Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Aging Start-Up Is Charging Thousands of Dollars for Teen Blood (vanityfair.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A startup called Ambrosia is charging about $8,000 a pop for blood transfusions from people under 25, Jesse Karmazin said at Code Conference. Ambrosia, which buys its blood from blood banks, now has about 100 paying customers. Some are Silicon Valley technologists, like Thiel, though Karmazin stressed that tech types aren't Ambrosia's only clients, and that anyone over 35 is eligible for its transfusions. Karmazin was inspired to found Ambrosia after seeing studies researchers had done involving sewing mice together with their veins conjoined. Some aspects of aging, one 2013 study found, could be reversed when older mice get blood from younger ones, but other researchers haven't been able to replicate these results, and the benefits of parabiosis in humans remains unclear. "I think the animal and retrospective data is compelling, and I want this treatment to be available to people," Karmazin told the MIT Technology Review.
Why isn't the FDA shutting this down.
More like 43 year old homeless drug addict blood. But how would you tell?
A little hepatitis never hurt anybody...
I say go for it. Millenials and whatever the younger generations are have been screwed over by boomers. If boomers want to throw peanuts to the younger generation in exchange for something they can easily regenerate, fine, it's better than the financial vampirism they've already done to education, social security etc.
Plus, as long as you match up the blood types and keep things clean, it doesn't hurt anyone. Unlike the stem cell superstition clinics currently targeting people with more money than ability to understand medical advice.
I like your idea.
Can we apply it to welfare? I've always thought that people who don't pay taxes should be at the back of the line when their need comes.
Sounds like the dumbest and riskiest thing to do with blood. I'd bet that there are huge risks with blood transfusions.
Long-term things like immune-system fatigue,
big things like contamination, and
small things like whoops-wrong-blood-type.
When you're severely injured, and in a hospital, and doing it rarely, those risks are certainly and obviously worth undertaking.
But voluntarilly taking those risks, in the hopes of a very-long-term benefit, well, how many of those risks need to go wrong before you've made things worse instead of better?
I'm thinking the answer is only one.
' If rich old people are willing to pay for young blood, then some of that money can go to the donors. The market can solve this."
This screams 'i have never had any resources of my own, so its ok to just take someone else's'
Good-bye
I have never been paid for my blood donations. I found the use of my freely donated blood for cosmetic surgery to be unnerving, but acceptable. Now that profiteering has decided to dip into the game, I want a cut. Why should I give away my valuable life blood for a mere T-shirt (and I haven't even gotten one of those is over a decade)?
Creepy stuff.
If you don't donate, you should start, just for your own health.
I'd be happy to give blood anonymously. Since that is impossible, I don't do it.
It's unfortunate because I have an uncommon type (not the rarest) and try to live charitably.
You can cite all the reasons why it has to be non-anonymous, but the disadvantages to *me* for being non-anonymous outweigh the advantages to "society in general" for these unnecessary restrictions.
St. Don Bosco recorded a detailed account of a vision of hell he claimed to have had. (Now I believe, even the Catholic Church claims that any legitimate vision of hell is not the real thing, and given for the purpose of instruction of the individual, so no specific aspect necessarily exactly how it really is.)
But for the sake of argument, let's assume it was real or at least a representation of reality. Bosco described the souls in hell as motionless and even comments that time does not exist there. So here's a line of thought...
We know that time is somehow connected to and affected by the material world. And if creation is "good", and hell is the loss of all that is good, then it might also include the total destruction of the soul and its connection to creation. It would then be both instantaneous and eternal at the same time. For anyone outside looking it, it would never change with respect to time, so it would appear (and in a sense be) eternal torment.
My point is not to proselytize you or even to suggest that any of what I have written is correct. It is simply to rebut your sophmoric attack of a strawman by challenging you to dig even *a little bit* deeper than a generic scoffy insult. We already know that apsects of existence, time, and space, and magnitude etc are beyond human comprehension, yet atheists are so quick to mock any discussion of justice that doesn't fit into a readily simple and digestible model of human scrutiny of the simplest time.
There are a lot of interesting arguments against religion, I don't find "eternal hell sounds mean, even though it's admittedly incomprehensible to us" to be one.