The description wants a solution that stops all natural causes of death and could in principle let someone live forever, so it helps to list what the next 25 years can even measure. The best replicated mammalian result is rapamycin, 23 to 26% more median lifespan in mice at the top ITP dose (Miller 2014). Nothing has moved lifespan in a controlled trial in any mammal outside a laboratory; the first such results arrive from pet dogs around 2029 to 2031 (TRIAD with rapamycin, Loyal's STAY study). The human mortality hazard after 105 is flat at roughly 50% a year (Barbi et al., Science 2018) and no intervention has been shown to lower it. A cure in the description's sense is a hazard of zero at every age, which is not a larger version of any of those results but a different kind of claim. Seventy-four years is a long time, but a human cohort takes about 21 years from enrolment at 65 to median death, so a 2100 cure would have to be demonstrated on people treated by the 2070s, with dog and mouse results pointing the way by the 2030s. The evidence path supports something like a drug adds a few years by 2050 far better than death from aging stops by 2100, and 60% is a vote rather than a forecast. The first measured step, and why it comes from dogs (mine): https://w0lph.github.io/k9/why-dogs.html?v=2

I don't bet on these markets because while I think that a cure for "aging" will be achieved within ten years, the disease itself is actually a collection of many other diseases.

In 10 years, we'll see "aging" as a number of things, like protein aggregation, telomere shortening, and so on, each of which causes specific symptoms and each of which is cured differently. There's no single pill that will cure all of them, and also nobody has ever died of "aging" as a single cause.

If all biological humans are dead does this count as stopping all natural causes of death?

@TimothyCurrie
please add to Life Extension