• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Resveratrol safety


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 nfkb

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 May 2009 - 03:29 PM


Hello !

i'm a young french doctor with special interest in nutrition in acute disease (intensive care)

With readings on antioxydants for my inpatients i began to gain interest in supplements for my myself, especially because i'm a poor fruit & vege eater, even if i'm french :)

I've discovered RSV, and i'm a bit disappointed. In the medical litterature, the french paradox is attributed tu a moderate consumption of red wine (even if BP grows a few points up cf Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80:621–5.) So a low intake of rsv is good for health. What about a massive intake ?

And because we know that the gut absorption is low, most manufacturers sells mega dose even in liposomal solution to boost the absorption. Waht about harmful effects of those mega dose ? From centuries and Paracelse we know that everything is a matter of dosage... A good drug can become a bad drug... some antioxydant can for example interfere with lymphocyte natural killer doing their job killing proliferating bad cells

I think rsv can be super useful but what about the dosage ? Maybe the wiseness of just eating fruit & vege in "natural" quantities" is a good solution ?

about safety of polyphenols :
Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81(suppl):326S–9S.

Thanks a lot in advance for your answers

Ps Yucca06 si tu me lis, jeserais heureux de causer de certaiens choses en MP




#2 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 08 May 2009 - 03:50 PM

Hi,

Just to understand your argument a bit better, I must ask you the following question:

What do you consider a Mega dose?
Is it 100mg, 250mg, 500mg, 1000mg, 2000mg, 5000mg, 7000mg, or 12000mg (maybe more)?

Without nailing this piece of your post down, I am not sure anyone would be able to respond thoughtfully.

As for the following comment you made:
"Maybe the wiseness of just eating fruit & vege in "natural" quantities" is a good solution?"

I get the feeling that if folks eat natural quantities of resveratrol that are found in food, like they have been doing for a long time without realizing it, no positive changes would happen that haven't already occurred within the last 2000 years.

So, do we just continue eating like we have, and expect a dramatic change?

Or...

do we make dramatic changes in our habits, that support dramatic changes in our lives?


Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 08 May 2009 - 03:59 PM.


Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 nfkb

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 May 2009 - 09:12 AM

Hi,

Just to understand your argument a bit better, I must ask you the following question:

What do you consider a Mega dose?
Is it 100mg, 250mg, 500mg, 1000mg, 2000mg, 5000mg, 7000mg, or 12000mg (maybe more)?

Without nailing this piece of your post down, I am not sure anyone would be able to respond thoughtfully.

As for the following comment you made:
"Maybe the wiseness of just eating fruit & vege in "natural" quantities" is a good solution?"

I get the feeling that if folks eat natural quantities of resveratrol that are found in food, like they have been doing for a long time without realizing it, no positive changes would happen that haven't already occurred within the last 2000 years.

So, do we just continue eating like we have, and expect a dramatic change?

Or...

do we make dramatic changes in our habits, that support dramatic changes in our lives?


Hi !

Thank you for your answer to my first question here :)

Well, i don't even know what is a "Mega dose". But i'm wondering why supplements in the other side of the ocean are always so high in dosage, in a general way.
And looking to rsv, i see that 300 mg is equivalent to 150 bottles of red wine. Studying the litterature in humans, in epidemiologic studies, we see that that consuming 1 or 2 glass of red wine a day may be good (and also maybe because of alcohol and other phenols than rsv). I do not think taking just more will be better for health... I'm just wondering if it's that easy.

In clinical studies they are a lot of dose response studies (ie for selenium supplementation in intensive care) and it's really hard to find evidence that more is better and not harmful. Sometimes with a too high dosage you slip toward bad side effects

There's maybe some hazard taking large dose of phenols (looking to the article above from Louise Mennen), rsv is a phyto-oestrogen and playing with molecules capable to mimic some hormones behavior may be dangerous for me, so my question is : where are the evidence of safety in clinical studies of people taking this kind of drugs during years ?

