848 replies to this topic

[DareDevil]

In the roll call I step forward. I received my allotment fairly recently and after trying to raise inflammation through fast food intake I will be doing a protocol of 33mg every other day over a course of 6 days in three separate subQ shots.I will report on the side effects and other incidentals from this trial. I will afterwards do a small and short protocol of oral Dasatinib ingestion in approximately 50mg doses daily over 4 or 5 days.

 

Rocket, regarding your interesting suggestion of  matching mouse dosage 1:1 per kilogram of body weight, what dosage so you think we should be taking by injection? I am curious, and am sure others here will soon give their own opinions about your unexpected recommendation.

 

Cheers,

 

DareDevil

[Gern]

I am 60. I never really feel my age. I run and jump, and play with my Great Dane. A year ago I was lifting 220lbs. If I fall I just roll and spring back up. My point is I’m old, but not frail.

My first injection was Tuesday, 30 mg, sub-q, in my belly fat. It stung a little at first, then got worse. The worst of it was over after a day and a half. Not much of note except I slept little the next night but felt great the next day. That’s not unheard of for me, but uncommon. Also after 20 hours I had muscle soreness in my shoulders and arms, as if I had overworked them. Which I do occasionally do, but it couldn’t think of any cause.

My second injection was 30 mg intramuscular in my left shoulder. Again it was no worse than a flu shot at first, but within a couple hours got very sore and felt warm to the touch. I’m fairly conscious of my mental state and concentration, having been treated for semi-mild depression. My concentration seemed improved. I was able to work on proof reading and grammar checks in something I was writing for a good 12 hours without becoming foggy or suffering mental fatigue. Again very rare, but hard to say as wouldn’t have felt that way anyway.

My third injection was 40mg last night in right shoulder. Very sore this morning, as if I had a big bruise, but without any signs of bruising. Also stings some. I would describe it as more than just “some soreness.” I felt like crap when I got up this morning. Had a sore throat and aches. I have a habit of getting sick if I make big changes like go on a ketogeneic diet, so its possible, but it doesn’t really feel like I’m sick, just run down and too little water perhaps. It’s getting better as time goes by.

Not much else to report. I didn’t take any bio markers. I’m just not that organized. I’m generally reasonably healthy anyway. It seems like it’s too soon to draw any conclusions about effects. Though I would say, I suspect an improvement in concentration and mental acuity (I am picking up on things I didn’t before and able to see solutions more easily.) Even that is hard to say because seasonal mood changes could partially account for it.

Edited by Gern, 15 April 2018 - 07:40 PM.

[Madfern]

My first injection was Tuesday, 30 mg, sub-q, in my belly fat. It stung a little at first, then got worse. The worst of it was over after a day and a half. ... Also after 20 hours I had muscle soreness in my shoulders and arms, as if I had overworked them. 
...
My second injection was 30 mg intramuscular in my left shoulder. Again it was no worse than a flu shot at first, but within a couple hours got very sore and felt warm to the touch.

...
My third injection was 40mg last night in right shoulder. Very sore this morning, as if I had a big bruise, but without any signs of bruising. Also stings some. I would describe it as more than just “some soreness.” I felt like crap when I got up this morning. Had a sore throat and aches. ..., but it doesn’t really feel like I’m sick, just run down and too little water perhaps. It’s getting better as time goes by.

 

@Gern:  Thanks for sharing your experience -- much appreciated.

 

Could you please give us some more details?

1. Source of FOXO4-DRI ?
2. How did you prepare the solution for injection?
3. Type of solution (Bacteriostatic water, saline, other),  how many milli-liters ?
4. Did you mix all of the solution at once or individually before each injection? 
5. If you mixed it all at once, how did you store it?
6. Type of container used for mixing?  Did you autoclave it or buy sterile containers for single use?

[Gern]

 

@Gern:  Thanks for sharing your experience -- much appreciated.

 

Could you please give us some more details?

1. Source of FOXO4-DRI ?
2. How did you prepare the solution for injection?
3. Type of solution (Bacteriostatic water, saline, other),  how many milli-liters ?
4. Did you mix all of the solution at once or individually before each injection? 
5. If you mixed it all at once, how did you store it?
6. Type of container used for mixing?  Did you autoclave it or buy sterile containers for single use?

 

Source: This group buy, from the thread you posted in

 

I prepared it using a phosphate buffered solution from amazon, linked in this thread.

