Realistic living for ever

 

The latest link            previous                next

Is it even possible? Define it in terms of showing no decline in survival characteristics, no increase in disease incidence, and no increase in mortality with advancing age, then yes. 

I have speculated on immortality before. Let me introduce NS or negligible Senescence where latter means normal aging with progressive loss of strength, skin firmness, hair color, reproducibility etc. An NS animal is one that shows no real signs of aging. Evolution has placed us humans in aging and death part of most of the animals not because of any reason but because evolution is the survival of the fittest and technological part was possible only in species that possessed capability of adding to knowledge and dying to allow incrementalist even in limited by age by death of the old. Senescence happens because there are no evolutionary advantages to NS and because the idea of cheating death is automatic despite state for most.

To speculate on immortality requires some idea of ethics. Independent of how achieved, teen years and yo0ung ages are much less concerned with the value of elder population and their contributions. One day the mirror shocks the aging as me of how time has flown by. Increasing debilitation is then traced to normal aging and strong feelings about cheat death by eliminating aging for me and those I care for. Some usefulness of self post-death is not religious duty but the possibility of last use of my body (organ donation and body to medical students) and financial legacy and survival of some knowledge (discrete square root). I am done with legacy issues and turn full time to aging. I have written a lot last 1 year past my father departure and my responsibility assumption.

NS is required but insufficient for immortality and is medically achievable through actionable steps.

Species	Recorded lifespan
Lobsters	100+ years (Presumed NS)
Ocean Quahog clam	507 years
Greenland Shark	400 years
Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)	152 years (Presumed NS)
Clams such as Panopea generosa	160 years (Presumed NS)

Possibly even more intriguing is the hydra, a species that is observed to have no lifespan limit, as it regenerates very quickly. Barring predation and changes to its environment, it is one of the few species for which the phrase “biological immortality” would be appropriate. Only human language stupidity still constrain us to objectification and personalization of abstractions like nature - I still use the normal language but drastically change my inner thinking. Nature is not a spirit or person and has no conspiracy against me or anyone. Most animals suffer from aging and death, but there are animals alive that are NS for up to 500 years and trees that have lived recorded to 5000 years! It amazed me some Roman time trees were very old in their time and still live today! Evolution is not my enemy or foe. I am the top predator species. Intelligent enough to analyze and plan.

And the good news is that there is no reason why humans could not enjoy considerably increased healthy longevity if the appropriate technologies are developed. It isn’t even beyond the realm of possibility that humans might achieve negligible senescence thanks to the march of medical science and technology. Some scientists, such as Dr. Aubrey de Grey, propose that we can engineer negligible senescence by using a repair-based approach to the damage that aging causes. This is the basis of SENS, the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, and is being pursued by the SENS Research Foundation.

In 5-10 years, we will figure out how to live 50 more years. Time enough to figure out 500 year and live as long as sharks. Enough to figure out next 5000 years and live as long as trees. Enough ...

Actionable aging, various ways to consider

 

Disclaimer                The latest link

Hyperlink book

 

Unlike all other things you might have read, and Morons who conflict with me, the first business is to make myself transparent to you and disclose enough to allow you read on or quit:

0. Inputs may cause doctor switch but never perform except after consult with a responsible doctor..

1 Several methods are discussed. My goal is not to0 claim that I, or anyone else has a uniformly believed theory of aging

2. All the methods discussed have empirical evidence in their favor and hence will have to to be explained by rock-hard eventual theory of aging and the benefits at the low end will be there and can only become larger with better theory

3. One consequence of wide read is the sympathetic read of theories, used solely to depend on the sum of benefits of the various methods that is understand why apparently independent methods have been or are implied to be related. In the absence of such dependence seems to allow benefits of procedures to add.

4. There seem to be imminent coming of the Aging singularity - expansion of human age by one year per calendar year. Question that such forecasts (2030 me, 2025 Kurtzweil at Google, lack of criticisms by Drs. Sinclair and de Grey) means that rational people see it in 5-10 years. It will be useless to dead by then or to people who will not be able to afford it, or long life beyond! Individually, even one method gives 5-10 years as empirically found. Given 4 method are likely to become empirically possible, one does not have to blindly depend on Yamanaka factors methods to become possible within 5-10 years! Even 2050 extension is possible without them.

