68 replies to this topic

[CuriousMonkey]

 

"The two trials above didn't reach p < 0.05, but that's not the same as nothing."
 
That is an interesting way to interpret the results. I often hear about people complaining about p fishing in science, but this takes it a big step forward. I'd like to learn more about how you think we can improve our ability to discern what is true and what is false through changes in study designs and data analysis.

 
It's not a matter of changing study design or data analysis, although both are flawed often enough; it's just that I think it's silly to treat the result of a trial as binary, where if there is  a 5% chance that the results were due to random fluctuation, we consider it to be "real", and if there's a six percent chance, then we consider it meaningless.  It's a gradient, albeit one that slides into meaninglessness pretty quickly.
 

"I can point you to pubmed; it's probably all there. "
 
I looked on PubMed prior to posting to the forum and I a search for "Mitoquinol" and "clinical trial" article type yielded ZERO results.  What am I missing?

No one calls it Mitoquinol.  If you search for "mitoq", you should get 164 hits as of today.  "mitoq" "clinical trial" gave me 7 hits.  They are mostly not human RCTs, though. 

 

"The easiest position to take is that of a skeptic. "

I know critical thinking is the lazy man's refuge, but I can't seem to bring myself to blindly accept claims made by anyone, be they a priest,  a scienctist, or businessman. 
 
Again, I want what you believe to be true, I'm just not willing to act on faith alone and be a human guinea pig.

Well, I'm with you on not taking anything on faith.  I'm particularly wary of  businessmen.  I'm somewhat less wary of scientists, but not a lot less.  Frequently they are businessmen in disguise.  I'm not trying to talk you into accepting anyone's claims.  I am saying that there is a lot of data on MitoQ and various other compounds that does not rise to the level of a gigantic multi-center RCT costing millions of dollars, but does tell us a lot.  We have two pharmacopoeias at our disposal.  One is FDA approved, both prescription and OTC.  The other is the large number of compounds in the "supplement" category.  The second pharmacopoeia forces you to do some digging if you want to see the evidence of utility, and you have to trust the manufacturer to provide a quality product.  I admit that is asking a lot, but I'm not willing to forego the value I find there.  Forums like longecity are very helpful sources of information and user experiences; for some compounds (e.g. c60oo) we are the only game in town.  For most supplements, examine.com is a great reference.

 

Hi niner, thank you for the continued discussion. I did the Pubmed search for mitoq as directed and got the 164 hits and then limited the search to include "clinical trials" and also got the 7 hits as well. Of those 7 I could find no other human RCTs of mitoq. I'm not trying to convince you not to use mitoq or a similar compound I simply cannot find the human level data the company claims it has to support the claims they make about mitoq. As such, you have been acting as a proxy for the company, as such inquires would ideally be address by the maker of such claims directly. Thanks. 

[sthira]

Are you taking mitoq, Niner? I'd consider it if it wasn't so damned expensive. Or is c60oo an alternative? And what are your life-changing compounds, niner?

No, I don't use it, mainly because of the cost. I think c60oo can be thought of as an alternative, and I do use c60oo. They aren't the same thing, and there are people who have used both and prefer MitoQ. I'd certainly consider giving it a try at some point. If I didn't have c60oo, I'd probably bite the bullet and use MitoQ.

Two compounds that made a huge difference in my life are c60oo and NSI-189.

Niner could you elaborate on your experience with NSI-189 about why you consider it a life-changing compound? I check the NSI-189 thread now and don't remember seeing you weigh in heavy on the plus side of this compound.

I'm curious about this, too, and also have been reading up on NSI-189 since I've never solved my problems with depression and anxiety through mainstream psych pill-taking and therapy. Can we open a new, updated thread on this so as to not stumble the MitoQ rhythm?

[motorcitykid]

 

 

 

Are you taking mitoq, Niner? I'd consider it if it wasn't so damned expensive. Or is c60oo an alternative? And what are your life-changing compounds, niner?

No, I don't use it, mainly because of the cost. I think c60oo can be thought of as an alternative, and I do use c60oo. They aren't the same thing, and there are people who have used both and prefer MitoQ. I'd certainly consider giving it a try at some point. If I didn't have c60oo, I'd probably bite the bullet and use MitoQ.

Two compounds that made a huge difference in my life are c60oo and NSI-189.

Niner could you elaborate on your experience with NSI-189 about why you consider it a life-changing compound? I check the NSI-189 thread now and don't remember seeing you weigh in heavy on the plus side of this compound.

I'm curious about this, too, and also have been reading up on NSI-189 since I've never solved my problems with depression and anxiety through mainstream psych pill-taking and therapy. Can we open a new, updated thread on this so as to not stumble the MitoQ rhythm?

 

 Yes, It might be helpful to have a new NSI-189 thread where users discuss their experiences with NSI-189 exclusively.

 

As it stands now,  NSI-189 is a very long thread with countless posts of users who are stacking with other compounds, or speculating what it might be like to stack or discontinue stacking with other compounds.

 

 

[Antonio2014]

Not even D3 or some minerals (Mg) or herbs?

 

You must be having a killer diet - would you share some insight?

 

Muchas gracias!

 

Why should I? There is no real evidence that supplements extend life in humans. Even CR hasn't shown any meaningful life extension in primates. The difference in life expectancy between the US, with his generally unhealthy diet, and Japan, the number one in longevity, is only 5-6 years.

 

I mostly follow a Mediterranean diet, out of custom. But it will not make me a centenarian. Apart from bare luck, only biotechnology can do that. And no current biotechnology can make me beat Jeanne Calment. Buying supplements and designing a diet is a waste of resources.

Edited by Antonio2014, 21 October 2015 - 08:19 PM.

[Antonio2014]

The easiest position to take is that of a skeptic.

 

It's as easy as selling some drug without proving that it works. The difference is that we don't take people's money.

 

All you have to do is refuse to acknowledge that a compound is useful until it has been through multiple large RCTs.

 

If you claim a health benefit, the onus is on you to prove that claim. People aren't obliged to believe you, even more so when you are trying to earn money with your unproven claims. That has a name: fraud.

 

I celebrate risk-takers. Without them, we would still be living in caves.

 

Risk-takers or believers? Religion didn't brought us out of the caves, it was science.

Edited by Antonio2014, 21 October 2015 - 08:43 PM.

[pamojja]

Risk-takers or believers? Religion didn't brought us out of the caves, it was science.

 

You believe to know what brought our fore-fathers out of caves thousands or hundreds of years ago?? - I'm pretty sure it wasn't what we would call science nowadays. Rather skills through learning by doing, and convenience.

 

The bleak prognosis of no non-invasive scientifically proven cure for a medical condition made me experiment, and through resolution of such health issues finally a firm 'believer' in a variety of supplements.

 

I feel really cheated through a health care system which makes me pay each month for health insurance which doesn't delivers.

Edited by pamojja, 21 October 2015 - 09:30 PM.

[niner]

 

Well, I'm with you on not taking anything on faith.  I'm particularly wary of  businessmen.  I'm somewhat less wary of scientists, but not a lot less.  Frequently they are businessmen in disguise.  I'm not trying to talk you into accepting anyone's claims.  I am saying that there is a lot of data on MitoQ and various other compounds that does not rise to the level of a gigantic multi-center RCT costing millions of dollars, but does tell us a lot.  We have two pharmacopoeias at our disposal.  One is FDA approved, both prescription and OTC.  The other is the large number of compounds in the "supplement" category.  The second pharmacopoeia forces you to do some digging if you want to see the evidence of utility, and you have to trust the manufacturer to provide a quality product.  I admit that is asking a lot, but I'm not willing to forego the value I find there.  Forums like longecity are very helpful sources of information and user experiences; for some compounds (e.g. c60oo) we are the only game in town.  For most supplements, examine.com is a great reference.

Hi niner, thank you for the continued discussion. I did the Pubmed search for mitoq as directed and got the 164 hits and then limited the search to include "clinical trials" and also got the 7 hits as well. Of those 7 I could find no other human RCTs of mitoq. I'm not trying to convince you not to use mitoq or a similar compound I simply cannot find the human level data the company claims it has to support the claims they make about mitoq. As such, you have been acting as a proxy for the company, as such inquires would ideally be address by the maker of such claims directly. Thanks. 

 

I'm not representing the company, and certainly am not getting any money or deals on supplements from them.  I also don't get paid by longecity.  Or did you mean that you were using me as a proxy for the company?  If that's the case, you could talk with Greg Macpherson directly in the MitoQ thread that they sponsor here for just that purpose.  If the company claims that it has data, Greg could probably point you to it.  I think they have a science section on their site with a list of references.   It might be the case that they are making claims based on self-reports from users.  They've likely accumulated quite a lot of those.

 

How do you feel about off-label prescribing of pharmaceuticals?  That's where a doctor prescribes a drug for an indication that it wasn't approved for.  In other words, no RCT was done for that indication.  Doctors and/or patients learn about these applications through the medical grapevine, patient forums, or what-have-you.  It's very much like longecity, where people learn about the use of unapproved compounds.  The critical difference in the context of the present discussion is that the companies that make those drugs are not making claims for unapproved indications.  It used to be common for drug reps to personally make such claims to doctors, but the FDA clamped down on that pretty hard a while back.

[niner]

 

The easiest position to take is that of a skeptic.

 
It's as easy as selling some drug without proving that it works. The difference is that we don't take people's money.

I don't agree.  It takes a lot of work to set up a drug dealership.  Being a skeptic requires no work at all, if being a skeptic means saying nothing is real until there's a large RCT.  What requires work is going into the primary literature to find the pre-clinical and early clinical work that suggests a compound will be useful, and using social media like longecity to gather information from people who have used the compound.   But this is separate from the issue of health claims.  It probably sounds like I'm trying to justify commercial claims that have no merit, and I'm not arguing that.   I'm really much more interested in the question of how we decide if an intervention has merit absent a large RCT.

 

 

All you have to do is refuse to acknowledge that a compound is useful until it has been through multiple large RCTs.

 
If you claim a health benefit, the onus is on you to prove that claim. People aren't obliged to believe you, even more so when you are trying to earn money with your unproven claims. That has a name: fraud.

I'm certainly not arguing that anyone is obliged to believe anything without evidence.  It's certainly valid to ask claimants to produce the evidence to that effect.  You made the following claim:  "Buying supplements and designing a diet is a waste of resources."  That's quite a large claim to make without qualification or evidence.   I think you should say: "I don't know if buying supplements and designing a diet is worth doing."  Or maybe you don't think it's worth it for you personally.  If you are in perfect health and already have a great diet, then sure, you don't need to do anything else. 
 

[sthira]

^^ I read Antonio's point as even if we have great health, a wonderful diet, and follow longevity supplement trends we're still only talking a few years of extra life. I'm sure we agree that exercise, supplements won't take us far, and certainly not to Jean Calment's 122-years of good health. That's gonna require something different -- like gene therapy, eg.

[niner]

^^ I read Antonio's point as even if we have great health, a wonderful diet, and follow longevity supplement trends we're still only talking a few years of extra life. I'm sure we agree that exercise, supplements won't take us far, and certainly not to Jean Calment's 122-years of good health. That's gonna require something different -- like gene therapy, eg.

 

Yes, Antonio didn't think adding 5-6 years was worth all that much.  I think there's a hell of a lot to be said for curve-squaring at this moment in history, when a relative handful of extra years could be the difference between being alive when the first really good rejuvenation treatments arrive, or not.  Perhaps Antonio is a young person and is confident that such treatments will be available before he's old.  I'm not so young, so maybe my calculus is different.

[Antonio2014]

You believe to know what brought our fore-fathers out of caves thousands or hundreds of years ago?? - I'm pretty sure it wasn't what we would call science nowadays. Rather skills through learning by doing, and convenience.

 

That is a primitive form of science. Certainly not religion. Egyptian mathematics was also "learning by doing", and we call it mathematics nevertheless.

 

 

The bleak prognosis of no non-invasive scientifically proven cure for a medical condition made me experiment, and through resolution of such health issues finally a firm 'believer' in a variety of supplements.

 

An experiment with only one data point and no controls is a very poor experiment.

 

I feel really cheated through a health care system which makes me pay each month for health insurance which doesn't delivers.

 

Which doesn't deliver? Do you prefer to live in XIX century, when life expectancy was half than it's now?

Edited by Antonio2014, 28 October 2015 - 08:33 AM.

[Antonio2014]

I don't agree.  It takes a lot of work to set up a drug dealership.  Being a skeptic requires no work at all, if being a skeptic means saying nothing is real until there's a large RCT. 

 

Oooh, poor drug dealers. They have to prove that their drug works before selling it. How can we be so heartless!?

 

I'm really much more interested in the question of how we decide if an intervention has merit absent a large RCT.

 

It hasn't.

 

I'm certainly not arguing that anyone is obliged to believe anything without evidence.  It's certainly valid to ask claimants to produce the evidence to that effect.  You made the following claim:  "Buying supplements and designing a diet is a waste of resources."  That's quite a large claim to make without qualification or evidence.

 

Nope. It's the sellers who have to provide the evidence. Without that evidence, the probability of improving your health by taking supplements is the same than by taking a random substance: zero.

 

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Yes, Antonio didn't think adding 5-6 years was worth all that much.

 

You can bet on it. Current life expectancy in my country for men is around 80 years. I'm 41 years old (almost 42) now. With current trends on life expectancy increase (that is, no SENS, no nanotechnology, etc.) my life expectancy when I become 80 years old will be 6-7 years longer than it's now for 80 year olds. That is, even if I do nothing and rejuvenation research makes no progress at all, I can beat even the better supplements and CR!

Edited by Antonio2014, 28 October 2015 - 08:57 AM.

[niner]

 

I'm really much more interested in the question of how we decide if an intervention has merit absent a large RCT.

 
It hasn't.

OK, let me get this straight.  We have a substance that can't be patented, so no one can charge a thousand dollars a pill for it, so nobody is interested in running a large RCT.  We have some small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users who are getting significant health benefits from it, but, in your view, that substance has no merit whatsoever.  It is "worthless".  Do you also claim that the thousands of users who are benefiting from the substance are deluded?  If so, what would happen if a large RCT were to be run, showing efficacy?  Would the thousands of deluded users suddenly become sane?  Exactly when would that miracle occur--  At the point in the trial when efficacy is first apparent?  At the formal end of the trial?  When the manuscript is written?  When it's accepted?  When it's published?  What are the physics of the insanity->sanity transition? 

 

This seems wrong...

[pamojja]

I'm 41 years old (almost 42) now.

 
I remember this optimism in me too . But then at exactly your age I was suddenly stricken with a pain-free walking distance of only 400 meters..
 
 

 

The bleak prognosis of no non-invasive scientifically proven cure for a medical condition made me experiment, and through resolution of such health issues finally a firm 'believer' in a variety of supplements.

An experiment with only one data point and no controls is a very poor experiment.

A very poor experiment per your terms. For me it meant the difference between becoming disabled - or having an own livelihood.
 
 

 

I feel really cheated through a health care system which makes me pay each month for health insurance which doesn't delivers.

Which doesn't deliver? Do you prefer to live in XIX century, when life expectancy was half than it's now?

 

You can bet that I prefer to live in any century, where I would be free to choose a non-invasive harmless medical treatment.

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 29 October 2015 - 12:59 AM.

[CuriousMonkey]

Niner,

 

Based on the evidence you referenced (small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users ), I am curious as to what specific diseases and conditions you believe MitoQ is effective in treating?

 

 

I'm really much more interested in the question of how we decide if an intervention has merit absent a large RCT.

 
It hasn't.

OK, let me get this straight.  We have a substance that can't be patented, so no one can charge a thousand dollars a pill for it, so nobody is interested in running a large RCT.  We have some small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users who are getting significant health benefits from it, but, in your view, that substance has no merit whatsoever.  It is "worthless".  Do you also claim that the thousands of users who are benefiting from the substance are deluded?  If so, what would happen if a large RCT were to be run, showing efficacy?  Would the thousands of deluded users suddenly become sane?  Exactly when would that miracle occur--  At the point in the trial when efficacy is first apparent?  At the formal end of the trial?  When the manuscript is written?  When it's accepted?  When it's published?  What are the physics of the insanity->sanity transition? 

 

This seems wrong...

 

 

[CuriousMonkey]

Pamojja,

 

I'm glad to hear that you are doing better, but the only way, outside of random chance, for us humans to understand what is true and what is false is to apply the scientific method to test our hypotheses about the world. Your case study or anecdotal evidence is a starting point of investigation into understanding the cause-effect relationships of the revelant biology, but much work must be done before we have confidently claim that a specific treatment is generally effective and safe. Having sufferred from serious health problems myself this is not what anyone wants to hear when they are sufferring. 

 

I'm 41 years old (almost 42) now.

 
I remember this optimism in me too . But then at exactly your age I was suddenly stricken with a pain-free walking distance of only 400 meters..
 
 

 

The bleak prognosis of no non-invasive scientifically proven cure for a medical condition made me experiment, and through resolution of such health issues finally a firm 'believer' in a variety of supplements.

An experiment with only one data point and no controls is a very poor experiment.

A very poor experiment per your terms. For me it meant the difference between becoming disabled - or having an own livelihood.
 
 

 

I feel really cheated through a health care system which makes me pay each month for health insurance which doesn't delivers.

Which doesn't deliver? Do you prefer to live in XIX century, when life expectancy was half than it's now?

 

You can bet that I prefer to live in any century, where I would be free to choose a non-invasive harmless medical treatment.

 

 

[sthira]

Pamojja,

I'm glad to hear that you are doing better, but the only way, outside of random chance, for us humans to understand what is true and what is false is to apply the scientific method to test our hypotheses about the world. Your case study or anecdotal evidence is a starting point of investigation into understanding the cause-effect relationships of the revelant biology, but much work must be done before we have confidently claim that a specific treatment is generally effective and safe. Having sufferred from serious health problems myself this is not what anyone wants to hear when they are sufferring.

Yes but the future of medicine will be more personalized. Cures will be unique to you and your own problems and complicated biology. And I think we're approaching a time when generalized pharmaceuticals will become less relevant to maintaining personal longterm health. Pharmaceuticals simply aren't effective enough, they're too general, they have too many side effects, they take too long to study, they cost too much for the sick end user, they're too caught up in Wall Street and fraud and price fixers like this Martin Shkreli creep: http://www.cc.com/vi...g-price-gouging

Better, more accurate, and cheaper therapies for all must be on the horizon. Dream, donate to SENS, get off your Scientific Method high horse.

[Mind]

One thing for sure. I am happy that this podcast spurred some vigorous discussion. I will try my best to keep producing thought-provoking episodes.

[CuriousMonkey]

I dream big. I dream of the day when simply believing something will happen makes it happen. Until that day I unfortunately have rely on the stupid scientific method to work towards making that wonderful future you describe a reality. 

 

But fear not, its only another 30 years until 2045. It has been prophesied that it is then that the day of reckoning, THE SINGULARITY, is to occur and we will all become immortal. I feel so badly for all those over the age of 50 as they will likely just miss it. 

 

The future will soon arrive, so don't worry, certainly don't ask questions of the high priests and you too will be among the chosen ones. 

 

Praise be. Praise be.

 

Pamojja,

I'm glad to hear that you are doing better, but the only way, outside of random chance, for us humans to understand what is true and what is false is to apply the scientific method to test our hypotheses about the world. Your case study or anecdotal evidence is a starting point of investigation into understanding the cause-effect relationships of the revelant biology, but much work must be done before we have confidently claim that a specific treatment is generally effective and safe. Having sufferred from serious health problems myself this is not what anyone wants to hear when they are sufferring.
 

Yes but the future of medicine will be more personalized. Cures will be unique to you and your own problems and complicated biology. And I think we're approaching a time when generalized pharmaceuticals will become less relevant to maintaining personal longterm health. Pharmaceuticals simply aren't effective enough, they're too general, they have too many side effects, they take too long to study, they cost too much for the sick end user, they're too caught up in Wall Street and fraud and price fixers like this Martin Shkreli creep: http://www.cc.com/vi...g-price-gouging

Better, more accurate, and cheaper therapies for all must be on the horizon. Dream, donate to SENS, get off your Scientific Method high horse.

 

 

[ceridwen]

That's what cryonics is for.

[sthira]

Ugh. Ok. Then let's back up. Politely. You questioned some compound that worked effectively and safely for someone else.

Your case study or anecdotal evidence is a starting point of investigation into understanding the cause-effect relationships of the revelant biology, but much work must be done before we have confidently claim that a specific treatment is generally effective and safe.

What do you mean by "much work must be done to confidently claim a specific treatment" is effective and safe? Is your definition of the scientific method applicable exclusively to people in general? What about people in specific? If a compound is effective and safe for a minority of people, but not the majority, is it not scientific? What if some benefit and most don't, but there's no profit incentive to study the minority? And what about compounds that may be safe and effective but are not patentable? I may be misunderstanding your definition of the scientific method.

I dream big. I dream of the day when simply believing something will happen makes it happen. Until that day I unfortunately have rely on the stupid scientific method to work towards making that wonderful future you describe a reality.

...

Praise be. Praise be.

I'm not sure you mean to say the scientific method is stupid. Do you mean to say your definition of it is confined to large, industry funded RCTs that only apply to the general population?

[CuriousMonkey]

"What do you mean by "much work must be done to confidently claim a specific treatment""

 

By much work I mean that its takes alot of work to establish that something has long term safety and efficacy in one person and much more to do some for larger and larger numbers of people. 

 

First the individual,

 

What expirements must be run to establish cause and effect in one person? How do we control for confounding variables? The placebo effect is strong and well established, how do we control for it in our self-experiements? How about safety, if we experience something undesired while doing a self-experiment how can we determine what it was caused by? Many drugs have been found to be harmful with long-term use, how can learn if something will cause us harm if we use it long term? Do we simply have to use it and hope for the best?

 

Now toward larger and larger group,

 

As you correctly said human are very complex biological organisms, so as we add more and more humans into an experiment we are added greater complexity. This makes determining cause and effect (efficacy and safety) even more difficult. This is why we have treatments that are deemed effective and safe by the FDA, but still don't work and cause serious harm to varying percentage of those who use them.

 

I would absoutely love for a simpler method to discover the truth, but the scientific method is the best we have and science, when working with complex systems, is really, really hard stuff and takes a long time. This is why I wish we lived in a world where the vast majority of humans worked full time as scientists and engineers. 

Ugh. Ok. Then let's back up. Politely. You questioned some compound that worked effectively and safely for someone else.
 

Your case study or anecdotal evidence is a starting point of investigation into understanding the cause-effect relationships of the revelant biology, but much work must be done before we have confidently claim that a specific treatment is generally effective and safe.

What do you mean by "much work must be done to confidently claim a specific treatment" is effective and safe? Is your definition of the scientific method applicable exclusively to people in general? What about people in specific? If a compound is effective and safe for a minority of people, but not the majority, is it not scientific? What if some benefit and most don't, but there's no profit incentive to study the minority? And what about compounds that may be safe and effective but are not patentable? I may be misunderstanding your definition of the scientific method.

I dream big. I dream of the day when simply believing something will happen makes it happen. Until that day I unfortunately have rely on the stupid scientific method to work towards making that wonderful future you describe a reality.

...

Praise be. Praise be.

I'm not sure you mean to say the scientific method is stupid. Do you mean to say your definition of it is confined to large, industry funded RCTs that only apply to the general population?

 

 

[niner]

Based on the evidence you referenced (small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users ), I am curious as to what specific diseases and conditions you believe MitoQ is effective in treating?

 

I wasn't speaking specifically about MitoQ, but it fits the description.  Since I haven't used it personally, I'll instead talk about mitochondrial antioxidants as a class, of which MitoQ is a member.   In terms of human use, the most well-known members rank as c60oo > MitoQ > SkQ1 ~= SS-31 / Bendavia.   These compounds improve mitochondrial bioenergetics, sometimes markedly.  All except c60oo have been demonstrated to act via a reduction in cardiolipin peroxidation, which leads to improved function of cytochrome c.  This is likely a class effect, and other mechanisms also act to improve mitochondrial efficiency.  C60oo is the newest and least studied yet is the most widely used because it is easy to make, readily available, and inexpensive.  The improved mitochondrial efficiency leads to these compounds being useful in conditions characterized by hypoxia, oxidative stress, or mitochondrial dysfunction.  Hypoxia might be a problem in COPD, Asthma, Angina, or other ischemic conditions.   Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction is a factor in a wide variety of conditions, such as heart failure, ischemia-reperfusion injury, fatigue syndromes, COPD, kidney disease, macular degeneration, neurodegeneration, burn injury, sepsis/septic shock, and cancer.

 

These and a couple hundred other conditions are where mitochondrial antioxidants may hypothetically find utility.  As for what of this has been observed, there are reports of c60oo being helpful in COPD, Asthma, Statin-induced mitochondrial injury, burn injury, fatigue syndromes, and syncope due to postural hypotension.  Bendavia is being or has been trialed in Heart Failure, I-R injury, skeletal muscle dysfunction in the elderly, mitochondrial myopathy, and Impaired renal function.  Its ocular formulation is being/has been trialed in Diabetic Macular Edema and Age Related Macular Degeneration.   I've heard that there are a lot of reports of MitoQ being useful in MS that have come out of online MS support communities.  There are also said to be reports regarding MitoQ in heart failure.  MitoQ was trialed in Hep C, and showed liver protection.

 

In addition to disease states, healthy people also benefit from improved mitochondrial energetics.  For example, a large fraction of c60oo users note improved muscular endurance.  This has been observed anecdotally as well as under more quantitative conditions, and the improvements are sometimes non-trivial.  Mitochondrial antioxidants might at some point find their way onto banned substances lists in athletic competition.  There have been a number of reports of protection against sunburn from c60oo.  How this translates into an effect on photoaging is an open question.  Topical MitoQ is reported to be beneficial for skin.  There are anecdotal reports of c60oo causing improvement in quality and quantity of hair.  There is a published report of a fullerene analog that causes growth of new hair on both mouse and human skin. 

 

Given the similarities in target and behavior of these compounds, it would not be surprising to see similar pharmacodynamics.  They also differ in some structural and electrostatic aspects, and their pharmacokinetics range from spectacular to marginal, so seeing a particular biological effect in one compound doesn't guarantee that other compounds will show the same effect, however, there are likely to be significant overlaps.

[CuriousMonkey]

Thank you for the detailed reply. Sounds like mitochondial antioxidants could be a panacea. I've setup up notifications for human RCTS. I hope the theories prove to be true. 

 

Based on the evidence you referenced (small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users ), I am curious as to what specific diseases and conditions you believe MitoQ is effective in treating?

 

I wasn't speaking specifically about MitoQ, but it fits the description.  Since I haven't used it personally, I'll instead talk about mitochondrial antioxidants as a class, of which MitoQ is a member.   In terms of human use, the most well-known members rank as c60oo > MitoQ > SkQ1 ~= SS-31 / Bendavia.   These compounds improve mitochondrial bioenergetics, sometimes markedly.  All except c60oo have been demonstrated to act via a reduction in cardiolipin peroxidation, which leads to improved function of cytochrome c.  This is likely a class effect, and other mechanisms also act to improve mitochondrial efficiency.  C60oo is the newest and least studied yet is the most widely used because it is easy to make, readily available, and inexpensive.  The improved mitochondrial efficiency leads to these compounds being useful in conditions characterized by hypoxia, oxidative stress, or mitochondrial dysfunction.  Hypoxia might be a problem in COPD, Asthma, Angina, or other ischemic conditions.   Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction is a factor in a wide variety of conditions, such as heart failure, ischemia-reperfusion injury, fatigue syndromes, COPD, kidney disease, macular degeneration, neurodegeneration, burn injury, sepsis/septic shock, and cancer.

 

These and a couple hundred other conditions are where mitochondrial antioxidants may hypothetically find utility.  As for what of this has been observed, there are reports of c60oo being helpful in COPD, Asthma, Statin-induced mitochondrial injury, burn injury, fatigue syndromes, and syncope due to postural hypotension.  Bendavia is being or has been trialed in Heart Failure, I-R injury, skeletal muscle dysfunction in the elderly, mitochondrial myopathy, and Impaired renal function.  Its ocular formulation is being/has been trialed in Diabetic Macular Edema and Age Related Macular Degeneration.   I've heard that there are a lot of reports of MitoQ being useful in MS that have come out of online MS support communities.  There are also said to be reports regarding MitoQ in heart failure.  MitoQ was trialed in Hep C, and showed liver protection.

 

In addition to disease states, healthy people also benefit from improved mitochondrial energetics.  For example, a large fraction of c60oo users note improved muscular endurance.  This has been observed anecdotally as well as under more quantitative conditions, and the improvements are sometimes non-trivial.  Mitochondrial antioxidants might at some point find their way onto banned substances lists in athletic competition.  There have been a number of reports of protection against sunburn from c60oo.  How this translates into an effect on photoaging is an open question.  Topical MitoQ is reported to be beneficial for skin.  There are anecdotal reports of c60oo causing improvement in quality and quantity of hair.  There is a published report of a fullerene analog that causes growth of new hair on both mouse and human skin. 

 

Given the similarities in target and behavior of these compounds, it would not be surprising to see similar pharmacodynamics.  They also differ in some structural and electrostatic aspects, and their pharmacokinetics range from spectacular to marginal, so seeing a particular biological effect in one compound doesn't guarantee that other compounds will show the same effect, however, there are likely to be significant overlaps.

 

 

[CuriousMonkey]

No need to continue worrying about improving our biology, we will be merging in about 15 years anyway.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...zweil-1.3100124

[Antonio2014]

OK, let me get this straight.  We have a substance that can't be patented, so no one can charge a thousand dollars a pill for it, so nobody is interested in running a large RCT.  We have some small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users who are getting significant health benefits from it, but, in your view, that substance has no merit whatsoever.  It is "worthless".

 

Yeah, totally. The value of multiple poorly conducted experiments, without control group, without any statistical analysis, without accounting for confounders, without any form of medical analysis, etc. etc. etc. etc. is ZERO.

[Antonio2014]

An experiment with only one data point and no controls is a very poor experiment.

A very poor experiment per your terms. For me it meant the difference between becoming disabled - or having an own livelihood.

 

No, you can't know that.

 

 

 

I feel really cheated through a health care system which makes me pay each month for health insurance which doesn't delivers.

Which doesn't deliver? Do you prefer to live in XIX century, when life expectancy was half than it's now?

 

You can bet that I prefer to live in any century, where I would be free to choose a non-invasive harmless medical treatment.

 

OK, you prefer to be dead.
 

[pamojja]

OK, you prefer to be dead.

 

That's whats my cardiologists predicted. Not only did I overcome the disability - which according to them would not be possible without their invasive intervention - I'm also still alive and able to testify.
 

Edited by pamojja, 03 November 2015 - 11:35 PM.

[niner]

 

OK, let me get this straight.  We have a substance that can't be patented, so no one can charge a thousand dollars a pill for it, so nobody is interested in running a large RCT.  We have some small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users who are getting significant health benefits from it, but, in your view, that substance has no merit whatsoever.  It is "worthless".

 

Yeah, totally. The value of multiple poorly conducted experiments, without control group, without any statistical analysis, without accounting for confounders, without any form of medical analysis, etc. etc. etc. etc. is ZERO.

 

That's funny, because there are an awful lot of people who find that these compounds are quite useful to them.  I think what you mean is that these compounds are worthless to you.  What makes you think that published human (or other animal) experiments would have no control group or statistical analysis?  If you had a health condition that FDA approved meds couldn't help, but an unapproved compound could make your life worth living, or perhaps even keep you alive, would you use it, or would you choose to die for lack of a p < 0.05?

[CuriousMonkey]

niner,

 

I'm have not interest in arguing the validity of an individual's claim regarding the effectiveness and safety their personal's experienced with any given treatment. I'm thinking about this on the level of a doctor prescibing a treatment and a company making claims regarding its product. Do you support a doctor being able to perscribe and a company being able to make claims regarding their product based on "an awful lot of people" finding a treatment to be effective and safe? When you go beyond the indidivual and their experience, what rules, if any, do you think their should be when healthcare providers and companies are selling their products and services? 

 

Not saying you are arguing for this, but if a doctor is allowed to precribe anything and a company can make any claims about the products they sell, does the consumer have any legal recourse if the treatment is ineffective or harmful? 

 

 

OK, let me get this straight.  We have a substance that can't be patented, so no one can charge a thousand dollars a pill for it, so nobody is interested in running a large RCT.  We have some small published human trials, a lot of animal work, and thousands of users who are getting significant health benefits from it, but, in your view, that substance has no merit whatsoever.  It is "worthless".

 

Yeah, totally. The value of multiple poorly conducted experiments, without control group, without any statistical analysis, without accounting for confounders, without any form of medical analysis, etc. etc. etc. etc. is ZERO.

 

That's funny, because there are an awful lot of people who find that these compounds are quite useful to them.  I think what you mean is that these compounds are worthless to you.  What makes you think that published human (or other animal) experiments would have no control group or statistical analysis?  If you had a health condition that FDA approved meds couldn't help, but an unapproved compound could make your life worth living, or perhaps even keep you alive, would you use it, or would you choose to die for lack of a p < 0.05?