5 ms·

I think a good enough reason to forbid it would be to prevent companies from paying donors more (or at all) and diverting blood that could be used for necessary

by DKnoll 8y ago

I think a good enough reason to forbid it would be to prevent companies from paying donors more (or at all) and diverting blood that could be used for necessary medical treatments.

mips_avatar 8y ago
I don’t think this should be allowed as a treatment, if it’s efficacy hasn’t been established. But I wish there were a trial. I want to be able to live healthily to 100.
- rscho 8y ago
  ...by feeding upon material which is already limited in availability for providing treatment to people younger than you are.
- nradov 8y ago
  There is zero scientific basis to expect that this would allow people to live healthily to 100. We have limited resources for clinical trials and those resources should be focused on areas more likely to produce useful results.
  - mips_avatar 8y ago
    I haven’t seen any evidence for it either. But I’d like to see the FDA support aging treatments more. The affect of an extra 10 years of healthy life would be huge.
  - ibeckermayer 8y ago
    And what precisely gives you (or the bureaucrats running the FDA) the authority to decide for everybody in America what is the best use of our blood? I should be free to decide for myself what to do with my own body, and which authorities to trust on matters beyond my domain of expertise. If you have a good argument for why this is a waste of resources then make the argument, don’t legistlatively prohibit me from thinking for myself.
    - rscho 8y ago
      There are things that are a public necessity and indeed collectively-enforced rules simply because they won't work if too few people agree to it. Another example of this process is vaccines. If herd immunity is too low, then vaccination cannot work, although it is a perfectly good solution if everyone is on board. A second point is that you probably are no expert on the topic of human plasma. This could motivate the enforcement of rules under certain circumstances, given that you are unable to personally judge if the use of such precious material is a waste or not. I personally, think that your opinion is the epitome of selfishness.
      - krageon 8y ago
        It is true that not all vaccinations work 100% of the time and that herd immunity helps protect the people for who they have not worked. It is very, very wrong to say that this means that "If herd immunity is too low, then vaccination cannot work".
        rscho 8y ago
        Oh yeah? Please expand on this, I'm curious. If that is your point of contention, you could replace "cannot work" by "may do more harm than good at a social level".
        krageon 8y ago
        I don't know what to expand on, as I don't understand how it wasn't clear from what I have already told you - can you indicate roughly where I stopped being clear?
        rscho 8y ago
        You mentioned I said something very very wrong, but it's not clear to me if this is a language or fundamental issue. For instance if I say, as I have tried to enunciate above, "if herd immunity is too low, vaccines may do more harm than good at a social/epidemiologic level", does that still seem very very wrong to you? To be clear, your above comment gave the impression that you thought that a low herd immunity could not increase deaths due to disease compared to no herd immunity at all, which is wrong and was probably the reason why you were downvoted.
  - abainbridge 8y ago
    > There is zero scientific basis to expect that this would allow people to live healthily to 100. Not quite zero. There is at least some evidence that it might treat Alzheimer's disease. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5950663/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5950663/
- DKnoll 8y ago
  I am a layman so I could be totally misinterpreting things, but based on existing research it seems like the most effective method would be to filter out or suppress the production of VCAM1 which is apparently a protein that is associated with aging effects. It will be interesting to see how the research develops over the next couple decades. https://www.leafscience.org/the-fountain-of-youth-could-be-closer-to-hand/ https://www.leafscience.org/the-fountain-of-youth-could-be-c...
sueders101 8y ago
For what it’s worth, it’s my understanding that they’re ‘only’ transferring plasma which other companies are already paying people for.
- rscho 8y ago
  Given the limited availability, some (and I hope, many) would consider that limiting the use of blood products to research and proven clinical settings would be the correct moral stance.
  - cellularmitosis 8y ago
    “correct moral stance?” What if the gov puts in place a simple regulation, like “X% of all harvested blood must be donated to local blood banks”. Now you have a market for rejuvenating blood, AND more blood available to hospitals. Only downside is an increase in price for Peter Thiel. I’ve noticed taking such a moral stance tends to limit creative thinking around such topics (why spend time thinking about it when you’ve already dismissed it as immoral?). A bit of creative problem solving can sometimes turn a potentially problematic situation into a net positive for everyone.
    - rscho 8y ago
      Oh, and how exactly does that provide more blood to hospitals? Edit: Ok, now I see what you mean. I do not agree with you, although it is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that there are more important social priorities than making rich old geezers live longer and that your plan depends on numbers that could go one way or the other. You could easily build a scenario where your plan decreases hospital blood availability, and this seems likely to me given the financial incentive.
      - psandersen 8y ago
        If your concern is that it will reduce the supply of blood to younger people who currently use it then this is something that can be solved with incentives in a way that everyone benefits (e.g. people using it for rejuvenation pay more to subsidise higher production and are a lower priority when there is insufficient supply in the emergency room etc). If on the other hand, that is just an excuse because you're morally opposed to old rich people living longer... ?

by DKnoll 8y ago

I think a good enough reason to forbid it would be to prevent companies from paying donors more (or at all) and diverting blood that could be used for necessary medical treatments.

mips_avatar 8y ago

I don’t think this should be allowed as a treatment, if it’s efficacy hasn’t been established. But I wish there were a trial. I want to be able to live healthily to 100.

rscho 8y ago
...by feeding upon material which is already limited in availability for providing treatment to people younger than you are.
nradov 8y ago
There is zero scientific basis to expect that this would allow people to live healthily to 100. We have limited resources for clinical trials and those resources should be focused on areas more likely to produce useful results.
- mips_avatar 8y ago
  I haven’t seen any evidence for it either. But I’d like to see the FDA support aging treatments more. The affect of an extra 10 years of healthy life would be huge.
- ibeckermayer 8y ago
  And what precisely gives you (or the bureaucrats running the FDA) the authority to decide for everybody in America what is the best use of our blood? I should be free to decide for myself what to do with my own body, and which authorities to trust on matters beyond my domain of expertise. If you have a good argument for why this is a waste of resources then make the argument, don’t legistlatively prohibit me from thinking for myself.
  - rscho 8y ago
    There are things that are a public necessity and indeed collectively-enforced rules simply because they won't work if too few people agree to it. Another example of this process is vaccines. If herd immunity is too low, then vaccination cannot work, although it is a perfectly good solution if everyone is on board. A second point is that you probably are no expert on the topic of human plasma. This could motivate the enforcement of rules under certain circumstances, given that you are unable to personally judge if the use of such precious material is a waste or not. I personally, think that your opinion is the epitome of selfishness.
    - krageon 8y ago
      It is true that not all vaccinations work 100% of the time and that herd immunity helps protect the people for who they have not worked. It is very, very wrong to say that this means that "If herd immunity is too low, then vaccination cannot work".
      - rscho 8y ago
        Oh yeah? Please expand on this, I'm curious. If that is your point of contention, you could replace "cannot work" by "may do more harm than good at a social level".
        krageon 8y ago
        I don't know what to expand on, as I don't understand how it wasn't clear from what I have already told you - can you indicate roughly where I stopped being clear?
        rscho 8y ago
        You mentioned I said something very very wrong, but it's not clear to me if this is a language or fundamental issue. For instance if I say, as I have tried to enunciate above, "if herd immunity is too low, vaccines may do more harm than good at a social/epidemiologic level", does that still seem very very wrong to you? To be clear, your above comment gave the impression that you thought that a low herd immunity could not increase deaths due to disease compared to no herd immunity at all, which is wrong and was probably the reason why you were downvoted.
- abainbridge 8y ago
  > There is zero scientific basis to expect that this would allow people to live healthily to 100. Not quite zero. There is at least some evidence that it might treat Alzheimer's disease. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5950663/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5950663/
DKnoll 8y ago
I am a layman so I could be totally misinterpreting things, but based on existing research it seems like the most effective method would be to filter out or suppress the production of VCAM1 which is apparently a protein that is associated with aging effects. It will be interesting to see how the research develops over the next couple decades. https://www.leafscience.org/the-fountain-of-youth-could-be-closer-to-hand/ https://www.leafscience.org/the-fountain-of-youth-could-be-c...

sueders101 8y ago

For what it’s worth, it’s my understanding that they’re ‘only’ transferring plasma which other companies are already paying people for.

rscho 8y ago
Given the limited availability, some (and I hope, many) would consider that limiting the use of blood products to research and proven clinical settings would be the correct moral stance.
- cellularmitosis 8y ago
  “correct moral stance?” What if the gov puts in place a simple regulation, like “X% of all harvested blood must be donated to local blood banks”. Now you have a market for rejuvenating blood, AND more blood available to hospitals. Only downside is an increase in price for Peter Thiel. I’ve noticed taking such a moral stance tends to limit creative thinking around such topics (why spend time thinking about it when you’ve already dismissed it as immoral?). A bit of creative problem solving can sometimes turn a potentially problematic situation into a net positive for everyone.
  - rscho 8y ago
    Oh, and how exactly does that provide more blood to hospitals? Edit: Ok, now I see what you mean. I do not agree with you, although it is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that there are more important social priorities than making rich old geezers live longer and that your plan depends on numbers that could go one way or the other. You could easily build a scenario where your plan decreases hospital blood availability, and this seems likely to me given the financial incentive.
    - psandersen 8y ago
      If your concern is that it will reduce the supply of blood to younger people who currently use it then this is something that can be solved with incentives in a way that everyone benefits (e.g. people using it for rejuvenation pay more to subsidise higher production and are a lower priority when there is insufficient supply in the emergency room etc). If on the other hand, that is just an excuse because you're morally opposed to old rich people living longer... ?