I can completely understand where people such as Jae Won Joh, David Ouyang, Michael Long come from.

On first look, aging definitely seems to be another unalterable law of nature. Every organism we see surrounding us, from insects to whales, from algae to trees, age. So prevalent is the aging process that some have even analogized it to the second law of thermodynamics.

But consider also the fact it is actually the norm that cells in general do not age at the cellular level. The vast number of cells in our world actually do not age. Individual prokaryotic cells for example (which include all bacteria, which in our body outnumber human cells 10:1!) do not age.

Even within eukaryotic cells, many cells do not age.

Hydra cells do not undergo senescence. The Hydra … for example … can live tens of centuries … and die from external factors such as diseases, environmental stresses, not by hitting a certain age.

Lobster cells too also do not appear to undergo senescence. Lobsters die from growing too large and then suffering from “external” (i.e. outside the cell) stresses - such as suffering from diseases and/or requiring longer and longer time and more and more energy to molt.

Many believe that there is not much we can do about aging because nature already has given us the best we can get. What we observe is the inevitable result of natural wear and tear.

In complex multi-cellular organisms like us, there are two broad categories of aging processes. One takes place at the cellular level (senescence). The other is tissue/organism level.

At the cellular level, aging can take the form of free radicals damaging cellular organelles and/or signaling pathways, DNA getting degraded, cross-linked proteins accumulating and interfering with biochemical processes, mitochondria getting old, methylation and telomeres shortening.

At the tissue/organism level, aging can take the form of immune systems weakening (which recent studies suggest may be a root cause of most forms of cancer), hormonal changes happen in a way that makes our body less vital, wearing down of non-growing parts of our body such as cartilages, teeth, etc.

Personally, I don’t think natural wear and tear can explain fundamentally why aging - at least at the cellular level - occur - i.e. why senescence must happen. If natural wear and tear happens at the cellular level, why do not bacterial cells succumb to it?

If one thinks about it: every cell living today - prokaryotic or eukaryotic is actually technically very old - each has divided from a parent tracing all the way to some primordial cell some 3.8 billion years ago.

Some may argue that the cells do “die” when genes are intermixed… To me that’s “semantics.” In terms of cellular machinery - organelles, membranes, cell structure, cell nucleus, cell membranes, etc. … each cell - i.e. all prokaryotic cells and all eukaryotic germ (egg) cell - is designed to last - divide and survive - perpetually, forever - free radicals, cross-linking of proteins, the mitochondria lasting around forever, DNA damage notwithstanding.

Some argue that germline and somatic cells are very different. And that as soon as our cells “specialize,”inevitably they then must age.

But consider cancer cells. We know cancerous cells are immortal - and consist of many types of tissues - lung, colon, skin, liver, prostate, breast, etc. So it’s definitely possible for cells to specialize and not exhibit senescence.

Some argue that DNA atrophy will necessarily put a limit to cell longevity. But the truth is that somatic cells don’t necessarily divide that much more times than germline cells - yet germline cells are not doomed.

In a human life time, for example, each somatic cell is estimated to divide 50 times (some more some less) starting from a fertilized egg. But sperm cells divide many more times than that number times over the course of a male’s lifetime (over a trillion, by some estimates, 1500 new cells are generated per second per male after puberty). Each female produces some 400,000 follicles/potential eggs. If DNA damage is that prevalent, life would not be possible. If DNAs have to degenerate only after 50 divisions, then no species can exist as one after a few hundred years…

Because of all the above, I believe cell senescence is programmed rather than an inevitable consequence of natural wear and tear. Within each of our cells, our cells already possess all the information it needs to repair all damages that can occur naturally along the way.

This doesn’t per se mean that the fight aging now comes down to a search for that one or two genes that prevent aging. Many human traits (say hair color, human height, skin color) are polygenic - involving complex interactions between genes (and environment) …. I suspect aging will be so as well.

The harder question for me is that once we are able to defeat senescence - can we defeat aging at organism and tissue level?

