> There’s been a lot of talk in Silicon Valley about Peter Thiel’s public contributions, and support for Donald Trump, yet no one seems to be talking about Eric Schmidt’s private contributions to the Clinton campaign that were just exposed via Wikileaks.
Because he picked the "right" side, you only got bullied if you support the "wrong" one.
It's simply because its trump.
The things he says are controversial and donating to him says you support his controversial views.
Clinton is not without controversy either but I think its more of a political controversy and being expose for what she is...a cunning politician.
Is there any other way to be a successful politician?
Well think about it this way, if a corporate executive like Thiel were caught saying much of Trump's campaign rhetoric, he would likely face consequences.
Just a few that come to mind
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." [0]
"26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" [1]
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" [2]
Considering that this last one would be considered hate speech and banned on Facebook if it were not made by a major US politician [3], I think openly supporting the candidate and going out of your way to help his campaign is fair game for criticism
The fact that people would face "consequeces" for making these political statements is exactly why Trump has been so popular.
People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system.
I don't think Trump phased it very well but I do think that illegal immigration is a net negative for the US, and it wouldn't' surprise me if illegal immigrants were disproportionately criminal. What's undeniable is that illegal immigration is connected with new patterns of organized crime, even if the overall crime rate is similar.
Free speech does not mean consequence free speech. It's not some gross injustice that saying racist things or supporting racist candidates makes people think you're racist.
You're completely missing my point. Did you read the whole post or just the first sentence? My point was that people shouldn't be punished for saying reasonable things, but currently they are.
Creating consequences for speech just pushes the speech underground where it can't be challenged. Then when someone like Trump pops up people wonder where all the support is coming from.
> People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system.
And the result of that is a self perpetuating system. If they really wanted to solve the situation they'd frame it as the socio economic issue it is.
bingo. Just like with the white working class, it's not particularly helpful to tell people "the system will never give you a break" if that isn't actually true.
For every fashionable article on how privilege perpetuates itself (which it does, to some extent) there is an unfashionable article on the financial payoff to college education (spoiler, it's huge).
>"26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?"
Trump said that if you put military men and women together, the sexual assault rate will go up. The military proceed to put military men and women together, and guess what? The sexual assault rate goes up. Trump was right. What is sexist about being right?
>"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"
Everyone that enters the United States must be vetted, that includes Muslims too. Muslim will not be excluded, because that would be racist.
>"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
But Cartels are bringing in drugs through the border. And 1 in 4 women who cross the border are raped. And some of those Mexican people are actually good people. How is any of this racist?
The military comment sounds like its excusing sexual assault as inevitable and is honestly pretty offensive to military members.
Shutdown of Muslims entering the country was the phrase. Not that we should vet all religions equally. Youre misrepresenting what he said pretty clearly.
He didn't say cartels. He said "Mexico". And some I assume some are good people suggests that the base case for Mexicans is that they're rapists and murderers.
I really think you're stretching to excuse his statements. He speaks pretty clearly and unambiguously in those remarks.
>The military comment sounds like its excusing sexual assault as inevitable and is honestly pretty offensive to military members.
He wasn't proposing a policy here, and he wasn't even defending sexual assault here. He was just pointing out what was happening in the military. Pointing sexual assault is not sexist.
>He didn't say cartels. He said "Mexico".
Yes. Mexico. In other word, people from Mexico, which includes both good and bad people (the Cartels are from Mexico too). Saying that Mexico have both good and bad people is not racist.
>And some I assume some are good people suggests that the base case for Mexicans is that they're rapists and murderers.
No, it suggest that the base case for Mexicans is that some of them are good people, and some of them are bad people, just like every other race out there.
>Shutdown of Muslims entering the country was the phrase. Not that we should vet all religions equally.
Mexicans are not Muslims. Mexicans will be vetted too. They can come in, but they must come in legally (through the vetting process). And once the vetting program is setup, everyone will be vetted. He said many other things, however, you seems to be ignoring everything else he said, and focusing only on one specific quote, which can be taken out of context easily.
Or perhaps the majority of America is just still super into that sort of thing. Thanks for making this throwaway account today just to spread your ignorance by replying.
Same goes for throwing around terms like "ignorance". You need to make an actual argument. Also not a throwaway, I'm here to stay. And please stop with the rude comments[0].
Okay, here's my argument. Argumentum ad popularum does not excuse abhorrent opinions, and your support of this makes you supportive of racism and mysoginy. This does not stop existing because people support it, it just makes them racist and mysoginsitic by extension. Like you.
Almost no one can be intellectually honest & disagree with your statement. However, when both candidates are indisputably criminals who are self-serving, dishonest and utterly treacherous, the debate is what is "less wrong". I honestly go back and forth and will probably write in vote "No Confidence" as it is the only morally justifiable thing I find possible.
Op here. Sadly, despite my fiery anti-trump rhetoric I will most likely focus on the local elections and just do the same as you. Lesser evilism is a hell of a drug and I don't want it
> How is it acceptable that the Chairman of one of the largest corporations in American can fund a secret startup that works directly for the [candidate's] campaign? Meanwhile, potentially contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally to the [candidate's] foundation?
Not only that, but the company's main revenue is from its ability to influence people's actions, e.g. voting, via advertising.
Many people find Thiel's argument hard to believe, especially if they are aspirational middle class types. This is because normal people have a chronocentric bias. Of all our biases, this one is probably the strongest of all.
If you find Thiel's position hard to believe, it is worth examining what our grandparents thought about the future.
I am at the point where I consider the optimistic narrative (ex-computation) utterly without supporting evidence. It is all PR and marketing.
Here is one example. Consider the discovery of DNA. Important scientifically. And all the resultant research into genetics since.
But tell me what relevance any of it has had to the average person? Have we new drugs? More effective treatments? Cheaper medicine?
This is a minor heresy among the 'educated' but to me the answer is clearly no.
Think about that for a minute or two. Either I am mad, or in half a century there has been no measurable effects. If the second is true then why do we believe CRISPR is going to revolutionize everything outside? The discovery of DNA itself, the Human Genome Project. The cheaper shotgun sequencing. These should have had enormous material effects on society. It does nothing!
Food prices should be much lower. They are static or increasing.
Timber should be of higher quality. It is actually much lower than before.
Any non-niche new building materials out of biotech. I am unable to identify any.
New breeds of animals for livestock, pets, where are they? The farmers I know use a process mostly identical to their ancestors from several thousand years ago, only a little more streamlined thanks to more specific egg/sperm selection.
Yes you can give me niche applications and cool stuff in a lab somewhere, but I'm asking about people's offices, homes, on the streets.
The fact is that we've been talking about vat-grown meat and lab-grown replacement organs for 50 years, and they aren't here yet. Do we have to wait for another 50?
> The human penis is the latest, but hardly the first organ Atala and his colleagues have tried to produce. The team created and transplanted the first human bladder in 1999, the first urethra in 2004 and the first vagina in 2005, the Guardian reported.
I'm pleased to hear of Dr. Atala's efforts. My mind flits immediately to the question of why aren't organ donor lists obsolete. Pensises and vaginas are complex organs so what about livers and kidneys? To have a complete set of duplicate organs on standby in case of medical emergency. Why pay so much for health insurance when you could swap out organs.
Do you believe that in ten years, or twenty, that such things will be available to the public?
I don't want to be cynical but innovative practices have come and gone without sticking before now. There was even head transplants with dogs or monkeys a few decades ago but nothing came of it.
From what I could glean from those articles (and some others I found), the main blocker to things like livers and kidneys are a) the initial complexity, b) the fairly life critical nature of them, which leads to c) the FDA approval process being somewhat strict.
10 years? No, probably not - it would take at least that long before human trials, I suspect.
20 years? Maybe, depending on the human trials. But I'd expect it to be niche and expensive - not something the NHS/Obamacare/WhateverPublicHealth would be paying for (except perhaps in extreme cases?)
Transplants are niche and expensive already. If your artificial kidney is medically reliable and solves rejection problems, every insurance will pay for them instead of transplants. Looking around a bit, kidneys cost more than $50,000 up front, with the possibility of $30,000 a year in antirejection drugs.
Even just the $50,000 seems like something that a scientifically repeatable production process should be able to compete with (there is substantial demand so quite some opportunity for cost savings by scaling up).
The actual expectations we have are sadly diminished.
I only realized this myself when I was talking to my G.P, who is well known as one of the best doctors in the country, I asked him whether he wanted my DNA profile, or whether collecting some genetic information would be helpful.
He said no. He said that (apart from special cases) that in comparison to having medical records on my parents/grandparents plus a full medical history on myself, the genetic profiles are worthless. The hospitals already have a torrent of information they're struggling to organize.
At first I was taken aback at what he said. The more I thought about it the more sense it made to me because obviously your parents and grandparents are likely to inhabit a similar environment to yourself. That must constrain the range of gene expression. We need to know what actually effects us, not a suggestion box, that might hinder more than help!
I still hold out hope for a more scientific way forward but Freeman Dyson's future seems very distant. Honestly the Japanese intelligent toilets with stool/urine analysis might have a bigger impact on preventive medicine than the Human Genome Project.
Everything you mentioned is literally under way. Genetically engineered humanized pigs are being studied for transplants, but 3D printed organs might beat them to the punch. Plants, insects, fungi, bacteria, are all being engineered every which way. The problem is not our ability to engineer life, but knowing what to do with this awesome power. CRISPR was only adapted to human cells two years ago. What did you expect to see in two years?
And lots of cancer treatments. Genetically engineered microorganisms produce many drugs (and chemical feedstocks for others).
We wouldn't have recombinant insulin without genetic engineering, so there's a pretty good high footprint drug for you, the modern combination insulin products that are fast acting and sustaining.
It's also the case that breeders are using identical methods to their ancestors, except for the part where they do things like clone champion bulls to use for breeding.
Honestly this is not impressive. I don't say that to be abrasive, it just isn't.
I'd expect to get something for spending billions of dollars and having legions of intelligent people working away, if only by freak accident.
To put it another way, we had serious medical breakthroughs before cheap genetic examination and alteration was possible. Our benchmark should not be nothing, it should be the past periods of change in the field surely.
How does the 'modern' genetic engineering stack up against antibiotics, peptide synthesis? How many lives saved, how much higher a quality of life do we have as a result?
Eroom's Law is still in force despite xray crystallography and dna sequencing being orders of magnitudes cheaper. Suppose drug discovery isn't the the bottleneck and we blame the FDA, then where are the breakthroughs in Russia and China?
> We wouldn't have recombinant insulin without genetic engineering, so there's a pretty good high footprint drug for you, the modern combination insulin products that are fast acting and sustaining.
That is notable, yes. Partly because it is a good high footprint drug as you say, but also because of the reason for its demand... It is interesting because if you watch the Ford Foundation video from the 1960s I linked to, there is a household personalized preventative healthcare system. I believe we could build such a device in theory, but I don't see that we're breaking much ground. The last thing I saw that impressed me was the Toto intelligence II toilet but it didn't take off. I'd like to buy one, esp. if it was linked to my fridge and food cupboard to perform input/output analysis. I don't think there's a company even pretending to offer such a system today but it was readily imagined half a century ago.
> It's also the case that breeders are using identical methods to their ancestors, except for the part where they do things like clone champion bulls to use for breeding.
Breeders were doing pretty okay before artificial cloning.
I have some relatives in farming, I think they send off sperm cells to be hazed by freezing or some other hazing process that eliminates the weaker candidates.
I also know some old school breeders from a cattle mart who are basically wizards. They carefully examine their subjects to determine characteristics, like Darwin's pigeon fanciers in Origin. They are extremely gifted at selecting, like the Met's super recognizers.
"He said that of the millions of cows produced every year, the number that are cloned is “overall pretty insignificant.”
“But the bottom line is you do not want large numbers of these animals for a number of reasons, number one being that cloned animals are generally unhealthy.”"
That in a nutshell is my general outsider know-nothing view of biotech. It has no serious visible impact and I begin to suspect we don't actually know what we're doing. DNA is less the library of Alexandria and more like Borge's Library of Babel. Where are the cows with adverts emblazoned on their fur for passing cars to see? Weird exotic GM pets? We should see stupid things like that if we had any power. Freeman Dyson's vision of GM, laudable though it is, seems very far away.
I was looking for bioluminescent outdoor lighting/cool science project a while back. Found nothing useful. That's a low bar! That kind of thing should be standard by now and I believe we should all in shock that it isn't cheap and readily available.
No, not enough. I credit you that serious work is being done, but
I think it is pretty clear that unless the Phase 1, 2 and most of 3 trials can be automated somehow then the idea of personalized medicine is a fiction. The approval of 16 new drugs per year isn't going to cut it. The FDA has only approved around 1500 drugs in its entire lifetime.
At that rate cures for diseases would have to be complete panaceas in order to have a measurable effect on lifespan or healthspan.
33 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 87.8 ms ] threadBecause he picked the "right" side, you only got bullied if you support the "wrong" one.
Clinton is not without controversy either but I think its more of a political controversy and being expose for what she is...a cunning politician. Is there any other way to be a successful politician?
Just a few that come to mind
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." [0]
"26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" [1]
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" [2]
Considering that this last one would be considered hate speech and banned on Facebook if it were not made by a major US politician [3], I think openly supporting the candidate and going out of your way to help his campaign is fair game for criticism
[0] http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debat...
[1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/33190738377114828...
[2] http://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-trump-s-memorable-...
[3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-employees-pushed-to-rem...
People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system.
I don't think Trump phased it very well but I do think that illegal immigration is a net negative for the US, and it wouldn't' surprise me if illegal immigrants were disproportionately criminal. What's undeniable is that illegal immigration is connected with new patterns of organized crime, even if the overall crime rate is similar.
And the result of that is a self perpetuating system. If they really wanted to solve the situation they'd frame it as the socio economic issue it is.
For every fashionable article on how privilege perpetuates itself (which it does, to some extent) there is an unfashionable article on the financial payoff to college education (spoiler, it's huge).
Trump said that if you put military men and women together, the sexual assault rate will go up. The military proceed to put military men and women together, and guess what? The sexual assault rate goes up. Trump was right. What is sexist about being right?
>"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"
Everyone that enters the United States must be vetted, that includes Muslims too. Muslim will not be excluded, because that would be racist.
>"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
But Cartels are bringing in drugs through the border. And 1 in 4 women who cross the border are raped. And some of those Mexican people are actually good people. How is any of this racist?
Shutdown of Muslims entering the country was the phrase. Not that we should vet all religions equally. Youre misrepresenting what he said pretty clearly.
He didn't say cartels. He said "Mexico". And some I assume some are good people suggests that the base case for Mexicans is that they're rapists and murderers.
I really think you're stretching to excuse his statements. He speaks pretty clearly and unambiguously in those remarks.
He wasn't proposing a policy here, and he wasn't even defending sexual assault here. He was just pointing out what was happening in the military. Pointing sexual assault is not sexist.
>He didn't say cartels. He said "Mexico".
Yes. Mexico. In other word, people from Mexico, which includes both good and bad people (the Cartels are from Mexico too). Saying that Mexico have both good and bad people is not racist.
>And some I assume some are good people suggests that the base case for Mexicans is that they're rapists and murderers.
No, it suggest that the base case for Mexicans is that some of them are good people, and some of them are bad people, just like every other race out there.
>Shutdown of Muslims entering the country was the phrase. Not that we should vet all religions equally.
Mexicans are not Muslims. Mexicans will be vetted too. They can come in, but they must come in legally (through the vetting process). And once the vetting program is setup, everyone will be vetted. He said many other things, however, you seems to be ignoring everything else he said, and focusing only on one specific quote, which can be taken out of context easily.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://sideways-view.com/2016/10/31/repledge/
Not only that, but the company's main revenue is from its ability to influence people's actions, e.g. voting, via advertising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4
Many people find Thiel's argument hard to believe, especially if they are aspirational middle class types. This is because normal people have a chronocentric bias. Of all our biases, this one is probably the strongest of all.
If you find Thiel's position hard to believe, it is worth examining what our grandparents thought about the future.
"The Home of the Future in 1999" (from the 1960s)
https://youtu.be/0RRxqg4G-G4
I am at the point where I consider the optimistic narrative (ex-computation) utterly without supporting evidence. It is all PR and marketing.
Here is one example. Consider the discovery of DNA. Important scientifically. And all the resultant research into genetics since.
But tell me what relevance any of it has had to the average person? Have we new drugs? More effective treatments? Cheaper medicine?
This is a minor heresy among the 'educated' but to me the answer is clearly no.
Think about that for a minute or two. Either I am mad, or in half a century there has been no measurable effects. If the second is true then why do we believe CRISPR is going to revolutionize everything outside? The discovery of DNA itself, the Human Genome Project. The cheaper shotgun sequencing. These should have had enormous material effects on society. It does nothing!
Food prices should be much lower. They are static or increasing. Timber should be of higher quality. It is actually much lower than before. Any non-niche new building materials out of biotech. I am unable to identify any. New breeds of animals for livestock, pets, where are they? The farmers I know use a process mostly identical to their ancestors from several thousand years ago, only a little more streamlined thanks to more specific egg/sperm selection.
Yes you can give me niche applications and cool stuff in a lab somewhere, but I'm asking about people's offices, homes, on the streets.
The fact is that we've been talking about vat-grown meat and lab-grown replacement organs for 50 years, and they aren't here yet. Do we have to wait for another 50?
Not entirely true - http://www.livescience.com/44756-lab-grown-vagina-implants.h...
And also - http://www.livescience.com/48196-lab-grown-penises.html which isn't an actual success story yet but does include the paragraph
> The human penis is the latest, but hardly the first organ Atala and his colleagues have tried to produce. The team created and transplanted the first human bladder in 1999, the first urethra in 2004 and the first vagina in 2005, the Guardian reported.
Do you believe that in ten years, or twenty, that such things will be available to the public?
I don't want to be cynical but innovative practices have come and gone without sticking before now. There was even head transplants with dogs or monkeys a few decades ago but nothing came of it.
10 years? No, probably not - it would take at least that long before human trials, I suspect.
20 years? Maybe, depending on the human trials. But I'd expect it to be niche and expensive - not something the NHS/Obamacare/WhateverPublicHealth would be paying for (except perhaps in extreme cases?)
Even just the $50,000 seems like something that a scientifically repeatable production process should be able to compete with (there is substantial demand so quite some opportunity for cost savings by scaling up).
The hypothetical promise of biotech is terrific.
The actual expectations we have are sadly diminished.
I only realized this myself when I was talking to my G.P, who is well known as one of the best doctors in the country, I asked him whether he wanted my DNA profile, or whether collecting some genetic information would be helpful.
He said no. He said that (apart from special cases) that in comparison to having medical records on my parents/grandparents plus a full medical history on myself, the genetic profiles are worthless. The hospitals already have a torrent of information they're struggling to organize.
At first I was taken aback at what he said. The more I thought about it the more sense it made to me because obviously your parents and grandparents are likely to inhabit a similar environment to yourself. That must constrain the range of gene expression. We need to know what actually effects us, not a suggestion box, that might hinder more than help!
I still hold out hope for a more scientific way forward but Freeman Dyson's future seems very distant. Honestly the Japanese intelligent toilets with stool/urine analysis might have a bigger impact on preventive medicine than the Human Genome Project.
https://www.cff.org/Our-Research/Drug-Development-Pipeline/
And lots of cancer treatments. Genetically engineered microorganisms produce many drugs (and chemical feedstocks for others).
We wouldn't have recombinant insulin without genetic engineering, so there's a pretty good high footprint drug for you, the modern combination insulin products that are fast acting and sustaining.
It's also the case that breeders are using identical methods to their ancestors, except for the part where they do things like clone champion bulls to use for breeding.
http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/06/29/us-company-in-iowa-churn...
To put it another way, we had serious medical breakthroughs before cheap genetic examination and alteration was possible. Our benchmark should not be nothing, it should be the past periods of change in the field surely.
How does the 'modern' genetic engineering stack up against antibiotics, peptide synthesis? How many lives saved, how much higher a quality of life do we have as a result?
Eroom's Law is still in force despite xray crystallography and dna sequencing being orders of magnitudes cheaper. Suppose drug discovery isn't the the bottleneck and we blame the FDA, then where are the breakthroughs in Russia and China?
> We wouldn't have recombinant insulin without genetic engineering, so there's a pretty good high footprint drug for you, the modern combination insulin products that are fast acting and sustaining.
That is notable, yes. Partly because it is a good high footprint drug as you say, but also because of the reason for its demand... It is interesting because if you watch the Ford Foundation video from the 1960s I linked to, there is a household personalized preventative healthcare system. I believe we could build such a device in theory, but I don't see that we're breaking much ground. The last thing I saw that impressed me was the Toto intelligence II toilet but it didn't take off. I'd like to buy one, esp. if it was linked to my fridge and food cupboard to perform input/output analysis. I don't think there's a company even pretending to offer such a system today but it was readily imagined half a century ago.
> It's also the case that breeders are using identical methods to their ancestors, except for the part where they do things like clone champion bulls to use for breeding.
Breeders were doing pretty okay before artificial cloning.
I have some relatives in farming, I think they send off sperm cells to be hazed by freezing or some other hazing process that eliminates the weaker candidates.
I also know some old school breeders from a cattle mart who are basically wizards. They carefully examine their subjects to determine characteristics, like Darwin's pigeon fanciers in Origin. They are extremely gifted at selecting, like the Met's super recognizers.
"He said that of the millions of cows produced every year, the number that are cloned is “overall pretty insignificant.”
“But the bottom line is you do not want large numbers of these animals for a number of reasons, number one being that cloned animals are generally unhealthy.”"
That in a nutshell is my general outsider know-nothing view of biotech. It has no serious visible impact and I begin to suspect we don't actually know what we're doing. DNA is less the library of Alexandria and more like Borge's Library of Babel. Where are the cows with adverts emblazoned on their fur for passing cars to see? Weird exotic GM pets? We should see stupid things like that if we had any power. Freeman Dyson's vision of GM, laudable though it is, seems very far away.
I was looking for bioluminescent outdoor lighting/cool science project a while back. Found nothing useful. That's a low bar! That kind of thing should be standard by now and I believe we should all in shock that it isn't cheap and readily available.
You could also go through the 160 other monoclonal antibodies that are in clinical trials to see if any of them are exciting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody
Making them and understanding how to prevent adverse reactions to them both involve genetics.
At that rate cures for diseases would have to be complete panaceas in order to have a measurable effect on lifespan or healthspan.