217 replies to this topic

[pone11]

 

As one person has pointed out it wont be a single thing that rejuvenates us. GDF-11 is only one prong on a multi-pronged fork, Dr. Amy Wagers at Harvard University has suggested there may be other growth differentiation factors at work. Dr. Wyss-Coray at the Stanford School of Medicine will give transfusions of blood plasma to his human subjects this October, this will throw a full array of young blood factors at their Alzheimer's subjects.

 

 

Does anyone have a link to the patient population criteria for the Stanford alzheimers study?   Isn't there some web site that aggregates study contact and research objectives, patient population criteria, and critical contacts and procedures?

[Bryan_S]

 

This is all clear, but my question was about the legal status of GDF11.  And I'm asking what is the ability for multiple firms to manufacture it and compete on price.

 

In the end, if GDF11 by itself doubles lifespan and increases healthspan by 30% for people over 40, then we won't need to understand any other issue for it to be beneficial.   If we evaluate safety and cannot measure any increase in cancer or other diseases, understanding that bottom line is sufficient.  It would be nice to understand the mechanism, but understanding the mechanism isn't required to realize a benefit.

 

 

The legal status of GDF11 . . . No one here can give legal advice just so we are clear. 

 

I suppose as you pointed out it's a naturally produced protein. There are now legal limitations on what you can control if it's a natural substance. I'm pretty sure it can't be patented for exclusive production. You could likely make and sell the stuff if you don't infringe on any one's production patents. I say this barring any liability you may encounter from its end use from potential customers, which is also a concern.  I find prior art dating back to Nov 1, 1978 but most of the original patents cluster around 1994-1996. More recent patents are trying to corner its medical applications.

 

Is there a market? Sure, I already see one developing.

 

Is it safe? That has yet to be determined and safe at what dosage? It's likely safe, but what kinds of health problems could cascade from its use if a realistic dosage is found?

 

There are no clinical studies yet to determine the pharmacokinetics. Not knowing the related clinical factors who would invest in large scale production of the substance at this time, especially if they couldn't control and license its production and didn't know all its health liabilities. Today we are just starting to see the possible benefits, everything else is speculative. These are the factors that control commercialization and later the competition you mention. Determine these variables, the size of the geriatric market who might buy and all hell could break loose, if there isn't a health down side.

 

I think what will happen as more data is accumulated and the buzz increases is someone will create a black market in this substance. Someone may be already doing this. However, you could be buying expensive saline solution or something worse? You can buy it for yourself today, but at expensive micro lab quantities.

 

That price is coming down slightly, when you see things like this on a retail website like Amazon, you know there is a real consumer market for the stuff. RayBiotech is likely capitalizing on the buzz but I don't think the dosage is high enough to likely produce beneficial health results.

 

Then there is the flip side. If you have the money, for all I know you might, why take a risk. Just pay college students or unemployed 19-25 year olds for their blood plasma. Sounds gruesome, but I can almost guarantee someones doing it, doesn't take much imagination to see that. It's already happening in a clinical setting "The PLasma for Alzheimer SymptoM Amelioration (PLASMA) Study"

 

Its likely Pharmaceutical companies will research a modified molecular substitute they can control and patent. Or they will devise other drugs to stimulate the production of the protein.

 

Those are the basic talking points considering the realities.

 

Personally, I'd like to see its availability increase and at first blush it looks relatively safe. I think other medical approaches may need to be combined or you may find yourself on a capsizing ship. niner mentioned Systemic Amyloidosis as one example and if this was my only concern I might roll the dice on that one. Still misfolded proteins are nothing to laugh at and they lie at the root of other illnesses. As I mentioned before cellular maintenance, NAD levels and as researchers are suggesting mitochondrial health may help correct these problems at the root. Plus you'll need a heathy immune system to reach those later years. 

Edited by Bryan_S, 14 January 2015 - 07:14 AM.

[pone11]

 

 

This is all clear, but my question was about the legal status of GDF11.  And I'm asking what is the ability for multiple firms to manufacture it and compete on price.

 

In the end, if GDF11 by itself doubles lifespan and increases healthspan by 30% for people over 40, then we won't need to understand any other issue for it to be beneficial.   If we evaluate safety and cannot measure any increase in cancer or other diseases, understanding that bottom line is sufficient.  It would be nice to understand the mechanism, but understanding the mechanism isn't required to realize a benefit.

 

 

The legal status of GDF11 . . . No one here can give legal advice just so we are clear. 

 

I suppose as you pointed out it's a naturally produced protein. There are now legal limitations on what you can control if it's a natural substance. I'm pretty sure it can't be patented for exclusive production. You could likely make and sell the stuff if you don't infringe on any one's production patents. I say this barring any liability you may encounter from its end use from potential customers, which is also a concern.  I find prior art dating back to Nov 1, 1978 but most of the original patents cluster around 1994-1996. More recent patents are trying to corner its medical applications.

