Michael Fossel Michael is President of Telocyte

March 21, 2017

The Frustration of (Not) Curing Alzheimer’s

I am deeply frustrated by two plangent observations: 1) we squander scant resources in useless AD trials and 2) AD can easily be cured if we applied those same resources to useful AD trials. Applying our resources with insight, we will cure Alzheimer’s within two years.

The first frustration is that most pharmaceutical firms and biotech companies continue to beat their heads against the same wall, regardless of clinical results. Whether they attack beta amyloid, tau proteins, mitocondrial function, inflammation, or any other target, the results have been, without exception, complete clinical failures. To be clear, many studies can show that you can affect beta amyloid or other biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, but none of these studies show any effect on the clinical outcome. In the case of amyloid, it doesn’t matter whether you target production or the plaques themselves. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars, despite tens of thousands of patients, not one of these trials has ever shown clinical efficacy. Yet these same companies continue to not only run into walls, but remained convinced that if they can only run faster and hit the wall faster, they will somehow successfully breach the wall. They succeed only in creating headaches, accompanied by lost money, lost opportunities, and lost patients. The problem is not a lack of intelligence or ability. The researchers are – almost without exception – some of the most intelligent, well-educated, technically trained, and hard-working people I know. The irony is that they are some of the best 20th century minds I know. The problem, however, is that it is no longer the 20th century. If you refuse to adapt, refuse to change your paradigm, refuse to come into the 21st century, you will continue to get 20th century results and patients will continue to die of Alzheimer’s disease. Money and intelligence continues to be dumped into the same clichéed paradigm of pathology, as we aim at the wrong targets and misunderstand how Alzheimer’s works. And the result is… tragedy.

The second frustration is that we already know the right target and we already understand how Alzheimer’s disease works. We are entirely able to cure and prevent Alzheimer’s disease now. At Telocyte, we simply lack the resources to move ahead without delay. We have the tools, we have the people, we have the partners, and the ability to take this through FDA trials. Within 24 months, we can cure Alzheimer’s disease. All it takes is a few investors who can see the 21st century.

 

January 17, 2017

Intuition and Air Planes

The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.

— Albert Einstein, 1938

 

Most “advances” are purely incremental. We make minor advances in current techniques or technology, we marginally improve our existing surgery or drugs, or we precisely define the specifications of previously known molecules. Rarely do we develop a novel technology, an unprecedented therapy, or a distinctively new theory. Truly innovative, unexpected, and compelling changes require that – as Einstein said – we “regard old problems from a new angle.” Genuine advances in science don’t require experimental skill, they require conceptual creativity.

Advances require us to look at things in an entirely new way.

Our ability to cure age-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, does not depend on incremental improvements, but on exactly such changes in how we look at things. The same, it turns out, is true of aging and – oddly enough – telomeres. We automatically view the world through our preconceptions, and this has always been true. Upon seeing the world’s first automobile, and unable to grasp the idea of a “horseless carriage”, we asked where the horse was attached. Upon seeing the world’s first television, and unable to grasp the idea of an electron tube, we asked how tiny people fit into that television cabinet. We continually look at new things, but we see them using old eyes.

As an analogy, imagine a group of castaways who have spend years trapped on a large, unexplored, tropical island. Two of the castaways are exploring an unfamiliar beach, when they come upon a large, entirely unexpected, and unfamiliar object. The first castaway, a bright academic, carefully measures the dimensions of every single part of the object. She tells the rest of the castaways about her measurements and they present her with an award for her hard work. To some acclaim, she explains that the unknown object might actually prove useful: the castaways could use it to 1) hang up their laundry, 2) provide shade from the hot tropical sun, and, 3) offer shelter during tropical storms. The second castaway has a more intuitive and creative bent. He carefully looks over the object, announces that it’s a plane, and offers to fly it off the island and save their lives.

Small Jet Plane

Sometimes, it’s not the measurements, it’s the ability to see new possibilities.

