We are the 0.0000000000000001%. We are biohackers. We take the best and emerging aging science available and we wing it, a community of n=1. Someone is bound to sneak through with the right combination.
Who on this planet is taking immunusuppressive/cancer and other risky drugs off label?
You think I have time to wait for a proper RCT human clinical trial of an obscure off label drug for longevity? I will be long gone.
You seem quite advanced in your interventions for a “mainstream doctor”. Something is driving your experimental protocol, beyond your massive medical knowledge.
Escapism requires outside the box thinking and risk taking.
I use quite a few drugs off-label, and to be fair, most of the best physicians I have consulted so far often prescribe off-label for a large number of their patients as either adjuncts or non-algorithmic use if there’s enough evidence
To be clear, the physicians I consult are “mainstream” physicians - it’s merely that they tend to have far deeper knowledge and/or better risk management skills while incorporating “experimental medicine” depending on the situation if there is a plausible rationale at the very least. I have nothing against people engaging in experimental therapies at their own risk and/or joining clinical trials for “experimental medicine”, assuming informed and plausible.
A bit of a tangent, but I would note to the audience in general: I’d be somewhat wary of “complementary and alternative medicine” as it’s become more profitable than Big Pharma - homeopathy is probably the most common example with some literal violations of the law of Physics… vastly different than “experimental medicine” as I find plenty of mainstream researchers are open-minded to say psilocybin which has a plausible rationale and well evidenced. It can sometimes be easy to mix the two labels, despite the difference.
“It [alternative medicine] is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.03% from 2021 to 2028”
Already noted Intranasal offers the most potent/efficacy direct opportunity re brain delivery, but perhaps the most difficult to engineer vs a systemic pan tissue delivery protocol.
“Vascularity is the most important determinant of distribution. After all, very little drug can be distributed to an area of the body that gets minute amounts of blood flow. Most drugs are not uniformly distributed. Drugs are typically distributed in several phases. In the first phase, drugs are distributed to high-flow areas such as the heart, liver, kidneys, and brain. In later phases, drugs are distributed to low-flow areas such as bones, fat, and skin. In addition, the intrinsic hydrophobicity of rapalogs results in good tissue penetration and, consequently, a high volume of distribution”
We see the wide tissue distribution or rapamycin (hydrophobic) in the rat tissue study above.
“We have recently demonstrated that siRNAs complexed in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) designed to highly conserved regions of SARS-CoV-2 give potent viral lung repression in vivo when delivered intravenously (IV) (7). Given the limited clinical utility for delivering siRNA via IV, here we aim to develop an intranasal (IN) siRNA therapy targeting SARS-CoV-2 and RSV. This serves as a more clinically tractable way of ameliorating virus infection in the lungs”
This study was attempting to deliver the payload to the lungs as alternate to IV. In our case of Rapamycin, where brain delivery is the default target, we do not want any loss of dose to nasal mucosa, and lungs per se, although these secondary targets offer residual systematic delivery routes bypassing 1st pass metabolism.
But to your point, yes to deliver a drug directly to the brain via the olfactory bulb, it needs to pass through some key bio layers which requires the proper “excipient” engineering and delivery system, and tailored nano particles is an emerging methodology.