75 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

Speaking of which, where is the chat log?

Didn't it get recorded?

[sjayo]

Prometheus et al.: The chat last night was quite enjoyable. Open debate like that is ideal in my view, and I really appreciate Aubrey and others staying up late into the night to participate. A couple of points are worth noting.

Cosmos: I always have been on your side, although I would not encourage the use of immortality as a target -- I honestly believe that it is a mistake and it alienates researchers trying to generate the small incremental steps required to approach the more modest and realistic goal of understanding and slowing down the aging process. In my view, using immortality as the target is like saying let's develop new flight technology to make faster planes so we can eventually travel faster than the speed of light in order to explore the outer edges of the universe. We may very well want to do the latter, but to get there the goal is to begin by generating the technology that will allow planes to fly faster. The scientists actually in the trenches have more immediate goals in mind. I thought Marc Geddes stated it perfectly in an earlier post when he said these ideas should be presented as a philosophy or vision rather than a goal for scientists now working in the trenches to paste on the wall as their target. Also, the argument that we're only a few years and several hundred million dollars away from achieving immortality is also harmful in my view. This relates to the point made by Darauch earlier -- he seems to believe (without evidence) that we have a good idea what causes aging, and if only we can fix all of these things, aging will disappear, and that nanotechnology will eventually fix everything. We thought we knew everything about cancer in the 1970s, which is why a war against this disease was declared. Even though we're much further along in understanding cancer and how to treat it, it remains the second leading cause of death (first in some parts of the world). Aging is likely to be orders of magnitude more complex than cancer, in spite of some telling us that it's a simple matter to solve if we only fix the following problems, and we're just scratching the surface in our understanding of the genome. The fact remains that no one yet knows the details of why aging occurs, no one yet knows whether the proposed interventions will work; no one yet knows whether nanotechnology will have any influence on aging; and no one yet knows how much longer we might live with advances in technology. There are plenty of people who make boastful claims, but until the science is in, such claims in my view should be held in check -- and when they are made, I think they are harmful to those who make them as well as to the science of aging community.

This is an exciting time in the field of aging, and there is every reason to be optimistic and hopeful that science will find a way to slow aging. I certainly keep notions of immortality, or at least much longer lifespans in the back of my mind as a Geddes vision, but in the forefront are the day-to-day battles required to get us there, and a I don't want to see anything interfere with this progress.

I look forward to another chat. There is a chance I can make the meeting in November.
S. Jay Olshansky

[Bruce Klein]

There is a chance I can make the meeting in November.

Excellent.

[Kalepha]

Casanova The people on websites like these are Technophiles, TechnoZealots, and TechnoFundamentalists. The TechnoFundamantalism expressed on these websites is as bad as the Fundamantalism of religious fanatics.

I’m currently working on formally reconciling Seneca’s (et al.) Stoicism with technophilia. I believe it’s very possible and well worth the try.

[darauch]

Contrary to what JayO has been saying, stopping and reversing aging is possible. An argument of necessity to support this claim follows.

Aging is reducible to the behavior of molecules (1), and molecules can be manipulated (2). Claim (1) follows from the idea that humans are exclusively natural in composition (rather than supernatural), and claim (2) has been well established.

An understanding of our component molecules derives from progress in biomedical research.

The pace of biomedical research is largely dependent upon the price performance of computers. (For example, before the price performance of computers reached a certain level the human genome project would have been impossible.)

As price performance rises exponentially, the pace of biomedical research should rise as well.

This last premise leads to a trend in which biomedical research leads to more knowledge (concerning our component molecules) in the next x years than was obtained in the last x years.

Since we are composed of a finite number of molecules, not only will we eventually know everything about our component molecules, this knowledge will be realized sooner than if price performance of computers came to a halt, which has not happened.

Furthermore, advanced nanotechnology will be developed because it conforms to physics, and there is an economic incentive to develope it.

Advanced nanotechnology, in turn, will allow for the manipulation of our component molecules in vivo.

Thus, not only is it possible to stop and reverse aging, but it is envitable assuming current progress in technology continues. This is because (as shown above) such progess will translate to the complete knowledge of our component molecules, and the ability to manipulate these molecules.

Edited by darauch, 23 May 2005 - 10:30 PM.

[John Schloendorn]

Hi guys, sorry I missed out on this one. It seems that I got blocked by our uni firewall, should have tested this earlier ***!

