I’ve been taking rapamycin for approx. 2 years (5 mg once a week).
I’m 65 and I don’t feel like I have the luxury of waiting for incontrovertible proof that rapamycin works.
I wouldn’t be taking rapamycin if I wasn’t persuaded by the evidence.
But as someone who works in computer science and likes to make rational decisions, I’ve been plagued by one question: What would it take for me to stop?
I’m self aware enough to know that I don’t want to die and like most people I don’t like to admit I’m wrong. But what standard of proof should I apply to determine that taking rapamycin is wrong?
Based on the studies presently being done, it’s doubtful we’ll get anything definitive in the way of proof that it works in humans.
The dog aging project offers some prospect of a large scale study on a relatively large mammal that lives in our midst.
Would a “so so” result in dogs be enough to cause me to recalculate the risk equation?
I think this is a valuable line of discussion in advance of news, because it’s too easy to rationalize news after you hear it.
I recognize that everyone has their own risk equation. But absent rock solid evidence in humans, I think the gamble can be stated as a balance between likely risk v reward. If the reward is tiny the risk is probably not worthwhile.
I’m thinking that 10% life extension is my line in the sand.
I’m curious to know if others have given this some thought.
2 Likes
Hmmm…
"I’ve been taking rapamycin for approx. 2 years (5 mg once a week).
What would it take for me to stop?"
You are in that early 60’s range when you started. Good for you. You are not getting results in strength… loss of visceral fat, no arthritis, great immune response.
I think of all those changes in me by 2 years.
Nada?!?
Have brought 2 old dogs back to youthful health… they are still alive. Good proof.
Biological markers show improvement?
Methylation DNA good? Inflammation down?
1 Like
It’s a really interesting thought experiment.
I agree that we’re unlikely to see any sort of gold standard evidence that Rapamycin works to extend human lifespan. But you/we already made a decision to start taking it while not having that evidence. So at best, getting no new evidence is maintaining a status quo.
A neutral/failed dog study alone probably wouldn’t make me stop taking it. However, if there was evidence of Rapa causing harm (for example, if the dogs got sicker, or died younger while on Rapa) then I think I’d still. If the dog study doesn’t show extended lifespan, it would make me less enthusiastic about getting lifespan benefits, but wouldn’t greatly change the status quo IMO.
Based on current evidence, I don’t feel like taking Rapamycin is very risky. It seems to be a very safe drug, and the known potential adverse effects (glucose, cholesterols) are easy to monitor and take care of.
2 Likes
Dr. Alan Green was the most experienced longevity rapamycin practitioner in the world. His practice spanned 7 years and he had over a thousand patients at the end. In a YouTube video Dr. Green explained that he was not aware of one of his patients dying from cardiovascular disease. There’s a lot to unpack from his claim.
Alan’s clinical observations syncs up with animal studies, Rapamycin therapy connotes some undefined yet not-insignificant protection from Cardiovascular Disease and death from MACE.
That undefined protection from MACE would be enough for me to continue Rapamycin, even without all the other benefits.
1 Like
A_User
#5
No, transplant patients on rapamycin aren’t protected against CVD, in fact, it might be worse.
2 Likes
