FightAging!
12-23-18
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/12/an-interview-with-aubrey-de-grey-at-the-longevity-world-forum/
The Life Extension Advocacy Foundation recently published an interview with Aubrey de Grey of the SENS Research Foundation, on the occasion of the Longevity World Forum in Valencia, Spain. This interview ties in nicely with recent questions regarding whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic about progress toward human rejuvenation over the next ten to twenty years. It is not easy to predict the future, and it is true that even people closely connected to specific ares of work tend to overestimate the progress of a decade and underestimate the progress of two decades. For my part, I am of the opinion that, given the accelerating pace of the underlying science, when moving out to longer time frames the enormous, unnecessary costs and slowdown imposed by regulation of medicine becomes the largest determining factor governing clinical availability of new classes of medical biotechnology.
It was published recently that a therapy to reverse aging will be a reality within five years. What will be its mechanism of action, roughly?
There will not be just one medicine; there will be a lot of different medicines, and they will all have different mechanisms of action. For example, some of them will be stem cells, where we put cells back into the body in order to replace cells that the body is not replacing on its own. Sometimes, they will be drugs that kill cells that we don't want. Sometimes, they will be gene therapy treatments that give cells new capabilities to break down waste products, for example. Sometimes, they will be vaccines or other immune therapies to stimulate the immune system to eliminate certain substances. Many different things. In five years from now, we will probably have most of that working. I do not think that we will really have it perfect by then; probably, we will still be at the early stages of clinical trials in some of these things. Then, we will need to combine them, one by one, to make sure that they do not affect each other negatively. So, there will still be some way to go . But, yes, I think it's quite likely that in five years from now, we will have everything, or almost everything, in clinical trials.
Then clinical trials for seven years until it's perfected. Don't clinical trials usually take a long time?
It depends. For example, in aging, because there is this progressive accumulation of damage, you could have therapies that slow down the rate at which damage accumulates, or you could have therapies that repair the damage that has already happened. The second type of therapy is what we think is going to be most effective and is going to be easiest to do, and you can see results from that very quickly, like in one or two years. Now, of course, you still want to know what happens later on, but the first thing is to determine whether this is working at all, and as soon as it starts to work, then you can start to make it available. Clinical trials are changing in that way. Historically, clinical trials had to be completed before anybody could get these drugs, but now we are getting new policies; there is a thing called adaptive licensing, which is becoming popular in the US and elsewhere, where the therapy becomes approved at an earlier stage, and then it's monitored after that.
Beyond the humanitarian perspective of avoiding the pain and suffering that comes with old age, if increasing the years of healthy life in people will significantly reduce health care spending by governments, why don't they promote research in this area?
You're absolutely right. It's quite strange that governments are so short-sighted. But, of course, the real problem is psychological: it's not just governments that are short-sighted. Almost everybody in the world is short-sighted about this. The reason I believe why that's true is people still can't quite convince themselves that it's going to happen. Since the beginning of civilization, we have known that there is this terrible thing called aging, and we have been desperate to do something about it, to get rid of it. And people have been coming along, ever since the beginning of civilization, saying, "Yes, here's the solution, here's the fountain of youth!" And they've always been wrong. So, when the next person comes along and says they think they know how to do it, of course, there is going to be some skepticism until they have really shown that it's true. Of course, if you don't think it's going to work, then you're not going to support the effort financially. It's very short-sighted, but it's understandable.
Why do you think that the pharmaceutical industry does not devote its research and development efforts to this area, which causes the death of 100,000 people every day?
Today, the pharmaceutical industry is geared toward keeping old people alive when they are sick. It makes its money that way. It's not just the pharmaceutical industry, it's the whole of the medical industry. And so, most people say that they are worried that maybe the pharmaceutical industry will be against these therapies when they do come along. I don't think that's true at all. I think they will be in favor because people will be in favor, but people are not really in favor yet. People don't really trust preventive medicine. They think "Okay if I am not yet sick…" They don't trust medicine in general; they know that this is experimental. So, when they are not yet sick, they think "Well, I'll wait until I am sick," but we can change that. Eventually, people will understand that it's going to be much more effective to treat yourself before you get sick, and then the whole medical industry will just respond to that; they will make the medicines that people want to pay for.
12-23-18
https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2018/12/an-interview-with-aubrey-de-grey-at-the-longevity-world-forum/
The Life Extension Advocacy Foundation recently published an interview with Aubrey de Grey of the SENS Research Foundation, on the occasion of the Longevity World Forum in Valencia, Spain. This interview ties in nicely with recent questions regarding whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic about progress toward human rejuvenation over the next ten to twenty years. It is not easy to predict the future, and it is true that even people closely connected to specific ares of work tend to overestimate the progress of a decade and underestimate the progress of two decades. For my part, I am of the opinion that, given the accelerating pace of the underlying science, when moving out to longer time frames the enormous, unnecessary costs and slowdown imposed by regulation of medicine becomes the largest determining factor governing clinical availability of new classes of medical biotechnology.
It was published recently that a therapy to reverse aging will be a reality within five years. What will be its mechanism of action, roughly?
There will not be just one medicine; there will be a lot of different medicines, and they will all have different mechanisms of action. For example, some of them will be stem cells, where we put cells back into the body in order to replace cells that the body is not replacing on its own. Sometimes, they will be drugs that kill cells that we don't want. Sometimes, they will be gene therapy treatments that give cells new capabilities to break down waste products, for example. Sometimes, they will be vaccines or other immune therapies to stimulate the immune system to eliminate certain substances. Many different things. In five years from now, we will probably have most of that working. I do not think that we will really have it perfect by then; probably, we will still be at the early stages of clinical trials in some of these things. Then, we will need to combine them, one by one, to make sure that they do not affect each other negatively. So, there will still be some way to go . But, yes, I think it's quite likely that in five years from now, we will have everything, or almost everything, in clinical trials.
Then clinical trials for seven years until it's perfected. Don't clinical trials usually take a long time?
It depends. For example, in aging, because there is this progressive accumulation of damage, you could have therapies that slow down the rate at which damage accumulates, or you could have therapies that repair the damage that has already happened. The second type of therapy is what we think is going to be most effective and is going to be easiest to do, and you can see results from that very quickly, like in one or two years. Now, of course, you still want to know what happens later on, but the first thing is to determine whether this is working at all, and as soon as it starts to work, then you can start to make it available. Clinical trials are changing in that way. Historically, clinical trials had to be completed before anybody could get these drugs, but now we are getting new policies; there is a thing called adaptive licensing, which is becoming popular in the US and elsewhere, where the therapy becomes approved at an earlier stage, and then it's monitored after that.
Beyond the humanitarian perspective of avoiding the pain and suffering that comes with old age, if increasing the years of healthy life in people will significantly reduce health care spending by governments, why don't they promote research in this area?
You're absolutely right. It's quite strange that governments are so short-sighted. But, of course, the real problem is psychological: it's not just governments that are short-sighted. Almost everybody in the world is short-sighted about this. The reason I believe why that's true is people still can't quite convince themselves that it's going to happen. Since the beginning of civilization, we have known that there is this terrible thing called aging, and we have been desperate to do something about it, to get rid of it. And people have been coming along, ever since the beginning of civilization, saying, "Yes, here's the solution, here's the fountain of youth!" And they've always been wrong. So, when the next person comes along and says they think they know how to do it, of course, there is going to be some skepticism until they have really shown that it's true. Of course, if you don't think it's going to work, then you're not going to support the effort financially. It's very short-sighted, but it's understandable.
Why do you think that the pharmaceutical industry does not devote its research and development efforts to this area, which causes the death of 100,000 people every day?
Today, the pharmaceutical industry is geared toward keeping old people alive when they are sick. It makes its money that way. It's not just the pharmaceutical industry, it's the whole of the medical industry. And so, most people say that they are worried that maybe the pharmaceutical industry will be against these therapies when they do come along. I don't think that's true at all. I think they will be in favor because people will be in favor, but people are not really in favor yet. People don't really trust preventive medicine. They think "Okay if I am not yet sick…" They don't trust medicine in general; they know that this is experimental. So, when they are not yet sick, they think "Well, I'll wait until I am sick," but we can change that. Eventually, people will understand that it's going to be much more effective to treat yourself before you get sick, and then the whole medical industry will just respond to that; they will make the medicines that people want to pay for.