Tag: Ending Aging

Interview with Stephanie Planque from Covalent Bioscience by Ariel VA Feinerman

Interview with Stephanie Planque from Covalent Bioscience by Ariel VA Feinerman

Comments 0 Comment

logo_bg

Ariel VA Feinerman
Stephanie Planque

Dr. Stephanie Planque

This interview was originally published here.

Preface

What is ageing? We can define ageing as a process of accumulation of the damage which is just a side-effect of normal metabolism. While researchers still poorly understand how metabolic processes cause damage accumulation, and how accumulated damage causes pathology, the damage itself — the structural difference between old tissue and young tissue — is categorized and understood pretty well. By repairing damage and restoring the previous undamaged — young — state of an organism, we can really rejuvenate it! It sounds very promising, and so it is. And for some types of damage (for example, for senescent cells) it is already proved to work!

Today in our virtual studio, somewhere between cold, rainy Saint-Petersburg and warm, sunny Houston, we meet Stephanie Planque! For those of you who are not familiar with her, here is a brief introduction.

Stephanie Planque was awarded the PhD in 2009 by the University of Texas-Houston Medical School for her advances in applying electrophilic analogs of proteins to decipher the beneficial and harmful functional effects of catabodies. She then expanded her focus to vaccination and therapeutic catabody identification using proprietary electrophilic target analogs. Her work was published in 49 peer-reviewed scientific articles; she has numerous national/international conference presentations. She moved fulltime as a co-founder to Covalent Bioscience in 2018 to focus on rapidly translating their electrophilic vaccine/catabody technologies to clinical reality.

Note: If you have not read Ending Aging yet, I suggest you to do it as soon as possible, and to be more comfortable with the ideas we are discussing below I highly recommend you to read the short introduction to SENS research on their web page. Also if you are interested in recent news and up-to-date reviews about [anti]ageing and rejuvenation research, the best place to look for is the Fight Aging! blog. Finally, if you are an investor or just curious, I highly encourage you to take a look at Jim Mellon’s book Juvenescence.

Interview

Ariel Feinerman: Hello, Dr Stephanie Planque!

Stephanie Planque: Hi, Mr Feinerman! Happy to participate in this interview.

Ariel Feinerman: What is the brief history of Covalent Bioscience?

Stephanie Planque: Covalent Bioscience was incorporated in 2010 by Dr Sudhir Paul and Dr Richard Massey based on catalytic antibody technology and several exciting potential products for unmet medical needs. The technology and potential products were developed in Dr Sudhir Paul’s group at the University of Texas (UT). Dr Richard Massey and Dr Sudhir Paul have worked together on the field of catalytic antibody (or catabody) when Dr Massey was in Igen in the late 80’s. I have worked with Dr Paul since 1999 and am one of the co-founders of Covalent Bioscience. We, the founders of Covalent Bioscience, share the same conviction that our platform technology holds the potential to generate superior immunotherapeutic drug and vaccines.

Today, Covalent Bioscience has grown to a preclinical stage company holding significant assets. Our broad technology platform can be applied to generate novel lead products for unmet needs across multiple areas of medicine. We have three promising lead products for diseases that proved very difficult to treat and prevent by conventional means. Two of them are catabodies for treating age-associated diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and transthyretin amyloidosis. The products are expected to remove toxic aggregates that cause diseases in a more efficient and safe manner than conventional antibodies. In 2018, Dr Paul and I moved full time to Covalent Bioscience. Our lab is located at the skirt of the Houston Medical Center, biggest Medical Center in the World. In 2020, Covalent Bioscience received from The University of Texas the commercial rights to all inventions and research materials/tools Paul’s team generated there. With our current funding, we are generating new catabodies and working in collaboration with a Pharma company to advance one of our lead products closer to human trials.

Ariel Feinerman: What is the main focus of your research?

Stephanie Planque: Our main focus is, first, to optimize our an on-demand toolbox that enables generation of therapeutic catabodies and diagnostic irreversible antibodies with selectivity for virtually any protein target. Second, we want to accomplish preclinical milestones related to our anti-aging lead catabodies, Alzyme and Tauzyme for clearing brain amyloid proteins in Alzheimer’s disease, and Cardizyme for clearing heart and spinal cord amyloid caused by the transthyretin protein.

Ariel Feinerman: What is the basis of your technology?

Stephanie Planque: Our technology is based on using special chemically modified analogs of the target to isolate or generate catabodies, which modify permanently the target via enzymatic reaction or irreversible antibodies (IrAbs), which bind permanently to the target. These chemically modified target analogs can be used as probes to isolate catabodies or IrAbs from antibody libraries or as electrophilic vaccines (E-Vaccines) to induce a polyclonal catabodies and IrAb response.

The chemical modification consists in attaching electrophilic moieties on the surface of the target to fulfill two important goals. First, we want target-specific catabodies or IrAbs. The polypeptidic component of the target binds non-covalently to target-specific antibody displayed on surface of phage or B cells (B cell receptor, or BCRs). Second, the electrophilic moiety is a bait and is designed to mimic the natural weak electrophilic carbonyl present in the target and to form a non-hydrolyzable (or covalent) bond with the nucleophilic active site (negatively charged) of a catabody or IrAbs expressed on the B-cell surface as BCRs or expressed on phage display. This covalent bond traps the immune complex and prevents the hydrolysis step. However, when switching to the native target, the selected or induced catabodies will be capable to attack the natural weakly electrophilic carbonyl naturally present in the native target and hydrolyze the target.

Ariel Feinerman: Can you tell more how catabodies work? What are their unique properties? Which ageing pathology can you treat with them?

Stephanie Planque: The conventional antibodies are used as therapeutic and diagnostic agents. Their mechanism of action relies on binding specifically to the target. One molecule of antibody binds one target molecule. In contrast, one catabody can modify and destroy multiple target molecules and therefore is a therapeutic agent that is more efficient at removing toxic targets.

Conventional antibodies have the intrinsic limitation of dissociating from the target, the binding is reversible. In contrast, IrAbs bind any target covalently and therefore are diagnostic agents that are more efficient at detecting the target.

Covalent has developed two first-in-class lead catabody products for age-associated major unmet needs: Alzyme, for clearing amyloid β plaques from the brain for treating Alzheimer’s disease, and Cardizyme, for clearing transthyretin amyloid plaques from the spinal cord and heart for treating systemic amyloid disease. Two conventional antibodies to Aβ have been approved by FDA for Alzheimer’s disease to remove Aβ and improve cognition. They both are accompanied with inflammation in the brain caused by the antibody~Aβ immune complex activated microglia that can cause major adverse effects (edema, microbleeds, and death). In mice, Alzyme removed Aβ amyloid without causing inflammation. Aβ-binding antibodies are fundamentally flawed drugs for Alzheimer’s because they rely on brain-damaging inflammatory mechanism to remove amyloid. In contrast, catabodies remove disease-causing amyloids without inflammation.

Ariel Feinerman: We know that Aβ is not the full story. There is Tau, chronic inflammation, lipofuscin.

Stephanie Planque: To be used in combination with Alzyme, we are developing a prototype catabody to misfolded Tau, another misfolded protein that plays a role in Alzheimer’s disease but also other taupathy.