Some point out - correctly - that many of our tissues are simply not designed to last forever. Take our teeth and cartilage and brain tissues as examples. Also, as we age, we also accumulate (dormant) viruses and toxins. There might be a level beyond which our immune system will be overwhelmed.

In my opinion, instead of philosophizing, we should go ahead and try to push the boundary and see if tissue/multi-cellular aging is in fact an unalterable “biological law” of nature. Just as the second law of thermodynamics became a “law” only when after we have tried many processes - physical, electrical, mechanical, chemical, etc. - and saw that it cannot be violated, so too must tissue/multi-cellular aging.

I myself am optimistic there is not inherent limit to tissue/organism longevity. Most experts would probably agree that the most intractable problems associated with aging has a basis in cellular senescence. The decreasing functions of our immune system, endocrine hormonal system, heart muscles and blood vessels, various organ failures, etc. for example occur because the underlying cells of those tissues have weakened and/or stopped dividing. If we can stop cellular senescence, I think many diseases associated with aging - cancer, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, osteoporosis - will simply go away.

As for the rest of the aging diseases - e.g. age-related macular degeneration, osteoarthritis, Parkison’s, Alzheimer, hearing loss - with the coming generation of stem cell therapy, I believe all of them can also be fundamentally defeated.

Already today, there are research into how stem cells regenerate cartilage, tendons, ligaments, retina, eye lens, teeth, neurons, etc. Imagine also what can happen if we apply say nano-technology (think nanobots that help clear up arteries, lymph nodes, that enhance our immune system), gene-therapy, and all other technological advances to lengthen and enhance human longevity.

Whenever the day come when we defeat aging, however, I do not believe that progress will come linearly or orderly. So it will be very hard to predict when this way will be.

But like piling sand eventually lead to an avalanche, I think all the research today will lead one day to an avalanche of breakthrough. If I must venture, why not 20–40 years? This is not a fundamental problem of nature to solve. Nature already has done most of the legwork in repairing ourselves.

For those who still think aging is inevitable, I offer this.

Aging occurs only in sexual organisms. Sexual reproduction ensures gene variety exists at the expense of nature always electing for the fittest (think: any combination of super good genes are necessarily recombined - not preserved - through successive generation, many of the “weakest” genes can survive as recessive genes and/or be paired with other strong genes).

For such selection to work, individual organisms must be guaranteed to die: the older generation must necessarily make a way for the younger generation. If the older is allowed to survive and compete, natural selection will again be selecting for just the strongest.

To that end, it appears more to be an evolved trait than an unalterable part of nature.

Our body actually already knows a lot to regenerate itself - indefinitely. To live over a decade already requires a lot of what we need to do to live 100 or 1000 years. Within each of our body, living tissues regenerate all the time (we lose some 40,000 skin cells per hour; and stomachache lining cells regenerate every few days, skin cells regenerate every few weeks, liver dells every few months, and bones a decade or so; and while some cells like brain cells do not appear to regenerate much … it is definitely possible to regenerate through stem cells).

If we can keep each of cells from undergoing senescence, I have high hopes we can - through our ingenuity - go the rest of the way…

We are actually very close. The reason why is that the only reason we haven't cured aging is that we haven't tried.

And by "tried" I mean they way we tried to win world war 2, and land on the moon, carry out the cold war,.

We have put such an incredibly small amount of money into curing aging it's amazing that we've continued to improve in life span.

The vast majority of people throughout history have always agreed with Jae Won Joe that aging is not a problem.

Not a problem? Kills, depending on who you ask, between 20 and 50 million people a year. Forces people out of jobs, and into immobility. Is behind at least half of our medical spending, our social security spending.

Sure it's not a problem for people who make their living in the medical industry, in the same way that smoking is not a problem for people who make their living selling cigarettes. It's where the money comes from so it's fine for those people to think it is not a problem.

But the reason I say we are very close is 3 factors. The number one factor is that it is only in the last 10 years or so that a growing number of people have started to realize that it really is a problem worth focusing on.

