Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

kurt9
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby kurt9 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:02 am

The reason I went with 700mg for a body weight of around 70Kg is that a smaller dose will not produce the desired effect. So, you really are looking at 100mg for each 10 Kg of body weight. In any case, it is very benevolent, unlike Dasatinib, which can really harm you if used improperly.

The article posted is rather hype. I view senolytics as a crucial step, but one of several for life extension.

I will play around with purported Lipofuscin removal agents early next year. I want to do this one step at a time in order to make it easy for my liver. Good liver health is something to be jealously guarded.

williatw
Posts: 1725
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:42 am

kurt9 wrote:The reason I went with 700mg for a body weight of around 70Kg is that a smaller dose will not produce the desired effect. So, you really are looking at 100mg for each 10 Kg of body weight. In any case, it is very benevolent, unlike Dasatinib, which can really harm you if used improperly.


Well I am about 91kg body weight so for me the equivalent dosage would be 900mg/day. Understand you don't do it long term; that is you do it for some period of time say 2 weeks and then lay off? How often do you need to repeat the procedure for best results?


kurt9 wrote:The article posted is rather hype. I view senolytics as a crucial step, but one of several for life extension.




The primary value of the senolytic therapy is that it would be a critical present day proof-of-concept for the life extension of humans developing technology. Even if the results of say metformin/rapamycin therapy for instance produce only modest life extension in humans say 5-15% (on ave.) it would energize the whole movement. There are likely tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars worth of venture capital funding waiting on the sidelines that would swoop in once they were convinced that the life extension movement isn't hype/snake oil.
Last edited by williatw on Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

williatw
Posts: 1725
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:11 am

Fisetin—a new senolytic


Senolytic drugs have been the most promising near-term anti-aging therapy since the ground-breaking paper by van Deursen of Mayo Clinic published in 2011. The body accumulates senescent cells as we age, damaged cells that send out signal molecules that in turn modify our biochemistry in a toxic, pro-inflammatory direction. Though the number of such cells is small, the damage they do is great. Van Deursen showed that just getting rid of these cells could increase lifespan of mice by ~25%. But he did it with a trick, using genetically engineered mice in which the senescent cells had a built-in self-destruct switch.

After that, the race was on to find chemical agents that would do the same thing without the genetically engineered self-destruct. They must selectively kill senescent cells, while leaving all other cells unharmed. It’s a tall order, because even a little residual toxicity to normal cells can be quite damaging. Before last week, the two best candidates were FOXO4-DRI and a combination of quercetin with dasatinib.


I’ve written in the past (here and here) that senolytic drugs are our best prospect for a near-term lift on the road to anti-aging medicine.

Last week, a large research group affiliated with the original May Clinic team published findings about fisetin, the latest and greatest candidate for a senolitic pill, another flavenoid, very close in structure to quercetin.

Image

They grew senescent and normal cells in a test tube, then tested 11 different plant-derived chemicals for power to kill the one while leaving the other unharmed. The winner was fisetin.


Image

(MEF stands for Mouse Embryonic Fybroblast, the cells that were cultured in the screening experiment.)

Fisetin is especially interesting because it is cheap, easily available, widely-regarded as safe, but not nearly as well studied as quercetin.

They took the winner, fisetin, and subjected it to a series of tests. They began with in vitro (cell culture) tests and proceeded to in vivo tests with live animals, culminating with an impressive life span assay in mice.

(The runner-up was curcumin, less interesting perhaps only because it has already been extensively studied. The curcumin molecule is unrelated to quercetin or fisetin, and is not a flavenoid. I can’t help but wonder if they had subjected curcumin to the same thorough testing that they reserved for fisetin, how would curcumin have fared?)

Image


The paper’s principal findings were:
◾Fisetin has lower liver toxicity (at equivalent doses for senolytic benefit) than any of the other senolytics tested so far.
◾Fisetin reduces pro-inflammatory signaling in a short course given to mice and in long-term experiments where fisetin was added to the mouse chow.
◾Fisetin reduces number of senescent fat cells in a short course given to mice.
◾Mice fed fisetin for long periods had much more glutathione than control mice. (Glutathione is one of very few marker molecules that seems to be wholly beneficial.)
◾Most impressively, mice fed fisetin late in life lived 10-15% longer than control mice. This represents a 50% increase in the remaining lifespan after the intervention.



