Elizabeth Parrish

You are currently browsing articles tagged Elizabeth Parrish.

journalistcar (1)

Here are 50 ungated pieces of wonderful journalism from 2015, alphabetized by author name, which made me consider something new or reconsider old beliefs or just delighted me. (Some selections are from gated publications that allow a number of free articles per month.) If your excellent work isn’t on the list, that’s more my fault than yours.

  • Who Runs the Streets of New Orleans?” (David Amsden, The New York Times Magazine) As private and public sector missions increasingly overlap, here’s an engaging look at the privatization of some policing in the French Quarter.
  • In the Beginning” (Ross Andersen, Aeon) A bold and epic essay about the elusive search for the origins of the universe.
  • Ask Me Anything (Anonymous, Reddit) A 92-year-old German woman who was born into Nazism (and participated in it) sadly absolves herself of all blame while answering questions about that horrible time.
  • Rethinking Extinction” (Stewart Brand, Aeon) The Whole Earth Catalog founder thinks the chance of climate-change catastrophe overrated, arguing we should utilize biotech to repopulate dwindling species.
  • Anchorman: The Legend of Don Lemon” (Taffy Brodesser-Akner, GQ) A deeply entertaining look into the perplexing facehole of Jeff Zucker’s most gormless word-sayer and, by extension, the larger cable-news zeitgeist.
  • How Social Media Is Ruining Politics(Nicholas Carr, Politico) A lament that our shiny new tools have provided provocative trolls far more credibility than a centralized media ever allowed for.
  • Clans of the Cathode” (Tom Carson, The Baffler) One of our best culture critics looks at the meaning of various American sitcom families through the medium’s history.
  • The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration” (Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic) The author examines the tragedy of the African-American community being turned into a penal colony, explaining the origins of the catastrophic policy failure.
  • Perfect Genetic Knowledge” (Dawn Field, Aeon) The essayist thinks about a future in which we’ve achieved “perfect knowledge” of whole-planet genetics.
  • A Strangely Funny Russian Genius” (Ian Frazier, The New York Review of Books) Daniil Kharms was a very funny writer, if you appreciate slapstick that ends in a body count.
  • Tomorrow’s Advance Man” (Tad Friend, The New Yorker) Profile of Silicon Valley strongman Marc Andreessen and his milieu, an enchanted land in which adults dream of riding unicorns.
  • Build-a-Brain” (Michael Graziano, Aeon) The neuroscientist’s ambitious thought experiment about machine intelligence is a piece I thought about continuously throughout the year.
  • Ask Me Anything (Stephen Hawking, Reddit) Among other things, the physicist warns that the real threat of superintelligent machines isn’t malice but relentless competence.
  • Engineering Humans for War” (Annie Jacobsen, The Atlantic) War is inhuman, it’s been said, and the Pentagon wants to make it more so by employing bleeding-edge biology and technology to create super soldiers.
  • The Wrong Head” (Mike Jay, London Review of Books) A look at insanity in 1840s France, which demonstrates that mental illness is often expressed in terms of the era in which it’s experienced.
  • Death Is Optional” (Daniel Kahneman and Noah Yuval Harari, Edge) Two of my favorite big thinkers discuss the road ahead, a highly automated tomorrow in which medicine, even mortality, may not be an egalitarian affair.
  • Where the Bodies Are Buried,” (Patrick Radden Keefe, The New Yorker) Ceasefires, even treaties, don’t completely conclude wars, as evidenced by this haunting revisitation of the heartbreaking IRA era.
  • Porntopia” (Molly Lambert, Grantland) The annual Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, the Oscars of oral, allows the writer to look into a funhouse-mirror reflection of America.
  • The Robots Are Coming” (John Lanchester, London Review of Books) A remarkably lucid explanation of how quickly AI may remake our lives and labor in the coming decades.
  • Last Girl in Larchmont” (Emily Nussbaum, The New Yorker) The great TV critic provides a postmortem of Joan Rivers and her singular (and sometimes disquieting) brand of feminism.
  • “President Obama & Marilynne Robinson: A Conversation, Part 1 & Part 2” (Barack Obama and Marilynne Robinson, New York Review of Books) Two monumental Americans discuss the state of the novel and the state of the union.
  • Ask Me Anything (Elizabeth Parrish, Reddit) The CEO of BioViva announces she’s patient zero for the company’s experimental age-reversing gene therapies. Strangest thing I read all year.
  • Why Alien Life Will Be Robotic” (Sir Martin Rees, Nautilus) The astronomer argues that ETs in our inhospitable universe have likely already transitioned into conscious machines.
  • Ask Me Anything (Anders Sandberg, Reddit) Heady conversation about existential risks, Transhumanism, economics, space travel and future technologies conducted by the Oxford researcher. 
  • Alien Rights” (Lizzie Wade, Aeon) Manifest Destiny will, sooner or later, became a space odyssey. What ethics should govern exploration of the final frontier?
  • Peeling Back the Layers of a Born Salesman’s Life” (Michael Wilson, The New York Times) The paper’s gifted crime writer pens a posthumous profile of a protean con man, a Zelig on the make who crossed paths with Abbie Hoffman, Otto Preminger and Annie Leibovitz, among others.
  • The Pop Star and the Prophet” (Sam York, BBC Magazine) Philosopher Jacques Attali, who predicted, back in the ’70s, the downfall of the music business, tells the writer he now foresees similar turbulence for manufacturing.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

astronauts1231 (2)

recent post concerned Liz Parrish, the BioViva CEO, who surprisingly announced herself as patient zero for the company’s experimental youth-restoring gene therapies, a move whose specifics are shrouded in secrecy. This treatment will not be cheap and widely available in three years, despite what the firm says, but many other questions are left unanswered. Antonio Regalado of Technology Review looks into the turbulent aftermath of the shocking proclamation. An excerpt:

Elizabeth Parrish, the 44-year-old CEO of a biotechnology startup called BioViva, says she underwent a gene therapy at an undisclosed location overseas last month, a first step in what she says is a plan to develop treatments for ravages of old age like Alzheimer’s and muscle loss. “I am patient zero,” she declared during a Q&A on the website Reddit on Sunday. “I have aging as a disease.”

