-
| lifespan-m... .
| eezurr wrote:
| The day we escape death will begin the descent into the longest
| dark age humanity will ever experience.
|
| Death is necessary to allow new ideas and change to be brought
| into the world. Death is necessary to prevent wealth and power
| accumulating into fewer hands. Death is necessary for others to
| enjoy the right to bear and raise children.
|
| EDIT: 2 minutes go by and this comment has already been downvoted
| 3+ times. At least respond before you downvote.
| namrog84 wrote:
| Society won't stay the same if we don't die from age induced
| problems. Lots of rules and laws will have to change. To say
| death is only option undercuts the potential for humans to
| change and become better.
|
| Throughout history there have been plenty of people in power
| and rule to see the errors of their ways and induce lasting
| real positive change. Sure there will be growing and transition
| pains but I for one welcome the impacts that human longevity
| will bring longer term.
| jhatemyjob wrote:
| Death is still gonna happen, people will just kill each other
| pas wrote:
| Wtf is this deathcult bullshit.
|
| Maybe in 2A Jesusland death is the only option, but in other
| parts of the world there are taxes and proportional
| representation and euthanasia.
|
| Yes, there are problems, but saying that death (and more
| specifically aging with all of its shitty slow painful
| consequences) is great (okay, you said necessary), because it
| somehow "solves" other problems is a logical fallacy.
|
| Plus, "actually" aging is one of the things that causes
| inequality, because wealthy people live longer thanks to having
| access to better healthcare, food, lifestyle, etc.
| speedcoder wrote:
| Hmm. Do you mean to imply an external Dorian Gray effect may
| happen:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Picture_of_Dorian_Gray?
| Wonder if there would be any other biological intra-cellular or
| inter-cellular Dorian Gray effects that may happen? Or, if this
| may really be a new free lunch.
| bsd44 wrote:
| People spend their lives in misery and then go out of their way
| to try and artificially prolong it. :)
| bsenftner wrote:
| If this is real, it will be huge, but my suspicions are on high
| alert. Why only Japan Times, and not "Breaking News! Immortality
| in humanity's grasp!" taking over the airwaves like O.J.
| Simpson's car chase?
| hirenj wrote:
| Here's the paper:
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00151-2
| hirenj wrote:
| It's an odd protein they're hitting - GPMNB is expressed pretty
| widely, so I wonder what the proteoform is that they're
| targeting/recognising here.
|
| Can't get to the paper using all the usual tricks, so it's hard
| to say what exactly they're immunising with, which could answer
| a lot of my questions.
| [deleted]
| battles wrote:
| *in mice
| cinntaile wrote:
| Haha of course it is... Whenever you see an amazing research
| result you immediately know it's in mice.
|
| If I want to be a bit cynical... In the future we will likely
| find that these cells serve an important purpose and that we
| can't just eliminate them. The research needs to be done
| though!
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Imagine the costs of a vaccine that would make you immortal in
| the US? Surely not everyone would be able to afford it.
|
| But then we could implement an immortality lottery, to give
| everyone a shot. That could be the devious slogan: "everyone gets
| a shot". Devious because not everyone does, of course.
|
| If you win you get the vaccine and live forever, but your friends
| and family aren't included.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think for immortality I might be convinced to save up for a
| year and visit Japan...
| dougmwne wrote:
| Death represents a pretty serious destruction of human capital.
| If people will work forever, then why not let them live
| forever, much less retraining and less money spent on
| recruiting. This is only semi-sarcastic;)
| lordnacho wrote:
| Thank you for your application for "Junior Developer".
| Unfortunately we only take applicants with 100 years of
| JavaScript experience, 100 years of c++, at least 2M stars on
| GitHub contributions, and 4 PhDs in machine learning, and 200
| StackOverflow points.
|
| Feel free to apply again next time Halley's comet is visible.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| >200 StackOverflow points
|
| You forgot to mention Excel and Word.
| Andy_G11 wrote:
| It would allow career diversification, though. Maybe
| there's a bit part going in Sly Stallone's 'Expendables
| 3194'?
| no_way wrote:
| Death does allow for new cultural shift in society, imagine
| if all the politicians lived forever, the space for change
| would be even more limited than it is now/
| gremloni wrote:
| Stop being a Luddite. That's how technology works. First it's
| available to only the super rich because it is expensive, then
| over time with advances and improvement or production it
| becomes more widely available. It's cell therapy, it will
| inevitable end up becoming cheap.
