6 ms·

Anything that we are good at treating doesn’t seem like an age related disease anymore, but we’re really clearing out the scourges if you look at historical cau

Anything that we are good at treating doesn’t seem like an age related disease anymore, but we’re really clearing out the scourges if you look at historical cause of death statistics. We haven’t made any progress on Alzheimer’s, and have conquered yellow fever, consumption, diabetes, knee failure, glaucoma, smoking related lung cancer, prostate cancer, hookworm, environmental lead poisoning, environmental arsenic poisoning, black lung, breast cancer, and syphilis. So, if you know someone old and suffering, its probably alzheimers.

piombisallow 1y ago
Most of the things you listed aren't aging related
- QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
  “Aging related” just means we don’t know what causes it, and yes we are much better at treating things when we know their cause. For example, right now parkinsons is aging related and we can’t do a thing about it, but there is increasing evidence that it is caused by some pollutant or toxin. If we find the toxin, then parkinsons will stop being age related. Mesothelioma is a historical case of this: for 100 years it was an untreatable aging related disease, it’s now obviously not an aging related disease, and the treatment is don’t breath asbestos.
jajko 1y ago
> So, if you know someone old and suffering, its probably alzheimers. Thats very far from reality, I presume you don't know many old people or speak to them about their ailments?
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  You're right that there is far more to it than Alzheimers. Still, Quadmaster has half a point. It's probably not consumption (tuberculosis), or hookworm. It's much less likely than it was to be black lung. Even smoking is decreasing, though it will take another generation for that to show up in the old people. So we're making progress. But we don't see it, because that becomes the new normal, and we see all these remaining things that cause problems for old people.
  - close04 1y ago
    TB killed 1.25 million in 2023 and the WHO considers it the world’s leading cause of death from a single infectious agent, outpaced only temporarily by COVID.
    - GoatInGrey 1y ago
      It's safe to say that they were speaking from the perspective of developed countries where the mortality rate of TB is roughly 0.2 per 100,000. Which makes the case that we know how to make it statistically insignificant, but the infrastructure to apply that knowledge is not perfectly distributed.
      - close04 1y ago
        > they were speaking from the perspective of developed countries But that's just creatively selecting the data that supports the point. You can do that with everything else. We solved a lot of things "in the lab" or "in mice". Did you know that we conquered Alzheimer's? It's safe to say I mean in countries like Guinea-Bissau, Somalia or Chad with under 100 cases per 100k people.
      - amluto 1y ago
        > we know how to make it statistically insignificant TB is weird. We do indeed know how to actively manage it (e.g. screen people regularly and treat detected cases), but countries like the US don’t do that. Nonetheless TB does not cause much disease in the US. Every time I’ve tried to figure out why this is, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that no one really knows. Maybe it’s the general lack of malnutrition?
        const_cast 1y ago
        TB is a bacteria and people in developed countries generally get treated when they have symptoms of infections. But underdeveloped countries don't have the resources for that, so infections are just "powered through". In addition, a lot of it comes down to resources we take for granted, like sanitation, running water, soap, population density, etc. We have cleaner air, cleaner water, and are more conscious about spreading diseases because we are wealthier.
- QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
  It could just be genetic luck, and the privelege that most people I interact with have access to the best treatment for diseases that have treatments, but around me the worst suffering is mostly alzheimers, striking in the late 70s to 80s.
genezeta 1y ago
Parkinson's fairly frequent too.
close04 1y ago
> and have conquered yellow fever, consumption, diabetes, knee failure, glaucoma, smoking related lung cancer, prostate cancer, hookworm, environmental lead poisoning, environmental arsenic poisoning, black lung, breast cancer, and syphilis. What's your definition of "conquered"? In the US breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, and together with lung cancers account for ~500k cases each year. 100k of those people will die within 5 years. Now we created new issues to replace the old. Microplastic, PFAS, antibiotic resistance, obesity, etc. And my knees want to have a word with your assessment :).
- Qem 1y ago
  I also wouldn't count prostate cancer on the "conquered" group, as recent news about the great Scott Adams reminds us.
  - aesclepius 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - Qem 1y ago
      He's a flawed human. But his masterpiece, Dilbert, is a gift to humanity. I hope the legacy of his masterpiece will last much longer than that of any BS views he has.
    - leereeves 1y ago
