I have other retina permanently damaged, and suffer from double vision when looking small objects like text.
Cancer is a sensible answer.
It looks like one of the optimization edges walked by evolution is a conflict between longevity and the ability to repair and regenerate versus not getting cancer.
It’s easy to make human cell lines immortal, but that will kill you.
One route I can imagine to radical life extension is to start by editing the genome to introduce much more robust but different anti cancer adaptations. Then start turning regenerative stuff and things like telomerase back on.
This short video talks about telomere-snipping transcription factors that make seemingly-dead cells revert to normal or even to stem cells, but the factors only act when under artificially-maintained conditions:
Until today, it recovered completely
Besides the blood getting everywhere and needing superglue to stop it, it grew back completely fine.
For His own mysterious reasons, He simply doesn’t go in for that stuff, however much intercessionary prayer ends up in His inbox.
I think this is what all healers used. They were all way ahead of their time and clearly misunderstood.
(Probably for a good reason)
Like the way slime molds solve mazes: explore every possible path in parallel, and push growth in all areas with greater nutrient gradients. Not by sensing any gestalt clues, like symmetries in the maze design.
Astoundingly stupidly smart.
Found it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7354458.stm
Dude's brother had him throw his product on the finger as it did so, definitely an astute marketing trick. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/01/finger.claim
To be fair, the person being skeptical is just a surgeon, this is not a peer-reviewed study or anything actually scientific.
Your NPR link even shows that scientists realize there are still unknowns:
> "We think that nail stem cells may a have a special function to induce the whole regeneration process, including nerve attraction and growth of the bone," Ito say.
A cursory search seems to say that typical regrowth of a nail takes 4-6 months, but Spievak claimed his only took 4 weeks.
Can we say definitively that his "pixie dust" had nothing to do with it? I don't think so. Can we say it did have something to do with it? Also unknown... but the answer right now IMO certainly isn't a scientific "no."
https://as.tufts.edu/biology/tufts-center-regenerative-and-d...
In a frog they were able to grow legit eyes in the gut just by artificialy inducing a certain voltage in that area. No need for any cell transplantations: the voltage really seems to be the only signal needed.
This might also be how it might be done in the future in humans: block scar tissue then induce voltage with the signature of the organ you wish to regrow.
