4 ms·

If "longevity" worked, wouldn't it be medicine?

by vasco 4y ago

ben_w 4y ago
That's been the explicitly stated goal for at least some of the researchers. Lots of the expensive stuff is also age-related, the money is in the disease rather than the aging itself, so try to treat the disease by reversing that specific aspect of aging… At least, that's how the articles about how "we know this field has a reputation for scammers but we're legit honest" phrased it. With a GCSE grade C in biology, I can't tell what's a scam and what's a legitimate breakthrough, and I'm also mindful of the Gell Mann Amnesia Effect.
SkyMarshal 4y ago
You can probably say that about all medicine before it became medicine.
jjk166 4y ago
Yes, in the same way that if "cancer research" worked it would be medicine.
nostromo 4y ago
Unfortunately not, according to the FDA. Which is terrible. It means that there are all sorts of barriers in place to developing drugs or therapies that prevent or reverse aging -- because you couldn't get FDA approval for something that it doesn't consider disease. It’s hard to even get the studies approved. More details: https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-new-goal-growing-old-without-disease-1426542180 https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-new-goal-growing-old... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/19/1061070/is-old-age-a-disease/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/19/1061070/is-old-a...
- philipkglass 4y ago
  It means that there are all sorts of barriers in place to developing drugs or therapies that prevent or reverse aging -- because you couldn't get FDA approval for something that it doesn't consider disease. I don't see how that is a significant barrier to an anti-aging drug that actually works. Pick any one of the many recognized medical conditions that is strongly correlated with old age, like osteoporosis. Prove that your anti-aging drug effectively and safely treats osteoporosis in the elderly. The FDA will approve it. If your osteoporosis treatment also cures wrinkles and gray hair as a side effect, the FDA won't object. And once the drug is approved for one condition it can be prescribed by off-label for other conditions. Everyone will quickly learn what it's useful for, just like how people started using semaglutide for weight loss when it was "officially" still just a diabetes treatment.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    > I don't see how that is a significant barrier to an anti-aging drug that actually works. Pick any one of the many recognized medical conditions that is strongly correlated with old age, like osteoporosis. Prove that your anti-aging drug effectively and safely treats osteoporosis in the elderly. The FDA will approve it. That’s exactly what’s being done to work around the problem. However there might be some treatments that work well in advance of a disease and aren’t effective after the disease is present. It’s as if fire extinguishers can be funded but not flame resistant building materials.
  - rryan 4y ago
    Except when your doctor won't prescribe it you offlabel because you don't have a condition they were taught about in med school
  - amts 4y ago
    > Prove that your anti-aging drug effectively and safely treats osteoporosis in the elderly. The FDA will approve it. There are chemoterapies etc for cancer treatment approved by FDA (and its analogs in other relevant countries), which kill a ton of healthy cells along the way, and why is it considered safe? And there are many other approved drugs with severe adverse effects, why are they considered safe? While the only adverse effect for Yamanaka factors is cancer, which manifests with a long enough (month(s)) treatment to reverse cells the whole way back to pluripotency. And when Yamanaka genes are applied for a short time (~2 weeks), there are literally no adverse effects in mice. By waiting for osteoporosis to manifest to have an approved reason to begin an approved treatment, you violate the Hippocrates oath, which states that prevention is better than a subsequent cure.
Nevermark 4y ago
Medicine today = Live to an average or greater age for your current life expectancy. Longevity research = Maintain the health equivalent of a young person, indefinitely. So longevity expands regular medicine to include interventions in everybody (at least all adults) regardless of normal health, as early as possible, to halt or reverse age related loss of functions and maximally delay death.
gopalv 4y ago
> wouldn't it be medicine? There's no diagnosis when you start treatment.

If "longevity" worked, wouldn't it be medicine?

by vasco 4y ago

If "longevity" worked, wouldn't it be medicine?

That's been the explicitly stated goal for at least some of the researchers. Lots of the expensive stuff is also age-related, the money is in the disease rather than the aging itself, so try to treat the disease by reversing that specific aspect of aging… At least, that's how the articles about how "we know this field has a reputation for scammers but we're legit honest" phrased it. With a GCSE grade C in biology, I can't tell what's a scam and what's a legitimate breakthrough, and I'm also mindful of the Gell Mann Amnesia Effect.

SkyMarshal 4y ago

You can probably say that about all medicine before it became medicine.

jjk166 4y ago

Yes, in the same way that if "cancer research" worked it would be medicine.

nostromo 4y ago

Unfortunately not, according to the FDA. Which is terrible. It means that there are all sorts of barriers in place to developing drugs or therapies that prevent or reverse aging -- because you couldn't get FDA approval for something that it doesn't consider disease. It’s hard to even get the studies approved. More details: https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-new-goal-growing-old-without-disease-1426542180 https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-new-goal-growing-old... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/19/1061070/is-old-age-a-disease/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/19/1061070/is-old-a...

philipkglass 4y ago
It means that there are all sorts of barriers in place to developing drugs or therapies that prevent or reverse aging -- because you couldn't get FDA approval for something that it doesn't consider disease. I don't see how that is a significant barrier to an anti-aging drug that actually works. Pick any one of the many recognized medical conditions that is strongly correlated with old age, like osteoporosis. Prove that your anti-aging drug effectively and safely treats osteoporosis in the elderly. The FDA will approve it. If your osteoporosis treatment also cures wrinkles and gray hair as a side effect, the FDA won't object. And once the drug is approved for one condition it can be prescribed by off-label for other conditions. Everyone will quickly learn what it's useful for, just like how people started using semaglutide for weight loss when it was "officially" still just a diabetes treatment.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  > I don't see how that is a significant barrier to an anti-aging drug that actually works. Pick any one of the many recognized medical conditions that is strongly correlated with old age, like osteoporosis. Prove that your anti-aging drug effectively and safely treats osteoporosis in the elderly. The FDA will approve it. That’s exactly what’s being done to work around the problem. However there might be some treatments that work well in advance of a disease and aren’t effective after the disease is present. It’s as if fire extinguishers can be funded but not flame resistant building materials.
- rryan 4y ago
  Except when your doctor won't prescribe it you offlabel because you don't have a condition they were taught about in med school
- amts 4y ago
  > Prove that your anti-aging drug effectively and safely treats osteoporosis in the elderly. The FDA will approve it. There are chemoterapies etc for cancer treatment approved by FDA (and its analogs in other relevant countries), which kill a ton of healthy cells along the way, and why is it considered safe? And there are many other approved drugs with severe adverse effects, why are they considered safe? While the only adverse effect for Yamanaka factors is cancer, which manifests with a long enough (month(s)) treatment to reverse cells the whole way back to pluripotency. And when Yamanaka genes are applied for a short time (~2 weeks), there are literally no adverse effects in mice. By waiting for osteoporosis to manifest to have an approved reason to begin an approved treatment, you violate the Hippocrates oath, which states that prevention is better than a subsequent cure.

Nevermark 4y ago

Medicine today = Live to an average or greater age for your current life expectancy. Longevity research = Maintain the health equivalent of a young person, indefinitely. So longevity expands regular medicine to include interventions in everybody (at least all adults) regardless of normal health, as early as possible, to halt or reverse age related loss of functions and maximally delay death.

gopalv 4y ago

> wouldn't it be medicine? There's no diagnosis when you start treatment.