Image

What we know and what we’d really like to know

We’d like to know, do humans who take large doses of fisetin live longer? Do they have toxic side-effects? These questions require decades to answer.

Does fisetin reduce age markers in humans, especially methylation age? This is a feasible study, since the test is mature and safety of fisetin is fairly well established for short courses. Perhaps this experiment is being considered; I’ve written to the corresponding authors of the most recent study, in case they haven’t already thought of it. This test would not be definitive because we know that methylation age is not perfectly correlated with biological age; but if positive it would confirm both that fisetin is accomplishing epigenetic rejuvenation and that methylation tests were correctly informing us of this; a negative result would be ambiguous.

Episodic Dosing

It makes sense that senolytics should be taken periodically, not continuously. A high dose can be toxic to existing senescent cells, and then getting out of the way, it can allow normal cells to recover from any damage. This sounds like good theory, but different dosing regimens have not been tested experimentally. In fact, the new paper reports positive results from both high episodic dosing and lower everyday dosing.

The Mayo group had previously tested fisetin, and found it effective in killing some kinds of human senescent cells but not others. In previous tests, fisetin was found to be effective in senescent fat cells (pre-adipocyte, white adipose tissue), and that is where it was primarily tested in the new studies.

Authors’ comments

They note that the episodic treatment and short half-life suggest that the benefits of fisetin come from its senolytic action, rather than other actions as an antioxidant and signal molecule. They emphasize that clearing senescent white blood cells and making room for new, active white blood cells are activities that enhance the benefits of fisetin, since white blood cells contribute to clearing the remaining senescent cells.

Fisetin has previously been shown to have anti-cancer activity and to inhibit inflammatory signals directly. Here is a review of benefits of fisetin from three years ago. Drugage lists just two previous lifespan studies with fisetin, with encouraging results from yeast and fruitflies.

The Bottom Line

If we choose to take fisetin at this stage in the science, we are early adopters, and our main concern ought to be safety. There is little doubt that killing senescent cells will be beneficial. But what is the toxic burden of fisetin, and what dosage can we safely take without risk of damage to normal cells? The current study covers a lot of ground but doesn’t answer this question, apparently because they are convinced that fisetin is quite safe.

Strawberries, apples, grapes, and onions all contain fisetin, but at low levels compared to a senolytic dose. For example, the highest food concentration, 160 ppm, is found in strawberries. A half pound of strawberries yields 36 mg of fisetin. We’re still guessing at the therapeutic dose, based on mouse studies, and the experimental dosage in human trials is about 1,000 to 1,500 mg (based on this clinical trial), the content to 30-40 pounds of strawberries on each of two consecutive days.
In the best cases, fisetin was shown to reduce senescent cell burden by 50% and up to 75% in cell cultures. This is a good start, and encourages us to think we can do better by combining fisetin with other agents, or perhaps with fasting.


Also reported today,

Clearing Senescent Cells From The Brain In Mice Preserves Cognition

It sounds impressive, but I’m not impressed. First, mouse models of Alzheimer’s have been discredited repeatedly. Mice don’t naturally get AD, so they have to be genetically engineered to do so, and the genetically modified mice don’t share the deep causes of human AD. Time and again, treatments have been found effective in the mouse model that fail to translate to humans. Second, the treatment used in the study to kill senescent brain cells also relied on another genetic modification, and would not be applicable to humans.

My guess is that effective senolytic agents for humans will be available within a few years, and that they will decrease risk of all age-related disease, including Alzheimer’s. But this study does little to advance us toward that goal.





https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/ ... /#comments

kurt9
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby kurt9 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:03 pm

williatw wrote:
Well I am about 91kg body weight so for me the equivalent dosage would be 900mg/day. Understand you don't do it long term; that is you do it for some period of time say 2 weeks and then lay off? How often do you need to repeat the procedure for best results?