Our technology can induce catabodies or IrAb to any targets. Hence, in addition to developing a catabody for any extracellular or intracellular amyloids, catabodies could be generated to dissolve lipofuscin accumulating during aging or to destroy any protein regulating cell loss, tissue atrophy, inflammation, or cancerous cells, and this could further help in fighting aging.

Ariel Feinerman: What is an E-Vaccine? How do they work? How do they differ from original vaccines?

Stephanie Planque: We use the term “electrophilic vaccine” or “E-Vaccine” because the vaccine is composed of the target modified to present an electrophilic moiety on its surface. The goal of an E-vaccine is to teach our body to make catabodies or IrAbs and that will protect the vaccinated individual when exposed to the toxic substance or microbes.

E-vaccines are shown to stimulate the body’s own immune system to produce protective catabodies and IrAbs to protein targets involved in infectious disease and accelerated aging. As the catabodies and IrAbs show protective activity superior to the ordinary vaccine-induced rAbs, E-vaccines are predicted to show superior efficacy in disease prevention. Further, the E-vaccine targeting range is also superior to ordinary vaccines — they can target the functionally important regions of the protein target hidden to ordinary vaccines. The E-vaccine technology holds special promise for effective prevention of infections caused by mutable microbes (such as HIV infection, the SARS-coronavirus-2 infection). The technology can also be adapted to develop longevity vaccines. This is supported by induction of catabodies and IrAbs in mice with a prototype electrophilic amyloid β peptides for protecting against Alzheimer’s disease. Covalent Bioscience also considers electrophilic misfolded transthyretin analogs to protect against transthyretin amyloidosis.

The principle and benefits of E-vaccines come from our lead product, HIV E-Vaccine. Our HIV E-vaccine is composed of HIV coat protein gp120 with electrophilic moiety on the Lys side chain. It was shown to induce catabodies and IrAbs that neutralize genetically diverse HIV strains in mice, rabbits, and non-human primates. It also induces an efficient IgM-IgG switch, of a B cell with specificity for a conserved but poorly immunogenic epitopes of gp120. Covalent Bioscience intends to bring the vaccine to the human-trials stage.

Ariel Feinerman: What products are you hoping to bring to market? What is your commercialization route?

Stephanie Planque: We plan to bring to market our Alzyme for clearing brain amyloid protein in Alzheimer’s disease alone or in combination with Tauzyme. We also plan to move forward Cardizyme for clearing heart and spinal cord amyloid caused by the transthyretin protein.

Covalent’s lead anti-amyloid catabodies are the best solution because they permanently and directly destroy thousands of targeted amyloid copies (Aβ, tau or TTR) without inflammation or blood vessel damage. In contrast, competing drug candidates: (a) work reversibly on a 1:1 basis, (b) require inflammatory cell participation for amyloid removal, © can cause inflammation and vascular damage that nullify the amyloid removal benefit, or (d) can interfere with normal bodily processes requiring the properly folded, non-amyloid version of the protein target.

We seek investment, partnership and licensing arrangements to develop our products and validate the commercial value of our technologies.

Ariel Feinerman: When can we see your therapies in human clinical trials?

Stephanie Planque: We are completing some preclinical efficacy studies for Alzyme in animals. Considering the need for GMP-grade production of Alzyme and submission of an IND to FDA, human trials for Alzyme would be within 2–3 years. A similar timeline is expected for Cardizyme. Tauzyme requires additional preclinical testing and would reach human trials within 4 years. We are actively seeking funding and a partner that would allow us to more rapidly have these three products to reach human trials.

Ariel Feinerman: How are you funded?

Stephanie Planque: The technology was developed at the University of Nebraska and University of Texas using funds received from NIH and other non-profit organizations (The Richard J. Massey Foundation for Arts and Sciences, Abzyme Research Foundation, SENS Research Foundation), investment from Founders and Angel investors. Angel investors constitute our current funding source. Covalent invites a USD 4.5 million investment in exchange for equity to advance commercialization of these inter-related parts of its business plan over 18 months for developing our on-demand toolbox and our anti-aging lead catabodies.

Ariel Feinerman: How much money do you need to bring your therapies to the clinic?

Stephanie Planque: The funding will underwrite the milestones of manufacturing, animal toxicity profiles, and Phase 1 human trials of the catabodies. Covalent will need about $4.6M to complete final Alzyme preclinical milestones and Phase 1 trials in Alzheimer patients; about $4.7M to complete molecular and animal optimization of Tauzyme and advance the Tauzyme catabody in combination with Alzyme in Alzheimer patients; about $6M to test Cardizyme in patients with heart disease or lumbar spinal stenosis.

Ariel Feinerman: Thank you very much for your interview!

Stephanie Planque: Thank you for your interest in Covalent Bioscience.

Ariel VA Feinerman is a researcher, author, and photographer, who believes that people should not die from diseases and ageing, and whose main goal is to improve human health and achieve immortality. If you like Ariel’s work, any help would be appreciated via PayPal: arielfeinerman@gmail.com.

U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Michael Rae – August 6, 2023

U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Michael Rae – August 6, 2023

Comments 0 Comment

U.S. Transhumanist Party Logo

Michael Rae
Gennady Stolyarov II
Art Ramon Garcia, Jr.
Ben Ballweg
Jason Geringer
JosĂŠ Cordeiro
Bill Andrews
David Wood

On Sunday, August 6, 2023, the U.S. Transhumanist Party invited Michael Rae to present his thoughts on how the science of longevity has evolved since the publication of Ending Aging in 2008 and what aspects he thinks a contemporary overview of the science would need to address.

Timestamps

3:22 – Michael Rae’s presentation (including an introduction to SENS, and progress since “Ending Aging” was published in 2008)

1:40:06 – Aubrey de Grey’s current work, and how we achieve Ray Kurzweil’s predictions

1:45:03 – Our current ability to determine whether or not a cell is senescent, whether our inability to know might make senolytics risky (like through losing too many cells), and how a more gradual elimination might keep senolytics safe

1:54:22 – Where we have the most progress to make

Michael Rae is the co-author with Dr. Aubrey de Grey of “Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime” (2008). He is also the author of five scientific articles and commentaries in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of his work has been devoted to elucidating the SENS platform for anti-aging biomedicine for a popular audience. His undergraduate minor was in biology. He is a long-time member and one-time Board Member of the Calorie Restriction Society, a main contributor to the Society’s “How-to Guide”, and was core scientific investigator with the CR Society Cohort Study. Michael Rae currently works as the Science Writer for the SENS Research Foundation.

Find Ending Aging on Amazon.

Read the SENSible Blog, for which Michael Rae has written many of the articles.

Articles by Michael Rae – From Parachutes to Jetpacks: Clearing Brain Beta-Amyloid with Donanemab or Lecanemab Works, Though More Must be Done – June 5, 2023

Set My Heart Free: Two AmyloSENS Therapies Targeting Cardiac Amyloid in Clinical Trials – August 2, 2023.

Question of the Month: Senolytics – Solution or Self-Defeating for Senescent Cells? – October 6, 2019.

Join the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside.