In the case of aging and age-related diseases, the odd thing is that most people don’t see how anything can be done. They still want to hang their laundry on the wings of the plane, without realizing that the airplane can fly them to safety. At best, they concede that aging might be slowed down, perhaps with diet, exercise, stress management, and other behavioral changes. The idea that aging can be reversed, or that age-related diseases can be cured, is anathema to their thinking, despite the solid evidence in cells, tissues, and animal studies. I first described the potential of telomeres for clinical therapy 20 years ago and the evidence has been growing steadily since then, yet the general public, the media, and many academics still think of telomeres as a place to hang laundry, provide shade, and offer shelter from the rain. Is it really that hard to recognize a plane? Apparently so.

It would appear that the only way to show people what telomeres can do is to fly the plane and safe lives.

 

January 9, 2017

Conceptual Blinders

 

A week or so ago, an AI beat the world’s reigning champion in the game of Go.

The odd thing is not that it happened, but how it was done. By itself, the victory would just be one more example of “computers beating humans”, but there is a far more interesting and important facet to this event. Not only did the AI beat the world’s Go masters and the reigning world champion, but it did it, not by being better at using the known strategies and tactics, long the province of Go adepts, but by using “unconventional positions“ and “moves that seemed foolish but inevitably led to victory” (WSJ, January 5, 2017). In short, the AI went into playing the game without conceptual blinders. It developed novel (and effective) strategies based on reality, rather than on preconceived views of how the game “ought” to be played. Had the AI been programmed by Go masters, it wouldn’t have fared as well. It succeeded because it lacked the limitations that we as human beings unknowingly use when we approach a problem.

go-game-boardIF our assumptions create limits, then our outcomes are limited.

The same problem – our own assumptions – proscribes the limits of what we can do in science and medicine. If we simply program a computer to “delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease by lowering all known risk factors”, it might succeed, but the solution would be limited by how we set up the problem. In short, assumptions limit outcomes. If we merely restrict the program to lowering risks, then a computer program can’t show us how to cure Alzheimer’s. Such a program might, for example, recommend dietary changes, moving away from major highways and pollution, lowering blood pressure, avoiding infections, improving dental hygiene, lowering stress, and a myriad other changes that might delay Alzheimer’s. But the programs, the questions we pose, presuppose that Alzheimer’s can’t cured or prevented, only delayed. If we preclude finding a way to win, then all we find is a better way to lose.

Consider the historical analogs. If I want more efficient communication, I don’t ask a computer to design a better telegraph. If I want more efficient transportation, I don’t ask the computer to design a faster horse. If I want to cure polio, I don’t program a computer to design a better iron lung. And if I want to cure Alzheimer’s, I shouldn’t design a better way to attack amyloid, tau proteins, inflammation, or mitochondrial dysfunction. Merely because I’ve already assumed that those are the only strategies, I have limited my outcomes. If Alzheimer’s interventions are restricted to merely optimizing old strategies, we will never cure it.

Why be satisfied with a better telegraph, a faster horse, or a more efficient iron lung?

Programmed solutions, based on preconceived limits are a case of GIGO: “garbage in, garbage out”. True advances in science and medicine are not incremental; they demand innovative perceptions and constant reexamination of our premises. The example of an AI beating the world’s reigning Go champion wasn’t the result of incremental improvements in coding all of the Go strategies known to previous champions into a program and then tasking the program with implementing those accepted strategies. The AI was tasked with winning, regardless of previously accepted strategies. As a result, the AI actually WON, unexpectedly, but reliably, using innovative, startling, and unexpected approaches.

If we want to cure Alzheimer’s disease, we can’t use incremental approaches to time-worn (and uniformly ineffective) strategies. Like the AI playing Go, we need to stop focusing on accepted strategies and ask the fundamental question: how do we win? Not “how do we optimize the same old strategies?”, but how do we actually WIN? We shouldn’t rely on “programmed” approaches; we should toss out our preconceived programs, and ask how to win. With regard to Alzheimer’s disease, we need to stop asking how to optimize losing strategies and ask how to cure Alzheimer’s. Not “how do we lower amyloid levels?” or “how do we reduce tau tangles?”, but how do we cure and prevent the disease in the first place? If we really want to make a difference, then we need to free ourselves from our preconceptions and our old programming, and begin to ask the fundamental question: how can we cure Alzheimer’s?

Truly innovative approaches demand a ruthless reassessment of our assumptions.

We will cure Alzheimer’s only if we have the wit to truly use our own intelligence, with honesty, perceptiveness, and a willingness to examine reality.

December 29, 2016

The Ethics of Gene Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease

The Ethics of Telomerase Treatment

 

The rationale behind telomerase therapy was first published in the medical literature two decades ago1 and has been updated and supported in academic textbooks2 and a more recent book for the public3 as well. The theoretical basis was cogent, even twenty years ago, and evidence has continued to support the hypothesis since then, in human cells, in human tissues, in informal human trials, and in formal animal trials. The potential implications of telomerase interventions in human age-related disease are unprecedented, well-supported, consistent, and feasible. The surprise is not that this approach is practical, but that it has taken so long to get telomerase therapy into clinical trials.

The reasons for the delay are complex and subtle, but are part of human nature.

For one thing, the clinical use of telomerase requires a novel and more sophisticated understanding of the aging process itself – at the genetic and epigenetic level – than has been the case until recently. Whenever a new scientific paradigm comes into play – whether a geocentric solar system, biological evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, or anything else – it takes time for us to outgrow previous, less accurate models and to accept a more complex, but more accurate understanding of reality. Reality is not a democracy and a consensus is no guarantee of truth.

Putting it bluntly: old theories never die, their proponents do.

A second problem is credibility. In the case of telomerase clinical trials, there have been a number of cases in which individuals or companies (impatient with the regulatory delays so common in modern drug development) have attempted “end runs” of social and regulatory acceptance. Unfortunately (and perhaps unfairly), these off-shore human trials are often judged as lacking credibility and this can also undercut the credibility of other attempts. If a company evades the FDA (or the accepted regulatory agencies in other countries, such as the EMA or CFDA) and runs small off shore trials their results are not only specifically disbelieved, but result in general disbelief, even of serious biotech endeavors that DO attempt to meet FDA requirements. Moreover, the companies that attempt “end runs” often seek publicity and the outcome can be a perception that while there is significant publicity, that’s all there is. Unfairly or accurately, the academic judgement becomes one of “incredible claims, but no credible data”. Fair or unfair, just or unjust, such is human nature and such is the nature of clinical research in today’s world.

A third problem is a general misunderstanding of the role of telomerase in cancer. Telomerase never causes cancer, although small amounts can be necessary to permit cancer. More striking, however, is the role of telomerase in genomic stability: telomerase upregulates DNA repair, drastically lowering the risk of cancer. Dividing cells – including cancer cells – require at least minimal telomerase, yet a significant presence of telomerase (and sufficiently long telomeres) is protective against cancer. Some have even suggested that cancer is a disease of the young, and attribute it to the presence of telomerase, but the clinical reality is that cancer increases exponentially with age and that this increase is directly attributable to the down-regulation of DNA repair due to telomere shortening. In short, telomerase can be used to prevent cancer.

A fourth problem is a naïve conception of the pathology that underlies Alzheimer’s disease (and other age-related diseases). Citing data on mice, genetically altered to express a human amyloid protein, they extrapolate the results to human Alzheimer’s patients without appreciating the complex cascade of pathology that actually occurs in humans, let alone the differences between mice and human patients.

Finally, some people argue with the ethics of treating Alzheimer’s disease in clinical trials at all, let alone by using gene therapy. One wonders whether they have ever spend a year or two watching a loved one slide down into the abyss. I have known hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Alzheimer’s patients and their family members. Almost without exception, most would do literally anything, try literally anything in an effort to find a cure. The pity of AD is that it is 100% fatal and there is NO effective therapy – at the moment. While few of us would risk an experimental gene therapy (even one as promising at telomerase) to treat wrinkles or osteoporosis (particularly since neither one is fatal), all of us would consider such therapy to treat Alzheimer’s disease. It is scarcely surprising that scarcely a day goes by without someone contacting me, asking about potential treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. These are not people who live in ivory towers, these are not people with a “degree in microbiology”, these are people who are deeply and personally affected by the tragedy.

