A Harvard medical pioneer calls it “astounding” — an “incredible achievement” and a “quantum leap forward” in the battle against cancer, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
What’s going on? Scientists at Ohio State University say they’ve figured out a way to grow the genetic equivalent of a nearly complete embryonic human brain.
An article written by Dr Michael Fossel talking about telomerase therapy for Alzheimer’s and the work Bioviva and Telocyte are doing to beat this horrific condition.
Reversing Alzheimer’s by Lengthening Telomeres.
There are telomere lengthening compounds available right now for use in research labs. They are not currently available for human use. A group of scientists wants to test these compounds on aging humans now to see if the telomere lengthening effects will induce meaningful age reversal effects.
Telomeres in our cells shorten as we grow older and create cellular havoc that predisposes us to multiple age-related pathologies. These experimental enzymes promote telomere lengthening and in the process offer an intriguing opportunity to circumvent biological aging processes.
Alzheimer’s disease has no cure and evidence points at microglial epigenetic changes being the cause of the inability to remove misfolded proteins in neurons. This proposed study will evaluate the effect the use of hTERT (human telomerase reverse transcriptase) to reverse biomarkers and symptomatology of aging with special target of the microglia cells in Alzheimer’s patients. Misfolded beta amyloids can be effectively cleared by healthy microglia. This could represent a clinical breakthrough in Alzheimer’s treatment that would be immediately available in the clinical setting.
How Alzheimer’s Can Be Prevented and Cured…
Michael Fossel, MD, PhD
As I said in my medical textbook on aging, “If age is a thief, then the greatest treasure we lose is ourselves.”
Warning that rapid advances in genetics make “designer babies” an increasing possibility, a United Nations panel today called for a moratorium on “editing” the human genome, pending wider public debate lest changes in DNA be transmitted to future generations or foster eugenics.
While acknowledging the therapeutic value of genetic interventions, the panel stressed that the process raises serious concerns, especially if the editing of the human genome should be applied to the germline, thereby introducing hereditary modifications.
“Gene therapy could be a watershed in the history of medicine and genome editing is unquestionably one of the most promising undertakings of science for the sake of all humankind,” the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) said in a news release on a report by its International Bioethics Committee (IBC).
The institute in Shenzhen, China, that creates the pigs quoted an initial price tag of $1,600.
If you have zero blood type then your genetic heredity offers you the opportunity to be strong, productive, have a long life and be optimistic.
This blood type is original type of our ancestors who were smart and aggressive predators. The persons with this blood type have important role in the society.
Visionary Liz Parrish shares some of the remarkable ways that genetic therapies are helping humanity transcend disease, aging and physical limitations. We discuss some of the current applications of gene therapy, what we can reasonably expect given the rate of progress and some of the moral implications of this science. If you’re anything like us, you’ll be astounded to hear about this work; it can already make you stronger and faster, and it may help future generations live upwards of 400 years!
Click to download the episode directly (right click, then click save as) Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. Subscribe to the podcast on Stitcher.
“Known as “the woman who wants to genetically engineer you,” Elizabeth Parrish is the CEO of BioViva USA Inc ™ she is a humanitarian, entrepreneur and innovator and a leading voice for genetic cures. As a strong proponent of progress and education for the advancement of gene therapy, she serves as a motivational speaker to the public at large for the life sciences. She is actively involved in international educational media outreach and sits on the board of the International Longevity Alliance (ILA). She is an affiliated member of the Complex Biological Systems Alliance (CBSA) whose mission is to further scientific understanding of biological complexity and the nature and origins of human disease. She is the founder of BioTrove Investments LLC and the BioTrove Podcasts which is committed to offering a meaningful way for people to learn about and fund research in regenerative medicine. She is also the Secretary of the American Longevity Alliance (ALA) a 501©(3) nonprofit trade association that brings together individuals, companies, and organizations who work in advancing the emerging field of cellular & regenerative medicine with the aim to get governments to consider aging a disease.” –Blurb taken from Liz’ LinkedIn Profile.
Is it time for a debate on whether there are any circumstances where there is an ethical case for ‘editing’ human embryos?
Just five months after scientists in China made history by modifying the germline of human embryos, a research team in the U.K. is requesting permission to do the same, but strictly for research into infertility. Given recent calls for a moratorium on such research, the decision is likely to set a precedent for future requests.
Scientists working at London’s Francis Crick Institute have submitted a formal request with the U.K.’s Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HEFA) to use a gene editing technique for research into human infertility. The researchers have no intention of bringing their genetically modified embryos to term, nor will they be implanted; the scientists are reassuring HEFA and the public that all embryos will be destroyed.
Should permission be granted, it will mark the first time that scientists in the UK—or anywhere in the world for that matter (China excepted)—will have the opportunity to conduct research of this nature, which many consider controversial.
Chinese scientists used the CRISPR-Cas9 editing technique to alter the genome of a “nonviable” human embryo.
Progress always seems to ride a slippery slope. Innovations generally bring a plethora of potential benefits and just as many dangers, the obvious and the hidden. Technologies that tamper with our biological constructs is well underway in the neuro- and biotech industries. Historically, innovations in medicine have usually been beneficial on the aggregate.
But these new breakthroughs go beyond preventing and healing pre-existing causes. Transhuman technologies hold the promise of enhancing who we are as individuals and potentially as an entire species, and the decisions surrounding these technologies are far from simple. Dr. Nayef Al-Rodhan, a philosopher, neuroscientist, and director of the Geneva Center for Security Policy, believes we should be acting now to prepare for the inevitable and the unpredictable ramifications.
Considering our mixed track record as a species in rolling out groundbreaking innovations, discussing and finding potential solutions to many of the hidden dangers, and obvious ones, seems more than reasonable. One of the more puzzling questions is, where do we begin to have a pragmatic conversation on the ethics of these technologies?
There are plenty of theories about what drive human decisions, not least because human morality is infinitely complex and our minds crave frames through which to make sense of chaos. Dr. Al-Rodhan has his own conception of what drives human motivations. He makes meaning using the lens of “5 P’s” – Power, Pride, Profit, Pleasure, and Permanence – which he posits drive human motivations. “This is my view, the foundation of my outlook…this perceived emotion of self interest drives our moral compass.”
Al-Rodhan’s view of human nature seems to make a lot of sense, bridging the rational with the emotional. Such a frame is particularly helpful when considering technology that undoubtedly taps into our deepest fears and hopes, and invokes rational (and irrational) debate. During a recent TechEmergence interview with Nayef, I asked for his thoughts on the concerns and considerations of this brand of technology in the coming decade.
Al-Rodhan believes that we will see cognitive enhancement primarily through neuropharmacology, or neuro- and psychostimulants. This concept of this technology is nothing new — the military and many other organization have used their stimulants of choice in the past, one of the most pervasive being alcohol. But this new wave of neuro- and psychostimulants will methodically target specific areas in the brain, giving way to the possibility for innovations like increased mood modulation and more cognitive ability within the confines of the brain’s neuronal population.
Neuromodulation has been used in the military, with some efforts to make soldiers less emotional and to require less sleep. The difficulties with side effects are often more pronounced when soldiers return from combat. “They are all messed up due to severe brutality, fear, and some of these agents they are given make them addicts to certain things,” says Nayef, acknowledging that this happens in most all militaries. “The point is that psychostimulants and neuromodulators will make us feel very good, but they are very dangerous because they require addictive behavior…and we need strict oversight mechanisms.”
Nayef says that technologies such as brain machine interface (BMI) are likely beyond the span of a decade, but that implantable microchips (whether bio or biotechnological) are as much of an immediate concern as the introduction of neurostimulants. “The FDA in the United States is entrusted with keeping us on the right path,” says Al-Rodhan.
Finding Common Regulatory Ground
Is it possible to put in place national or international structures for managing these new and emerging technologies? Al-Rodhan believes it is more than possible; however, the primary issue is that our regulation is way behind innovation. Regulatory frameworks are lacking for a number of reasons. The unpopularity in politics is a major obstacle to overcome. In elections, these types of contradictory frameworks are not politically on the front burner for most candidates, and the long-term outlook is limited.
Another area for concern is corporate pharmaceutical entities, which Nayef says are not as well regulated as some might think. Businesses are concerned about the bottom line above all else, which at times yields unfortunate outcomes for the whole of society. “This is part of their role as executive, they’re not too concerned about moral regulation,” says Nayef. As unappealing as it might sound to free market capitalists, the institution that traditionally steps into these frontiers to regulate is government.
A relevant and current example is the science and business of moderating genomes in China, which is already investing a lot of money in this industry. Some effects of this technology may not be so obvious at first, and it is possible that negative ramifications could occur without the correct bioethical oversight. Al-Rodhan asks “what happens if you get a piece of DNA that preludes the biosphere? Who knows what kind of mutation that may produce spontaneously or by merging with other DNA in an organism.” These are the types of questions that governments, academic institutions, corporations, and individual citizens need to be asking, considering the multiple perspectives that emerge from a framework like Al-Rodhan’s that applies across cultural boundaries.
Al-Rodhan describes the process of implementing such regulatory frameworks as a transnational effort, but says that such efforts start with countries like the U.S., Japan, and Europe, where accountable mechanisms already exist. Taking the lead doesn’t guarantee the same priorities will be given elsewhere, but it can provide an example — and ideally a positive one. “We have about a decade to get our act together,” says Al-Rodhan.
