Blog and Wiki Posts
How and when mother nature resets the aging clock and why the wear and tear theory of aging is worn out
A new study found that according to an rDNA clock the biological age is reset in mouse embryos approximately 4.5 to 10.5 days after fertilization. In my view, this is further empirical proof that the wear and tear of aging is essentially wrong.
Book review of Jean Hebert’s “Replacing Aging,” part 1: Why gerontology is not the solution
The title of Jean M. Hébert’s recently published book, Replacing Aging, fits the book nicely. Another title that would fit even better (but wouldn't sound so appealing) would be "Replacing Anti-aging Research." In the first part, Professor Hébert of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine essentially dismantles all major...
Diamandis and OneSkin OS-01: Reverse the biological age of your skin by clearing senescent cells
Peter Diamandis has pitched the new product of OneSkin Technologies, a company that claims to be able to reverse the biological age of your skin by clearing senescent cells. In this post, I summarize the science behind this new approach to skin anti-aging.
David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors
In my last post, I outlined David Sinclair’s anti-aging levels 1 and 2. Whereas levels 1 and 2 can, at best, slow the aging process, level 3 has the potential to provide a real cure for aging. At level 3, at least in theory, we can completely reverse the...
Why we don’t have to age: A short discussion of David Sinclair’s anti-aging level 1 and 2
In my last post, I outlined David Sinclair's information theory of aging which claims to explain why we age. Today, I will summarize why Sinclair thinks that we don't have to accept this unfortunate fate. Essentially, Sinclair claims that we can intervene in the aging process at three different...
A summary of David Sinclair’s Information Theory of Aging
David Sinclair is one of the most renowned scientists working on biological aging. He has published a new book with the title Lifespan: Why We Age—and Why We Don't Have To. This post is a summary of Sinclair's Information Theory of Aging.
Mind uploading and consciousness – Why an uploaded mind will be unconscious
In the video at the end of the text, Ray Kurzweil discusses the idea of connecting our brains to the cloud. He avoids the term consciousness, although I think he really believes this "neocortex in the cloud" will then somehow extend the consciousness of the biological brain. The headline...
Will transhumanism go mainstream in 2018?
The German computer magazine c't has a series of articles about biohacking and transhumanism in their January 2018 issue. I wonder if 2018 will be the year when transhumanism goes mainstream. Unfortunately, after reading the articles, many computer fans who've never heard about transhumanism before may likely identify the...
Site Activity
Michael Pietroforte commented on Diamandis and OneSkin OS-01: Reverse the biological age of your skin by clearing senescent cells 8 months, 4 weeks ago
I am following several blogs that discuss the latest longevity research, but I didn’t see anything there since the release of the product.
Marissa commented on Diamandis and OneSkin OS-01: Reverse the biological age of your skin by clearing senescent cells 8 months, 4 weeks ago
Any new studies or developments to report on this product? I recently purchased it and wish to know if the One Skin researchers published their results in a peer-reviewed journal yet, or if more results have been discovered.
Michael Pietroforte commented on David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors 1 year, 2 months ago
Yeah, that was the idea when Yamanaka found those four transcription factors. He didn’t even think of using them for rejuvenation. But later it turned out that rejuvenation and inducing stemness are two different processes. This makes sense because both processes are probably relatively complex and different enzymes are needed to get the job done.…[Read more]
Eugene commented on David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors 1 year, 2 months ago
Ok, thanks again…I just had gotten the impression, from the MIT piece, that cell reprogramming by definition turns the cell into a stem cell, but in fact you pointed out that they’ve avoided doing this, so it seemed like they missed that very-important point. But I guess writing popular articles for new science can be a challenge to please all…[Read more]
Michael Pietroforte commented on David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors 1 year, 2 months ago
hplus:
Obviously, you can’t just turn specialized cells into stem cells in a living organism. If you turn a heart cell into a stem cell, it can no longer do its job in the heart and instead will cause cancer. However, Sinclair believes that it is possible to avoid this problem by working with a subset of the Yamanaka factors (without c-Myc) and b…
Eugene commented on David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors 1 year, 2 months ago
OK sure.
MIT: “One problem is that reprogramming doesn’t just make cells act younger but also changes their identity—for instance, turning a skin cell into a stem cell. That is what makes the technology too dangerous to try on people yet.”hplus: “To start the rejuvenation process, doxycycline is given for a certain time. This act…[Read more]
Michael Pietroforte commented on David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors 1 year, 2 months ago
Please formulate your argument here. In what way does my article contradict this paper?
Eugene commented on David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors 1 year, 2 months ago
If you look at my tweet I point it out w/2 pics
Michael Pietroforte commented on David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors 1 year, 2 months ago
I read the article, but didn’t have the time yet to read the preprint paper. Where do you see a contradiction?
Eugene commented on David Sinclair’s level 3: Reversing aging with the Yamanaka factors 1 year, 2 months ago
Mike, I just tweeted about your article, and how it seems to contradict the latest big story in MIT Tech Review about Altos Labs…
@davidasinclair @realNathanCheng @jpsenescence
Did MIT Tech Review re: Altos Labs basically print a non-factual statement below, which seems *pretty important* to get wrong?
sources:https://t.co/Njkcap4hD8https://t.co/SuvVBBj8Pa pic.twitter.com/6BHiJIKucy
— Euge (@eugediana) September 6, 2021
please correct me if I’m wrong I’d really appreciate it…
EugeneMichael Pietroforte commented on Mind uploading and consciousness – Why an uploaded mind will be unconscious 1 year, 3 months ago
The point is that representing a physical property (intrinsic or systemic) is not enough to recreate this property physically. Representing a physical property in a book does not recreate this property. A book about black holes does not create black holes. Nobody who is reading a book about black holes has to fear to be swallowed by the book.
Michael commented on Mind uploading and consciousness – Why an uploaded mind will be unconscious 1 year, 3 months ago
at what point does a intrinsic property being accurately represented lose any meaning ? a artificial brain does not have to be conscious in the exact we are. it only has to be close enough that it is functionally the same. you cant honestly expect that them to have to be one to one. you don’t need a perfect water simulation. you just need a accurate one.