I did it only 4 times (4 days in a row). The experiments I read about it suggested trying it from one to five times. I would not do it more than 5 times. I plan to repeat maybe a year from now.

williatw
Posts: 1725
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:24 pm

'Spectacular' diabetes treatment could end daily insulin injections

Hour-long procedure that stabilises blood sugar levels of sufferers of type 2 diabetes is still effective one year on, study shows


Image
Woman self-administering insulin with a hypodermic syringe. Photograph: Ian Hooton/Getty Images/Science Photo Library RF


A potential medical breakthrough that could put an end to the daily insulin injections endured by people living with diabetes has been unveiled by Dutch scientists.

By destroying the mucous membrane in the small intestine and causing a new one to develop, scientists stabilised the blood sugar levels of people with type 2 diabetes. The results have been described as “spectacular” – albeit unexpected – by the chief researchers involved.

In the hourlong procedure, trialled on 50 patients in Amsterdam, a tube with a small balloon in its end is inserted through the mouth of the patient down to the small intestine. The balloon is inflated with hot water and the mucous membrane burned away by the heat. Within two weeks a new membrane develops, leading to an improvement in the patient’s health.

Even a year after the treatment, the disease was found to be stable in 90% of those treated. It is believed there is a link between nutrient absorption by the mucus membrane in the small intestine and the development of insulin resistance among people with type 2 diabetes.

Jacques Bergman, a professor of gastroenterology at Amsterdam UMC, said: “Because of this treatment the use of insulin can be postponed or perhaps prevented. That is promising.”

Bergman added of the procedure that it was “amazing that people suffer very little from this”.

He told the Dutch broadcaster Nederlandse Omroep Stichting: “With those people we see a spectacular improvement in blood sugar levels one day after the operation, before they even lose one kilo, which has put us on the track.

“Because the question now is whether this is a permanent treatment, or whether it is something that you have to keep repeating – something that in theory should be possible. We looked at whether we could stop their insulin, which is still ongoing, but the first results are truly spectacular, with the lion’s share of patients no longer using insulin after this treatment.”

The new discovery initially seems most suitable for borderline patients who already take pills but whose blood sugar level is high enough for doctors to advise that they inject insulin in the short term.

Apart from dispensing with insulin injections, researchers claim that those treated could benefit from a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, blindness and numbness in the hands and feet. Scientists from Amsterdam UMC who presented their study at a conference in Vienna this week were said to be cautious but “jubilant” about the initial results.

People with type 2 diabetes aged between 28 and 75 are now being recruited for a larger study of 100 people.

Almost 3.7 million people in the UK live with a diagnosis of type 1 or 2 diabetes, an increase of 1.9 million since 1998. Type 1 diabetes is where the level of sugar in the blood is too high because the pancreas does not produce insulin.

Those with type 2 diabetes are not producing enough insulin. The impact can be controlled by changes to diet, but it is a progressive disease. Most people will need to take tablets or inject insulin after living with it for five to 10 years.

Nine out of 10 people diagnosed with diabetes have type 2. It is estimated that there are nearly 1 million people currently living with the condition who have yet to be diagnosed and that 12.3 million people are at an increased risk due high levels of sugar in their blood.



https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... injections

williatw
Posts: 1725
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:37 pm

No shit:



Sloppy science bears substantial blame for Americans' bad eating habits


Image
Brian Wansink poses for a photo in a food lab at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. on Dec. 6, 2016.



A spectacular case of sloppy science came crashing to a close last month. Cornell University’s Brian Wansink, a world-renowned scientist who seized headlines with his research on American eating habits, had many of his papers retracted and resigned from his professorship. Wansink’s fall is not just the tale of a single scientist gone astray. It is, instead, an indictment of an entire type of nutrition science that has led to mistaken dietary advice dispensed to Americans for decades.

Wansink’s misdeeds played out in Cornell classrooms and nutrition journals and, as crucially, around American dinner tables. He had a central role in all our diets. From 2007 to 2010, he served as executive director of the U.S. government’s Dietary Guidelines, which set the standard for healthy eating for the nation. Under Wansink, the guidelines shifted to be ever-more based on the same type of easily manipulated, weak observational data he produced in his lab. A new iteration of the guidelines, under a different director, was issued in 2015, yet the reliance on weak data has remained the same.
Wansink’s research depended on observational studies, which can yield only associations, such as “coffee is associated with cancer.” These are at best suggestions of hypotheses, and they nearly always fall far short of demonstrating cause and effect. To show causation — that coffee causes cancer, for example — a real experiment, or clinical trial, is needed. For nutrition policy, however, we have rarely required that caliber of research.