Ending Aging Forum 2023 – Announcement by SENS Research Foundation

Ending Aging Forum 2023 – Announcement by SENS Research Foundation

Comments 0 Comment

SENS Research Foundation

Editor’s Note: Our friends, the scientists and staff at the SENS Research Foundation, are hosting the free Ending Aging Forum 2023. Please see the information below about how to attend and gather insights from this virtual event.

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, September 18, 2023

This event will showcase the newest breakthroughs in rejuvenation biotechnologies happening at the SRF’s Research Center in Mountain View, CA, as well as the research funded at extramural labs.

The Forum will be hosted virtually through Meetaverse, a state-of-the-art Virtual Reality platform.

You won’t need to download any special software or wear a VR headset to walk around in your avatar, enjoy their scientific presentations, and visit their student poster booths in the Conference Hall.

You will also be able to connect with their scientists, team members, and other guests, through one-on-one or group conversations, watch videos and animations placed in the Expo Room, and much more.

Join us and SRF September 21st and 22nd at 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Pacific Time for a fun and educational experience, and come ready to network and meet individuals who support longevity science, activists, and like-minded people who care about a future free of age-related disease.

Event Page: https://www.sens.org/endingagingforum-2023/

Registration Page: http://www.sens.org/eaf2023

The Unnatural Objection to Life Extension – Article by Arin Vahanian

The Unnatural Objection to Life Extension – Article by Arin Vahanian

Comments 0 Comment

Arin Vahanian

Of all the objections to life extension, perhaps the most banal one yet is the argument that it is not natural for humans to want to live longer and healthier than they currently do. Of course, not only does this actually go against human nature itself, but it is also an insult to the immense progress we have made in improving the human condition throughout the course of history. In fact, this opposition to life extension also flies in the face of the entire medical industry, which is focused on keeping people alive, and any other industry that contributes to the betterment of the human condition, of which there are many. The fact is, opposing life extension is what is unnatural, because it is a natural human desire to want to survive, and to continue living in a healthy manner.

And let me be clear – just because something is natural does not make it good. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that getting poisoned by a plant, mauled by a wild animal, drowned by a tsunami, or crushed by a landslide are scenarios that are to be avoided at all costs. That these sorts of events are now relatively rare speaks volumes about the progress we have made in battling the destructive forces of nature.

Similarly, cancer, heart attacks, and strokes are natural too, yet no one would say that these conditions are desirable or good. In fact, many billions of dollars and resources are spent on finding a cure for these diseases, and for good reason – these diseases are deadly and contribute to massive suffering and pain.

To be sure, the environment is precious and should be protected. After all, to be able to walk through a forest and appreciate the flora and fauna is refreshing. Being able to visit a beach and feel the cool ocean breeze on one’s skin on a late summer afternoon is lovely. However, we should also be very wary of romanticizing nature, mostly because nature is entirely indifferent to the human condition. Indeed, nature does not care one bit about our happiness or fulfillment. Earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis and hurricanes are part of nature, but no sane person would argue that these events are positive or that we should experience more of them.

Just because something exists in nature does not make it desirable or good. Conversely, just because something was developed outside of nature does not make it undesirable or bad. In fact, more often than not, science and technology have contributed to massively improving the quality of life for human beings. Imagine how much worse life would be without electricity, life-saving medicines, medical procedures, and computer technology.

How many people now would say that the tuberculosis vaccine, stents, or pacemakers are bad and should be abolished? Of course, all these discoveries were “unnatural,” but no sane person would wish to be inflicted with a deadly infectious disease or suffer a heart attack.

But going back to talking about the environment, climate change is a very real threat to planet Earth and humanity, and we should do all we can to protect our planet, the human race, and members of the animal kingdom. However, the solution to climate change is not going to arrive automatically as part of a natural process. Neither is the answer to stop evolving as a species or to stop all technological innovation and progress and revert to the Dark Ages, and in turn have humanity experience economic collapse and widespread suffering. In fact, humanity’s best hope for battling climate change will likely come from science and technology.

Further, attempting to control nature is what has allowed us to come up with inventions such as indoor plumbing, safe and comfortable shelter, and weather forecasts, all of which have improved the quality of life dramatically. Suppose that we had just let nature run its course in these scenarios. I don’t think I need to spell out what would have happened to humans had we allowed that to happen.

But even after we have thoroughly debunked this ridiculous objection to life extension, critics may then move on to other objections, such as the idea that a human life is already long enough, or that we may become bored if we were to live longer, or that the Earth will become overpopulated. Fortunately, we have answers to these objections as well. And what about the argument that sickness and death are inevitable and that we should just accept things the way they are? This topic deserves its own discussion, but for the moment we can respond by saying that catching an infectious disease and dying at the age of 20 or 30 was once the way things used to be, but it is fortunately no longer the case.

The fact is that it is entirely natural for humans to want to live longer and healthier. Indeed, it is what we have been trying to do since the dawn of time. It is human nature to want to survive and thrive. For the first time in human history, we have the potential to overcome nature itself. Limiting ourselves to what is natural means we deny ourselves the opportunity to be better and to do better. Dying at 20 years of age due to cholera, measles, or malaria wasn’t our destiny as human beings, and therefore we overcame infectious illnesses and significantly increased our life expectancy. Now, we are at a crossroads where we get to decide if we wish to continue suffering for years and then dying due to aging-related illnesses such as dementia, heart disease, and cancer, or, whether we will dedicate this next stage of human development to overcoming these horrific illnesses.

Of course, even after admitting that aging-related illnesses and natural disasters are devastating and should be avoided at all costs, opponents of life extension may still argue that they are entitled to oppose life extension. Of course, they are entitled to their beliefs, no matter how faulty their reasoning and logic may be, but we supporters of life extension are also entitled to advocate for the defeat of aging-related illnesses and to improve the human condition through advancements in science and technology, even if these advancements are not part of nature.

I would urge those who oppose life extension technologies because they are unnatural to revisit their stance after burying a loved one who dies from cancer, or after witnessing a calamitous natural disaster that destroys entire towns and kills thousands of people.

If nature held all the solutions to life, then we would not need to build earthquake-resistant buildings, we would not need to develop anti-cancer drugs, and we would not need spend money, time, and resources on reducing human suffering and improving the human condition.

Nature is how we started as human beings, but nature is not where we need to end.

Arin Vahanian is Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party. 

Dr. Aubrey de Grey Accelerates His Estimates – Article by Steve Hill

Dr. Aubrey de Grey Accelerates His Estimates – Article by Steve Hill

Comments 0 Comment

Steve Hill

Editor’s Note: In this article, Mr. Steve Hill highlights a recent webinar where Dr. Aubrey de Grey, the Biogerontology Advisor of the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party, revised his projections for the arrival of rejuvenation treatments in a more optimistic direction. This article was originally published by the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation (LEAF).

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party, April 16, 2019

On January 28, 2019, we held a webinar with the SENS Research Foundation as part of a new ongoing series of research webinars. During the webinar, we asked Dr. Aubrey de Grey how close we might be to achieving robust mouse rejuvenation (RMR) and robust human rejuvenation, and his answer was somewhat surprising.

RMR is defined as reproducibly trebling the remaining lifespan of naturally long-lived (~3 years average lifespan) mice with therapies begun when they are already two years old.

Dr. de Grey now suggests that there is a 50/50 chance of achieving robust mouse rejuvenation within 3 years from now; recent interviews and conversation reveal that he’d adjusted this figure down from 5-6 years. He has also moved his estimation of this to arrive from around 20 years to 18 years for humans.

So, what is the basis for this advance in schedule? Dr. de Grey is more optimistic about how soon we might see these technologies arrive, as the level of crosstalk between damages appears to be higher than he originally anticipated a decade ago. This means that robust mouse and human rejuvenation may be easier than he previously believed.

We also asked Dr. de Grey which of the seven damages of aging was the most challenging to address. Originally, he thought solving cancer through OncoSENS methods was the biggest challenge in ending age-related diseases. However, intriguingly, he speaks about his enthusiasm for immunotherapy and how it may potentially solve the cancer issue and negate the need for Whole-body Interdiction of Lengthening of Telomeres (WILT), which was always considered a last-resort approach to shutting down cancer.

There are two main components of the WILT approach. The first is to delete telomerase-producing genes from as many cells as possible, as human cancers lengthen telomeres through one of two available pathways, and the second is to avoid the harmful consequences of our cells no longer having telomerase by periodically transplanting fresh stem cells, which have also had their telomerase-associated genes knocked out, to replace losses.

This approach has always been considered extreme, and Dr. de Grey has always acknowledged that this was the case. However, over a decade ago when Dr. de Grey and Michael Rae originally proposed this in the book Ending Aging, immunotherapy was simply not on the radar. Now, there are alternatives to WILT that show true potential and less need for radical solutions, and it is reassuring to see that Dr. de Grey is so enthusiastic about them.

He now suggests that MitoSENS is probably the most challenging to tackle of the seven types of damage in the SENS model of aging. This is no surprise given that DNA and mtDNA damage are highly complex issues to fix.

On that note, we asked Dr. Amutha Boominathan from the MitoSENS team which mitochondrial gene was their next target after they had successfully created nuclear copies of the ATP-6 and ATP-8 genes.

MitoSENS will be launching a new fundraising campaign on Lifespan.io later this year with the aim of raising funds to progress to more of the mitochondrial genes. This time, the aim will be to move the approach to an animal model and demonstrate how it could be used to correct mitochondrial defects.

Finally, if you are interested in getting involved directly with these webinars and joining the live audience, check out the Lifespan Heroes page.

About  Steve Hill

As a scientific writer and a devoted advocate of healthy longevity technologies, Steve has provided the community with multiple educational articles, interviews and podcasts, helping the general public to better understand aging and the means to modify its dynamics. His materials can be found at H+ Magazine, Longevity reporter, Psychology Today and Singularity Weblog. He is a co-author of the book “Aging Prevention for All” – a guide for the general public exploring evidence-based means to extend healthy life (in press).

About LIFE EXTENSION ADVOCACY FOUNDATION (LEAF)

In 2014, the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation was established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting increased healthy human lifespan through fiscally sponsoring longevity research projects and raising awareness regarding the societal benefits of life extension. In 2015 they launched Lifespan.io, the first nonprofit crowdfunding platform focused on the biomedical research of aging.

They believe that this will enable the general public to influence the pace of research directly. To date they have successfully supported four research projects aimed at investigating different processes of aging and developing therapies to treat age-related diseases.

The LEAF team organizes educational events, takes part in different public and scientific conferences, and actively engages with the public on social media in order to help disseminate this crucial information. They initiate public dialogue aimed at regulatory improvement in the fields related to rejuvenation biotechnology.

Finally, Rejuvenation is a Thing! – Fresh Interview with Aubrey de Grey by Ariel VA Feinerman

Finally, Rejuvenation is a Thing! – Fresh Interview with Aubrey de Grey by Ariel VA Feinerman

Comments 1 comment

logo_bg

Ariel VA Feinerman
Aubrey de Grey

This interview was originally published here. 

Preface

What is ageing? We can define ageing as a process of accumulation of the damage which is just a side-effect of normal metabolism. While researchers still poorly understand how metabolic processes cause damage accumulation, and how accumulated damage causes pathology, the damage itself — the structural difference between old tissue and young tissue — is categorized and understood pretty well. By repairing damage and restoring the previous undamaged — young — state of an organism, we can really rejuvenate it! It sounds very promising, and so it is. And for some types of damage (for example, for senescent cells) it is already proved to work!

Today in our virtual studio, somewhere between cold, rainy Saint-Petersburg and warm, sunny Mountain View, we meet Aubrey de Grey, again! For those of you who are not familiar with him, here is a brief introduction.

Dr Aubrey de Grey is the biomedical gerontologist who researched the idea for and founded SENS Research Foundation. He received his BA in Computer Science and Ph.D. in Biology from the University of Cambridge in 1985 and 2000, respectively. Dr. de Grey is Editor-in-Chief of Rejuvenation Research, is a Fellow of both the Gerontological Society of America and the American Aging Association, and sits on the editorial and scientific advisory boards of numerous journals and organizations. In 2011, de Grey inherited roughly $16.5 million on the death of his mother. Of this he assigned $13 million to fund SENS research.

Note: If you have not read “Ending Aging” yet I suggest you to do it as soon as possible, and to be more comfortable with the ideas we are discussing below I highly recommend you to read short introduction to SENS research on their web page. Also if you are interested in recent news and up-to-date reviews about [anti]ageing and rejuvenation research the best place to look for is Fight Aging! blog. Finally, if you are an investor or just curious, I highly encourage you to take a look at Jim Mellon’s book “Juvenescence”.

Interview

Ariel Feinerman: Hello, Dr Aubrey de Grey!

Aubrey de Grey: Hello Ariel — thanks for the interview.

Ariel Feinerman: How do you feel 2018 year? Can you compare 2018 to 2017 or early years? What is changing?

Aubrey de Grey: 2018 was a fantastic year for rejuvenation biotechnology. The main thing that made it special was the explosive growth of the private-sector side of the field — the number of start-up companies, the number of investors, and the scale of investment. Two companies, AgeX Therapeutics and Unity Biotechnology, went public with nine-digit valuations, and a bunch of others are not far behind. Of course this has only been possible because of all the great progress that has been made in the actual science, but one can never predict when that slow, steady progress will reach “critical mass”.

Ariel Feinerman: In 2017 SENS RF have received about $7 million. What has been accomplished in 2018?

Aubrey de Grey: We received almost all of that money right around the end of 2017, in the form of four cryptocurrency donations of $1 million or more, totalling about $6.5 million. We of course realised that this was a one-off windfall, so we didn’t spend it all at once! The main things we have done are to start a major new project at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, focused on stem cell therapy for Alzheimer’s, and to broaden our education initiative to include more senior people. See our website and newsletters for details.

Ariel Feinerman: What breakthroughs of 2018 can you name as the most important by your choice?

Aubrey de Grey: On the science side, well, regarding our funded work I guess I would choose our progress in getting mitochondrial genes to work when relocated to the nucleus. We published a groundbreaking progress report at the end of 2016, but to be honest I was not at all sure that we would be able to build quickly on it. I’m delighted to say that my caution was misplaced, and that we’ve continued to make great advances. The details will be submitted for publication very soon.

Ariel Feinerman: You say that many of rejuvenating therapies will work in clinical trials within five years. Giving that many of them are already working in clinical trials or even in the clinic (like immunotherapies, cell and gene therapies) do you mean the first — maybe incomplete — rejuvenation panel, when you speak of early 2020?