Behind this specific question, there is also a wider/larger problem of the dream of extensing life with a good quality. Actually in Europe (France) i do not see a lot of people focused on this. More and more people just wants a better quality and avoiding all the problems linked with our modern/industrial eating habits (CV diseases, cancer) The question of a longer life do not seems to be a real issue here.

As a doctor i'm taking care of older and older patients, yesterday i've taken care of a 96 yr old and a 89 yr old patient for hip fracture surgery. When people are getting older and older their environment is not accompanying them, they see everyone dying around them, i've not seen a lot of 90+ year old people happy, they are just waiting... So why living longer if you're not living with the beloved ones ?

#4 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 May 2009 - 01:28 PM

Hi,

Just to understand your argument a bit better, I must ask you the following question:

What do you consider a Mega dose?
Is it 100mg, 250mg, 500mg, 1000mg, 2000mg, 5000mg, 7000mg, or 12000mg (maybe more)?

Without nailing this piece of your post down, I am not sure anyone would be able to respond thoughtfully.

As for the following comment you made:
"Maybe the wiseness of just eating fruit & vege in "natural" quantities" is a good solution?"

I get the feeling that if folks eat natural quantities of resveratrol that are found in food, like they have been doing for a long time without realizing it, no positive changes would happen that haven't already occurred within the last 2000 years.

So, do we just continue eating like we have, and expect a dramatic change?

Or...

do we make dramatic changes in our habits, that support dramatic changes in our lives?


Hi !

Thank you for your answer to my first question here :)

Well, i don't even know what is a "Mega dose". But i'm wondering why supplements in the other side of the ocean are always so high in dosage, in a general way.
And looking to rsv, i see that 300 mg is equivalent to 150 bottles of red wine. Studying the litterature in humans, in epidemiologic studies, we see that that consuming 1 or 2 glass of red wine a day may be good (and also maybe because of alcohol and other phenols than rsv). I do not think taking just more will be better for health... I'm just wondering if it's that easy.

In clinical studies they are a lot of dose response studies (ie for selenium supplementation in intensive care) and it's really hard to find evidence that more is better and not harmful. Sometimes with a too high dosage you slip toward bad side effects

There's maybe some hazard taking large dose of phenols (looking to the article above from Louise Mennen), rsv is a phyto-oestrogen and playing with molecules capable to mimic some hormones behavior may be dangerous for me, so my question is : where are the evidence of safety in clinical studies of people taking this kind of drugs during years ?

Behind this specific question, there is also a wider/larger problem of the dream of extensing life with a good quality. Actually in Europe (France) i do not see a lot of people focused on this. More and more people just wants a better quality and avoiding all the problems linked with our modern/industrial eating habits (CV diseases, cancer) The question of a longer life do not seems to be a real issue here.

As a doctor i'm taking care of older and older patients, yesterday i've taken care of a 96 yr old and a 89 yr old patient for hip fracture surgery. When people are getting older and older their environment is not accompanying them, they see everyone dying around them, i've not seen a lot of 90+ year old people happy, they are just waiting... So why living longer if you're not living with the beloved ones ?


I am surprised you as a doctor seem not to have looked at the toxicology and other studies for resveratrol.

A lot of studies show a "U"-shaped dose/response curve for different substances. Finding that peak is the question.
With resveratrol, the serum level is far lower than anything that shows results in a test-tube except with rather large doses. Clinical trials by Sirtris Pharmaceuticals used 2.5 and 5 gram doses without ill effect. The toxicity studies in rats seem to indicate that the only way to kill a rat with resveratrol is to hit it on the head with the bottle. It took a resveratrol dose of a gram per kilogram to cause kidney lesions, and those were reversible on cessation. Life span studies on rodents with doses equivalent to mega-doses (>400 mg for a human) resulted in better health in aged mice, if not longer life-span. Resveratrol has been available in quantity for only two years. Of those taking half a gram or more daily here, perhaps several dozen, if not a hundred, the only long-term adverse effect seems to have been joint (tendon or muscle) pain in a minority, which resolved in most cases (not all) and was attributed to other things in many cases.

