The Mainstream Media is Slowly Becoming Less Skeptical of Work to Extend the Healthy Human Life Span

One can't maintain dismissive skepticism forever in the face of scientific and medical development communities that are ever more engaged in the development of therapies to address the mechanisms of aging. To pick one example, senolytic treatments that clear senescent cells from aged tissues are producing consistently amazing data in mice: rejuvenation, extension of healthy life, reversal of measures of many specific age-related diseases. We'll soon know how well the more viable senolytics perform in human trials, as the preliminary data from the use of dasatinib and quercetin shows that it does selectively destroy senescent cells in humans as it does in mice. Given the serious prospect of living longer in good health, I would expect the previously doom and gloom crowd of naysayers to capitulate and admit that, yes, actually it would be pleasant to have more health, more life, and less pain, suffering, and death.

People are living longer, staying healthier longer and accomplishing things late in life that once seemed possible only at younger ages. And it's not just superstars. The fraction of over-85s in the U.S. classified as disabled dropped by a third between 1982 and 2005, while the share who were institutionalized fell nearly in half. As a whole, Americans seem to be aging more slowly than before. Researchers compared how men 60 to 79 years old aged in 1988 to 1994 and in 2007 to 2010. They found that in those later years, the men they studied had a biological age four years less than the men in the earlier years, in part because of improvements in lifestyle and medications. This suggests that not only are people living longer, they're also staying healthier longer.

On one level, greater health and longevity is an old story. In 1900, life expectancy in the U.S. was about 47 years and now it's about 78. But we may also be on the cusp of something new. Over the course of the 20th century, we primarily aided longevity by tackling disease. In the first half of the century vaccines and other innovations prevented people from dying young of communicable diseases. In the second half, improvements in lifestyle and other medical breakthroughs prevented many people from dying in middle age of things like heart attacks and cancer.

But while these improvements have made it more likely that people will live to be 65, after that, aging itself takes an inexorable toll. Even if you beat lung cancer or survive a heart attack, your body's deterioration will finish you off before too long. The average 80-year-old suffers from around five diseases. That's why even if we could totally cure cancer, it would add less than three years to average life expectancy. A total cure for heart disease would give us at best two extra years. To keep the longevity train rolling it may not be enough to cure diseases. We may also need to address the underlying condition of aging itself, which is, after all, the primary risk factor for late-life decline.

S. Jay Olshansky has said "While there are no documented interventions that have been proven safe and effective in slowing aging in humans today, we are on the verge of a breakthrough." For example, as we age, we build up more and more "senescent" cells, which secrete inflammatory molecules that can effectively accelerate aging. In 2011, researchers removed these cells from mice and extended their life spans. Clinical trials on people began in 2018. It's likely that all Americans could be living longer, healthier lives. I imagine an 80-year-old bounding from bed, biking in the morning and playing softball in the afternoon. We're all on borrowed time. More time is more life, and more of it will be sweet.



It's nice that David Brooks has discovered senolytics, but he missed other important aspects of treating aging. Here's what I wrote to the NY Times as a comment on Brooks' article:

There is indeed new understanding of just what aging is, but the statement that aging is "the accumulation of random damage to the building blocks of life" is an antique and discredited view of what's actually going on. Old cells and young cells have the same DNA. They differ because of "epigenetic programming" implemented by clusters of methyl radicals attached to the DNA to switch some genes on and others off. As one ages, the methylation pattern shifts in ALL cells, apparently due Nature's progressive programming, making us age. The big news, which unfortunately David Books misses, is that methods are emerging in bio-laboratories to initiate epigenetic reprogramming that reverses the methylation pattern and makes the subject biologically younger. We're almost ready to fix aging! See the works of Drs. Steve Horvath (UCLA) and David Sinclair (Harvard) to learn more.

Posted by: John G Cramer at June 11th, 2021 9:56 PM

It might be the summer is the reason there are no Springdale need releases recently. What is going on with senolytics studies in humans ? Nothing new published recently. Prodrug conjugation seems very promising yet I hear nothing new either. Only OISIN is grinding slowly. Slower then I would like, though

Posted by: Cuberat at June 12th, 2021 3:48 PM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.