 

Is there a market? Sure, I already see one developing.

 

Is it safe? That has yet to be determined and safe at what dosage? It's likely safe, but what kinds of health problems could cascade from its use if a realistic dosage is found?

 

There are no clinical studies yet to determine the pharmacokinetics. Not knowing the related clinical factors who would invest in large scale production of the substance at this time, especially if they couldn't control and license its production and didn't know all its health liabilities. Today we are just starting to see the possible benefits, everything else is speculative. These are the factors that control commercialization and later the competition you mention. Determine these variables, the size of the geriatric market who might buy and all hell could break loose, if there isn't a health down side.

 

I think what will happen as more data is accumulated and the buzz increases is someone will create a black market in this substance. Someone may be already doing this. However, you could be buying expensive saline solution or something worse? You can buy it for yourself today, but at expensive micro lab quantities.

 

That price is coming down slightly, when you see things like this on a retail website like Amazon, you know there is a real consumer market for the stuff. RayBiotech is likely capitalizing on the buzz but I don't think the dosage is high enough to likely produce beneficial health results.

 

Then there is the flip side. If you have the money, for all I know you might, why take a risk. Just pay college students or unemployed 19-25 year olds for their blood plasma. Sounds gruesome, but I can almost guarantee someones doing it, doesn't take much imagination to see that. It's already happening in a clinical setting "The PLasma for Alzheimer SymptoM Amelioration (PLASMA) Study"

 

Its likely Pharmaceutical companies will research a modified molecular substitute they can control and patent. Or they will devise other drugs to stimulate the production of the protein.

 

Those are the basic talking points considering the realities.

 

Personally, I'd like to see its availability increase and at first blush it looks relatively safe. I think other medical approaches may need to be combined or you may find yourself on a capsizing ship. niner mentioned Systemic Amyloidosis as one example and if this was my only concern I might roll the dice on that one. Still misfolded proteins are nothing to laugh at and they lie at the root of other illnesses. As I mentioned before cellular maintenance, NAD levels and as researchers are suggesting mitochondrial health may help correct these problems at the root. Plus you'll need a heathy immune system to reach those later years. 

 

 

Good post and thanks for those points.   

 

Asking people for their opinions about legality is not asking for a "legal opinion".  I think everyone understands that this is not a court case, and I'm not looking for legal advice.

 

I understand we do not know the pharmacokinetics yet, but it certainly looks less risky than C60.   GDF-11 is a naturally occurring protein, and these studies are mainly about changing dosing in an older person.   C60 - to contrast - has no natural function in the human body.  No one has a clue how it is acting.  It could be making changes to genes or changing fundamental biochemistry in the mitochondria in extremely non trivial (and dangerous) ways.   Yet people latch onto one mouse study and take that risk.   GDF-11 looks like an order of magnitude less risky, and it also looks more likely to prove effective because there is now a decade worth of mouse parabiosis studies, culminating in the early 2014 studies with young-to-old mouse plasma and GDF-11 studies.   

 

I read the full research for the first time yesterday and today, and I do think all hell is about to break loose.   This looks like the real deal, will change peoples' lives in a big way, and - thank god - does not appear to involve anything proprietary.

 

Your point on taking plasma instead of waiting for GDF-11 is spot on.   In the Harvard mouse studies, some of the measures showed much better response from plasma than GDF11.  For example, I seem to remember that sox2 was just under 30% higher for GDF-11 but was over 110% for plasma.   It wasn't that pronounced a difference for many other things, but plasma gives the best result, probably because there are other supporting proteins or combinations of proteins (or maybe mitochondrial effects).  

 

The problem is won't plasma expose you to blood borne disease?   So now you not only need to recruit a donor, but you need to do due diligence on their private habits, run all kinds of viral scans on them, and then keep track of them for the next year to make sure they don't come down with something nasty.  Maybe only the super rich can pull that off.  And even if you do all this work, getting 12 plasma transfusions a year - forever - still subjects you to significant risks.   It would be tempting from a risk-reward standpoint to take GDF-11, get a less significant outcome, and hope that within a few years they figure out the missing proteins and add those when available.

 

And I completely agree that GDF-11 is not the final fountain of youth, and probably neither is plasma.   You are just buying people some time in order for them to work through how to improve mitochondria, restore aerobic metabolism, raise NAD+/NADH ratios, etc.

Edited by pone11, 14 January 2015 - 01:27 PM.

[niner]

 

 

In the end, if GDF11 by itself doubles lifespan and increases healthspan by 30% for people over 40, then we won't need to understand any other issue for it to be beneficial.   If we evaluate safety and cannot measure any increase in cancer or other diseases, understanding that bottom line is sufficient.  It would be nice to understand the mechanism, but understanding the mechanism isn't required to realize a benefit.