I know of a 93 year old who started taking over a gram at a time after his daughter gave him a smaller dose. He likes to take it with whiskey di his daughter's consternation. A friends 90-year old father has started propositioning nurses in his old-age home I guess he figures if you can't be near the ones you love, love the ones you're near. My mother, in her 80's, takes it because it reduces the aches of arthritis and gives her "more energy". IF it increases the quality of life in the aged, that would be a blessing. I do not think it can help bring back dead loved ones, though, if that is what you are looking for.

#5 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 May 2009 - 02:03 PM

I am surprised you as a doctor seem not to have looked at the toxicology and other studies for resveratrol.


Maybe because such studies in humans are not available, or at least not readily available?

Clinical trials by Sirtris Pharmaceuticals used 2.5 and 5 gram doses without ill effect.


This one I have not seen. Would you mind providing such details on this publication as you may have access to?

(By the way, I would not put too much trust in rodent studies. As you know, the vast majority of substances successfully tested in rodents fail human trials.)

#6 nfkb

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 May 2009 - 02:05 PM

I am surprised you as a doctor seem not to have looked at the toxicology and other studies for resveratrol.


Hi!

Thank you for your answer. Actually, i'm just currently seeking for information about rsv, so posting here is a way to get some answers. As a scientific paper reader i know that you can find a paper saying white and another one saying black, and there's also all the flaws to analyze and so on. It's sometimes too easy to copy/paste a PMID in a post giving "scientific papers" the value of Truth. One good scientific way of thinking (and we know this froms decades from Bachelard) is to announce the limitations of its hypothesis... so...

i'm also seeking for papers on Pubmed but i often find low impact factor papers or papers that are too much involve in fundamental science so that i cannot interprete them correctly. yesterday i've read a paper from Am J of Clinical Nutrition that calls for attention to using large dose of other phenols so i was wondering if there was some information about the toxicology of rsv. And because rsv can act as a phyto oestrogen i find this especially hazardous

I also give nearly zero credit to individual cases because it means nearly nothing in term of scientific evidence.

So i guess today there's no evidence based medicine in humans about consuming rsv ? I do not want to blame rsv, i know that in medicine big evidence are not numerous. But i just want to understand some stuff before consuming it in another form but wine :)

I do not want to be super polemic, i'm just seeking for information because this product is also quite expensive and i think it's first important to be aware of the hazards and then of the benefit to buy such products.

bye

rémi,
sorry for my poor english

ps andre thank you for your answer, you're resuming what i'm meaning

Edited by nfkb, 09 May 2009 - 02:07 PM.


#7 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 09 May 2009 - 02:37 PM

Clinical trials by Sirtris Pharmaceuticals used 2.5 and 5 gram doses without ill effect.


This one I have not seen. Would you mind providing such details on this publication as you may have access to?

(By the way, I would not put too much trust in rodent studies. As you know, the vast majority of substances successfully tested in rodents fail human trials.)


First, longevity studies in humans have not been done. At this point even Dr. Oz mentioned that it would take a long time, and he is comfortable with taking resveratrol, even if it's not FDA approved.

Regarding Sirtris:
Originally they mentioned they were doing human phase Ib safety study for SRT501, (Their resveratrol formulation), see slide 21 and 23: Sirtris Screenshots

Later they announced their findings in humans using these dosages, are currently doing Phase 2a studies, that are using much larger doses than 300mg, and even got approved by the FDA for Melas:

From Sirtris regarding glucose using SRT501 resveratrol formulation:
http://www.sirtrisph...008-041708.html

From Sirtris regarding FDA Melas approval using SRT501 resveratrol formulation:
http://www.sirtrisph...08-040208A.html

I personally am a fan of Sirtris for a variety of reasons. Of course my opinion is nothing compared to Glaxo Smith Kline who bought them out for 720 million because of their research:
http://www.forbes.co..._0424glaxo.html

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 09 May 2009 - 02:46 PM.