      Wikipedia says DEI seeks to "promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people". That sounds great. If only it actually worked that way instead of being code for favoritism for a few demographic groups, ignoring many other people who are excluded, and actively discriminating against straight white men. Scott Adams is right to challenge it. Edit: Disney exec admits on hidden camera "Certainly, there have been times where, 'there's no way we're hiring a white male for this'" https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/watch-disney-exec-admits-company-openly-discriminates-against-white-males-in-spoken-agreement/ar-BB1oHhaa https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/watch-disney-exec-...
- 1y ago
chaosbutters314 1y ago
you forgot HIV/AIDS. we have the tools to basically snuff it out in 60-80 years if every male was on prep
- mattmaroon 1y ago
  I think there’s a good chance we snuff it out in 80 years even if they aren’t. Actual cures seem to be on the horizon.
- david-gpu 1y ago
  Look at how hard it has been to eradicate diseases that only require a couple of doses of a vaccine. How feasible do you think it would be to provide daily prep to every male in the world? Even in developed countries with free vaccinations we are suffering from measles outbreaks in 2025.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Are those really developed countries? A decent free public school education is a requirement for a nation to be considered developed.
    - david-gpu 1y ago
      >> Even in developed countries with free vaccinations we are suffering from measles outbreaks in 2025. > Are those really developed countries? A decent free public school education is a requirement for a nation to be considered developed. Here's some data: In 2025 1, 2,755 measles cases (2,429 confirmed, 326 probable) and 0 rubella cases have been reported in Canada. [0] Education in Canada is for the most part provided publicly, funded and overseen by federal, provincial, and local governments. [1] Medicare is a term that refers to Canada's publicly funded health care system. Instead of having a single national plan, we have 13 provincial and territorial health care insurance plans. Under this system, all Canadian residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without paying out-of-pocket. [2] Sources: [0] https://health-infobase.canada.ca/measles-rubella/ https://health-infobase.canada.ca/measles-rubella/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada [2] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-health-care-system.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-healt... You are welcome.
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Most of the conditions you've mentioned there have exogenous causes (i.e. diseases or environmental toxins), and I question your inclusion of many of the ones that don't (who thinks we have "conquered" breast cancer??). But we have made very little progress in staving off degenerative-type diseases. Even the primary degenerative disease you mention, knee failure, we cure largely with a wholesale replacement. That obviously isn't applicable to organs we can't just swap out.
- giantg2 1y ago
  I agree. Rates of cancer and diabetes are up. We might have better treatments than in the past, but I though I even saw graphs showing that overall cancer fatalities rates are flat - a lower percentage of people die from it, but the increase in cases mostly offsets that (depends on the specific type).
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    One angle is that as we find cures for other diseases, cancer rates go up because we live long enough to get cancer. The sum of all causes of death will very likely continue to be 100%...
    - leereeves 1y ago
      > The sum of all causes of death will very likely continue to be 100%... If not, we'll have a whole lot of new problems.
    - giantg2 1y ago
      I'm not talking about that. The rates in adults under 50 and in children have also been increasing.
- owenpalmer 1y ago
  Swapping out organs may be an option in the future. I'm getting a bioengineering degree so I can't work in organ engineering research. We're definitely not there yet, but there's a lot of interesting research happening in this area.
thinkingtoilet 1y ago
We have by no means conquered prostate cancer. It is still extremely deadly.
- windowshopping 1y ago
  I know, I read that list and I was like "what?" Since when is even half of that stuff "conquered"?
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    I agree. To me, using the very strong word "conquered" implies that a condition or disease is eradicated, like smallpox. Or, at the very least that we have a reliable way to prevent it.
- hwillis 1y ago
  The average age of diagnosis is 67 and 95% of those men live as long as you would expect them to normally. It is certainly not cured, and treatment can be very disruptive and unpleasant, but it's definitely not "extremely deadly" with modern medical care.
  - samastur 1y ago
    Not being extremely deadly is low bar since most of your life (with some luck) will be spent being old. I'd rather see my years being more than bearable.
    - hwillis 1y ago
      You certainly will not live most of your life over the age of 67.
  - fridder 1y ago
    Perhaps not but when it is aggressive, it is very deadly. They told my dad they were thinking he could have 10 years, he got three. Seems like when it stops responding to hormone suppression things can deteriorate quickly.
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Worth adding to the list are osteoporosis, secondary infection, hearing loss, macular degeneration (need more advancement here), hypothyroidism, chronic kidney, acute consequences of heart disease/ stroke prevention. Not all of the solutions can be called "cures" but a solution nonetheless is better than nothing and calling it "old age, shit out of luck."

