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

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

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

Post by williatw »

Everyday drugs could give extra years of life

Image

MILLIONS of people are taking anti-ageing drugs every day – they just don't know it. Drugs to slow ageing sound futuristic but they already exist in the form of relatively cheap medicines that have been used for other purposes for decades.

Now that their promise is emerging, some scientists have started using them off-label in the hope of extending lifespan – and healthspan. "We are already treating ageing," said gerontologist Brian Kennedy at the International Symposium on Geroprotectors in Basel, Switzerland, last week, where the latest results were presented. "We have been doing ageing research all along but we didn't know it."

Last year Google took its first steps into longevity research with the launch of Calico, an R&D firm that aims to use technology to understand lifespan. Geneticist Craig Venter announced he is pursuing a similar goal via genome sequencing. Now pharmaceutical companies look set to join in. At the conference, the head of Swiss drug firm Novartis said research into "geroprotectors" or longevity drugs was a priority.

Google and Venter's plans may have injected an over-hyped field with a measure of credibility but they are unlikely to bear fruit for some time. Yet evidence is emerging that some existing drugs have modest effects on lifespan, giving an extra 10 years or so of life. "We can develop effective combinations for life extension right now using available drugs," says Mikhail Blagosklonny of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in New York.

One of the most promising groups of drugs is based on a compound called rapamycin. It was first used to suppress the immune system in organ transplant recipients, then later found to extend lifespan in yeast and worms. In 2009, mice were added to the list when the drug was found to lengthen the animals' lives by up to 14 per cent, even though they were started on the drug at 600 days old, the human equivalent of being about 60.

The most commonly used medicine for type 2 diabetes, metformin, also seems to extend the lifespan of many small animals, including mice, by around 5 per cent.

There have been no trials of metformin as a longevity drug in people, but a recent study hinted that it might have a similar effect. The study was designed to compare metformin with another diabetes medicine, using records of 180,000 UK patients. To tease out the differences between the drugs, people who started taking them were compared with people without diabetes who had been closely matched for age and other health factors, and tracked over five years.

Surprisingly, diabetics taking metformin were not only less likely to die in that time than those on the other medicine but they were also about 15 per cent less likely to die than people without diabetes who took neither drug. "This shows we already have a drug that we can potentially use in humans," says Nir Barzilai, who heads the Institute for Aging Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... Cx3kbHD-Uk

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

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

Post by williatw »

Antibiotic Pulled From Dirt Ends 25-Year Drug Drought

Image
While the new drug, teixobactin, hasn’t yet been tested in people, it cured all mice infected with antibiotic-resistant staphylococci bacteria that usually kills 90 percent of the animals, according to a study published today in the journal Nature. Source: BSIP/UIG via Getty Images

Scientists have discovered an antibiotic capable of fighting infections that kill hundreds of thousands of people each year, a breakthrough that could lead to the field’s first major new drug in more than a quarter-century.

The experimental drug, which was isolated from a sample of New England dirt, is called teixobactin. It hasn’t yet been tested in people, though it cured all mice infected with antibiotic-resistant staphylococci bacteria that usually kills 90 percent of the animals, according to a study published today in the journal Nature. Bacteria appear to have a particularly difficult time developing resistance to the drug, potentially overcoming a major problem with existing antibiotics.

“It should be used, if it gets successfully developed, as broadly as possible, because it is exceptionally well-protected from resistance development,” said Kim Lewis, one of the study’s authors and a professor at Northeastern University in Boston. Lewis estimated that it may take more than 30 years for bacteria to become resistant to teixobactin. He is also a co-founder of NovoBiotic Pharmaceuticals LLC, which is developing the drug.

Video: Antibiotic Pulled From Maine Dirt Ends Drug Drought



Teixobactin strikes multiple targets, including cell walls, said Tanja Schneider, a lead author of the study and professor at the University of Bonn in Germany. Since the lipid structures it attacks don’t evolve as quickly as frequently mutating proteins, it may take the bacteria longer than usual to develop a survival tactic.

‘All Lethal’

“Not only one target is attacked by teixobactin but multiple targets, and they are all lethal,” Schneider said on a conference call with reporters. For bacteria it will be “very hard to modify this target, especially this part of the molecule that’s bound by teixobactin,” she said.

The last major new antibiotic, daptomycin, was discovered in the 1980s by Eli Lilly & Co. After being abandoned in early testing, the drug was licensed by Cubist Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 1997 and approved for sale in 2003. Merck & Co. last year agreed to buy Cubist for $8.4 billion.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria kill at least 700,000 people a year, according to a U.K. government review. Unchecked, those infections could lead to 10 million more deaths a year by 2050, the report found.

Backyard Dirt

Many antibiotics are found in natural settings, sending drug researchers to rainforests, caves, or in the case of Cubist’s drug, the almost 17,000-foot Mount Ararat in Turkey, to hunt down potential treatments. The scientists, who discovered the producer of teixobactin in a grassy field in Maine, used a new technique that cultivates bacteria in the lab using environments that mimic natural habitats.