JayO, thanks for sharing your views with us. Our goals are certainly similar. As for our means, I would like to get back to this question, by my namesake John:

John: 100 billion $ into an aggressive age-retardation research program, would the likelihood of saving people born before 2000 increase substantially?

JayO: Good question. If such a dramatic technological breakthrough occurs lets say in 2030, my daughter will be 46 years old -- with 46 years worth of accumulated damage. It might be far easier to prevent damage than reverse it -- I'm just not convinced that we can take someone who has already lived a half century and extend their life by 100 years. I'd love to see it.

From this I read quite a different conception of accumulating damage and aging than Aubrey, who believes that it is

not the case that reversing aging is necessarily all that much harder (or indeed any harder) than retarding it.

(from the credibility of SENS web page). If we had such a "war on aging" going, how do you think the goal of increasing healthy longevity would be / should be pursued, technically? If you were in charge of such a huge project as envisioned by John, what science would get funded?

[ellis2ca]

I missed the discussion, but after reading the logs, I am almost glad I missed it. You guys and I are on a totally different wavelength. Everything that you discuss is theoretical, you are all sitting and waiting for nanotechnology or perhaps the advances in genome medicine or something in the future to extend lifespan. Is
anybody doing something about trying to be immortal, or are you waiting for the
Government to find the cure to mortality?

Nobody or very few of you seems to be doing anything about applying the existing known therapies to try to reach age 150, or 130, or even 100, much less immortality.

My gripes with Prof. Olshansky is that he does not use ANY hormones, but he knocks them, and he scares people away from the best known and most practical anti aging therapy. He scares you by saying there are side effects, which aren't there or haven't appeared in thousands of persons taking correct doses of growth hormone, and he scares you by saying that it is ILLEGAL to use growth hormone for anti aging purposes.

"Off-label use of GH for anti-aging is illegal in the U.S., in spite of people claiming the contrary. "

False. I am not a Lawyer, but I will bet $10 to $1 that it is false. The F.D.A. has approved various brands of growth hormone for use in children and for Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency. After the F.D.A. has approved a medicine, it is up to DOCTORS to prescribe it, and they can prescribe it for unapproved uses, otherwise Medicine would stand still waiting for the F.D.A. to see if they can use it. Mr. Olshansky's motive in saying that it is ILLEGAL is to scare you away from using growth hormone, and I don't know why he thinks this way, but he does.


There are 14,000 doctors across the United States that disagree with him, and Life Extension Foundation disagrees with that statement, or else they are breaking the law and getting away with it, so which is it?

In any case, I am saying that you should not be frightened that if your doctor prescribes growth hormone for anti aging purposes it is illegal.

"Importing it into the U.S. from Mexico or other countries is also illegal."

False, again. You can buy growth hormone in Mexico, declare it at U.S. Customs when you come back to the United States, and you can pass without any problem. If an agent has doubt and calls the F.D.A., the F.D.A. tells them you can pass with your growth hormone. I know this is true because I know several different persons who have come to Mexico and I advise them to declare it when they go through U.S. Customs, and they have told me that they had no problem.

So... it is not true that it is "illegal" to import growth hormone into the U.S..

As for worrying about cancer, or acromegalia, or diabetes, or other side effects from taking growth hormone, let me tell you that you should cross that bridge when you get to it, if you get to it. There is no increase in the incidence of cancer, there are no cases of accidental acromegalia, and gentlemen, if you get diabetes, I don't care if you got it because growth hormone caused it as Mr. Olshansky warns it might, or if you got it because you have not eaten correctly for 50 years as I say it is, it doesn't matter what is the cause, TREAT your diabetes and get your glucose under control, and you will live as long or longer than a normal lifespan.

As for Don Spanton, who says that my statement to Mr. Olshansky "the only way you will ever know what the growth hormone experience is like is to try it yourself" is absurd, and who tells me "Please try to stick to a discussion of the data and leave the rhetoric at the door..." You, Don Spanton, perhaps think you can know about growth hormone from your extensive knowledge of the literature, as Mr. Olshansky also claims he does too... But... Mr. Olshansky has never tried any hormones, and I will think you have not taken any hormones or taken any blood tests either. So neither of you has felt or seen the results of 30 days of growth hormone, and I say you can't really understand it unless you try it.

Please don't talk down to me, because I speak from personal experience, having had more than 2000 doses of growth hormone and more than 4000 blood tests of all kinds, and I have had feedback from hundreds of doctors who are members of the American Academy of Anti Aging Medicine, and I have answered more han 9000 posts related to growth hormone and other anti aging therapies, which Mr. Olshansky says do not work. Maybe they don't work, but we sure do feel and look better than our age.

Which brings me to challenge Aubrey, and Mr. Olshansky, and Don Spanton, and everybody else in the ImmInst.org board who is not taking growth hormone... I challeng you to live as long as I intend to live, because I am taking growth hormone and other hormones. How about a bet?

You are seeking immortality, I am only seeking a very long and healhy life... Let's just see who lives longer. I am taking growth hormone, testosterone, and other hormones. I will bet I will live longer than anybody who is not taking growth hormone and or testosterone. We shold put this in writing, and fund it, like Mr. Olshansky did with somebody else. (I think Mr. Olshansky will win the bet, ie, I don't think even I will live to age 150... but I do think I might live past age 120, which today is about as long as anybody has ever lived)

And please don't misinterpret me, I do hope you will all live to 120 also... but I doubt that you will because you are not taking growth hormone and testosterone (or estrogen and progesterone.) So I advise anybody not to bet with me, and to take growth hormone and testosterone, but if you are decided that it is bad for you, then let's bet to see who makes the better choice.

- Ellis Toussier

So... I will bet with anybody who wants to accept the following bet: I, Ellis Toussier, age nearly 60, bet that I will live a longer natural life taking as many hormones as I want to take, than anybody who renounces to take growth hormone or testosterone during his or her life, or until a doctor diagnoses that you must take the hormone.

I will, in fact, give you 2 to 1 odds, which I shouldn't have to do because you think I am going to lose, but I will because I am very confident I will win. I will bet up to $100 against your $50, and I will accept up to 10 such bets... We will buy stock in a mutually agreed company on the American or New York Stock Market... and the winner or his heirs will receive the stock someday.

What an absurd statement. Its well known that traditional steroids make the user feel on top of the world, like they have the strength of ten men. This doesn't however mean that steroids lack deleterious side effects. The same goes for human growth hormone. It may make you "feel good", but this is irrelevant to discussions centered around life extension. Personal testimonials are unscientific IMO and of very little value. Please try to stick to a discussion of the data and leave the rhetoric at the door.

[Mind]

I with Ellis 100%. I get the feeling (just a feeling) that JayO and Don S. are against GH and other hormones because they are "illegal" in some form. It is just like when people here the word "steroid" there is an immediate negative reaction. This happens because we have all been brainwashed by media reports over and over and over and over and over again that steroids are nothing but bad and people die from them. Any substance, when abused, will cause illness. I could kill myself with vitamin C if I took enough. Steroids are hormones/growth factors and there may be safe levels that people could use for anti-aging purposes, HOWEVER, there is such a negative stigma that hardly any research is going forward. Also, here in the U.S., Congress is trying to reach even farther into the realm of regulating supplements just in order to preserve Hank Aaron's home run record....PATHETIC!!! Don and JayO, my fear is that you are just feeding the regulation frenzy.

Another point about GH. Almost everyone who uses it heralds its effectiveness. I have seen people (in TV documentaries) with remarkable transformations in their outward appearance (I make no claim about internal biological markers). They look younger, stronger, and healthier.....and I think this bothers some people...like the GH users are cheating or something. Everyone here should be aware that every therapy that will be developed to counter aging, just for the sake of living longer (not for curing presently known diseases), will be frowned upon, regulated, or deemed illegal, unless we change some minds out there. And we are not going to change minds by dissing people who use GH.

JayO: We thought we knew everything about cancer in the 1970s, which is why a war against this disease was declared.

If you know anything about the war on cancer JayO, you know that the majority, scratch that, the vast majority of the money earmarked for cancer research (for about the first 20 years) went into a search for a cancer virus. The war on viruses from earlier in the 20th century was so successful that the public and politicians were easily swayed to the virus theory of cancer. The war was unsuccessful because of a faulty initial premise. Only recently (once the virus theory was mostly disregarded) have new and innovative therapies helped survival rates of cancer patients.