Worse, the associational data in nutrition studies are particularly unreliable because the studies depend upon self-reported answers on dietary questionnaires with such queries as: How many cups of pasta did you consume weekly for the last six months? Or, how much did you enjoy that last slice of pizza? Studies have long shown that people misrepresent what they eat — or they simply can’t remember.

John Ioannidis, a Stanford University professor and evidence-based medicine expert, recently wrote that, given all of the problems with this kind of nutrition research, “Reform has long been due.” The claims of this weak science, when tested properly by rigorous clinical trials, have been shown in two analyses to be correct only 0% to 20% of the time. This means that 80% to100% of the time, they're wrong.

These kinds of odds may be relatively harmless when it comes to studying our intake and enjoyment of pizza, as Wansink did. Yet for the Dietary Guidelines, much more is at stake. Mistakes of the past, such as the now-jettisoned caps on dietary cholesterol and total fat, show the harm of rushing to create policy based on weak science.

The guidelines are surprisingly powerful: They drive choices for school lunches, feeding programs for the elderly, hospital food and military rations, as well as influencing the advice dispensed by doctors, nurses, dieticians and nutritionists. If the guidelines are off or downright wrong, the potential impact on our epidemics of obesity, diabetes and neurological diseases is devastating.


Critics have argued that the guidelines, launched in 1980, were based on shaky science before Wansink got involved, but his guidance arguably drove them off the rails. His 2010 guidelines turned the recommendations away from a focus on food groups and toward dietary patterns. This sounds reasonable enough, yet the fundamental flaw lies in the evidence base for the patterns.

I examined each study cited by the guidelines’ advisory committee to support the recommendations, and the results, published in a science journal in 2015, were astonishing. The government’s three recommended Food Patterns — “U.S.-Style,” “Mediterranean” and “Healthy Vegetarian”— were supported by fewer than a handful of truly rigorous trials. Even the government’s expert panel noted the deficiencies.

A single Mediterranean-diet trial, on only 180 people, was cited to demonstrate that any of these patterns could produce significant weight loss. The advisory committee deemed there was “limited” or “insufficient” evidence to show that the diets could combat diabetes. And the support for claims that the diets could prevent heart disease was ambiguous at best (blood pressure was the only risk factor that improved in quite a few studies, and in others, both “bad” and “good” cholesterol dropped, implying mixed outcomes overall).


The key, large clinical trial cited to claim cardiovascular benefits for the Mediterranean diet was recently retracted and reissued, raising serious doubts about its basic reliability. Meanwhile, the government’s review of the Healthy Vegetarian diet concluded that the evidence for any disease-fighting powers of this diet was “limited”— the lowest rank given for available data.

The lack of rigorous experimentation is matched by the data’s lack of transparency. In retracting Wansink’s papers, the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Assn. said their primary reason was that the data could not be confirmed because the original dietary surveys had been thrown out. Much the same problem dogs the country’s largest observational nutrition study, funded by the National Institutes of Health and run by Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Its findings are among the most highly cited in the Dietary Guidelines’ evidence base, yet Harvard does not publicly disclose its data, making those findings also impossible to confirm.

Defenders of the current guidelines’ argue that the urgency of our obesity and diabetes epidemics virtually demands that we march forward with recommendations based even on imperfect data. Yet mistakes of the past, such as the now-jettisoned caps on dietary cholesterol and total fat, show the real harm of rushing to create policy based on weak science. Most people still don’t even know about these reversals in our dietary guidelines — that the weight of evidence has now shifted to sugars and refined carbohydrates as the more likely dietary culprits. However, un-learning diet rules once they have been learned proves to be extremely difficult.

