Researchers can now 3D print blood vessels

[pansypicker123]

Wait, what? You already said the skepticism was at the beginning, and it's true, the arguments I've found are dated almost a decade ago. I didn't add more because I felt you were right. 

 

Also, we can't derail much from the topic of the thread.

Oh, ok. Glad that got cleared up *loving embrace*.

 

I will cease to further contribute to derailing of this thread (even though what the discussion consisted of was a more effective, at least in the short term, way of accomplishing the same thing this is trying to) after one... more... comment...

 

 

 

UNLESS YOU WANT YOURSELF, AND EVERY PERSON YOU LOVE TO DIE UNNECESSARILY AT THE END OF A LONG ROAD OF PAIN AND DEGRADATION, IT IS PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA TO SUPPORT THE 

 

SENS FOUNDATION 

[Victorious Secret]

You do realize that Aubrey de Grey was put to the test by having 28 of his peers (aka scientists) review his findings (as you do in science) before they call anything a theory. Calling his work a theory is a little insulting, since it was already shot down. He has no theory. He still have a broken hypothesis that failed the peer review process and was sent back. 

 

EMBO published on SENS and Greys work. 28 scientists basically said "Nope, theres nothing here. With respect to humans or animals in general."

 

EMBO is published by the Nature Publishing Group. They've been publishing since 1869, and are a well respected group for article publishing and generally one of the top ones you try and have your work published in, because thats how far their reach is. So these guys weren't playing around, nor were they dicking Grey around by not taking his work seriously. 

 

MITs own "Technology Review" even stated that while Grey's work is worthy of debate, SENS proponents have failed to make a compelling scientific argument on why his work should even be considered or acknowledged. In other words, the same kind words every scientific review board gives to everyone who has a study. They aren't being stopped, they just haven't produced anything worth of anyones time.

 

The SENS foundation hasn't produced a lick of scientifically authenticated and peer reviewed (successful peer review I might add) data that supports anything. 

 

A TED talk means nothing to science. Science isn't the stage. Science doesn't need publicity that people like Grey do. SENS needs donor money to keep going, a strong incentive to keep spouting "truths". I say "Truths" because there has been ZERO verification, and in science until you have that your word means nothing, no matter who you are. 

 

It isn't skepticism. Its just how we do research. Provide proof, demonstrate it, let others replicate it; only then can you go around claiming anything. Till such a time that he or his group can pass those steps, he is a nobody. 

 

 

And I'm not some hater who wants him to fail. Far from it. The premise is interesting and is worthy of further research, but he needs to do RESEARCH. Not go on TED talking about miracle cures and all that other crap. I'm in research, the amount of hopeful fly by night cowboys who think they got the "next big thing" only to get slapped in the face by the peer review process never fails to amaze me. 

 

Thats why I don't get caught up in the hype for anything, even in my own field. Show me raw data that I can repeat and show me dozens of scientists who did the same; then I'll believe it.

[Socky]

wow, truly amazing

[pansypicker123]

You do realize that Aubrey de Grey was put to the test by having 28 of his peers (aka scientists) review his findings (as you do in science) before they call anything a theory. Calling his work a theory is a little insulting, since it was already shot down. He has no theory. He still have a broken hypothesis that failed the peer review process and was sent back. 

 

EMBO published on SENS and Greys work. 28 scientists basically said "Nope, theres nothing here. With respect to humans or animals in general."

 

EMBO is published by the Nature Publishing Group. They've been publishing since 1869, and are a well respected group for article publishing and generally one of the top ones you try and have your work published in, because thats how far their reach is. So these guys weren't playing around, nor were they dicking Grey around by not taking his work seriously. 

 

MITs own "Technology Review" even stated that while Grey's work is worthy of debate, SENS proponents have failed to make a compelling scientific argument on why his work should even be considered or acknowledged. In other words, the same kind words every scientific review board gives to everyone who has a study. They aren't being stopped, they just haven't produced anything worth of anyones time.

 

The SENS foundation hasn't produced a lick of scientifically authenticated and peer reviewed (successful peer review I might add) data that supports anything. 

 

A TED talk means nothing to science. Science isn't the stage. Science doesn't need publicity that people like Grey do. SENS needs donor money to keep going, a strong incentive to keep spouting "truths". I say "Truths" because there has been ZERO verification, and in science until you have that your word means nothing, no matter who you are. 

 

It isn't skepticism. Its just how we do research. Provide proof, demonstrate it, let others replicate it; only then can you go around claiming anything. Till such a time that he or his group can pass those steps, he is a nobody. 

 

 

And I'm not some hater who wants him to fail. Far from it. The premise is interesting and is worthy of further research, but he needs to do RESEARCH. Not go on TED talking about miracle cures and all that other crap. I'm in research, the amount of hopeful fly by night cowboys who think they got the "next big thing" only to get slapped in the face by the peer review process never fails to amaze me. 

 

Thats why I don't get caught up in the hype for anything, even in my own field. Show me raw data that I can repeat and show me dozens of scientists who did the same; then I'll believe it.

When was all of this? Criticism has subsided with time. 

 

Would you mind linking me as well? 

[Imaginaerum]

When was all of this? Criticism has subsided with time. 

 

Would you mind linking me as well? 

Wikipedia as always (not saying it as a bad thing though). The source is a book that I don't want to copy paste so check yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#EMBO_Reports

 

To me he sounds like someone who doesn't want to die and it drives him insane he lives today instead of 100 years from now where we may (or may not) have stopped aging. People like him might actually get it done so I don't really disagree with his madness but he probably shouldn't say they're closer than they are.

[pansypicker123]

Wikipedia as always (not saying it as a bad thing though). The source is a book that I don't want to copy paste so check yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey#EMBO_Reports

 

To me he sounds like someone who doesn't want to die and it drives him insane he lives today instead of 100 years from now where we may (or may not) have stopped aging. People like him might actually get it done so I don't really disagree with his madness but he probably shouldn't say they're closer than they are.

 

What you linked me to says this: 

EMBO Reports[edit]

An article about SENS published in the viewpoint section of EMBO Reports by 28 scientists concluded that none of de Grey's therapies "has ever been shown to extend the lifespan of any organism, let alone humans".^[33] The SENS Research Foundation, of which de Grey was a co-founder, seems to agree with the EMBO Report as it states, "If you want to reverse the damage of aging right now I'm afraid the simple answer is, you can't."^[34] Nonetheless, de Grey argues that this reveals a serious gap in understanding between basic scientists and technologists and between biologists studying aging and those studying regenerative medicine.^[35] The 24-member Research Advisory Board of his own SENS Research Foundation have signed an endorsement of the plausibility of the SENS approach.^[36]

 

Anyone who takes that as a negative sign is kind of silly. They have  yet to even get anywhere near their goal, so why the hell WOULD any of their (completely unfinished, which is why they need funding/public support) therapies be able to do much of anything yet? 

 

Also, just like the MIT article I was able to look up, that is from 2005. That's almost ten years old. He has not been working on this seriously for much more than 12, I believe. 

 

Not like it is hard to lie, but he states he is doing it solely for humanitarian purposes. 

 

Don't just say people like him might get it done, either. Contribute to getting it done with a donation, if you believe that the end of cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimers, and most of the other worst health problems that exist are a good thing. Longevity is just a side effect of being healthy. It is wrong not to follow through on this, and insane not to follow through on this while righteously claiming diseases like those are terrible. If you complain about people dying by cause of these things, or donate to cancer charities, and don't support this, you are a hypocrite.  

 

You do realize that Aubrey de Grey was put to the test by having 28 of his peers (aka scientists) review his findings (as you do in science) before they call anything a theory. Calling his work a theory is a little insulting, since it was already shot down. He has no theory. He still have a broken hypothesis that failed the peer review process and was sent back. 

 

EMBO published on SENS and Greys work. 28 scientists basically said "Nope, theres nothing here. With respect to humans or animals in general."

 

EMBO is published by the Nature Publishing Group. They've been publishing since 1869, and are a well respected group for article publishing and generally one of the top ones you try and have your work published in, because thats how far their reach is. So these guys weren't playing around, nor were they dicking Grey around by not taking his work seriously. 

 

MITs own "Technology Review" even stated that while Grey's work is worthy of debate, SENS proponents have failed to make a compelling scientific argument on why his work should even be considered or acknowledged. In other words, the same kind words every scientific review board gives to everyone who has a study. They aren't being stopped, they just haven't produced anything worth of anyones time.

 

The SENS foundation hasn't produced a lick of scientifically authenticated and peer reviewed (successful peer review I might add) data that supports anything. 

 

A TED talk means nothing to science. Science isn't the stage. Science doesn't need publicity that people like Grey do. SENS needs donor money to keep going, a strong incentive to keep spouting "truths". I say "Truths" because there has been ZERO verification, and in science until you have that your word means nothing, no matter who you are. 

 

It isn't skepticism. Its just how we do research. Provide proof, demonstrate it, let others replicate it; only then can you go around claiming anything. Till such a time that he or his group can pass those steps, he is a nobody. 

 

 

And I'm not some hater who wants him to fail. Far from it. The premise is interesting and is worthy of further research, but he needs to do RESEARCH. Not go on TED talking about miracle cures and all that other crap. I'm in research, the amount of hopeful fly by night cowboys who think they got the "next big thing" only to get slapped in the face by the peer review process never fails to amaze me. 

 

Thats why I don't get caught up in the hype for anything, even in my own field. Show me raw data that I can repeat and show me dozens of scientists who did the same; then I'll believe it.

 

He IS doing research, and with the budget he has had he has accomplished (with everyone else at SENS of course) just as much as he predicted. His classifications of the 7 types of damage he identified being a conclusive list has not been challenged once yet. It gets more promising as time goes on and his predictions are holding up more and more. 

 

But this is why he needs money, and therefore public opinion to be more accepting. So that he WILL BE ABLE to do the research, which costs money. 

 

Your quote about them saying there is nothing there at all seems to be a disgustingly inaccurate over exaggeration if that Wikipedia link  represents most of what they had to say. Considering he is the first person to try this it would make sense that they have not yet been shown to help anything, because they have never been tested. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is kind of how medicine works. You need to test it. 

[Imaginaerum]

Don't just say people like him might get it done, either. Contribute to getting it done with a donation, if you believe that the end of cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimers, and most of the other worst health problems that exist are a bad thing. Longevity is just a side effect of being healthy. It is wrong not to follow through on this, and insane not to follow through on this while righteously claiming diseases like those are terrible. If you complain about people dying by cause of these things, or donate to cancer charities, and don't support this, you are a hypocrite.  

Everything you said made sense except for this. I have no idea where it came from or why you brought it up, but alright, I am a hypocrite because I have no interest in giving money to an organization that doesn't make 100% of donates go to the cause despite what their website says. The last thing I want is for my extra $5 to buy a Starbucks.

[pansypicker123]

Everything you said made sense except for this. I have no idea where it came from or why you brought it up, but alright, I am a hypocrite because I have no interest in giving money to an organization that doesn't make 100% of donates go to the cause despite what their website says. The last thing I want is for my extra $5 to buy a Starbucks.

 

1: I realized I put bad where good should have been and edited that (though it is still apparent in your post I believe).

 

2: It came from you sounding like you support the goal and the idea that it is possible yet still seeming not to want to help accelerate its accomplishment; at least until robust mouse rejuvenation could be achieved and money would no longer be an issue whether you contributed or not. 

 

Where did you find how the donations are spent? I am interested in seeing this for myself.

[Victorious Secret]

1: I realized I put bad where good should have been and edited that (though it is still apparent in your post I believe).

 

2: It came from you sounding like you support the goal and the idea that it is possible yet still seeming not to want to help accelerate its accomplishment; at least until robust mouse rejuvenation could be achieved and money would no longer be an issue whether you contributed or not. 

 

Where did you find how the donations are spent? I am interested in seeing this for myself.

 

 

http://www2.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf

 

There you go. Thats another 9 scientists who came to this conclusion after reviewing Grey's work:

 

 

 

In supplementary material posted on the Technology Review web site we evaluate SENS in detail. Briefly, here are our conclusions: 1) SENS is based on the scientifically unsupported speculations of Aubrey de Grey, which are camouflaged by the legitimate science of others; 2) SENS bears only a superficial resemblance to science or engineering; 3) SENS and de Grey’s writings in support of it are riddled with jargon- filled misunderstandings and misrepresentations; 4) SENS’ notoriety is due almost entirely to its emotional appeal; 5) SENS is pseudoscience. We base these conclusions on our extensive training and individual and collective hands-on experience in the areas covered by SENS, including the engineering of biological organisms for the purpose of extending life span. 

 

 

Take a long read through the whole thing. 

 

Grey has had far more scientists and academic research groups go against his claims than he has provided evidence for them. You're getting caught up in the same thing those 9 scientists agreed on; SENS is popular because it appeals to the emotions, not the intellect. Grey picked a hell of a topic to use, our own mortality. Of course people are interested in that and of course people want the answer to long life. He doesn't have it. He doesn't even have the first stepping stone. He's just blowing hot air and getting professionally called out on international stages. 

 

Don't take what you hear in the media as face value, that includes "prestigious" TED Talks.

[pansypicker123]

http://www2.technologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf

 

There you go. Thats another 9 scientists who came to this conclusion after reviewing Grey's work:

 

 

 

Take a long read through the whole thing. 

 

Grey has had far more scientists and academic research groups go against his claims than he has provided evidence for them. You're getting caught up in the same thing those 9 scientists agreed on; SENS is popular because it appeals to the emotions, not the intellect. Grey picked a hell of a topic to use, our own mortality. Of course people are interested in that and of course people want the answer to long life. He doesn't have it. He doesn't even have the first stepping stone. He's just blowing hot air and getting professionally called out on international stages. 

 

Don't take what you hear in the media as face value, that includes "prestigious" TED Talks.

 

I never do, which is why I will take the time to read every single one of those pages before I reply to you again (likely tomorrow). 

 

Before that, though, one last question. How old is that? I could not find its age from briefly skimming it.

 

Grey is not the only one working on this either. There are many other big names (Google with Google X/Calico, Bill Andrews, Dmtry Itskov is a billiionaire trying to find a solution) working on solving aging so it is not as if he is acting wholly alone on the idea this is doable in our lifetime (depending on your age of course). If you read his AMA he did recently, he has even been in contact with google Calico: http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/28e4v3/aubrey_de_grey_ama

 

Google is not stupid. I am also sure they would not hesitate to call him out if that was not true. ALthough we do not know the details of their conversation I am sure that they did not contact him just to say he is wrong about everything.

[Victorious Secret]

Age when it comes to science is irrelevant. Darwin's theory is a few centuries old, no one cares because its been constantly proven and validated. Conversely, Lamarck's theories are even older and they've sat disproved, no one has been able to prove them right in centuries as well. Does that make the criticisms invalid because they are old? No. It doesn't. A criticism in science stays forever till you address every criticism and then get published (successfully). 

 

Once again, that is all popular science, not actual science. I don't care what google thinks or who did what on reddit; THAT ISN'T HOW SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WORKS! You don't get a pass just because you have a "popular" idea. Google can mess up as well, their endorsement of something isn't validation 

 

Grey (and others) have been invited into the scientific arena and they've failed every time they've been brought up on review. Thats just fact. Doesn't matter how promising the research is and who supports it. If it can't pass the tests of 28 scientists then another 9 who all came to the same conclusion, its meaningless. 

[pansypicker123]

Age when it comes to science is irrelevant. Darwin's theory is a few centuries old, no one cares because its been constantly proven and validated. Conversely, Lamarck's theories are even older and they've sat disproved, no one has been able to prove them right in centuries as well. Does that make the criticisms invalid because they are old? No. It doesn't. A criticism in science stays forever till you address every criticism and then get published (successfully). 

 

Once again, that is all popular science, not actual science. I don't care what google thinks or who did what on reddit; THAT ISN'T HOW SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WORKS! You don't get a pass just because you have a "popular" idea. Google can mess up as well, their endorsement of something isn't validation 

 

Grey (and others) have been invited into the scientific arena and they've failed every time they've been brought up on review. Thats just fact. Doesn't matter how promising the research is and who supports it. If it can't pass the tests of 28 scientists then another 9 who all came to the same conclusion, its meaningless. 

 

I would like to start off by saying that your comment regarding the insignificance of the age of that article is not true at all. After reading it, I see that it was written in mid 2006. The scientific method will not change in eight years, but the understanding of the people who wrote that and the existence of discoveries justifying new outlooks can change tremendously, especially with how fast tech moves nowadays. 

 

Unfortunately, after spending the time to read every word of that, I found I did not get much out of it. Considering I am not from an especially high level of scientific background, much of the vocabulary used, and in depth understanding of the science discussed in general, was not sufficiently existent in my library of knowledge. Considering you are 25 (if your profile is accurate) and a database manager, I would be very surprised if you possessed it either. 

 

Look at the research advisory board of SENS: http://sens.org/about/leadership/research-advisory-board

I count 25  highly intelligent, qualified, scientific individuals. This is today, too, not 8 years ago.

 

At this point, I cannot comment on the veracity of the claims the people in the article you linked me to made in regards to the feasibility/legitimacy of the science surrounding SENS, and therefore whenever similarly scientifically involved discussion is made from either party, I cannot derive much more than noise coming from their mouth. It is obvious that they disagreed with Aubrey, but that is about it. I also noticed a few typos I could specify if you like, which I find highly unprofessional with the technology available today. However, that is insignificant. 

 

At this point the information I am left to deal with is this:

 

For SENS Credibility:

 

-SENS currently has their equally if not more qualified board of directors who supports it NOW, not eight, or ten years ago like when these criticisms were made.

-Aubrey (by absolutely no means anything remotely close to an unbiased source, of course) has stated that criticism has diminished significantly with time, and recognition among knowledgeable individuals in the geriatrics/gerontology community has gone up.

-Google has contacted Grey, adding credibility imo.

-He has done so many talks and gotten enough attention by now I find it unlikely he is as wrong as you say considering I have not seen a single remotely recent criticism (again have not looked terribly hard, feel free to show me one no more than 3 years old if you can).

-He is not getting rich from all of this, spends most of his waking life contributing to its accomplishment, and is obviously not an unintelligent individual. Therefore, it is unlikely that after devoting so much time to specifically researching JUST this area that he would continue to sacrifice so much of his fleeting life were it not actually feasible. 

 

Against SENS Credibility:

 

-A significant number of scientists did not agree with him 8 to 10 years ago and I have not seen anything since.

-That beard on Aubrey's face is obviously where he stores his large quantity lies and tricks. Nothing else makes sense (obviously joking here)

 

Can you add to the list?

 

EDIT: You may want to look at this http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403617/aubrey-de-grey-responds/

[Sauron]

Faster than light travel may yet still allude us though

 

Unfortunately it's physically impossible

[Dr.DoomCup]

Close to clone myself. Woot!!

[Victorious Secret]

All I have to say is that age doesn't matter when it comes to scientific criticism. It doesn't matter how old it is, he didn't present new data to counter those allegations; hence those allegations still stand and are 100% valid. You have a gross misunderstanding of how science works. 

 

I might be a database manager, but I also run 3 different prostate studies. I'll be published by the end of October. AS in, my findings will actually be validated and accepted. Not like Grey, who hasn't been published anywhere or provided any data to quiet prior allegations. Using my age as some argument against me won't work this time, as I science and research on a level that exceeds 99.9% of the bloody internet and roughly 100% of this forum. If it sounds cocky so be it, but I spent years learning how to do proper and valid research, I won't have it be questioned by someone who by his own admission doesn't even understand the counter arguments presented in those papers. 

 

By the way, one of those papers flat out called Grey's work pseudoscience, and then backed that claim up with real evidence. Thats a true insult to any scientist, Grey is no exception to that. 

 

I applaud your curiosity, but you are very misinformed and have a very poor understanding of how research works. Take some time, even take a few research methods courses from your local campus; educate yourself on how science is actually done. Not popular science, which is what Grey has. 

 

Till such a time that he presents ACTUAL proof with VALID data that can be REPRODUCED by anyone, he has nothing in the eyes of science. Science doesn't care for how the world should be, only how it is. Thats why I only trust in what I can prove to be real and can reproduce on a consistent basis. Of course I believe in many things, but I don't parrot them as fact to the world when they might not be. 

[pansypicker123]

All I have to say is that age doesn't matter when it comes to scientific criticism. It doesn't matter how old it is, he didn't present new data to counter those allegations; hence those allegations still stand and are 100% valid. You have a gross misunderstanding of how science works. 

 

I might be a database manager, but I also run 3 different prostate studies. I'll be published by the end of October. AS in, my findings will actually be validated and accepted. Not like Grey, who hasn't been published anywhere or provided any data to quiet prior allegations. Using my age as some argument against me won't work this time, as I science and research on a level that exceeds 99.9% of the bloody internet and roughly 100% of this forum. If it sounds cocky so be it, but I spent years learning how to do proper and valid research, I won't have it be questioned by someone who by his own admission doesn't even understand the counter arguments presented in those papers. 

 

By the way, one of those papers flat out called Grey's work pseudoscience, and then backed that claim up with real evidence. Thats a true insult to any scientist, Grey is no exception to that. 

 

I applaud your curiosity, but you are very misinformed and have a very poor understanding of how research works. Take some time, even take a few research methods courses from your local campus; educate yourself on how science is actually done. Not popular science, which is what Grey has. 

 

Till such a time that he presents ACTUAL proof with VALID data that can be REPRODUCED by anyone, he has nothing in the eyes of science. Science doesn't care for how the world should be, only how it is. Thats why I only trust in what I can prove to be real and can reproduce on a consistent basis. Of course I believe in many things, but I don't parrot them as fact to the world when they might not be. 

 

Maybe you can simplify it for me. 

How were their criticisms more valid than his so called "pseudo science," as specifically as possible without using vocabulary that the non scientist will not know (if possible)?