FYI… they are deciding on the next compounds to test!
3 Likes
Exciting! May the best interventions win.
1 Like
It would be very interesting to get a list of the proposed compounds for the ITP program, and their rankings from their review board…
I will shoot Richard and his team an email seeing if we can get that information.
1 Like
No luck…
No, information submitted to the ITP Access and Steering Committees is held in confidence, along with the ranking of compounds. Sorry. When compounds are selected for 2024, they will be posted on the ITP web site.
We are at the stage where analyses for 2019 mice (90th percentile) can be presented at scientific meetings, but not in publications. The paper on 2018 and 2019 drugs should be submitted for publication soon.
The data at the 50th percentile for 2021 is also something we are permitted to present at scientific meetings, but won’t be available for publication until a paper is prepared, perhaps 9 months from now.
I am not sure whether discussion of such unpublished data sets in a publicly accessible web-based forum like Rapamycin News would be approved by the ITP Steering Committee. My own opinion is that we should do this, to encourage discussion within the scientific community and (we hope) inspire others to base new studies on our own data. But it’s not my decision. I will ask Dr. Fox if she would be willing to include this question on the agenda for the next ITP monthly conference call.
Rich
5 Likes
Thanks so much for asking about this part!
Do we know anything about what might have been discussed at what scientific meetings already?
Btw, any chance you could add in this first (and perhaps second) question to him if you have an email chain going
I think I’ve seen the number before - I think its about $500K per compound.
I will check on the non-oral compounds, but right now I know they are focused on oral-only compounds.
2 Likes
Thanks a lot. Yes, was especially interested if they (a) would have more bandwidth if there was extra funding and (b) weather the interest of doing non-oral would be different if they don’t have to sacrifice multiple oral compounds to do fewer non-oral (hence the tie to “if extra funding would be available” is crucial to include when asking him).
I have a tie to one of the Americans who have started to work for Hevolution and want to soft pitch both of the ideas above and see what he thinks.
1 Like
I have discussed with Richard and his team, in the past, the idea of expanding funding via third parties.
It was a short time time after Hevolution had been announced. Opinions vary a lot in the geroscience research community on this issue, but Richard is firmly of the opinion that he’d never take money from Hevolution because of MBS’s human rights record. But I’ve recently asked him again about how we might help him raise money or increase his budget so that he can increase the number of compounds and delivery approaches to be tested. I haven’t heard back yet on this.
2 Likes
Got it. Thanks for all that color. I know of some other potential sources too, so keep me posted on what you hear.
1 Like
@Neo You could point Hevolution in Dr. Brad Stanfield’s direction. He is working on a Rapamycin trial in humans and needs about $400,000 USD.
Mohammed bin Salman may not embody the archetype of virtue, yet is the United States genuinely in a position to claim moral supremacy? It’s an unvarnished truth that great powers frequently partake in actions of questionable ethics.
2 Likes
Oops I thought you were a bot since I didn’t understand who you were responding to Now I see you were responding to RapAdmin lol, ignore the flag.
I don’t think this is the number per compound. Sounds more like the yearly budget to me.
Calf intestinal alkaline phosphotase extends median and maximum lifespan in BL/6 mice (small sample size though)
Dosing is 100 U/ml per day for mouse. Mouse drinks 3-4 ml a day, so that’s about 300-400 U.
If anyone could help me find a supplier more cost effective than this one, it would be greatly appreciated.
Here is the information that Richard Miller conveyed to Peter Attia in their podcast discussion. The numbers don’t add up, but I’m assuming thats because the labs have indirect costs that may be covered by other budgets, and direct costs specific to each compound:
The ITP budget
The total program budget each year, in direct costs, is about a million dollars
That means that they can test about 6 new molecules per year at $500,000 each
Now, they have enough money—because the NIA has been extremely generous—to test
5 or 6 drugs each year for the first time, and then also go back and recheck one or two of
these a year
So, in the aspirin case, if they were to decide to try aspirin at a few more doses, they
would be eliminating from our program some other drugs that have never been tested,
but look really promising
I am probably missing something crucial here, but how can they have a million dollar yearly budget if they’re spending 6 * $500,000 on testing their compounds every year?
We can ask Richard in the online webinar that starts in 15 minutes…
1 Like
Not to get too heavily into politics, as that is not the purpose of this site. In this specific case being discussed you are comparing the ethical choices of one person (MBS) with the collective choices/mistakes and ethical lapses of thousands of people in a government. I think its a lot easier (and makes sense) for one person (e.g. a researcher) to directly question or criticize the choices another single person makes (eg. MBS), and not want to take money from that person because his or her personal values are at odds with that other person.
Nobody here (in this discussion thread) is making any claims about representing any collective moral superiority of any one country or group of people.
5 Likes
I believe it would be most prudent to remove any remarks pertaining to the Saudis. We shouldn’t incite any tension as their financial support is crucial to us. Our survival hinges on this relationship.
2 Likes