Wansink’s downfall reveals the corrosive powers perpetually undermining good science in nutrition. Observational studies are supposed to be exploratory work, hardly ready for prime time. Yet the pressure to publish, the reality that media coverage drives grant making, and that these both drive the professional trajectory of researchers, push scientists like Wansink and others to oversell their results.

When imperfect data shape headlines, and the entire Dietary Guidelines, the losers are science itself and, quite clearly, the public health.




http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html


Defenders of the current guidelines’ argue that the urgency of our obesity and diabetes epidemics virtually demands that we march forward with recommendations based even on imperfect data.


Gee...that sounds like the arguments trotted out for dare I say it, Climate Science; the parallels are interesting.

williatw
Posts: 1725
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby williatw » Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:09 am

The Observer Cancer research


A cure for cancer: how to kill a killer




Revolutionary work on the body’s immune system and a host of new drug trials mean that beating cancer may be achievable



Image
A transparent tumour tomography showing T-cells attacking a tumour following treatment.

In December 2015, the second generation of checkpoint inhibitors (called anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1, depending on whether they’re blocking the T-cell or tumour side of the handshake) was used to unleash the immune system of Jimmy Carter and clear an aggressive cancer from his liver and brain. The news of the 91-year-old’s miraculous recovery surprised everyone, including the former president himself.


Last month, the Nobel prize in medicine was awarded for two breakthrough scientific discoveries heralded as having “revolutionised cancer treatment”, and “fundamentally changed the way we view how cancer can be managed”. One of them went to a charismatic, harmonica-playing Texan named Jim Allison for his breakthrough advances in cancer immunotherapy. His discovery had resulted in transformative outcomes for cancer patients and a radical new direction for cancer research.

And yet many cancer patients, and even some doctors, have hardly heard of cancer immunotherapy or refuse to believe it. Those who have struggle to make sense of the new menu of options and sort reasonable hope from overblown hype.


“The emergence of cancer immunotherapy has occurred so quickly, it’s hard for scientists, let alone physicians and patients, to keep track of it all,” explains Dr Daniel Chen, a Stanford oncologist and researcher who helped bring some of the new cancer breakthroughs from lab to clinic. “The tidal wave of data is still teaching us fundamental concepts about the interaction of the human immune system and human cancer.” It’s also bringing us important new approaches to the treatment – and possibly the cure – of cancer. “So, this data needs to be disseminated as quickly as possible.”

It’s estimated that nearly 40% of us will be diagnosed with cancer in our lifetimes and, until very recently, we’ve had three basic options for dealing with that news. We’ve had surgery for at least 3,000 years. We added radiation therapy in 1896. Then in 1946, chemical warfare research led to the use of a mustard gas derivative to poison cancer cells and the advent of chemotherapy. More recently, we also started poisoning cancer through drugs that attempt to starve tumours of nutrients or blood supply.

Those traditional “cut, burn and poison” techniques are effective in about half of cases. It’s a laudable medical accomplishment that also leaves behind the other half of cancer patients. According to the World Health Organisation’s international agency for research on cancer, that translates to 9,055,027 deaths worldwide in 2018 alone.

Our usual defence against disease is our immune system. It does an excellent job of sorting out what doesn’t belong in the body and attacking it – except when it comes to cancer. For 100 years, the reasons behind that apparent failure were a mystery. Jim Allison’s breakthrough was the realisation that the immune system wasn’t ignoring cancer. Instead, cancer was taking advantage of tricks that shut down the immune system. But what if you could block those tricks and unleash the immune system’s killer T-cells against the disease?

The trick Allison’s immunology lab at the University of California, Berkeley, found involved a protein on the T-cell called CTLA-4. When stimulated, CTLA-4 acted like a circuit breaker on immune response. These brakes, which he called checkpoints, kept the cell killers from going out of control and trashing healthy body cells. Cancer took advantage of those brakes to survive and thrive.

In 1994, the lab developed an antibody that blocked CTLA-4. “Roughly, it’s like taking a brick and jamming it behind the T-cell brake pedal,” explains Dr Max Krummel, immunologist who had worked with Allison on CTLA-4. When they injected it into cancerous mice, the antibody jammed behind CTLA-4’s brake pedal and prevented the T-cell attack from being stopped. Instead, the T-cells destroyed the tumours and cured the cancer.

