First of all, thanks for your thanks.

“Did you see that TA-65, the telomerase activating chemical, got awarded a patent recently? Apparently, the staff has been taking it for four years now with measured improvements in telomere length and various improvements in health markers. Unfortunately, the cost is a substantial barrier for most people. Testing and the various supplements would exceed $1,000 per month.”

I have long knew about the patent – it gives what the substance is away, and have been following them. In terms of published research on TA-65, as far as I know there is only one published paper which does not sustain most of the claims made by the company. As to health markers in the staff, I have not been following that.

“I have been following Sirtris’s work for some time. I am excited by the potential for resveratrol and the drugs that might be developed from that molecular base. It is my understanding that Sirtris Pharmaceutical is working on formulas that are thousands of times more potent than straight resveratrol.

“I have been following Sirtris’s work for some time. I am excited by the potential for resveratrol and the drugs that might be developed from that molecular base. It is my understanding that Sirtris Pharmaceutical is working on formulas that are thousands of times more potent than straight resveratrol.”

That is my understanding too. However it is not at all clear to me that a drug 1000 times as potent will have 1000, 100, 10 or even 2 times the biological impact, or that it will not be toxic. Imagine drinking 1000 cups of coffee. Those things require extensive testing and Sirtris has some of the substances in the clinical trial pipeline now.

“I agree with you that our society really lacks the focused R & D needed specifically for life extension drugs and therapies. Progress is being made of course but it seems many of the efforts are focused on specific diseases “associated with the aging process.” Not a bad thing but it is different than a blatant focus on creating life extension drugs and therapies. Maybe it is just my perception or maybe researchers want to deflect attention or criticism for going after the holy grail of extended life.”

Yes, but I think the issue lies more with the research fund-providers and our institutional structures than with the researchers themselves. Aging is not seen as a disease and therefore anti-aging is not explicitely funded. Aging is seen as inevitable and anti-aging research as snake oil. So congress will fund research into aging but not anti-aging. The problem is one of public perception.

“It seems timid to me but I fully acknowledge that the potential backlash from various groups or governments. Abortion is legal and look how many nuts are out there threatening and killing doctors. What might happen if we get serious and effective life extension clinics out there? Some nut is going to think we are going against nature by wanting to live longer. Hopefully my fear about that is unfounded. But I have to think there will be a great gap between those who can live to say, 150 years or more and those who still think that 70 or 80 years is a burden on society. Your X Pill article identifies these issues.”

In my view, you are right-on with these concerns

“I noticed on a recent article that the company Cenegetics is mentioned. What do you think of them and their program? Like the TA-65 compounds, it remains a rich man’s game. No way I can afford several thousand per month for life extension therapy, at least at this point in my life. Also, the hormone HGH and others that are probably given would cause me some concern. As a testicular cancer survivor, I am always somewhat worried that some supplements or hormone replacement therapies might be dangerous for me.”

As to Cenegetics, I don’t know much about it. It appears to be a different kind of beast – a for-profit health management network for older people. I don’t know how science-based their practice is but the material on their web site suggests that the substance of what they offer is reasonable – counseling on exercise, nutrition, supplements, weight management, etc. – all material publically available for people willing to go out and find it. I guess there is a lot of economic value-added by having this advice given by a doctor in an impressive office wearing a white coat.

As to the affordability issue, the problem is that life and healthspan extension is following the medical model. TA-65 is a proprietary substance priced like an expensive drug. Sirtris is developing proprietary drugs that will no-doubt be expensive. Cenegetics appears to be functioning as an elite specialized medical practice.

I don’t think maximizing healthspan with aging, the low-hanging fruit, needs to be that complex or expensive. Exercise. Consume avocados, hot sauce, blueberries and wallnuts, keep mentally active, take certain supplements, etc. Have you seen my treatise ANTI-AGING FIREWALLS THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF LONGEVITY at http://www.vincegiuliano.name/Antiagingfirewalls.htm ? There, I suggest a “lifestyle firewall” and a “dietary supplement firewall” that are designed to protect against the progress of aging according to 14 of the most classical theories of aging.

Vince

Thank you as always for your excellent work. I find it very encouraging. It reminds me that there is real scientific progress being made.

Did you see that TA-65, the telomerase activating chemical, got awarded a patent recently? Apparently, the staff has been taking it for four years now with measured improvements in telomere length and various improvements in health markers. Unfortunately, the cost is a substantial barrier for most people. Testing and the various supplements would exceed $1,000 per month.

I have been following Sirtris’s work for some time. I am excited by the potential for resveratrol and the drugs that might be developed from that molecular base. It is my understanding that Sirtris Pharmaceutical is working on formulas that are thousands of times more potent than straight resveratrol.

I agree with you that our society really lacks the focused R & D needed specifically for life extension drugs and therapies. Progress is being made of course but it seems many of the efforts are focused on specific diseases “associated with the aging process.” Not a bad thing but it is different than a blatant focus on creating life extension drugs and therapies. Maybe it is just my perception or maybe researchers want to deflect attention or criticism for going after the holy grail of extended life.

It seems timid to me but I fully acknowledge that the potential backlash from various groups or governments. Abortion is legal and look how many nuts are out there threatening and killing doctors. What might happen if we get serious and effective life extension clinics out there? Some nut is going to think we are going against nature by wanting to live longer. Hopefully my fear about that is unfounded. But I have to think there will be a great gap between those who can live to say, 150 years or more and those who still think that 70 or 80 years is a burden on society. Your X Pill article identifies these issues.

I noticed on a recent article that the company Cenegetics is mentioned. What do you think of them and their program? Like the TA-65 compounds, it remains a rich man’s game. No way I can afford several thousand per month for life extension therapy, at least at this point in my life. Also, the hormone HGH and others that are probably given would cause me some concern. As a testicular cancer survivor, I am always somewhat worried that some supplements or hormone replacement therapies might be dangerous for me.

I want to pick up on one of your key points which is “We have some great progress now but it will be years before most see the benefits.” Possibly but not necessarily true in my perception. Specifically, connected with both the mTOR amd SIRT1 pathways, life practical life extension technologies that could add 10-12 years to us humans seem tantilizingly around the corner yet so far away in terms of widespread practice.

We have plenty of good research programs that spawn yet more-research, but other than for a few outside-the-mainstream groups like the Singularity Institute, there is no mission-oriented R&D specifically oriented to life extension. That kind of R&D does not fit into our existing paradigms. As pointed out in the blog entry, there are major societal barriers to getting anything like an X-pill out there in the market.

Perhaps our best hope lies in the development of drugs for age-related diseases that in fact extend lifespans. In other words, using the cover of the existing drug development paradigm to develop anti-aging drigs. Sirtris Pharmaceuticals is a good-case example. According to their website “Sirtris is focused on discovering and developing proprietary, orally available, small molecule drugs with the potential to treat diseases associated with aging, such as Type 2 Diabetes. Our research focus is on modulating the sirtuins, a recently discovered class of enzymes involved in the aging process.” If they succeed, and I think they will, they will have developed one or more anti-aging drugs. Meanwhile, many of us including many sirtuin researchers have been taking resveratrol for years now.

Vince

I love the 10 to the 9th Projects that they are exploring. In essence, these projects are trying to focus on what might benefit a billion or more people. (This is what 10 to the 9th means.)

I know many of these various scientists are connected in some way to these various movements. I hope they make progress faster than society has the opportunity to limit them. I guess I am somewhat pessimistic when it comes to what the government will allow the public to access. We have some great progress now but it will be years before most see the benefits.

I do agree about what you say about the perfect storm of technologies. Have you seen any of earlier posts in Giuliano’s law having to do with improvements in anti-aging interventions? See http://anti-agingfirewalls.com/2009/03/29/factors-that-drive-giuliano%e2%80%99s-law/

i have possibly not focused enough on the Singularity Institute since most of my blog work has been hard-science oriented. I will give their website another look, though.

And I do think Aubrey adds color, texture, questioning and charisma to the aging science field. And those are very positive qualities.

Vince

(I do think that the perfect storm of technologies should give us those breakthroughs within a few decades rather than centuries.)

I totally agree with you that aging is very complex and probably different in each individual as well based on our lifestyles, diet, environment, DNA, etc.

What I really like about him is his focus on fixing the damage we do understand now. He is quite entertaining though and has value in his role as a Pied Piper of Human Rejuvenation. He often makes the case that scientists in general are too cautious about direct anti-aging research. They gingerly pick at different aspects of aging but few are truly working towards viable solutions that will give us the option to live hundreds of years if we so choose. I am sure there is a fear factor involved. Extending human life to 150 or 200 or whatever would come across as sheer lunacy to most and terribly selfish to those who think we don’t have the right to live longer than “nature” intended.

I am not sure if you follow the scientists at The Singularity Institute but they seem focused on the global, big picture, problems. I love their sponsoring the X-Prizes and also their 10 to the 9th programs. The later being challenges specific to “what can you do to improve the lives of one billion people.” The next century should be a fascinating one. I hope I am around for most of it.

Thank you for your comments and for posting links to the Aubrey de Grey video and information I agree with Aubrey about some things and disagree with him about others. I agree that it is a possibility that continuing research and practical progress in anti-aging approaches may lead us to the point where we reach an aging “escape velocity.” I certainly hope so.

I disagree that aging is explainable simply in terms of accumulation of damage, a central truth in Aubrey’s view of aging. This might have been a good explanation for aging in 1990, but too much is known now about lifelong epigenetic changes and changes in stem cell markers and differentiation capabilities to support credance to this simplistic view. I have elsewhere argued that aging is a very complex program involving systematic changes in epigenetic features and the expression profiles of thousands of genes. Why would mice die in two years and bats that look like winged mice live for 20 years? They are exposed to more or less the same biological damage as the result of living, but their aging programs are different. Aubrey is fun to listen to, however and he does have some other interesting and innovative things to say.

Vince

http://vimeo.com/7339349

Those who prefer text can find some excellent articles here:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/09/the-methuselarity.php

Matthew