Since last week, MIT Technology Review has attempted to independently verify the accuracy of Parrish’s claims, particularly how she obtained the genetic therapy. While many key details could not be confirmed, people involved with her company said the medical procedure took place September 15 in Colombia.

The experiment seems likely to be remembered as either a new low in medical quackery or, perhaps, the unlikely start of an era in which people receive genetic modifications not just to treat disease, but to reverse aging. It also raises ethical questions about how quickly such treatments should be tested in people and whether they ought to be developed outside the scrutiny of regulators. The field of anti-aging research is known for attracting a mix of serious scientists, vitamin entrepreneurs, futurists, and cranks peddling various paths to immortality, including brain freezing.

Parrish’s assertions set off a scramble among members of her company’s scientific advisory board to understand what had occurred. •

Tags: ,

Remember Sy Sperling, who wasn’t only the President of Hair Club for Men, the rug company, but also a client? Elizabeth Parrish is reportedly the Sy Sperling of gene therapy, a significantly bolder endeavor.

The CEO of BioViva says she’s volunteered herself as Patient Zero, the first to receive the company’s experimental, regenerative daily injections to reverse aging. Parrish is a completely healthy 44-year-old person, apart from gradually dying like the rest of us. I’m highly skeptical, of course, that such therapies will be successful, widely available and affordable in a handful of years–or at any point in the foreseeable future–though if our species survives long enough, I think they’ll become reality and make our current state of medicine seem as barbaric to future people as surgery sans anesthesia is to us.

In a Reddit AMA, Parrish was unsurprisingly asked many questions about the cosmetic aspect of the research (regrowing hair lost to baldness, looking younger, etc.), but the paramount goal is clearly longer and healthier lives. A few exchanges follow.

_____________________________

Question:

  1. What criteria did you use in picking patient zero? How old were they? Did they have any medical conditions which would be fixed by age reversal?
  2. Suppose you’ve proven to have cured aging with this first patient. How soon before I’m cured also?
  3. How soon will you be confident enough that your treatment is working? At the one year mark? The full 8 years?
  4. In the talk that you gave in May, you said that it is your wish to distribute this cure for free. How will you and your team accomplish that?

Elizabeth Parrish:

  1. I am patient zero. I will be 45 in January. I have aging as a disease.
  2. We are working as hard as we can to bring it to the world as quickly and safely as possible.
  3. We will will evaluate monthly and within 12 months we will have more data.
  4. We will work with governments and insurance providers.

Question:

Are you patient zero because it would be unethical to ask someone else to be patient zero? Because it seems to me that the researcher shouldn’t be the patient unless there’s no other option.

Elizabeth Parrish:

It was the only ethical choice. I am happy to step up. I do feel we can use these therapies in compassionate care scenarios now but we will have to work them back into healthier people as we see they work as preventive medicine.

Question:

How do you feel about being patient zero? Are you apprehensive at all?

Elizabeth Parrish:

I am happy to be patient zero. It is for the world, for the sick children and sick old people. My life has been good. I understand the risks but I research how people die and I am happy to say that today I do not know how I will die now. Tomorrow or in the long future I was up for a change.

_____________________________

Question:

Can you control the aging reversal to determine a prefered age?

Elizabeth Parrish:

We cannot control the aging reversal to a specific year today, that will come in the future. It is hypothesized that you will not reverse in physical appearance to less than a young adult. We see this in mice as well.

_____________________________

Question:

I have only read titles about anti-aging therapy and don’t really know what it’s all about. What are the actual expected results in layman terms? Does a 50 year old individual start looking younger, regaining muscle growth potential, higher testosterone levels, etc or does it just influence a subset of factors?

Elizabeth Parrish:

If you don’t look younger we have failed. Aging is one of the most visual diseases on the planet and includes things that we all know like wrinkles and grey hair, but also brain atrophy, muscle wasting and organ damage.

_____________________________

Question:

How did you administer the treatment? Injection? Where? How many?

Elizabeth Parrish:

Doctors do it by injections in various parts of the body.

_____________________________

Question:

What are your thoughts on accessibility to anti-aging therapy and what is BioViva doing to ensure ethical and fair access to it’s tech?

Elizabeth Parrish:

Our goal is to build laboratories that will have the mission of a cGMP product at a reduced cost. Gene therapy technology is much like computing technology. We had to build the super computer which cost $8 million in 1960. Now everyone has technologies that work predictably and at a cost the average person can afford. We need to do the same with these therapies. What you will get in 3-5 years will be vastly more predictable and effective that what we are doing today and at a cost you or your insurance can cover.

_____________________________

Question:

When do you think an ageing treatment will be available to the general public?

Elizabeth Parrish:

If the results are good we hope to have something to the general public, that is cost acceptable, in 3-5 years.•

 

Tags: