Just the thought that someone running a medical company thinks he can gather evidence worth talking about by just observing old people who got blood transfusions tells you all you need to know. He's willing to completely fabricate claims about the benefits of this treatment.
We now how much of a nightmare Theranos was -and that was a relatively passive procedure they were selling. What happens when this scrappy start up skimps on the screening tests for their donors and end up with venereal diseases in their blood supply? The old 'fake it till you make it' doesn't fly here.
Indeed, we all know that it’s impossible to develop any kind of scientific knowledge outside randomised control trials. That’s why no one has any scientific opinions on the health effects of smoking tobacco or the long term effects of lead exposure on humans. Without RCTs there’s no way to be sure.
This can very easily happen again, and you subject yourself to this danger by receiving blood transfusions.
Blood is a tremendously tricky substance. I guess they have the necessary precautions in place. But still...
Given the history of some SV startups and their move-fast-break-things and fake-it-'til-you-make-it philosophy and looking back at some of the more unsavoury examples I believe you're highly optimistic here.
So I still think this is a bit optimistic.
So I do believe that someone with questionable ethics is much more likely to assume he can get away with mostly-fake lab tests than with killing patients outright with something obvious like a bad reaction to a blood transfusion. Even infections with a blood-borne Virus would probably be discovered within a year or two, because blood transfusions are sort of the first culprits you have in mind.
I know that the Vampire Facial has been a popular supposed beauty treatment for at least a couple of years.
When I become king, all of this would be outlawed along with homeopathy.
I think I’m doubly bitter about homeopathy in particular because it’s available on the NHS. My tax money is going to fraudsters.
Luckily this is no longer the case (in general)!
Investment is good for creating future wealth. Not using money rounds to investment, not at a personal level, but at a macroeconomic one.
So either the specific mixture of stuff in "young blood" is better, or they mean the specific molecules are healthier because of their origin. The latter is homeopathy style chemistry, and the former seems mostly like a contrived way of taking hormonal supplements.
Something similar exists: PRP injections, which may be quackery, but seem to attract a lot of interest especially in sport medicine.
However, PRP is autologous. The only real risk are bacterial infection because of breaching the skin.
With Ambrosia, we are talking about repeated transfusions. Would you share needles with a stranger, even after reading their serologic status is clean, and some kind of a vetting process?
Personally, I wouldn't, but I am certainly very grateful to all the volunteers engaging in this trial: if there is something of interest, I will learn from their experience. If not, they will have taken the risk for me.
In both cases, I benefit.
"Young Blood Rejuvenates the Aging Brain"
> Previous studies have demonstrated that instilling young blood into an old rodent can rejuvenate peripheral tissues, such as liver and muscle, and can stimulate the birth of new nerve cells in the brain. The authors show that this method can also counteract age-related declines in learning and memory by activating specific signaling pathways in the hippocampus, a region of the brain involved in learning
> These experiments raise the fascinating possibility that transfusion of blood or specific bloodborne factors from young humans might rejuvenate the aged human brain.