5. Some readers may be confused about lifespan and health span, these are distinct things. Two essential but non-actionable methods are slowly maturing and will happen by 2050 - Yamanaka factors and stem cells. These are both non-actionable and close watch is important for 1000year life and spin-offs that become actionable. But these are not dependent on to life and health expansion to 2050. Ideally they will yield pure increments that have no long term negative consequences. However, there should never be unneeded hurry to benefits from them as soon as they yield benefits due to unknown dangers.

 

What is aging to me?

Aging relates to looks, performances+ and disease avoidance. Reduction in cell age is sought for maintain of brain performance and disease avoidance and strength for routine tasks, I am not in any strength or stamina business. Means looks, stamina and strength beyond a level are not relevant. Why we age is not interesting beyond a level to understand immediately relevant technologies, beyond are boring.

Why do we genetic-age? DNA is the base of every cell. All alive are an uncountable collection of cells, all derived from the pluripotent cell at the very start. Not only did the cell divide, it also specialized, and became bone, muscle, blood, skin, hair, organs, and all other cell types. It is empirically possible to restore any cell into pluripotent (forgotten specialization) form by the four Yamanaka factors OSKM.

It is possible to theorize that every animal is known collection of cells, each having a center in which DNA lives, evolved into every life or lost life from evolution from a particular DNA molecule that unlike all others DNA like molecules discovered how to fix breaks using special proteins, but also avoided any duplication while the break persisted. This one sentence is my summary of Dr. Sinclair work over 30 years at MIT and Harvard. Establishing this empirically is very hard, good enough for a Nobel Prize!

Along the way was established the chemistry that controlled aging by effecting the DNA. Direct method, TBD is Yamanaka factors. There are 3 classes of chemicals that control the DNA. They are (silent mating-type information regulation)  Sirutin, parp (Poly_(ADP-ribose)_polymeraseand and Mtor (mammalian target of rapamycin)

Rather than deep study of aging to understand a gerontologist profession or geriatrician professions, I start by saying that orthogonal to both are Dr. Audrey de Grey ex-department head at Oxford, creator of SENS I publish after 20 year of following and 1-2 man-years chasing aging on the internet with strong skeptical attack personality, and believer and user of aging enzymes for slow in vivo improvements.

Known medical dogmas are dead. A disruptive paradigm sweeps the profession where genetic thinking is essential for all slow aging diseases like heart, diabetes, aging itself and all whack-a-mole approach is vastly inferior to at5tack the root cause through bio-age reduction.

Current improvements are NMN/pterostilbene for sirutins, Metformin/Acarbose for parp but nothing for mtor. About mtor, rapamycin can be deadly as it weakens the immunity (hence used in organ transplant on rejection). Not found any otherwise innocent replacement for rapamycin or reducer of effects.

What are age changes?

Every earthen life is cellular, including me. Intuitively, I expect aging to be cellular! Strongly in my favor are Horovith empirical facts - consistency of methyl marks on Cp sites not only in tissue within a life-form but also across individuals and species! That is empirical proof of similar DNA in species, aging in tissues, and only evolutionary changes in species. In all cases, aging is caused by DNA aging in cells. As cells become senescent, the number of useful cells declines, there is a loss in ability in all tissues and old age grips.

Change in cells. UC San Francisco. Science direct.

All cells have a programmed lifespan by which they are synthesized, multiply, and eventually undergo apoptosis (cell death) when they are no longer functional.

The number of times a cell can divide is bounded by a phenomenon known as the Hayflick limit. This describes the action by which the process of division (known as mitosis) progressively degrades the genetic material, specifically the part of DNA called a telomere.

The Hayflick limit dictates that the average cell will divide between 50 to 70 times before apoptosis.

Let us assume a probable model of DNA repair mechanism. A certain life is possible per cell, less than the Hayflick limit from telomere shortening per cell division!

Method linked are

1. Yamanaka factor based medicine and supplements

2. Artificial thymus or white-cell training methods

3. stem cells

4. hibernation based postponing methods

5. TPE based like oil change and aging sharpness keep

6. Evolution justified (Dr. Sinclair tested  | FDA tested) NAD+ boosters and blood path lining cells

Of these first 4 are doctor based and people watch methods. Only last 2 used with aging specialist recommendation and MD permission.

All aging specialists are required to track scientific developments in first four methods, also track cancer progress and amelioration of aging diseases. Aging specialty include non-allopathy elements, must be government regulated but not allowed to be closed only to physicians. The first 3 methods are best done by doctors, 4 by chemists, zoologists and genetic engineers. Usefulness but not details of procedures in 5 and 6 should be left to aging specialists. Gerontology and geriatrics have been abused with very limited role in the open future.