And the second is that the level of technological sophistication required to solve it is rapidly coming into existence.

The thirds is that people like Aubrey de Grey and the people at TA-65 that Allen Rothpearl spoke of (BTW Allen, I take back what I said about medical people having bad incentives in your case) and many others are looking everywhere imaginable to find solutions.

Here's the thing that few people are taking into consideration. "Close" means something very different when we are talking about solving aging than it means when we are talking about who to end war.

A. We only have to solve aging once. Wars we have to keep solving any time people disagree.
B. We only have to solve aging a little at a time.

People take almost no note of the fact that we already do an amazing job of not aging given our metabolism and activity levels. Other than with extreme care taken, cars are in terrible shape after 20 years, whereas we, after 20 years, are in our prime.

Is aging solvable? Absolutely. There is no question whatsoever that it is solvable. But not if we don't try, don't look, don't even consider it.

The reason is is solvable is that we are atoms, nothing more, arrangements of atoms.

There are reason why people say aging will be solved by 2065, and thats because the arc of technological sophistication that we are following crosses over the level of complexity and miniaturization that cells exhibit by that time. They may be some speed bumps along the way, but there can't be many because as we get more advanced we get more capable of advancing. So 2075 is probably the outer limit.

The question is, is there anything to be done in the interim so that we aren't waiting until the problem becomes an easy one. But you can think of it like video communication in a handheld device. This was imagined as far back into history as we have stories and mirrors. These are basically magic mirrors. And for most of history it simply wasn't doable. We just didn't have the control of atoms at the size and level to make it possible, not to mention the communication structure. So what was science fiction in the 1970s is children's presents just 30 years later.

The absolute number one problem in our way today is that we claim it is not a problem. There are, of course, a thousand or so (or if de Grey is right, and he might be, only 7) other problems that need to be solved once that one is out of the way, but that one is the big one.

If a student won't study, study guides won't help them. If a person won't read, giving them books won't help them. And if people won't try to solve aging, having technologies won't help us.

A couple of people have claimed that the only people who talk a lot about aging are those with a financial interest in it. I have no financial interest in it whatsoever. I don't see books, don't have a master plan for you to contribute to, none of that. But what I do have is a love of life, this life, this human existence. And I talk about aging all the time because I think we ignore it to our peril. I further think that our current attitude toward aging will, 100 years from now, be looked at they way we look back at blood letting and leeches, as the barbaric childish ramblings of people too lazy to take the time to look at the statistics.

Yes it is very definitely a hard problem. But we spend so much now because we haven't solved it that I think it's worth spending at least a sizable fraction of that amount trying to solve it.

"Cure" isn't the right word, because aging is the accumulation of molecular and cellular side-effects of the body-s normal operation; as such, there can never be a one-off treatment like a vaccine that makes us non-aging. What we will develop instead is treatments that repair those side-effects, and which we will use periodically so that the side-effects never build up to a level that causes ill-health. I think we have a 50% chance of getting there within 25 years. (That's extremely speculative, of course, like any long-term technological prediction, but so what? - the harder we try, the sooner we'll get there.)

The only real impediment at this point is the prevalence of attitudes such as those expressed by others here, along the lines of "we've never done it so we never will" or "aging is not a disease" etc. That sort of nonsense is an extremely seductive way to put aging out of our minds until it's too late, at which point we have no choice but to grin and bear it until we succumb, but personally I prefer to face up to the problem of aging and fix it, for me and for everyone else.

It's interesting that all the people here actually working in the field and with the relevant academic qualifications are saying that it's doable, though they don't all agree when, while most of the people without the relevant knowledge are saying that aging is not a disease, it's a natural part of life's rich tapestry and so on.

There is a lot of stuff published in reputable peer-reviewed journals on this topic, mostly outlining the ways in which, inch by inch, we're creeping up on preventing all the bad things that happen to old people, which is effectively a cure for aging. But some are saying that a great leap forward is possible and we can live for 1,000 years or forever. This isn't SF, it's Real Science, and although it's true that there is an element of "How to draw an owl" or "Then a miracle happens", it still meets the criteria for serious publications.

