 |
|
|
|
reason -at- fightaging -dot- org
|
|
Recent Entries
Cells, Hearts, and Brains
Rapamycin Research Rolls Onward
Reversing Blindness in Retinitis Pigmentosa With Stem Cells
The Body Does Work to Break Down Damaging Aggregates
A Few Cancer Stem Cell Articles
The Latest on Mitochondrial Uncoupling
Longevity Research at the Science Network
Journalists Are In the Business of Gathering Eyeballs, Not Truth
@ging, a New Aging Science Blog
Redefining Bionics Again
Encouraging Transparency in Life Science Fundraising
TIME Magazine on Slowing Aging and Longevity Research
The Case for Cryonics
Malthusian Visions
A Profile of Dave Kekich of the Maximum Life Foundation
So Very Many Pressing Distractions
Six Years of Fight Aging!
Looking Ahead to Mitochondrial DNA Replacement Therapies
Spermidine and Another Vote For Autophagy
Raising the Dead
Archives (Monthly)
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
Creative Commons
Fight Aging! is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. In short, this means that you are encouraged to republish and rewrite Fight Aging! content in any way you see fit, the only requirements being that you (a) link to the original, (b) attribute the author, and (c) attribute Fight Aging!.
|
|
|
|
|
Sooner or later, we'll all develop cancer. The only people who fail to develop cancer are those struck down by other causes; you should think of cancer as less a disease and more a natural consequence of mammalian biochemistry, a form of runaway failure of cellular processes that are normally vital to health and longevity. The biochemical damage that occurs with aging makes the failures that cause cancer ever more likely to occur, and also renders the immune system ever less able to destroy cancerous cells in their earliest stages. If you're a mature individual, the chances are that your immune system has destroyed a few very early stage cancers already, and you are none the wiser. But that defense system is slowly failing with age, just like the rest of your biology.
I should add that there are, as ever in biology, a few noteworthy exceptions to my sweeping statements above, such as the naked mole rat. But even there I'd wager these animals would develop cancer if they but lived long enough - they just have a better first line of defense than we do.
Given the apparent inevitability of cancer, why am I unconcerned? In short, I have perhaps two or three decades to go before I enter the high risk years for developing cancer. I am confident that by that time, very effective targeted cancer therapies with few side-effects will be widely available. Consider that:
- Cancer research is perhaps the most highly funded and widely supported of any modern distributed medical development program.
- Over the past five years, very impressive anti-cancer technology demonstrations have been made. These are a new breed of targeted therapy, built using the latest tools of modern biotechnology. Immune cells, viruses, or nanoparticles are engineered to home in on the distinctive surface chemistry of cancer cells - and then destroy them.
- With a sufficiently good targeted therapy, even aggressive metastasis of cancer becomes a minor inconvenience. Those spreading cancer cells will still be found and killed, no matter where they are in the body.
- The new breed of cancer therapies are as well placed as any new biotechnology could expect to be to make their way through the horrors of an FDA approval process. A decade and many fortunes will be lost to regulation, but commercial therapies will emerge - and if not in the US, elsewhere in the world. Medical tourism to destinations outside the US will itself be a huge and thriving economy a decade from now if the FDA continues its present path.
Cancer is, by and large, not a rapid or unexpected killer. It is certainly not faster than the time taken to apply a targeted therapy of the sort presently under development in the laboratory. Think of a worst case scenario: a brain cancer discovered late and already well into the process of metastasis. You started to have headaches and blurred vision, saw a physician, and learned that, without treatment, you only have a few months left to live. If that were today, you would have to come to terms with your fate and your ill luck. But in 2030, your status would place you at the head of the line for a clinical appointment, and within a week you would undergo an infusion of biological killing machines - viruses, assembled nanoparticles, or some form of natural or artificial cell - configured to recognize and slay your cancer. A month later, there isn't a trace left of your advanced tumor and its offshoots.
This is why I am not worried about cancer. The plausible future is one in which we will all develop cancer, and very few of us will be any more than slightly inconvenienced by it.
|
|
Posted by Reason
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. The number one risk factor that one should be concerned about is any kind of cardiovascular problem, specifically thrombotic events. Unlike cancer, which affects almost exclusively old people, stroke and heart attacks often occur in fairly young people (40's and 50's) and can be very debilitating, if it does not kill you.
Stroke is my biggest nightmare and should be yours, too. I take supplements to reduce my blood sugar levels. I believe that increased blood sugar levels (e.g. metabolic syndrome) is the number one cause of cardiovascular disease (far more than increased cholesterol). Indeed, most cases of increased LDL cholesterol are caused by early metabolic syndrome. I have come to believe that metabolic syndrome (sometimes called diabetes) is the number one cause of health morbidity in humans and it is 100% preventable.
You are as young as your arteries.
The other risk factor to avoid is car accidents (seriously, this causes more morbidity than anything except stroke). Drive a large car and drive carefully. It should go without saying that the safety belt should always be used.
By no means should you ever consider riding a motorcycle.
[Posted by: kurt9 at January 12, 2010 6:28 PM]
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt9,
What supplements are effective in reducing blood sugars?
[Posted by: TomC at January 12, 2010 10:06 PM]
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard resveratrol increases insulin sensitivity and thus reduces glucose levels.
[Posted by: Cameron at January 13, 2010 7:22 AM]
|
|
|
|
|
TomC,
Resveratrol, Bilberry Extract, Chromium Picolinate, LEF mix without copper. Also, diet is important. Avoid excess sugar and carbohydrates. Fat and Protein are OK within reasonable limits. The key is eating a reasonable amount of food each day.
I visited Germany once on business a few years ago. As you know, German food is very heavy. Yet, I noticed very few fat Germans, even among the old. The reason, as I noticed whenever I ate dinner in a restaurant, is that they eat relatively small serving portions, then stop eating. They do not eat the large portions that many Americans do. Hence, few of them are overweight.
Avoidance of metabolic syndrome (diabetes) is probably the single best thing you can do right now to increase your chances of making it to the post-mortal age.
[Posted by: kurt9 at January 13, 2010 8:15 AM]
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt9,
Thanks for your input - much appreciated.
[Posted by: TomC at January 13, 2010 9:52 AM]
|
|
|
|
|
There is a very nice discussion forum on supplements over on the immortality institute website (www.imminst.org). I have found this forum to be very informative.
[Posted by: kurt9 at January 13, 2010 10:54 AM]
|
|
|
|
|
@Nicolai: more specifically, the infusion of donor granulocytes from someone who is immune to your particular type of cancer. This might be thought of as another form of targeted immune therapy - the big difference being that you're using found tools rather than created tools. See:
http://blog.methuselahfoundation.org/2007/09/sens3_report_the_gift_versus_c_1.html
But yes, granulocyte therapy appears very promising. It looks like something that could be made to work quite well in the clinic even in absence of a full understanding as to why it works. e.g. a donor network, matching with a library against a person's cancer biochemistry, and so forth.
Livly and the DO Foundation appear to be going for the full understanding route with their present fundraising efforts, however. Identify the biochemical basis of why the therapy works, and see if everyone's granulocytes can be altered in situ to kill their cancers.
[Posted by: Reason at January 13, 2010 11:09 AM]
|
|
|
|
|
I am now 30 and getting cancer is probably my number one fear. I know that statistically speaking it shouldn't be but it is. Then comes my fear of heart attack. I think I am a bit of a hypochondriac =)
[Posted by: Jonathan at January 13, 2010 1:33 PM]
|
|
|
|
|
OK, Reason - how old are you? I haven't seen you post your age - but I'm guessing.. 40-43. I may have missed you stating how old you are.
I think it would be useful to your readers to know how old you are so that they can better understand your point of view.
Thanks.
I'm 35 - and I'm guessing you're not much older. So if that is confirmed, when I read your entries I will consider both of us "in the same boat".
[Posted by: Dan C at January 14, 2010 2:00 PM]
|
|
|
|
|
@Dan C: You should consider us in the same boat.
[Posted by: Reason at January 14, 2010 2:23 PM]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing, Reason.
Also - keep up the good work on the site. I've been an avid reader for a few years now, and you are keeping the community's interest level up. Sometimes single-handedly.
[Posted by: Dan C at January 14, 2010 6:44 PM]
|
|
|
|
|
A trifle too sanguine methinks.
Cancer incidences are increasing; so is cancer mortality. The magic bullets so far declared don't seem to be doing the trick. Faith in such an approach may be misplaced.
Better prevention than cure. And the supposed cure rate of the medical profession is woefully low - only 2.3% of patients treated with chemo are alive 5 years later, etc.
CR and veganism is probably a better prevention and cure. See The China Study by Dr Campbell.
The terrain is all, not the trigger. The seed & soil paradigm is probably more helpful.
But good luck.
[Posted by: Ian Clements at January 15, 2010 2:49 AM]
|
|
|
Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. Please note that comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.
|
|
|