| pengaru wrote:
| The real affordability problem of immortality is resources to
| support the population growth when people stop dying off.
| lottin wrote:
| I don't know why you assume it will be unaffordable.
| MichaelBurge wrote:
| There's a limit on the number of times a cell can divide(the
| telomere length), so it seems like a "vaccine" against them would
| decrease lifespan by reducing the limit by 1.
|
| But it sounds like cells reaching that limit, cause other
| effects(inflammation, etc.) that are perhaps even worse for
| lifespan. So this wouldn't be an anti-aging vaccine, but would
| reduce symptoms of aging.
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| Once US media sees this the headline will become "Japan
| Researchers Cure Death" and then the article will be
| disappointing to read. ;)
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| For the sake of discussion, which age would you want to pause at?
| 16, 24 for insurance reasons?
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| This doesn't work like that
| kyriakos wrote:
| it works cause its just a philosophical discussion at this
| point.
| kyriakos wrote:
| 16 is too young and you won't be able to do a lot of things
| unless you walk around with paperwork all the time. 24 sounds
| good but I'd pick 30 cause looking 30 people take you a bit
| more seriously. You will be able to relate more with people in
| their 30swhen you are 50 but look 30 than with people in their
| 20s. Of course in this hypothetical scenario if everyone is not
| aging then it all cahnges.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Yeah, maybe a separate question would be what the age would
| be if everyone in society was forced to pause at that age.
|
| I wonder what immortal oligarchs would even do...
| clairity wrote:
| they'd find other ways to kill each other. that's not
| facetious--our egos depend on getting an edge, however
| microscopic, over others, and when that doesn't happen, we
| get angry (that is, desperate and irrational) and do things
| we shouldn't. it's a tale as old as time.
|
| that 'modern', 'developed' civilizations haven't devolved
| this way yet isn't because we're all so cultivated now, but
| because we've lived in an unusual period of extended growth
| and excessive abundance which keeps destructive competition
| at bay. but infighting (i.e., tribalism) has been rising
| over the past 50+ years and is threatening to overthrow
| that period of prosperity and civility.
| eska wrote:
| I bet that assessment would cease to be the case once we have
| gotten used to 100 year olds that look 16
| kyriakos wrote:
| This assumes that treatment will be available to everyone
| and not just to select few.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| 16 is way too young. Assuming brain development is paused at
| that age, society would descend into some kind of Lord of the
| Flies hellscape.
| priansh wrote:
| I would argue society is already a Lord of the Flies
| hellscape.
| silverpepsi wrote:
| Speak for your own brain, I didn't make particularly
| impulsive decisions at that age nor at 40 do I have a problem
| with the logic behind the conclusions my 16 yo self made (I
| obviously had less data to draw from which wouldn't be an
| issue at year 50 of being 16). Just sayin'
| gremloni wrote:
| Probably around 28 so I'm done growing to my final height.
| clairity wrote:
| observing professional sports, you find that despite physical
| fitness/attributes having already plateaued in the early-mid
| twenties, people reach peak athletic performance in our late
| twenties when our mental facilities have fully matured and we
| have some modicum of experience.
|
| 27-29 is probably exactly the maximizing range, for this
| reason.
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| I'm not sure allowing the beginning of deterioration that
| occurs after around 25 is a good thing in this scenario.
| The mental maturity is most likely largely a result of
| experience. I'm sure it has some hormonal impact, but that
| doesn't automatically mean late 20s is superior if we can
| maintain the healing capacity of a 18 year old while
| increasing our experience and therefore ability to process
| the whole picture.
|
| I guess it comes down to: is the capacity of strategy
| developed as a result of age, or as a result of experience?
| clairity wrote:
| physical deterioration doesn't really become evident
| until after/around 30 (the end of the plateau). neural
| development happens well into our 20s, with a long
| plateau into our 30s and a gradual decline after that
| (only becoming substantial around retirement age). growth
| from experience seems to be substantial into the teens,
| where it hits an inflection point and starts to
| decelerate but still climbs, albeit more slowly over
| time, well into our 40s at least but possibly our whole
| lifetimes.
|
| we'd still get the most bang for buck if our age was
| 'frozen' in the late 20s because experience would still
| accumulate regardless, but we'd have maximized the combo
| of physical and mental growth. it's only obvious in
| retrospect how immature we are at 18, both physically and
| mentally, or even at 25. that's why sports is such a neat
| test bed, because it taxes both facilities enough to
| tease out these otherwise unnoticeable dynamics.
