[Lub]

Firstly, I am new to the forums, and I'd like to say hi to everyone. I hope this big enough forum will be able to better educate me with intelligent critiques/opinions/debates.

While I was in the midst of talking with my colleagues, I mentioned about cryonics, which later shifted to a discussion about a researcher named Aubrey de Grey... The moment I mentioned his name, a numerous amount of reactions encompassed me. As numerous as they were, all of them had the same affiliation of animosity. Heretic, fraud, naive, etc. I heard unbelievable amounts of negativity towards this researcher. And all the while I thought to myself... Why?

Now before I begin sharing my knowledge, I'd like everyone to know where I stand on this subject. As of now, I stand in search of clarity before certainty. I want to further access the information before I decide. Honestly, I do not want to live indefinitely, but if I could live 100,120,150~ without suffering from Alhzeimer, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, the list goes on... it would be great! This much may be wishful thinking, so I cannot assume an absolute neutrality. So I want to receive critical and educated thoughts about this subject.

For those of you who don't know, Aubrey de Grey is a THEORETICIAN (Not a specialist) in gerontology. He is the chief science officer of a foundation called SENS (sens.org/). In his theories, he believes that damages accumulated and built up from old age can be genetically reversed. As a side effect, the human would be given a longer life span, and ultimately indefinite lifespan. I am summing this as short as possible, so Aubrey is regarded as only a dreamer by many scientists because he HAS NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE yet to verify his theories. His constant reason for this is because of "insufficient funding", which brings me to the main question "Will it be possible" if so, "When?"

Now I know this sounds quite negative, but I'm just trying to be rational. I am only giving the facts, which is at the moment, he has no proof to make him right. BUT, there is also no further suggestions stating he is wrong. There were a group of scientists in specialized fields that wrote an essay about "Why Aubrey is Wrong" to the Technology Review magazine, but the judges claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to ground Aubrey's claims false. However, there also wasn't enough information from Aubrey, to claim that this was science (Or something of the sort).

From the information I gathered, I feel that I am on a pause, questioning myself during classes and work if Aubrey can achieve success or not. Deep down, I know the eagerness in me, that wants me to say "He's right". But for a long time, I've been taught to assume things based on facts and statistics. I'd like the members of this forum to help me better access this topic, and help this subject come to a close. "COULD AUBREY BE ON TO SOMETHING? OR IS HE JUST BEING GREEN?"

I am looking forward to every kind of comment and critique. Negative, positive, just be respectful enough to ascertain yourself with proof to back up your facts.

[Ravendicon]

Frankly, I haven't read enough about Aubrey de Grey to have solid opinion on the science behind his assertions, but from what little I do know he seems to be just another snake-oil salesman, just with a new business model. Instead of religion and cures from the far east he brings you science--or even better "science they won't fund."

Now, while it's true that many scientists in history had ideas that were ahead of their time, it is exceedingly rare that the science community doesn't know good science when they see it. And when they do, they usually fund it--not marginalize it.

But, as I said, I don't have the most informed opinion of this man's science, and to be perfectly honest, much of the science involved here is beyond my understanding.

[DeaconSyre]

I'm pretty emotionally invested in the whole futurist thing. I think it's possible.

Unless my intuition has improperly pieced together things from Physorg, NOVA, TED, and the web at large (yes I know none of these are good sources really) it seems like we can make some significant advancements.

Not much of this stuff is human tested unfortunately. edit: Actually half are... huh.

The things I can think of include:
experiments into caloric restriction and cell health (mice)
experiments into fat receptor cell blocking (mice)
The effect of diet according to "Forks Over Knives" (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
nanobot cancer identification and destruction (human trials)
Tumor Treating Fields (human trials)

I'm sure there's more but I'd have to scour my digital memory for them and that takes time and effort. If you need links for any of these lemme know.

[Lub]

Atm I'm trying to do a little more research and see what Aubrey's theory to fixing the "7 types of Damages" is.

I appreciate the people putting their time and thoughts to this post. Thank you for sharing opinions, and I hope we can keep this post up a little longer to conclude our assumptions!

Oh yeah, and maybe opinions on cryogenics too. I would be interested in links pertaining to possible reverse vitrification (Unfreezing and reviving the inanimate from Cryogenics)

[Polymath20]

Some of the mechanisms of aging are well understood but some not so much.

Experiments indicate that many species have a total expected life-span - and this has been demonstrated in humans for a long time. Even people from antiquity lived to be 80+ years old. It was only a matter of chance. Evidence has suggested that total life-span hasn't really changed, but life expectancy has due to modern medicine.

Now, that said, we have genetically engineered mice and worms and flies to actually have a longer life span - as in the animals end up living longer than any documented life span of their species. Generally, this has been limited to removing or neutralizing stress-related genes.

But, life can obviously regenerate. Human sperm and eggs can create brand new people. Telomerase extends the telomeres on your DNA - and the genes controlling this are active only in cancer and during the early development of an embryo. Having long telomeres does not undo aging, but protects against further genetic mutation and loss.

Alzheimer's disease is related to a very specific protein - some people lack the ability to "clean up" the accumulation of this protein while others have no problem. Different parts of the body age in different ways.

Recently,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- granted that is with genetically engineered mice.

Now - if you could take some skin cells, regress them to pluripotent stem cells, extend their telomeres and repair any genetic damage, then re-introduce them - this would address the root of many of the causes of aging. Doing this would, theoretically, return the efficacy of most of your tissues and organs to a very youthful state. Over time, the gradual decrease in efficacy and resiliency of every cell contributes to things such as lower skin elasticity, lower organ function, and generally all the signs of aging. Again, certain parts of aging, accumulated injuries - these would require extra effort to fix.

Even so, going through a major surgery every 40 to 80 years, and being returned to the physical vitality of a 22-year-old should be possibly - eventually - based on what I know and the trends I am seeing.

For instance, take the idea of revitalized stem cells - those are also being used to grow new organs. Theoretically, you could even replace most of the organs in your body with brand new ones eventually. The cost is likely to be prohibitive for a long time, though. Also, the brain is a lot harder to repair or replace - for obvious reasons!


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lub]

Polymath, this is a grand amount of news to me, and I'm thrilled you placed such interesting topics in this post. I have to say thank you very much for bringing up such amazing factors for human longevity, and I hope you reply again in this post.

After some research, I will induce my opinions and skepticism NOT because of any bias-related emotion. But because I don't want people to mislead theories with probability.

I have heard about artificial organs through application of a person's skin cell, but I thought this was all speculation... In my opinion, this can and will be available within our lifetime. (Actually, it is already being tested on patients, several children with artificial organs have been tested) "Five young boys, aged between ten and fourteen, have had replacement organs grown from their own cells to repair injuries. The regenerated cells have lasted for six years, and are still viable" <- Thank you polymath


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


What intrigues me more is the aging experiments on genetically engineered mice. I will post the pros and cons of this wondrous progression.

Cons. What's somewhat sad about this is

a. The process behind this seems to focus around senescent cells, having to remove the cells out of humans is currently impossible, "... slowing the signs of ageing in humans. However, senescent cells cannot be just flushed out of human beings." (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

b. This is still under experiment and has only been tested under mice, actually just 1 particular type of mice. A closer juxtaposition of the human genome, would be tested under primates, but it seems they're also far away from that.

c. This is still relatively new, far away from clinical trial. This is the biggest issue in my opinion, because even after a medicine has been successfully created. Clinical trials range from years to decades. There are several processes.

1. Firstly, authorization from the Ethics Committee (Health Authority Commit) is required

2. Secondly, there are mainly two types of clinical trials (Observational trial, Randomized Controlled Trials). But let’s consider this as just an RCT based trial.

3. If it is an RCT based trial, there might/most probably be a “Client Protocol Trial” which follows this. Basically, a panel of experts study the effects and efficiency of an already made precise study plan to assure the safety and health of the patients under trial.

4. The patient must be tested under several processes

a. Prevention trial
b. Screening trial
c. Diagnostic trial
d. Treatment trial
e. Quality of life trial

Result: The major con is the delayed and pushed back time frame for actual applicants, IF this regenerative medicine was made. They lack the knowledge in senescence clearing, because it has only just been accomplished through genetic engineering, not genome altering. They still don't know the full extent with the current science, and it is far from being tested under clinical trial. The probability that this regenerative medicine will be available in our life time is unknown to me. Unfortunately I don't have an adequate amount of intelligence and information to give such a hypothesis on when, this kind of medication will be out for applicable use. It can be in 20 years, 50 years, or the next century.