#8 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 May 2009 - 03:19 PM

Regarding Sirtris:
Originally they mentioned they were doing human phase Ib safety study for SRT501, (Their resveratrol formulation), see slide 21 and 23: Sirtris Screenshots


Sorry, but these slides contain misleading statements. For example, they claim that resveratrol mimics calorie restriction and even have a slide that misleadingly seems to imply, by way of a dishonestly labeled table, that resveratrol extends maximum lifespan in mice by 30%. As we all know, this claim for life extension has been found to be false in lean rodents.

Then, I still do not see any results from any safety studies. The fact that they apparently decided not to target their product to healthy people but instead to diabetics, etc., makes me think that maybe they found some bad side effects.

Later they announced their findings in humans using these dosages, are currently doing Phase 2a studies, that are using much larger doses than 300mg, and even got approved by the FDA for Melas:

From Sirtris regarding glucose using SRT501 resveratrol formulation:
http://www.sirtrisph...008-041708.html

From Sirtris regarding FDA Melas approval using SRT501 resveratrol formulation:
http://www.sirtrisph...08-040208A.html

I personally am a fan of Sirtris for a variety of reasons. Of course my opinion is nothing compared to Glaxo Smith Kline who bought them out for 720 million because of their research:
http://www.forbes.co..._0424glaxo.html


These are all for sick people. As we all know, penicillin is very safe and is indispensable for life extension in certain diseases. That does not mean that healthy people should take penicillin every day. Also, how many years did we have to wait for the serious side effects of Vioxx or even OTC NSAIDS to come to light?

Edited by andre, 09 May 2009 - 03:21 PM.


#9 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 09 May 2009 - 03:41 PM

No Andre,

The fact that they targeted this for diabetes, and Melas means that they wanted to target this for common issues that can produce a profit and have the capability to have insurance cover it, as well as doctor's off label use.
The FDA does not recognize "longevity" as a disease, so they will never approve a drug for "longevity". This is a fact.

As for the slides, they are for reference. These were used before the final rodent studies came out. That doesn't mean that the rodent's mean lifespan was not increased (which apparently it was), human subjects were not given 2.5, and 5 grams, or human safety was not tested at these doses.

As for Vioxx and the like, I have yet to see as many positive Vioxx public studies anywhere compared to the public studies done on resveratrol in universities.

Cheers
A

#10 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 May 2009 - 03:48 PM

The FDA does not recognize "longevity" as a disease, so they will never approve a drug for "longevity". This is a fact.


Well, technically, longevity is very easily cured. Shortevity is the tricky one. :)

(Sorry, just couldn't resist, but I understand your point.)

#11 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 09 May 2009 - 03:53 PM

Well, technically, longevity is very easily cured. Shortevity is the tricky one. :)



Hehehe.. yes I guess when you put it that way, longevity is easily cured!

:)
A

#12 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 09 May 2009 - 05:48 PM

I'd really be surprised if any doctors recommended Resveratrol to their patients at this point -- perhaps some heart failure or cancer patients being an exception, depending on circumstances. As for safety... who knows? Anything beyond what can be achieved from diet is just guesswork right now. And even there, we don't know if Resveratrol has any positive effect (probably doesn't at such a low dose).

Unless someone has a serious ailment that could possibly be helped by Resveratrol (and by this I mean cancer + death may be imminent), or they are 90+ years old and don't have time to wait, I'm not sure I see the plus side to supplementing right now. Wouldn't it be more prudent to wait for at least some human studies?

I should also add I'm not anti-resveratrol by any means. If studies show a benefit, I'll line up to take it, or even try to persuade one of my doctors for a prescription to it. I just don't see the reasoning for taking it before studies are done.