 

The FOXO4-DRI comes in little 10mg vials that I assumed were sterile

I stored it in a long term commercial freezer that is as cold as I can get it

I used the syringe to draw .5ml per vial of saline straight from the bottle

I cleaned the lids of the vials with alcohol and inject 0.5ml saline into each vial through the lid

I mixed it then drew the solution back out through each lid.

I swabbed the area with alcohol and injected it

 

Enough different people have reported soreness at the injection site that it seems reasonable that it could be a result of the peptide.

[helix66]

Reporting in for roll call, 45 years male. I'm in the second batch of the group buy and am awaiting on supply. Once received I will provide anecdotal reports of effectiveness or otherwise.

 

 

[Rocket]

Source: This group buy, from the thread you posted in

 

I prepared it using a phosphate buffered solution from amazon, linked in this thread.

 

The FOXO4-DRI comes in little 10mg vials that I assumed were sterile

I stored it in a long term commercial freezer that is as cold as I can get it

I used the syringe to draw .5ml per vial of saline straight from the bottle

I cleaned the lids of the vials with alcohol and inject 0.5ml saline into each vial through the lid

I mixed it then drew the solution back out through each lid.

I swabbed the area with alcohol and injected it

 

Enough different people have reported soreness at the injection site that it seems reasonable that it could be a result of the peptide.

 

I would not be injecting ANY peptide into muscle. Subq belly fat only. Keep in mind you're not buying anything ever trialed on anything other than mice. If you get an infection or bad reaction in your muscle, you will can be looking at a trip to the hospital. Infections from subq shots typically clear up after a few days of waiting it out.... IM and you could need to go to a hospital. If you're intent on IM come hell or high water then use the buttocks. If you react badly at least as opposed to a leg (quad) or an arm, buttocks pain won't limit range of motion.

 

Edited by Rocket, 16 April 2018 - 03:31 PM.

[Madfern]

My first injection was Tuesday, 30 mg, sub-q, in my belly fat. It stung a little at first, then got worse. The worst of it was over after a day and a half. ... after 20 hours I had muscle soreness in my shoulders and arms, ...

My second injection was 30 mg intramuscular in my left shoulder. Again it was no worse than a flu shot at first, but within a couple hours got very sore and felt warm to the touch.

My third injection was 40mg last night in right shoulder. Very sore this morning, as if I had a big bruise, but without any signs of bruising. Also stings some. I would describe it as more than just “some soreness.” I felt like crap when I got up this morning. Had a sore throat and aches. ... It’s getting better as time goes by.

 

 

Could you please give us some more details?

 

 

Source: This group buy, from the thread you posted in

 

I prepared it using a phosphate buffered solution from amazon, linked in this thread.

 

The FOXO4-DRI comes in little 10mg vials that I assumed were sterile

I stored it in a long term commercial freezer that is as cold as I can get it

I used the syringe to draw .5ml per vial of saline straight from the bottle

I cleaned the lids of the vials with alcohol and inject 0.5ml saline into each vial through the lid

I mixed it then drew the solution back out through each lid.

I swabbed the area with alcohol and injected it

 

Enough different people have reported soreness at the injection site that it seems reasonable that it could be a result of the peptide.

 

It would be difficult to make the powder form of the peptide completely sterile without compromising the quality or yield or making it more expensive.  It probably is not completely sterile.  However, you can put the reconstituted solution through a syringe filter to strip out any bacteria.

 

According to "How to run a self experiement ...", 1ml of PBS should be used for 5mg of the peptide.  Based on that, a 30mg dose would need 6ml PBS.  If I understand you correctly, you used 0.5ml per 10mg vial for a total of 1.5ml.  The high concentration of the peptide may have put the PH outside the isotonic range and caused cell lysis at the injection site. 

 

Also, it appears that peptide synthesis has acetate salt as a by-product which would take an additional step (and extra cost) to remove.  The salt in combination with the high concentration might explain the soreness that several people have reported.

[Madfern]

Roll call:  66 years, male.

Have sent base-line blood sample to MyDNAge (Epiporphy/Zymo).  Results take 6 to 8 weeks.

Sourced 200mg FOXO4-DRI from China.

Next step is to get sample tested.  I don't plan to inject anything until I have the test result. 

I also want to come up with a procedure that avoids the side effects reported by several people here.  Therefore nothing further to report until June.

[OP2040]

I'll do my roll call.  I'm in on the 2nd group buy, so we have another month or so to go before we even receive our product.  45 year old male with plenty of data points and a couple already needing improvement.  I'm starting to understand why people don't like sharing their health information here.  People don't even like to share it in real life, much less on a forum where there is bound to be a certain amount of clinical judgement, and very little compassion.  Nevertheless, I will suck it up, in the name of science.

[Rocket]

I'll do my roll call.  I'm in on the 2nd group buy, so we have another month or so to go before we even receive our product.  45 year old male with plenty of data points and a couple already needing improvement.  I'm starting to understand why people don't like sharing their health information here.  People don't even like to share it in real life, much less on a forum where there is bound to be a certain amount of clinical judgement, and very little compassion.  Nevertheless, I will suck it up, in the name of science.

 

OP you're probably the perfect age for this, IF it is real FOX4 that you have. You're young enough that your body isn't *that* damaged by aging yet and you're young enough to hopefully maintain youthful health and appearance.

[OP2040]

OP you're probably the perfect age for this, IF it is real FOX4 that you have. You're young enough that your body isn't *that* damaged by aging yet and you're young enough to hopefully maintain youthful health and appearance.

 

I agree that 40's is probably the ideal age for testing.  As for whether I'm actually getting the right substance, I think I've done my due diligence and may even have the access to be able to test it myself.  

 

I do have another concern though.  I've read the study multiple times, so I wasn't too concerned about this.  But I just read an interview with Josh Mitteldorf, where he says that FOX04-dri has off target effects and that's why he thinks it isn't refined enough yet to be useful.  This is the first time I've heard of this and can't find anything about it in the study.  However, Josh is usually very accurate in this regard, so now I'm confused.  Does anyone else know where this statement could have come from in terms of the scientific literature?

 

Here is the exact quote:

 

So, for senolytics to be implemented in humans, we need a really smart poison that only affects senescent cells without harming normal cells. There are several pharmaceutical companies working on this idea. The record-holder so far is FOXO4-DRI, and it is about 10 times more toxic to senescent cells than to normal cells. That factor of 10 isn’t enough margin of error for a practical drug. To get rid of all your senescent cells, you’d have to take too many healthy cells as collateral damage.

 

My understanding was that FOX04-dri had almost no off-target effects because it is based on ramping up the apoptosis mechanisms that already exist but are blocked.  The implication being that apoptosis mechanisms themselves have off-target effects....

Edited by OP2040, 18 April 2018 - 02:01 PM.

[Madfern]

I just read an interview with Josh Mitteldorf, where he says that FOX04-dri has off target effects ...

 

Would your quote be from Tam Hunt's article: "Dr. Josh Mitteldorf – Are we on the verge of major breakthroughs in anti-aging science?"

[Madfern]

I just read an interview with Josh Mitteldorf, where he says that FOX04-dri has off target effects ...

 

Would your quote be from Tam Hunt's article: "Dr. Josh Mitteldorf – Are we on the verge of major breakthroughs in anti-aging science?"

 

I read that section.  He also says:

The record-holder so far is FOXO4-DRI, and it is about 10 times more toxic to senescent cells than to normal cells. That factor of 10 isn’t enough margin of error for a practical drug. 

 

It might not be practical, but it does not automatically follow that one should abandon all experimentation.

 

And:

To get rid of all your senescent cells, you’d have to take too many healthy cells as collateral damage.

 

However, the mice lived 20% longer after the treatment.  So, even if there was collateral damage, the benefits outweighed any detrimental effects. 

 

Also, I don't think anyone here is under the illusion that he/she would get rid of all senescent cells by injecting FOXO4-DRI.

 

The 33mg dose for a 80kg human was translated from a mouse dose by applying quite conservative factors.  It should only be seen as a starting point until more human data is available.

 

IIRC, the mice were treated with 3 doses, spaced 48 hours apart.  That should give good cells a chance to recover.

@Vantika estimated the half-life of FOXO4-DRI to be 12 to 16 hours. That means after 48 hours, the level would be down to somewhere between 6% and 12%.  

To play it safe, one could wait longer between doses.  With every dose, a percentage of the remaining senescent cells would still be eliminated.

 

There is a useful hint from Josh Mitteldorf (probably unintentional):

The best senolytic treatment we have now is fasting. When we go without food for three days at a time or more, senescent cells start to die off, but normal cells dial up their resistance and become healthier during a fast.