 

If it doubles lifespan but only increases healthspan by 30%, wouldn't that mean that people would be frail and debilitated for decades?  It doesn't matter, really, because there's no way that human lifespan is going to be doubled without dealing with a lot of other problems, like the systemic amyloidosis that kills most people over the age of 110.    I agree that the current fetish regarding mechanistic understanding is maddening when it results in good drugs languishing on the shelf.

 

 

It means that people would be 30% less debilitated and at some price point that would be a very cost effective thing for people to do.

 

It is extreme "glass half empty" thinking to demand comprehensive solutions to every health problem and social issue in order to justify taking a supplement or drug.   Why would anyone deny themselves being healthier at low cost, versus being 30% less healthy and paying just as much - or more - money to drug companies?

 

You misunderstand me.  I'm absolutely not saying "don't do it until you can fix everything else."  I'm just trying to correct an extremely overzealous estimate.  I doubt very much that there is ANY single thing that will double human lifespan.  It will take multiple interventions to do that.  I'll still happily try any and all reasonably safe methods as soon as they are available.

[Iporuru]

LEF seems to be doing research into age reversal through transfusions of youth factors from blood:

 

"We are going even further in helping the very elderly with a research project that involves taking stem cell-stimulated blood of individuals under age 25, tissue-type matching it to elderly individuals, separating the youth factors from this young blood, and transfusing it into the elderly subjects. The objective of this research project is nothing short of meaningful age reversal in individuals who may have only a few more months or years to live."

 

http://www.lef.org/M...s-Aging/Page-01

[Bryan_S]

 

not asking for a "legal opinion".

 

GDF-11 looks like an order of magnitude less risky. 

 

I do think all hell is about to break loose.

 

Your point on taking plasma instead of waiting for GDF-11 is spot on.

 

The problem is won't plasma expose you to blood borne disease?

 

 

OK, as far as the legality that was my disclaimer. Since I began posting in these forums I've seen people doing and taking things I cringe at.

 

To your next 2 points I'll meet you part way on the safety. While I do believe the buzz will push consumer consumption of GDF11 sooner than later I don't think it will do a great deal of harm because of the cost. It's not likely someone could afford to over simulate their stem cell reserves but I could be wrong. Also because it is natural I don't see a huge wave of commercial interest surrounding this substance bringing the price down.

 

As far as your next 2 points on the blood plasma I agree that's not a long term answer. If and I say "if" commercial interest latched on to this, developing a cocktail of the proper ratio of growth factors would be the most effective and affordable ticket for the consumer. What we need is an accurate profile of the balance of these factors in young blood. However these are all naturally occurring substances and where is the commercial incentive? 

 

In many ways when the door was closed to patent and corner natural substances this removed much of the incentive to commercially develop products based on those same molecules. Today it takes many more dollars to bring a product to market because you have to find ways to do the same thing the natural substance did in order to commercialize it and protect your investment. Also Big Pharma has a huge Pharmaceutical lobbying arm. Do you think they'll sit idly by and let a cheap natural substance dig into and destroy their longterm profits? Hell no!

 

I'll get off my soapbox but the things that should reduce our heath costs are the very things doomed to failure. Sorry for the cynicism, I just don't think its a very fair game.

[niner]

 Also Big Pharma has a huge Pharmaceutical lobbying arm. Do you think they'll sit idly by and let a cheap natural substance dig into and destroy their longterm profits? Hell no!

 

This is an extremely popular conspiracy theory, but I don't think it has much basis in fact.  Here are the top ten best-selling drugs, and I doubt that GDF11 or other paracrine signalling factors would have much affect on any of them.  One could argue about the two cancer drugs, but I don't think it would be a very strong argument.

[pone11]

 

 

not asking for a "legal opinion".

 

GDF-11 looks like an order of magnitude less risky. 

 

I do think all hell is about to break loose.

 

Your point on taking plasma instead of waiting for GDF-11 is spot on.

 

The problem is won't plasma expose you to blood borne disease?

 

 

OK, as far as the legality that was my disclaimer. Since I began posting in these forums I've seen people doing and taking things I cringe at.

 

To your next 2 points I'll meet you part way on the safety. While I do believe the buzz will push consumer consumption of GDF11 sooner than later I don't think it will do a great deal of harm because of the cost. It's not likely someone could afford to over simulate their stem cell reserves but I could be wrong. Also because it is natural I don't see a huge wave of commercial interest surrounding this substance bringing the price down.

 

As far as your next 2 points on the blood plasma I agree that's not a long term answer. If and I say "if" commercial interest latched on to this, developing a cocktail of the proper ratio of growth factors would be the most effective and affordable ticket for the consumer. What we need is an accurate profile of the balance of these factors in young blood. However these are all naturally occurring substances and where is the commercial incentive? 