[sjayo]

With regard to the issue of the effectiveness and legality of GH, I would direct your attention to the following articles:

S. Mitchell Harman and Marc R. Blackman Hormones and Supplements: Do They Work?: Use of Growth Hormone for Prevention or Treatment of Effects of Aging
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004 59: B652-B658.

Neal R. Reisman Anti-Aging Medicine: The Legal Issues: Legal Issues Associated With the Current and Future Practice of Anti-Aging Medicine J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004 59: B674-B681.

Thomas T. Perls Anti-Aging Medicine: The Legal Issues: Anti-Aging Quackery: Human Growth Hormone and Tricks of the Trade—More Dangerous Than Ever
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004 59: B682-B691.

These are contained in a special issue of the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences published in July of 2004 under the editorship of myself, Len Hayflick, and Tom Perls. All of the articles in the two special issues devoted to this topic are available through the Gerontological Society of American from the following website: http://www.geron.org/antiaging.htm in a book that we created on this topic. It's well worth reading since many of the issues raised by Ellis are covered (FYI - we make no profit on the book). The legal issues associated with GH in the U.S. are quite unique and given the discussion on this topic so far, it is certain that some are unfamiliar with the very unique laws that apply to the use of GH for non-approved uses.

There may very well be a place for GH in a general approach to treating some of the changes that occur in the body with the passage of time. I personally made this argument repeatedly. What we are suggesting is that this compound should await proper testing for safety and efficacy. To those who choose to place a biologically active compound in their body without knowing the full range of long-term (and sometimes short-term) health effects, that is a decision they are making for themselves, but it is in every conceivable way an experiment they are conducting on their own bodies. Some have suggested that they do not care to wait for the science to confirm what they already know to be true through personal experience. These words should sound familiar for they are the same words used by those who swore by Pfen-Pfen. If I do harbor a prejedice, it is on the side of caution in favor of protecting public health and safety. There are too many examples of other compounds sold and administered under off-label use with purported health benefits, only to find later once properly evaluated, that they can actually do harm or that they do not do what those selling it claim it does. Weighing the various health costs and benefits is part of the evaluation process.
S. Jay Olshansky

[DJS]

To those who choose to place a biologically active compound in their body without knowing the full range of long-term (and sometimes short-term) health effects, that is a decision they are making for themselves, but it is in every conceivable way an experiment they are conducting on their own bodies.

Exactly Mind, Ellis -- if you want to use GH, please, be my guest. I am a strong supporter of personal liberties and believe that people should be able to do whatever they desire with their own bodies. However, when you are trying to convince me or others to use a questionable compound please make sure to include studies with double blind clinical trials, and leave your anecdotal personal experiences with GH at the door.

In the past I've read papers whose published results would make me extremely hesitant to try growth hormones (plus, Im in my 20's so there's really no need). Now, I'm not saying that I am an expert, or all that well read on GH, but I do believe that there are legitimate reasons to be cautious.

Again, I support granting the individual the freedom to use GH, but I also agree with Jay's assertion that people are effectively turning themselves into guinea pigs.

Edited by DonSpanton, 27 May 2005 - 11:27 PM.

[jaydfox]

Okay, for starters, let's pretend that GH actually does have some anti-aging effect, one that will be vindicated in the next decade or two.

How big would such an effect be? A year, statistically speaking? Five? Consider for a moment what S. Jay's specialty is, at least as far as I'm aware: mortality rates.

If we cut mortality rates in half (starting at relevant ages, i.e. adulthood), we only add at most one MRDT (Mortality Rate Doubling Time). In humans, that's at most 10 years, and probably closer to 7-8 years. And remember, I said we add at most that much time. In actuality, halving mortality rates at all relevant ages might add 5-6 years.

Now call me a cynic, but GH will at most have such an effect, namely to cut mortality rates in half. Think back to resveratrol, the wonder drug of a few years ago. It was found to lower mortality rates by potentially 25%-45%. Yippee!! But wait, why do people only live on average 3-5 years longer? Well, it goes back to the MRDT. A 45% reduction in mortality rates is slightly less effective than halving those rates, and we've already seen how this adds at most 6 years.

The point is, even if GH miraculously works as well or slightly better than resveratrol, we're only going to see the same small gains. And that's the BEST CASE SCENARIO. More likely, it'll have a negligible effect, with health problems matching the health benefits. At worst, it'll actually subtract years.

Moreover, the point is: GH is a red herring!!! Adding 3-6 years will certainly save a lot of lives, in the best case scenario. But it's a far cry from the type of medicine that Dr. de Grey is pursuing. Medicine that will actually increase the MRDT itself, and/or dramatically reduce mortality rates at advanced ages (not by a mere 50%, but by 90%, or 95%, for example).

So let's keep our eye on the ball. GH, in the best case scenario (i.e. when pigs fly), is still just a red herring. Focus, people, focus.

Let's compare this to CR, which actually has a possibility of modulating the MRDT itself (as it has been shown to do in shorter-lived organisms). If you want something that's really anti-aging, and you're going to be a guinea pig (since S. Jay still considers CR experimental in humans), then try CR.

ellis2ca,

GH is not the end-all-be-all of anti-aging medicine. It's no more going to lead to immortality than certain rings peddled by a scam-artist lately. A small chance of 3-5 years is hardly worth getting yourself worked up over, and it's certainly not worth attacking S. Jay over. Move on. And if you want to debate S. Jay over something, I'd prod him on his position on CR. Leave GH alone. You're free to take it yourself (assuming it's legal, that is; see previous warnings by S. Jay), but you're naive to be getting so worked up over it.

[DJS]

Thank you Jay(Fox) for putting this all into perspective. I completely agree.

[Mind]

Don: Again, I support granting the individual the freedom to use HGH, but I also agree with Jay's assertion that people are effectively turning themselves into guinea pigs.

Me too. That's my point.

Also, CR, resveratrol, HGH...etc, are the only current methods/supplements known to have significant observable anti-aging effects, while also being widely available. HGH is not on the same level as magnetic rings. Ellis is not Alex Chui. Ellis has no financial interest in promoting HGH. The only thing that is not known about HGH is the long term effect. The short term effects are all fabulous and obvious. Most of us here are too young (me) or too chicken (me again) to dive head first into currently available anti-aging therapies. Ellis should be applauded for his/her(?) experimental efforts.

For jaydfox. Let us stay strictly biological here (not get sidetracked into the realm of techno-utopia and nano). Let us say in the near future we effectively stop and reverse the age related damage in our bodies. I am thinking we will still need HGH and other hormones in order to "look" and "feel" young again. Our cells will only act young in the presence of a young person's hormone levels. Thus this early experimentation with hormone "supplements" may prove valuable.

Also, JayO, thanks for the papers and links.

[John Schloendorn]

Hey Sjayo, did you miss my question here? I know it's more difficult than hgh (because partially outside your field), but I'm a student [sfty].

I also have a question for our growth hormone advocate. Does it in any way disconcert you that mice deficient in one or the other component of the growth hormone signalling pathway, including growth hormone itself, live substantially longer than their litter mates [1]? How do you interpret these results?

[dnamechanic]

....My bet with Steve involves the question of whether anyone alive in the year 2000 will still be alive in the year 2150.

Hi Professor Olshansky,

Wonder if you would consider taking on another bet?

[Mind]

This is not strictly correct... wink.gif

The only thing missing is a flashing siren..

Ok, Ok. At least he didn't post a flashing siren here in the forums.

[John Schloendorn]

To be fair, Ellis could still make money with this, if the advice was more critical. So it's not a completely direct sales interest yet. So do you sell it as well?

[jaydfox]

(John Schloendorn)
Hey Sjayo, did you miss my question here? I know it's more difficult than hgh (because partially outside your field), but I'm a student [sfty].

I also have a question for our growth hormone advocate. Does it in any way disconcert you that mice deficient in one or the other component of the growth hormone signalling pathway, including growth hormone itself, live substantially longer than their litter mates [1]? How do you interpret these results?

S. Jay, I fixed the link John provided to his question:
http://www.imminst.o...t=38#entry61837

And for good measure, copied it:

Hi guys, sorry I missed out on this one. It seems that I got blocked by our uni firewall, should have tested this earlier ***!

JayO, thanks for sharing your views with us. Our goals are certainly similar. As for our means, I would like to get back to this question, by my namesake John:

John: 100 billion $ into an aggressive age-retardation research program, would the likelihood of saving people born before 2000 increase substantially?

JayO: Good question. If such a dramatic technological breakthrough occurs lets say in 2030, my daughter will be 46 years old -- with 46 years worth of accumulated damage. It might be far easier to prevent damage than reverse it -- I'm just not convinced that we can take someone who has already lived a half century and extend their life by 100 years. I'd love to see it.

