Dr. James Peyer of ApolloVC discussed tactical paths to bring longevity promoting therapeutics to market as quickly as possible.
The cost of developing a drug is $2.6 billion. Pharma companies need to have each successful drug approved has to pay for ten failed drugs. Each drug from discovery through clinical trials averages out to a cost of $260 million.
Anti-aging companies and anti-aging investors need to focus on an initial aging disease to get approval to treat. They then target a second and third anti-aging disease. After that they can look at trying to follow metformin for general anti-aging approval. Metformin is the first anti-aging treatment that the FDA is looking at for a general antiaging approval.
There is increasing of pharmaceutical company engagement via disease-focused proof of concept trials. This talk was given at the Ending Age-Related Diseases conference in NYC.
Curing all cancers would add 3.5 years to average human lifespan. If anti-aging could delay the start of aging disease from 50 or 60 by two or three decades then this could be ten times better than curing cancer.
$50 billion per year is spent on curing cancer. If medical research was allocated based upon potential impact then anti-aging should be at a funding level of $500 billion per year.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Right. And that is precisely why anti aging therapies will not be discovered by big pharma. Small organizations and individuals will develop initial proof of concept therapies. Big pharma will by the intellectual property at a later date. A true anti aging therapy would preclude cancer by targeting the population of precancerous cells in someones body, removing them through apoptosis. Cancer is positively correlated to age IE. aging of all species of animals. True anti aging would address cancer as one result of the aging process.
Lookup “SENS”. An organization headed by Aubrey DeGrey. They have a basic outline of how to address the main causes of aging at the cellular level, so that life, through periodic maintenance treatments, can be maintained indefinitely.
I’m taking quercetin + vitamin E with tocotrienols. It is supposed to have senolytic properties. I’ve been signed up for cryonics for many years as well. I hope to, one way or another, get to a future where lifespans are unlimited.
Hmmmm, when I was a kid I started thinking heavily about age-span. The bottom line is all of us want to keep our youth and grow old gracefully. Beyond that, it allows us to produce longer for a better and more productive retirement, or perhaps no retirement… Finally, because academics and pop icons insanely spread the notion there was no value in raising families; developed nations have huge retirement demographics that will shortly prove disastrous. We all need vitality. The government needs revenue. Society needs longevity for it’s workers. Anti-Ageing and Age-Reversal are not only a no-brainier, they are crucial to the survival of the developed world. Therefore, I say: bring on the therapies – and with your new found vitality be productive and make babies!!!
Longevity therapeutics are not the largest investment focus in the pharmaceutical industry because, by the time you’re old enough to be making those decisions, the real payoff is beyond your time horizon. And it requires you to think about something you really don’t want to think about.Mostly that latter, though.
Right now a drug to slow aging doesn’t have a market…”Rubbish. Absolute garbage. Complete insane snottwaddle. I’ve never heard a more ridiculous claim. If this is an example of the sort of thinking that went into this report then I won’t bother reading the whole thing.
$50 billion per year is spent on curing cancer. If medical research was allocated based upon potential impact then anti-aging should be at a funding level of $500 billion per year.”And the reason it isn’t is because that would be a stupid way to allocate funds. No sane person allocates investment on the basis of what the potential impact of success would be. Otherwise we would spend all our money buying billion dollar lottery tickets. You allocate investment based on expected return which is a result of the possible payoff multiplied by the odds of success (with other factors such as variance and there is usually a range of possible outcomes that you need to add up)
If these senescent cell clearance therapies prove to be safe and effective then it would be interesting to see them used at a much younger age to see if they stop the aging process.
If these senescent cell clearance therapies prove to be safe and effective then it would be interesting to see them used at a much younger age to see if they stop the aging process.
To say nothing of consequences in the rest of the world, not merely one’s superficial concerns. What does knowing that aging is a fictitious obligation, for the first time in thousands… THOUSANDS of years, do for human culture and attitude? Cancer, as massive a burden as it is thru so many aspects of human life, does not compare.
