Michael Fossel Michael is President of Telocyte

November 15, 2016

Close to a Cure

We are now within two years of a cure for Alzheimer’s disease.

What a brash and disruptive claim! What hubris! Yet events are coming together, underlining a new and far more complete understanding of the disease, illuminating the cause, supporting the ability to intervene, safely and effectively. We finally see a way to intervene in the basic pathology, underlining the potential to both prevent and cure Alzheimer’s disease.

But why has it taken so long? Why was Alzheimer’s disease first defined 110 years ago, and yet remains totally beyond our ability to intervene even now? Why have all other approaches, whether those of big pharma or those of biotech, failed utterly? Why has not a single clinical trial shown any ability to change the progress of this frightening disease? Why is Alzheimer’s disease not only called “the disease that steals human souls”, but also called the “graveyard of companies”? Why has every single approach (which has at most shown only an effect on biomarkers, such as beta amyloid), still failed to show any change in the cognitive decline in patients with this disease? Why have we failed universally, until now?

Because every approach has concentrated on effects, not on causes.

Currently, most approaches target beta amyloid, many target tau proteins, and some target mitochondrial function, inflammation, free radicals, and other processes, but no one targets these problems as a single, unified, overarching process. Alzheimer’s isn’t caused by any one of these disparate processes, but by a broader, more complex process that results in every one of these individual problems. Beta amyloid isn’t a cause, but a biomarker. Equally, tau proteins, phosphodiesterase levels, APOE4, presenilins, and a host of other markers are effects, not causes. The actual cause lies upstream and constitutes the root cause of the dozens of separate effects that are the futile downstream targets of every current FDA trial aimed at Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding this, we will be targeting the “upstream” problem, rather than the dozens of processes that others target individually and without success. Our animal studies support the ability to effectively intervene in human disease: when we say that we are about to cure Alzheimer’s disease, we base claim that on a clear and consistent theoretical model, supported by equally clear and consistent data.

Within the next few months, we will begin our FDA toxicity study, preparatory to obtaining an IND that will permit us to begin our FDA human trial. Our toxicity study will take 6 months and will meet FDA requirements for human safety data. Our first human trial is planned to begin one year from now and is intended to show not only safety, but a clear efficacy. We will include a dozen human volunteers, each with (not just early, but) moderate Alzheimer’s disease and our human trial will last 6 months, including a single treatment and multiple measurements of behavior, laboratory tests, and brain scans. We expect to show unambiguous cognitive improvement within that six-month period. We are confident that we cannot merely slow, not merely stop, but reverse much of the cognitive decline in our twelve patients. We intend to demonstrate an ability to cure Alzheimer’s disease clearly and credibly.

Curing Alzheimer’s requires investments of money, time, and thought. The toxicity study costs 1 million dollars; the human trial costs 2.5 million dollars. Telocyte has half a million dollars committed to this effort and at least one group of investors with a firm interest in taking us all the way through the human trials. We are close and we grow closer each day.

After 110 years, we are about to cure Alzheimer’s.

November 8, 2016

Revolution in Medicine

Every pharmaceutical firm, every biotech company, every hospital, every clinic, and every conference makes revolutionary claims, albeit seldom with any logic or thought behind the claims. Every product is a “revolutionary” therapy, every surgery is a “revolutionary” procedure, and everyone has a “revolutionary” way of looking at clinical medicine. Reality is strikingly different. Despite claims to the contrary, almost all advances in medicine are accretionary, not revolutionary. About sixty percent of all FDA applications for “breakthrough” status are turned down for not being breakthroughs, but merely incremental advances (if that). Even granting a third of these applications is overly kind, but then breakthroughs, like revolutions, are remarkably rare. I am reminded of my years consulting for hospitals around the world, where I was entertained to find every hospital, in every town, in every country, bragging that they were ranked as “one of the best ten hospitals!” Sometimes, they bragged that they were THE best hospital. Somehow, it appears that thousands of hospitals are among the best ten hospitals and hundreds are THE best hospital. In the entire world or on that block?

It clearly depends on who’s counting and on who does the ranking.

Therapies are much the same: they are seldom “the best” (in the world?) and they are almost never revolutionary. To the contrary, almost all current therapy is based on incremental change: we find a slightly better statin, an antibiotic with slightly less resistance (at least this year), and a procedure with a slightly lower risk. We rank our interventions by statistical significance and we deal with percentage points in the adverse effect profile. Scarcely the stuff of revolution.

We can do better; much better. To do so, however, requires both an open mind and a very disciplined one. We need both creativity and intelligence to envision a path to revolutionary therapies. If we do so, we may be able to cure diseases that are thought to be “incurable”, a true revolution I both clinical thinking and clinical practice.

Many people, in a totally practical vein, think of diseases in three categories. The first includes those diseases that we have “cures” for, by means of vaccines, antibiotics, and routine surgeries (think of tetanus, cellulitis, and appendicitis). The second category includes diseases for which we have no cure yet, but for which we see a cure on the horizon (think of treating sickle cell anemia with gene therapy). This second category includes type 1 diabetes: while we use insulin to good effect, we eagerly imagine the days when we simply replace the missing cells in the pancreas and truly cure diabetes. While we have – or imagine that we may soon have – true cures for these diseases in both the first two categories, the third category brings a sense of futility. When it comes to age-related disease (think of Alzheimer’s disease, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, etc.), we are caught up by the assumption that while we can treat symptoms, use grafts or stents, lower the risk factors, or replace the damaged part (a total knee replacement comes to mind), we will never be able to entirely prevent or cure the underlying disease. After all, they’re simply the outcome of aging, yes? And who could possibly change the aging process?

Oddly enough, we already have.

We first showed we could reverse cell aging in 1999, followed by the reversal of tissue aging (in the laboratory) in the following few years. The question isn’t “can we reverse the aging process in human cells or tissues”, but “can we reverse the aging process in human patients”? Can we take someone with age-related disease, treat them, and reverse the disease reverse at the cellular and genetic levels? Can we prevent and cure age-related disease? Based on both theory and animal data, the answer is almost certainly to be “yes, we can”. All it requires is intelligence, a modicum of work, and a small commitment of funding.

Instead of treating Alzheimer’s as something to live with, we can treat it and have it be something we can live without. Only then we will have a true revolution.

November 1, 2016

Making Things Worse

Imagine a factory which is operating at capacity, with a thousand workers. Some of the workers are doing a great job, but some are ill and not working hard. In fact, they are actively interfering with those who are working hard. In this factory, you can’t hire anyone new, so you have two choices: you can fire the bad workers or you try to improve their health. If you simply fire the bad workers, you have increased the work load for those who remain. Not surprisingly, they begin to get tired and ill as well, so the factory ends up failing even faster and before you know it, everyone is out of a job. On the other hand, if you can improve the health (and the attitude) of the workers who are tired and ill, the factory can become a success.

The factory is human tissue; the workers are your cells.

Let’s look at an example, such as the cells in your knee. Over time, the chondrocytes divide, become gradually more senescent, and begin to fail. The result is osteoarthritis. If you have mild osteoarthritis, you might (naively) consider simply removing senescent cells. This reliefs some of the inflammation and removes the cells that aren’t doing a good job (the tired workers), but the result is that you’ve just asked all the remaining cells to take up the slack (increased the work load for the remaining factory workers). In order to replace the cells that you’ve removed, the remaining cells now have to divide, which accelerates their own senescent changes, and hastens the failure of the entire tissue. In the case of the knee joint, the osteoarthritis improves temporarily, but you’ve just accelerated osteoarthritic changes in the long run. Instead of a slow joint failure, you’ve ensured that it fails even faster.

Several people have, in a charming burst of innocence, recommended that we do just that. Instead of resetting senescent cells and restoring cell and tissue function, they want to remove senescent cells in older tissues. Their hope is understandable, but their understanding is simplistic. Studies show that you may see temporary improvement in inflammation and secretory profiles, but what about long term risks? The problem is that those who want to kill off senescent cells lack a full appreciation of the dynamic pathology and the cellular consequences. They offer a simplistic view, but biology is seldom simplistic.

Why you shouldn't kill senescent cells.

Why you shouldn’t kill senescent cells.

 

Consider the knee again. A common concern is that of chondrocyte senescence (leading to osteoarthritis) in professional basketball players. Because of repetitive high-impact trauma, they lose chondrocytes at an accelerated rate compared to people whose knees are not subject to traumatic cell loss. The remaining chondrocytes divide to replace the lost chondrocytes, accelerating telomere loss, and accelerating osteoarthritic changes. The clinical result is due to tissue failure at an early age.

Those who are trying to treat tissue senescence by selectively removing senescent cells (instead of resetting them to a normal pattern of gene expression) are causing a transient improvement in tissue function, coincident upon the removal of dysfunctional, senescent cells (temporarily decreasing inflammatory biomarkers, for example), but the longer-term result is to accelerate cell senescence in all remaining cells. The result is a transient hiatus in inflammation and other biomarkers of cell senescence, followed by a more rapid decline in cell and tissue function. In the case of OA, for example, the outcome is to relief symptoms temporarily, only to then ensure a more rapid failure of the joint.