piombisallow 1y ago

Most of the things you listed aren't aging related

QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
“Aging related” just means we don’t know what causes it, and yes we are much better at treating things when we know their cause. For example, right now parkinsons is aging related and we can’t do a thing about it, but there is increasing evidence that it is caused by some pollutant or toxin. If we find the toxin, then parkinsons will stop being age related. Mesothelioma is a historical case of this: for 100 years it was an untreatable aging related disease, it’s now obviously not an aging related disease, and the treatment is don’t breath asbestos.

jajko 1y ago

> So, if you know someone old and suffering, its probably alzheimers. Thats very far from reality, I presume you don't know many old people or speak to them about their ailments?

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
You're right that there is far more to it than Alzheimers. Still, Quadmaster has half a point. It's probably not consumption (tuberculosis), or hookworm. It's much less likely than it was to be black lung. Even smoking is decreasing, though it will take another generation for that to show up in the old people. So we're making progress. But we don't see it, because that becomes the new normal, and we see all these remaining things that cause problems for old people.
- close04 1y ago
  TB killed 1.25 million in 2023 and the WHO considers it the world’s leading cause of death from a single infectious agent, outpaced only temporarily by COVID.
  - GoatInGrey 1y ago
    It's safe to say that they were speaking from the perspective of developed countries where the mortality rate of TB is roughly 0.2 per 100,000. Which makes the case that we know how to make it statistically insignificant, but the infrastructure to apply that knowledge is not perfectly distributed.
    - close04 1y ago
      > they were speaking from the perspective of developed countries But that's just creatively selecting the data that supports the point. You can do that with everything else. We solved a lot of things "in the lab" or "in mice". Did you know that we conquered Alzheimer's? It's safe to say I mean in countries like Guinea-Bissau, Somalia or Chad with under 100 cases per 100k people.
    - amluto 1y ago
      > we know how to make it statistically insignificant TB is weird. We do indeed know how to actively manage it (e.g. screen people regularly and treat detected cases), but countries like the US don’t do that. Nonetheless TB does not cause much disease in the US. Every time I’ve tried to figure out why this is, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that no one really knows. Maybe it’s the general lack of malnutrition?
      - const_cast 1y ago
        TB is a bacteria and people in developed countries generally get treated when they have symptoms of infections. But underdeveloped countries don't have the resources for that, so infections are just "powered through". In addition, a lot of it comes down to resources we take for granted, like sanitation, running water, soap, population density, etc. We have cleaner air, cleaner water, and are more conscious about spreading diseases because we are wealthier.
QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
It could just be genetic luck, and the privelege that most people I interact with have access to the best treatment for diseases that have treatments, but around me the worst suffering is mostly alzheimers, striking in the late 70s to 80s.

genezeta 1y ago

Parkinson's fairly frequent too.

close04 1y ago

> and have conquered yellow fever, consumption, diabetes, knee failure, glaucoma, smoking related lung cancer, prostate cancer, hookworm, environmental lead poisoning, environmental arsenic poisoning, black lung, breast cancer, and syphilis. What's your definition of "conquered"? In the US breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, and together with lung cancers account for ~500k cases each year. 100k of those people will die within 5 years. Now we created new issues to replace the old. Microplastic, PFAS, antibiotic resistance, obesity, etc. And my knees want to have a word with your assessment :).