 

In many ways when the door was closed to patent and corner natural substances this removed much of the incentive to commercially develop products based on those same molecules. Today it takes many more dollars to bring a product to market because you have to find ways to do the same thing the natural substance did in order to commercialize it and protect your investment. Also Big Pharma has a huge Pharmaceutical lobbying arm. Do you think they'll sit idly by and let a cheap natural substance dig into and destroy their longterm profits? Hell no!

 

I'll get off my soapbox but the things that should reduce our heath costs are the very things doomed to failure. Sorry for the cynicism, I just don't think its a very fair game.

 

 

Vitamin C has no patent.  Does anyone sell Vitamin C?  I think you have the economic dynamic 180 degrees wrong.   The fact that there is nothing proprietary here means huge numbers of companies will chase production.  It would be pure capitalism, constantly grinding down the price until it is eventually a commodity.   If there is consumer demand, there will be producers competing on cost.  That's capitalism 101.

 

The problem with drug economics today is that you have to spend $200M to approve a drug, then once you have that approval you effectively have a monopoly and can price at outrageous levels to milk insurance and medicare.   No consumer benefits from that manipulation of economics.  In effect, the FDA is simply an organization that creates barriers to entry and restricts competition.   If they could do that with GDF-11, there would be nothing for the consumer to take for 15 years.   It would cost $10K/year instead of $1/day.   It would be for a limited set of diseases, and off-label prescriptions would take an additional 5+ years to materialize.

 

If you want a socialized medical system (I am NOT saying you do or do not), then you MUST control the cost.   What we have in the US is the worst of all possible worlds:  we have socialized the delivery of care but created price monopolies on the supply side, which is why 30% of our GDP is now going to healthcare, whereas before Medicare it was under 5%.   This is all due to government mismanagement of a subsidized system.

 

In my opinion, the better role for the FDA would be to 

 

1) Ensure safety *only*, not require efficacy.

 

2) Reduce the FDA to an information labeling agency, where they could document on any safe drug that "this drug has not been shown to be effective against X, Y, and Z".

 

Safety-only studies could be done for under $20M, and the increased competition from alternative drugs would reduce cost of pharmaceuticals dramatically.  You would also increase the product pipeline 10 fold because the reduced costs would make it far easier to make a return on investment for the drug developer.

 

Let *unregulated science*, and informed doctor and consumer consent, determine effectiveness over time.   Government is creating an economic catastrophe by giving some FDA bureaucrat god-like authority to determine effectiveness and stifling all innovation and informed consent due to this.   Some of these Phase 3 studies are just ridiculous.  The FDA in effect is often saying "Yeah, this drug works, but it's not better than what we already have so application denied."   A drug that is 20% less effective than the standard of care, but that costs 90% less, might have a real market, and it's existence as a commercial entity would serve to pressure the price on the more effective drug.    FDA doesn't look at this like an economist would, but instead is sitting on Mt Olympus and creating massive price distortions by limiting supply and competitive choice.

Edited by pone11, 14 January 2015 - 11:11 PM.

[Bryan_S]

niner, I'm not of the thinking that these substances will extend life. Before anyone announces that, I say prove it. The best we can hope for is healthier golden years. To-date we've only seen small animals gain any life extension. If we start pushing past our 80's in greater numbers due to these new discoveries so much the better. But that's no guarantee and it's too soon to advertise them as life extension drugs.

 

We are talking about a substance or path to substances that could theoretically render the use of most of those Top-Ten medications to a much shorter window closer to the end of life. If for instance we still keep life span the same and lengthen only our healthy-productive years, our decline at the end may be more rapid and less drawn out. Those years needing those particular medications may be drastically shortened.

 

Let's take a drug such as salicylic acid. Do you feel if this drug were offered on the market today it could compete in this drug market place? It could never grow to the acceptance level and sales volume it holds today. Vitamins like C also originated in a different era. Look at the uphill battle for Nicotinamide Riboside a B3 variant with huge potential. ChromaDex is a relatively small company going it alone. The molecule can be made and sold by anyone because the molecule was discovered years ago, yet there is one source and astronomical prices with no competition. 

 

Read how patent applications are being written today to cover the substance, production method, medical application and claims of action. Each company wants to out right own their drug discovery and monetize that investment over the life span of the patent. Natural substances will never climb into the top ten category if the investment can't be recouped and competition held at bay. It places these developments/substances into a generic everyone can produce and sell but it also increases the investment risk and less profit to cover possible product liabilities. 

 

Believe me I'd like to be wrong. I'm the cynic who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. It keeps me distanced from disappointment when people trash the things that should happen. So my post had the intended reaction, but we all share the same dream. What I like about forums such as these is people can come together and if enough share the same vision alternate paths to the public can be developed.

 

And guys watch Alkahest and Tony Wyss-Coray as they will be one of the first companies in the GDF11 space.

