3 ms·

Monkeys are not humans, anti-aging is imprecise and does not necessarily translate into longer life expectancies for people, and promises of extending life have

Monkeys are not humans, anti-aging is imprecise and does not necessarily translate into longer life expectancies for people, and promises of extending life have always fallen short of hype, and odds are this will too.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Monkeys are not humans The implanted stem cells, however, were human. (The fact that that the treatments did not cause "fever or substantial changes in immune cell levels (lymphocytes, neutrophils, and monocytes), which are commonly monitored for xenograft-related immune responses," is itself surprising.) > promises of extending life have always fallen short of hype, and odds are this will too Correct, though I'd say because this is early-stage medical research. Not because it's targeting longevity. I'd be similarly sceptical of an N = 16 early-stage drug trial for the flu.
- SubiculumCode 1y ago
  16 primates is not small when it comes to primate studies. In any case, knowing how expensive and rare primate research is to conduct, I doubt this is the first animal model used on this approach. In terms of replicatability, it is also not always the sample size, it is the effect size. Small samples do affect ability to generalize, but the point is that sample size isn't everything.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > its the effect size Which effect size do you find lacking?
    - SubiculumCode 1y ago
      I was responding to the idea that listing a small sample size automatically means its shit science.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        Oh, absolutely correct. Small study doesn't mean shit science. It just means there is plenty of room for randomness and hidden variables to create havoc on the way to a treatment.
SubiculumCode 1y ago
But they sure ain't mice, either. This is a LOT closer than results in mice.
jasondigitized 1y ago
Is there another, better animal that is used in late stage testing for other drugs you are aware of?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Monkeys are not humans The implanted stem cells, however, were human. (The fact that that the treatments did not cause "fever or substantial changes in immune cell levels (lymphocytes, neutrophils, and monocytes), which are commonly monitored for xenograft-related immune responses," is itself surprising.) > promises of extending life have always fallen short of hype, and odds are this will too Correct, though I'd say because this is early-stage medical research. Not because it's targeting longevity. I'd be similarly sceptical of an N = 16 early-stage drug trial for the flu.

SubiculumCode 1y ago
16 primates is not small when it comes to primate studies. In any case, knowing how expensive and rare primate research is to conduct, I doubt this is the first animal model used on this approach. In terms of replicatability, it is also not always the sample size, it is the effect size. Small samples do affect ability to generalize, but the point is that sample size isn't everything.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > its the effect size Which effect size do you find lacking?
  - SubiculumCode 1y ago
    I was responding to the idea that listing a small sample size automatically means its shit science.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      Oh, absolutely correct. Small study doesn't mean shit science. It just means there is plenty of room for randomness and hidden variables to create havoc on the way to a treatment.

SubiculumCode 1y ago

But they sure ain't mice, either. This is a LOT closer than results in mice.

jasondigitized 1y ago

Is there another, better animal that is used in late stage testing for other drugs you are aware of?