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.
I'm betting YES on this mostly on the basis that this has already been shown in general to be the case for at least three treatments: exercise (arbitrarily excluded by the question rules), interventions to encourage quitting smoking and to quit drinking. I'm not sure that either of them have a trial that exactly meets the standards given in the question above - it looks like over 65s have lower smoking rates than under 65s (I suspect because "quitting smoking" is such an effective treatment at extending lifespan), so unlike for some under 65 cohorts it doesn't qualify.
For drinking perhaps one of the studies citied in this meta analysis qualifies, I haven't been through them carefully. I'm pretty confident that if a study like the one proposed here was performed it would meet the requirements. Maybe a smaller one already has been and someone will dig it up!
If I'm reading the rules correctly then basically any new drug that is not a close analog of an existing one, and is effective at tackling at least one of weight, diabetes, or blood pressure/cardiovascular disease would qualify as long as there was an RCT that showed this was the case (would an RCT that showed it had a positive effect for the target population and was safe otherwise count? The effect averaged over the whole population still be positive even if no medical system would actually give it to everyone).
Given how many existing drugs target these conditions, I expect a new one to appear over the next 5 years.
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
I guess the intention is more like "can you take a pill that makes you live longer" but it still seems vague. I suspect "giving up alcohol" already meets the condtions. Ironically the over 65 clause prevents "stop smoking" from counting according to the figures here.
@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.)