Edited by nameless, 09 May 2009 - 06:01 PM.


#13 nfkb

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 May 2009 - 05:57 PM

hi

apart of any business... how being confident in a product that has no positive evidence in humans ?

In Medicine we do not use products if the result is not positive for the patient. We do not prescribe drugs just because "it's cool, even it doesn't improve that much, it's not gonna harm". We have to prescribe drugs that can really help the patients. If we're not sure or confident in this, we must avoid prescribing to "test" "to see" : primum non nocere...

well... shall i try rsv for myself ? ... ???

rémi

PS i'm gonna buy good Pauillac bottles to help me meditate about resveratrol :)

Edited by nfkb, 09 May 2009 - 06:01 PM.


#14 nfkb

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 May 2009 - 06:05 PM

These are all for sick people. As we all know, penicillin is very safe and is indispensable for life extension in certain diseases. That does not mean that healthy people should take penicillin every day. Also, how many years did we have to wait for the serious side effects of Vioxx or even OTC NSAIDS to come to light?


of course, and in your example, penicillin may be harmful to healthy people : diarrhea, colitis, resistant strain emergence & colonization, some rare nephropathies...

#15 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 09 May 2009 - 07:51 PM

hi

apart of any business... how being confident in a product that has no positive evidence in humans ?

In Medicine we do not use products if the result is not positive for the patient. We do not prescribe drugs just because "it's cool, even it doesn't improve that much, it's not gonna harm". We have to prescribe drugs that can really help the patients. If we're not sure or confident in this, we must avoid prescribing to "test" "to see" : primum non nocere...


"First not to harm..". interesting latin saying, but it doesn't fit as there is no obvious risk here, I prefer... "God helps those, that help themselves".

In the end, I believe it's a very personal choice when considering doctors reccomendations. So, I have personally chosen to make my own way, when western medicine's boundary is reached. Just like many others who have taken their medical issues into their own hands, after western medical specialists can't find a solution. I prefer to find a solution with what I have been given, instead of waiting for a handout from god. What better way to show that you are not taking your health, faculties, and position for granted, right?

As a doctor of western medicine (even though you are french), I understand what you meant. I was a huge believer of western medicine for a long time, and a skeptic of all things "herbal" that my wife considered, and I completely ridiculed. Trust me, I was completely in your camp. People would say something like "herbalife", "acupuncture" or "seaweed", even "mud bath"... and I completely rolled my eyes and disconnected.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a convert to all things "herbal" at all. I am still very much a skeptic, and was so for a while about telomerase as well while we were producing resveratrol products. But when you get information from one of the people that was actually trained at Geron, and knows his way around Telomeres better than most researchers and doctor's... well, there is no doubting the information and results of internal testing are leading toward something that originated from an "herbal" beginning.

Back to resveratrol...
to further understand your argument let me try to sum up what you have stated so far...

1- That healthy folks should not take it at all because no long term safety trials exist on humans. If I read this right, this should also include other supplements, not just resveratrol.

2- You are arguing that resveratrol has not had human trials as a medicine, so you would not prescribe it as a medication or dietary supplement regardless of health, or lack of health.

3- You believe your older patients all have fatalist views near the end of life, so you assume everyone else probably has them as well, and that there is no reason to consider an increase in longevity since folks at this age are simply waiting for death.

Am I stating these things properly? Please correct me where I have misunderstood.

thanks
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 09 May 2009 - 08:11 PM.


#16 nfkb

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 May 2009 - 05:07 AM

"First not to harm..". interesting latin saying, but it doesn't fit as there is no obvious risk here, I prefer... "God helps those, that help themselves".

In the end, I believe it's a very personal choice when considering doctors reccomendations. So, I have personally chosen to make my own way, when western medicine's boundary is reached. Just like many others who have taken their medical issues into their own hands, after western medical specialists can't find a solution. I prefer to find a solution with what I have been given, instead of waiting for a handout from god. What better way to show that you are not taking your health, faculties, and position for granted, right?

