This question resolves YES if, before 2030, there is at least one randomized controlled trial showing that any treatment lowers all-cause mortality or extends lifespan in the general population. Otherwise, it resolves NO.
The study must be a randomized controlled trial. It cannot be an observational or correlational study, or a study done in vitro or in silico.
The results of the study must be published so they are generally available, and the study must be widely agreed to be non-fraudulent (although details of interpretation may differ).
At least 10% of Americans over the age of 65 must be reasonably eligible for the treatment. Eg., if a new drug is discovered which cures pancreatic cancer, it would extend the life of cancer patients, but would not affect the general public.
If the study is on a treatment which is FDA approved as of 2023 (eg. insulin for diabetes, semaglutide for weight loss, beta blockers for high blood pressure), or a close analog, it must extend lifespan outside the group it is approved for. So, eg., giving metformin to diabetics does not count, but if metformin extended lifespan among people without diabetes, that would count.
Widely used forms of exercise (eg. weightlifting, running) do not count.
Related questions
I don't love how this doesn't have quality standards for the RCT, there are plenty of bad RCTs, eg consider the ivmmeta thing.
study must be widely agreed to be non-fraudulent (although details of interpretation may differ).
Most bad studies aren't fraudulent, because that implies manipulation or malicious intent, they're just bad and don't do what they claim to do
@agucova Any effect size counts, as long as the trial clearly shows that it actually exists. (In practice, very small effect sizes would be impossible to show in this way, because the sample size goes as the inverse square of the effect size. So a treatment which extended life one week would be impossible to prove, because you'd need zillions of people.)