Qem 1y ago
I also wouldn't count prostate cancer on the "conquered" group, as recent news about the great Scott Adams reminds us.
- aesclepius 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Qem 1y ago
    He's a flawed human. But his masterpiece, Dilbert, is a gift to humanity. I hope the legacy of his masterpiece will last much longer than that of any BS views he has.
  - leereeves 1y ago
    Wikipedia says DEI seeks to "promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people". That sounds great. If only it actually worked that way instead of being code for favoritism for a few demographic groups, ignoring many other people who are excluded, and actively discriminating against straight white men. Scott Adams is right to challenge it. Edit: Disney exec admits on hidden camera "Certainly, there have been times where, 'there's no way we're hiring a white male for this'" https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/watch-disney-exec-admits-company-openly-discriminates-against-white-males-in-spoken-agreement/ar-BB1oHhaa https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/watch-disney-exec-...
1y ago

chaosbutters314 1y ago

you forgot HIV/AIDS. we have the tools to basically snuff it out in 60-80 years if every male was on prep

mattmaroon 1y ago
I think there’s a good chance we snuff it out in 80 years even if they aren’t. Actual cures seem to be on the horizon.
david-gpu 1y ago
Look at how hard it has been to eradicate diseases that only require a couple of doses of a vaccine. How feasible do you think it would be to provide daily prep to every male in the world? Even in developed countries with free vaccinations we are suffering from measles outbreaks in 2025.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Are those really developed countries? A decent free public school education is a requirement for a nation to be considered developed.
  - david-gpu 1y ago
    >> Even in developed countries with free vaccinations we are suffering from measles outbreaks in 2025. > Are those really developed countries? A decent free public school education is a requirement for a nation to be considered developed. Here's some data: In 2025 1, 2,755 measles cases (2,429 confirmed, 326 probable) and 0 rubella cases have been reported in Canada. [0] Education in Canada is for the most part provided publicly, funded and overseen by federal, provincial, and local governments. [1] Medicare is a term that refers to Canada's publicly funded health care system. Instead of having a single national plan, we have 13 provincial and territorial health care insurance plans. Under this system, all Canadian residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without paying out-of-pocket. [2] Sources: [0] https://health-infobase.canada.ca/measles-rubella/ https://health-infobase.canada.ca/measles-rubella/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada [2] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-health-care-system.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-healt... You are welcome.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

Most of the conditions you've mentioned there have exogenous causes (i.e. diseases or environmental toxins), and I question your inclusion of many of the ones that don't (who thinks we have "conquered" breast cancer??). But we have made very little progress in staving off degenerative-type diseases. Even the primary degenerative disease you mention, knee failure, we cure largely with a wholesale replacement. That obviously isn't applicable to organs we can't just swap out.

giantg2 1y ago
I agree. Rates of cancer and diabetes are up. We might have better treatments than in the past, but I though I even saw graphs showing that overall cancer fatalities rates are flat - a lower percentage of people die from it, but the increase in cases mostly offsets that (depends on the specific type).
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  One angle is that as we find cures for other diseases, cancer rates go up because we live long enough to get cancer. The sum of all causes of death will very likely continue to be 100%...
  - leereeves 1y ago
    > The sum of all causes of death will very likely continue to be 100%... If not, we'll have a whole lot of new problems.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    I'm not talking about that. The rates in adults under 50 and in children have also been increasing.
owenpalmer 1y ago
Swapping out organs may be an option in the future. I'm getting a bioengineering degree so I can't work in organ engineering research. We're definitely not there yet, but there's a lot of interesting research happening in this area.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

We have by no means conquered prostate cancer. It is still extremely deadly.

windowshopping 1y ago
I know, I read that list and I was like "what?" Since when is even half of that stuff "conquered"?
- ryandrake 1y ago
  I agree. To me, using the very strong word "conquered" implies that a condition or disease is eradicated, like smallpox. Or, at the very least that we have a reliable way to prevent it.
hwillis 1y ago
The average age of diagnosis is 67 and 95% of those men live as long as you would expect them to normally. It is certainly not cured, and treatment can be very disruptive and unpleasant, but it's definitely not "extremely deadly" with modern medical care.
- samastur 1y ago
  Not being extremely deadly is low bar since most of your life (with some luck) will be spent being old. I'd rather see my years being more than bearable.
  - hwillis 1y ago
    You certainly will not live most of your life over the age of 67.
- fridder 1y ago
  Perhaps not but when it is aggressive, it is very deadly. They told my dad they were thinking he could have 10 years, he got three. Seems like when it stops responding to hormone suppression things can deteriorate quickly.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

Worth adding to the list are osteoporosis, secondary infection, hearing loss, macular degeneration (need more advancement here), hypothyroidism, chronic kidney, acute consequences of heart disease/ stroke prevention. Not all of the solutions can be called "cures" but a solution nonetheless is better than nothing and calling it "old age, shit out of luck."