As a doctor of western medicine (even though you are french), I understand what you meant. I was a huge believer of western medicine for a long time, and a skeptic of all things "herbal" that my wife considered, and I completely ridiculed. Trust me, I was completely in your camp. People would say something like "herbalife", "acupuncture" or "seaweed", even "mud bath"... and I completely rolled my eyes and disconnected.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a convert to all things "herbal" at all. I am still very much a skeptic, and was so for a while about telomerase as well while we were producing resveratrol products. But when you get information from one of the people that was actually trained at Geron, and knows his way around Telomeres better than most researchers and doctor's... well, there is no doubting the information and results of internal testing are leading toward something that originated from an "herbal" beginning.

Back to resveratrol...
to further understand your argument let me try to sum up what you have stated so far...

1- That healthy folks should not take it at all because no long term safety trials exist on humans. If I read this right, this should also include other supplements, not just resveratrol.

2- You are arguing that resveratrol has not had human trials as a medicine, so you would not prescribe it as a medication or dietary supplement regardless of health, or lack of health.

3- You believe your older patients all have fatalist views near the end of life, so you assume everyone else probably has them as well, and that there is no reason to consider an increase in longevity since folks at this age are simply waiting for death.

Am I stating these things properly? Please correct me where I have misunderstood.

thanks
A


Hi !

Thank you for your message/this talk.

Well, things are not that easy. i'm not manicheean. It's a bit hard fro me to explain my point of view because in the reality i'm not a really strong believer of the Holy Evidence Based Medicine. (and it's hard to find the right english words)

When you're participating in clinical studies or in lab studies, you see that there's a run/rush towards new publications. This game leads to several flaws, and as i said you can find a study saying white and another saying black. how many times data are turned toward the way doctors want to see them... So studies help people understand more and more phenomenons. But... it's not always the truth. Let me explain a funny example : in critical care medicine there are few humans clinical studies that conclude something positive for the patient. The more the studies help the patients (Xigris, insulin, etc.) the more they are criticized ! It's strange, isn't it ?
So in my opinion, studies are not magic.

Involve in helping people, i also understood that western medicine is pretty good for acute disease (i.e. acute coronary disease) but has a strange way to manage the spirit, the diet and another things leading to a poor vital status. So i gain interest in parallel medicine.

in the past i've been having a quite bad diet for years, i began to study supplements. And i found positive and negative clinical studies and i also found that there were a lot of bad supplements. it's also a big business so you have to be very focused on details to do "the right choice". And about vitaminic supplements we have a lot studies showing at least no harm with "normal range doses". So why not taking these drugs.

About the last 3 points, you have to consider this : in french socialistic medicine people pays virtually nothing (the national health insurance pays everything for everyone), so people in France are not used with giving money for their health, strange isnt it ? So because, health insurance pays for the drugs, they want a "known positive effect for the patient with clinical studies evidence". About the oldest patients. There is a flaw because i see the old patients who come to the hospital for a health problem... But being also involed in the french 911 service, we really often go to elderly people retired houses and it's not a shinning super cool situation that i can see... But well, i agree with you that better aging would be cool but the society will also have to deal with all the growing number of elderly people. Who pays ? How long have we to work to spare money to live well when we get retired ? Will we live longer and also work longer ? That's a question.

At the end i'm just discovering all the immortalists strategies and way of thinking and i'm trying to build my own opinion. And being often involved in managing end of life situations i can also see that the quality of life is for me more important that the quantity. For sure quantity and quality may be cool, but i'm not sure of this.

I'm also trying to build my own opinion about rsv, i'm interested in some of your philosophical views :) But with rsv there are two problems : long term effects and money (but for sure good Bordeaux is far more expensive that revgenetics Rsv when you look at the cost of one gram os rsv ;) ) ...

ciao

rémi

#17 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 10 May 2009 - 06:15 AM

Hi rémi,

thanks for your response, I enjoyed reading it.