From this I read quite a different conception of accumulating damage and aging than Aubrey, who believes that it is

not the case that reversing aging is necessarily all that much harder (or indeed any harder) than retarding it.

(from the credibility of SENS web page). If we had such a "war on aging" going, how do you think the goal of increasing healthy longevity would be / should be pursued, technically? If you were in charge of such a huge project as envisioned by John, what science would get funded?

[jaydfox]

Actually, one comment I'd like to add to the HGH debate. I'm not against people taking it. One thing that I think is important though, is that we respect what it means when S. Jay says that taking HGH is basically conducting an experiment. If not monitored by a doctor, any negative consequences of taking HGH may never get reported to the proper people, meaning that any problems will take longer before we find them. It's bad to conduct an experiment and not take careful notes along the way.

Take this in the proper context. I'm not saying that maybe we'll find a problem with HGH, and S. Jay will be vindicated for having warned you, and you'll essentially have been proven wrong. What I am saying is that we may eventually find problems that might have had simple preventive measures, but these problems, and hence the preventive measures, were not found because of the number of people taking HGH for off-label use and not being monitored by a doctor.

Let's talk anecdotes. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence for the health benefits of HGH, but not much in the way of long-term studies, i.e. hard science.

Well, here's an anecdote for you. My father started taking HGH just six months before his fatal heart attack. But you don't see me in here spouting how HGH causes an increased risk of heart disease. Why? Because it was just an anecdote. However, his usage wasn't being monitored by a doctor. Imagine if HGH really did cause heart problems, perhaps problems easily countered with (for example) CoQ10. If my father and tens or hundreds of thousands of people out there taking HGH were closely monitored by their doctors, then if increased heart disease risks are present, that would be detected statistically (assuming the doctor's do their jobs right, and assuming there is a central body for them to report such statistics to, which I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't).

I mean, as long as we're conducting an experiment, at least do it right. Don't just say that the establishment is trying to suppress something. If you're going to encourage people to take this stuff, make sure they know to be closely monitored by their doctors. And don't just put up a two-sentence disclaimer and call it a day because you covered your ass. Explain it, make them explain it back to you, so that you can feel safe that they understand not only the risks, but their responsibility in partaking in something experimental. I'm all for people being allowed to do whatever they want to their bodies. But rather than criminalize and ban things considered untested or unsafe, we should be attaching that extra responsibility: do what you want, but do so responsibly, and be monitored.

[sjayo]

To Jaydfox: There is a considerable amount of GH being sold over the Internet, so it is not possible to track either the health status or longevity of those receiving it in this manner. It would be possible to conduct a retrospective study of patients receiving GH at anti-aging clinics, but the results are often confounded by the addition of exercise and dietary modification -- a problem that could be avoided with a prospective clinical trial and proper controls for counfounding variables. When I suggested just such a study to one of the main proponents of GH some time ago, he said that he had no money to conduct the study and thought it impossible for him to receive government funding to do so (which is probably true). The evidence so far indicates there are definite benefits associated with the use of GH, but there are also notable risks, and it is unclear to me whether everyone receiving GH has been made aware of such risks by those selling it. Once again, if GH is being sold in the U.S. over the internet or at clinics for anti-aging or sports enhancement, it is being done so illegally, so a clinical trial on these patients seems out of the question since the suppliers/physicians involved would be admitting that they distributed and administered GH illegally. Anecdotal evidence is not science, period.

To Dnamechanic, no thanks about the bet, but it seems to me that Ellis has set forth a rather simple challenge that someone should respond to.

To Jaydfox: On your other question, I would like to believe the statement that reversing aging isn't necessarily harder than retarding it, but that is nothing more than a statement -- there is no science to back it up. Conceptually, anything is possible -- providing empirical evidence to support such a statement is another matter entirely. With regard to what science should get funded -- that is quite complicated and would take more time than I have here. However, there are a number of scientists from around the world digging into the details of how we age, and they are slowly piecing together the puzzle. Huber Warner from NIA wrote a very nice piece in our special issue outlining the most fruitful pathways one might expect, and I would encourage you to read this. What I personally find fascinating is the great variation in longevity across mammals and the great variation in longevity within species such as humans. How can one mammal, with basically the same types of cells and physiology, live 77 times longer than another mammal? Discovering why this occurs seems fundamental to me.
S. Jay Olshansky

[jaydfox]

How can one mammal, with basically the same types of cells and physiology, live 77 times longer than another mammal?