---------- Post added 02-03-2012 at 12:21 PM ----------

Pros. I'm more reluctant to say

a. Unlike Aubrey de Grey, Senescence is not a “theory” anymore. There is a possibility for humans, even though the research is early and has not yet moved into the experiments of human. “It's a proof of principle study. Now we know we can safely remove these cells in an animal model without causing any detectable harm." (Van Deursen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

b. This is far from speculation, there is proof and statistics. At the moment, Mayo Clinic scientists are conducting experimentation on other animals.

c. This project is well funded unlike Aubrey’s project, and is driven by business motifs, which is not surprising.

Result: There are far less pros than cons since we aren’t ready to test this on humans yet. But the main pro is it seems more than possible. And with the help of its supporters/benefactors, such medicine will be available eventually.

*Thank you polymath. I wouldn't have read and researched these articles if you haven't brought it up. Now I'm also reading on a new article where engineered mice have altered telomerase, reversing age effects. I'm a little confused because I missed such an important piece of information with aubrey de grey's work. I'm going to re-read this again and edit

[Polymath20]

Already we are finding ways of using existing stem cells to repair tissues. Bartolo Colon was the first high profile case of this and the fact that his performance and endurance increased so drastically provides a very solid "PROOF POSITIVE" for stem cell therapy.

Currently, the procedure includes extracting adipose tissue via liposuction (basically) and then isolation the mesenchymal stem cells. From there, the cells are treated with certain factors and magnified. This causes them to regress to fully pluripotent cells and multiply. After that, a low-power real-time X-ray is used to guide the doctor while re-injecting the cells into damaged tissue. From there, nature takes over, repairing damaged tissues.

Each and every cell carries the blue print to your whole body. We all started as a single embryonic stem cell.

It has been demonstrated the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
can accurately predict life-span. So, theoretically, if we undergo a procedure, or introduce drugs which extend the telomeres of every cell in the body, that should extend your lifespan.

I can foresee the possibility of a drug which would achieve this. It would likely be a combination of factors or precursors which would turn on the telomerase genes. It might be an injection that you get once per year to keep your telomeres nice and long. But, considering this is genetic medicine, I can also imagine complications such as cancer (mutations)

[DrCiao]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Already we are finding ways of using existing stem cells to repair tissues. Bartolo Colon was the first high profile case of this and the fact that his performance and endurance increased so drastically provides a very solid "PROOF POSITIVE" for stem cell therapy. Currently, the procedure includes extracting adipose tissue via liposuction (basically) and then isolation the mesenchymal stem cells. From there, the cells are treated with certain factors and magnified. This causes them to regress to fully pluripotent cells and multiply. After that, a low-power real-time X-ray is used to guide the doctor while re-injecting the cells into damaged tissue. From there, nature takes over, repairing damaged tissues. Each and every cell carries the blue print to your whole body. We all started as a single embryonic stem cell. It has been demonstrate th To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. can accurately predict life-span. So, theoretically, if we undergo a procedure, or introduce drugs which extend the telomeres of every cell in the body, that should extend your lifespan. I can foresee the possibility of a drug which would achieve this. It would likely be a combination of factors or precursors which would turn on the telomerase genes. It might be an injection that you get once per year to keep your telomeres nice and long. But, considering this is genetic medicine, I can also imagine complications such as cancer (mutations)

There is a vitamin supplement that increases telomeres but it is highly experimental a t this the as it is not known the dosage and length one could take without developing cancer- ie, telomeres that never stop in cells.

It's simply much more effective to increase telomerase genes indirectly by taking gluthiatone

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is a vitamin supplement that increases telomeres but it is highly experimental a t this the as it is not known the dosage and length one could take without developing cancer- ie, telomeres that never stop in cells. It's simply much more effective to increase telomerase genes indirectly by taking gluthiatone

It looks like glutathione is also associated with cancer, so you wouldn't want to take it every day. We might have to wait until there is a battery of factors which simultaneously promote the positive, desired effects while minimizing the negative ones.

[Lub]

So there are already several possibilities. But will this technology be around in our life time? That is also a question I'm curious of.

[DeaconSyre]

	Originally Posted by Lub To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So there are already several possibilities. But will this technology be around in our life time? That is also a question I'm curious of.

From what I can tell we should start seeing releases of new medicines for cancer in the 5-10 year range and other human longevity stuff in the 12-17 range.

But that's going off gut instinct. You're better off talking to someone at The Singularity Institute that has their eye on things (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).

[Chazzaroo]

All the techniques aimed at tissue repair are in the wrong direction, imho. Genetic material gets repaired all the time inside the cell, seems to me if the repair were 100% accurate and always referred back to the original dna instead of to the most recent copy, then a lot of the cumulative tissue damage would never happen in the first place. Not a total cure for aging, some really important cells do not seem to self-repair at all, but maintaining the health and vigor of a young adult for the full natural lifespan seems plausible. Since even disease-free* humans nearly always die by the time they are just a bit over 100 years old, I'm guessing we could extend 'full adult useful life' to something around 80-100 years (starting from the onset of adulthood, around age 20) This would be a huge improvement over the current 45 or so years (people retire, with good reason in their mid sixties), more than double.

More to the point: Yes, imo, a 'cure' for aging is possible and might be near. Never heard of Aubrey de Grey before two minutes ago. Sounds like a rounder, from the description above.

So that's a little of what I think about the biologic side of the question. It's fun to speculate on what the effects would be on society, but that's a whole other question.

*Unless you consider aging a disease, which I do. A unique one, but still a disease.

[Lub]

Originally Posted by Chazzaroo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All the techniques aimed at tissue repair are in the wrong direction, imho. Genetic material gets repaired all the time inside the cell, seems to me if the repair were 100% accurate and always referred back to the original dna instead of to the most recent copy, then a lot of the cumulative tissue damage would never happen in the first place. Not a total cure for aging, some really important cells do not seem to self-repair at all, but maintaining the health and vigor of a young adult for the full natural lifespan seems plausible. Since even disease-free* humans nearly always die by the time they are just a bit over 100 years old, I'm guessing we could extend 'full adult useful life' to something around 80-100 years (starting from the onset of adulthood, around age 20) This would be a huge improvement over the current 45 or so years (people retire, with good reason in their mid sixties), more than double. More to the point: Yes, imo, a 'cure' for aging is possible and might be near. Never heard of Aubrey de Grey before two minutes ago. Sounds like a rounder, from the description above. So that's a little of what I think about the biologic side of the question. It's fun to speculate on what the effects would be on society, but that's a whole other question. *Unless you consider aging a disease, which I do. A unique one, but still a disease.

These are all interesting theories, I'm going to have to do a lot of thinking (drinking) tonight

---------- Post added 02-03-2012 at 08:34 PM ----------

Could telomeres be the soon coming answer to anti aging?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


This is a video of a successful experimentation on mice with altered telomeres. You see two distinct mouses, one w/ and one w/o altered genes. The one with w/ altered telomeres has an increased fertility, darker hair, and more importantly, a back to normal brain size compared to the other mice.

The unfortunate news I guess is, this experimentation was done on mice. A mice's gene is 25% different to a human, which is very drastic. Just 1% off makes a world of a difference, ie Primates are 98-99% similar to human gene. With this being said, I wonder if altering the telomeres will be possible for humans? And if so, in our life time.

[eagleseven]

The genetic mechanisms behind aging also are anti-cancer. That is, the mechanisms which cause us to genetically degenerate over time, also prevent us from developing cancer tumors in our childhood and early adulthood. Hence the paradox of anti-aging research...we can greatly enhance your body's regenerative abilities today, but it would have a catastrophic effect on the generation of cancers.

It's not a matter of funding, but rather lack of knowledge. We need to first be able to control and reverse cancers on a molecular level, as opposed to killing them when they appear or reducing epidemiological factors we think are somehow involved.


And yes, telomere extension is key to this. Because telomerase, the enzyme which lengthens telomeres, is highly concentrated in malignant tumors. And a well-fed tumor is immortal (see
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by Chazzaroo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All the techniques aimed at tissue repair are in the wrong direction, imho. Genetic material gets repaired all the time inside the cell, seems to me if the repair were 100% accurate and always referred back to the original dna instead of to the most recent copy, then a lot of the cumulative tissue damage would never happen in the first place. Not a total cure for aging, some really important cells do not seem to self-repair at all, but maintaining the health and vigor of a young adult for the full natural lifespan seems plausible. Since even disease-free* humans nearly always die by the time they are just a bit over 100 years old, I'm guessing we could extend 'full adult useful life' to something around 80-100 years (starting from the onset of adulthood, around age 20) This would be a huge improvement over the current 45 or so years (people retire, with good reason in their mid sixties), more than double. More to the point: Yes, imo, a 'cure' for aging is possible and might be near. Never heard of Aubrey de Grey before two minutes ago. Sounds like a rounder, from the description above. So that's a little of what I think about the biologic side of the question. It's fun to speculate on what the effects would be on society, but that's a whole other question. *Unless you consider aging a disease, which I do. A unique one, but still a disease.

