Here are some things I noticed after the fact:
1. I naturally wanted to finish the presentation and was compelled to click to see if there were any amazing insights.
2. After the fact, I have no idea how I even advanced the presentation, all I knew was that I clicked something. It was 100% natural.
It fully pulled me in. I can't remember if there were ads on the sides or more information.
[added] I went back and looked at it again and I think what made it so flawless is that the first page gave me no option but to click the right hand arrow which taught me what to look for. I clicked the right arrow, and then I knew to click it again to advance. The progress dots on the top let me know that I didn't have much time left. Really amazing work here.
In some cases, the findings in the text don't seem to be reflected in the graphs.
1. Don't have unprotected sex if you're less than 44 years old.
2. Don't kill yourself, or do drugs, if you're less than 54 years old.
3. Invest heavily in heart disease, cancer, and alzheimer's research.
Incidentally, there is also some evidence of Alzheimer's disease being linked to risk factors typically associated with type 2 diabetes. 
Of course my post is a bit tongue in cheek. Healthy nutrition and exercise are probably the biggest factors in living longer setting aside physical trauma. It even improves your mood, so I'm sure it lowers the suicide rate too.
I considered listing it, but this is a list of things that will kill you, not a list of things that will make you live longer, healthier, and happier... I would love to have that list please.
(Less significant here means a ten year swing in life expectancy. Exercise, not smoking, calorie restriction - these are things that can make 5-10 year expected differences. Everything else is pretty marginal if you exclude the obvious exogenous line items like risk of accident. But an improving implementation of SENS provides indefinite extension of healthy life out to the expected limits due to accident rates, which is somewhere in the 1000-5000 year range for present data).
The mainstream medical research community is largely focused on patching late stage manifestations of aging. Most work and funding goes towards either manipulating proximate causes rather than root causes, or trying to find ways to alter the operation of metabolism to make the disease process less terrible - but again without addressing causes. Until such time as the research community is overtaken by the "address root causes" disruption currently taking place, of which SENS is an exemplar, but by no means the only movement, then progress towards extended life and defeat of age-related disease will continue to be painfully expensive, slow, and marginal.
The trends in life extension achieved through medicine to date are all largely incidental, unintentional. Where aging itself as a collection of processes  has been slowed it wasn't because that was the deliberate intent. Again, because until very recently no-one has been trying to address aging itself rather than focusing on the nature of its outcomes. It is the same difference as that between working to reverse or prevent rust in metal structures versus working on repairing structural failures that occur due to that rust.
It's a great place to be because many aging researchers, while smart and capable at their own techniques, are basically in the informatics stone age. So there is a lot of collaboration potential.
As for GP's comments, I'd agree that there needs to be more focus on "root causes" and fundamental mechanisms in aging research. But SENS itself is broadly considered hokum.
I would love to see more of the people who dismiss SENS criticize it on the published details of ongoing or proposed research rather than just hand-waving. Sadly all too few seem to be willing to do so. Clearly it isn't nonsense, since there are SENS labs and allied research programs in a number of universities now, including Cambridge, Wake Forest, etc, and a range of important figures in aging research and other life science fields relevant to regenerative medicine support SENS.
SENS, as I understand it, can mean (at least) 3 different things:
a) The idea that we should focus on root causes rather than late-stage manifestations. I agree with this.
b) The idea that we should attempt to repair aging-related damage without needing to know what caused the damage. I find this debatable. We have stumbled on to some big treatments (aspirin, penicillin), without knowing how or why they worked. But in general, if you take a broken, complex system (e.g., a car, some source code) and attempt to repair it without understanding how it works, you will fail. With aging, many changes occur. How can you determine which changes are "damage" and which are compensatory regulatory changes without understanding the chain of causation?
c) A specific list of 7 aging-associated markers of damage and proposals to clear that damage, with the implication that if we do so, we will drastically reduce or eliminate age-associated morbidity and mortality. This is the part that is seen as hokum. At best, it is a hypothesis. Let de Grey get a grant and prove it, like everyone else does, rather than publicity-hunting and implying that it is only the stodgy old aging research establishment keeping us from eternal youth. But if you want semi-technical criticisms:
- On what basis are these 7 types of damage chosen and not others?
