|
I find majority of anti-aging articles to be way too optimistic. Consider the following: We still cannot treat many well understood diseases, including tuberous sclerosis, allergies, asthma, etc.
We don't know the exact cause of multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes, etc, despite studying those diseases for decades.
We can't help you keep the color of your hair or regrow your missing teeth, despite tons of money dedicated to such therapies by the industry. And articles like these talk about combating aging - a combination of development, damage, and likely an evolutionary mechanism, within 10-15 years. I cannot help but be skeptical. |
I'm reading through Sinclair's book "Lifespan - Why We Age and Why We Don’t Have To" and I find it fascinating (especially the chapter on origins of life and proto-genes of aging). When Sinclair talks about time-scales, he makes comparison to cancer. During last 50 years medicine went from fighting symptoms to actually addressing source for some cancer types. The quote that stood out: "From looks of it aging is not going to be that hard to treat, far easier than curing cancer". Book's predictions may feel too optimistic to me, but I don't have any qualifications to make such claim against leading researcher in field.