That’s naive. I’ll reply after work.
With automation rapidly improving over the coming decades, I’m not so sure anyone will be working at all. If they will, it would be more like a hobby – their own choice of what, where, when, and how much, and done mostly for the emotional payback, not because they have to pay the bills.
If all your systems a functioning like they were younger, you’d probably look younger as well. Better muscle tone, better skin tone, better metabolism, less gray hair, etc.
To say nothing of consequences in the rest of the world, not merely one’s superficial concerns. What does knowing that aging is a fictitious obligation, for the first time in thousands… THOUSANDS
of years, do for human culture and attitude? Cancer, as massive a burden as it is thru so many aspects of human life, does not compare.
There is considerable overlap between anti-aging and anti-cancer. I suspect that senescent cells are the ones most likely to become cancerous, but they’re also a major known cause of age-related ill health. So far, the most promising anti-aging results have come from senolytic treatments.Looked at another way, the cells with the most DNA damage are the ones most likely to become senescent. They’re also the ones most likely to become cancerous.
That’s naive. I’ll reply after work.
With automation rapidly improving over the coming decades, I’m not so sure anyone will be working at all. If they will, it would be more like a hobby – their own choice of what, where, when, and how much, and done mostly for the emotional payback, not because they have to pay the bills.
If all your systems a functioning like they were younger, you’d probably look younger as well. Better muscle tone, better skin tone, better metabolism, less gray hair, etc.
There is considerable overlap between anti-aging and anti-cancer. I suspect that senescent cells are the ones most likely to become cancerous, but they’re also a major known cause of age-related ill health. So far, the most promising anti-aging results have come from senolytic treatments.
Looked at another way, the cells with the most DNA damage are the ones most likely to become senescent. They’re also the ones most likely to become cancerous.
Weirdly I’m more excited how this with affect housing and rent costs since it would make 60 year loans the new 30 with fifty percent lower interest rates. Healthcare costs would drop with increase of healthy adults paying more than they use and Education options geared more heavily toward midlife career changes will explode.
not sure you are saying MINE is a naive projection, or the article’s.As far as I understand cancer, there would be little use to fix anti-aging without finding efficient cancer fight methods before (or a cure, whatever).am I right that most cancers are caused by the cell’s reproductive mechanism going bonkers after the cumulative mutations that happen every X number of cell divisions break the system? and that as it’s dependent on CUMULATIVE mutations and cell divisions, living longer will increase the chance of anyone having cancer, simply because of long age?
or alternatively, work 10 years, take sabbatical for 2-3, depending on how much you have saved and your lifestyle. Rinse , repeat.
Starting from the epic of Gilgamesh, the moment people become affluent enough to not die from infections , famine and accidents getting old becomes a concern…
Hence the focus on “this will make already old people look and feel healthier and younger, it should hit the market within 10-20 years” type research.It avoids all the issues you bring up:- Most people who are making R&D decisions figure they’ll still be around, but old, in 10-20 years.- They already accept (most of them) that they aren’t quite as athletic or youthful looking as when they were 25, so it isn’t making them think about something they won’t think about.- Most (I assume there are some nutbags who don’t) would quite like to get back to a 25 year old’s physique. Maybe with a distinguishing streak of grey in the beard though.
The claim about the SLS might be incorrect here and now, but a well educated gentleman from 1950 (AD or BC) would be unable to judge the veracity of this claim.Feed him the line about no market for rejuvenation and he would laugh in your face. It has ALWAYS been wrong. The earliest known literature (google Epic of Gilgamesh) refers to the wish for eternal youth. The Chinese have an entire philosophical movement in which it is a major issue (Daoism). The Spanish did oceanic exploration voyages looking for the fountain of youth.
Weirdly I’m more excited how this with affect housing and rent costs since it would make 60 year loans the new 30 with fifty percent lower interest rates. Healthcare costs would drop with increase of healthy adults paying more than they use and Education options geared more heavily toward midlife career changes will explode.
Wrong.Work in a world of multiple centuries healthy lifespan will not be the same as today. Hence suggesting that someone will have to work and contribute to retirement until they’re 450 is a non sequitur.No one has lived that long, and no one has lived that long in a world where most/everyone else also lives that long. So predictions are almost entirely beyond the predictability horizon. Nevertheless it’s clear that status quo’s like the one you hinge your argument on *will not last*.
That is a naive projection – it takes one thing, changes it, and pretends nothing else would change in consequence. People living to 150, because of treatment specifically aimed at longer healthy lifespan, would not be without consequence.
or alternatively, work 10 years, take sabbatical for 2-3, depending on how much you have saved and your lifestyle. Rinse , repeat.
Starting from the epic of Gilgamesh, the moment people become affluent enough to not die from infections , famine and accidents getting old becomes a concern…
Hence the focus on “this will make already old people look and feel healthier and younger, it should hit the market within 10-20 years” type research.
It avoids all the issues you bring up:
– Most people who are making R&D decisions figure they’ll still be around, but old, in 10-20 years.
– They already accept (most of them) that they aren’t quite as athletic or youthful looking as when they were 25, so it isn’t making them think about something they won’t think about.
– Most (I assume there are some nutbags who don’t) would quite like to get back to a 25 year old’s physique. Maybe with a distinguishing streak of grey in the beard though.
The claim about the SLS might be incorrect here and now, but a well educated gentleman from 1950 (AD or BC) would be unable to judge the veracity of this claim.
Feed him the line about no market for rejuvenation and he would laugh in your face.
It has ALWAYS been wrong. The earliest known literature (google Epic of Gilgamesh) refers to the wish for eternal youth. The Chinese have an entire philosophical movement in which it is a major issue (Daoism). The Spanish did oceanic exploration voyages looking for the fountain of youth.
No, nothing like that is true. We need only to successfully demand that government respect property rights, so after a few decades of work, we accumulate the wealth to permit us to be part-time workers indefinitely.
I’ve never heard a more ridiculous claim. “I saw an idiot the other day claim the Senate Launch System was necessary for developing re-usability in rocket launches.thespacereview com/article/3594/1spacenews com/op-ed-reuse-and-sustainability-in-deep-space-exploration/
so I would say that NOT curing cancer while fighting age would only serve to make EVERYONE die before they reach 150, but they will die looking younger. ” <– Not looking younger, but effectively being younger. This is a good problem to have.
Wrong.
Work in a world of multiple centuries healthy lifespan will not be the same as today. Hence suggesting that someone will have to work and contribute to retirement until they’re 450 is a non sequitur.
No one has lived that long, and no one has lived that long in a world where most/everyone else also lives that long. So predictions are almost entirely beyond the predictability horizon. Nevertheless it’s clear that status quo’s like the one you hinge your argument on *will not last*.
That is a naive projection – it takes one thing, changes it, and pretends nothing else would change in consequence. People living to 150, because of treatment specifically aimed at longer healthy lifespan, would not be without consequence.
No, nothing like that is true. We need only to successfully demand that government respect property rights, so after a few decades of work, we accumulate the wealth to permit us to be part-time workers indefinitely.
” I’ve never heard a more ridiculous claim. ”
I saw an idiot the other day claim the Senate Launch System was necessary for developing re-usability in rocket launches.
thespacereview com/article/3594/1
spacenews com/op-ed-reuse-and-sustainability-in-deep-space-exploration/
” so I would say that NOT curing cancer while fighting age would only serve to make EVERYONE die before they reach 150, but they will die looking younger. ” <-- Not looking younger, but effectively being younger. This is a good problem to have.
you will need to convince someone wanting to live to 500 that they will have to work and contribute to retirement until they are 450.
wait, but the longest you live the much higher the chance to get cancer, as it is the cumulative mutations on trillions and trillions of cellular reproductions over your life, until it messes big with a few cells reproduction engine and they start multiplying.so I would say that NOT curing cancer while fighting age would only serve to make EVERYONE die before they reach 150, but they will die looking younger.