Aubrey de Grey: Yes, basically. SENS is a divide-and-conquer approach, so we can view it in three overlapping phases. The first phase is to get the basic concept accepted and moving. The second phase is to get the most challenging components moving. And the third phase is to combine the components. Phase 1 is pretty much done, as you say. Phase 2 is beginning, but it’s at an early stage. Phase 3 will probably not even properly begin for a few more years. That’s why I still think we only have about a 50% chance of getting to longevity escape velocity by 2035 or so.

Ariel Feinerman: Even now many investors are fearful of real regenerative medicine approaches. For example pharmacological companies which use small molecules, like Unity Biotechnology, received more than $300 million, in much more favour than real bioengineering companies like Oisin Biotechnologies, received less than $4 million, even though the biological approach is much more powerful, cheap, effective and safe! Why is this so in your opinion, and when can we see the shift?

Aubrey de Grey: I don’t see a problem there. The big change in mindset that was needed has already occurred: rejuvenation is a thing. It’s natural that small-molecule approaches to rejuvenation will lead the way, because that’s what pharma already knows how to do. Often, that approach will in due course be overtaken by more sophisticated approaches. Sometimes the small molecules will actually work well! It’s all good.

Ariel Feinerman: Do you agree that the small-molecule approach is generally the wrong way in the future rejuvenation therapies? Because they have many flaws — especially their main mechanism via interference with human metabolism. Unlike them SENS bioengineering therapies are designed to be metabolically inert — because they just eliminate the key damage, they do not need to interfere with metabolism, so it is much easier than usual to avoid side effects and interactions with other therapies. They just eliminate the key damage, which means they are easier to develop and test — and much safer.

Aubrey de Grey: Ah, no, that’s too simplistic. It’s not true that small molecules always just “mess with metabolism” whereas genetic and enzymatic approaches eliminate damage. Small molecules that selectively kill senescent cells are absolutely an example of SENS-esque damage repair; the only thing against them is that it may be more difficult to eliminate side-effects, but that’s not because of their mode of action, it’s because of an additional action.

Ariel Feinerman: In recent years many countries gave the green light for regenerative medicine. Fast-track approval in Japan, for example, allows for emerging treatments to be used so long as they have been proven safe. The similar approach works in Russia. What about the EU or USA?

Aubrey de Grey: There’s definitely a long way to go, but the regulatory situation in the West is moving in the right direction. The TAME trial has led the way in articulating an approvable endpoint for clinical trials that is ageing in all but name, and the WHO has found a very well-judged way to incorporate ageing into its classification.

Ariel Feinerman: Do you think of working with USA Army? As far as we know they conduct research on regeneration and are very interested in keeping soldiers healthier for longer. And they have much money!

Aubrey de Grey: The Department of Defense in the USA has certainly funded a lot of high-impact regenerative medicine research for many years. I’m sure they will continue to do so.

Ariel Feinerman: Is any progress in the OncoSENS programme? Have you found any ALT genes? Is any ongoing research in WILT?

Aubrey de Grey: No — in the end that program was not successful enough to continue with, so we stopped it. There is now more interest in ALT in other labs than there was, though, so I’m hopeful that progress will be made. But also, one reason why I felt that it was OK to stop was that cancer immunotherapy is doing so well now. I think there is a significant chance that we won’t need WILT after all, because we will really truly defeat cancer using the immune system.

Ariel Feinerman: Spiegel Lab has recently published an abstract where they say they have found 3 enzymes capable of breaking glucosepane. Very exiting info! When can we hear more on their research? Revel LLC is a very secretive company.

Aubrey de Grey: They aren’t really being secretive, they are just setting up.

Ariel Feinerman: When can we see the first clinical trial of glucosepane breaker therapy?

Aubrey de Grey: I think two years is a reasonable estimate, but that’s a guess.

Ariel Feinerman: What do you think of the Open Source approach in rejuvenation biotechnology? The computer revolution in the early 2000s has taken place only because Open Source caused an explosion in software engineering!

We have many examples when Big Pharma buys a small company which has patents on technology and then cancels all research. In the Open Source approach you cannot “close” any technology, while everyone can contribute, making protocol better and everyone can use that without any licence fee! Anyway, there are countries where you cannot protect your patents. Maybe it will be better to make technology open from the beginning?

Famous biohacker Josiah Zayner said: “In the gene therapy world most treatments are easy to replicate or pirate because you can reverse engineer the DNA from scientific papers or patents. Same exact treatment, same purity and quality I could give to someone rejected from the clinical trial. The cost? Hundreds or a few thousand dollars at most. Same deal with immunotherapy.”

Aubrey de Grey: I think you’ve pretty much answered your own question with that quote. The technologies that will drive rejuvenation are not so easy to suppress.

Ariel Feinerman: Is the SENS RF going to begin new research programmes in 2019?

Aubrey de Grey: Sure! But we are still deciding which ones. We expect that our conference in Berlin (Undoing Aging, March 28–30) will bring some new opportunities to our attention.

Ariel Feinerman: What are your plans for 2019?

Aubrey de Grey: I’d like to say less travelling, but that doesn’t seem very likely at this point. Really my goal is just to keep on keeping on — to do all I can to maintain the growth of the field and the emerging industry.

Ariel Feinerman: Thank you very much for your answers, hope to see you again!

Aubrey de Grey: My pleasure!

Ariel VA Feinerman is a researcher, author, and photographer, who believes that people should not die from diseases and ageing, and whose main goal is to improve human health and achieve immortality. If you like Ariel’s work, any help would be appreciated via PayPal: arielfeinerman@gmail.com.

Transhumanism and a Cure for Depression – Article by Arin Vahanian

Transhumanism and a Cure for Depression – Article by Arin Vahanian

Comments 2 comments

Arin Vahanian

In the quest to transcend humankind’s limits and take humanity to its next level of development physically, mentally, emotionally and socially, much is written and discussed about topics such as life extension and human augmentation. And this is for good reason, as humans have strived, since the beginning of time, to overcome their limits, do more, and be better. This includes, of course, living longer and healthier, which is among the most noble of all human goals.

However, in the midst of all this, there is a topic that is seldom discussed in Transhumanist circles, and that is the topic of depression, a condition which, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), affects more than 300 million people worldwide.

Making matters worse is the fact that depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, a major contributor to disease, and in some cases, leads to suicide.

Given these facts, one would think more should be done to combat the plague of depression, but alas, we appear to be stuck with outdated treatments for a condition that cripples large segments of humanity and for many, threatens the very possibility of living longer and healthier.

Contrary to what many people may believe, an individual suffering from depression cannot simply “snap out of it,” and there is, as of yet, no established cure for depression, as there is for diseases such as smallpox. Indeed, depression is a particularly thorny problem to solve for many reasons, which include the fact that diagnosing it isn’t as cut and dried as other conditions, but also that the treatments for it have thus far not been very efficacious.