They’ve BEEN there. They UNDERSTAND.

One critic of gene therapy noted that: “there are 7 patients killed by gene therapy clinical trials” (over the past 20 years). Compare this with the seven hundred thousand Alzheimer’s patients who died in 2016 alone of not having had gene therapy. Why would I choose to be one of 700,000 deaths per year?

For those of us who have spent decades treating dying patients, for those of us who have Alzheimer’s disease, and for those of us who are terrified by what is happening to those we love who have Alzheimer’s disease, the ethics of using gene therapy to try curing the most frightening disease on earth are clear enough.

The ethical weight lies on the side of compassion.

 

 

  1. Fossel: Reversing Human Aging (1996) . Banks and Fossel: Telomeres, cancer, and aging – Altering the human lifespan (JAMA, 1997). Fossel: Telomerase and the aging cell – Implications for human health (JAMA, 1998).
  2. Fossel: Cells, Aging, and Human Disease (Oxford University Press, 2004).
  3. Fossel: The Telomerase Revolution (BenBella Press, 2015).

December 13, 2016

Telomeres: The Purloined Letter of Aging

     “What is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound.”

                                                Edgar Allen Poe

 Edgar Allen Poe is still well-known for his poetry, he is less well-known for his detective stories. Some 170 years ago, his Parisian amateur detective, Dupin, was the conceptual forerunner for Sherlock Holmes, who made his London debut almost half a century later. Poe also made a series of observations that echo, even today, as we try to understand aging, age-related disease, and how we can cure them.

Poe’s detective pointed out that even intelligent, meticulous investigators are often oblivious to the obvious. The same can even be true of modern scientific investigators, who may focus so closely on their hard-won facts that the relationships between those facts – and their implications – are often overlooked. In aging research, for example, many investigators focus so intensely on genes, proteins, and small-molecular therapies, that they can miss the broader picture and miss an effective approach to curing the diseases of aging. Putting it simply, too often we focus our intellect, our education, and our strenuous effort on the “nouns”, but we entirely miss the “verbs”. We know the data, we fail to see what it means.

The intellect, the education, the dedication, and the funding are enormous, but our focus is off-target and the results, as expected, are futile. Truth, Poe tells us, is frequently overlooked, regardless of how intense our investigation. In describing such a case (in Poe’s case a policeman, in our case a scientist), Poe put it this way:

“… he erred continually by the very intensity of his investigations. He impaired his vision by holding the object too close. He might see, perhaps, one or two points with unusual clearness, but in so doing he, necessarily, lost sight of the matter as a whole. Thus there is such a thing as being too profound. Truth is not always in a well. In fact, as regards the more important knowledge, I do believe that she is invariably superficial.”

 As Poe suggest, we seek truth in the depth of a well in a valley, while truth is usually sitting in plain sight on the (easily visualized) mountain tops surrounding that valley. Such is the case with aging. It’s not that the truth is simple, for aging is far more complex than most of us give it credit for, but the truth is not found in the narrow details so much as it found in the overview of those details. The truth really is on the mountain tops, not in the bottom of a well, even when that well includes reams of data. It’s not the amount of data that is crucial, but the implications of that data. To give an example from clinical medicine, I may know everything about a patient’s fever, their hypotension, their abnormal white count, and their vomiting, but the numbers alone aren’t nearly as important as the realization that the patient has Ebola. Curing an Ebola infection cannot be relegated to lowering a fever, increasing the IV fluid, removing white cells, and given an anti-emetic. It’s not the individual therapies that cure Ebola, it’s the realization that you’re dealing with a viral infection and the use of a more general – and more effective – therapy, whether an antiviral or an immunization.

There is a parallel in understanding aging.

Treating the diseases of aging is not a matter of using individual therapies, but a matter of understanding the more profound relationships that change in aging cells. Until we do so, we will continue to fail when we try monoclonal antibodies for beta amyloid – as Eli Lilly finally realized with its Solanezumab trials – or merely attack tau proteins, mitochondrial changes, inflammation, or other targets. In each case, we have mistaken a plethora of data for a profundity of data. Only when we realize the actual complexity, the dynamic biological relationships, the profound effects of epigenetic changes, the role of telomeres as a therapeutic target, and that the fundamental pathology of aging and age-related diseases is rooted in cell senescence, only then will we — to our own vast and naïve surprise — discover that we can cure most of the diseases that still plague humankind.

 

November 22, 2016

Teaching Cells to Fish

Aging is the slowing down of active molecular turnover, not the passive accumulation of damage. Damage certainly accumulates, but only because turnover is no longer keeping up with that damage.

It’s much like asking why one car falls apart, when another car looks like it just came out of the showroom. It’s not so much a matter of damage (although if you live up north and the road salt eats away at your undercarriage, that’s another matter), as it is a matter of how well a car is cared for. I’ve see an 80-year-old Duesenberg that looks a lot better than my 4-year-old SUV. It’s not how well either car was made, nor how long either car has been around, but how well each car was cared for. If I don’t care for my SUV, my SUV rusts; if a car collector gives weekly (even daily) care to a Duesenberg, then that Duesenberg may well last forever.

The parallel is apt. The reason that “old cells” fall apart isn’t that they’ve been around a long time, nor even that they are continually being exposed to various insults. The reason “old cells” fall apart is that their maintenance functions slow noticeably and that maintenance fails to keep up with the quotidian damage occurring within living cells. If we look at knees, for example, the reason that our chondrocytes fail isn’t a matter of how many years you’ve been on the planet, nor even a matter of how many miles a day you spend walking around. The reason chondrocytes fail is because their maintenance functions slow down and stop keeping up with the daily damage. As it turns out, that deceleration in maintenance occurs because of changes in gene expression, which occur because telomeres shorten, which occur because cells divide. And, not at all surprisingly, the number of those cell divisions is related to how long you’ve been on the planet (how old you are) and how many miles you walk (or if you play basketball). In short, osteoarthritis is distantly related to your age and to the “mileage” you incur, but not directly so. The problem is not really the age nor is it the mileage; the problem is the failure to repair the routine damage and THAT failure is directly controlled by changes in gene expression.

So what?

The telomeres and gene expression may play a central role, but if your age and the “mileage” is distantly causing all those changes in cell division, telomere lengths, gene expression, and failing cell maintenance, then what’s the difference? Why bother with all the complexity? Why not accept that age and your “mileage” are the cause of aging diseases and stop fussing? Why not simply accept age-related disease?

Because we can change it.

The question isn’t “why does this happen?” so much as “what can we do about it?” We can’t change your age and it’s hard to avoid a certain amount of “mileage” in your daily life, but we CAN change telomeres, gene expression, and cell maintenance. In fact, we can reset the entire process and end up with cells that keep up with damage, just as your cells did when you were younger.

Until now, everyone who has tried to deal with only the damage (or the damaged cells) failed because they focused on damage rather than focusing on repair. For example, if you focus only on cell damage (as most big pharma and biotech companies do when they go after beta amyloid or tau proteins in trying to cure Alzheimer’s disease), then any clinical effect is transient and the disease continues to progress – which is why companies like Eli Lily, Biogen, TauRx, and dozens of other companies are frustrated. And small wonder. Or if you focus only on the damaged cells (and try removing them), then the clinical effect is not only transient, but will end up accelerating deterioration (as discussed in last week’s blog, see figure below) – which is why companies like Unity will be frustrated. Their approaches fail not because they don’t address the damage, but because they fail to understand the deceleration of dynamic cell maintenance that occurs with age – and fail to understand the most effective single clinical target. The key target is not damage, nor damaged cells, but the changes in gene expression that permit that damage, and those damaged cells, to lead to pathology. We can’t cure Alzheimer’s or osteoarthritis by removing senescent cells, but we can cure them by resetting those same cells.

Why you shouldn't kill senescent cells.

Why you shouldn’t kill senescent cells.

In the cases of removing senescent cells (an approach Unity advocates), wouldn’t it be better to remove the damaged cells and then reset the telomeres of those that remain? But why remove the damaged cells if you can reset them as well, with the result that they can now deal with the damage and remove it – as well as young cells do?

Why remove senescent cells at all?

While you could first remove senescent cells, then add telomerase so that the remaining cells could divide without significant degradation of function, why would you bother? You could much more easily, more simply, and more effectively treat all the cells in an aging tissue, reset their aging process and have no need to ever remove senescent cells in the first place. Instead of removing them, you simply turn them into “younger” and more functional cells. For an analogy, imagine that we have a therapy that could turn cancer cells into normal cells. If that were true, why would anyone first surgically remove a tumor? If you could really “reset” cancer cells into normal cells, there would be no need to do a surgical removal in the first place. While there is no such therapy for cancer cells, the analogy is still useful. Removing senescent cells is not only counter-productive, but (if we reset gene expression) entirely unnecessary.

Removal is unnecessary (both as to cost and pathology), risky, and medically contraindicated. You’d be performing a completely unnecessary procedure when a more cost-effective and reliable procedure was available. It would be exactly like removing your tonsils if you already had overwhelming data showing that an antibiotic was reliable, cheap, and without risk.

A cell with full telomere lengths – regardless of prior history – is already superior. The accumulated damage is not a static phenomenon, but a dynamic one. Reset cells can clean up damage. This is not merely theory, but supported well in fact, based on both human cells and whole animal studies. We shouldn’t think of damage as something that merely accumulates passively. All molecules are continually being recycled. The reason some molecular pools show increased damage isn’t because molecules denature, but because the rate of turnover slows, thereby allowing denatured molecules (damage) to increase within the pool.

Try this analogy: we have two buildings. One is run by a company that invests heavily in maintenance costs, the other is run by a company that cut its maintenance budget by 50%. The first building is clean and well-kept, the second building is dirty and poorly-kept. Would you rather raze the second building and then rebuild it or would you rather increase the maintenance budget back to a full maintenance schedule and end up with a clean building? This is precisely the case with young versus old cells: the problem is not the dirt that accumulates, the problem is that no one is paying for routine maintenance. There are cells that are “too senescent” to save, but almost all the cells in human age-related disease can be reset with good clinical outcome. There is no reason to remove senescent cells any more than (in the case of a dirty building), we need to send in the dynamite and bulldozers.

Too often, we try to approach the damage rather than looking at the longer view. Instead of addressing the process, we address the outcome. It’s like the problem that often occurs in global philanthropy, where we see famine and think we can solve the problem with food alone. While the approach is necessary – as a stopgap – many are surprised to find that simply providing free food for one year, results in bankrupt farmers and recurrent famines in the following years. Or we provide free medical care in a poor nation, then wonder why there is a dearth of medical practitioners in years to come, without realizing we have put them out of business and accidentally encouraged them to emigrate to someplace they can make a living and feed their families. We intend well, but we perpetuate the problem we are desperately trying to solve. Treating famine or medical problems, like treating the fundamental causes of age-related disease, is not simple and cannot be effectively addressed with band aids and superficial interventions, such as addressing damage alone or removing senescent cells. Effective clinical intervention – like effective interventions in famine or global healthcare – require a sophisticated understanding of the complexity of cell function, an understanding of the dynamic changes that underlie age-related pathology.

An adage (variously attributed to dozens of sources) about fish and fishing provides a useful analogy here:

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

If we want to intervene effectively in age-related diseases – whether Alzheimer’s, osteoarthritis, or myriad other problems of aging – we shouldn’t throw fish at medical problems.

We should teach our cells to fish.

 

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 .

 

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress