What really aggravates me about this article is the exceedingly disingenuous dismissal of SENS rejuvenation research programs it puts forward. The author settl

What really aggravates me about this article is the exceedingly disingenuous dismissal of SENS rejuvenation research programs it puts forward. The author settles on allotopic expression of mitochondrial genes in the cell nucleus as an example of a project so difficult it is impossible. But allotopic expression is a very poor example to pick for something that is alleged to be "a doomed labor." The work has been accomplished for three of the thirteen genes needed; this is a capability that exists, and is underway towards completion. The allotopic expression of mitochondrial gene ND4 is the basis for a therapy that is currently going through clinical trials in Europe! It exists, it works! Yes, it took effort to get there, effort funded at the early stages by the SENS Research Foundation and those who donated to it, I should note, but so does everything else. This is one of the things that frustrates me immensely about many of the critics of SENS - they willfully ignore some of the progress that has been made, pretending it doesn't exist. Yet their behavior for progress that is so compelling they can't ignore it is in many ways worse. Let us look at what is said - and, more importantly, not said - about senescent cell clearance, something that de Grey and other SENS advocates have been promoting as a path to treat aging for the past fifteen years, on the basis of strong evidence, that they assembled from the various groups who created it across the research community, laid out, and made the argument for. It is right there in the SENS outline; hard to miss, and has been from pretty much day one back at the turn of the century. Senescent cell clearance is a core part of the SENS agenda. Fortunately for all of us, targeted removal of senescent cells has finally taken off these past few years, the evidence for a significant impact on aging has grown to be nigh irrefutable, and near everyone in the research community is enthused. Yet SENS and many researchers' past vocal rejections of senescent cell clearance as a part of SENS is swept under the rug, never to be mentioned. It is unconscionable behavior, and it happens in this article: despite covering UNITY Biotechnology, the senolytics company, no mention of senescent cells is made in connection with the SENS vision. It takes some brass to claim SENS to be a doomed effort and then roll right on in the next paragraph to a discussion with one of the UNITY co-founders on the topic of removing senescent cells to treat aging.