Those treatments include pharmacological (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, such as Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft), non-pharmacological (cognitive behavioral therapy), and technological (cranial electrotherapy stimulation) solutions. However, if we are honest with ourselves, the data reveals that what we have been doing hasn’t been very effective, given that depression is on the rise worldwide. According to the WHO, the total estimated number of people living with depression worldwide increased by 18.4 percent between 2005 and 2015 to 322 million. Even if this increase is due to better and more accurate diagnoses, the incidence of depression isn’t decreasing, which is cause for concern.

Given these statistics, it is time to do something other than what has been done before. It is time for a new approach and a new way of thinking when it comes to treating and curing depression. Transhumanism may offer that light at the end of the tunnel. Indeed, Transhumanism may very well be humanity’s best hope for a cure for depression, because it leaves no stone unturned in the quest to live a life of fewer limits, as well as improved health, and greater happiness and fulfillment. Imagine what could be done to solve depression if we approached treatment and a cure not in the standard ways, but by harnessing the full power of science and technology to do whatever it takes to assist the hundreds of millions of people who are suffering.

For instance, why is the technology of deep brain stimulation approved for treating Parkinson’s Disease, which, according to the Parkinson’s Foundation, affects 10 million people worldwide, but not approved for treating depression, which affects more than 300 million people globally? Scientific and technological breakthroughs should be leveraged to relieve the suffering of all people, and not just a few. This is the promise of Transhumanism – that all humans are worthy of a cure for what ails them, and therefore, all people inflicted with depression should get the help they need so that they can transcend the condition that threatens to wreck their lives.

Why is it that the most commonly-prescribed treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which are the SSRIs Paxil and Zoloft, require daily dosing for many weeks to months, and have little to no effect in curing PTSD? On the other hand, MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, conducted by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), has been proven to treat PTSD successfully in two to three sessions, yet it remains illegal as a Schedule 1 drug. This is the promise of Transhumanism – that we should look for creative, out-of-the-box ways to relieve suffering, which includes pharmacological, non-pharmacological, technological, and scientific methods.

If we are really serious about curing depression, as opposed to just putting bandages on a gaping wound in humanity’s well-being, we will have to do much more than we are doing right now, and we will have to reassess the way we are treating depression.

But why focus on depression, besides the fact that it destroys the lives of many millions of people and the treatments so far have been ineffective in curing it? Because depression does not care whether you are young or old, whether you are black or white, whether you are rich or poor, and whether you are physically healthy or not. Depression is an equal-opportunity destroyer of life. While heart attacks and pancreatic cancer may end lives quickly, depression ends lives slowly, ruthlessly robbing people of their happiness, sadistically stripping away their dignity, and mercilessly beating and drowning them in a dark, dreary swamp with little hope for a better future.

It is inhuman to ignore the plight of those suffering from depression and to give up the fight for a brighter, happier future for every individual on Earth. Transhumanism not only offers hope for a better future through inspiring and motivating humans to transcend their limits, but it also encourages us to look at problems from many different angles, and to dedicate our efforts toward actually resolving the challenges that humanity is facing.

Many Transhumanists are, understandably, focused on life extension and reversing aging, since life is the most precious thing we have. But life is a lot less beautiful when one is trapped in an inescapable labyrinthine nightmare, enfeebling one’s mind and tormenting one with endless movie-like scenes of their perceived past failures. In a sense, some people with depression feel there is not much point in attempting to extend their lives when they are continuously engulfed in profound sadness.

But the truth of the matter is that it is not people suffering from depression who have failed; it is we as a society who have failed them.

One of the ways we can rectify this situation and offer a real solution for those battling depression is by advocating for and creating breakthrough technologies and medicines that will successfully treat and cure this dreadful condition that has ruined so many precious, promising lives. Transhumanism is not just about advocating for life extension, it is also about advocating for a better quality of life through leveraging advances in science and technology to treat conditions such as depression.

Arin Vahanian is Director of Marketing for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.

The First Step Toward Reversing Aging and Curing Disease – Article by Arin Vahanian

The First Step Toward Reversing Aging and Curing Disease – Article by Arin Vahanian

Comments 0 Comment

Arin Vahanian

The dawn of every new year brings renewed hope and numerous promises made by individuals across the world to improve their lot in life, whether through increased exercise, a new diet, or a career change. However, according to extensive research conducted on the topic, most of these resolutions are seldom kept long-term, and many people eventually revert back to old habits and modes of thought.

While failing to keep a promise to oneself to find a new job may not have catastrophic consequences for that person, an entire society or parts of the world falling short of goals such as reversing climate change may have disastrous implications for the rest of the world.

However, this article isn’t necessarily about saving the world. It’s about a topic that is very near and dear to me; specifically, personal responsibility, especially when it comes to longevity.

Whether we read about this topic, discuss it with others, watch interviews with experts and laypeople, or read polls, almost everyone would agree that the idea of living longer and healthier is very appealing to them.

Why is it, then, that observing people’s actions reveals that many of us do things that will prevent us from living longer and healthier? Why do so many people who claim longevity is important to them turn around and engage in behaviors such as overeating, smoking tobacco products, not exercising regularly, and so on?

Thankfully, there are some people out there who take longevity and health seriously, and these individuals eagerly follow new developments and hope for the scientific breakthroughs that will finally reverse aging and cure debilitating diseases that have plagued humankind for so long.

However, the first step toward curing disease and reversing the process of aging does not start with the chemists who come up with new medicines or the gerontologists who study aging or the governments that fund projects; it starts with the individual.

If you don’t believe me, simply take a closer look the next time you are at a restaurant or supermarket and observe what many people are purchasing and putting in their bodies. You may well be shocked at the sorts of things we are consuming on a daily basis. Several decades ago, there was a fear that humanity would face starvation on a global scale, but that threat never materialized. In fact, we now have far more food than we know what to do with. Indeed, our problem isn’t that we do not have enough food, it is that we have too much food, and too much of what we consume is unhealthy, thus reducing our life span and health span.

Even if we may not want to admit it, the first step toward living a longer and healthier life is entirely in our hands.  The actions we take on a daily basis determine, in no small part, whether we can put ourselves in a situation to take advantage of the advances in medicine and technology that may cure us of disease and reverse the process of aging in our bodies and minds.

In my humble opinion, it is irresponsible for someone to neglect their health and well-being while at the same time waiting and hoping for a cure for aging or disease. There is, currently, no magic pill one can take that will cure them of poor health or magically reverse aging. Thus, the impetus is on each person to do all they can to take care of themselves and their health, while the organizations and individuals that are working on curing disease and reversing aging come up with the requisite scientific and technological breakthroughs. In fact, we could even argue that in addition to managing one’s health and diet very closely, we should do more to support the organizations and individuals dedicated to curing disease and reversing senescence, but that is perhaps another topic for another time.

Of course, by focusing on personal responsibility, I do not wish to ignore the numerous situational and socioeconomic factors that may contribute to people being unable to fully take responsibility for their health. Some people, due to conditions such as extreme poverty, are not in a position to take control of their lives in the way those of us in developed countries are able to. Similarly, though, I do not wish to ignore the plight of many residents of developed countries who face hardships (of the medical variety or otherwise) every day that prevent them from fully taking the advice in this article. Life is not black-and-white, but rather, gray, and I would never advocate for the law of the jungle in any society.