You know, that used to really fascinate me. But in studying ageing, and specifically cancer's role in aging (more specifically its indirect role, via tumor suppression methods, etc.), I've found something even more fascinating.

A human has about 10,000 times the mass of a mouse, and by extension, about 10,000 times as many cells, to within an order of magnitude. Throw in the 20-fold longer lifespan, and now you've got 200,000 times the cell-years in a human as in a mouse. Yet mice have a higher cancer incidence rate than humans in their mean lifespan. The cancer defense mechanisms already present in humans are completely astounding!

If someone were to study aging, having access only to small mammals of lifespans under 10 years and masses under 2kg, one might come to the conclusion that, given the tenacity of cancer, lifespans in mammals of 80 years would be impossible, especially in an organism of several tens of kilograms.

Yet here we are. And we come to the conclusion that lifespans of 200 years would be impossible in humans, or at the least, ridiculously difficult, yet they happen in whales that are probably almost a thousand times more massive than we are. So better cancer defenses clearly are possible in mammals. Whether such defenses are possible in humans is equivalent to asking if we can get mice to live 10 years, or cats to live 30.

Actually, I was looking for a reference on the whales, and found this article from Reason's weblog:
http://www.fightagin...ives/000384.php

Linking further, I found this quote over at lewrockwell.com:
http://www.lewrockwe...g5/walker4.html

Bowheads are big mammals. In fact they’re really big; they’re the third most massive of the whales. This makes their longevity extremely significant. All multicellular species have the problem of controlling cancer. The chance of a cell mutating into a cancer is proportional to the number of cells times the lifespan of the organism. So humans have more than a hundred thousand times the cancer-control capacity of a mouse. (And mice are really lousy cancer lab animals.) But Bowheads have to have a thousand times better cancer control than humans (five hundred times our weight times twice the lifespan). In the Bowhead, Nature has already proved that a body can be built that is a thousand times less susceptible to cancer than ours. An organism the size of a human being, using some Bowhead genes, might be able to live longer than recorded history.

While that last sentence makes a pretty hefty leap of logic, it still stands to reason that a human with the cancer defenses of a bowhead should live a LOT longer than humans do now.

Of course there are obvious barriers. A mouse probably couldn't survive well operating at the specific metabolic rate of a human. And humans probably have a hard time functioning at the SMR of a whale. But there's still lots of room for improvement, since a human's specific metabolism isn't 200,000 times slower than a mouse's, and a whale's specific metabolism isn't a thousand times slower than a human's.

[Mind]

Kind-of a catch 22 with GH. It would be great to do some studies. Too bad its illegal for some irrational arbitrary reason.

It could be saving and extending millions of lives but....there is no funding...because it is illegal.

[jaydfox]

I don't mind it being legal for off-label use, as long as it is monitored by a doctor. I suppose the first step in trying to make sure that there's at least a remote chance that a doctor is monitoring is to make it available by prescription only (probably currently the case?), but allow doctors the discretion to prescribe for off-label use. I guess I'd say that'd go for just about any medication. If people want to be guinea pigs, then fine, just do it with your doctor's consent, or at least his or her close monitoring.

Of course, in our current legal system, this would probably put the doctor at risk of lawsuits, which is probably only one of many hurdles to putting such a system in place...

[sjayo]

jaydfox: Your insights about the differences in longevity and cancer risk across species is exactly what I find most fascinating about the interspecies research on aging that is ongoing. Most work is currently focused on shorter lived species and efforts to make them live longer. Although studying fruit flies, worms, and yeast is a fascinating and important piece of the puzzle, in my humble opinion, I think the answer (and future intervention) rests with discovering the biological/genetic origin of the very phenomenon you raise -- how a bowhead whale can live 77 times longer than a mouse -- and both are mammals.

On the GH issue, I hope to have more information to you in the near future -- my colleagues and I have a paper out for review. In the interim, I would encourage those interested to read the following excellent treatment of the risks and benefits associated with GH http://www.aace.com/...delines/hgh.pdf
S. Jay Olshansky

[justinb]

S. Jay Olshansky,

Are you going to give the proceeds of your book to the MPrize?

Just curious.