It is Entirely Reasonable to Consider That There Is No Limit to Human Life Span
The author of this commentary is entirely too enthusiastic about mTOR inhibitors as a tool to slow the aging process, but here he is largely focused on a different question. He argues (a) the sensible point that limits to aging and longevity are entirely determined by medical technology, and (b) the more debatable point that old people do not receive sufficient application of present forms of medical technology, and this is life-limiting. How much of the observed compression of morbidity of recent decades, meaning that people are living more healthy, functional years without an increase in overall life expectancy, is the rest of uneven application of incremental advances in medicine, where the younger old are treated but the older old are not?
My view of the existence of compression of morbidity has long been that some processes of aging must be largely unaffected by everything achieved to date in the field of medicine, while also only contributing greatly to mortality in very late life. So a process that is of little influence up to age 70, say, but which becomes increasingly harmful after that age. Transthyretin amyloidosis might be a candidate for that process, given the findings that it is a major cause of death in supercentenarians. Equally, more recent data is implicating it in heart disease in younger demographics, so perhaps it isn't.
As to the bigger picture: we are complex machines, and the more effort put into maintaining a machine, the longer it will remain in a good state, working and functional. There is nothing magical about aging, it is just damage and dysfunction. That we cannot sufficiently repair that damage or greatly influence the consequent dysfunction today does not mean that there is a limit to life span, set in stone. That limit will be changed tomorrow. Indeed, I would it expect to make a sizable leap upward as a result of the use of senolytic drugs in conjunction with other SENS-style approaches to rejuvenation, as they emerge from the labs and into clinical practice. If compression of morbidity continues in that environment, then it will mean that the research community has not yet targeted the most important forms of damage and dysfunction in the oldest of people.
No limit to maximal lifespan in humans: how to beat a 122-year-old record
Life expectancy is constantly rising and median lifespan is increasing but maximum lifespan is not. Although the number of centenarians (100 years old or older) is doubling every ten years, maximum longevity remains the same. The longest living person died in 1997 at the age of 122 and this record has not been beaten. It was suggested that longevity records cannot be overcome unless a scientific breakthrough in delaying aging would happen. First, such scientific breakthroughs are happening now and drugs that slow down aging are becoming available. Yet, these drugs have not yet been employed in a sufficient number of humans for a sufficiently long period of time to make demographic impact. This breakthrough will eventually break the lifespan record. However, such a breakthrough is not even necessary. A mere application of standard medical care to centenarians, as rigorously as to younger adults, would probably extend lifespan beyond 122, even without the need of a scientific breakthrough.
We will discuss here that an increase of average lifespan without maximal lifespan is happening because advanced medical interventions are available for everyone except the oldest old, exactly those who may live longer than 122, if treated. While a thirty-year old patient with heart disease may become a candidate for heart transplantation, it would be ridiculous even to mention heart transplantation for a supercentenarian. In other words, life-extending care is not available (usually with best intentions; in many cases, patients themselves do not want aggressive medical interventions) exclusively and specifically to those who can beat the 122 lifespan record. Furthermore, since their death certificates state "old age" instead of a specific disease, most centenarians do not receive treatment but even a diagnosis. As we will discuss, this explains why the 122 year record is not broken despite the absence of any biological constraints.
The lifespan of slowly aging centenarians can be extended by providing them adequate medical care. But can an average person beat the 122-year-old record? Currently, medical interventions extend lifespan mostly by extending morbidity span. By now several interventions were shown to increase healthspan and lifespan in animals. Hypothetically, these interventions may transform an average person into a slowly aging centenarian.
Rapamycin and everolimus are available to delay age-related diseases and increase health span in pets and humans. Rapamycin-based therapy may include medications such as metformin, aspirin, angiotensin-2 antagonists, PDE5 inhibitors, DHEA, melatonin and several others as well as fasting or low carb diets. In theory, anti-aging therapy may make an average human resemble centenarians, aging slower and developing diseases later. Due to anti-aging treatment, these centenarians will reach 100 in good health, just as genetic centenarians. These centenarians should seek thorough medical care, according to their lower biological age, not according to their chronological age. This, however, will require the revolution of policies, ethical standards and legal issues to ensure maximum longevity.
How does evolution create life and make it have weaknesses? The environment along with evolution wants us to get old and die or wouldn't evolution have stopped that?
How does the environment create a German shepherd to have long coarse hair and a long snout? What makes these decisions?
I would argue that the limits to aging and longevity are primarily determined by the amount of original biological innards that one insists on maintaining/ conserving as was provided at birth (as differing from any artificial upgrades and alterations installed) -and- the amount of time, money, and effort one wishes to 'spend in the shop' getting repaired and/or upgraded with each failure, deterioration, and system shortage -once interventions become available-. We can likely all agree that no one can live indefinitely on the systems we were installed with, irrespective of the foods, exercise, and ideal environmental conditions we can consistently expose ourselves to.
@Person12345
For the German shepherd it's all human semi-consciously doing the selection.
As for life as a whole, the evolution doesn't care about perfection just to be good enough to pass the genes to the next generation. Rabbits and mice are very fragile as individuals but quite successful as species.
@Jer
I would like a simple analogy. Let's say you have a CD or cassette player bought a coke decades ago. Chances are it is already defunct just because dinner rubber and plastic parts have degraded. We could keep the said player in perfect conditions but eventually the materials will degrade to crumbs and the only way to make it work again is by replacing the failed parts.
It just happens that the markers didn't care about be replayability. Like the modern smartphones where to replacing a specific part in the guts might be harder than producing a new device .
I tried once to replace a broken screen and failed miserably. And this is with a device which was designed by a human mind and readily available spare parts.
Humans are many orders of magnitude more complex and harder to repair with a very few lucky exceptions
As for the article, there's a very good reason very old people don't receive the same for of medical care as the younger ones. The risks of surviving are quite higher. There was a study that for men over 70 with prostate cancer it is better to leave it untreated. If there's more appetite for riskier interventions then we might indeed beat the lifespan record but at the cost of much earlier death of many centenarians.
It remains to be seen if increasing the health y years will really increae the lifespan of just compress the last decades. If we can achieve that it already be a huge success. Unfortunately it will take decades to have statistical data after the anti-aging treatments become widely available.
The oldest person alive is Kane Tanaka, born on Jan. 2, 1903. Almost 119 years old. So to beat the records she needs 2-3 years. The medical science has made some progress sucks 1997, so she has better chances. But if we just take the chances of surviving every year to be 50%, that means she has 1/8 chance to beat the records. Pure and meaningless statistics. We should care more about any age showdown or reversal passing clinical trials. Once there's one the industry will get funding and influx of minds and extra researchers with novel ideas.
Genesis 6:3
Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."
;p
Hi Cuberat! Just a 2 cents.
Increasing the healthy years (in the last decades) most likely will increase a bit/by only a few years or none; I would wager ballpark 10 years or less...thus, yes, it is kind of morbidity compression in those last 10 years around 110-130 range.
Transthyrethin kills supercentenarians (heart brownpigment/amyloid accumulation; related to Alzheimer's residue/amyloids/tau, same kind of pigment that accumulate in the body and then the organ is choked -even if it could still be young enough to continue working); many of them die of this...this means we absolutely have to remove this heart/body pigment to break the 130 lifespan barrier...
By 110...you have a lot in your heart...and it will stop you from living in the next 20 years...most likely, heart failure by amyloid choking/heart proteasome/lysosome choked/chock-full to dysfunction. Just like Alzheimer's...
With that said, the body has the capacity to remove clumped/protein aggragates like amyloids...it's just with age body (being too aged/dysfunctional) is overwhelmed/overcome...there is just too much of it by long accumulation; accumulation wins over removal in the end...accumulation vs removal (balance).
I think the only real way for supercentenarians to live above 130 is have their amyloid removed...otherwise it is nearly 100% impossible, because that is what the large majority will die of (before 130, if they were healthy all along with no diseases until the end). It's like the final step, when you don't die of anything (cancer,...etc)...you ''have'' to die 'of something' (not that we 'want that' (obviously)),,..that's the last one.
This is why the 'too late...is too late'...with very old people; it should be 'it's not too late..it's Never too late'...but, I am seeing (more and more (and, sadly, having to accept it/believe it)..that indeed it is too late. (there is a time for everything....and when you miss (a/the) time...it can be too late; because time does not wait after us; when you run out of time; it's time out/time over/game over).
-Unless.