The immune system is the deep ocean ecosystem of the human body. We’ve barely begun to plumb its depths


What they had found would eventually win the Nobel. It would also fly in the face of what every practising oncologist had been taught about cancer and how to fight it. It took 15 years, says Krummel, before they could finally test whether what worked in mice would translate to people.

Blocking the brakes on the immune system turned out to cause serious toxicities in some patients. “We learned pretty quickly that immunotherapy was not a free ride,” explains Dr Jedd Wolchok, a cancer immunotherapist and one of the primary investigators in the clinical trials for Allison’s anti-CTLA-4 drug. “But we were also seeing some remarkable things.” For some of the metastatic melanoma patients in the study, even terminal stage 4 patients only days away from hospice, the drug effectively cured their cancer.

“You never forget that,” Wolchok explains. “And at the time, we really had nothing that would work for metastatic melanoma.” In 2011, that anti-CTLA-4 drug would gain approval as ipilimumab (trade name Yervoy) for use treating melanoma; it has since been approved to treat kidney and colorectal cancer. As a drug, it has saved many thousands of lives. But as a proof of concept, the success of ipilimumab proved that the immune system could, in fact, be weaponised against cancer. It also kicked off the search for newer, better immune checkpoints.


The first to be discovered was called PD-1. Its discoverer, Dr Tasuku Honjo of Kyoto University, shares this year’s Nobel in medicine. PD-1 is part of a sort of secret handshake that body cells give a T-cell, telling it: “I’m one of you, don’t attack.” Cancers co-opted this secret handshake, tricking T-cells into believing they were normal, healthy body cells. But that handshake could be blocked, creating a more precise cancer-killing machine with far fewer toxic side-effects than blocking CTLA-4.

In December 2015, the second generation of checkpoint inhibitors (called anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1, depending on whether they’re blocking the T-cell or tumour side of the handshake) was used to unleash the immune system of Jimmy Carter and clear an aggressive cancer from his liver and brain. The news of the 91-year-old’s miraculous recovery surprised everyone, including the former president himself.

Image
Groundbreaking work: Nobel prize-winning immunologist Jim Allison.

For many people, “that Jimmy Carter drug”, the anti-PD-1 drug pembrolizumab, approved last year and sold as Keytruda, was the first and only thing they’d heard about cancer immunotherapy. Keytruda is currently one of the most widely used of the new class of drugs, approved for use against nine different types of cancer in the US, and a smaller number in the UK, and that list is growing rapidly, as is the number of acronyms for the dozens of new checkpoints being tested. The immune system remains the deep ocean ecosystem of the human body. We’ve barely begun to plumb its depths.


For researchers such as Chen and others, this is our penicillin moment in the war on cancer. As a drug, penicillin cut infection rates, cured some bacterial diseases and saved millions of lives. But as a scientific breakthrough, it redefined the possible and opened a fertile new frontier for generations of researchers. Nearly 100 years after the discovery of that one simple drug, antibiotics are an entire class of medicines with a global impact so profound that we take them for granted. Invisible terrors that plagued and poisoned mankind for millennia are now casually vanquished at a high street chemist. “We’ve only just discovered the checkpoint inhibitors,” Chen says. “So it’s the breakthrough – we’ve just discovered our penicillin.”

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader ... Jepxam9f8/


Seven years after the approval of that first checkpoint inhibitor, there are reportedly 940 “new” cancer immunotherapeutic drugs being tested in the clinic by more than half-a-million cancer patients in more than 3,000 clinical trials, with over 1,000 more in the preclinical phase.



Those numbers are dwarfed by the number of trials testing immunotherapy combinations or using them in concert with chemotherapy or radiation, which, Allison notes, essentially turn the dead tumour into a cancer vaccine. It’s hoped that, with checkpoint inhibitors releasing the brakes, the immune system can effectively finish up what the chemotherapy starts. There are so many ongoing trials it’s impossible to typify their stages or results, but several have been positive. The European Society for Medical Oncology recently announced the first modest immunotherapy success against triple negative breast cancer, a horribly aggressive disease found primarily in younger women, which has stubbornly resisted previous treatment options.

Nor are checkpoint inhibitors the only immunotherapy of cancer. There are currently numerous clinical trials involving bespoke vaccines, customised to a patient’s individual cancer. Another promising technique, known as adoptive cell transfer, fertilises a clone army of extracted T-cells, then reinjects them into the patient to chase down each cell; another called chimeric T-cell therapy, or CAR-T, reengineers a patient’s killer T-cell into a sort of robocop cancer killer, creating a startlingly powerful living drug capable of adapting to match cancer for a lifetime. CAR-T has already wiped out certain forms of childhood leukaemia. These are claims that simple cancer drugs can’t make.

The patients who respond to these drugs go into remissions measured not in extra weeks or months of life, but lifetimes
“The word cure can now be used in oncology,” says Dr Axel Hoos, an immunologist and former global medical lead for the Bristol-Myers Squibb immune-oncology programme. “It’s no longer fantasy or a cruel promise that you can’t fulfil. We don’t yet know who will be the lucky patients who will be cured, but we have seen cures already.”

Hype can be dangerous, just as false hope can be cruel. There’s a natural tendency to invest too much hope in a new science, especially one that promises to turn the tables on a disease that has, in some way, touched everyone’s life, and sober caution is required. Right now, there are only handful of immunotherapies available. The majority of patients respond partially or not at all and some even develop and acquire resistance to the disease. But the minority of cancer patients who have been shown to respond to these drugs experience remissions measured not in extra weeks or months of life, but in lifetimes. “Such transformative, durable responses are the unique value proposition of the cancer immunotherapeutic approach,” Chen says. But it’s important to note that that potential is different from a guarantee of any one outcome for any individual patient.

https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader ... bbI77EQH7/

And as Wolchok told me: “Immunotherapy is not a free ride.” There are the toxicities that occur when a T-cell response in unleashed. There is also the “economic toxicity” of bespoke cancer treatments that bring about durable remission but cost upwards of $1m. A third concern, especially in rural or underserved sectors, is access to both information and the drugs and drug trials themselves. They’re out there but patients and physicians need to be empowered to ask questions and understand their choices. Several doctors tell me that the goal of treatment, if a cure isn’t possible, is holding on for the next breakthrough. If and when it comes, patients and doctors need to be ready to understand it. “After all,” says Chen, “there’s nothing more useless than therapeutic breakthroughs against cancer that people don’t know about.”






https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... unotherapy

Aero
Posts: 1194
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby Aero » Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:43 am

Aero wrote:I don't know about telomeres but for health extension, Crispr Pharmaceuticals has something that's pretty sure. It is a targeted and programmable gene editing methodology. It has been approved for human trials. It very specifically targets the programmed gene in the dna strand, snips it out and replaces it, as programmed. The company CEO says that programming the system will be big business for those who can do it. In particular, once a specific gene is programmed, cancer gene, for example, a serum is injected and the system snips out and replaces all of those genes in the body. The cancer is cured because the cells no longer reproduce cancer cells. That part is not a lot different than what has been tried for many years, it is the specificity of gene targeting that is the new breakthrough. Oh, and Crispr Pharmaceuticals is attracting $billions in partnerships and licensing from the major drug companies.

The stock market is still waiting for the cures to be demonstrated and reproduced, it seems.


Pardon me for quoting myself but I made a mistake today, I've been thinking! If the above works out as claimed, do you foresee any of the following?

1- Complete identity change by modifying one's DNA so that it wouldn't match police records? Or crime scene evidence?
2- "Doctors" claiming a brand new discovery of the "longevity gene" and treatment only costs $***.***? Just give it time, about 3 months, to work (and for me to get out of town).
3- People who want to change the color of their hair and eyes?
4- Other?

I was just thinking that some of the social side effects could be interesting. Is muscle strength genetic? Can one's height be changed genetically? Body odor? Body "parts?"
Aero

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Factor X have we finally found the fountain of Youth?

Postby Betruger » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:35 pm

People are already amputating themselves as a form of body modification. You think >CRISPR level DIY body mod toolbox is going to make it less popular?
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests