The first real antiaging drug has just received FDA approval:
"Today, I’m so proud to announce that Loyal has earned what we believe to be the FDA’s first-ever formal acceptance that a drug can be developed and approved to extend lifespan. In regulatory parlance, we have completed the technical effectiveness portion of our conditional approval application for LOY-001’s use in large dog lifespan extension.
As there was no established regulatory path for a lifespan extension drug, we had to design from scratch a scientifically strong and logistically feasible way to demonstrate efficacy of an aging drug. This process took more than four years, resulting in the 2,300+ page technical section now approved by the FDA. It included interventional studies of LOY-001 in an FDA-accepted model of canine aging and an observational (no-drug) study of 451 dogs.
Our interventional studies with LOY-001 showed that the drug improved clinically-relevant aging parameters. We assessed these in laboratory studies using a dog model that represents accelerated aging. We then correlated those results with quality of life scores in the observational study, as independently measured by dog owners, and health outcomes as measured by veterinarians. This was key to show that the biological benefits of the drug are linked to clinically relevant outcomes.
From our data, the FDA believes LOY-001 is likely to be effective for large dog lifespan extension in the real world. Once we satisfactorily complete safety and manufacturing sections and other requirements, vets will be able to prescribe LOY-001 to extend the lifespan of large dogs while we complete the confirmatory pivotal lifespan extension study in parallel."
~ Celine Halioua, founder of Loyal
"Today, I’m so proud to announce that Loyal has earned what we believe to be the FDA’s first-ever formal acceptance that a drug can be developed and approved to extend lifespan. In regulatory parlance, we have completed the technical effectiveness portion of our conditional approval application for LOY-001’s use in large dog lifespan extension.
As there was no established regulatory path for a lifespan extension drug, we had to design from scratch a scientifically strong and logistically feasible way to demonstrate efficacy of an aging drug. This process took more than four years, resulting in the 2,300+ page technical section now approved by the FDA. It included interventional studies of LOY-001 in an FDA-accepted model of canine aging and an observational (no-drug) study of 451 dogs.
Our interventional studies with LOY-001 showed that the drug improved clinically-relevant aging parameters. We assessed these in laboratory studies using a dog model that represents accelerated aging. We then correlated those results with quality of life scores in the observational study, as independently measured by dog owners, and health outcomes as measured by veterinarians. This was key to show that the biological benefits of the drug are linked to clinically relevant outcomes.
From our data, the FDA believes LOY-001 is likely to be effective for large dog lifespan extension in the real world. Once we satisfactorily complete safety and manufacturing sections and other requirements, vets will be able to prescribe LOY-001 to extend the lifespan of large dogs while we complete the confirmatory pivotal lifespan extension study in parallel."
~ Celine Halioua, founder of Loyal
Loyal Blog
FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine agrees Loyal’s data supports reasonable expectation of effectiveness for large dog lifespan…
A historic milestone in developing the first drug for healthy lifespan extension in dogs
https://youtube.com/shorts/VEhfOWo7VfU?si=-NxQm2CkNXHOBHbI
There is a point in Sinclair's speech that is worrying, he says: can the restart or rejuvenation be done perhaps hundreds of times, which implies a limit or attrition? of the information? Isn't it supposed that if it is done it should be able to be done without limits?
There is a point in Sinclair's speech that is worrying, he says: can the restart or rejuvenation be done perhaps hundreds of times, which implies a limit or attrition? of the information? Isn't it supposed that if it is done it should be able to be done without limits?
YouTube
A REVERSE AGING PILL May Only Cost A Few Cents @Day!!! | Dr David Sinclair #shorts
Dr. David Sinclair talks about how reverse aging in a pill may work and aim to make the cost of reverse aging treatment as low as possible in this clip.https...
https://x.com/GeroMaxim/status/1739778591338950922?t=611xI9mrIXqFBzmdkSAyIg&s=08
4,3M views in 3 days. Amazing stand up. Crying thru smiling & dramatic laughter. All what longevity industry was saying, he just made a fun of it… in a good way
4,3M views in 3 days. Amazing stand up. Crying thru smiling & dramatic laughter. All what longevity industry was saying, he just made a fun of it… in a good way
X (formerly Twitter)
Maxim Kholin (@GeroMaxim) on X
A Belarusian stand-up comedian garnered 3.6 million views in just two days, expressing his desire not to die of old age and questioning why more intelligent people aren't focusing on this issue.
Some quotes:
What are all the smart people doing anyway?…
Some quotes:
What are all the smart people doing anyway?…
The central effort in promoting life extension revolves around broadcasting scientific achievements in this field.
The battle against aging often boils down to a newsfeed of scientific discoveries.
Thousands of people, across various platforms like Twitter, review articles, and YouTube, relay what gerontology researchers have discovered.
Among Longevity activists, there's a prevailing idea of alerting the public about the imminent discovery of anti-aging remedies.
However, there's a problem. This approach isn't really effective.
The efficiency of such popularization is probably less than 1%. Discussions about a few molecules and their interactions related to aging lead nowhere.
There are millions of such publications. It's like a chewing gum that people have been chewing for decades. How many interviews with leading experts do we need to realize that they have minimal impact?
I'm not against scientific news, interviews, or statements on the necessity of life extension. I strongly support them, but they are insufficient. This activity becomes harmful if we focus solely on it, as it drains the energy and strength needed for change.
It creates an illusion of progress, as if we've convinced someone to take action.
If we had a metric for social change, we would see the minimal impact of such work.
People are not rational. In a rational world, one interview, one lecture, one book would be enough to make life extension a universal social task. Moreover, in a society that accepts death, there are groups with entirely different interests, monopolizing resources and reluctant to allocate them to life extension.
There are people, knowingly or unknowingly, who promote death. Even under the banners of health preservation and life extension, there can be enemies whose true interest is personal enrichment. Selling promises of immediate life extension works well, even for non-effective remedies.
Overcoming tradition, stereotypes, and indifference involves incredibly complex tasks, the solutions to which are not just about listing aging science achievements.
Clearly, we need a different approach in the public sphere.
How?
Raise the level of abstraction, introduce new categories, use models of social processes, gather and analyze new types of data.
What's the first step? Change the language in which we discuss these problems. Introduce new categories, describe reality anew.
Like in mathematics, where we can't solve a vast class of problems using only arithmetic and require differential and integral calculus.
Like in physics, where we need a counterintuitive view of the world, where the passage of time depends on the speed of movement, or events in the quantum world completely contradict common sense. But this brings us closer to understanding the nature of reality.
Rationalists, in solving their problems, introduced several concepts, particularly CEV (coherent extrapolated volition) — how future AI will extrapolate our values.
Effective altruists think in terms of calculating expected utility and overlooked efficient ways of doing good.
Whenever we face complex new tasks, we need new categories, essentially a new language, to solve this new challenge.
What specific categories do we need?
We need a measure of readiness to act in the fight against death. The degree of obsession.
Characterize the strength and types of connections between community members. It may turn out that the most effective activity in the fight against death is to increase the connectivity of the Longevity community.
We need to characterize the Longevity field itself, its structure, types of changes, and development dynamics.
I will write more about these and other categories. Perhaps 90% of the ideas won't find agreement with the reader.
But I can state from my experience that without a new language, a new picture of reality, metrics of social changes, and new categories, we will stagnate. We urgently need to create this.
Open Longevity
The battle against aging often boils down to a newsfeed of scientific discoveries.
Thousands of people, across various platforms like Twitter, review articles, and YouTube, relay what gerontology researchers have discovered.
Among Longevity activists, there's a prevailing idea of alerting the public about the imminent discovery of anti-aging remedies.
However, there's a problem. This approach isn't really effective.
The efficiency of such popularization is probably less than 1%. Discussions about a few molecules and their interactions related to aging lead nowhere.
There are millions of such publications. It's like a chewing gum that people have been chewing for decades. How many interviews with leading experts do we need to realize that they have minimal impact?
I'm not against scientific news, interviews, or statements on the necessity of life extension. I strongly support them, but they are insufficient. This activity becomes harmful if we focus solely on it, as it drains the energy and strength needed for change.
It creates an illusion of progress, as if we've convinced someone to take action.
If we had a metric for social change, we would see the minimal impact of such work.
People are not rational. In a rational world, one interview, one lecture, one book would be enough to make life extension a universal social task. Moreover, in a society that accepts death, there are groups with entirely different interests, monopolizing resources and reluctant to allocate them to life extension.
There are people, knowingly or unknowingly, who promote death. Even under the banners of health preservation and life extension, there can be enemies whose true interest is personal enrichment. Selling promises of immediate life extension works well, even for non-effective remedies.
Overcoming tradition, stereotypes, and indifference involves incredibly complex tasks, the solutions to which are not just about listing aging science achievements.
Clearly, we need a different approach in the public sphere.
How?
Raise the level of abstraction, introduce new categories, use models of social processes, gather and analyze new types of data.
What's the first step? Change the language in which we discuss these problems. Introduce new categories, describe reality anew.
Like in mathematics, where we can't solve a vast class of problems using only arithmetic and require differential and integral calculus.
Like in physics, where we need a counterintuitive view of the world, where the passage of time depends on the speed of movement, or events in the quantum world completely contradict common sense. But this brings us closer to understanding the nature of reality.
Rationalists, in solving their problems, introduced several concepts, particularly CEV (coherent extrapolated volition) — how future AI will extrapolate our values.
Effective altruists think in terms of calculating expected utility and overlooked efficient ways of doing good.
Whenever we face complex new tasks, we need new categories, essentially a new language, to solve this new challenge.
What specific categories do we need?
We need a measure of readiness to act in the fight against death. The degree of obsession.
Characterize the strength and types of connections between community members. It may turn out that the most effective activity in the fight against death is to increase the connectivity of the Longevity community.
We need to characterize the Longevity field itself, its structure, types of changes, and development dynamics.
I will write more about these and other categories. Perhaps 90% of the ideas won't find agreement with the reader.
But I can state from my experience that without a new language, a new picture of reality, metrics of social changes, and new categories, we will stagnate. We urgently need to create this.
Open Longevity
Breathing in certain aromas while you sleep improves brain function by more than 200%, says a new study from the University of California, Irvine.
The experiment revealed that if you breathe in aromatic oils with the scents of rose, orange, eucalyptus, lemon, mint, rosemary and lavender while you sleep, then within six months, brain functions related to memory and decision-making will improve by 226%.
The experiment revealed that if you breathe in aromatic oils with the scents of rose, orange, eucalyptus, lemon, mint, rosemary and lavender while you sleep, then within six months, brain functions related to memory and decision-making will improve by 226%.