Our analogy remains apt. If you have a group of workers in a factory, some of whom are suffering from fatigue and are no longer producing, you have two possible interventions. Intervention #1 might be to fire all the tired workers, but the long-term result is that you increase the workload and failure rate among the remaining workers. Intervention #2 would be to find a way to restore the energy and interest among those workers who are fatigued. The analogy is a loose one, but the outcomes are predictable. Removing the “tired” cells within a tissue will accelerate pathology. Resetting the “tired” cells within a tissue will resolve pathology.

If you want to cure age-related disease, the solution is not to kill senescent cells, but to reset their gene expression to that of young cells.

 

October 18, 2016

The Carpets of Alzheimer’s Disease

Why do Alzheimer’s interventions always fail?

Whether you ask investors or pharmaceutical companies, it has become axiomatic that Alzheimer’s “has been a graveyard for many a company”, regardless of what they try. But in a fundamental way, all past and all current companies – whether big pharma or small biotech – try the same approach. The problem is that while they work hard at the details, they never examine their premises. They uniformly fail to appreciate the conceptual complexity involved in the pathology of Alzheimer’s. They clearly see the technical complexity, but ignore the deeper complexity. They see the specific molecule and the specific gene, but they ignore the ongoing processes that drive Alzheimer’s. Focusing on a simplistic interpretation of the pathology, they apply themselves – if with admirable dedication and financing – to the specific details, such a beta amyloid deposition.

But WHY do we have beta amyloid deposits? Why do tau proteins tangle, why do mitochondria get sloppy, and why does inflammation occur in the first place? Focusing on outcomes, rather than basic processes explains why all prior efforts have failed to affect the course of the disease, let alone offer a cure for Alzheimer’s.

Let’s use an analogy: think of a maintenance service. Any big organization, (university, pharmaceutical firm, group law practice, or hospital) has a maintenance budget. Routine maintenance ensures that – in the offices, clinics, or laboratories – carpets are vacuumed, walls are repainted, windows are cleaned, floors are mopped, and all the little details are taken care of on a regular basis. These are the details that make a place appear clean and well-cared for, providing a pleasant and healthy location. In most offices (as in our cells), we are often unaware of the maintenance, but quite aware of the end result: an agreeable location to work or visit. In any good workplace, as in our cells, maintenance is efficient and ongoing.

That’s true in young cells, but what happens in old cells?

Imagine what happens to a building if we cut its maintenance budget by 90%. Carpets begin to show dirt, windows become less clear, walls develop nicks and marks, and floors grow grimy and sticky. This is precisely what happens in old cells: we cut back on the maintenance and the result is that cells becomes less functional, because without continual maintenance, damage gradually accumulates. In the nervous system, beta amyloid, tau proteins, and a host of other things “sit around” without being recycled efficiently and quickly. Maintenance is poor and our cells accumulate damage.

All previous Alzheimer’s research has ignored the cut back in maintenance and focused on only a single facet, such as beta amyloid. You might say that they focused only on the dirty carpet and ignored the walls, the windows, and the floors. Even then, they have focused only on the “dirt”, and ignored the cut back in maintenance. Imagine an organization that has cut its maintenance budget. Realizing that they have a problem, they call in an outside specialist to focus exclusively on the loose dirt in the carpet, while ignoring the carpet stains, ignoring the window, walls, and floors, and then only coming in once. What happens? The carpets look better for a few days, but the office still becomes increasingly grungy and unpleasant. In the same way, if we use monoclonal antibodies (the outside specialist) to focus on beta amyloid plaque, the plaques may improve temporarily, but the Alzheimer’s disease continues and it is definitely unpleasant. Various companies have focused on various parts of the problem – the floors, the walls, the windows, or the carpets – but none of them have fixed the maintenance, so the fundamental problem continues. You can put a lot of effort and money into treating only small parts of Alzheimer’s, or you can understand the complex and dynamic nature of cell maintenance. Ironically, once you understand the complexity, the solution becomes simple.

The best solution is to reset cell maintenance to that of younger cells. Neurons and glial cells can again function normally, maintaining themselves and the cells around them. The outcome should be not another “graveyard for companies”, but life beyond Alzheimer’s .

 

August 8, 2016

Regenerative Medicine: What Is It? Where Is It Going?

What is regenerative medicine?

To bystanders, regenerative medicine might be merely a catch-all category or simply a current medical fashion. The reality, however, is that regenerative medicine represents a conceptual, material, and historical transformation of human medical care. Even the key researchers and clinicians who are moving this field ahead are often so busy in advancing the technology that they are less aware of the extraordinary changes that they represent, changes that are about to change the face of human medicine forever.

Regenerative medicine has marked differences, both conceptual and concrete differences, when compared to previous approaches to clinical intervention. These differences not only define the field, but they point our way to future progress and, frankly, to improvements in our health and in our lives.

The conceptual key is that regenerative medicine results in long-term (rather than transient) clinical improvements. Regenerative medicine is just that: an intervention that re-generates. Effective regenerative interventions change the body itself – and not merely a set of biomarkers or symptoms. Bluntly, regenerative medicine aims to improve biological function, rather than merely attempting to normalize abnormal biomarkers or symptoms of biological dysfunction. Even admitting the often impressive utility and efficacy of our standard medical interventions to date – for certainly we have come a long way in our ability to treat human disease – such approaches act as pharmacological Band-Aids. In contrast, regenerative medicine seeks to optimize the underlying genetic, cellular, and tissues processes that go awry.

Nor is this the only conceptual difference, for the time course is equally different. Standard clinical interventions generally have transient effects, for example in modifying inflammation, cholesterol, glucose levels, etc., while regenerative interventions generally have long-term (even permanent) changes to tissue and organ function. When most standard interventions may last for hours to days, regenerative interventions may last for years to decades. Even “definitive” surgical approaches (CABG, joint replacements, etc) have no effect upon the underlying disease process and are often merely recurrent stopgaps. Why replace an artificial joint (every decade or so), if we can possibly regrow a normal joint that might last a lifetime?

At its conceptual core, regenerative medicine offers us a more accurate and enlightened view of biological function. Regenerative medicine encompasses a view of biology that is active and dynamic, a view in which we aim to alter the processes rather than the products of biology. Consider diabetes, in which a regenerative approach strives to recreate normal islet cell function, where standard approaches strive to manage glucose levels. The difference is critical to understanding the efficacy of regenerative medicine: it views pathology as a dynamic process and aims to alter the process itself, rather than focusing on the products of such processes and aiming to alter the clinical results of those processes. The same pertains to surgical interventions in which regenerative medicine aims to alter the process of joint failure, rather than the product of joint failure. Regenerative medicine would regenerate a normal joint, where standard approaches implant an artificial joint.

Essentially, regenerative medicine aims to reset biological processes to those of a normal, healthy body.

The material features of regeneration medicine are equally distinctive. Instead of employing what are current called “small molecular” approaches, regenerative medicine uses “large molecular” approaches, generally by employing genes, stem cells, and other large biological structures. We might legitimately include immunization in this category: it not only employs a large biological structure (i.e.., an active virus or a complex set of antibodies), but it also results in a long-term change to the organism (i.e., improved immunity). Contrast this approach to the more common “small molecular” approach, typified by the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, statins, blood pressure medications, antibiotics, etc. While many such molecules are fairly complex and certainly not simple, nor are they large-scale biological structures such as viral vectors, plasmids, genes, or stem cells.

Regeneration medicine is typified by two common approaches: genes and cells. In either case, these interventions are large and active biological structures rather than small and passive chemical structures. Genes and cells do not merely interact with biological structures, they ARE biological structures. They not only interact with genes and cells, they ARE genes and cells.

The historical perspective on regenerative medicine is enlightening. What can the past tell us and what does the future hold? An apt historical analogy is that of infectious disease, particularly when we compare antibiotics and immunization. No one would be so naïve as to underestimate the value of antibiotics, but nor should we underestimate the limits of antibiotics. Faced with most viral infections, such as polio, tetanus, or diphtheria, antibiotics are ineffective. Those same viral infections are readily preventable, however, by immunization, using large and active biological structures (whether antigens or live virus).

Immunization is essentially a form of regenerative medicine, in that it results in a long-term change in the human body, a change that results in long-term health. The one difference is that immunizations don’t “re-generate” so much as they “generate” a healthier organism. Nonetheless, the similarity in addressing basic biological functions, in having a long-term effect, and in using large, active biological structures places immunization an historical forerunner for regenerative medicine. Consider a further analogy, that of Ebola. During the height of the Ebola epidemic, small molecular approaches (IV fluid, pressor support, etc) were useful, but far from optimal. Only an effective Ebola vaccine promises to lower the fatality rate into the single digit percent range. In viral infections (as we look backwards) and for the entirety of medicine (as we look forward) standard small molecular approaches are simply not good enough.

Such is the past, but what of the future? Our current standards of medical care cannot reasonably be considered optimal standards of care. We can do better, but only by moving to a regenerative approach. The upcoming standards of medical care will encompass two main approaches: genetic interventions and cellular interventions. In the first case, we will deliver both genes meant to replace pathologic genes and genes that are intended to reset gene expression. In the second case, we will deliver cells that are meant to replace pathologic (or absent) cells.

Genetic interventions encompass both genetic and epigenetic optimization. While the bulk of interest is currently focused on gene changes, remember that genes that regulate expression are far more important than genes that express proteins, both clinically and in terms of percentage of genes in our genome (we have 10-20 times more regulatory genes than we have protein-expressing genes). Although 20th century medicine has made dramatic inroads in our understanding of genes and disease, it remains to the 21st century to move into the far more difficult – and more important – task of understanding patterns of gene expression. In short, it is not genetics, but epigenetics that will prove to be the key to medical interventions. Viral delivery, telomere effects, cell senescence, and a host of other factors will define what we will soon be capable of. We have scarcely begun to enter this complex and confusing field.

Cellular interventions encompass a spectrum of cells, from somatic cells to pluripotent stem cells – and the entire gamut in between those extremes. It has become clear that pluripotent stem cells need not derive from fetal sources, but equally clear that our understanding of the complex path from stem cell to somatic cell is still inadequate – although increasing by the month.

Using an historical perspective to project forward, we begin to see where we can – finally – begin to address diseases that we have long ignored as being “facts of life”, such as the diseases of aging. Although public understanding (indeed, even academic understanding) lags behind the tantalizing and growing data, there is mounting evidence that we will be able to slow, stop, prevent, and even reverse diseases that we have no current treatment for. Consider, for example, osteoporosis. Until now, we have had no therapy that alters the clinical course that begins in the aging osteocyte and the bony matrix. Likewise, our treatment for osteoarthritis, joint replacement, may have value to the patient, but is an admission of failure when we realize that we have no therapy that alters the clinical course of this pathology, that begins in the aging chondrocyte and its matrix either. Arterial disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and a host of other diseases, almost all of which appear to be linked to basic cellular-related aging processes, are fast becoming viable targets for the advances of regenerative medicine.

From a purely practical perspective, how will a regenerative approach change medical care? Currently, medicine is – to a large extent – organized by organ (nephrology, neurology, cardiology, dermatology, etc.), although with an overlay based on the type of intervention (surgical versus medical). At the moment, regenerative medicine is something of a step-child, although gaining traction yearly. Although the approach is innovative, the tools themselves are adaptable within the current framework of medical specialties. There is, for instance, no reason that gene or cell therapy cannot be adopted by and adapted to most current medical specialties, a process that will come to completion within the coming two decades. Regenerative medical techniques equally become the intervention-of-choice for the pulmonologist, the gastroenterologist, or the endocrinologist. For medical specialties, regenerative medicine is an approach which is largely specialty-agnostic.

Surgical specialties, however, will fare a bit differently: where is the need for cardiovascular or orthopedic surgical approaches when we can regenerate both normal coronary arteries and normal joints? Over the next two decades, the face of surgical practice will change rapidly and will lose many of the most common procedures, as regenerative medicine makes effective inroads. Yet there will remain a place for both standard medical care (small molecular drugs) and for surgical procedures, even within a transformed medical landscape. The landscape will continue to change, requiring rapid adaptation for specialties and their practitioners as our knowledge and our capacity to intervene evolve.

Ultimately – if the word is even remotely appropriate to the future of medicine – medical care will still be left with two prongs: a medical approach that fixes the genetic, epigenetic, and cellular problems and a surgical approach that deals with acute, externally imposed disasters, such as trauma. The role of the first specialty will be to deal with non-emergent and known problems at cellular levels. The role of the second specialty will be to deal with emergent and largely unpredictable problems at the organ (rather than cellular) level. The parallel with the modern division between medicine and surgery is apt, but the tools will have evolved, as will the ability to not merely ameliorate, but actually cure disease and to optimize health.

If we are to define regenerative medicine, we might best understand its conceptual underpinnings, its materially different approach, or the historical inflection point that it now represents. In the venue of human disease, regenerative medicine thinks differently, uses different tools, and represents an historic sea-change. Looking at it practically, however, the most striking feature – and perhaps the defining feature – of regenerative medicine is that it offers all of us a more compassionate and a far more effective medical future.

This article is cross-posted at Regenera Global: http://bit.ly/2aMPKIq

 

July 20, 2016

Curing Disease: More Insight Instead of Mere Effort

 

Curing disease correlates with insight, not blind effort.

There is an eternal trade-off between insight and effort. If we think carefully, understand the problem, and plan, then effort is minimized. If (as too often happens) we think carelessly, misunderstand the problem, and rely on hope instead of planning, then effort is not only maximized, but is usually a complete waste. Lacking insight, we foolishly flush both money and effort down the drain. In the case of clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease – and in fact, all age-related diseases – this is precisely the case.

The major problem is a naïve complaisance that we already understand aging pathology.

If there was a single concept that is key to all of aging, it is the notion that everything in our organs, in our tissues, and in our cells is dynamically and actively in flux, rather than being a set of organs, tissues, cells, and molecules that statically and passively deteriorate. Aging isn’t just entropy; aging is entropy with insufficient biological response. Senescent cells no longer keep up with entropy, while young cells manage entropy quite handily. At the tissue level, the best example might be bone. We don’t form just bone and then leave it to the mercy of entropy, rather we continually recycle bony tissue throughout our lives – although more-and-more slowly as our osteocytes lose telomere length. This is equally true at the molecular level, for example the collagen and elastin molecules in our skin. We don’t finish forming collagen and elastin in our youth and then leave it to the vagaries of entropy, rather we continually recycle collagen and elastin molecules throughout our lives, although more-and-more slowly as our skin cells lose telomere length. Aging is not a process in which a fixed amount of bone, collagen, or elastin gradually erodes, denatures, or becomes damaged. Rather, aging is a process in which the rate of recycling of bone, collagen, or elastin gradually slows down as our shortening telomeres alter gene expression, slowing the rate of molecular turnover, and allowing damage to get ahead of the game. We don’t age because we are damaged, we age because cells with shortening telomeres no longer keep up with the damage.

The same is true not only of biological aging as a general process, but equally true of every age-related disease specifically. Vascular disease is not a disease in which our arteries are a static tissue that gradually gives way to an erosive entropy, but an active and dynamic set of cells that gradually slow their turnover of critical cellular components, culminating in the failure of endothelial cell function, the increasing pathology of the subendothelial layer, and the clinical outcomes of myocardial infarction, stroke, and a dozen other medical problems. Merely treating cholesterol, blood pressure, and hundreds of other specific pathological findings does nothing to reset the epigenetic changes that lie upstream and that cause those myriad changes. Small wonder that we fail to change the course of arterial disease if our only interventions are merely “stents and statins”.

Nor is Alzheimer’s a disease in which beta amyloid and tau proteins passively accumulate over time as they become denatured, resulting in neuronal death and cognitive failure. Alzheimer’s is a disease in which the turnover – the binding, the uptake, the degradation, and the replacement – of key molecules gradually slows down with telomere shortening, culminating in the failure of both glial cell and neuron function, the accumulation of plaques and tangles, and ending finally in a profound human tragedy. The cause is the change in gene expression, not the more obvious plaques and tangles.

Our lack of insight, even when we exert Herculean efforts – enormous clinical trials, immense amounts of funding, and years of work – is striking for a complete failure of every clinical trial aimed at Alzheimer’s disease. Naively, we target beta amyloid, tau proteins, phosphodiesterase, immune responses, and growth factors, without ever understanding the subtle upstream causes of these obvious downstream effects. Aging, aging diseases, and especially Alzheimer’s disease are not amenable to mere well-intended efforts. Without insight, our funding, our time, and our exertions are useless. Worse yet, that same funding time, and exertion could be used quite effectively, if used intelligently. If our target is to cure the diseases of aging, then we don’t need more effort, but more thought. However well intentioned, however much investment, however many grants, and however many clinical trials, all will be wasted unless we understand the aging process. Aging is not a passive accumulation of damage, but an active process in which damage accumulates because cells change their patterns of gene expression, patterns which can be reset.

Curing Alzheimer’s requires insight and intelligence, not naive hope and wasted effort.

 

 

July 5, 2016

Dynamic versus Static – Going to Mars or Curing AD

Innovation requires novel thinking, not incremental actions.

We can cure age-related diseases – such as Alzheimer’s – not with funding, intelligence, or effort alone, but only if we reassess our assumptions. Until we look carefully at our conceptual foundations, we cannot expect to build a therapeutic structure. Ironically, the key problem lies in our looking at biology, medicine, and disease as static, passive processes. One would think we would see these processes as active and dynamic, but oddly enough, we don’t.

Consider an analogy: going to visit Mars.

Clearly, we need some essentials of life-support, such as oxygen and water. If we start by asking ourselves how much of each we need per day per person, then how many days and how many persons, we end up with an enormous need for both: huge amounts of oxygen, huge amounts of water. After all, we don’t want to run out of oxygen or water, do we?

Remember, however, that in a closed system (such as a vehicle going to Mars), that neither oxygen nor water are actually used up en route, only changed from one form (such as oxygen molecules) to another (such as carbon dioxide molecules). The water molecules may be in the form of body waste, but they are still present in the vehicle. And both oxygen and water – given energy and technical forethought – can be recycled and reused indefinitely. The practical question is not simply “how much oxygen and water do we need”, but “how efficiently and quickly can we recycle oxygen and water?” In short, the key question isn’t the static and passive one of “how fast are we using up our oxygen and water?”. The key question is the active and dynamic one of “how does the rate of recycling compare to the rate of oxygen and water use?”

The analogy is exact.

