If biotech succeeds with aging reversal, regeneration and radically improved gene therapy

Our lives and the world would undergo the highest amount of radical change if certain biotech research succeeds. Mobile internet, ecommerce, cloud computing and internet of things can make a lot of people rich and help grow the world economy but the impact on our lives would pale compared to aging reversal, regeneration, surgical nanorobots and massively improved gene therapy.

One of the many George Church companies is Rejuvenate Bio. This is a stealth company that has been running tests to reverse aging in dogs.

They are performing aging reversal trials on dog this year and next year. Human trials would be in 2019-2022 and about 2025 before they are done.

They have a pipeline of more than 60 different gene therapies, which they tested on old mice, alone and in combinations. The Harvard group now plans to publish a scientific report on a technique that extends rodents’ lives by modifying two genes to act on four major diseases of aging: heart and kidney failure, obesity, and diabetes. According to Church, the results are “pretty eye-popping.”

Oisin Biotech removing old cells from old mice and getting great results

Oisin Biotechnology is a leader in removing senescent cells for antiaging. They have shown p16 positive senescent cells can be killed on demand in both in vitro and in vivo environments. Now they have started on experiments that will show improvements in both healthspan and lifespan in model organisms from mice to primates. They were able to extend the life of mice by 25% and reduce cancer by 50% with one of the gene therapies. A combination of gene therapies could double the lifespan of mice.

Acceleration with AI in finding and understanding genes and surgical nanobots and other technology could deliver gene therapy to trillions of cells in the body

AI is accelerating the analysis and understanding of genes.

Surgical nanobot technology could enable whole-body gene therapy. This could be used to apply reverse aging biotech or gene therapy to improve human intelligence or enhance health and performance.

Surgical Nanobots

In 2015, Pfizer started working with the DNA robot laboratory managed by Prof. Ido Bachelet at Bar-Ilan University. Bachelet has developed a method of producing innovative DNA molecules with characteristics that can be used to “program” them to reach specific locations in the body and carry out pre-programmed operations there in response to stimulation from the body. This cooperation was revealed in a lecture by Pfizer president of worldwide research and development (WRD), portfolio strategy and investment committee chairman, and executive VP Mikael Dolstein at the IATI Biomed Conference in Tel Aviv being concluded today.

Bachelet studied under George Church.

Research will focus on the possibility that the robots will deliver the medical proteins to designated tissue.
Bachelet came to Bar-Ilan from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) several years ago. At a Tedmed event held two years ago, he explained, “In order to make a nanometric robot, we first create a selected DNA sequence, and then fold it using a process called DNA origami. With this method, a person can give a command to a computer, which folds the DNA molecule as needed.

“The result is that a DNA sequence can be made in the form of a clam, for example, and containing a drug. The DNA molecule, however, contains a code activated upon encountering certain materials in the body. For example, the clam can be designed to change its shape and release the drug only when it meets a cancer cell or the right tissue.

“In addition, the molecules can receive signals from each other, and can theoretically change their shape according to signals from the body, and can be pre-programmed to attach themselves to one another. In the future, it will be possible to combine each such molecule with a miniature antenna. When the antenna receives an external signal, it will make a small change in the molecule that will make it open or close, and dissipate or connect itself to another molecule.”

If this treatment works this will be a medical breakthrough and can be used for many other diseases by delivering drugs more effectively without causing side effects.

The underlying age reversal and nanobot technologies mentioned were developed at the Wyss Institute. Rejuvenate bio spun out from George Church’s group at the Wyss Institute and Ido Bachelet’s work also was initiated at the Wyss Institute.

Full Regeneration

AgeX is a company developing powerful regeneration as a path to anti-aging treatments.

Induced Tissue Regneration (ITR)

Some naturally-occurring animals such as the Mexican salamander can profoundly regenerate damaged tissues. Humans also have this potential, but only in the first weeks of pre-embyro development. Using advanced molecular and artificial intelligence technologies, AgeX has identified pathways they believe may provide means of unlocking this profound biology in human medicine. The pathways suggest that they may also be integral to the biology of aging and cancer as well. Patents relating to this emerging technology called induced Tissue Regeneration (iTR), have been filed and animal studies are currently underway. iTR was the subject of a recent conference presentation from AgeX CEO Dr. Michael West.

Michael West has an online copy of a presentation that was on Dec 6, 2017.

42 thoughts on “If biotech succeeds with aging reversal, regeneration and radically improved gene therapy”

  1. Their margin is typically only a few %. So you are correct, this will need a complete restructuring to continue operating in any way. I tend to agree that when a government is running a near trillion dollar deficit, those programs are in fact bankrupt in reality.

    Reply
  2. If the concept of genetic modules is correct, such as a packet of genes that codes for echolocation in bats and porpoises, or singing in songbirds and humans, then this would give us greater hope for longevity enhancement. Animals that live longer than ourselves may have genetic programs for longevity that we can copy & use. For more on how animal genes fit software programming dependence graphs far better than common descent, see bio-complexity org, Winston Ewert peer reviewed article. By “far better”, Bayesian analysis shows that for every animal genetic program tested, modules predicted the outcome 10,064 to over 515,000 Bayesian bits better. To put this in context, 5 bits better is considered strong; 6.6 bits definitive.

    Reply
  3. We are talking pharmaceutical companies which now charge $100,000 a year or more for some medications. These companies are experts at gouging the public so that’s why I suspect only the 1% will be able to afford this treatment. Also, I find it doubtful that insurance companies will think that aging is a disease for which they need to fork out big bucks to delay the progression of.

    Reply
  4. It’s not going to be pleasant when the SSA runs out of money but the thinking that they’ll still been able to pay out 75% of the promised amount. Of course Medicare will be more ugly because what doctor or hospital is going to be OK with accepting 75% of their previous fees, when they are operating a minimal margin accepting Medicare patients now.

    Reply
  5. People get hot & bothered when told the SS Trust Fund will run out in 2034, and the Medicare Fund will run out in 2026(!). But the truth is what you said, Mitchell: They are already bankrupt. The so-called “Trust” funds are full of government IOUs written out to … the government. Assets only in the sense that if you write out an IOU for $1 million to yourself, that counts as an $1 million asset for yourself.

    Reply
  6. What about technology makes you think that this will continue to be expensive and in the domain of only the rich? Cell phones and computers were the domain of the rich and now a poor person in a third world country may well have a powerful handheld computer/cellphone. Once we have invested 18 years in training you up from a child to a moderately functional adult, the likely the best route for capital preservation is to keep retraining you. Hopefully rejuvenating people’s bodies will include their minds and restoring neural plasticity to them so they can adapt to a changing world and not remain moored in a bygone age. Also, to your other comment if you can work, then you won’t need SS for retirement, which is good since it is bankrupt anyways. Your best friend is your own planning and savings + compound interest.

    Reply
  7. I’m thinking only the 1% are going to be able to afford this. But, if it’s affordable then the SSA will push the retirement age up to eighty four. That would be terrible since age discrimination isn’t going to go away. So we’ll live longer but will suffer more in our old age because our retirement saving will be effectively less.

    Reply
  8. We are talking pharmaceutical companies which now charge $100000 a year or more for some medications. These companies are experts at gouging the public so that’s why I suspect only the 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} will be able to afford this treatment. Also I find it doubtful that insurance companies will think that aging is a disease for which they need to fork out big bucks to delay the progression of.

    Reply
  9. It’s not going to be pleasant when the SSA runs out of money but the thinking that they’ll still been able to pay out 75{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the promised amount. Of course Medicare will be more ugly because what doctor or hospital is going to be OK with accepting 75{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of their previous fees when they are operating a minimal margin accepting Medicare patients now.

    Reply
  10. People get hot & bothered when told the SS Trust Fund will run out in 2034 and the Medicare Fund will run out in 2026(!). But the truth is what you said Mitchell: They are already bankrupt. The so-called Trust”” funds are full of government IOUs written out to … the government. Assets only in the sense that if you write out an IOU for $1 million to yourself”””” that counts as an $1 million asset for yourself.”””

    Reply
  11. What about technology makes you think that this will continue to be expensive and in the domain of only the rich? Cell phones and computers were the domain of the rich and now a poor person in a third world country may well have a powerful handheld computer/cellphone. Once we have invested 18 years in training you up from a child to a moderately functional adult the likely the best route for capital preservation is to keep retraining you. Hopefully rejuvenating people’s bodies will include their minds and restoring neural plasticity to them so they can adapt to a changing world and not remain moored in a bygone age.Also to your other comment if you can work then you won’t need SS for retirement which is good since it is bankrupt anyways. Your best friend is your own planning and savings + compound interest.

    Reply
  12. I’m thinking only the 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} are going to be able to afford this. But if it’s affordable then the SSA will push the retirement age up to eighty four. That would be terrible since age discrimination isn’t going to go away. So we’ll live longer but will suffer more in our old age because our retirement saving will be effectively less.

    Reply
  13. The US is an outlier in terms of market regulation. There it indeed may end up a huge mess like their healthcare industry – at least until patents expire, as others have mentioned. On the bright side, patents expire after 20-25 years, which is only a fraction of current human lifespan. So many people will still be around to benefit when generic competition rolls in. Plus there’s medical tourism. In the rest of the world, governments might be smart enough to realize that a healthy population that can work longer is much better for the economy than masses of frail retirees with high healthcare and pension costs. Then they may step in with regulations, subsidies, and other policy to make these treatments available. The WHO might have a say in the matter as well. We’ll see… Insurance companies aren’t idiots either. I’m sure they’d rather have their customers to retire later, get paid by these customers longer, and delay pensions as much as possible. But that said, the spread of automation and other advancements may complicate this discussion in coming decades.

    Reply
  14. On the other hand, this is just the opposite of an orphan drug. Everyone ages, so everyone is a potential customer. Unless the procedure is *inherently* expensive, you’ll make more by selling at $100 to 300 million people, than $1 million to just a few thousand people.

    Reply
  15. Patents don’t last forever. Yes, getting the latest and greatest treatment can be expensive. Prices do fall eventually. Take as an example the hep c cure that came out and was nearly 1 million dollars (which was still a savings over the lifetime treatment cost of hep C) when it launched, just a few years later it is down to just a few hundred thousand, pressured by competitive products released onto the market. Still too much, for sure but imagine what happens to health care costs when we actually have effective treatments to avoid the diseases of old age instead of endless wasted time and resources using tools too crude for the task? Its like going at fixing polio with Iron lungs right now, but assuming it will always be that way is a myopic perspective.

    Reply
  16. On the other hand this is just the opposite of an orphan drug. Everyone ages so everyone is a potential customer.Unless the procedure is *inherently* expensive you’ll make more by selling at $100 to 300 million people than $1 million to just a few thousand people.

    Reply
  17. Their margin is typically only a few {22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. So you are correct this will need a complete restructuring to continue operating in any way.I tend to agree that when a government is running a near trillion dollar deficit those programs are in fact bankrupt in reality.

    Reply
  18. Patents don’t last forever. Yes getting the latest and greatest treatment can be expensive. Prices do fall eventually. Take as an example the hep c cure that came out and was nearly 1 million dollars (which was still a savings over the lifetime treatment cost of hep C) when it launched just a few years later it is down to just a few hundred thousand pressured by competitive products released onto the market. Still too much for sure but imagine what happens to health care costs when we actually have effective treatments to avoid the diseases of old age instead of endless wasted time and resources using tools too crude for the task? Its like going at fixing polio with Iron lungs right now but assuming it will always be that way is a myopic perspective.

    Reply
  19. If the concept of genetic modules is correct such as a packet of genes that codes for echolocation in bats and porpoises or singing in songbirds and humans then this would give us greater hope for longevity enhancement. Animals that live longer than ourselves may have genetic programs for longevity that we can copy & use.For more on how animal genes fit software programming dependence graphs far better than common descent see bio-complexity org Winston Ewert peer reviewed article. By far better””” Bayesian analysis shows that for every animal genetic program tested modules predicted the outcome 10064 to over 515000 Bayesian bits better. To put this in context”” 5 bits better is considered strong; 6.6 bits definitive.”””

    Reply
  20. Insurance companies might think keeping loyal customers alive is an investment. Besides government will get involved and the poor will get “subsidies” the super rich you refer to can afford it, the middle class will be in a bind paying for it but they are dumb and keep voting for those that take their money and give it to the extremes so no sympathy.

    Reply
  21. This, note the stuff who is for the very rich only: it tend to be stuff who is very expensive in because rarity as in beach front property or large diamonds. expensive to make like luxury cars, mansions, yachts and private jets, all expect the cars are also very expensive to maintain. Yes you have lines of luxury products who are expensive by choice as they want to be exclusive. This however tend to be far cheaper as the very rich is an small customer group. Note that overall trend is high production and upkeep costs. Now take stuff everybody have, computers, cars, mobile phones, they cost billions to develop, the factories are very expensive to build but production capacity make end product pretty cheap as you want to target the billion buyer sized mass marked. Some drugs are idiotic expensive, reason is that its not many users of it and the buyers are insurance companies and national health care government organizations with deep pockets Biotech is however a lot like microprocessors, main cost is development. Viagra is pretty cheap even if it was probably very expensive to get approved as its not life saving and is potential dangerous. Lots of users however and they have to pay for it themselves. Viagra is naturally an very niche product compared to life extension.

    Reply
  22. Insurance companies might think keeping loyal customers alive is an investment. Besides government will get involved and the poor will get subsidies”” the super rich you refer to can afford it”””” the middle class will be in a bind paying for it but they are dumb and keep voting for those that take their money and give it to the extremes so no sympathy.”””

    Reply
  23. This note the stuff who is for the very rich only: it tend to be stuff who is very expensive in because rarity as in beach front property or large diamonds. expensive to make like luxury cars mansions yachts and private jets all expect the cars are also very expensive to maintain. Yes you have lines of luxury products who are expensive by choice as they want to be exclusive. This however tend to be far cheaper as the very rich is an small customer group. Note that overall trend is high production and upkeep costs. Now take stuff everybody have computers cars mobile phones they cost billions to develop the factories are very expensive to build but production capacity make end product pretty cheap as you want to target the billion buyer sized mass marked. Some drugs are idiotic expensive reason is that its not many users of it and the buyers are insurance companies and national health care government organizations with deep pockets Biotech is however a lot like microprocessors main cost is development. Viagra is pretty cheap even if it was probably very expensive to get approved as its not life saving and is potential dangerous. Lots of users however and they have to pay for it themselves. Viagra is naturally an very niche product compared to life extension.

    Reply
  24. The US is an outlier in terms of market regulation. There it indeed may end up a huge mess like their healthcare industry – at least until patents expire as others have mentioned. On the bright side patents expire after 20-25 years which is only a fraction of current human lifespan. So many people will still be around to benefit when generic competition rolls in. Plus there’s medical tourism.In the rest of the world governments might be smart enough to realize that a healthy population that can work longer is much better for the economy than masses of frail retirees with high healthcare and pension costs. Then they may step in with regulations subsidies and other policy to make these treatments available. The WHO might have a say in the matter as well. We’ll see…Insurance companies aren’t idiots either. I’m sure they’d rather have their customers to retire later get paid by these customers longer and delay pensions as much as possible.But that said the spread of automation and other advancements may complicate this discussion in coming decades.

    Reply
  25. Drastic changes in life expectancy would constitute a kind of biological singularity. We are due for at least three of them in the first half of this century and I would guess this one would be the third one, probably in the 2040s, after an automation singularity in the 2020s, and a synthetic intelligence singularity in the 2030s.. Significant changes have already occurred and the societal impact is already larger than many realize. Long life is beginning to look like it will solve more problems than it creates. As the rate of increase in life expectancy accelerates with consecutive breakthroughs, even larger effects will occur and the biggest change could, so far as we know, easily occur earlier than anyone ever expected, with many of those humans still alive in 2040 (e.g. possibly even some centenarians born during World War II) beginning to live shockingly long lifespans, such as one thousand years or more. Bear in mind that a lot of people’s internal operating systems (their minds) will probably not be capable of remaining relevant as they age beyond the confines of one life, let alone several but some people’s will be; mileage differs according to the mind. Read “The Ethics of Madness” by Larry Niven to see a scary example of the former. Compare Leonardo da Vinci, creating and learning and growing to the day he died, to that eccentric old guy down the block who hates anything new-fangled and has made keeping the kids off his lawn into the reason for his existence.