Hmm… my comment seems to have disappeared.To rephrase: The line that “Right now a drug to slow aging does not have a market” is only true in the sense that there is no SUPPLY. There is most definitely DEMAND and has been for recorded history.
Right now a drug to slow aging doesn’t have a market…”Rubbish. Absolute garbage. Complete insane snottwaddle. I’ve never heard a more ridiculous claim. If this is an example of the sort of thinking that went into this report then I won’t bother reading the whole thing.
$50 billion per year is spent on curing cancer. If medical research was allocated based upon potential impact then anti-aging should be at a funding level of $500 billion per year.”And the reason it isn’t is because that would be a stupid way to allocate funds. No sane person allocates investment on the basis of what the potential impact of success would be. Otherwise we would spend all our money buying billion dollar lottery tickets. You allocate investment based on expected return which is a result of the possible payoff multiplied by the odds of success (with other factors such as variance and there is usually a range of possible outcomes that you need to add up)
Hmmmm, when I was a kid I started thinking heavily about age-span. The bottom line is all of us want to keep our youth and grow old gracefully. Beyond that, it allows us to produce longer for a better and more productive retirement, or perhaps no retirement… Finally, because academics and pop icons insanely spread the notion there was no value in raising families; developed nations have huge retirement demographics that will shortly prove disastrous. We all need vitality. The government needs revenue. Society needs longevity for it’s workers. Anti-Ageing and Age-Reversal are not only a no-brainier, they are crucial to the survival of the developed world. Therefore, I say: bring on the therapies – and with your new found vitality be productive and make babies!!!
Hmm… my comment seems to have disappeared.
To rephrase: The line that “Right now a drug to slow aging does not have a market” is only true in the sense that there is no SUPPLY. There is most definitely DEMAND and has been for recorded history.
Longevity therapeutics are not the largest investment focus in the pharmaceutical industry because, by the time you’re old enough to be making those decisions, the real payoff is beyond your time horizon. And it requires you to think about something you really don’t want to think about.Mostly that latter, though.
“Right now a drug to slow aging doesn’t have a market…”
Rubbish. Absolute garbage. Complete insane snottwaddle. I’ve never heard a more ridiculous claim.
If this is an example of the sort of thinking that went into this report then I won’t bother reading the whole thing.
“$50 billion per year is spent on curing cancer. If medical research was allocated based upon potential impact then anti-aging should be at a funding level of $500 billion per year.”
And the reason it isn’t is because that would be a stupid way to allocate funds.
No sane person allocates investment on the basis of what the potential impact of success would be. Otherwise we would spend all our money buying billion dollar lottery tickets. You allocate investment based on expected return which is a result of the possible payoff multiplied by the odds of success (with other factors such as variance and there is usually a range of possible outcomes that you need to add up)
Hmmmm, when I was a kid I started thinking heavily about age-span. The bottom line is all of us want to keep our youth and grow old gracefully. Beyond that, it allows us to produce longer for a better and more productive retirement, or perhaps no retirement… Finally, because academics and pop icons insanely spread the notion there was no value in raising families; developed nations have huge retirement demographics that will shortly prove disastrous. We all need vitality. The government needs revenue. Society needs longevity for it’s workers. Anti-Ageing and Age-Reversal are not only a no-brainier, they are crucial to the survival of the developed world. Therefore, I say: bring on the therapies – and with your new found vitality be productive and make babies!!!
Longevity therapeutics are not the largest investment focus in the pharmaceutical industry because, by the time you’re old enough to be making those decisions, the real payoff is beyond your time horizon. And it requires you to think about something you really don’t want to think about.
Mostly that latter, though.