So the creeping-up bit is valid now, and as we progress the other bit becomes more likely.

Until about 30 minutes ago, I completely agreed with Quora User's answer, and would have said, as he does, that "there is little reason to believe that this slope will not reach an asymptote around 90 or so".

But having done a little more reading on it, I'm not so sure. I still lean toward that concept, but it's surprisingly hard to find objective data to support it.

The general argument against using the broad increase in life-span (the charts in Jae's answer) to indicate an increase in maximum life span is that the increase simply represents a reduction in infant and young person mortality. That is, the maximum life span hasn't changed, it's just that more people are reaching that point.

If so, you'd predict that -- once people are in, say, their 70s or 80s, they would have the same further life expectancy in the 1800s as they do today. Such people would have passed the risk of infant mortality, they'd be immune to measles, they should be reaching the natural maximum expectancy. This is exactly what most people do say.

But it's not what we see, apparently. Here's life expectancy for people at age 80, since 1850:

Life expectancy continues to increase since the turn of the century.

Let's compare to overall life expectancy (that is, from age 0):

Here at first glance we're seeing the plateau that Jae described in his answer. But if we put this on the same scale as for the 80-year-olds, we see it's continuing to increase:

And, in fact, it's possible that the recent increases are built mainly on the improvements in maximum life span.

I'm by no means convinced by this. I really do think that maximum healthy life expectancy isn't significantly increasing, and that aging is a problem that we're far away from overcoming (I won't say never, but not in my lifespan is not just an ironic line here).

But the data are not as solidly on my side as I had expected.

EDIT to add: Quora User has extended the data on this in his comment on this answer; read it! Michael interprets his charts as arguing against increasing maximum lifespan, and I see where he's coming from, but am still not completely convinced.

EDIT again to add more references. John Hawks (whose anthropology blog everyone should already be reading) talked about this in 2009 (Human lifespans have not been constant for the last 2000 years):

That leaves us with one remaining issue -- the maximum lifespan. This statistic really hasn't changed very much in the last 50 years -- the oldest-living humans in 1960 were between 110 and 115; that's how old the record-holders are today. Only a handful of people have, to our knowledge, ever lived longer.

So in this respect, it may seem reasonable to say that the human lifespan has been fairly constant. But I would challenge even that assertion. For one thing, the maximum lifespan just isn't very relevant to the population. Only a tiny fraction of people today survive to age 100. That maximum lifespan may tell us something about human biological systems, but what really matters to demography are age-specific mortality rates across adulthood -- the full range of times when most people die.

If I were rational, I would say that we max out at 90; a fact that I'm totally fine with.

However, I'm still going to be stubborn and say that we will find a cure for aging. Consider this: we know that there are significant differences in the phenotypes of "old" and "young" cells. From transcriptional expression profiling of human muscle tissue, we can identify several genes that change as a function of age. What this suggests, is that that aging does happen at a molecular level regardless of disease and that there are quantifiable differences between old and young.

Transcriptional expression of 250 age regulated genes in muscle [1]

Likewise, there have been several efforts to extent life not by attacking diseases and reducing mortality and morbidity but by reducing the effects of aging itself, either due to oxidative stress, protein stability, or UV damage.

Consider the following experiment with worms. Four genes known to extend life in Zebrafish were cloned and injected into worms. As expected, the lifespan of the worms increased for all four genes and in combination, they saw a 130% increase in lifespan. [2]

The biochemist and drug maker in me, tells me that if we can understand the process of aging and be able to characterize it at a molecular level, then it is an targetable issue. Yes, we are improving life-expectancy and quality of life by reducing mortality and morbidity but we are now at the forefront of being able to reduce the effects of aging. There are all sorts of hypotheses on how we can do this: caloric restriction, increasing telomerase activity, brushing your teeth daily. What we need to start doing is to connect the dots and convincingly show that those actions and "cures" are directly related to reducing aging at a molecular level.

[1] Transcriptional Profiling of Aging in Human Muscle Reveals a Common Aging Signature
[2] An Engineering Approach to Extending Lifespan in C. elegans

Some would say we are almost there. In the early 1960's Leonard Hayflick discovered an interesting phenomenon. He found that Cells can only divide a limited number of times before they become senescent or 'age' and die. This limit was subsequently called the 'Hayflick Limit'. Approximately 30 years later, Greider and Harley discovered the reason for cells having the Hayflick limit: telomeres. Telomeres are the 'caps' on the ends of each chromosome that we carry that are intimately involved in cell division/reproduction . Apparently, each time a cell divides to reproduce, each telomere becomes slightly shorter. This keeps happening until they become so short that the cell stops replicating and dies. In 2009 the Nobel Prize was awarded to a team of scientists who discovered the mechanism of telomere function. If telomere shortening is responsible for cell aging and ultimately cell death, then something that can increase telomere length should in theory decrease aging and even "turn back the clock". Enter TA-65, a substance derived from a Chinese herb "Astragalus membranaceus" that does just that. Anecdotal reports of this high-priced supplement indicate eyesight improving and improvement in immune function, cholesterol levels, and other stigmata of aging. Initial animal studies are very supportive of its "anti-aging" qualities (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21426483/). Ta-65 is actually a very weak telomerase activator. It is likely that much more potent agents like this will soon be available. Cure for aging? We'll see. But perhaps we are on the right track.

Not close.

My opinion of people who really advocate or anticipate a ‘cure for aging’ can be summed up in two comics.

[1]

Only instead of an owl, its better! – it’s a magical world with perfect bodies, infinite energy, and complete knowledge where everyone’s desires and needs are satisfied!

[2]

If these critiques were put into words, they are:
1. Lack of domain knowledge
2. Perverse incentives

1. Lack of Domain Knowledge

Futurists like Ray Kurzweil are great salesmen, but often they are little more than salesmen. Often their presentations are full of slick diagrams that initially point to exponential curves and Moore’s law before switching gears and regaling the audiences with the idea of perfect bodies and ageless living. But rarely are these presentations made by individuals who have domain knowledge in medicine, biochemistry, or equivalent discipline more than anyone other than an interested layman.

As a medical student, I’ve talked to a wide range of medical professionals – from pediatricians who don’t quite believe in vaccinations to cardiologists who are running some of the largest clinical trials in the country - but I have never heard anyone endorse anything quite as radical as saying we are close to preventing aging. As someone who worked in a lab on the same floor as Elizabeth Blackburn, scientist's idea of innovative experiments and significant discoveries are vastly different from the dreams of those who want live forever. I don’t claim to be an expert, but the people who are in the trenches – the people running clinical trials or designing experiments tend not to be the kind of individuals who believe we are close to “curing aging”.

Just as the fight against cancer is a battle against many different stressors on many different cells in many different environments, “aging” is the miscellaneous box where we put many of the misunderstood processes of medicine and cell biology.

2. Perverse Incentives

When it comes to talking about aging, you don’t need to be selling snake oil in order to be operating under perverse incentives. Even ignoring individuals who organize singularity universities or get paid to speak about their visions of the future, the people who talk most about anti-aging often have the most to gain from having people believe in a world without aging. Whether selling books espousing the idea or simply being afraid of dying, it’s hard to be dispassionate and objective about the idea of aging.

Often, the individuals who reach such a conclusion do not come from an objective goal to understand reality. Many people, much more eloquent than I, have commented on the dangers of extrapolating, but it’s worse than that. Anti-aging arguments are almost always invariably made by idealistic laymen 1) extrapolating based on 2) secondhand data and over interpreting basic experiments to fit their 3) larger vision of an ideal world. Going back to the idea of intelligent laymen, I don’t want to stereotype – but it is often very intelligent computer science majors who see the major advances in software and hardware and fiat biology will be the same way. They can point to specific pubmed articles and interesting experiments, but often come away with conclusions completely different from the original authors.

