The first-ever reverse-aging drug was just injected into a human
https://www.businessinsider.com/first-ever-reverse-aging-treatment-injected-into-a-human-2026-6Open linkView original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.businessinsider.com/first-ever-reverse-aging-treatment-injected-into-a-human-2026-6Open linkView original on lemmy.world
Great, now we’ll never be rid of these assholes…
There’s a way.
Several ways, even.
Heeeeere we are, born to be kings, we're the princes of the un-ni-veeeeerse.
Ha, this is just separating fools from their money, there will be no extension on life from this.
Trade offs. We have more time to fix the social issues.
Unless you're American, in which case you'll go bankrupt trying to get the treatment, but the rest of the world will be fine.
Fixing social issues is COMMUNISM!!!
-- Average American
Can't wait for Sam Altman to be defeated and imprisoned in Tech Tartarus..
And let me guess it will only be available to the richest?
Only to the richest, and to everybody living outside the US
To their credit, that's a good test case - actual disease wifh significant impact.
Well, aging usualy has a significant impact. It can even end up in death! :D
Good luck with that.
Side effects may include: dental abnormalities, sudden mood swings, light sensitivity, and a thirst for blood...
Piss off.
Bullshit. What kind of a clickbait title is this? There are countless fountain of youth treatments that have been started, none worked, because nothing will work. That is not how aging works.
Stem cells have a predetermined number of copies of cells, they put them forth, they have preprogrammed cell death, where they are replaced. You would need to increase the number of stem cell copies for one, then safeguard the sanctity of the dna from degrading, to increase lifetimes, just for starters.
Throughout all history, maximum human age hasn't differed, average has, maximum has always been around 100, more or less. Always. They had old people in ancient egypt, in greece, in rome.
It's certainly is a dogshit title.
But what does the fact that humans don't naturally live longer than a century at the best conditions have to do with a drug that could "reverse-aging"? That sounds like you're suggesting there's some timebomb that kills a person after a century that isn't age.
This drug won't "reverse aging" because that's not a thing, for the reasons I specified that you ignored when typing your comment stroking off this company like this is anything other than snake oil.
Answer my points, or don't respond, I'm not going to bandy words with someone that ignores reasoned points and repeats corporate propaganda.
Hey, first off, go fuck yourself and learn to read, you self-righteous prick. I'm not in the mood to have niceties slapped out of hand by a dickhead whose head is too far up their own ass at a company to read. I never said a lick about the company. Did I say, "hold on, science isn't out yet" or "i dunno [company] could be on to something"? Did I mention the feasibility of whatever they're peddling at all?
If you think questions about weird and tangential claims is defense of something else, then that's you're own failing. I said your incensed claim that humans have a maximum lifespan has no bearing or relation on a treatment that would address that. It was, and remains, a weird non-sequitur.
"Read your comment"? Yeah, you just proposed a thing that would reverse the effects of aging, i.e. the human body reaching the end of its lifespan. And then...humans might live signifcantly longer than a century. In strict contravention of the wisdom of ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome.
So what the fuck does this have to do with anything regarding potential medical treatments?
Throughout all history, man has had some people who just couldn't see. They had people who couldn't see well "in ancient egypt, in greece, in rome.[sic]" That is just as relevant to your point as what you previously said.