| [deleted]
| mikotodomo wrote:
| At 35. It's well known that human brain development does not
| end until past 30. Even before scientifically proven,
| intellectuals and teachers have observed anecdotes such as that
| singing only can begun to be mastered around the age 35.
|
| From Lilli Lehmann's How to Sing, page 108 (originally authored
| in the late 1800s):
|
| "No woman of less than twenty-four years should sing soubrette
| parts, none of less than twenty-eight years second parts, and
| none of less than thirty-five years dramatic parts; that is
| early enough."
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 35. Perfect balance between maturity and youth.
| ogwh wrote:
| Tell that to my hair follicles.
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| I started supplementing testosterone for reasons unrelated
| to hair loss. It has completely stopped and even reversed
| my thinning on top after just a few months.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Presumably under the direction of a doctor?
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| If I could choose an age for my physical body that would last
| indefinitely? I'd choose 29.
| AtticHacker wrote:
| How is this different from taking Senolytics? Is it that the
| vaccine helps your body fight senescent cells rather than having
| Senolytics remove them?
| JamesBarney wrote:
| I think the end result is the same.
|
| But not all senolytics are created equal. They differ in what
| cells they work on, how powerful they are, and how specific
| they are (the ratio of senescent to healthy cells they kill).
|
| Here's a quote from the article
|
| > Many of the existing drugs to remove senescent cells are used
| as anti-cancer agents and may cause negative side effects. Side
| effects from the new vaccine were fewer, while its efficacy
| lasted longer, the team said
| silexia wrote:
| What does HN think of the actual science behind this?
| dharmaturtle wrote:
| To not answer your question, here's the /r/science thread
| https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ren6cc/japanese_sc...
| WillDaSilva wrote:
| The title on that Reddit post is far better than the one on
| this post. It'd be nice if Hacker News would increase their
| title length limit.
| [deleted]
| fithisux wrote:
| Yeap and you can definitely eliminate cancer if you inject
| chlorine. But .....
| pezzana wrote:
| > The team, including Juntendo University professor Toru
| Minamino, confirmed that mice administered with the vaccine
| showed decreases in the zombie cells, medically known as
| senescent cells, and in areas affected by arterial stiffening.
|
| By now this has become a trope. "Researchers develop new
| treatment for {UNTREATED_DISEASE}" ... in mice.
|
| Mouse models of human disease are very limited in their
| predictive ability. There's a lot of research that needs to
| follow this before there's even a hope of a human trial, let
| alone vaccine. And the failure rate for treatments at the mouse
| stage is quite high.
|
| Some of the comments on this thread treat this research paper as
| the announcement of an an imminent anti-aging vaccine. It's not.
| twic wrote:
| > By now this has become a trope. "Researchers develop new
| treatment for {UNTREATED_DISEASE}" ... in mice.
|
| And a twitter account:
|
| https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice
|
| https://jamesheathers.medium.com/in-mice-explained-77b61b598...
| the__alchemist wrote:
| This is basic science; early research. Not immediately
| applicable, and harder for many people to see the benefit, but
| important. Humans share much fundamental biology with other
| mammals. Moue tests aren't guaranteed to be directly
| applicable, but it's what we've got.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Humans share much fundamental biology with other mammals.
|
| It's like saying a rock and a plant share fundamental atoms
| with each other. Biology even from one close specie to
| another is so mindbogglingly unpredictable that we don't have
| good models. In 2021.
| midjji wrote:
| Even the ever exaggerating pop sci article does not mention an
| increase in lifespan... At face value this seems more like
| evidence against the senescent cells theory of aging.
| arboghast wrote:
| There are many imminent aging therapies in clinical trials
| though or upcoming. Not saying it will reverse it but it may
| slow it down and compress the morbidity period. Such therapies
| include the promising Mayo Clinic trial on using large doses of
| Fisetin to get rid of senescent cells, or similarly Dasatnib +
| Quercetin, gene therapy like PGC-1a for maintaining muscle mass
| in older age, epigenetic reprogramming, mTOR inhibitors like
| Sirolimus or other rapalogues, etc.
|
| So it's very likely that some of the advances we see today that
| are still in clinical stage will hit the market in 5 to 15
| years.
|
| Edit: typo
| _ph_ wrote:
| I keep wondering if future generations will assume we had a
| special worship for mice considering how many diseases we tried
| to cure in mice :p
| simplestats wrote:
| Oh no, future generations will curse our barbarity for doing
| the experiments (from the comfort of their greatly-extended
| lifespans).
