The guardian article on longevity research [link]

ike

Why not save it for yourself when you get older? For that matter, why don't you store your own blood now for yourself in anticipation for such treatment being available later? Or is that not possible? Have you even looked into it?

There are changes when freezing blood. The first study I came across stated:

red cells undergoing the non-freezing procedure and suspended in additive solutions had significantly better biochemical preservation after 21 days of storage (p < 0.001). Both procedures removed an average 98% of the initial leucocytes at the expense of 18-20% of the red cells. The non-freezing procedure resulted in higher residual concentrations of HLA class II bearing lymphocytes (p < 0.01), but not higher numbers of dendritic cells.

The second study states:

Fibrinog

... (read more)

1NancyLebovitz11y

Frozen blood may not be good for decades Anyone have better information?

4gwern11y

Cryogenic banking does cost money; I know from sperm/egg banking that it'll run at least $100 a year. If you bank a bunch when you're 20 and need it when you're 50... Also, that's a lower bound; sperm and eggs are compact on a volume basis, but how much young blood would you need to bank to make a difference later in your life? Not to mention that you're paying up front. If there is anything to this research (it would not be the first spectacular results to flame out), it sounds like it may be due to a relative handful of substances in the young blood, and once identified, can be produced in a more efficient fashion than 'young people sucking blood out of themselves and storing for decades'. If in 10 years there's a standardized formula, the cost of extracting & storing your blood will be effectively wasted.

12

The guardian article on longevity research [link]

12

12

12

The guardian article on longevity research [link]

12

12