>>16829102
start punching doctors and the cures will come out real fast

File: 527736029_110567937505239(...).jpg (101 KB, 960x950)

101 KB JPG

What wold be the benefit of being immortal? Working until you never die, and never retire because you just don't die retirement can't be financed anymore?

>>16829102
Just don't get old or die, bro.

File: bad-luck-bryan-farnesyl.jpg (194 KB, 800x944)

194 KB JPG

>>16829102
It's an extremely complex problem. But there are vast and growing number of partially effective therapies with many diverse mechanisms of action already. Bryan Johnson is on some of them, but PubMed knows about hundreds of times more.

>>16829254
if you arent good with money you arent smart enough to use this board

>>16829295
Do you mind listing a few search terms for the class anon?

>>16829364
>>16829102

Rapamycin and lithium both seem promising based on actual clinical data. There are others with less data that look good in animals. But the unfortunate truth is that interpretation of preclinical data leads many, if not, most researchers to considerably different opinions about which drugs are the best. The best drug ever could be out there in the literature already, but without hard clinical data, it may or may not be a great idea to megadose it. Could also be that 99% of everything is shit and we'll find out that even the best looking drugs produce marginal effects in large segments of the population.

My personal opinion is that scouring the literature for stuff that sounds interesting and taking some poorly characterized 12 drug stack and hoping the effects synergize is not a very productive use of time or money compared to either directly contributing to basic biology by working in a lab or becoming a scientist, or getting filthy rich and funding basic biology. I think we really need more genuine, creative, and non-risk averse efforts to discover or engineer brand new therapeutics. The current paradigm of banking everything on small molecule drugs just isn't that exciting to me. I doubt any of them will ever get us more than an extra 10 healthy years at best.

>still no way to beat entropy

>>16829379
let me introduce you to a fella by the name of jesus christ.

>>16829379
You don't need to "beat" entropy, this is a retarded argument. You could theoretically have machines or mechanisms that decrease the entropy of the human body while still leading to an overall increase in the entropy of the universe in the same way that you can keep fixing a car from 150 years ago. The laws of thermodynamics are perfectly compatible with the goal of life extension. The real issue is just that it's extremely complicated compared to fixing a car and we don't know how to do it yet. Your pessimism is somewhat warranted, but for completely incorrect reasons.

>>16829102
Immortality would unironically destroy society very quickly

>>16829397
No shit, that's why the elites would try to hold onto it and keep it a secret from everyone else for as long as possible.

File: fda-glowie-pepe-bryan.jpg (250 KB, 1103x1398)

250 KB JPG

>>16829364
>Do you mind listing a few search terms for the class anon?
Here are some pretty hot ones right now...
>senescence"
>"SASP"
>"senoprotein"
>"senolytic"
>"anti-aging"
>"maximum lifespan"
>"all-cause mortality"

>>16829379
This has nothing to do with entropy. The human body isn’t a closed system and there are animals out there that can live to 500 so it’s not physically impossible

>>16829454
Bump