- One of the proposed treatments for the natural shortening of telomeres over time is the periodic, whole-body addition of telomerase or the equivalent. Considering that telomerase is overexpressed in cancer and is an important ingredient to uncontrolled cell division, do you think this is a good idea?
- On a related note, SENS presupposes that a cure for cancer must be found before the entire program can be made practical. A minor problem.
- The technology for several other of his other proposed interventions does not currently exist; for example, expressing mitochondrial genes only in the nucleus.
Anyway, I actually share SENS' goals but not its unwarranted confidence in its specific proposals to achieve them.
One thing I'm also fascinated by are the bio "hacker" labs/spaces, and I was wondering if you think something in that direction would be more suited for people to build on and if you think that such labs are even close to being in a position to pursue such endeavors that have mostly been relegated to universities (and the funding environment for such research) and corporations (and the closed source environment typically better suited to monetization)?
Hackerspaces are promising in that they are finding ways to do certain techniques inexpensively. But to do the kind of wet-lab research that results in a published paper requires a wide array of equipment that I don't see available to the layman anytime soon (unless they're independently wealthy).
On the other hand, there is nothing specifically preventing interested amateurs from doing bioinformatics or aging informatics themselves. Only a few things (e.g., sequence analysis) require big clusters; you can do quite a lot on your home PC. If you need data, tons of it is freely available: http://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ is a good place to start. http://rosalind.info/ provides good tutorials.
I wish we would see more open-source developers creating well-designed bioinformatics platforms under the auspices of e.g., Apache or GNU. In general the programming experience of bioinformaticians is quite low, and we are under tremendous pressure to publish often, so there is little incentive to maintain projects over the long-term.
The brief research blurb doesn't specifically mention aging, but we in fact have heavy collaborations with:
and the position is funded by them.
In general however, if you are really interested in aging research you should just bite the bullet and get a PhD. It's necessary to have independence.
I.e., the graph in slide #10 says:
Cancer in 1990 killed 40422, but in 2010, 50962.
Heart disease in 1990 killed 36545, but in 2010, 45783.
That seems like cancer and heart disease have become worse, not less deadly over the years. That slide is baffling unless you realize that the population must have increased significantly between 1990 and 2010.
Graphs like this are misleading and it's often difficult to collect all the raw data to do the datacube aggregations across multiple dimensions to visualize the data and understand these sorts of details.
1. Not smoking.
2. Eating healthily (fiber, vitamins, low sugar; this is a nascent field).
3. Exercising regularly.
4. Wearing sunscreen and minimizing sun exposure.
A list of benefits that aren't associated with vitamin D production can be found here:
On eating healthily, it is sad that over a century after we started nutrition research, we are still so clueless. There is actually a lot of good information out there, but what conclusions to draw are hard to determine. This is for a variety of reasons: government policy interference, nutritional "belief" fiefdoms, a lot of very bad research, media preferring a sensational story, and certain interests with a strong incentive to confuse the matter. It takes effort, but a person can come up with a scientifically supported diet (in fact, more than one).
The place where we are still in the dark ages is the impact our gut biome plays. As the recent article about African hunter-gatherers show, we are completely clueless about what constitutes a good gut biome. Instead, I feel like much of our knowledge is of the analogous form, "smoking one pack a day is more healthy than smoking two packs, so smoking one pack is the healthy choice" (this analogy holds for many aspects of nutritional health, for example, sugar). We don't have access to a truly healthy gut biome, so our baseline comes from the "least unhealthy" group.
In 2010, 19,392 of the 38,364 suicides were "by discharge of firearm" [the same term used for classifying 11,078 homicides and 606 accidental deaths]. Seems a bit odd that the report classifies the accidents and homicides as "firearm related deaths" but the suicides as unrelated.
From a public health perspective, a 50% reduction in suicide by firearm would save more lives than the complete elimination of HIV deaths or cervical cancer deaths or uterine cancer deaths.
That's not necessarily true. Various methods of suicide are subject to substitution effects. As shown by several recent studies in Australia, a decline in the share of suicides by firearm results in a consummate rise in suicides by hanging.
Note also that the substitution hypothesis is not consistent with the overall decline in female suicides during the same period.
This more recent Harvard study indicates that reducing the lethality of suicide means correlates with a decline in deaths. Interestingly, it postulates that the age demographic which saw an increase in hanging deaths was the same younger population more likely to be familiar with sexual asphyxia and thus the mechanics of hanging while older males did not see a significant decline in firearm suicides.
I'm pretty sure there is near 100% substitution, but that firearms are a much more effective method, which accounts for the net difference.
While we, being simple humans, may project feeling upon an inanimate object, it's a mistake to assume a god's eye view, objectivity, or universal reality.
Bringing it back around: Are you suicidal? We're here to help. ;)
As for intentionality, proper reference to cultural symbol and relation, as you state in your last sentence, is essential but seemingly ignored in favor of how one believes, desires.
Looks like it's a combination of factors. The Toronto case I've heard before. Although some substitution took place, overall rate went down.
The category ‘‘drug-induced causes’’
includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of
drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically
prescribed and other drugs. It excludes accidents, homicides, and
other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are
newborn deaths due to mother’s drug use. (For drug-induced causes,
see Technical notes.) Between 1997 and 1998 the age-adjusted death
rate for drug-induced causes increased 5 percent from 5.6 deaths per
100,000 U.S. standard population to 5.9, the highest it has been since
at least 1979.
In 2010, there were 38,329 drug overdose deaths in the United States;
most (22 134; 57.7%) involved pharmaceuticals; 9429 (24.6%) involved
only unspecified drugs. Of the pharmaceutical-related overdose deaths, 16,451
(74.3%) were unintentional, 3780 (17.1%) were suicides, and 1868 (8.4%)
were of undetermined intent. Opioids (16,651; 75.2%), benzodiazepines (6497; 29.4%),
antidepressants (3889; 17.6%), and antiepileptic and antiparkinsonism drugs
(1717; 7.8%) were the pharmaceuticals (alone or in combination with
other drugs) most commonly involved in pharmaceutical overdose deaths.
Among overdose deaths involving opioid analgesics, the pharmaceuticals
most often also involved in these deaths were benzodiazepines (5017; 30.1%),
antidepressants (2239; 13.4%), antiepileptic and antiparkinsonism drugs (1125;
6.8%), and antipsychotics and neuroleptics (783; 4.7%)." -
See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.gaJ8WlzN.dpuf
This probably depends on your community/social circle. Some groups heavily advocate that pharmaceuticals be limited to life saving emergencies and not ongoing usage ("pill for everything").
Consumer spending (from last December): http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2013-12-20/how-we-spend.ht...
Housing prices (from February): http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2014-02-25/bubble-to-bust-...
Except your graph shows that cancer death rates have increased by almost 20% from 1968-2010... Am I missing something here?
1968 US Population: 200.71 million
2010 US Population: 309.35 million
I would think that happy people who are not constantly under stress live longer.
I only meant to point out that many people in affluent western countries smoke, over eat, drink excessively and do other physically unhealthy things (because they have the money) in order to reduce mental and emotional stress. If we could reduce stress in general then we'd probably live longer, healthier lives.
General social issues lead to general health issues.
"Well, there was that group of American doctors," she answered.
"They came to Shivapuram last year, while I was working at the Central
"What were they doing here?"
"They wanted to find out why we have such a low rate of neurosis and
cardiovascular trouble. Those doctors!" She shook her head. "I tell you, Mr.
Farnaby, they really made my hair stand on end—made everybody's hair
stand on end in the whole hospital."
"So you think our medicine's pretty primitive?"
"That's the wrong word. It isn't primitive. It's fifty percent terrific and fifty
percent nonexistent. Marvelous antibiotics—but absolutely no methods for
increasing resistance, so that antibiotics won't be necessary. Fantastic
operations—but when it comes to teaching people the way of going through
life without having to be chopped up, absolutely nothing. And it's the same
all along the line. Alpha Plus for patching you up when you've started to fall
apart; but Delta Minus for keeping you healthy. Apart from sewerage
systems and synthetic vitamins, you don't seem to do anything at all about
prevention. And yet you've got a proverb: prevention is better than cure."
"But cure," said Will, "is so much more dramatic than prevention. And
for the doctors it's also a lot more profitable."
"About the way they treat people with neurotic symptoms. We just
couldn't believe our ears. They never attack on all the fronts; they only
attack on about half of one front. So far as
they're concerned, the physical fronts don't exist. Except for a mouth and
an anus, their patient doesn't have a body. He isn't an organism, he wasn't
born with a constitution or a temperament. All he has is the two ends of a
digestive tube, a family and a psyche. But what sort of psyche? Obviously
not the whole mind, not the mind as it really is. How could it be that when
they take no account of a person's anatomy, or biochemistry or physiology?
Mind abstracted from body—that's the only front they attack on. And not
even on the whole of that front. The man with the cigar kept talking about
the unconscious. But the only unconscious they ever pay attention to is the
negative unconscious, the garbage that people have tried to get rid of by
burying it in the basement. Not a single word about the positive
unconscious. No attempt to help the patient to open himself up to the life
force or the Buddha Nature. And no attempt even to teach him to be a little
more conscious in his everyday life. You know: 'Here and now, boys.'
'Attention.' " She gave an imitation of the mynah birds. "These people just
leave the unfortunate neurotic to wallow in his old bad habits of never being
all there in present time. The whole thing is just pure idiocy!"
Out of context it reads a bit funny, but the whole book is compelling. Everything Huxley and Watts took from eastern philosophy is interesting.
Full book here: http://www.huxley.net/island/aldoushuxley-island.html
We're so busy rushing here and there that we never touch nor live in the now. And we have children and expect them to just do the same. It's sad really.
We think to ourselves, "If I had a billion dollars, then I would be happy" yet all we need in order to be happy is to fully live every moment and stop looking to the future or regretting the past. Just live right now.
This presentation is style over substance.
Professional demographers try to think ahead about these issues, not least so that national governments in various countries can project the funding necessary for publicly funded retirement income programs and national health insurance programs. Demographers have now been following the steady trends long enough to make projections that girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel, originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day."
I was in a local Barnes and Noble bookstore back when I was shopping for an eightieth birthday gift (a book-holder) for my mom, and I discovered that the birthday card section in that store, which is mostly a bookstore, had multiple choices of cards for eightieth birthdays and even for ninetieth birthdays. We will be celebrating more and more and more birthdays of friends and relatives of advanced age in the coming decades.
1. AIDS was a really important retrograde factor in this general story, and developing the commitment to research and deploy strategies for dealing with it was a major victory.
2. Alzheimers and similar illnesses are a huge factor in terms of healthcare for the elderly. A similar success there would yield tremendous results.
AIDS was a virus-born epidemic and it is normal for such things to experience exponential growth and decline.
Dementia is part of the process of degeneration resulting from aging, from people basically wearing-out. Like with heart disease or cancer, it seems likely we can only really expect halting and expensive progress in this field.
The most problematic thing is that extending the life of a cancer victim ten years without an actual cure would be seen as a modest gain. Similarly extending the life of an Alzheimer's victim wouldn't be so seen.
Remaining life expectancy in old age is growing by about 1 year per decade.
An interesting, albeit a little too populist take on the options for the future of medicine and longevity:
As I mentioned elsewhere, the current trends are all due to entirely incidental effects on the processes underlying aging. We should expect to see a great discontinuous leap upwards in life expectancy in the next few decades if the present disruption in the field of aging research takes hold and wins control of the mainstream, such that there is a sea change in the community to focus on actually treating aging itself rather than focusing on patching over its late-stage consequences. This hasn't been done yet to any meaningful degree, and so we should expect interesting results once it is a going concern.
Here, I claim "broad-based" depends heavily how you choose your cohorts. For example, the life span of the least educated whites in the US has shrunk (which might be relate to the increase in drug deaths mentioned by the article).
and jquery cycle for the slide show: http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2014-04-17/js/jquery.cycle...
They ask for
Experience in QGis, ArcGIS , Google Maps Api and large government open data APIs
Expertise in standard design tools (Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop)
Also: source code references D3
There is some research about "happyness" that started around 1970, two difference scientists asked more or less similar question since then: what you did in your day, and how happy you felt.
In 1970 women used to claim to be happier than men, there was a very large gap there.
Currently the gap is smaller, but reversed (men are happier instead), also both men and women are unhappier than in 1970s.
Regarding workload, women are working now (summing home chores and outside work) much more than 1970, men are also working more, but one thing that the researcher was noted, is that the time specifically dusting the house decreased a lot, since there is no major invention in that field since 1970s, he had the conclusion that maybe the source of unhappyness is that people don't have time even to keep their home clean, and are living in homes that are dirtier than they were in 1970.
Now I need to figure where was those articles (there are two of them with published data), I frankly don't remember :( (I stumbled on them on a night of random reading on internet)
* The US economy, at least for part of the populace, is pretty crappy; working three jobs, money worries, the financial crisis, it all adds up.
* The internet; more (negative) news from all over the world, telling people how terrible it all is. At the same time, "Facebook Envy", people getting told how bad their life is in comparison to their facebook friends (which is skewed because a lot of people only put the good stuff on there).
* People are dicks.
I've had no experience with anyone I know of committing suicide, but I am not seeing how to evaluate whether it is or isn't socially acceptable.
On the other end of the scale we can talk about "Dying with dignity", "Not being a burden to loved ones", "finally at peace", "being in a better place".
When more people hold the later views then it is more acceptable in society for someone to commit suicide because they don't feel that they are hurting others as much/aren't as evil for doing it (not that I believe they're at all evil I used that wording as those considering suicide may be self loathing).
You could even make arguments on a case by case basis if you wanted from the heroic last stand to a single parent leaving behind their children. It all comes down to what obligations we feel people have to stay alive.
<script src="js/modernizer.2.7.1.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script src="js/underscore.1.5.2.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script src="global/js/less.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script src="global/js/d3.v2.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script src="js/jquery.cycle.all.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It looks like the majority of this visualization was from the D3.js library. I've been seeing more and more web-documents of this style, it must be because of the rise of D3.
Homophobia has AIDS and AIDS-related mortality as comorbidities. There exist fewer support structures for gay black men than exist for gay white men, which e.g. reduces knowledge transfer, makes it less of a cultural norm to stay on your drug regimen, provides fewer role models for how to live as an HIV-positive man.
It's also important to note another factor: our disproportionately black prison population and our epidemic of prison rape. Anal rape by multiple men, many of them with one or more other STDs, is an ideal way for an HIV infection to be transferred. HIV also gets transferred in prison through consensual sex: most prisons don't offer free condoms to inmates. The net result is the rate of contracting HIV is 10 to 100 times higher within prison than outside it.
We've greatly reduced death by cigarette related diseases. That was mostly a behavioral problem, so is AIDS. The rest of the items on this site seem to be scientific problems.
Not to get too political but we want to do our best to eliminate all these causes of death. Black males with AIDS seems like low hanging fruit disguised as a real problem with our society.
1) HIV is more easily transmitted man-to-man or woman-to-man than it is man-to-woman or woman-to-woman. Thus, all else being equal, men are more likely than women to get HIV, and therefore AIDS.
2) For various historical and political reasons, race and class are closely correlated in the US. Black men are more likely to be poor than white men.
3) Poor people are much less likely to have access to condoms and be educated about safe sex, and are more likely to use street drugs and share needles. They're also less likely to have good access to health care, meaning than HIV won't be treated properly and is more likely to progress to AIDS and, eventually, death.
Put those three factors together, and you end up with black men having a much higher incidence of AIDS than other groups.
There’s all kinds of reasons for that, many of which are related to lifestyle. Payment is an issue, but there are programs in the US available for the those that have no other option to afford treatment thanks to the Ryan White CARE Act. But even if the medicine is paid for, unfortunately in this cohort we see a lot of additional issues prevalent such as: drug use, homelessness, mental instability - all leading to patients not staying on their drug cocktail regimen.
On the other hand, guns are used in about 2/3rd of suicides.
Is immortality the presumed goal?
I thought that was a particularly funny statement. Reminded me of the onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/world-death-rate-holding-st...
Getting guns out of our communities is probably easier than getting drugs out of them, not to mention mental conditions that lead to suicide.
Not that I necessarily would say it stopped at all...
I know insurance rates went down across the board 1-2 years back. It's hard to get a car without traction control and ABS now, which makes a huge difference.
According to this study, vehicle stability control really does decrease crashes.