Thus, I also want to make clear that we as a society should do whatever we can to ensure that people who need medical care receive the care that they need, in a cost-effective and dignified manner. In a world of abundance, there is no reason why people suffering from curable conditions (or otherwise) should go untreated, and no reason why anyone should be bankrupted by medical bills. However, these are not the persons I have dedicated this article to. A tragedy of modern life is that so many people are easily able to make changes in their life that would lead to a healthier and longer life, but instead choose to not do so, and continue engaging in destructive behaviors.

Regardless of your views on disease and aging, it is not unreasonable to say that we should, at the very least, do whatever is in our power to take care of our own health.

Therefore, the next time you think about gorging yourself on donuts and guzzling the soda offered at the next company party, you might want to reconsider, because what many people are eating and drinking is literally killing them.

The next time you decide to sit at home and watch TV instead of doing 20 minutes of light exercise at the park or the gym, remember that lethargy has consequences.

The next time you tell yourself “I’ll quit smoking someday,” or “I’ll start exercising when I have more time,” please pause for a moment and ask yourself whether you are really being honest.

I do not wish to insinuate that we should try to be perfect all the time when it comes to health, diet, and exercise. Indeed, there is no way to get it right all the time, and the occasional piece of cake or glass of beer won’t derail your journey toward good health if you’re consistently and methodically taking good care of yourself. Rather, what I believe we should strive for is doing the best that we can on a daily basis, and if we need to make minor changes, to take small steps toward improvement every day.

There is a famous quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi that goes, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” I agree wholeheartedly, and would add that we must be the change we wish to see in ourselves. Because no one is more responsible for your own personal well-being than you. And no one can do as much for your own longevity as you can.

Arin Vahanian is Director of Marketing for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.

The Case for Reversing Aging – Article by Arin Vahanian

The Case for Reversing Aging – Article by Arin Vahanian

Comments 2 comments

Arin Vahanian

As incredulous as it may seem, I have had numerous people ask me why I support research and funding for reversing the aging process.

The usual arguments against stopping or slowing aging are that there is some sort of natural process or natural order of things, and that human beings shouldn’t be “playing God.”

In this short article, I would like to present my personal views on aging and why I believe it is perfectly natural, and in fact, desirable, for human beings to want to overcome this limitation, or at least, slow it down.

We humans have a very peculiar relationship with aging and death. On the one hand, people spend rather large sums of money on products or services that help them look and feel younger and healthier. In essence, what these people are communicating through their spending habits is that they have a desire to slow down the aging process. Yet any talk of actually reversing the aging process is met with puzzled looks or even dismissal by the very same people. On the other hand, most people dread the condition of death but have resigned themselves to the idea that there is nothing we can do about it. So while we tend to believe that death is unavoidable, we somehow also think that it won’t happen to us for a while longer, and so we put these very important topics on the back burner and refuse to think further about them or consider how to overcome them.

My personal viewpoint is that nothing gets solved without there being some sort of action toward solving it. Problems do not normally resolve themselves.

To those who ask why we should spend money, time, and effort on reversing aging, I shall present three reasons why I believe it is beneficial for us to do so.

Firstly, human beings have always wanted to improve, to grow, and to overcome hardships and challenges. Saying that there is some natural order of things is not a valid argument against reversing the aging process.

Imagine if we had, in the past, accepted a shortened lifespan as the natural order of things. It’s good that we didn’t, because global average life expectancy has more than doubled since the year 1900.

Imagine if we had, in the past, accepted a chaotic, uncomfortable, and dangerous life as the natural order of things. It’s good that we didn’t, because we came up with inventions such as electricity, the Internet, the X-ray, indoor plumbing, heating, and so forth.

Imagine if we had, in the past, accepted our young sons and daughters having their precious lives cut short by illness as the natural order of things. It’s good that we didn’t, because we now have cures for dysentery, malaria, and tuberculosis.

The fact is that the human condition involves us progressing, overcoming limitations, and being better human beings. Hence, it is natural for human beings to want to overcome undesirable situations, and I would imagine that most people would state that poverty, disease, and aging are undesirable.  

Next, reversing the process of aging will give each one of us additional time that we need in order to accomplish other lofty goals. Imagine if you had an additional 10 or 20 young years of life. How much more could you accomplish during that time? We could spend more time on goals such as eliminating poverty, coming up with a cure for cancer, working toward world peace, and so forth. I find it hard to imagine that someone could argue against having more time in life to work on their personal purpose, vision, and mission. Therefore, reversing the process of aging would result in us being able to work on other things that are important to the human race, thereby creating a virtuous cycle of improvement and progress.

Finally, perhaps the most beautiful aspect of the human condition is having a human experience. The human experience includes things such as building relationships with other people, enjoying the splendors of a warm summer afternoon with friends or family, and partaking in any number of stimulating and rewarding activities, such as reading, exercising, and doing charity work.

To those of you who are in a romantic relationship, I ask, wouldn’t you want more time and more opportunities to be with your spouse or partner? Imagine never hearing your partner whisper sweetly in your ear again, or forever losing the overwhelming pleasure of making love to them, or no longer experiencing the rewarding growth you’ve experienced with them since you became a couple.

To those of you who are parents, I ask, wouldn’t you want to ensure that your children live long, happy, and productive lives? Imagine if your son or daughter could have more time and more opportunities to become the person who will finally find a cure for depression, or start a movement that helps brings us closer to world peace, or become a source of inspiration for many people around the world through starting an organization, but they won’t, because we have accepted a “natural order of things.”

To those of you who are actively involved in an ambitious project or important cause that means a lot to you, I ask, wouldn’t you want more time and more energy to work on these things that are meaningful to you? Imagine never being able to work on fulfilling your purpose or vision in life.

There are many more reasons why I believe we should focus on reversing aging, but the three reasons above are a good starting point for us to more seriously consider this most important of issues.

Let’s even assume for a moment that implausible scenarios such as reincarnation and life after death are real. Why wouldn’t we want to live this current life better? I do not believe it is mutually exclusive to believe in life after death and also want to live our current lives better. Throwing up our hands in defeat and accepting things as they currently are does not lead to progress and growth; it leads to atrophy.  

So before we give up the good fight and resign ourselves to an old and decrepit future, we must ask ourselves what we are living for.

If I had to give just one reason for wanting to reverse aging, it would be pretty simple: I love life too damn much.

What’s your reason?

Arin Vahanian is Director of Marketing for the U.S. Transhumanist Party.

The Abolition of Aging – A Book Review – Article by Nicola BagalĂ 

The Abolition of Aging – A Book Review – Article by Nicola BagalĂ 

Comments 0 Comment

Nicola BagalĂ 

Editor’s Note: In this article, Mr. Nicola Bagalà provides a book review of the book The Abolition of Aging by David Wood, a book which explains in great detail the benefits that would derive from a successful implementation of the “rejuveneering project”.  This article was originally published by the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation (LEAF).

                   ~ Kenneth Alum, Director of  Publication, U.S. Transhumanist Party, February 13, 2018

As you might recall, in my review of Ending Aging, I said that the book could have benefited from a more in-depth discussion of the benefits of rejuvenation as well as the concerns and objections often raised against it. Anyone else sharing the same feeling will find what they’re looking for in The Abolition of Aging, by Chair of London Futurists David Wood.

Written in an elegant, clear style, The Abolition of Aging brilliantly accomplishes the difficult task of guiding the reader through all the turns and twists of the topic, explaining in great detail the benefits that would derive from a successful implementation of the “rejuveneering project”—as Wood calls it—presenting all the typical objections and related counterarguments, and—in the words of 3G Doctor Director David Doherty—providing innumerable “stunning references and observations”.

Just like there’s no time to waste if we want to defeat aging in time for currently living people to benefit, Wood wastes no time with lengthy preambles; the very first line of the foreword comes directly to the point, bluntly stating what readers unfamiliar with the topic may find shocking: the possibility of eliminating biological aging is now within striking distance.

Possibly preventing the reader’s reaction, the author immediately gives a preliminary discussion of the traditional responses to his claim: “it’s not possible” and “it’s not desirable”, which Wood ascribes—correctly, in my opinion—in no small part to a great desire to avoid an unpleasant discussion that would force us to reconsider many assumptions on the inevitable finitude of human existence, with which most of us have already made our peace.

To succeed in his task of getting us to snap out of a multi-millenary Stockholm syndrome that pushes humanity to praise the tyranny of old age, Wood resorts to every weapon in his arsenal, making a very convincing case that rejuvenation is very much desirable as well as possible.

Skeptics who assume that the technology necessary to rejuvenate people is centuries away will be surprised to learn about how advanced the field actually is and how much faster it is likely to grow than conventional wisdom would have it. The word of senior scientists who claim that the reversal of aging is nothing but a pipe dream, as Wood warns us, should be taken with a grain of salt: The Abolition of Aging provides plenty of examples of luminaries and eminent experts of the past summarily dismissing scientific theories and technologies that today are well-established and taken for granted by everyone. (Among many such examples, one I really cannot abstain from mentioning is the hilariously wrong 1903 prediction by the New York Times that human flight, if at all possible, would take one to ten million years to come true. Less than 70 years later, not only was human flight commonplace, but human beings had landed on the Moon.)

Nonetheless, Wood’s optimism should not be mistaken for complacency. He makes no mystery that the success of the rejuveneering project is a mere possibility, however likely, and not at all a certainty. Many are the unknowns—scientific, political, societal, financial, and more—that could well thwart our efforts in this direction if we’re not careful. Wood offers advice on how to deal with these issues standing in the way of an aging-free world as well as those that might lurk beyond. After all, the functioning of society as we know it hinges on the existence of aging; our lives, our policies, and our customs are built around it. Eliminating aging would require a serious rethinking of much of society’s inner workings, and this operation is not free of risks, as Wood rightfully concedes. Great changes for the better often come with potential downsides, but we should not let this deter us; rather, we should appreciate how the fruits to be reaped are well worth the potential risks involved and act now to prevent or mitigate any unwanted consequences. A world without aging would need to be managed in a different way, but that is not a problem.

A particular obstacle on the way to a world without aging is represented by adverse psychology, to which Wood dedicates an entire chapter. Ever since we had the ability to reflect upon ourselves and the human condition, as the author explains, we’ve had to face our own mortality and fear of death. Fear of death is a very useful adaptation to increase the chance that an individual will live long enough to reproduce, but in the case of a highly self-aware species like us, it’s a double-edged sword. Our deep desire to express ourselves, to learn, create, grow, to live, inevitably clashes against the knowledge of our apparently inescapable demise.

If left unresolved, this inner conflict could strike terror so paralyzing that living our lives would be impossible. With no hope of defeating an apparently all-powerful enemy such as death, the young human race had to devise other ways out of this conundrum—psychological expedients to sugar the pill or even make it appear better than the alternative; for some, having children, creating art, changing the world through their work and so on may all offer the comforting thought of their legacy, and thus part of themselves, carrying on at least to some extent; believers have faith that their immortal souls will continue existing even after their bodies will have perished; others assume a world without death would, for one reason or another, be so unbearable that oblivion would be preferable.

These mental devices have existed for so long that they’ve shaped our society and our morals; accepting death has become a sign of wisdom while trying to avoid or delay it when “the right time” has come is seen as a sign of immaturity and selfishness. These views are so entrenched in most people that any attempt to question their validity is likely to trigger aggressive defensive reactions or, sometimes, contempt and ridicule. For these reasons, life extension is not an easy idea to sell. In his detailed discussion, though, Wood provides valuable advice to ease the advocates’ task, listing the dos and don’ts of how to present the subject.

Rejuvenation is not all the book deals with. Wood’s futurist soul fully reveals itself in his vision of the futures of humanity, faith, and death, which are discussed in the chapter “Towards Humanity+” as well as in the possibilities outlined in chapter 12, “Radical alternatives”, such as cryonics, head transplants, and mind uploading. While these ideas are often plagued by abundant hype and unjustified premature enthusiasm, I find that Wood simply presented relevant facts as they are, with an appropriate dose of healthy skepticism where needed but without any undue disbelief. Cryonics in particular, which is usually unjustly regarded as a scam to part rich fools from their money, is presented as a valid backup plan for those who don’t expect to live long enough to see the dawn of rejuvenation; just like cryonics companies themselves, Wood makes no mystery that it is uncertain if bringing back to life cryopreserved patients will ever be possible, despite encouraging successes with transplantation of cryopreserved animal organs. Then again, I would add that if the chances of coming back to life from cryopreservation are uncertain, there’s no chance whatsoever of coming back after being buried or cremated.

Summing up, I believe that The Abolition of Aging is a must-read for experienced advocates and newcomers alike. People who haven’t made up their minds about supporting rejuvenation will be fully equipped to make an informed decision after reading this book, or, at the very least, will be able to research the topic further; advocates will have plenty of references and useful information for their advocacy efforts. Together with Ending Aging, this book answers pretty much all the whats, whens, hows, and whys to the best of our current understanding.

About Nicola BagalĂ 

Nicola Bagalà has been an enthusiastic supporter and advocate of rejuvenation science since 2011. Although his preferred approach to treating age related diseases is Aubrey de Grey’s suggested SENS platform, he is very interested in any other potential approach as well. In 2015, he launched the blog Rejuvenaction to advocate for rejuvenation and to answer common concerns that generally come with the prospect of vastly extended healthy lifespans. Originally a mathematician graduated from Helsinki University, his scientific interests range from cosmology to AI, from drawing and writing to music, and he always complains he doesn’t have enough time to dedicate to all of them which is one of the reasons he’s into life extension. He’s also a computer programmer and web developer. All the years spent learning about the science of rejuvenation have sparked his interest in biology, in which he’s planning to get a university degree.

About LIFE EXTENSION ADVOCACY FOUNDATION (LEAF)

In 2014, the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation was established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting increased healthy human lifespan through fiscally sponsoring longevity research projects and raising awareness regarding the societal benefits of life extension. In 2015 they launched Lifespan.io, the first nonprofit crowdfunding platform focused on the biomedical research of aging.

They believe that this will enable the general public to influence the pace of research directly. To date they have successfully supported four research projects aimed at investigating different processes of aging and developing therapies to treat age-related diseases.

The LEAF team organizes educational events, takes part in different public and scientific conferences, and actively engages with the public on social media in order to help disseminate this crucial information. They initiate public dialogue aimed at regulatory improvement in the fields related to rejuvenation biotechnology.