[3]

It’s like using Usain Bolt’s recent progress on the 100m dash to claim that at some point humans will run at the speed of light. Not even travel at the speed of light, but run at the speed of light. Not saying it won’t happen, but any gains to be made are made by runners improving their training regimens and nutrition, not from armchair quarterbacks trying to sell Gatorade.

[1] Somewhere on the internet. Let me know if you know the original source.
[2]Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
[3]xkcd.com/605/

Aubrey de Grey is a researcher on aging. He proposed the following analogy on aging: imagine that you are falling off a tall cliff. Without any intervention, you will accelerate downwards at 9.8m/s^2 (ignoring air resistance) and fall to your death. However, suppose you have a small jetpack. The jetpack is too weak and does not provide enough thrust, so you simply accelerate slightly slower and slightly postpone the inevitable. This represents the current linear increase in lifespan as a result of modern medicine (increasing the power of the jetpack). However, as the net force of the jetpack gets closer and closer to the net force of gravity, you see an exponential increase in the amount of time it takes for you to fall to your doom.

In other words, assuming that this simplistic model is correct, as modern medicine pushes human longevity forwards, we will move away from the linear-esque tail of the exponential curve and start seeing some major increases in human lifespan. The question is when this will happen, which is up to extreme debate.

EDIT: While I was writing this, I noticed that someone with a beard very similar to the one in my posted picture was following the question. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that that person was actually Aubrey de Grey!

In researching a talk that I give to retirees entitled: 'Why do we age and what can we do about it?' I came across the suggestion that cellular chemistry velocity might be the key limiting factor to attainable age. The older you get the slower the chemistry proceeds and there comes a point where the speed is incompatible with continued function - probably somewhere in the 120s.

Elsewhere I came across the suggestion that with optimal health and all other germane factors being propitious there might be an absolute genetic limit at about 150 years.

Having looked through scores of papers it became obvious to me that this is a phenomenally complex area and that there is, as yet, no consensus about why we age and die.

Disclaimer:

This answer is not a substitute for professional medical advice. This answer is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or (in the United States) 911 immediately. Always seek the advice of your doctor before starting or changing treatment. Quora users who provide responses to health-related questions are intended third party beneficiaries with certain rights under Quora's Terms of Service (http://www.quora.com/about/tos).

Many, many of the responses, for example that given by pro-aging propagandist Quora User, who is allegedly a scientist, are very UNINFORMED and IDEOLOGICAL. The WHO has declared aging a disease. This is the most official source we have for defining what conditions are diseases and what aren’t. So, whoever wants to argue that aging is not a disease has to take it up with the top-tier organization in the world, and not with personal opinions in the comments here. Jae Won Joh, who has disabled adding comments to his UNINFORMED and MISGUIDING answer to your question, thus forcing me to respond to his UNINFORMED and MISGUIDING post in a separate answer, opens the false dichotomy of “things ‘counted on’ by evolution” and “disease”, or “natural and necessary aspect of life” and “disease”. Things can both result from “not being counted on by evolution” and STILL be a disease. Things can be natural and necessary aspects of life and STILL be a disease. Jae Won Joh seeks to ideologically misguide you. Don’t fall for this. Apparently, Jae Won Joh thinks that since “nature doesn’t care if you want to live longer”, aging can’t be a disease. This is wrong as well. “Nature”, as far as anyone can determine, doesn’t think at all. It doesn’t think that you shouldn’t get diabetes, and yet we think diabetes is a disease. It doesn’t think that you shouldn’t get malaria, and yet we think malaria is a disease.

Jae Won Joh is, according to the estimates of scientists engaged in the field of longevity research, wrong about the prospects of finding a cure. While it does indeed seem like the damaging processes responsible for aging (loss of epigenetic information due to DNA methylation, according to newest theories) are an unavoidable side effect of life (that is, there is no prospect right now of how to prevent them), scientists in the field generally agree that those effects are indeed reversible. As far back as 2012, Shinya Yamanaka won a Nobel Prize for the complete reversal of cellular aging, reverting differentiated cells into perfectly juvenile stem cells. Please look up Drs Andrew Steele and David Sinclair, who are both engaged in the field and are expecting a reasonable probability of reversing aging in humans within 10–30 years.

Jae Won Joh thinks that if we understood aging as “normal”, then we would no longer understand it as a disease. This conflates two popular meanings of “normal”, but Jae Won Joh is a scientist (if he indeed is one), not a philosopher, so let’s not be too harsh on this matter: we need to differentiate “normal” and “normative”. “Normal” simply expresses how common something is. Is aging common? Yes - all multicellular organisms suffer from this DISEASE. But that has nothing to do with whether we should consider it “normative”, that is, something that is good, ought to be, should be, something to be desired and worked towards. It’s amazing how people actually conflate these two concepts, just because the proper term for one of them just happens to be a popular term for the other (or perhaps the same term has come to be used for both because people have an inherent fascistoid inclination to think of the normal as the normative - they think that everything should be like that which is common. But on an objective measure, there is no way to prove that the normal is the normative.

As we can see, in the particular case of Jae Won Joh, pro-aging (which is not a stupid term at all) is based upon illogical sentiments. He is a pro-aging ideologue who can cause to misguide people into passivity and helplessness, make them complacent and thus preventing that we work towards defeating the satanic force of aging that dwells in our bodies. We must try to resist bad pro-aging ideology and remain forever hopeful and optimistic and give our all to the struggle against the greatest genocide in the history of the known universe, which is AGING.

Don’t lose hope, OP! The science of the world is progressing rapidly and the scientists are hopeful to overcome the diabolical force of aging this century! If you can contribute in any way, please consider doing so! Spread the word! Invest in the companies which are working to slay the SATAN of AGING! Everyone can do a little, so that maybe one day we can beat this MONSTER!

#deathtoaging

Closer then you think. We are making great strides to getting aging under medical control and with various developments happening in the field it’s safe to say that it is practically certain that there will be a form of medical control over it this century. Here is the main field site where you can get various news as well as education on how to inform others of these amazing breakthroughs. Lifespan.io | Crowdfunding the Cure for Aging. You can also keep up to date using this server here. https://discord.gg/ftSbffu. There is a lot to be excited about and it truly is an interesting time to be alive.

An effective product is eminent.

Nutrition theory states aging is a two part process. The first part involves a lack of absorption while the second part involves the body replacing the unabsorbed amino acids by removing them from existing structure.

Clinicians who work with the elderly, have long suspected a nutritional basis for much of aging and aging related diseases. That nutrition is the initial problem leading to aging is not unexpected. The lack of absorption of nutrition appears to trigger the process of aging.

To confirm our data, large numbers of undisputed longevity statistics were collected and weighed against the possibility that each could be caused by nutritional deficit.

A sample of undisputed statistics involving longevity:

1. Larger species have a longer life expectancy

2. Moderate drinkers live longer

3. Seven Day Adventists live an average of 10 years longer

4. Highly sexual active male flatworms have a 30% decrease in lifespan

5. Females live longer than males

The connection between Nutrition and these seemingly random facts:

1. Larger species have an innately larger capacity to absorb nutrition. This
is a fundamental necessity due to their much larger size.

2. Moderate drinking involves wine with dinner, the alcohol increasing
absorption of alcohol soluble amino acids

3. Seven Day Adventists do not eat meat. Vegetarians live an average of 10 years longer than the general population.

4. Celibate males seem to live much longer. Gamete production appears to
take nutrition away from longevity.

5. Females live longer ...There are multiple reasons (mostly smaller meal sizes)

DNA damage theory does not address nutrition -although overall caloric intake has been time and again shown to have an effect on lifespan. Overeating shortens lifespan by multiple mechanisms. Changing the genes is not one of them.

