A Skeptic Over Coffee: Young Blood Part Duh

Does this cloudy liquid hold the secret to vitality in your first 100 years and beyond? I can’t say for sure that it doesn’t. What I can say is that I would happily sell it to you for $8,000.

Next time someone tries to charge you a premium to intravenously imbibe someone else’s blood plasma, you have my permission to tell them no thanks. Unless there’s a chance that it is fake, then it might be worth doing.

Californian company Ambrosia LLC has been making the rounds in publications like the New Scientist hype-machine to promote claims that their plasma transfusions show efficacy at treating symptomatic biomarkers of aging. Set up primarily to exploit rich people by exploiting younger, poorer people on the off chance that the Precious Bodily Fluids of the latter will invigorate the former, the small biotech firm performed a tiny study of over-35s receiving blood plasma transfusions from younger people. It’s listed on clinicaltrials.gov and everything.

First of all, to determine the efficacy of a treatment it’s important that both the doctors and the patients are blinded to whether they are administering/being administered the active therapeutic. That goes all the way up the line from the responsible physician to the phlebotomist to the statistician analyzing the data. But to blind patients and researchers the study must include a control group receiving a placebo treatment, which in this case there was not. So it’s got that going for it.

To be fair, this isn’t actually bad science. For that to be true, it would have to be actual science. Not only does a study like this require a control to account for any placebo effect*, but the changes reported for the various biomarkers may be well within common fluctuations.

Finally, remember that if you assess 20 biomarkers with the common confidence cutoff of p=0.05, chances are one of the twenty will show a statistical difference from baseline. That is the definition of a p-value at that level: a 1 in 20 chance of a difference being down to random chance. Quartz reports the Ambrosia study looked at about 100 different biomarkers and mentions positive changes in 3 of them. I don’t know if they performed statistical tests at a cutoff level of 0.05, but if so you should expect on average 5 of 100 biomarkers in a screen to show a statistical difference. This isn’t the first case of questionable statistics selling fountain of youth concepts.

All of this is not to say that the experiments disprove the positive effects of shooting up teenage PBFs. It also generated zero conclusive evidence against the presence of a large population of English teapots in erratic orbits around Saturn.

You could conclude by saying “more scientific investigation is warranted” but that would imply the work so far was science.

* The placebo effect can even apply to as seemingly objective a treatment as surgery. Take this 2013 study that found no statistical difference in the outcomes of patients with knee problems treated with either arthroscopic surgery or a surgeon pretending to perform the surgery.


A skeptic over coffee: who owns you your data?


“Everyone Belongs to Everyone Else”

-mnemomic marketing from Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World

A collaboration between mail-order genomics company 23andMe and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer reported 15 novel genes linked to depression in a genome-wide association study published in Nature. The substantial 23andMe user base and relative prevalence of the mental illness provided the numbers necessary to find correlations between a collection of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and the condition.

This is a gentle reminder that even when the service isn’t free, you very well may be the product. It’s not just Google and Facebook whose business plans hinge on user data. From 23andMe’s massive database of user genetic information to Tesla’s fleet learning Autopilot (and many more subtle examples that don’t make headlines), you’re bound to be the input to a machine learning algorithm somewhere.

On the one hand, it’s nice to feel secure in a little privacy now and again. On the other, blissful technological utopia? If only the tradeoffs were so clear. Note that some (including bearded mo. bio. maestro George Church) say that privacy is a thing of the past, and that openness is the key (the 23andMe study participants consented that their data be used for research). We’ve known for a while that it’s possible to infer the sources of anonymous genome data from publicly available metadata.

The data of the every person are fueling the biggest changes of our time in transportation, technology, healthcare and commerce, and there’s a buck (or a trillion) to be made there. It remains to be seen if the benefits will mainly be consolidated by those who already control large pieces of the pie or to fall largely to the multitudes making up the crust (with plenty of opportunities for crumb-snatchers). On the bright side, if your data make up a large enough portion of machine learning inputs for the programs that eventually coalesce into an omnipotent AI, maybe there’ll be a bit of you in the next generation superorganism.