You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

FrameBenignly comments on The guardian article on longevity research [link] - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: ike 11 January 2015 07:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (27)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: FrameBenignly 13 January 2015 06:08:35AM 0 points [-]

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:

Fibrinogen activity and mass-length ratio, compaction and fibrin content of the clots made from frozen plasma were, however, all significantly affected by freezing. Mass-length ratio and compaction showed a linear decrease and fibrin content a linear increase over a 4-month frozen storage period, thereby indicating that these variables were probably not stable.

Those are just two such studies; one of red blood cells, the other of plasma. I'm not sure if those chemical changes are important for something like lifespan or reducing alzheimer's, but I would expect a person of the same blood type would be far superior to blood that's been frozen for 30 years.

Comment author: ike 13 January 2015 06:52:19AM *  0 points [-]

So it's possible to store blood for at least 21 days without freezing it. Use that, then. My point stands.