It isn't, and that means removing these aggragates/amyloids/ceroid/lipofuscin...and tons of residues/crap that fill up our cells...but I'm not so sure/sold on that...there has been almost no advancement on that...like that'S worrying...
It means that it is not supercentenarians that will beat the 130...it's younger people; such as those in the 40-50 bracket...but, obviously, even more so, those in the 20-30 or younger bracket; the Younger it is Started, the better/longer this person will live - and it will allow them to beat the 130.
So many studies came to the conclusion that Earliest Life...had a Major Impact on Latest Life and whether you will get to 130 or not...meaning early decades are Extremely Deciding of what will happen Much later.
If you were Biologically Younger -the Whole Time - of Your Youth...you are already More Aligned to reach the 120 (because other people were 'older' than their chronological age - at all time points of their youth); so it's a bit like the Telomeres thing...
Supercentenarian offsprings or children from older fathers inherite Longer Telomeres at birth...this, Extra-Chunk of Life - Slapped on Your DNA....if you don't have that..welll you won't live as long as them, because yuo don'T have it on your dna...now, telomere studies have been ambiguous and conflictual...but there is a near consensus, having More of Them/Taller...helps...a lot. Than not. With that said, it's not the Length that (truly/in the end) matters...it's the Speed at which their shorten. Because mouse have 50Kbp telomeres (humans have 8-15Kbp telomeres), much taller than humans - but they lose telomeres at 1000-5000bp/year...while humans lose telomeres at 50pb/year rate/speed....
People that age faster Have a faster telomere attrition rate (that'S been proven). Or, at least, moments/bouts of 'accelerated erosion'...which the others that live longer are dampened...in essence, they keep the Slow Speed of erosion; no acceleration. It'S also about telomerase, humans that live longer have more telomerase - that Adds up telomere to counter the loss.
If you look at photos of Jeanne Calment at 20-40..you see the obvious, she was biologically younger - Looked, very young (like, she was 40, but had complexion of 20/looked half her age...very slow ager)...
The photos show something, that you need to 'post-pone' the whole aging/loss of your youth, the later it happens the better; she post-poned to the maximum/aged slower and was biologically younger - at all times - than her Chronological Age (Chrono vs Bio epiclock discrepancy) and though she came from a family of inherited longevity (her brother/sister lived to 90s also;thus they lived long 'in the family'; genetic longevity); but combined with her rich wealth/life - she could afford (herself) outstanding (health) care for Decades (costly)....this helped to maintain pristine health (from eating dark cocoa (polyphenols), to drinking red wine (resveratrol/transveratrols), lathering-it up in extra-virgin olive oil (MUFAs lower PI/reduce mito membrane damage) and maximize her (family) genetic longevity...when you are poor you are forced to the 'starvation diet'..it's like a good-and-bad situation...you starve (fasting) and do 'calorie restriction' just because you are starved (of food/calories). But, more bad, because though you avoid excess food or badfood (and thus, are Calorie Restricting diet); you cannot obtain the antiaging/supplements that protect you/your life -because no money/poor.
Money = HealthResources = Time = Lifespan... When you're rich you can afford the most expensive therapy to save your life/live longest.
Just a 2 cents.
PS: To end, I would say that to beat 122-130, it will be something that Relies on Earlier Youth...If we can't reverse the epiclock and remove the damages/aggregates at 100 years or so...if we can't remove them it's 99% certain the person dies before 130. if we Can remove them, then it is possible that a supercentenarian - could beat the 130 if their epiclock is reversed back to 90, 80 years old...'buying time'....
I think 140-150 will be reached but only by the young or unborn-yet children...who will age Much Slower - From the Start...of their life. Starting the therapy - at Year 0. (as baby). Just like a mouse, getting the therapy from Very Birth...us older people are 'starting in mid-life'..as adults...it will be weaker problably...(since we accumulated damage/resiudes already at our adult age). But, it's clear, that if we can't repair DNA damage, we cannot reverse the epiclock (all that much), we cannot refill out stemcell niches, we cannot stop telomeres from shrinking too low, we cannot remove the aggregates/detritus/residues...it's game over/never happening - about living over 130. These things, are required/essential/life-mandatory, to live over MLSP. (unless we find some hack/way to circumvent these problems...but that will be a long time before happening; they need to be fixed/addressed or else there is no Over 122-130...we will reach that same age as all supercentenarians in best shape....that die then...of, mostly, transthyretin accumulation taking a toll on the heart (maybe if we replaced our heart with a mechanical/Electronical heart..pump...it could replace the failiing/aged heart...but this has been a mixed bag; we will need better heart organ(oid)/pump - that Lasts (or can be replaced easily-enough (since it is Very invasive to have a heart replaced/you may die on the operation table while the heart replaced)...and does not break down over the years of use (like mechanical hearts do/fail at a point; it means we need 'organoid' biosynthetic hearts and organs; to replace our too-aged organs; in essence, it is the 'cyborg-ification' our body to live longer))).
