Checking this talk, https://youtu.be/Pci91mxqAkg?feature=shared&t=1230 , at 20:30 he shows two graphs illustrating the survival rate of his 1000 mice, one graph for males and one for females. To paraphrase what he explains himself, the thick red stepped line (“curve”) is the survival rate of mice that have taken all of the 4 chosen treatments, while the thick blue stepped line is the survival rate of mice that have taken none of the treatments.
For the laymen: to understand the graphs, basically the X axis is the days passed while the Y axis is the percentage of the mice still alive.
Here’s a screencap of the graphs from the 4K version of the video:
Males graph
Females graph
We can see that for Males, about 5% of the no-treatment group is still alive, while all-treatments group is at around 27-28%. That seems impressive to me.
For Females, none of the no-treatment group is still alive, while all-treatments group is is at around 25%. This also seems impressive.
Yet I can’t stop feeling like both in this talk and earlier interviews in the last few months Aubrey doesn’t seem that happy with the way things are going?
Maybe it has to do with how Rapamycin-only group (the group with zero damage repair treatment) is pretty much at the same level as the All-treatment group for Females? But then I’d say that even dramatically increasing the survival rate of one of the sexes would be impressive by itself.
Am I missing something in the graph, or likely misunderstanding Aubrey?
Thanks