Yes, you must think long and hard about what you've done.

From what I recall, net electricity accounts for everything and net energy is what you're referring to with the lasers. Zap is aiming for net electricity by 2026. (they call it engineering breakeven IIRC) Also, keep in mind that the experiment at NIF was done using old lasers. If they had used newer lasers, they would have produced more energy than the overhead involved in running the experiment.

Helion Energy is building a machine that will achieve net electricity in 2024. Zap Energy is going for net energy this year. Lithium Sulfur batteries were perfected earlier this year. At this point, if curing aging shares any resemblance, I would be extremely optimistic.

I managed to find the original study for you. It worked in all patients, although it was a small study. They do plan on re-administration. Treatment will involve getting an infusion every 4-5 days until the cancer is gone. They expect about 6-8 infusions in total. Keep in mind that this treatment results in immune memory of the cancer, so you won't need chronic management. Also, since posting this, I found another presentation from the company where they went into detail about the methodology of their organoid models. Those results were observed from direct killing only and with only one infusion.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844017316936

Often times people don't think about it before it's too late. My brother has a friend from college who got Glioblastoma. Luckily, he's still alive, but his opinion of the FDA and medical regulation took a nose dive once he had to experience it for himself.

Keep in mind that those results were with a safety dose of a weaker version of the neutrophils they're currently using. Their mouse studies with stronger neutrophils and higher dosing resulted in 100% survival rates and tumor elimination. What the safety study does prove is that the mechanism of action works the same way in humans as in mice. It also proves safety. That's why I think they have a pretty good chance of succeeding. Of course, biotech is a field riddled with failure, so I may very well be wrong, but I'm optimistic. Luckily, we'll only have to wait a couple of years before we know if it works.

From what I recall, there was a safety trial involving granulocytes in terminally ill patients, and it resulted in tumors shrinking up to 80%. This was done with a low dose of a weaker neutrophil than what they're using. I usually don't post much about cancer because of the concerns you addressed, but all the data I've seen from them and the universality of the treatment leave me optimistic.

They claim that it will target everything.

I doubt the FDA will be abolished. The agency has too much political momentum for that. I do think that it will eventually be reformed once the tech proves itself. However, if the past reforms are any indication, they will drag their feet for years before that point.

Edit: Doesn't that edge scenario already exist with private insurance? I recall hearing about how an insurance company was paying people to go to Mexico because it was cheaper. It would be peak comedy if the government started doing that because of their own regulations xD.

Those things are definitely further out. I don't think the modeling of different genetic outcomes is that far out, but getting superficial treatments that involve gene editing through the FDA is going to be a hard sell in the near-medium term. Even things with weak genetic causality targeting disease are going to be difficult. Hopefully, we'll end up adding years faster than they're taken away until we get to that point, even if it's sloppy work.

I've heard about those complaints, but I don't think we should dismiss all the research that he's been involved in either. We have to see if the claims can be reproduced, and so far it's looking promising.

Couldn't it also be the opposite? I do know that teratomas are a concern, but couldn't a younger functioning epigenome and immune system also suppress cancer?

I don't think genetic mutations are the main concern right now. If I recall correctly, you have around 4000 single-point mutations by the age of 100 out of 6 billion letters in your genome. Of course, eventually, this will start causing problems, but if we reverse the more near-term causes of age-related mortality, that will give us more time to solve that problem down the line. If we can extend life span by a couple of decades over the next few decades, we'll have enough time to improve the accuracy and cost of base editors to start large-scale editing of genetic mutations.

They've de-aged immune cells and seen significant improvement in function. That's one of Turn Bio's first clinical trials if I recall correctly. David Sinclair's lab was also able to reverse damage to the optic nerve of mice using the Yamanaka factors. There have also been studies on human skin cells in vitro where it has shown age reversal. Studies on mice and their organs show similar results. The evidence is looking extremely promising so far. Ai will speed this process up and yield even better results, but then again, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I think you'll be surprised. Look up a company called Turn Bio. They're starting clinical trials soon and will be delivering the Yamanaka factors using mRNA. They already claim it's safe, but hopefully, in a few years, we won't have to just take their word for it.

I used to have the same thought about aging, but recent advancements in mRNA, base editors and the use of Yamanaka factors without causing teratomas have changed my tune. We already proved it's possible, but we still need to get it through the FDA. That won't happen by 2025, but not that long after either.

This is something a lot of people don't realize. The U.S system has its problems, but it has also thrown more resources toward medical research than any other nation in world history.

Lmao. This is too accurate. The only change I would make is to the last one.

"Whatever, I'll invest in tech and hope for the best."

If you can't beat them, join them.

Add to that list nuclear fusion and super-critical geothermal energy. (Quaise)

What constitutes fast for me is if the full suite of regenerative medical technology is in patients' hands by 2050. Some things will happen faster than others, and some drugs are already close to approval, but most, if not all, should be here by 2050. If they aren't, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. Also, phase 2 clinical trials have already started for the drug in the article, so it shouldn't be more than a couple of years.

Watch anime.

Something you need to consider is the time differential between discovering something and getting it approved by the FDA. The FDA and medical regulations are notoriously slow, inefficient, and conservative. It's improved considerably over the last 50 years, but 6-7 years is still a tiny amount of time when it comes to medical research. It would be considered a quick approval to go from finishing research and getting it approved within 5-10 years. All those breakthroughs you read about 6-7 years ago are currently at varying stages of the clinical trial process, and many of them will likely see the light of day within the next 5-10 years.

​

Also, a well-known concept in economics is that it can take decades to go from discovering something and implementing it. There are several reasons for this, but in this case, the most important one is the need for complementary technology. Even if we could prove a gene had a certain effect and correct it with gene editing 30 years ago, it cost too much and was too inaccurate to be safely implemented. This is what changed over the past 10 years. We now have the technology to implement gene editing, reverse the epigenome, and kill senescent cells affordably and safely. In the case of gene editing, it only got here within the last 5 years. Within the next decade, we're going to see the floodgates open when it comes to medical innovation.

​

Edit: I forgot to mention that AI is another complementary technology that only got here recently. AI has increased research efficiency within biotech exponentially over the last few years. You only need to look at AlphaFold to see the effect it can have.