PPS: forgot to mention - 3Kbp in 115 years old woman in her leukocytes telomeres - says it all..immunosenescence as you become supercentenarian...and your telomeres 'are running out'/emptied (telomere signal at low Kbp -> DDR -> p53 -> p21 -> replicative senescence) in immune system; no more immunity -> cancer, viral disease, bacteria taking over, uncontrolled inflammation/damage (immune system is linked to inflammation). telomeres will break down...so not only amyloid/aggregate/pigment accumulation,...
telomere too short also, at 120 (in immune system) - you 'spent' all your telomeres (length) (by 120) -- no more left.....cell/organ senescence. Thus, our telomeres (lenght) are the Other Limit that we have to overcome to beat 130.
PPPS: bacterias/cells are capable of 'integrating' oligonucleotides and TTAAGGGs Telomeres...so I think this could be a solution; 'having to take Telomeres/DNA...to refill our emptied telomeres' that could be the only solution; is making biosynthetic telomeric DNA ;and then, our body has to integrate them to our existing shortened telomeres (the body/cells are capable of that; otherwise, we would need to 'Assist' this 'lenghtening' to rebuild our short telomeres). It's theoretical, but probably the best (and only) real solution; since telomerase boosting is not enough and DNA repair has not been successful; nor DNA integration; we would need to hone 'telomere-integration/re-lenghtening'. Recently, there was some study (forgot which one) that verified the effect of some intervention...and the saw strong lengthening of Telomeres rapidly (I think it was with c-myc or some oncogenic method (danger of cancer of course));;..that gave me confidence that we will find a way to relenghten the critically short telomeres/telomeric DNA (TTAGGGs telomere repeats nucleotide loops) in supercentenarians.
True, there is no theoretical limit to human life span. But there is a practical limit. No government, company, or charitable organization has unlimited resources to spend on repairing old humans. So they / you / us must die. Complex human machine - permanently disassembled. Humans totally erased- as if they never existed - death is final.
I may compare it to space travel. The universe has unlimited resources. There is no theoretical limit how far humans can travel to get natural resources. But there are practical limits of technology, finances, scientific knowledge. So very few humans travel to space, and not very far - about 400 kilometers above earth's surface. While unlimited expanse of space remains inaccessible. And , therefore, all the talk and conferences how to save the only planet we have- save it from climate change, depletion of natural resource, from pollution caused by humans. Never mind that there are more than 4000 discovered planets near other stars. - they are all inaccessible by primitive human space travel technology.
We - humans must be practical about it and stop dreaming of endless, eternal, unlimited -
Life, travel, riches, population, and anything else. No matter how long you live - a hundred years or a trillion years- it would seem like only yesterday compared to eternity.
@CANanonymity
I wouldn't bet on the current centenarians since they are not getting any new treatments. At least nothing that reverses or slows down aging. I would say that improving the healthspan is much more important than some record setting. I am 46 and in the last few years i started noticing health deterioration across the board. Far from disability yet, but if this deterioration goes at the same rate (might be just it has suddenly become noticeable ) i might not even make it to 65. So, for me having healthspan is much more valuable than the max span. If I can be relatively disease and disability free well into my 90s , I would still be quite happy and grateful. Of course, if once I am in good shape in my 90s, why not have a couple of more decades. On the other hand if i was 75 all sick and possibly disabled, then i wouldn't care much to live a few extra miserable years.
All this is said from benefit POV . As for what is theoretically possible, well there's not a hard law of physics precluding us from having prefect regeneration and repair. It is just a very hard engineering problem. We even have examples of animals able to do it. Even human fetuses possess those abilities at some point in live.
At some point of scientific development it is inevitable that the human body could be perfectly repaired. The question is when. And the immediate question from personal POV is how to have a good enough repair to last till then. Will it take a couple of decades to have the first meaningful treatments , 50 years or by the end of the century.
We don't have Drexler's nanomachines, which could repair each cell individually. They might turn out impossible. But we have an example of "wetware" nanobots. The living cells and bacteria. Conceptually it is not hard to envision cultured cells which can go to any part of the body. Do some cleanup, form a supportive matrix and deposit tissue-specific stem cells with the needed factors. This approach can fix any tissue but the human brain, if we want to keep the same person. There are some cool developments for that too. However, even if we never succeed repairing the brain with memory preservation, we still can keep everything else in perfect shape. That could easily help it leave some 200-400 years.
So such nanomachines are one of the ultimate solution to aging. However, that is like discussing how build space settlements when you don't even have a heavier than air flying machine. We are now at the stage before Wright Brothers.
PPPPS:
Re Cuberat And that is also the problem...It took *decades/whole next century* to perfect things and make the air flying machine - an airplane as it is today..
That is what is more concerning, it could take anywhere from 50 - to - 100 years to make true biorejuvenation that reverses/repairs aging and allows you LEV or at the worst..gives you better/longer health span (but not Maximal specie longevity extension above human MLSP).
LEV is (will be) becomes a pipe dream if we don't fix the issues in the next decades.
''we can settle with longer healthy lifespan''.
Yes, we can *settle...for that...and sadly that is what is happening (almost in 'abandon/we give up - we are defeated/fail non-stop/aging is undefeatable..Fin.') in the biogerontological domain and that Reason is going against by saying : ''stop settling for - just that...(you know, small micro gains - yes we hope 'small gains/baby steps one at time' is better than none...but later it has To Grow/Up) - aim Higher (or else, fall back down with weak longevity results that are just about improving health...that'S it)''.
IT'S as if we -Have to Be Needy, Annoying, Pest and Ask-y, Asking, ask ask ask...'The Moon. Because that'S what was needed when later after Wright Brothers - USA went to the moon (space shuttle, after their air plane made),
Defeating Aging - IS a 'Moon Shot. Ultra-Far ----Flung and Far -Fetched. There is Nothing like it.
(Moon far from Earth/distance between the 2 is a 'Space Gulf' we must cross and not sink in).
And ASKs/Needs/Requires it. No matter how far fetched it is; because if we simply say :''far fetched joke/pipedream/deluded/...be real. -it's impossible, (at least, in our lifetime)''...
well, then, it will never happen. If people keep saying NO. Inventions that were invented - but were Refused by the population - Went To Sleep/Dead...that is worrying, is inventing LEV for example. and people say : NO LEV...don't want. Like...as I was saying ''free eternal life, on a silver plate tomorrow, - and spitting on it''.
The saying (is) : ''Make the impossible, Possible''. ''You're so full of it and you are a fool deluding yourself with des idées de grandeur''.
If we continue to say it is impossible and useless/''just forget it''/abandon/give up already... ...then, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy (placebo effect/selfconditioned) - you think it will not happen, ever (and Believe that - Hard/repeat yourself that on and on) ------> then, it will not.
Because. People 'catch' the drift and vibe of others - us being skeptic or negative about it...are hurting the chances (for funding/ventures/risk reduction/advancement of the field).
What people say .. - affects - the biogerontology domain Directly and Indirectly --- Clearly.
If people say : ''useless...we die anyway...don't bother''....then, trust me, this will have Ripple effets down the chain..of people that Work and Make the BioTherapies themselves...
Especially when Many many many,, people Repeat that ad vitam eternam...like 2 Billion people are saying : ''We Want To Die...because no other way...so forget it''.
How do you stop the 'impact' of 2 billion people saying the negative fatalistic thing about rejuvenation..you can't. A tidal wave/tsunami majority... 'had decided the fate of all humans'...
Only through advocating/reaching/educating (as like Reason's doing/fightaging.org website/he does with non-stop belief - to change the belief -of 'there is nothing we can do - we die. soon. period'. ''stop fighting (it). stop believing (it)/deluding yourself. stop being selfish teenager waanabe-living forever. stop. just stop. give up and accept death/accept it.we all die 1 day (before/at 120).''
IT is becoming (yet again) a competitive vs cooperative problem; an Altruistic vs Individualistic problem....
Altruism (the Lives of All) vs Individualism (My Life).
Many people may say, we altruistically/ethically/morally - die (do the right thing to not consume the earht'S resources)...we die - For Others. Thus, you can't Individualistiacally - Decide of Your Own/sole Life/body...since you Have to Die - For Others.
You can't Individualistically, decide : ''It's my body, my life, no one else lives in me (than me)..yes, I live in Society - with the Others...and we do 'fair accomodation' to find middle-ground...but they want me to Die - For Them - because I Have To?...for Common Good....the Continuation of the Death/Fatalistic March of All People..and I have to die...because I am just 1 person that CAn't decide for my own life - Others Decide For Me/My Body...if I live 122 years..it'S too long, I've lived too long, the gov wants me dead and so do these people...because I should Not be living above 122... I am an 'expense' to the gov..(health cares costs)....thus it is better I die and be replaced..'
see...easy fix...'just die for the others''.
The people will rage at you the repeated phrase ; ''You are being selfish and just thinking of your own individual/self...not the society in entirety...thus, you can't live int his cooperating society...u are not cooperating with This Societyy - That Asks You - To Die - For It...''.
Then, I guess I will not stay any longer in this society that COERCES (life right) to death (non-right). It's the old ''pro-life vs con-life'' ''pro-abortion vs con-abortion''...debate...SAme Thing for 'living forever'...everything is seen thruogh the financial monetary/capitalism lens...which is 'how much does it cost to keep you alive (vs not)'. Govs wil want to decide of how long you live/how costly you cost - to live...if too much, you need to die - thefore - incompatibility wiht Biorejuvenation quest/goal...of LEV/eternal life...
''we'll accept better health for 120... ...but Don't live forever....u can't/we decided so - of u and your life-span''
TSSssk (/S).
@Nicholas
Hi Nicholas! Just a 2 cents....pls read what I just wrote to Cuberat. I understand the concerns you brought (mostly. 99% all ethical concerns...as always; and yes, ethical/moral society is important, evidently..to have a functioning society)...it's just that, currently, we are experiencing this altruism vs individualism on An Unseen Scale yet...and will worsen - because many people will fight back..it's the vaxxed vs unvaxxed debate...con vs pro...life vs death...money vs no money...poor vs rich...ugly vs beautiful..that kind of thing. and when you talk about the Human Life of Someon LIVING ALive...then they may commit the worse sin (homicide) to protect their life...If Others Forced them to die. Such as wishing UNVAXXED covid 19 people - To die...because they did not contribute to the Society (to protect against virus transmission...they ahve their reason why they did not...people scream at them ''die...f&%?%ss!....of covid and don't touch me/give me covid...because of your selfishness and not 'cooperating' like the 99% of Vaxxed people that took the vaccine against Covid Spread'....see once more, a us vs them, me vs everyone else, thing problem....altruism vs individualism yet again. And capitalism is individualism, mostly, 'the self gain/rich to 1 rich person while all others are poor'...so it's a resource prob (money is the cause of this life/death problem; by putting a Price On Life - we kill; it's the old 'slavery thing: 'how much is a slave/human to be worth/paid for to obtain'...just like buying dog, animal/pet...you name it..a price tag on it...human life No Price Tag on it.). Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself, it's jsuit worrying athat peolpe just are sayingh : ''hey, it'S not worth it...earth overpopulation, earth resource drought...fatalism...we die...old people...Need - Have to Die...and be replaced...''.
That is the Practical reasoning as you said...but it is not faultless...we work on money/govs....economy...in capitalism/rich countries...we have to change that. Or else, we condemn (by (somewhat) own idiocy) ourselves, to (assured) death. It's like a pot of gold or a desert mirage....this mirage...is not a mirage it's a Reality..we just have not attained/reached yet.But we will, but We Won't if we continue with the fatalistic human mind - ''we die.''.
Just a 2 cents.
Can't say lipofuscin/ drusen / amyloid / cannot be reversed.
See: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/759425
Human eye allows direct observation of what is going on inside the body. One doctor reports directly observable reversal of lipofuscin and oxysterols (drusen) from the retina with use of polyphenols as mineral chelators. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19932443/