 

Could this be a useful strategy in combination with FOXO4-DRI treatment.  It seems to me that fasting would increase the safety factor by making senescent cells more vulnerable and good cells more robust.

 

 

The implication being that apoptosis mechanisms themselves have off-target effects....

 

How so?   Apoptosis is an internal self-destruct switch each cell has.  It is activated by internal mechanisms.

 

The only potential issue that I see is that too many cells die at once.  This would cause something like "tumor lysis syndrome".  -- Another reason to proceed carefully by gradually increasing the dose.

Edited by Manfred B, 18 April 2018 - 10:58 PM.

[OP2040]

I read that section.  He also says:

 

It might not be practical, but it does not automatically follow that one should abandon all experimentation.

 

And:

 

However, the mice lived 20% longer after the treatment.  So, even if there was collateral damage, the benefits outweighed any detrimental effects. 

 

Also, I don't think anyone here is under the illusion that he/she would get rid of all senescent cells by injecting FOXO4-DRI.

 

The 33mg dose for a 80kg human was translated from a mouse dose by applying quite conservative factors.  It should only be seen as a starting point until more human data is available.

 

IIRC, the mice were treated with 3 doses, spaced 48 hours apart.  That should give good cells a chance to recover.

@Vantika estimated the half-life of FOXO4-DRI to be 12 to 16 hours. That means after 48 hours, the level would be down to somewhere between 6% and 12%.  

To play it safe, one could wait longer between doses.  With every dose, a percentage of the remaining senescent cells would still be eliminated.

 

There is a useful hint from Josh Mitteldorf (probably unintentional):

 

Could this be a useful strategy in combination with FOXO4-DRI treatment.  It seems to me that fasting would increase the safety factor by making senescent cells more vulnerable and good cells more robust.

 

 

 

How so?   Apoptosis is an internal self-destruct switch each cell has.  It is activated by internal mechanisms.

 

The only potential issue that I see is that too many cells die at once.  This would cause something like "tumor lysis syndrome".  -- Another reason to proceed carefully by gradually increasing the dose.

 

Thanks for providing the reference and some context.  I'm definitely not saying we should abandon this project.  I'm just disappointed that someone I respect would crap all over the idea of taking this drug.  He definitely says:

 

That factor of 10 isn’t enough margin of error for a practical drug.

So no matter the other context, he is having the same knee jerk reaction that is so common these days where nothing is ever good enough or practical enough because it's not perfect.  As far as I'm concerned, this is potentially a great drug and we definitely don't need it to kill all senescent cells.  And you're right, the off target effects didn't seem to matter at all for the mice.

 

I agree with Josh on the fasting.  It seems that any autophagy-inducer, or calorie restriction mimetic would work synergistically with senescent cell clearance.  That is just based on my limited knowledge though, and I'd love to hear what others think about it.

 

As regards to my apoptosis comment.  If there are off-target effects, which I don't think there are, then the implication is that the apoptosis mechanism causes them, since that is the mechanism by which this is supposed to work.  It simply interferes with another molecule that interferes with apoptosis, therefore ramping it up.  That is the implication of what Josh is saying about off-target effects, which I think is incorrect.

 

Yes, tumor lysis syndrome is a concern, and it's nothing to take lightly.  However, my concerns about that are mainly centered around the damage TLS can cause to the kidneys.  The actual study showed that kidney function was improved greatly, so that helps allay that concern quite a lot.  Though I plan to watch my kidney and liver function numbers closely and I hope others will provide feedback on that if possible.

 

 

[Andey]

Thanks for providing the reference and some context.  I'm definitely not saying we should abandon this project.  I'm just disappointed that someone I respect would crap all over the idea of taking this drug.  He definitely says:

So no matter the other context, he is having the same knee jerk reaction that is so common these days where nothing is ever good enough or practical enough because it's not perfect.  As far as I'm concerned, this is potentially a great drug and we definitely don't need it to kill all senescent cells.  And you're right, the off target effects didn't seem to matter at all for the mice.

 

I agree with Josh on the fasting.  It seems that any autophagy-inducer, or calorie restriction mimetic would work synergistically with senescent cell clearance.  That is just based on my limited knowledge though, and I'd love to hear what others think about it.

