The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
now there has been in the ITP so the interventions testing program uh which is kind of the gold standard for animal uh studies which is run out of three Labs so it's it's an nih-funded program that's run out of three labs they basically test molecules for zero protection
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the ITP the interventions testing program was designed to test and again um I I would I would if people are interested in this they should go back and listen to my two discussions with Rich Miller where we go through gory detail of every molecule that has gone through the ITP the ITP is hands down the most rigorous tool we have for testing molecules in anything other than the species of interest because we can't do these experiments in human we cannot test lifespan interventions in humans for the obvious reasons so what is the next best thing well it turns out it's doing it in a noninbred mouse in triplicate in three institutions like you can't get more rigorous than this
the ITP is an ni funded program that runs out of three independent labs and by independent I mean they're each doing the experiments independently but they're they're in sync with doing the experiment but they're doing it in triplicate so you have three Labs three great Labs doing the experiments in triplicate
the intervention testing program was established in order to have like pre-clinical multi-central studies of drugs that investigators could say without proving or without doing standard studies would say this affects longevity so the idea is you have a committee you get the drug you have animals who are genetically heterogeneous because we want it to be aging and not genetic and they're giving in the same way in three different centers around the united states so that we have a standard way to say yes or no
based on the types of mice that are used and the rigor with which these are done statistically and otherwise the itps represent effectively the gold standard of testing molecules for longevity in arguably the most important subset of mice we could study
think of it as a program i don't know how do you describe it to people i sort of think of it as a gold standard by which we test single drug often but sometimes not just single drug interventions in a robust rigorous manner
has there been a randomized control trial not a metaphor not when it comes to a hard outcome now there has been in the ITP so the interventions testing program uh which is kind of the gold standard for animal uh studies which is run out of three Labs so it's it's an nih-funded program that's run out of three labs they um they basically test molecules for zero protection
but we have great evidence now for at least three mutants and the calor restriction diet and the methionine restriction diet
if it if they work if they are flipped by drugs in a short period of time then um we hope our hit rate will right now it's about 10% give us big effects and a total of 15% give us significant effects if we can get that up to 50% by pre-screening with aging rate indicators so that half of the drugs we throw into lifespan studies actually give a lifespan benefit that would be that would be nice
what we try to do is uh quite simple we try to find drugs that will slow aging and extend Mouse lifespan