I refuse to give any powers over me to physicians. Medical procedures are theirs. When useful and engineering is not medical subject!

What procedures for aging specialists

1. Yamanaka factor based medicine and supplements

Yamanaka designed his factors to convert any specialized cell to become pluripotent - Four enzymes OSKM are enough. M can be removed as it causes cancer. The Other three can be used in live animals with intermittent lower concentration. This allows live genetic reprogramming without any cell losing its specialization it acquired before birth. Yet to be done, it is possible to unage any group of cells that can be selected, selection can be made by aav virus methods or newer mRNA-based methods.

2. Artificial thymus or white-cell training methods

A very medical method rebuilds replacement for anti-viral white cells, that are exhausted not by reducing numbers but losing their function by fat. These can be generated by surgically attaching external thymus like organs or attaching surgically a blob that trains normal immune system cells to attack all objects that have expression of a particular chemical. It not only can be used to target senescent cells but all kinds of cancers too.

3. Stem cells are how top medical institutes  and hospitals like AIIMS believe is how medicine goes next. External thymus can be considered a kind of stem cell treatment.

4. hibernation based postponing methods, not discussed but waiting for hibernation break through is the realization that most cryo-postdeath procedures attempt to time-shift patients to the time when the ailment has a proper treatment. Obviously not only can hibernation allow long voyages but also effective undo of aging!

5. TPE based like oil change and aging sharpness keep for brain ailments like Alzheimer and Parkinson from renew of brain (recent magic).

6. Evolution justified (Dr. Sinclair tested  | FDA tested) NAD+ boosters and blood path lining cells

Other matters re future world

won't you get bored?

Really.

What do you see in philosophy?

Great expansion of Hormesis alternative beyond Talib and ban on Homeopathy.

What happens about investment?

Aging undo is top goal.

One letter link classes & privacy

 [?]   [I]  [!]  [x]  [i]

 [?] help to this page

[!] you will no longer be (?privacy/safety), Direct reference to external author

[i] considered safe by me

[I] My write-up, as safe as Google

[x] link for credit only, (?privacy/safety)

Hyperlink book

 

A hyperlink book joins a number of pages with distinguishable content hyperlinks where the top page has text that has, embedded in it, a number of hyperlinks, each is expected to be perused by a novice reader, far more than references which Link to word meaning or the first  empiricist who talked about the concept. It is not as wide as a survey paper, instead presents a number of subtopics, arranged top-down for management or tutorial purposes, not research which is always bottom-up. Proper context is considered by me to be very difficult way of teaching presentation, considered essential to doing a class by a research professor who must be ready for intelligent questions abut related directions, anticipation of next materials, why so and not else, and references to empirical discoverers of the implicit truths.

What problem are you trying to solve?

Papers I see are two kinds - reference every one, mother, wife, Gardner  etc; or reference almost no one. Biography alone in hyperlink epoch is unpa4rdonable explicit violation. But if were done, is not enough! Which links are bibliographic tribute to the empiricist worker and which should be followed by a novice, and which by anyone; is left off. Enter Sir emfubar Moron, the stupidifier. All must be properly refere3nced, according to stupidifier. Smarter reader will not press any link. Some stupidifier editors require the name of the first author and a qualifying integer, such is the power of editors who probably listened to Sir Commie or Sir socialist!

Is that a general problem?

It is in all credit situations, the default rule is "must list credits even if no one bothers", like credits in end of movie and stupider paper from CERN LHC where the list of authors is 1000 long! Only because of some past stupidifier then legacy. The stupidifier-legacy applies to all emfubars of left or liberal kinds! Even conservatives! Every one bows to legacy, sounds liberal-sensible to cheap credit, the worker is happy, and only I consider that worker/liberal behavior stupid and actionable crime of the  union (if any)!

What  else?

Front credits in movie and top few authors are okay. Every credit-worthy author gets a reference to another technical report with a full list. The author can link the report with the say send author name, as reference to next paper! For movies, the credits in each case are shot separately. Any credited-worthy can order any cinema to play it in any show. That will project the credit in credit-worthies context (like his town) in isolation, where the credit will make sense, not forgotten in all places. All credits beyond 2 will benefit by this set of ideas and save me from required acid for commie and liberal morons.

How can hyperlinks be differentiated?

The First is by use of color. Secondly by well-known icons which are inserted and represent non-overlapping classes. Multiple such icons may be inserted whenever several apply. Standard methods can be upgraded in direct editors. In all my future writings, only one link color is used, all others hyperlink bracketed of one letter. [?] lists the letter meaning. [x] is for credit reason.

What are more problems of hyperlink?

If one assumes links are holy, then none. If one assumes sprinkled criminals sometime, then must never click a link, unless target reliable! The stupidest possible advice, morons delivering it must be lined up and shot! Failing that, don't click outside the current author environment and every author is responsible for sounding a warning! I haven't so far! From this day forward, Every safe link I find (self, google, safe reputation) will be accessible as always (click) but will also have [I] suffix by default (sometimes clickable to full list).  Every other link will have and be non-[I] suffix. Easy as author. Easy for a project to parse all such links and replace them once with a warn macro file and target link  and auto-convert such links to warn first links.

Some proper default method is needed to be built-in, failing which I declare current internet faulty in use. Either it is fixed or tools to build sites forbid bad clicks (those forbidden to warn but do not prevent)  and the sites are auditable, then display an auto-verified signature and passed icon granted for that signature. Hard but doable, must be implemented by law, I do it as a project. You will know  that I am done when I lay out a browser add  and auto-tools for site files.!

Unalterable honest trustworthy unspyable perfect forward secrecy documents and signatures

 

Every letter, despite being easily modifiable electronic, must be unalterable honest trustworthy undeniable non-spyable perfect forward secrecy, and dated signatured such that can not be denied. To get all the properties at once, despite quantum computers, in always detected proven violations, efficiently which means compared to competing encryption has been done and is the basis of my company.

Unalterable?

Unalterable is done by appending a digest that can be proven to generate by any modifier. For this purpose, a reader can attach any small figure of choosing to any inward mail and is attached to any mail that fails the expected constraints. Because the image is user chosen. There is no reasonable method to forge the picture no matter how good the criminal is! This I call perfect presentation of testing of the mail.

Honest?

NIST digests exist that change at random, half the bits in check bits, on random bit change in the message. Such digests can have embedded check bits that certify some part. The Sender will be able to change these sub-signatures only with probability allowed by the sub-signatures. This is crucial to detection of perfidy of the sender! There is no additional reason to doubt information contained in the letter signed separately. No further communication is needed beyond the public check functions of the signer and are done silently, denying the entire letter with even one failure. Whether a letter will fail in the reader can be accurately tested by the sender! Any unsigned claim in the sender should not be believed by the reader! To make it more transparent, parts of the letter may be enclosed in < and > and each such inclusion expects a signature. Exact syntax allowed in the angles depend on the signer. For example, I might say <M. Tech, computer science, IIT Kanpur, 77> and <department topper, IIT Kanpur 75> and both these can be signed once by IIT Kanpur and signatures saved with me for use in any letter or certificate. This is a disruptive change to usual email, improving it to certificate level! My email changes all with reliable job applications to sold services! No extra communication is needed!

Unspyable?

AES-384 is used. Its decryption can only be speeded by square-root using Quantum computers.

Trustworthy?

To ensure correctness of dates, what is done is the intersection of two half open time intervals of after that yield only one common date. One interval is some random number published by me (which could not be picked before) with me, or some story in the newspaper. Another is registration of the letter with me (Not the letter, My-SHA-512 on email is enough). Two, My-SHA-512 and My random are enough for date.

Undeniable?

How else was the signature of the entire letter computed?

Local trust?

Instead of digest, what is appended is the AES-384 encryption of it in the reverse encryption of the user. Encryption of the signature yields the digest and then the signature is verified, the process need not be exact inverse needs to generate the code of digest on encryption and be as hard to invert. It can be done using a different system!

Perfect forward secrecy?

Perfect forward secrecy means even if every thing about the system becomes known, every past message is still undecidable. It looks like a tall order but is very easy. Essentially every message is sent by a new system, forgotten every round. That is done by a separate system that generates random integers sent with every message to be used by the receiver for reading, sender for writing for the next message! The random number can be read off a quantum system! No way can any breach expose the past, not saved or creatable.

Freely develop able but still controlled?

If one understands Jules Verne and how his characters reached the moon, once the basic trick is mastered (anti-gravity), all his magic invention become scientific! Alas, there is no anti-gravity, even in anti-matter! I say because a lot of my developments will be controlled by my company even if the developments are done by other people. That is because square root encryption using huge integers is an unsolved problem for humans but doable by me, and I am no longer an academic. As I imagine, other developers will be forced to use the api of my company. Like all good NP-complete problems, finding the root is hard, but checking is trivial - simply square any answer.

Apheresis in depth

 

The latest link

I am requesting an apheresis to extend my health span using TPE, an unusual procedure for India, even the world for this purpose, although Drs. Conboy will be attempting it for FDA clinical experience, where TPE is routinely done for autoimmune diseases using an FDA approved procedure for these problems. It implies safety within rationality. The safety profile can be judged from this, from which I conclude low probability (4%) of adverse effects, none leading to death. Even that low risk is not to be taken but for strong belief in efficacy, admittedly a question mark, but my effort can lead to a proper FDA acceptable trial in India and more important is a genuine alternative for mother and doctor uncle.

Google big shot Kurzweil thinks that1-year-gain-healthspan-per-year singularity happens in 2025. Given the lack of sophistication of my prediction tools, I predict 2030. The essential point is that in either case, the 5-10 year life needed is under 10 years that is within the estimated gains from TPE. However, it also seems possible with iv-NMN, in which case TPE becomes a valuable procedure in reserve, and highly probable is its FDA approval by 2030. But then how do I convince M+U to go for unapproved FDA procedure of NMN, which I believe is better than NR. One way is to find some way to convince them to take Basis FDA approved medicine. It is better than nothing but the costs scare them/me - true service not believed, Even convincing mother to take K2 is hard. Even approved means no risk but no one talks wish-death-accident life past the singularity! Of course, I am the romantic Wolkenkuckucksheim moron brainwashed to believe wish-theories!

The singularity will not be universally accepted for many years. Nothing visible will happen to the beneficiaries. One can safely predict world-wide dangerous admixtures with unpredictable spans. Every moronic criminal will sell/advise a theocratic version of the procedure! After 10 years, the genuines will win but might not! In fact, the reasonable way is to shield true beneficiaries from accidents, required shared equitable military risk and leave the non-trusting population to its fate.

Hormesis: beyond liberal and conservative stupids

 

The Best destruction of all religions is choice is between hormesis and temperance, stupid if always temperance (every religion!), most normal humans have never heard of hormesis and even consider it as a possibility.

The thesis I advocate (only for developed) is that hormesis applies too often and usual politics of both liberal and conservatives is demonstrably stupid, only horrnetic ideology I propose will fly. A liberal follows LNT (linear no threshold) policy as default when not aware, A conservative follows the flat step method when not aware. Note that we have not specified subject! When that is introduced, both sides present their ideological good statements, evil for the other side! I propose that both are stupid!

Car speed: Liberal :all speed kills, not enough safety gear. Conservative: all accidents are driver faults or bad conditions. Hormetic: decide on required safety gear beyond which driver fault. Hormetic: Insurance never pays beyond limits, unless self-insured.

Radiation: Liberal : all radiation kills or bad, not enough safety gear. Conservative: all accidents are patient faults or bad conditions., all radiation kills or bad. Hormetic: not all bad, decide on required safety intercept;r beyond which driver fault. Insurance never pays beyond limits, unless self-insured.

Disease: All bad, doctor decides ever a bean counter, medical advice on all injuries, all pay equally IE proportionally to income, equitable costing. Conservative: freedom to pay and choose, no transfer of costs. Hormetic: No care to a limit. Universal up to a second limit. Government pools for some with cost control. Profit rates for not limited population.

The Stupidest treatment system I know is homeopathy, in it, you make a drug stronger by fractionizing its strength! It works with low dose (hormesis region min) when the benefit really increases with lowering concentration! Stupidity is from generalizing a very small region. In fact, the hormesis region is likely small, except in some cases, and may not exist! It all de3pends on scientific analysis of the stressors, any arbitrary claims are stupid.

An example of large hormesis region is weight lifting, stressors of weights, beneficiary muscle. Jerky snatches are better than slow raising of weights. Any good LNT is an example of zero sized hormesis region.

The very big critic of wall-street (and not an anti-capitalist) is Talib who has attacked stupid use of statics in all money matters in the extreme by finding out empirically that extreme of distributions has fat IE extreme even happen with much greater probability than that predicted by normal distribution! For example, so-called 100-year floods happen much more often than 100 years. Markets have 2008 like crisis much more frequently than assumptions in option pricing (because of normal distribution assumption). Fractal distributions are wide spread in nature, far more than normal! Talib introduced the black swan as an example of supposed infrequent events happening far more often.

He has shown that black swan events are basic to human progress, no one can predict the future and its timing. I have taken it to heart, identify black swan events as those with paradigm shift, and can even explain the farmer agitation in India in those terms. Arrival of Modi in 2014 is also a black swan or paradigm shift moment for India.