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| So we should start with mould? What are you saying exactly? We
| have to start somewhere...
| loeg wrote:
| I just want the breathless headlines to include "in mice" (or
| appropriate animal) if it wasn't in humans.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| OK got it! Both of you have well described it -- and I
| agree with you. :)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I didn't interpret the parent comment as arguing against mice
| models, just that there is a _huge_ gap between finding
| something that works in mice and then applying it to humans
| (with tons and tons of false starts), that any pronouncements
| that imply that human treatments are on the horizon are
| premature.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| This is well known and very well established. We don't like
| experimenting on humans. It's kind of ghoulish and evil.
|
| I get what you're saying but it's safe to assume that this
| concept is already baked into almost everyone's discussion on
| matters like this.
| pcrh wrote:
| >It's kind of ghoulish and evil.
|
| Experiments on humans happen very frequently. They're called
| "clinical trials".
| Aspos wrote:
| I am curious, why are they still using mice and not tiny
| monkeys? If they are using some animals, why use random mice
| and not a primate? Any specific reason other than tradition?
| Hokusai wrote:
| > in mice
|
| It will be interesting to know how long can we extend that live
| of mice. I guess that before immortal human beings we should
| achieve mice immortality.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| I guess if it does NOT work on mice, it's highly unlikely to
| work on humans? In this case, it might be good predictor of
| failure, which can save a lot of money. Just speculating...
|
| Also, if something really bad goes on mice, we can avoid having
| that happening to humans. Which I would also value a lot.
|
| I mean, it seems to me experimenting on mice might be worth it.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > I guess if it does NOT work on mice, it's highly unlikely
| to work on humans?
|
| There is virtually no relationship whatsoever between what
| works in mice and humans. Such headlines are completely
| ridiculous by now: the track record of applicability is a
| train wreck.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| This very much depends on the mouse model of disease.
| Obesity drugs for instance are highly predictive.
| kevinalexbrown wrote:
| Yes and this response has also become a trope. It's generically
| universal to nearly any early result.
| glenstein wrote:
| Completely agree that the response is a trope at this point.
|
| I've seen more comment section finger wagging in response to
| science articles, offering such wisdom as correlation isn't
| causation, XYZ "isn't a panacea", research into treatments to
| mitigate or avoid cancer "don't cure cancer", statistical
| confidence of 95% falls short of absolute proof, and any
| number of extraneous add-ons that make caricatures of the
| research and then bat those caricatures down.
|
| It reminds me of this quip from the Onion, back in 2009:
|
| "All that in just six years? Wow, that's so amazing. If you
| can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. And I'm being sarcastic
| because I don't understand the significance of the study."
|
| https://www.theonion.com/cow-genome-outlined-1819560275
| dbcurtis wrote:
| Gotta admit though, there has never been a better time to be a
| mouse.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Really? Because they get experimented on and then slaughtered
| by the thousands
| [deleted]
| majkinetor wrote:
| You forgot tiny detail that they live in prison for entire
| life eating equivalent of Mc Donalds or worse.
| throwamon wrote:
| Just knowing I'd have guaranteed food and housing would
| make my life less miserable than it is now. Oh, and I
| love McDonald's.
| delecti wrote:
| Unless they're "participants" in an experiment related to
| McDonald's, it's probably closer to say they spend their
| life eating the equivalent of Soylent.
|
| Though 1/3 of my meals are Soylent, so even that doesn't
| seem entirely terrible.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| This is true. Everything held constant nothing changing
| and its far too cold. Its worse than being in US prison,
| somehow
| rmbyrro wrote:
| At least some get lucky and sometimes slow down aging - for
| example - when things work out.
|
| I don't want to think about what the others go through when
| things go wrong, though...
| sva_ wrote:
| Pretty sure they'll still get killed once the experiment
| is completed.
| majkinetor wrote:
| The term used in papers is often 'sacrificed'.
| rixed wrote:
| Actually, by the million (monthly)
|
| https://www.science.org/content/article/how-many-mice-and-
| ra...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-12 23:01 UTC)