Peter Thiel has purportedly invested millions in anti-aging. A company called Ambriosa in particular matches older people with younger people for blood routine blood transfusions.
While this study may or may not work with humans, the Ambriosa project does seem to have legs.
They've started a clinical trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02803554
All sorts of interesting setups could come out of this, with the rich paying the (compatible) poor for their youthful blood. Especially if compatibility is genetic, you'd potentially have multiple generations of a poor family existing specifically to support an aging rich person (and potentially the rich person's offspring).
Depending on how time consuming the blood contributions are, this could turn into a vampire-esque caste system, with the poor being blood cattle.
"Grandma, you're telling stories again. That couldn't possibly be true!"
"I swear on my husbands grave that it was true! They even levied a tax on them and made them pay for the treatment."
If so, and without adverse effects , an opportunity is discovered. Human cells might be better but a protein from animals might be cheaper and less ethically challenged, thus more accessible to the masses.
 An expert please have a say whether that is plausible or not.
Sure, it will look odd, but that will just be the price to pay to stay young.
The real trick will be to keep the goats from chewing on your shirt collars.
I would ride upon a great blood engorged elephant and take pity upon all the unwashed goat tethered masses.
That's your first mistake. Don't take my word for it:
Glamor journals are glamorous because of their "impact" (people read and cite them), and that "impact" occurs because they publish sexy (not necessarily replicable or useful) findings. Note that Nature is not a bad actor per se, and in fact their editors have completely destroyed my lack of faith in peer review lately (as an author). But the incentives for CNS journals skew in favor of "sexy" rather than "scientific", and the general tendency of NIH to fund "sexy" means that almost all research in glamor journals must be treated as suspect until replicated, ideally in a clinical trial or by an un-incentivized third party lab.
> I can only access what appears to be more of an abstract
There's a site called http://sci-hub.bz/ that can help.
> these claims could be anomalies.
You are correct, and you should heed your instincts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a single experiment or replication is one (possibly quite principled) sample from a distribution of potential outcomes. Don't invest yet ;-)
Side note: it seems like numeracy and statistical thinking is becoming the default in an educated population. You, too, are destroying my lack of faith in humanity. Thanks.
Here are the figures:
If you need a fulltext link that can be arranged, but it's not a bad idea to understand how DOIs work. Here is one:
This is essentially a URI; the piece after the : is a URN, which is meant to uniquely identify a piece of published research (now expanded to include preprints and software).
To route it, you'll need a URL which your browser can resolve. Happily, if you visit
you will return to the paper. It is meant to provide a durable identifier, so that even Elsevier journals can't reliably hide the identity of a publication. What this also means is that "unlocking" services like Elbakyan's can use it as a primary key. Suppose you paste the URN part of that DOI onto http://sci-hub.cc/ or http://sci-hub.bz/ to complete the URL. What do you suppose happens?
(This is left as an exercise for the reader, and of course I cannot and do not condone violations of copyright law. So don't read whatever might pop up, ok?)
I have an aging grandmother who is in her last weeks of life, though the doctors don't know why her body is failing despite strong heart and brain.
She is up for trying most anything and would probably be up for experimenting in herself.
Since this worked across species barriers, it can be speculated that a similar effect would be seen when administering TIMP2 in humans. It'll be exciting to see what comes of clinical studies, which are under way.
[EDIT]:tone down expectations
Apparently it is nowhere near as clear cut as expected. See the NPR article linked below.
How this pans out in humans and in the long term is a different story.
I think the point the original comment was trying to make was more that NPR doesn't have much in depth coverage when it comes to science. You'll think NPR does an exemplary job when it comes to content you don't know much about. But when you're more knowledgeable about the field being covered, you start to see minor inaccuracies to "dumb down" the concepts.
Which isn't a bad thing necessarily, it gets the point across without being too wrong.
I do not see any way around news sources being simplified, to some extent, about everything, and you appear to agree. Do you think NPR's news is notably "not great" in that regard? Its liberal bias shows, but not in a way that strikes me as deceptive.
There have been some stories on NPR (and most news sites as far as I can tell) that I've felt more knowledgeable about, and realized things were being simplified to make it easier to digest.
I guess another way of putting it would be that at first glance, you think NPR is awesome, and does a great job of covering the news. But then at second glance, you realize that while not intentional, it's just not as detailed or complete as you'd like it to be.