Old age is cancer. Is this true?

Please don't post images from an iphone.

>>7734526
Kind of.
Aging is related to genetic entropy.

>>7734526
no pleb, organ failure is old age
old age is senescence, and the only important senescence is likely that of your 'x'-organ's progenitor cells, which are possibly in a 3rd circulatory system the primo-vascular.

When that cell divides its daughter cells will differentiate and divide to replace lost and damaged tissue; it is likely that these prim-vascular cells receiving stress and damage is incredibly bad for you, and many degenerative diseases have been linked to prior viral infection. That being said any catastrophic damage to your body will reduce your life expectancy.

Since stem cell manipulation, and even the existence of progenitor cells is new knowledge, its likely that most theories of aging simply haven't considered that oxidative damage to individual somatic cells isn't liable to cause any intrinsic loss of 'age'. That is to say there's no reason one of the billions of damaged cells is going to put extra weigh for rejuvination on the body. Combine this with the idea that we both kill of autoimmune cells in our body every day, and likely fight off a few cancer cells every day, it becomes obvious that only systematic weakness and atrophy will cause systematic effects on the body.

That's just one pleb undergrad's opinion though feel free to read up reactive oxygen and telomere length, but remember when you encounter how weakly the ideas are supported you heard about damaged progenitors on 4chan first.


one more thing, reactive oxygen damage in the context of mitochondrial function does make some sense and is rapidly gaining support for future research, as DNA in the mitohondria is unique and should it be lost that mito-density will be lost (hayflick of other mito's will be burdened). That being said it appears as though there are many transporters in the mito that we don't understand, and mitochondria actually have multiple write states:
summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/15306/etd8923_SDeheshi.pdf

>>7734526

cancer implies unlimited growth.
that's not the case.

old age is mostly data corruption.
there are a lot of things that fatigue and malfunction as you age, but dna damage is probably the most significant.

>>7734526
Cancer is out of control cell duplication.
Old age is shortage and malfunctions at all levels.

>>7734526

No.

It's been proven that an infusion of blood from young donor can revitalize an old person. It has to do with young blood having more stem cells. Why don't we just invent a way to cultivate mass quantities of stem cells and inject it directly into the blood stream? Same effect, right? Sure you have increased chance of cancer, but you also have increased immune system to fight any cancer cells before they get out of control.

>>7739059
>It's been proven that an infusion of blood from young donor can revitalize an old person.
holy fuck not even close to true

This is a literally blatant and false lie

>>7739127
Sorry, should have said "studies have shown in lab mice"

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v20/n6/full/nm.3569.html

>>7739136
I highlight that for good reason. I work in mice (grad student, neuro development).

They are good model, but just that: models. We show so many goddamn things in mice, and like 90% of them don't translate to humans, or would end up with an ethics shit-storm nightmare. It's a proof-of-concept, and barely. I've read the paper, its definitely interesting, and shows some very cool things. Nature does a good press release naturally. Just remember that these things don't mean shit in humans until they are tried in humans. If you want a good cautionary tale, just look up Jesse Gelsinger. I also hold my breath when I see something in nature, until more papers confirm.
>but nature is hurr durr impact factor
Nature is a goddamn meme journal. I say it now, and so do many other jaded fuckers in science. At this point, nature cares about novelty, not science. They've turned into the current media news sources: publish first, confirm and/or retract later.

I've potentially "cured" mice of a rare disease about 2 years ago now, but we still have about 2 more years to go (so 4+ since curing mice) before we even start human trials- and it's a pretty damn rare instance that it will work at that point.