Several amino acids (of the twenty making up protein in humans ) are generally known to have some issues with absorption. Individual differences in absorption of each amino acid could account for individual differences seen in aging and age related diseases.

There are multiple possibilities for a loss of amino acid uptake. The most promising is Metchnikoff's theory. His proof that the colon does not require bacteria and the idea that rogue bacteria colonization of the colon causes aging is likely correct. If so, overeating especially high protein foods like meat would speed aging. This may be why the Seven Day Adventists who avoid meat totally live an average of ten years longer than the general population. How can DNA theory address differenced in aging due to differences in religious practice?

There is another piece to the puzzle. One uniquely human trait is the ability to live for up to 60 days without solid food. How is that done? Our bodies can reverse structure (break down muscle and collagen protein) to gain amino acids for bodily production of needed new peptides. The same process is also part of the orderly decline seen in starvation. It is quite a stretch to blame preprogrammed DNA for cell death, especially in the reversible decline seen with starvation.

The first rule of biology is: Use it or lose it. The DNA damage theory states cells are preprogramed by DNA to self destruct. If the functions of a cell are unused, is it not logical for the cell to go dormant. The nutritional theory says the lymph system breaks down unneeded cells for their amino acid content. In starvation (and age related decline in amino acid absorption) - the lymph system reverses the built structure of the past to supply the amino acids necessary to support peptide production needs. This accounts for the observed structural and functional decline with age.

What can happen to the extra amino acids supplied in meat protein if not absorbed in the small intestine? The rogue bacteria now living in the colon would be the ultimate beneficiaries of all extra nutrition + more. These colonizing bacteria begin their own bodily processes using these extra amino acids. The nutrition allows exponential and explosive growth from the human share, as we'll. Gut bacterial overgrowth, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and hypertension are all well known hallmark of aging that DNA theory conveniently ignores. The process of aging may actually be a simple competition for resources.

A product to ofset the nutrition taken in by rogue bacteria was developed and those trials were successful. This concept is proven. The DNA damage theory has been proven in zero (0) trials There is now a nutrition based anti-aging product which is currently patent pending.

A nutritional anti-aging product may be on the market in 2019.

Ageing is a concomitant phenomenon of several neurodegerative disorders and decline in immunity whit further consequences of succumbing to various forms of cancer.

What we can do to 'cure' ageing ? Or what can we do to reverse the age associated disorders for a healthy and longer life?
Science in this field has progressed, amongst others, in finding various hormonal treatments (currently I am working on) and various photochemicals.
The pressing need is to have a region specific effect.

Most of the studies on ageing involves a practical work upon a particular peripheral organ or one or more parts of brain. And so it has been increasingly difficult to study effect of any supplement on whole system together.

We are also realising the fact of 'window of opportunity' in ageing. Treatment to reverse any age associate alterations is highly dependent on the time of treatment or therapy.

You can read works of David Felten, JH Morisson, James W Simpkins and J Meites to better understand the age associated alterations.

"Finding a cure for aging" is perhaps the wrong term. I would modify that and say "finding a solution to slowing down aging". When you look at nature, aging is a normal phenomenon. Dogs only turn that old, so do cats and so on. Even trees have a certain life expectancy although some live fairly long.

In the last 10 years we have learnt that human growth hormone when replaced in those who are deficient in it can add decades of longer life (Dr. Thierry Hertoghe, Belgium endocrinologist). But we also know that if we replace the missing hormones in aging humans with bioidentical hormones, this too will add 10 to 15 years of life expectancy. Resveratrol and exercise, vitamin C and E as well as calorie restriction have been shown to lengthen telomeres, which means your life is being prolonged. Regular exercise contributes to longevity as does the Mediterranean diet.

When you take all of this together, we can say that it will be possible to reach 110 to 120 years as life expectancy now, provided you apply all of these factors to yourself. We are talking about lifestyling, which is an active process. Sitting back and doing nothing will do nothing to prolong your life.

We have made considerable progress in finding a solution to slowing down aging in the last 10 years. There will be ongoing improvements in the next few decades too.