In the case of Alzheimer’s, for example, the key question isn’t “how can we prevent the accumulation of beta amyloid and tau protein?”, but rather “how can we increase the rate of recycling of molecules such as beta amyloid and tau proteins?” The former question would be like asking “how can we prevent the use of oxygen and water?”, while we should be asking “how can we increase the recycling efficiency of oxygen and water?”

Current approaches to treating Alzheimer’s disease focus inordinate funding, intelligence, and effort on the wrong question. Small wonder they fail.

June 18, 2016

Faster Horses?

Often, when problems seem intractable, we’re asking the wrong questions.

We want to get to the moon: how can we jump higher? We want to get to the stars: how can we make bigger rockets? As Henry Ford once suggested, people wanted a better way to travel, so they wanted to know how to breed faster horses. Wrong questions.

Aging, and its multiple diseases are no different.

Without realizing it, we start by assuming that we already understand aging, then can’t understand why nothing cures the diseases of aging. Small wonder that Margaret Chan, the director of the WHO, stated we should “give up the curative model” of diseases of aging. In her report late last year, she urged us to focus on inequity and prejudice. If we had focused on inequity and prejudice in 1950 when polio was rampant, we would still have polio. Everyone would have an equal opportunity to have leg braces or access to iron lungs and we would have laws to prevent anyone “micro-aggressing” against those with a limp. Good things in their own way, but would you rather have equitable iron lungs or would you prefer to have a cure for polio? Equitable disease or disease prevention?

The WHO believes in political solutions – social band aids – rather than medical solutions. Frustration is understandable: so many approaches appear so futile. We can prevent polio, yet it seems impossible to prevent Alzheimer’s disease. Small wonder that few of us truly believe that we can do anything substantial and innovative. Like people determined to jump higher and higher, in hopes of reaching the moon on muscle power alone, we celebrate the tiniest elevation increase. Eli Lilly and company celebrated a possible 3 month delay (as their Alzheimer’s patients still progressed to an intractable death), and their stock price jumped higher as well. Yet, no matter how high we learn to jump, no matter how we learn to “breed faster horses”, we are still asking the wrong questions. Small wonder success appears impossible.

What is Alzheimer’s disease? Is it merely a slow, passive accumulation of amyloid and tau tangles? Or are those merely the effects of some more important upstream cause? We treat the symptoms, we treat the effects, then become frustrated when the disease continues its slow sweep of souls into oblivion.

Yet if we could understand what underlies a disease like Alzheimer’s, we might yet reach not only the moon, but the stars. To do so will take a far better way to travel than merely “faster horses”.

In order to cure, we first need to understand.

 

June 7, 2016

Innovation in Medicine – It’s About Time

Filed under: Aging diseases,Alzheimer's disease — Tags: , — admin @ 2:11 pm

Everyone favors innovation and diversity, as long as you’re not innovative or diverse. This remark, snarky as it is, is also (heartbreakingly) accurate. We argue that we support innovation, but we fight to prevent innovative concepts or industries. The more innovative an idea, the more we actively resist, regulate, and revolt against that idea. Diversity too, is something we favor only in small doses, despite naïve protestations to the contrary.

It’s not really surprising. If I have devoted my entire life to perfecting the best possible leather equipage for a horse-and-buggy, then my idea of innovation is better quality leather, and I actively disparage the idea of a horseless carriage with its internal combustion engine. In the 16th century, prior to Copernicus, most astronomers favored “innovation” by looking for more precise epicycles in their models of a geocentric universe. In the last years of the 19th century, prior to relatively and quantum theory, most physicists favored innovation in making ever more precise measurements of the universe of classical physics.

Much the same could be said of medicine. In medieval Europe, the physician’s view of innovation in treating and preventing bubonic plague was to find just the right flowers and herbs. Innovation consisted of finding more highly scented plants, not in finding a vaccine. In revolutionary America, the physician’s view of innovation lay in tweaking the process of blood-letting to get just the right amount of blood loss and at just the right time. So much for medical innovation.

Yet there have been successes. If Salk hadn’t found a truly innovative approach to preventing polio in 1954, we would still be working on “innovative” approaches to better iron lungs, stronger leg braces, more effective rehabilitation exercises and other sub-optimal approaches to polio. Despite some successes in medical history – sterile surgical procedures, antibiotics, better hygiene, and vaccines all come to mind – we still aren’t particularly innovative. The FDA, for example, routinely turns down two thirds of all applications for “breakthrough therapy” on the grounds that the proposed therapy isn’t even vaguely innovative, let alone effective. Yet we continue to push a “new” statin, a “better” artificial joint, or a “more successful” heart transplant approach as being innovative, which they are not. We even see medical journals touting cost-saving methods as being “innovative”. Useful, safer, faster, or cheaper perhaps, but they are only incremental, certainly not innovative.

To actually prevent and reverse age-related disease would be innovative. It is also feasible, yet many physicians and researchers – despite protestations of how innovative they are in finding a more potent pain reliever, a statin with fewer side effects, a cheaper biphosphonate, or a more predictive gene for an age-related disease – still can’t quite bring themselves to be innovative or to think innovatively. To be innovative requires that – like Copernicus, Einstein, or a diverse group of innovators – we step back, we examine our assumptions, and, while looking at the same data that others are looking at, we see things that no one else has seen.

Innovation requires us to see the world as it is, not merely as everyone thinks it is.

 

May 12, 2016

Telomeres: Are They Worth Measuring?

It’s funny how often we make assumptions that are not only wrong, but that we are completely unaware of making. Having spent more than twenty years dealing with the clinical implications of cell aging, telomeres come to mind as an immediate example of this mistake.

Hardly a week goes by without another claim that some particular intervention alters telomere lengths in human patients. Without exception, they are measuring telomeres in peripheral white blood cells. It’s easy to get blood samples and measure telomeres in circulating white cells. Unfortunately, not only are these telomeres the ones that matter least, but (if you’re trying to prove the value of your intervention) they’re almost worthless.

Measuring telomeres in your blood to see how old you are is a bit like looking at your hat size to figure out how tall you are. Whether it’s your peripheral blood telomeres or your hat size, it’s still the wrong measurement for the job.

There are two problems with measuring telomeres in blood cells (even totally ignoring arguments about technical methods, unreliable laboratories, and the mean length versus the shortest lengths of those telomeres).

The first problem is that the blood cells aren’t the key cells when it comes to aging and age-related diseases. If you really want to know where you stand clinically, you should be measuring the telomeres in the endothelial cells lining your coronary arteries, the glial cells in your brain, the chondrocytes in your joints, or several other places more closely related to the most common (and fatal) aging diseases. Few of us are willing to have biopsies taken from our coronary arteries, our brain, or our joints, but just because we are a lot more relaxed about giving a blood sample doesn’t mean that the blood sample is worth getting. It barely reflects what’s going on in your white cells, let alone what is going to end up causing disease and death.

The second problem is a more subtle, but more important. It boils down to this: most of your white cells aren’t circulating in your blood and the ones that do circulate are changing and dividing all the time, making them a poor reflection of what’s happening to the stem cells in your marrow. I wrote an academic review article about this in 2012 and discussed it in The Telomerase Revolution, but let’s look at it here. Imagine you can instantly and accurately measure every telomere in the body, including those in the bone marrow and peripheral venous circulation. Oddly enough, you’d discover that the blood tests aren’t reliable indicators of what’s happening in the marrow.

Let’s say that you measure all of the telomeres at time A and again at time B. In between A and B, you use an intervention such as gene therapy, TA65, mediation, dietary change, or whatever you think might be effective. At time A, you find that the telomeres in the hematopoietic cells of the marrow are 12 kbp long. At the same time (due to stress, infection, poor diet, inflammation, and generally poor health habits) there is rapid peripheral turnover, cell division, and telomere loss in the peripheral blood. As a result, the mean telomere length in the blood sample is only 8 kbp.

We then intervene.

At time B, you find that the telomeres in the hematopoietic stem cells in the marrow are now only 11 kbp long (showing that the patient has gotten older). Also at time B, since we might now have lowered stress, removed infections, decreased inflammation, and generally made the patient “healthier” with whatever intervention we may have chosen, their peripheral cells are now turning over more slowly, dividing less frequently, and losing less telomere lengths once they leave the marrow and enter peripheral circulation, so that the mean telomere length in the peripheral blood sample is now 9 kbp.

We could claim (as many articles do) that our clinical intervention “lengthened the peripheral telomeres!” The truth is that our intervention didn’t lengthen anything and we’re deluding ourselves (and whoever believes our claims). The peripheral telomeres that we sample at time B might be longer than the ones we sampled at time A, but the telomeres of the cells back in the marrow now have shorter telomeres. Our intervention may well have made the patient healthier and we might actually have slowed down the rate of telomere loss, but we definitely didn’t lengthen any telomeres, no matter how proudly we pat ourselves on the back.

Peripheral leukocytes are routinely used to assess telomere lengths (which is fine as far as it goes) and then used to assess clinical interventions, which is overreaching. If we do serial measures of peripheral telomeres every few months for a few years, then the validity will increase somewhat, but peripheral telomere measurements (no matter how often you measure them) are intrinsically an unreliable and invalid biomarker for what we really want to assess, which is “whole body telomere changes” or at least “marrow telomere changes” (in the case of blood cells).

Most of the available literature which suggests that we can slow or reverse telomere losses is – if it’s based on peripheral blood samples – misleading at best and unethical at worst.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress