First, thanks for the skepticism and the honest questions. I know this to be a topic with two sides. I've presented both sides fully in a much longer piece previously (link below). When new research comes out, I take an incremental approach to covering it, as I did in this latest article, and I refer back to the previous long feature for anyone who wants a fuller picture.

I don't come at this topic based on any belief I might hold. I research and understand both sides, and my view of the facts and the current state of the research is that despite much investment of time and energy into extending human lifespans, the data is clear: There's been no tangible, actual progress. Yes, there's been progress in the understanding of what could be done, but not in how long humans CAN live. (The main progress that's been made has been on how long humans DO live, ON AVERAGE, and that is leveling off, because the progress has been on treating or preventing disease, not "curing" or stalling aging itself).

So that's how I approach the topic when I see new research that adds to the discussion.

Thing is, terms like "anti-aging" and "reverse aging" are misleading, and those who promote the idea are often also hawking unproven products (for profit) or their claims lead people to take unproven supplements or try radical diets or therapies whose ultimate effects are not well-studied. There is no ability to stop or reverse aging for humans right now. Yet proponents get plenty of free ink on their research or their outsized claims on podcasts, which collectively foster a false promise as it relates to what's possible today.

Sure, I have an opinion on the matter: I doubt that you and I are not going to outlive our current natural lifespans. Maybe in the future, lifespans will be extended, incrementally (meaning someone will live to be 123, or 125, or possibly 130). But suggesting to today's adults that this pill or that potion or procedure might help them outlive their natural lifespan, or live longer than anyone who's ever lived before, is meritless.

And for the record, I never write primarily for the income. If money were my goal, I'd still be working in mainstream media, drawing a nifty salary while editing the writing of others or sitting in a C-suite, which I've done. I'm pretired now, and I write because I love to write and I love to explain science. There's not enough money to be made on Medium to be its own reward, and writing any given article with money as the goal is a dead-end approach to writing. I write to serve readers, and always have.

Hope that helps answer your questions! Here's the longer story I wrote on longevity last year: https://medium.com/wise-well/the-science-of-living-forever-or-a-really-really-long-time-956e48e606c1