“Some of the antibiotics are from exotic places, but the reason for that -- there’s no scientific basis,” Lewis said in a phone interview today. “Common soils such as in a field, either tilled or grass, gives you a very nice variety of all types of creatures. And a lot of isolates in the collection come from the backyard of Losee Ling, from NovoBiotic, and she lives in Lexington, Massachusetts.” Ling is the company’s head of research and development.

The team has looked at 10,000 bacteria strains so far and along with teixobactin uncovered more than 20 new antibiotics, Lewis said during the press conference. “This is a promising source in general for antibiotics and has a good chance of reviving the field.”

Drug Development

The drug worked best against what are known as gram-positive bacteria, which have weaker cell walls and includes streptococcus and MRSA. Gram-negative bacteria have stronger walls and include pathogens such as E. coli.

Teixobactin was also able to successfully attack drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis, which is neither clearly gram-positive nor gram-negative. The researchers are working on adaptations to make teixobactin effective against gram-negative cells as well.

It may take five to six years and hundreds of millions of dollars to bring the antibiotic to market, Lewis said.

“We’ve been seeing very high numbers for introducing the drug, between $1 to $2 billion, but part of that calculation takes into account the cost of failure,” Lewis said in the press briefing. “In this case we have not been spending a lot of money so far and I think it will be in the low hundreds of millions to develop.”






http://www.businessweek.com/news/2015-0 ... ry-drought

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

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

Post by choff »

Found in the dirt, maybe that explains how sometimes dirty wounds heal just fine.
CHoff

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

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

Post by GIThruster »

Yes, and why the best way to have lunch when training is to stop by the side of the road and rub gravel through your hair.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

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

Post by Betruger »

GIThruster wrote:Yes, and why the best way to have lunch when training is to stop by the side of the road and rub gravel through your hair.
?
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.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

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

Post by GIThruster »

Monty Python reference.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

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

Post by Betruger »

Ah.
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.

mdeminico
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:26 pm

Re:

Post by mdeminico »

CaptainBeowulf wrote:If it was so easy I'd think that evolution would've found a way to make it happen.
Except macroevolution is the biggest bag of crap in the history of mankind...

mdeminico
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:26 pm

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

Post by mdeminico »

Look, our human bodies, at the base level, are simply biological machines. They only do what they're told to do. There's no reason why it couldn't be made to repair itself with proper instructions.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

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

Post by hanelyp »

mdeminico wrote:Look, our human bodies, at the base level, are simply biological machines. They only do what they're told to do. There's no reason why it couldn't be made to repair itself with proper instructions.
At what liability to nutritional demand, reproductive potential, or ability to survive the rigors of the hunt? A genetic change change for an extended potential lifespan doesn't amount to much if few survive the hazards of life long enough to enjoy it. Modern medicine and lifestyle change the balance vs. the norm for most of recorded history and before.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

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

Post by williatw »

hanelyp wrote:At what liability to nutritional demand, reproductive potential, or ability to survive the rigors of the hunt? A genetic change for an extended potential lifespan doesn't amount to much if few survive the hazards of life long enough to enjoy it. Modern medicine and lifestyle change the balance vs. the norm for most of recorded history and before.
Correct natural selection is only interested in our genetic survival through our progeny. Doesn't give a wit about our individual desire for a longer healthier life accept so far as it impacts said genetic survival. However:

..if I could replace my body even a little bit at a time I could improve/upgrade it to. Many times faster than natural evolution could. New designs could be tried, designs that were well "designed" intelligently instead of just random mutations. I mean for instance if we ever terraformed Mars, we would likely design the life including our selves to live there. Respirocytes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirocyte to make one better adapted to the lower O2 higher CO2 condition of a partially altered mars for instance. Our Evolution in the centuries/millenia to come will likely be a directed process not only altering our germ line but our somatic as well. That is we will willfully upgrade ourselves and any progeny we have.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3504

In other words in the times to come we can game the system somewhat & take charge of our future evolution. While still ultimately natural selection would be king; even enhanced greatly life extended humans would doubtlessly die of something eventually. Nature would ultimately decide which of our designed human enhancements would turn out to work well; (or we would when we see how they play out and make corrections/adjustments). However our "progeny" under those circumstances would be intelligently designed/selected rather than just random mutations selected for by the environment.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

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

Post by GIThruster »

williatw wrote:. . .we can game the system somewhat & take charge of our future evolution. While still ultimately natural selection would be king. . .
I think you misunderstand. When you guide the system, it is not evolving at all. It is the opposite. You're talking about special creation, the thing most evolutionists consider to be anathema. Funny they can't accept God creating but man creating is just fine.

Natural selection has no part in this. The mechanism is really unnatural unselection. If a trait can be given to all people living on Mars, such as enhanced athletics designed for the lower gravity, anyone who does not have that trait will find themselves at a disadvantage but here is the really interesting part--civilization always mitigates against selection based on survival traits. Civility is bucking the standards of brutish life and selection. What is the welfare system, except a deliberate effort to thwart selection? I'm not here making a moral judgment about this, but just noting, when you're looking at society, you are not looking at random, evolutionary forces, and the whole notion of social evolution, is obviously an oxymoron. Societies do not evolve. They change and grow, but they do not get modified by natural selection.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

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

Post by williatw »

GIThruster wrote:I think you misunderstand. When you guide the system, it is not evolving at all. It is the opposite. You're talking about special creation, the thing most evolutionists consider to be anathema. Funny they can't accept God creating but man creating is just fine.
Don't they? When the Irish "decided" to grow potatoes from a small number of stock they "created" nearly genetically identical stock that was heavily vulnerable to a type of fungus. Their "guided" systems under went massive "evolution" when their crops were destroyed and they mass starved.
GIThruster wrote: Natural selection has no part in this. The mechanism is really unnatural unselection. If a trait can be given to all people living on Mars, such as enhanced athletics designed for the lower gravity, anyone who does not have that trait will find themselves at a disadvantage but here is the really interesting part--civilization always mitigates against selection based on survival traits.
Civilization tries to mitigate would be a better way of putting it. But you can only do that with surplus energy/resources; if your mitigation is too costly it will eventually lead to societal collapse, or the end or curbing of the mitigation. That is essentially nature selecting for what works. In the example of Mars as time went on fewer and fewer of the maladaptive people would be born; either because they just don't survive as well in spite of gov. intervention, and/or people would just not choose to keep having more and more of them.

GIThruster wrote: Civility is bucking the standards of brutish life and selection. What is the welfare system, except a deliberate effort to thwart selection? I'm not here making a moral judgment about this, but just noting, when you're looking at society, you are not looking at random, evolutionary forces, and the whole notion of social evolution, is obviously an oxymoron. Societies do not evolve. They change and grow, but they do not get modified by natural selection.
How long has the welfare state been around? How long will it last given its increasing consumption of society’s limited stock of surplus wealth and resources that make it ultimately unsustainable in current form? Societies do "evolve" when maladaptive ones fall by the wayside; either physically conquered or economic collapse or both. The successors try to learn from the failed ones; if they don't they suffer the same fate. What ultimately decides long term what societal behaviors survive and propagate and which ones don't but natural selection? Government intervention can sustain maladaptive behaviors for a while but eventually the cost just become too great; those "costs" exceeding benefits is natural selection at work. Humanity could learn to "engineer" itself physically and mentally; but long term only those changes that showed themselves to be viable would last; the rest would be weeded out.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

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

Post by GIThruster »

williatw wrote:When the Irish "decided" to grow potatoes from a small number of stock they "created" nearly genetically identical stock that was heavily vulnerable to a type of fungus.
That's nonsense. All potatoes are vulnerable to blight. The reason the Irish perished during the 7 years of heavy rains was that 1/3 of the populous was forced by their English landlords to plant nothing but tobacco and potatoes to live on. There were other economic reasons, but the fact is 1/3 of the island lived off potatoes almost exclusively and when the blight came, that crop failed. It does not matter what sort of potatoes you have when the blight comes.
Government intervention can sustain maladaptive behaviors for a while but eventually the cost just become too great. . .
You sound like a eugenicist. So you think every person born with a disability of any kind should be left to die the way the Eskimos used to? They create a burden that is too much?

That's just foul and inhumane.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

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

Post by williatw »

GIThruster wrote:
williatw wrote:When the Irish "decided" to grow potatoes from a small number of stock they "created" nearly genetically identical stock that was heavily vulnerable to a type of fungus.
That's nonsense. All potatoes are vulnerable to blight. The reason the Irish perished during the 7 years of heavy rains was that 1/3 of the populous was forced by their English landlords to plant nothing but tobacco and potatoes to live on. There were other economic reasons, but the fact is 1/3 of the island lived off potatoes almost exclusively and when the blight came, that crop failed. It does not matter what sort of potatoes you have when the blight comes.
Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the potatoes grown in Ireland were of a single variety, the Irish Lumper.[24] The expansion of the economy between 1760 and 1815 saw the potato make inroads into the diet of the people and become a staple food year round for farmers.[25] Over the course of one day, men could eat 60 potatoes, women 40, and children 25. The large dependency on this single crop, and the lack of genetic variability among the potato plants in Ireland, were two of the reasons why the emergence of Phytophthora infestans had such devastating effects in Ireland and less severe effects elsewhere in Europe.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fami ... dependency


Government intervention can sustain maladaptive behaviors for a while but eventually the cost just become too great. . .
GIThruster wrote: You sound like a eugenicist. So you think every person born with a disability of any kind should be left to die the way the Eskimos used to? They create a burden that is too much?
That's just foul and inhumane.
Who said anything about letting/causing them to die? Merely stated that maladaptive behaviors/innate tendencies will be selected against; there is nothing I or anyone else can do to alter that long term.

Post Reply