Nope. Just cabinet ha ha
Nope. Just cabinet ha ha
Yeah it was confusing and I had to read the source article a couple of times. If I’m recalling correctly I think the mouse model they’re referring to used gene splicing to reverse aging in-vivo—which to my understanding is a hell of a lot riskier and invasive than a molecular/biochemical based technique as described by the primary researchers (but only done in vitro). I would’ve been impressed if they used a biochemical technique in vivo because that would mean they had solved an issue of drug delivery, which is the thing that’ll halt the progress of this stuff becoming mainstream.
Another article that vastly exaggerates the implications of the source text. This is very much still a small-scale, mainly in-vitro proof of concept. An awesome read and thanks for sharing, but I wouldn’t go worrying about immortal super-rich as of just yet.
There are already a lot of good answers but I want to highlight this. Chronic tobacco smoke causes increased aging due to multiple mechanisms. Moreover, environmental tobacco exposure from second hand and third hand smoke prior to the 1990s was MASSIVE. So even if you didn’t smoke you got insane daily exposures to the same chemicals.