Exposure to mutagens (UV, toxins, asbestos, preservatives... the list is very long) causes mutations (surprise!) some types of mutations are automatically corrected - some genetic material is so very important that there are redundant systems in the cell/nucleus to ensure that the DNA is repaired during replication. However, not all genes are afforded this attention.

A study was done in the UK looking at the genetic mutations in tumors - generally tissue acquires thousands of permanent mutations before becoming cancerous -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


This is why I assert that Gattaca-style genetic engineering combined with stem cell therapy is the long-term answer. Say you have a known genetic defect which impacts the heart. Take some stem cells, fix the genetic defect in those cells, and re-introduce them into your heart and ta-da you've got the heart of an ox for years to come!

[Lub]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Exposure to mutagens (UV, toxins, asbestos, preservatives... the list is very long) causes mutations (surprise!) some types of mutations are automatically corrected - some genetic material is so very important that there are redundant systems in the cell/nucleus to ensure that the DNA is repaired during replication. However, not all genes are afforded this attention. A study was done in the UK looking at the genetic mutations in tumors - generally tissue acquires thousands of permanent mutations before becoming cancerous - To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. This is why I assert that Gattaca-style genetic engineering combined with stem cell therapy is the long-term answer. Say you have a known genetic defect which impacts the heart. Take some stem cells, fix the genetic defect in those cells, and re-introduce them into your heart and ta-da you've got the heart of an ox for years to come!

These are all enticing prospects for future science. But, we should make a more stabilized grounding on what is to come within the next 10-30 years. I've been reading another article about gene altered mice with successful gene alteration. The results were positive, meaning the mice with altered genes had a more healthy look compared to the other mice.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Apparently, "Scientists claim to be a step closer to reversing the ageing process after rejuvenating worn out organs in elderly mice"

They're theory, like many other projects, is to focus on the telomere shortening when cells replicate. By injecting enzymes to reactivate the repairing process, the tissues would repair and the aging process would be reverted. *I wish they would elaborate more on this process, they literally explained everything in 1 sentence...

Many articles elaborating the successful anti aging on lab mice is now becoming dull to me.
WHY? Because
1. There are too many possibilities to this. We don't know if the same effects will work on humans, it might even trigger an outbreak for cancer
2. We must also wait, to see if this is really anti aging, or aging healthily.

My question. With all these advances in science, and the rapid expansion of technology, what are your hypothesis to WHEN and HOW these prospects will come into the future? NOTE, these are all hypothesis welcomed, they do not have to be accurate, but support yourself with facts and theories.

Problem: We still don't know whether or not this is the key to reverse aging and ill-related diseases because "We are still relatively new to anti aging"

My hypothesis, I think within the next 10 years, we will have a more definite answer to possible reverse aging FOR humans. But the technology is still far away... until 2050~. Based on the current statistics given only prior to lab mice. We don't know if this will be a sound life extension, or reverse aging, or possibly an outbreak for cancer (theory). I also believe that even if the medicine is developed and cultivated, the clinical trials might delay this medicine for another decade. Making this, ultimately possible within 2060-2070~

[Polymath20]

	1. There are too many possibilities to this. We don't know if the same effects will work on humans

Technically true, but somatic mammalian cells are almost identical - not to mention that all genes code the same protein in every living organism on the planet.

	it might even trigger an outbreak for cancer

This has already happened with less-than-kosher stem cell practices in China - bone marrow stem cells were used to treat a patient with kidney failure and while they got better (briefly) they ended up dying with never-before-seen lesions on their kidneys. The bone marrow cells were not fully regressed and ended up trying to produce more bone marrow... in the kidneys... didn't work out so well for obvious reasons.

	2. We must also wait, to see if this is really anti aging, or aging healthily.

At a certain level these are the same things. There are so many factors to 'aging' as to not be that simple of a distinction. Halting mutations, lengthening telomeres, correcting mutations, repairing tissues, regenerating tissues... these are all individual facets which are being addressed.

	My question. With all these advances in science, and the rapid expansion of technology, what are your hypothesis to WHEN and HOW these prospects will come into the future? NOTE, these are all hypothesis welcomed, they do not have to be accurate, but at least within approximate decades supported by your facts and theories.

Most organs can be grown in the lab today, but cost is prohibitive. Presently, research is being done to figure out how to lower costs. My estimate is that life-saving organs will be commercially available within 10 years. Life-extending organs (as in replacing an old liver with a rejuvenated one) less than 2 full decades away.

Wide-spread stem-cell therapy for things such as skin, joint, and muscle rejuvenation is about 5 to 10 years away. Genetic engineering combined with this process is likely further away and also likely to invoke more than a few "playing god" debates. But since there's so much money in cosmetic surgery, there will be a way to get it done, even if you have to travel over seas. I think that IPSC's (induced pluripotent stem cells) activate telomerase and thus extend their own telomeres, which is some ways resets the biological clock for those cells. I have not seen any studies for it yet, but it will be very telling if/when we discover how to create a systemic distribution of stem cells. They have already demonstrated that genetically engineered stem cells in breast tissue tend to propagate and replace existing cells.

For the conspiracy theorists - I have heard that some celebrities have already undergone experimental procedures, as cost is no object to them, and this is why celebrities seem to stay younger for longer today.

[Lub]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Technically true, but somatic mammalian cells are almost identical - not to mention that all genes code the same protein in every living organism on the planet. This has already happened with less-than-kosher stem cell practices in China - bone marrow stem cells were used to treat a patient with kidney failure and while they got better (briefly) they ended up dying with never-before-seen lesions on their kidneys. The bone marrow cells were not fully regressed and ended up trying to produce more bone marrow... in the kidneys... didn't work out so well for obvious reasons. At a certain level these are the same things. There are so many factors to 'aging' as to not be that simple of a distinction. Halting mutations, lengthening telomeres, correcting mutations, repairing tissues, regenerating tissues... these are all individual facets which are being addressed. Most organs can be grown in the lab today, but cost is prohibitive. Presently, research is being done to figure out how to lower costs. My estimate is that life-saving organs will be commercially available within 10 years. Life-extending organs (as in replacing an old liver with a rejuvenated one) less than 2 full decades away. Wide-spread stem-cell therapy for things such as skin, joint, and muscle rejuvenation is about 5 to 10 years away. Genetic engineering combined with this process is likely further away and also likely to invoke more than a few "playing god" debates. But since there's so much money in cosmetic surgery, there will be a way to get it done, even if you have to travel over seas. I think that IPSC's (induced pluripotent stem cells) activate telomerase and thus extend their own telomeres, which is some ways resets the biological clock for those cells. I have not seen any studies for it yet, but it will be very telling if/when we discover how to create a systemic distribution of stem cells. They have already demonstrated that genetically engineered stem cells in breast tissue tend to propagate and replace existing cells. For the conspiracy theorists - I have heard that some celebrities have already undergone experimental procedures, as cost is no object to them, and this is why celebrities seem to stay younger for longer today.

"Wide-spread stem-cell therapy for things such as skin, joint, and muscle rejuvenation is about 5 to 10 years away."

I also believe stem-cell therapy for the skin, join, and muscle will be available. 10 years, more precisely. We already have cosmetics where surgeons use the fat from the belly to reconstruct damaged skin cells on face, ie dog bite wounds, burn marks, etc.

These are actually very accurate statistics, and it makes sense with your facts and theories. The problem with all this, might be 3rd party interruptions ie. Bush campaign block against stem cell research from abortions. There are still a lot of politicians who strongly hold a connection with politics and religion, thus the US is a country strongly based on "christian" values. Even more, I can imagine how the UK might compare relatively.

Hopefully, there won't be 3rd party influences to halt or slow down the progress in regenerative medicine, but we never know.

Once again, I want to say thank you to the people who are injecting their scientific hypothesis. The amount of technology and experiments on regenerative medicine is surprisingly vast, I had no clue about half of the progress we've already made. I appreciate for the people who replied, and mostly still replying to debate!