Hacker News Reader

Comment by strainer | Hacker News Reader

I'm questioning the idea that this particular biomarker - doesn't actually mark what the report claims it marks (mitochondrial bio-genesis).

How do we often test for diabetes.. cancers.. many many clinical conditions? Biomarkers. So they are not practically unreliable in general.

What do you know about the particular biomarker employed in the study to say that it is unreliable ?

View on HN

1. Each biomarker has to be validated independently. 2. There's a huge difference between something used for testing, and something used for intervention. Grey hair is a pretty OK test for aging, but clearly dying it isn't going to arrest the aging process.

Long term degenerative conditions are some of the most difficult problems for such validation, due to time, cost, and the complexity of risk in real populations.

I don't know anything about how well the current study actually links to mitochondrial biogenesis, but I know that we don't have satisfactory interventional biomarkers for a process as complex as aging. By all means continue researching this, but I think it's eminently sensible to be skeptical at this point.

Be as skeptical as you wish, but that is all very orthogonal to my requests to substantiate claims here that the biomarker examined is unreliably interpreted. They have not been substantiated. Discussion of what qualifies as "anti-aging" is another matter . Anti-aging is not a clinical term, there have been no claims made about general reversal of aging.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com