    Reply
  26. Drastic changes in life expectancy would constitute a kind of biological singularity. We are due for at least three of them in the first half of this century and I would guess this one would be the third one probably in the 2040s after an automation singularity in the 2020s and a synthetic intelligence singularity in the 2030s.. Significant changes have already occurred and the societal impact is already larger than many realize. Long life is beginning to look like it will solve more problems than it creates. As the rate of increase in life expectancy accelerates with consecutive breakthroughs even larger effects will occur and the biggest change could so far as we know easily occur earlier than anyone ever expected with many of those humans still alive in 2040 (e.g. possibly even some centenarians born during World War II) beginning to live shockingly long lifespans such as one thousand years or more. Bear in mind that a lot of people’s internal operating systems (their minds) will probably not be capable of remaining relevant as they age beyond the confines of one life let alone several but some people’s will be; mileage differs according to the mind. Read The Ethics of Madness”” by Larry Niven to see a scary example of the former.Compare Leonardo da Vinci”” creating and learning and growing to the day he died”” to that eccentric old guy down the block who hates anything new-fangled and has made keeping the kids off his lawn into the reason for his existence.”””

    Reply
  27. Drastic changes in life expectancy would constitute a kind of biological singularity. We are due for at least three of them in the first half of this century and I would guess this one would be the third one, probably in the 2040s, after an automation singularity in the 2020s, and a synthetic intelligence singularity in the 2030s.. Significant changes have already occurred and the societal impact is already larger than many realize. Long life is beginning to look like it will solve more problems than it creates. As the rate of increase in life expectancy accelerates with consecutive breakthroughs, even larger effects will occur and the biggest change could, so far as we know, easily occur earlier than anyone ever expected, with many of those humans still alive in 2040 (e.g. possibly even some centenarians born during World War II) beginning to live shockingly long lifespans, such as one thousand years or more.

    Bear in mind that a lot of people’s internal operating systems (their minds) will probably not be capable of remaining relevant as they age beyond the confines of one life, let alone several but some people’s will be; mileage differs according to the mind. Read “The Ethics of Madness” by Larry Niven to see a scary example of the former.

    Compare Leonardo da Vinci, creating and learning and growing to the day he died, to that eccentric old guy down the block who hates anything new-fangled and has made keeping the kids off his lawn into the reason for his existence.

    Reply
  28. Insurance companies might think keeping loyal customers alive is an investment. Besides government will get involved and the poor will get “subsidies” the super rich you refer to can afford it, the middle class will be in a bind paying for it but they are dumb and keep voting for those that take their money and give it to the extremes so no sympathy.

    Reply
  29. This, note the stuff who is for the very rich only: it tend to be stuff who is very expensive in because rarity as in beach front property or large diamonds. expensive to make like luxury cars, mansions, yachts and private jets, all expect the cars are also very expensive to maintain.
    Yes you have lines of luxury products who are expensive by choice as they want to be exclusive. This however tend to be far cheaper as the very rich is an small customer group.
    Note that overall trend is high production and upkeep costs.

    Now take stuff everybody have, computers, cars, mobile phones, they cost billions to develop, the factories are very expensive to build but production capacity make end product pretty cheap as you want to target the billion buyer sized mass marked.

    Some drugs are idiotic expensive, reason is that its not many users of it and the buyers are insurance companies and national health care government organizations with deep pockets
    Biotech is however a lot like microprocessors, main cost is development.
    Viagra is pretty cheap even if it was probably very expensive to get approved as its not life saving and is potential dangerous. Lots of users however and they have to pay for it themselves.

    Viagra is naturally an very niche product compared to life extension.

    Reply
  30. The US is an outlier in terms of market regulation. There it indeed may end up a huge mess like their healthcare industry – at least until patents expire, as others have mentioned. On the bright side, patents expire after 20-25 years, which is only a fraction of current human lifespan. So many people will still be around to benefit when generic competition rolls in. Plus there’s medical tourism.

    In the rest of the world, governments might be smart enough to realize that a healthy population that can work longer is much better for the economy than masses of frail retirees with high healthcare and pension costs. Then they may step in with regulations, subsidies, and other policy to make these treatments available. The WHO might have a say in the matter as well. We’ll see…

    Insurance companies aren’t idiots either. I’m sure they’d rather have their customers to retire later, get paid by these customers longer, and delay pensions as much as possible.

    But that said, the spread of automation and other advancements may complicate this discussion in coming decades.

    Reply
  31. On the other hand, this is just the opposite of an orphan drug. Everyone ages, so everyone is a potential customer.

    Unless the procedure is *inherently* expensive, you’ll make more by selling at $100 to 300 million people, than $1 million to just a few thousand people.

    Reply
  32. Their margin is typically only a few %. So you are correct, this will need a complete restructuring to continue operating in any way.

    I tend to agree that when a government is running a near trillion dollar deficit, those programs are in fact bankrupt in reality.

    Reply
  33. Patents don’t last forever. Yes, getting the latest and greatest treatment can be expensive. Prices do fall eventually. Take as an example the hep c cure that came out and was nearly 1 million dollars (which was still a savings over the lifetime treatment cost of hep C) when it launched, just a few years later it is down to just a few hundred thousand, pressured by competitive products released onto the market. Still too much, for sure but imagine what happens to health care costs when we actually have effective treatments to avoid the diseases of old age instead of endless wasted time and resources using tools too crude for the task? Its like going at fixing polio with Iron lungs right now, but assuming it will always be that way is a myopic perspective.

    Reply
  34. If the concept of genetic modules is correct, such as a packet of genes that codes for echolocation in bats and porpoises, or singing in songbirds and humans, then this would give us greater hope for longevity enhancement. Animals that live longer than ourselves may have genetic programs for longevity that we can copy & use.

    For more on how animal genes fit software programming dependence graphs far better than common descent, see bio-complexity org, Winston Ewert peer reviewed article. By “far better”, Bayesian analysis shows that for every animal genetic program tested, modules predicted the outcome 10,064 to over 515,000 Bayesian bits better.

    To put this in context, 5 bits better is considered strong; 6.6 bits definitive.

    Reply
  35. We are talking pharmaceutical companies which now charge $100,000 a year or more for some medications. These companies are experts at gouging the public so that’s why I suspect only the 1% will be able to afford this treatment. Also, I find it doubtful that insurance companies will think that aging is a disease for which they need to fork out big bucks to delay the progression of.

    Reply
  36. It’s not going to be pleasant when the SSA runs out of money but the thinking that they’ll still been able to pay out 75% of the promised amount. Of course Medicare will be more ugly because what doctor or hospital is going to be OK with accepting 75% of their previous fees, when they are operating a minimal margin accepting Medicare patients now.

    Reply
  37. People get hot & bothered when told the SS Trust Fund will run out in 2034, and the Medicare Fund will run out in 2026(!). But the truth is what you said, Mitchell: They are already bankrupt. The so-called “Trust” funds are full of government IOUs written out to … the government. Assets only in the sense that if you write out an IOU for $1 million to yourself, that counts as an $1 million asset for yourself.

    Reply
  38. What about technology makes you think that this will continue to be expensive and in the domain of only the rich? Cell phones and computers were the domain of the rich and now a poor person in a third world country may well have a powerful handheld computer/cellphone. Once we have invested 18 years in training you up from a child to a moderately functional adult, the likely the best route for capital preservation is to keep retraining you.

    Hopefully rejuvenating people’s bodies will include their minds and restoring neural plasticity to them so they can adapt to a changing world and not remain moored in a bygone age.

    Also, to your other comment if you can work, then you won’t need SS for retirement, which is good since it is bankrupt anyways. Your best friend is your own planning and savings + compound interest.

    Reply
  39. I’m thinking only the 1% are going to be able to afford this. But, if it’s affordable then the SSA will push the retirement age up to eighty four. That would be terrible since age discrimination isn’t going to go away. So we’ll live longer but will suffer more in our old age because our retirement saving will be effectively less.

    Reply

Leave a Comment