In the end, we are all dead

Updated 10.21.2015
Is it ironic that this is the topic on "Back to the Future" day? The linearity of the time and the reality of the certain end point are probably not really in line with the hopefulness of that movie. I should note that I only watched the original, and it wasn't until the second movie that they went into the future. Even back in my youth I wasn't a huge fan of sequels— Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Star Trek being notable exceptions. Of course, in the first two instances the stories were meant to occur in a series of movies.

To the topic at hand: John Mauldin doesn't want to die. While I am in no hurry to die, I'm not deluding myself that death is the one assured end point. I think that humanity will not be able to artificially extend life unless it alters how it lives. So I read about anti-aging efforts with a jaundiced eye. I should admit upfront that I'm not even convinced that aging is a "problem" to be solved. Certainly aging while maintaining health is a laudable goal, but based on my readings, that is best achieved with better habits (eating and moving) than with fancy drugs or new organs.

The premise of the linked report is that the US faces a growing problem due to aging because Medicare will transfer money from young healthy people to old unhealthy people. Implicit in that premise, however, is that old people are unhealthy because they are aging. I don't accept the truth of that premise, at least not at Boomer ages (Mauldin is a Boomer).

Boomers will be the unhealthiest generation entering their dotage— at least until their kids get there. But it isn't the passage of time that is destroying their health, it's the consequences of their own choices. Mauldin himself has written in the past of his refusal to follow his doctor's (non-drug) prescription for better health. Instead, he'd prefer to investment in a "magic" aging cure. That is his right, of course, and should they be successful, perhaps humanity will benefit. Humanity would benefit right NOW, however, if simple diet and exercise rules were adopted— and if tobacco use ceased. In short, most "diseases of aging" are really "diseases of lifestyle." TANSTAAFL.

Nor am I convinced that fat tracking these drugs would be safe. Despite all the "modern scientific" methods used to develop molecules in labs now, there are still unforeseen consequences, as anyone who's spent any time reading about cholesterol drugs would readily admit. The claim is that stopping aging will be easier and cheaper than treating the diseases that develop as we age.

Mount Tam Biotechnologies, which trades as a penny stock over the counter under the ticker MNTM, is one of the companies touted. Investing in biotech companies is alway a crap shoot. Early success does not always yield a viable product, and part of the reason regulations exist is that reason. What works in the lab or in animals does not always work in humans. I don't think either author has ever worked in research, and it shows. Rapamycin and related analogs are the compounds said to be the magic. The linked abstract is from 2005, and rapamycin pills can be purchased on the internet, but its use is as an anti-tumor drug and immunosuppressant, not as an anti-aging agent.

Another bias of mine is that drugs that muck around with the human immune system scare me. Although, as a result of the AIDS epidemic, we now understand the immune system better than we did, there is still a great deal that we do not understand.

Rapamycin works to rejuvenate old rats, but humans are not rats. In fact, analogs of rapamycin are being developed because the drug has some sever side effects. These are not small issues, no matter how enthusiastic the researches are about the prospects for progress. Metformin, used to treat type 2 diabetes, is also mentioned. Neither drug is expensive to produce, but neither one has been approved for anti-aging.

Stem cells and growing transplantable organs is another area of interest. The company in which Mauldin has an interest is called Biotime, and he has donated cells that have been used to create stem cells, and then heart cells. All of which is legitimately fascinating, but adopting habits to improve your longevity is much less costly and risky.

Aging and disease, chicken and egg?

This article was included in the Mauldin article, and the full text is available for free. This is the summary:

Mammalian aging can be delayed with genetic, dietary, and pharmacologic approaches. Given that the elderly population is dramatically increasing and that aging is the greatest risk factor for a majority of chronic diseases driving both morbidity and mortality, it is critical to expand geroscience research directed at extending human healthspan.

You can't do anything about your genetics, but you can certainly do something about your diet! Drugs aren't going to alter your genetics either. It just seems to me that before we rush headlong into the world of pharmaceuticals, it would be a safer bet to change habits.

Disclaimer