 

As much as I'd like to start taking GDF11 today I'd like to see more research and a full array of its companion growth factors investigated.

Edited by Bryan_S, 15 January 2015 - 12:46 AM.

[pone11]

niner, I'm not of the thinking that these substances will extend life. Before anyone announces that, I say prove it. The best we can hope for is healthier golden years. To-date we've only seen small animals gain any life extension. If we start pushing past our 80's in greater numbers due to these new discoveries so much the better. But that's no guarantee and it's too soon to advertise them as life extension drugs.

 

We are talking about a substance or path to substances that could theoretically render the use of most of those Top-Ten medications to a much shorter window closer to the end of life. If for instance we still keep life span the same and lengthen only our healthy-productive years, our decline at the end may be more rapid and less drawn out. Those years needing those particular medications may be drastically shortened.

 

Let's take a drug such as salicylic acid. Do you feel if this drug were offered on the market today it could compete in this drug market place? It could never grow to the acceptance level and sales volume it holds today. Vitamins like C also originated in a different era. Look at the uphill battle for Nicotinamide Riboside a B3 variant with huge potential. ChromaDex is a relatively small company going it alone. The molecule can be made and sold by anyone because the molecule was discovered years ago, yet there is one source and astronomical prices with no competition. 

 

Read how patent applications are being written today to cover the substance, production method, medical application and claims of action. Each company wants to out right own their drug discovery and monetize that investment over the life span of the patent. Natural substances will never climb into the top ten category if the investment can't be recouped and competition held at bay. It places these developments/substances into a generic everyone can produce and sell but it also increases the investment risk and less profit to cover possible product liabilities. 

 

Believe me I'd like to be wrong. I'm the cynic who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. It keeps me distanced from disappointment when people trash the things that should happen. So my post had the intended reaction, but we all share the same dream. What I like about forums such as these is people can come together and if enough share the same vision alternate paths to the public can be developed.

 

And guys watch Alkahest and Tony Wyss-Coray as they will be one of the first companies in the GDF11 space.

 

As much as I'd like to start taking GDF11 today I'd like to see more research and a full array of its companion growth factors investigated.

 

There are more than 29 thousand supplements being sold worldwide in a global vitamin and supplement marketplace that is $68 BILLION dollars:

http://www.reportlin...Supplement.html

 

98% of these are generic, easily copied, substances.   

 

On what planet will no company show an interest in producing these substances?

 

Comparing a generic mass-market product against a proprietary pharmaceutical is comparing completely different things.   The cost of entry to make a vitamin C is under $100K.   The cost of entry to build a proprietary pharmaceutical is $200M.    What do these two things have in common with each other?  NOTHING.  Why are you making that comparison?  The return on investment case for the two types of products could not be more different.

 

If GDF11 has a mass consumer demand in an aging population, and there is no regulation, companies will fall all over themselves to make the investment to manufacture it and to sell it at lowest cost.  That might take several years to build out, but it is simple basic economics.

Edited by pone11, 15 January 2015 - 12:59 AM.

[Bryan_S]

You can buy it for yourself today, but at expensive micro lab quantities on Amazon. Alkahest and Tony Wyss-Coray are making a run at it as well. In the next 5 years who knows. But the research has to be funded and capital invested. And NIH-funded research is at historically low levels so investors are needed. Lets see how it plays out and hope for the best.

[pone11]

You can buy it for yourself today, but at expensive micro lab quantities on Amazon. Alkahest and Tony Wyss-Coray are making a run at it as well. In the next 5 years who knows. But the research has to be funded and capital invested. And NIH-funded research is at historically low levels so investors are needed. Lets see how it plays out and hope for the best.

 

I know this is hard to believe, but the vitamin and supplement market is so massive that even some of the *retailers* in this business run public companies with market capitalizations over $1 BILLION USD.  See for example Vitamin Shoppe, NYSE symbol VSI.   There are many many manufacturers of supplements with valuations over $1 billion.

 

IF there is demand...and IF there is no regulation on supply...for one of these companies to invest $5M in startup costs to support a unique production process for GDF-11 would be *spit money*.   Even if you make pessimistic estimates, assume 2% of 80M aging US citizens are willing to pay $300/year for GDF-11 supplementation, that is a $480 MILLION USD market.  And that is the US alone.   It's very easy to build a return on investment case to invest $5M when you are comparing it against an unregulated large market of that size.

 

Contrast that to a highly regulated pharmaceutical.   Because of the FDA meddling, the $200M startup cost requires you to find a multi-billion dollar payoff to justify the huge risks and large number of likely failures.   It's a totally different case.

[niner]

We are talking about a substance or path to substances that could theoretically render the use of most of those Top-Ten medications to a much shorter window closer to the end of life. If for instance we still keep life span the same and lengthen only our healthy-productive years, our decline at the end may be more rapid and less drawn out. Those years needing those particular medications may be drastically shortened.

