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.