 

As regards to my apoptosis comment.  If there are off-target effects, which I don't think there are, then the implication is that the apoptosis mechanism causes them, since that is the mechanism by which this is supposed to work.  It simply interferes with another molecule that interferes with apoptosis, therefore ramping it up.  That is the implication of what Josh is saying about off-target effects, which I think is incorrect.

 

Yes, tumor lysis syndrome is a concern, and it's nothing to take lightly.  However, my concerns about that are mainly centered around the damage TLS can cause to the kidneys.  The actual study showed that kidney function was improved greatly, so that helps allay that concern quite a lot.  Though I plan to watch my kidney and liver function numbers closely and I hope others will provide feedback on that if possible.

 

  Surprisingly I haven't found any studies on the effect of fasting on SC cells. CR decrease SC cells in liver and lungs if I recall correctly, but I don't sure how it translates to fasting.

 

  From my perspective, the main danger of p53 promoter peptide is that some cell lines could be vulnerable to it (like Sertoli cells, or some postmitotic cell types).

  Tumor lysis syndrome could be checked by a Uric acid test (it costs pennies and is a part of basic biochemistry test that should be tested before and after anyway). To be honest, I don't think this peptide is potent enough.

[Harkijn]

Dr. de  Keizer himself in a recent interview affirmed that he thinks FOXO has too many off-target effects. He will not even recommend human trials of it. He has since moved to another lab at another university. His intention there: finding another, less damaging molecule

[Madfern]

Dr. de  Keizer himself in a recent interview affirmed that he thinks FOXO has too many off-target effects. He will not even recommend human trials of it. He has since moved to another lab at another university. His intention there: finding another, less damaging molecule

 

I don't know what article you read but I found one that seems to cover the same topic. 

 

"The mouse that time forgot".

The article is quite balanced and a good read.  

 

Proxofim - 'FOXO4-DRI', in molecular lingo - is already the third version of his anti-aging molecule, ...

 

'You just don't know what kind of risk you are taking if you inject this', he says. 'Suppose you're 70, and you have all these senescent cells in your brain: will it destroy your memories then? Have you thought that over?'

The pleas from desperate, terminally ill patients ...
Still, he has to say 'no', in cases like that. 'From a human perspective I would say: sure, give it a go. But I'm not a medical doctor ...

There's a friction here, he says. 'The traditional route, of years and years of testing on mice, simply takes too long. I think we should start clinical trials much sooner. Especially when it comes to patients who only have a short time left to live, and who request this themselves.'

Not to mention the elderly who buy the stuff over the internet, for themselves or even - yes, they send him e-mails about that too - for their pet. 'People just don't accept having to wait so long. And you can't blame them. If you're 75 years old, you simply don't have the time anymore. So they purchase it themselves, because they're old and they have the money. The current medical system is absolutely unprepared for that.'

 

The university joined forces with a new company, especially founded for De Keizer's peptide, Numeric Biotech... . And now Numeric wants to prepare the molecule for the first rounds of clinical testing, in patients with certain types of cancer.

But Peter de Keizer has opted himself out. De Keizer bites his lips, he's not allowed to discuss it, 'that is what we've all agreed', he says.  But insiders, who only wish to speak to me on the condition of anonymity, sketch what has happened: a hell of a row. De Keizer had wanted to control the administration of the peptide in the first patient trials himself, but was not convinced that the molecule was ready and didn't want to hand it over; Numeric on the other hand found De Keizer's approach too conservative and put him under pressure to cooperate.

It's a row that the involved parties decline to discuss in public. 'We're glad with the partnership with Numeric Biotech, because this pushes forward the research', Erasmus MC reacts in a statement. 'What Peter has decided, is up to him', project leader Brian Eisenburger of Numeric says over the telephone.

 

And this is probably the quote that prompted Josh Mitteldorf to talk about "off target effects":

..., De Keizer says in retrospect. 'I think the peptide isn't safe enough yet.' The molecule is still 'too heavy-handed', he goes on to explain: for every ten senescent cells, it also drags one healthy cell into death, and that's a ratio that he'd like to improve to a hundred to one.

 

Further development by "Numeric" and "Cleara":

..., he has founded a company of his own, Cleara Biotech, to hedge the next version of Proxofim commercially. ... We'd rather look to the future.'

That's a future Numeric is also looking to. 'It is our intention to bring this molecule to the clinic somewhere over the next one or two years, for certain indications in the oncological field', Eisenburger says. It needn't be a problem that the substance still isn't very precise, he thinks: 'That's an assessment one should make depending on the situation: for which medical indication do you intend to apply this, what dosage do you use?'

[OP2040]

Dr. de  Keizer himself in a recent interview affirmed that he thinks FOXO has too many off-target effects. He will not even recommend human trials of it. He has since moved to another lab at another university. His intention there: finding another, less damaging molecule

 

You can't just say something like this without the reference.  I can't find any such interview, but then again I don't speak Dutch.

[OP2040]

I don't know what article you read but I found one that seems to cover the same topic. 

 

"The mouse that time forgot".

The article is quite balanced and a good read.  

 

 

 

 

And this is probably the quote that prompted Josh Mitteldorf to talk about "off target effects":

 

Further development by "Numeric" and "Cleara":

 

Thanks for the reference.  This is disappointing.  It seems business decisions are also getting in the way of the science. I respect Peter's stance, and he even comes close to saying it makes sense for a sick, old person to try it.  

 

I guess we have to decide what a 10-1 ratio really means.  Do the targeted cells that are "normal" still go through complete apoptosis and removal?  Why does it seem to have a dramatically good effect on mice?  It must be killing some normal cells in them too.  Is some of this because they know it would never make it through a clinical trial, whether effective or not, due to the off-target thing?  So many questions. 

 

I'm still going to take my one time treatment of three doses. 

[MikeDC]

10 to 1 is extremely good. The real results might be much worse than that. How about healthy cells that get damaged and become senescent cells?

[OP2040]

Well, if you read the entire article, it's not all bad.  It sounds like there is a lot of business, politics and ego tied up with the science.

 

The 10-1 thing is counterbalanced by the results being seen.  The article references a current test being done on mice with the same substance.  It's not a finished study, but it's clear from the dialogue that the treated mice are also living longer.  One made it to over 110 in human years, and if I'm reading right they put this mouse down instead of seeing how long it could live.  Apparently these mice were more like normally aging mice than in the previous study.  The oldest human alive just died today at 117.  They said this is very rare and has never happened at that particular lab.

 

 

Down in the basement of Erasmus MC, in its secured lab, 03M has now passed away. Quietly and without much ado it went: the mouse had become too old and had, according to the guidelines for animal welfare, reached its 'humane endpoint'. So it was lifted out of its cage, gently put inside a specialized machine and quietly soothed to sleep with CO2.

 

Even with all the caveats, something is clearly happening for the better in these mice.  There is no doubt that this intervention will get more precise and more effective, so it's extremely reasonable for most people to wait.  But it was refreshing that the company referenced in the article basically said no, we are not waiting, this molecule will be tested in very sick humans in the next couple years. 

 

 

 

[Madfern]

... How about healthy cells that get damaged and become senescent cells?

 

I would be more worried about:

1. Bacterial contamination of the peptide
2. By-products:  
   • Incomplete or wrong sequences
   • Acetate salt (because the peptide which people have sourced here was in all probability not desalted)
   • Unknowns

Some who have already injected the peptide reported a lump and soreness at the injection site.

Most likely they did not use enough phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and caused local cell lysis, but I think that I understand the problem:

1. If you want to do subcutaneous or intramuscular injections the volume is limited to 3ml, maybe up to 5ml.
2. If you use the 5mg/ml value, then 40mg would require 8ml to be injected.  This probably requires intravenous administration which also is a higher risk.

Has anybody actually sent a sample of the peptide to an independent lab for testing?

[OP2040]

I see that the steam has been taken out of this thread by the 10-1 news. 

 

Earlier in the thread, people were saying that we should maximize cell senescence so that this drug has a better chance of clearing more sick cells. The general consensus was to get off any substances that impede cell senescence.

 

I think think the 10-1 information changes that dynamic.  We should continue to take any cell-preserving supplements.  That way we will bias our cell population in favor of less SASP-producing cells, and perhaps mitigate the off-target effects of FOX04-dri.  Any thoughts on this?

 

meatsauce, if you are around, can we get an update on the 2nd round group buy? Please and thanks!

[MikeDC]

10 to 1 is not new. It is just injecting chemicals from unreliable sources is risky

[Madfern]

Earlier in the thread, people were saying that we should maximize cell senescence so that this drug has a better chance of clearing more sick cells. The general consensus was to get off any substances that impede cell senescence.

 

I think think the 10-1 information changes that dynamic.  We should continue to take any cell-preserving supplements.  That way we will bias our cell population in favor of less SASP-producing cells, and perhaps mitigate the off-target effects of FOX04-dri.  Any thoughts on this?

 

What exactly is the basis for the assertion that for every 10 senescent cells 1 healthy cell is destroyed?  Does FOXO4-DRI kill cells which do not express any FOXO4?  Or are the destroyed "healthy" cells not really that healthy and are starting to express FOXO4?

 

IMO, the fewer other supplements/medications one takes during FOXO4-DRI experimentation the better.  Otherwise one is introducing a whole lot of additional factors due to unknown interactions.  It could even result in additional off-target effects.

 

The bottom line is that the mice got their standard diet throughout and the ones given FOXO4-DRI fared better.  Until we know more, it might be safer to stay close to the mouse experiment rather than trying to tweak the effects of FOXO4-DRI one way or the other.

[OP2040]

These are fair points about keeping it simple.  But for many people here, their usual supplements are their homeostatis, so going off them abruptly may actually be more disruptive than staying put.  Just a thought.

[JohnFurber]

Aaron Traywick died this past Sunday, at age 28 years.

 

UPDATE 3 MAY 2018

The coroner's report states that he had Ketamine in his system. This veterinary tranquilizer caused him to pass out in the water. Then he turned to the side to curl up as during sleeping. His mouth and nose were under water, but he did not wake up. He drowned. There was water in his lungs. The flotation tank was in proper order. The spa was not at fault in any way.

END OF UPDATE 3 MAY 2018

++++++++++

Following was posted 2 May 2018 before seeing Coroner's report.

++++++++

He was interested in obtaining the injectable senolytic polypeptide, FOXO4-dri.

He was also interested in testing injectable IL-2 for cancer. I do not know whether he had them tested by independent, third-party labs before using them. I strongly encourage our members to contract with established, domestic, independent, third-party testing labs if you are purchasing experimental research materials, especially from Chinese or unknown sources, and especially if they are to be injected. As many of us already know, research chemicals are not required to adhere to the stringent purity controls that would be required of approved pharmaceutical drugs that are sold to the general public.

I first met Aaron Traywick at the Gerontological Society (IAGG and GSA) meeting in San Francisco last summer. He was the founder and CEO of Ascendance Biomedical. Here is news coverage from "The Scientist".

https://www.the-scie...n-DC-Float-Spa/

In the past, he had injected himself with an experimental Herpes drug, but it is not clear whether he did so anytime recently.
Over the past several months, he had expressed interest in experimenting with various oral and injectable substances.

I do not know whether Aaron was posting on this forum with an alias.

If you know whether he participated in a group buy, it might be helpful to tell the rest of us if Aaron had obtained FOXO4-dri, and if so, from where.

 

Edited by JohnFurber, 03 May 2018 - 06:03 PM.

[OP2040]

Scary stuff and definitely makes me pause.  It does sound like he was taking a lot of stuff though, some of it very unnecessary.  Hopefully someone here will have some more information.  It wouldn't surprise me if someone that involved in bio-hacking had an account here.

[Rocket]

Thats what I have been trying to warn all you 30 year olds about. Your effort to stay young forever and pumping untested shit into your bodies is a very stupid thing to do at your young ages. If you think gradually aging and turning 40 is bad, try liver or kidney failure or what this young man got... death.

Everyone using this peptides is using something that has not even been tried in monkeys. Its been tried in mice... So far i haven't heard anyone reverse aging.

Edited by Rocket, 03 May 2018 - 01:14 AM.

[Ibbz]

Thats what I have been trying to warn all you 30 year olds about. Your effort to stay young forever and pumping untested shit into your bodies is a very stupid thing to do at your young ages. If you think gradually aging and turning 40 is bad, try liver or kidney failure or what this young man got... death.

Everyone using this peptides is using something that has not even been tried in monkeys. Its been tried in mice... So far i haven't heard anyone reverse aging.

 

Don't think anyone taking this expects to wake up with a 20 year old body - it's merely one of part of the aging puzzle. Considering the variety of substances Aaron was probably using (including ones developed by his own company that people may not be aware of), it's pretty premature to blame it on FOXO4-DRI (if he even ended up taking it).

Edited by Ibbz, 03 May 2018 - 01:29 AM.