Jump to content

Talk:Life extension/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

New Section with More Relevant Sources?

Just wanted to mention that, for a WP page about life extension, there is surprisingly little mention of proven methods of extending lifespan. There are literally hundreds of scientific papers which demonstrate that, by dietary, transgenic, or pharmaceutical intervention, it is possible to significantly extend lifespan in nematodes, fruit flies, rodents, and primates. There are even papers that find, in transgenic mice, it is possible to temporarily reverse aging phenotypes. Is anyone interested in adding a section which explicitly deals with proven, published means of extending lifespan? If so, I would be more than happy to supply all the sources necessary.Mostly Translucent (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

By all means. I don't see the work of Cynthia Kenyon mentioned here, for instance. Remember that we'd like secondary sources, not just the initial primary articles. And btw, what proven science is there for extending lifespan in primates? *Interested* Marainein (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The primate paper is entitled "Caloric Restriction Delays Disease Onset and Mortality in Rhesus Monkeys" and was published in Science in 2009. The authors found that moderate caloric restriction in rhesus macaques lowered the incidence of aging-related deaths and the onset of age-associated pathologies, specifically diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and brain atrophy [1]. A 2009 study published in Nature found that genetically heterogenous mice fed rapamycin late in life enjoyed a 13% (females) or 9% (males) boost in longevity. This was the first published study demonstrating that pharmaceutical intervention in aging mice could successfully extend lifespan [2]. Also, dwarf mice lacking the growth hormone GH, prolactin, and thyroid-stimulating hormone lived substantially longer than their normal siblings and exhibited multiple symptoms indicative of delayed aging. The age of death of the oldest mouse was 1819 days, making it the oldest mouse ever recorded in a laboratory [3]. Primary references for these studies are below (secondary references can be easily obtained by doing a Google search of the studies):
1.Colman RJ, Anderson RM, Johnson SC, Kastman EK, Kosmatka KJ, Beasley TM, Allison DB, Cruzen C, Simmons HA, Kemnitz JW, Weindruch R. Caloric restriction delays disease onset and mortality in rhesus monkeys. Science 2009; 325(5937):201-204.
2.Harrison DE, Strong R, Sharp ZD, Nelson JF, Astle CM, Flurkey K, Nadon NL, Wilkinson JE, Frenkel K, Carter CS, Pahor M, Javors MA, Fernandez E, Miller RA. Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice. Nature 2009; 460(7253):392-395.
3.Bartke A, Brown-Borg H. Life extension in the dwarf mouse. Curr Top Dev Biol 2004; 63:189-225. Science. 2009 Jul 10;325(5937):201-4.

Mostly Translucent (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

pseudohypoxia section

Today in this dif I deleted the section created around David Sinclair's 2013 publication in Cell, in which they 'reversed aging' by giving Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide to mice. Reasons:

  1. this is just another wrinkle on the sirtuin based work discussed in the very first sub-section of this section, namely Life_extension#Anti-aging_drugs. Nothing new here, strategy-wise, which is what this section is focused on. ( the section is called "Proposed strategies of life extension")
  2. sourcing: the Cell article is a primary source, and under both WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS no content should be based on it. The Guardian is not a MEDRS-compliant source for health-related information either.
  3. content 1: the content that was created, moved beyond discussion of hypothetical "strategies" to making claims that this might actually work (please see WP:MEDRS about making health claims based on in vitro and animal studies
  4. content 2: the content went far beyond what the Guardian reported "Australian and US researchers hope an anti-ageing compound could be trialled on humans as early as next year" (emphasis added) to state "human trials will begin in 2014". (emphasis added)
  5. overall, WP:RECENTISM is not what Wikipedia does. If this work is discussed in a secondary source - a review in the biomedical literature - at some point in the future, it can come in then. For now, it should stay out. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

record of 10x extension for nematodes; record 1.5x for mouse

content on the subject was added in this set of edits. supported by PMID 17996009. However that ref is a primary source from 2008; it is the editor's WP:OR to make the claim that this is "currently the record". have removed on those grounds. The 1.5x number comes from the same article, but from the background section, so that is at least review-y. The other source provided, PMID 23193293, is more recent (2013) and more review like (since the novelty is in the databases, not their content); Table 2 supports all the content in this sentence (except they identify 93, not "over 100" longevity genes in mice). Am getting rid of the 2008 PMID 17996009 source and addressing the "over 100" content. in a moment... Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

ended up editing that paragraph much more, as it was pileup of primary sources, which I got rid of. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The ten-fold extension being the record (at the time, though I think it remains the record) can be sourced to a review here. There's plenty of other information it could be used for also. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Jytdog (talk)
Sticks out like a sore thumb. How about trimming it back, and place the information in other sections? --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that if you want to do it. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

RLE acronym here and at RLE disambiguation page

I added the acronym RLE here, in the first section that mentioned "radical life extension" and at RLE disambiguation page, as I was myself confused reading a text that used the acronym without any explanation, and the acronym seems to be in common use. I'm not an experienced editor here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstard12 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Deathism edit and redirect

I undid an edit characterizing the opposition to life extension as "deathism". The editor who introduced this also created a redirect for the term. I'm wondering if there should be some discussion about the notability of this concept or movement and its inclusion in the article.

What I have some difficulty with is this. What is considered opposition to life extension? It seems that there are various concerns about the validity of some of the science or technology, this might not be opposition to life extension per se. There are also ethical/philosophical concerns about distribution of hypothetical future life extension services and even about whether life extension is desirable. Do those who espouse any of these viewpoints consider themselves "deathists"? Is the term common and notable?

I'm asking these questions because I simply don't know the answers and would like to see some reliable sources for what appears to be a potentially offensive term. I hope others will weigh in and give some direction. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

For a neutral indicatior, google ngram viewer can show the frequency of use in printed materials by year. There "deathism" does not show up, but "deathist" exists associated to life extension.
Otherwise, I'd say just try googling and looking at publications with recognizable publishers. Example Slate article Aug 2013 "Fear of Immortality"
Markbassett (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"Deathism" is a transhumanist snarl word directed at people expressing doubts about their programmes (e.g. people who don't think cryonics can work). It's not seen in any other circles - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Cryonics activist here. David's extensive edits to the Cryonics article on RationalWiki, a group which has policies encouraging deliberate snark may be of some relevance. The term as I've seen it used implies a person is opposed to attempts at radical life extension (for example, citing claims that long life would be boring, death is needed as a population control, or that the wealthy would inevitably hoard it to themselves), rather than skeptical of their outcome/feasibility, and I've seen it related to Terror Management Theory in informal discussions.
It is intended to communicate that the person is seeking to rationalize death-acceptance attitudes they have internalized emotionally prior to encountering life extension, as the usual arguments have been addressed fairly regularly and do not seem to be applied by most people in other contexts. I haven't seen the term used outside life extension circles, and haven't seen anyone who (as far as I know) considered it particularly offensive. Lsparrish (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

presidential campaign of transhumanist candidate

this is one of the most WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:COATRACK edits i have ever seen in Wikipedia. reverted. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Jytdog: I apologize if the information is off-topic. I honestly thought that it was on topic, since the candidate's main issue seems to be transhumanism with a heavy focus on life extension. Will you help me understand why this is irrelevant?
Also, I did not mean to detract the section from the politics of life extension. Is there a way that I can reword this information so that it does not make the article seem like a "coatrack"?
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems undue and well into WP:SOAP territory. If something comes of it in the future we should add it as a part of whatever makes it noteworthy. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ronz: Does just one sentence really count as undue? The information has already received significant media attention, and it is displayed on other parts of Wikipedia. At what point will it count as having something come of it for the purposes of this page, and how is that decision made?
Also, it is a just factual statement that does not advocate anything, influence attitudes about something, recruit anyone, display opinion, gossip about scandal, promote myself, try to sell something, or act on behalf of an organization. Given this, I do not see how your linked policy is relevant. Can you explain?
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, one sentence can be undue. He's definitely using the topic to promote himself and his interests. Further, politics is often used for cheap pr purposes. Given the nature of the sources, their content, and the history of political campaigning being used solely for promotional purposes, I think it falls well into SOAP.
"it is a just factual statement": Nothing is just a factual statement. Everything we include in our articles falls under NPOV. Some information just isn't noteworthy, some barely so. Some information serves purposes that contradict the goals and interests of this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ronz: I suspect that everyone campaigning for political office promotes themselves and their interests to some degree. However, I do not think that he is using life extension to promote himself as much as he is using himself to promote life extension. Regardless, "WP:SOAP" does not apply to Istvan's words off of Wikipedia. Actually, it does not apply here at all, because the content that I added does not violate this policy, as the content itself is not advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, et cetera. In fact, according to the policy, an article "can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view", which is precisely what my content did.
What I meant by it being a "factual statement" is that it is either true or false and does not express opinion. The real contention here seems to be about whether the content has a neutral point of view. Since it does not express a viewpoint, the only relevant part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy that I noticed is the small section on balancing aspects, which says to "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Let us then review the body of sources about the presidential campaign:
Is this enough for one sentence? I suspect that there is other information on the life extension page that does not have this much coverage. Of course, some of the authors of the above sources are biased, but they are still reliable for this information, which is not an opinion or contentious claim.
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the potential refs. I don't have time atm to go through them all. If we put aside for now the interviews, puff-pieces, and human interest stories, what do we have left? --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ronz: There are articles that include interviews in that list, but they are not only interviews: they also include reliable background information. I did not notice any exaggerated praise in any of the articles, so I did not see any puff pieces. Also, I did not notice any of them describing Istvan in a way to bring sympathy to him or inspiration from him, so I do not think that any are human interest stories. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
no. the presidential candidacy has nothing to do with the subject of life extension outside of POV-pushing for a Transhumanist agenda. Stop abusing WP as a WP:SOAPBOX. It is a bad thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of those left from my question, which of them discuss life extension, the topic of this article, in any degree of detail? If none, then it's probably not worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: Regardless of the motives, the fact that life extension is one of the main issues of an American presidential candidate is clearly relevant to life extension. Since all I did was mention this fact, free of advocacy or opinion, I do not understand how I violated the soapbox policy. Can you please quote which part I violated? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are such intense advocate for trashumanism that you cannot see that mention of a FRINGE political candidate in an article about the science around extending life is completely UNDUE, you probably should not be editing Wikipedia. You need to check your ideology at the WP log in page. I am going to ignore further discussion of this until you bring a source like NYT that gives substantial discussion to this. That source will need to show that the candidate is actually affecting the race and that life extension is one of the key reasons why. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time.Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, whether or not a person is popular, a simple sentence about their political emphasis on life extension is of course pertinent to a section on the politics of life extension, given that it is written in a neutral point of view and backed by several reliable sources. I see that the article is largely about science, but there are also many sections about other aspects of life extension, such as public opinion, the history of its movement, and ethics regarding it. If you want to move these to their own article, then I would probably support you.
I never claimed that the candidate is affecting the race, so there is no need for a source saying this. Most things on Wikipedia do not have a source like the New York Times, so that standard is obviously too high – a plethora of other reliable sources such as the list above should do. Actually, mention of the Transhumanist Party, its candidate, and its policies (including life extension) are already on Wikipedia. Why, then, should one small remark about them not be here, too?
I am sorry to hear that you are choosing ignorance over discussion. However, since you refuse to listen to me on this topic or discuss why I am wrong, then I hope you will not try to revert any similar edits in the future.
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
My comments above are based on your continuing to insist that this content should be in this article at this time. Continuing. Zoltan himself says "We've got another 14 months to go before we have to concede or something like that. Of course, I stand almost no chance of winning the 2016. But, I have been working, and I discussed this with my wife before I even started the campaign, that the real goal is to try to work and build the Transhumanist Party so that it has a much better shot at 2020 and 2024." Wikipedia is not a place to build the party. Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
nobody but an advocate for transhumanist politics would think this FRINGE political campaign worthy of mention in this article about health. you are the one introducing politics. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

I only introduced politics insofar as neutrally mentioning political subjects, which is explicitly allowed in Wikipedia's soapbox policy.
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I completely understand why you are saying that. I work on Conflict of interest and advocacy issues across Wikipedia, and I understand why you are saying that. But what you are not hearing, is that your advocacy is causing a problem here. I will take this up with you further on your talk page, which is indeed a more appropriate venue. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: Again, I have never advocated politics or transhumanism on Wikipedia. The only thing that I am advocating here is adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, which your comments have breached but not mine. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If none of the proposed sources discusses life extension in any depth, then we've little or no context from which to determine what would be appropriate due weight. Balancing that against he SOAP problems, I think there's a good case for keeping it out. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Ronz: There are no "SOAP" problems here. The policy actually explicitly allows neutral comments about advocacy and recruitment, such as my own.
Regarding weight, the sources do discuss life extension at depth. Let me give you some quotes.
The piece from The Telegraph has a lengthy paragraph on just life extension:

As you might have guessed, Zoltan will be running on a pretty interesting policy platform. First up – and a particular interest of Zoltan’s, who I’ve come to believe is genuinely determined to live forever – is life extension. This is the study of keeping people alive for as long as possible, either by slowing the ageing process or extending lifespan. "Few fields of study offer so much for civilisation," Zoltan tells me. "And we’re not far off the science being available so people can start living a lot longer – maybe even 50 years or 100 years in the very near future". I’m not sure how accurate his timelines are – others in the Transhumanist movement are a little more cautious. But as it stands he reckons there’s hardly any investment in research of this type – about $1 billion a year (and most of this is on diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's). In terms of what Zoltan considers life extension science – stopping ageing and eliminating death entirely – it’s far, far less. Because of that Zoltan thinks we’re letting people die unnecessarily. In a tidy populist touch, he plans to significantly curtail military spending in favour of research into all this. With enough resources, he thinks we can "conquer" ageing within a decade. The Transhumanist Party advocates spending at least a trillion dollars over ten years directly on life extension research.

The discussion with political analyst Roland Benedikter in the Heise Online article is difficult for me to parse, because I cannot read German, though he seems to talk about life extension multiple times. However, his interview in Leftist Review is in English. In that article, he identifies "three important developmental steps, that some consider milestones on the way to 'transhumanism'". The first, he says, is Google's Calico project. He has this to say:

As a first step this is supposed to eliminate disease and increase the lifespan of the human body by a measurable amount and ultimately – if possible – defeat death. According to those responsible for this and similar projects, new life-technologies such as the prevention of telomere shortening or genetic modification, are available for this purpose but need to be combined with artificial intelligence in order to become sufficiently sophisticated to reach an advanced level.

The second identified step is the United States's BRAIN initiative. The third, he says, is Istvan's Transhumanist Party. Benedikter states:

[Istvan] advocates radical efforts to transform oneself, for example, through “enhancement” of one’s own body and brain. Istvan wants to fashion this into a concrete political agenda that will play a role in the US-presidential campaign.

It admittedly takes a bit of synthesis to connect Istvan's party to Calico's mission, but combining this information with that of the other sources makes the link clear.
The Popular Science states this:

Beyond being a politician, Istvan is an entrepreneur, a blogger, and the founder of the Transhumanist Party--a group of some 25,000 people who want to enhance the human body and extend the human lifespan using science and technology. Man and machine are already merging through advances such as pacemakers, retinal implants that help the blind to see, and exoskeletons that let people who are disabled to walk again. Istvan and his supporters are radically optimistic that technology and science will solve the world’s problems, eventually leading to immortality and the ability to upload our consciousness to computers.

More depth is reached in the interviews with Istvan. I agree that less weight should be given to his words, but they are not weightless, as the interviews are conducted and curated by professional journalists and published in reliable publications under editorial oversight – the staff choose what to publish. Even articles by Istvan him should be considered, because (for better or for worse) they still drive public awareness and conversation.
Is this not enough for one mention in passing?
--Haptic-feedback (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Notes
  1. ^ I say "12 or 13" because it is hard to tell with Google Translate if the German Wired article mentions it.

Unethical?

Anyone thinking there is anything unethical about prolonging lifespans indefinitely must be nuts. If we can do it for humans, we may also be able to do it for non-human animals. And we'd have plenty more time to accomplish anything we'd like on this planet and off of this planet (Space travel!).

The thing is, though, I'm against animal testing, unless it's as non-invasive as possible and just about studying the animal without causing harm or death. It should also benefit other species besides humans. I want my non-human family members to live a long life as well, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.244.87 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute related to this page. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Life extension#presidential campaign of transhumanist candidate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Kharkiv07 (T) 00:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer).

Writing to save others the time looking for above. Apparently was closed/dropped/failed. Lycurgus (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

lists of peer reviewed longevity drugs online

Youtube has a video of 11 or more things that cause lab mammals live one fifth to twice as much longer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5At7wmE-97E that list, which lengthened at the comment area is metformin, deprenyl, epitalon peptide,activated charcoal enterosobent, the polyamine spermidine, LKM512 probiotic, royal jelly, C60 Buckminster fullerene at olive oil, centrophenoxine, rapamycin, resveratrol, reishi, Nordihydroguaiaretic acid (NDGA)

are there other online linkable lists of longevity drugs, each of which has a publications at the peer reviewed literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.99.62 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Life extension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life extension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this link with valuable sources of information on the topic was deleted as a spam. Judge. Here's the content:

•Part I: Executive Summary........................................................................1

•Part II: Geroscience Research Landscape Overview 2017...................9

•Part III: Infographic Summary.................................................................65

•Part IV: Top 100 Longevity Research Labs.............................................76

•Part V: Top 100 Longevity Non-Profits................................................179

•Part VI: Top 100 Longevity Conferences.............................................281

•Part VII: Top 100 Longevity Journals...................................................383

•Part VIII: Top 100 Longevity Books......................................................484

•Part IX: Top 100 Geroscientists............................................................589

•Part X: Top 50 Longevity Databases....................................................701

Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

How is it a reliable source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

New User

Hello, I would like to assist with editing this page. How do I do so? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted. How do I assist with editing this page? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
So long as your intention is to remove sourced content and add what is essentially a plug for this particular clinic, then the short answer is probably "you don't". GMGtalk 15:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
My intention is only to correct and improve the article. How might we proceed? We could focus on other aspects of the article? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
As I see it, AE made a bold edit. It was reverted. A consensus should be attempted here before any more edits are made to the article. Personally, I STRONGLY (yes capitalized) disagree with the edit by AE as an attempt to remove valid criticism of the "Young Blood"'s utter lack of scientific evidence. Strong medical claims require strong evidence. Instead, there is no valid evidence whatsoever. WP:MEDRS applies. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I made a bold edit, as I was encouraged to. I'm a new user. I think the article should be rewritten to be based on cited sources and from a neutral point of view. I think there's a number of improvements we could make. May I participate in this discussion? There is one peer-reviewed publication on this topic, by Alkahest, so you are incorrect about that. AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

AE has been indefinitely blocked. For the one publication (Alkahest et al), not only was it an uncontrolled clinical trial (not WP:MEDRS), but it reported no measures of mental function, only extent of adverse events. David notMD (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Laron syndrome

Shouldn't we mention the Laron syndrome as a disease that could help us in creating life-extending therapies ? See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17longevity.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetics4good (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For users

LongevistThis user is a longevist

Add { { Longevist} } to your user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serjatt6 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malaika1089.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Life_extension/Archive_3&oldid=1157059760"