 

 

No, I don't think they will.  Four of the top ten are for RA and other autoimmune conditions, and those occur in young people at significant rates.  Ditto for asthma, diabetes, depression and schizophrenia.  Even breast and bowel cancer are not necessarily diseases of aging, although they are more likely to occur as we age.  That is probably due to both accumulation of somatic mutations and to immune system decline.  Paracrine factors might influence immune system decline, but I don't think they could have any affect on the mutation rate.   I think we are ascribing too much power to GDF11 when the actual results that have been seen with it are fairly limited.

[PWAIN]

You can buy it for yourself today, but at expensive micro lab quantities on Amazon. Alkahest and Tony Wyss-Coray are making a run at it as well. In the next 5 years who knows. But the research has to be funded and capital invested. And NIH-funded research is at historically low levels so investors are needed. Lets see how it plays out and hope for the best.

 

Thats pretty pricey especially since it is $70 to ship to Australia. Better value to get 20ug for $190 and still $70 shipping:

 

http://www.amazon.co...T87M1Y88A965360

 

What would a normal does be? If 20ug per day is a normal dose then it is hugely expensive but if it is 1ug a month then it is really cheap. Anyone know the dosing?

[pone11]

 

You can buy it for yourself today, but at expensive micro lab quantities on Amazon. Alkahest and Tony Wyss-Coray are making a run at it as well. In the next 5 years who knows. But the research has to be funded and capital invested. And NIH-funded research is at historically low levels so investors are needed. Lets see how it plays out and hope for the best.

 

Thats pretty pricey especially since it is $70 to ship to Australia. Better value to get 20ug for $190 and still $70 shipping:

 

http://www.amazon.co...T87M1Y88A965360

 

What would a normal does be? If 20ug per day is a normal dose then it is hugely expensive but if it is 1ug a month then it is really cheap. Anyone know the dosing?

 

 

The Harvard researcher made the comment that you needed to take "a lot of it" daily.   The mice were injected at 0.1mg/kg every day:

http://www.sciencema...4/6184/630.full

[PWAIN]

Ouch, thats a lot So we will be looking at mg quantities at least. Maybe a gram or 2. Are other people interested in getting some? Would a group buy actually work? Is this a really hard thing to have made up?

[PWAIN]

I note that the paper refers to Recombinant GDF11. How is this different to regular GDF11? Would the dose change with regular GDF11? As I understand it, recombinant GDF11 just causes your body to release GDF11 a bit like ghrp does for growth hormone. In that case a much lower dose might be enough?

Another thing I was wondering is if old blood negatively affects young animals, is there something in it that we should filter out?

[pone11]

Ouch, thats a lot So we will be looking at mg quantities at least. Maybe a gram or 2. Are other people interested in getting some? Would a group buy actually work? Is this a really hard thing to have made up?

 

Honestly, I would say give up on GDF-11 until the market economics are better.  The only point I was making earlier is that the research on this is so good that - if it repeats in humans - I think there will be enormous demand, and once the demand is there economics will bootstrap production and price will start a downward spiral.

 

If you are obsessed with pursuing this research, I think you are better off for now finding a young drug-free virgin and bribing him or her to sell you their plasma.

 

The plasma studies are dosing people once a week for four weeks, and the study duration is 18 weeks.   So I'm not sure whey they stop after four weeks, and I'm not sure how they came up with that frequency either.

 

How do others feel about the risks of blood borne diseases getting so much plasma repeatedly?  I think you can dismiss the risks for a few infusions, but if you are doing this 12 to 48 times a year that risk seems real.   I think I would want to personally know the donor and would want to get very nosy about their private habits.   It's probably a game for the super rich.

 

Does anyone have pure speculation on how often you would need to take plasma to see results?   

Edited by pone11, 15 January 2015 - 05:44 AM.

[PWAIN]

Doesn't cancer travel via the blood? Would there be a risk of 'catching' someone else's cancer that way? How do they avoid that in regular blood transfusions?
Why so quick to write off GDF11 synth? We've done it for loads of noots...

[free10]

 

Ouch, thats a lot So we will be looking at mg quantities at least. Maybe a gram or 2. Are other people interested in getting some? Would a group buy actually work? Is this a really hard thing to have made up?

 

Honestly, I would say give up on GDF-11 until the market economics are better.  The only point I was making earlier is that the research on this is so good that - if it repeats in humans - I think there will be enormous demand, and once the demand is there economics will bootstrap production and price will start a downward spiral.

 

If you are obsessed with pursuing this research, I think you are better off for now finding a young drug-free virgin and bribing him or her to sell you their plasma.

 

The plasma studies are dosing people once a week for four weeks, and the study duration is 18 weeks.   So I'm not sure whey they stop after four weeks, and I'm not sure how they came up with that frequency either.

 

How do others feel about the risks of blood borne diseases getting so much plasma repeatedly?  I think you can dismiss the risks for a few infusions, but if you are doing this 12 to 48 times a year that risk seems real.   I think I would want to personally know the donor and would want to get very nosy about their private habits.   It's probably a game for the super rich.

 

Does anyone have pure speculation on how often you would need to take plasma to see results?   

 

 

Once a week I think is what they did with rats and it worked, and that is why they are probably trying the same with humans.

 

How this all works they are not sure of and they suspect once they get the ball rolling in a person the improvements may increase or continue, for a long time after they get the young blood. So large quantities might not be needed, in a year or even over years. Take us back to say 20 and it might take another 20 years before we aged to 40 again. In those 20 years the technology and what we will know about aging will have increased much more, and blood may no longer be the path to a virtual immortal youth until we die from other causes.
 

[free10]

Doesn't cancer travel via the blood? Would there be a risk of 'catching' someone else's cancer that way? How do they avoid that in regular blood transfusions?
Why so quick to write off GDF11 synth? We've done it for loads of noots...

 

This looks to be able to filter cancer and many other substance out of the blood and trap them in the filters.

 

https://finance.yaho...-124313236.html

 

This infact may be how the youth factors are put into us, by fltering them out of the young blood first, and then put what's in those filters  into us, in a few years. Just a thought.
 

[pone11]

Doesn't cancer travel via the blood? Would there be a risk of 'catching' someone else's cancer that way? How do they avoid that in regular blood transfusions?
Why so quick to write off GDF11 synth? We've done it for loads of noots...

 

I am not writing off GDF11.  I am saying that today it costs too much money.   That will change.

[niner]

Doesn't cancer travel via the blood? Would there be a risk of 'catching' someone else's cancer that way? How do they avoid that in regular blood transfusions?
Why so quick to write off GDF11 synth? We've done it for loads of noots...

 

GDF11 is a protein, while noots are small molecules.  There are tons of back alley synthesis houses in China that could do a noot, but proteins require a completely different skill set.  You have to insert the gene in a cell, then make sure that it is expressed correctly, including post-translational mods.  Then you have to grow massive quantities of it and purify it. 

 

I think there is way too much hype surrounding GDF11.  It's had a variety of interesting effects in mice, but if you inject it into an old adult, they aren't going to become "young" as most people here seem to define it.  They will still have wrinkles, sagging skin, and grey hair, for example.

[pone11]

 

Doesn't cancer travel via the blood? Would there be a risk of 'catching' someone else's cancer that way? How do they avoid that in regular blood transfusions?
Why so quick to write off GDF11 synth? We've done it for loads of noots...

 

GDF11 is a protein, while noots are small molecules.  There are tons of back alley synthesis houses in China that could do a noot, but proteins require a completely different skill set.  You have to insert the gene in a cell, then make sure that it is expressed correctly, including post-translational mods.  Then you have to grow massive quantities of it and purify it. 

 

I think there is way too much hype surrounding GDF11.  It's had a variety of interesting effects in mice, but if you inject it into an old adult, they aren't going to become "young" as most people here seem to define it.  They will still have wrinkles, sagging skin, and grey hair, for example.

 

Good point on the GDF11 production.  And I guess the other point would be that you might end up with a protein that has some defect or other differences from natural GDF11.   Do you trust a recombinant lab in China to disclose that?  Will anyone run studies with the modified GDF11?   Probably not.   But eventually someone will get it right.

 

There is hype but I think you need to read some of these mouse studies.   One of these studies records the old mice getting a *doubling* of vascular flow into the brain.   It wasn't a small improvement.

 

The other thing that is key here is that multiple studies make the comment that the IGF11 affect was in *all tissues measured*.   So the hypothesis is that this is a systemic effect.   I'm not saying skin will grow young, but anyone reading the actual studies would be asking the question "Will skin grow young?"

 

To me it is really strange that - given the results they published in early 2014 - these groups did not just continue giving the mice transfusions / GDF11 to understand effects on outward appearance and lifespan.   Why would they postpone that and be forced to start over from scratch?    Is anyone actively involved in a lifespan study for transfusions / GDF11 currently?

[niner]

The papers I've seen had some interesting results, like a reduction in cardiac hypertrophy, but I don't think I saw the one mentioning a doubling of vascular flow.  Do you have a link to that?   

 

People may wonder if skin will turn young- after all, everyone wants the fountain of youth, but the things that make skin old or hair gray are specific kinds of molecular lesions that I don't think the body can fix, even with the ideal signalling environment.   It would be nice if someone did a lifespan study, but those are lengthy and very expensive.  The two most likely results, that it either does nothing or has a small positive effect, are buzz-killers, so researchers riding the wave of GDF11 popularity may not be motivated to do such studies.

[pone11]

The papers I've seen had some interesting results, like a reduction in cardiac hypertrophy, but I don't think I saw the one mentioning a doubling of vascular flow.  Do you have a link to that?   

 

People may wonder if skin will turn young- after all, everyone wants the fountain of youth, but the things that make skin old or hair gray are specific kinds of molecular lesions that I don't think the body can fix, even with the ideal signalling environment.   It would be nice if someone did a lifespan study, but those are lengthy and very expensive.  The two most likely results, that it either does nothing or has a small positive effect, are buzz-killers, so researchers riding the wave of GDF11 popularity may not be motivated to do such studies.

 

I just grabbed a random study from the Harvard group:

http://www.sciencema...4/6184/630.full

 

which contains such juicy tidbits as:

"Cerebrovascular architecture, capillary density, and cerebral blood flow have been reported to decline with aging (23–25). Given the interconnection between the vasculature and neural stem cells, we asked whether young blood factors can also rejuvenate blood vessel architecture and function. To test this, we created “angiograms,” 3D reconstructions of the blood vessels (fig. S6A). Volumetric analysis of these angiograms showed that aging causes a decrease in blood vessel volume, as expected (Fig. 3, A and B). However, heterochronic parabiosis reversed this decline, increasing blood vessel volume by 87% in the Het-O compared with the Iso-O group (Fig. 3, A and B). Furthermore, we observed that blood vessel branching increased by 21% in Het-O versus Iso-O mice (fig. S6B)"

 

Okay, that's 87% for heterochronic parabiosis, but then later in the same study they have the insight to test GDF11 directly and the result is not far from that:

" GDF11 administration to older mice reproduces many of the beneficial effects of parabiosis on aging hypertrophic cardiac muscle (13). This prompted us to test whether GDF11 could also restore the age-related decline in neurogenesis and participate in vascular remodeling. For that purpose, 21- to 23-month-old mice were treated with daily injections of either recombinant GDF11 (rGDF11, 0.1 mg/kg mouse body weight), a dosing regimen that increases GDF11 levels in old mice toward youthful levels (13), or phosphatebuffered saline (PBS) (vehicle) for 4 weeks, and their blood vessels were subsequently analyzed by using the volumetric assay described above.  The volume of blood vessels in GDF11-treated old mice increased by 50% compared with the PBS-treated mice (Fig. 4, A and C)."

 

Increasing volume of blood vessels to the brain 50% to 90% is huge.   And increasing branching by 21% is also important and suggests that there must be additional metabolic activity and tissue growth that requires the extra bloodflow.  These are big clinical results, not sketchy outcomes.    I think something important is happening here, and I will just be surprised if it does not happen in a similar way in humans.

Edited by pone11, 16 January 2015 - 01:25 AM.

[niner]

Thanks pone, that's a pretty impressive result.  Is the trial looking at transfusions of young blood into Alzheimer's patients already underway?  This paper suggests that an approach like that could have a chance, providing the doses are large enough.  Parabiosis is continuous, while transfusions are intermittent and much lower volume.  Between that and the fact that with Alzheimer's, so much damage is already done, there might be a chance, but it's probably not huge.  I just hope that they have some endpoints that aren't dependent on brain function, like maybe a vasculature metric.  Too bad they aren't doing frequent injections of GDF11 instead.

[pone11]

Thanks pone, that's a pretty impressive result.  Is the trial looking at transfusions of young blood into Alzheimer's patients already underway?  This paper suggests that an approach like that could have a chance, providing the doses are large enough.  Parabiosis is continuous, while transfusions are intermittent and much lower volume.  Between that and the fact that with Alzheimer's, so much damage is already done, there might be a chance, but it's probably not huge.  I just hope that they have some endpoints that aren't dependent on brain function, like maybe a vasculature metric.  Too bad they aren't doing frequent injections of GDF11 instead.

 

The Stanford study started in Oct 2014 and goes about a year I believe.

 

Like you, I question why would you start with Alzheimer's patients.   So much damage is already done.   Wouldn't it make sense to instead study early-stage dementia where there is NOT evidence of permanent brain tissue damage?

 

I wish more groups were starting up studies, both animals and humans.

[Bryan_S]

They are wanting to generate dramatic turnarounds in their medical status. If is goes as planned they may see huge turnarounds in cognition and memory and investment dollars will line the streets, if it doesn't this will fall flat on its face. Personally, I think they may just pull this off.

[Bryan_S]

 

Doesn't cancer travel via the blood? Would there be a risk of 'catching' someone else's cancer that way? 

 

This looks to be able to filter cancer and many other substance out of the blood and trap them in the filters.

 

The donor gets his cells back and everything is separated via Plasmapheresis. No cells are transferred in the plasma treatments. The researchers just want the proteins. Is this what you were asking?

 

I'm on the road right now so I apologize if I'm not seeing the question right.