3 ms·

Okay. Here's the bio of the guy your calling bullshit on [1]... Dr. Valter Longo is the Edna M. Jones Professor of Gerontology and Biological Sciences and Dir

Okay. Here's the bio of the guy your calling bullshit on [1]... Dr. Valter Longo is the Edna M. Jones Professor of Gerontology and Biological Sciences and Director of the Longevity Institute at the University of Southern California –Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, Los Angeles, one of the leading centers for research on aging and age-related disease. Dr. Longo is also the Director of the Longevity and Cancer Program at the IFOM Institute of Molecular Oncology in Milan, Italy. What's your background in the field? [1]:https://www.valterlongo.com/biography/ https://www.valterlongo.com/biography/

nradov 3y ago
Did you even read the article I linked? Appeal to authority is the lamest sort of argument.
- schaefer 3y ago
  the "article" you linked is a bulleted list of timestamps into a podcast from December 4, 2023. Near minute 57, they're talking about tissue samples from euthanized mice... And mention "(58:15) no one at this point knows what tissue to look at" If you want to get more specific than that with timestamps, it might aid in further discussion. -- But, clearly these podcast participants (from 2023) hadn't read this study from Feb 20th 2024. And the study seems quite clear what biomarkers they're measuring: "Biological age estimates have been developed to approximate the level of aging and subsequent morbidity and mortality risk for an individual. Estimates based on clinical chemistry typically combine multi-system biomarkers (here: albumin, alkaline phosphatase, serum creatinine, C-reactive protein, Hba1c, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol) into a single variable meant to capture the level and rate of organismal aging44,45,46,47,48 (Table S2)."
  - nradov 3y ago
    You're really missing the point. None of that constitutes evidence that those biomarkers are reliable indicators of whether a particular intervention has actually changed a human subject's expected lifespan.
rokkitmensch 3y ago
The droplet brigade appreciates your contribution to the credential-washing sense-making cartel's ideological bulwarks.

nradov 3y ago

Did you even read the article I linked? Appeal to authority is the lamest sort of argument.

schaefer 3y ago
the "article" you linked is a bulleted list of timestamps into a podcast from December 4, 2023. Near minute 57, they're talking about tissue samples from euthanized mice... And mention "(58:15) no one at this point knows what tissue to look at" If you want to get more specific than that with timestamps, it might aid in further discussion. -- But, clearly these podcast participants (from 2023) hadn't read this study from Feb 20th 2024. And the study seems quite clear what biomarkers they're measuring: "Biological age estimates have been developed to approximate the level of aging and subsequent morbidity and mortality risk for an individual. Estimates based on clinical chemistry typically combine multi-system biomarkers (here: albumin, alkaline phosphatase, serum creatinine, C-reactive protein, Hba1c, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol) into a single variable meant to capture the level and rate of organismal aging44,45,46,47,48 (Table S2)."
- nradov 3y ago
  You're really missing the point. None of that constitutes evidence that those biomarkers are reliable indicators of whether a particular intervention has actually changed a human subject's expected lifespan.

rokkitmensch 3y ago

The droplet brigade appreciates your contribution to the credential-washing sense-making cartel's ideological bulwarks.