I think I am starting to understand you better. Specially about the studies, as it is true that folks do look at positive studies in a more aggressive light.

You also mentioned the following:

About the last 3 points, you have to consider this : in french socialistic medicine people pays virtually nothing (the national health insurance pays everything for everyone), so people in France are not used with giving money for their health, strange isnt it ? So because, health insurance pays for the drugs, they want a "known positive effect for the patient with clinical studies evidence". About the oldest patients. There is a flaw because i see the old patients who come to the hospital for a health problem... But being also involed in the french 911 service, we really often go to elderly people retired houses and it's not a shinning super cool situation that i can see... But well, i agree with you that better aging would be cool but the society will also have to deal with all the growing number of elderly people. Who pays ? How long have we to work to spare money to live well when we get retired ? Will we live longer and also work longer ? That's a question.


I forget that people in France pay virtually nothing for medical help, so the aim for strict clinical studies from the government to mitigate costs is crucial, otherwise the health system would spend money on every silly remedy that people would imagine. I apologize for not realizing this earlier, and thank you for explaining it to me.

I can see that maybe the elderly you treat in emergency cases, can make it appear that most elderly are very frail, thanks for explaining how you are involved with them. I agree that the main issue, when an increase in longevity is achieved, will be the growing population of elderly people.

From that standpoint, if somehow we increase the elderly's age by 15% or more, it will stress the government's ability in the USA (and likely anywhere else) to continue to provide services and social security retirement money. I believe these issues will initially create quite a bit of problems if they are not considered. It is also possible that the Super centenarians, will be considered a burden to our health system much like the illegal immigrants are today.

The technology that creates this "longevity" for people will definitely be disruptive to the economies of the countries where people use it.

Maybe some sort of government (or personal) term life insurance, with a non-terminal "health" clause that will let elderly folks accumulate money for health services or extra retirement payments beyond their normal years, and into their extended years maybe advisable when the disruptive technology is considered to be achieved.

I personally think, that if folks have the ability to work after 'retirement' because they are just so darn healthy and attractive, that they may consider it like when they were younger. I believe, in a way, Raymond Kurzweil has it right, things will be changing soon, you just have to live long enough to get to the time when the real disruptive technology is achieved. I don't subscribe to most of his views, but longevity certainly seems achievable.

At this time resveratrol shows only an increase in mean longevity in Mice and the appearance of a better quality of life for them. This news was a a step in a new direction, and has made an enormous amount of people consider something that they did not realistically consider before. Simply put, that a good quality of life can probably be extended and that a longer than normal lifespan maybe achieved. It appears that many folks are seriously working on extending life now, and the momentum will likely turn up some new things that may increase a person's life long enough to see the real disruptive technology regarding genes.

Thanks for the post rémi,

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 10 May 2009 - 06:17 AM.


#18 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 10 May 2009 - 02:08 PM

In Medicine we do not use products if the result is not positive for the patient. We do not prescribe drugs just because "it's cool, even it doesn't improve that much, it's not gonna harm". We have to prescribe drugs that can really help the patients. If we're not sure or confident in this, we must avoid prescribing to "test" "to see" : primum non nocere...

"Primum non nocere" is meaningless. You should take the risks that your patient wants you to take disregarding "primum non nocere", which is only useful if your patient can't consent.  However, I agree that it's wise not to prescribe substances without human data (with some rare exceptions). I don't know if I'd recommend or "prescribe" RSV if I was a doctor.

Well, things are not that easy. i'm not manicheean. It's a bit hard fro me to explain my point of view because in the reality i'm not a really strong believer of the Holy Evidence Based Medicine. (and it's hard to find the right english words)

Evidence based medicine should include evidence based interpretation. EBM is believed to be the holy grail and the gold standard for a reason. Everything which lies beyond evidence based medicine & interpretation is just speculation. Whether the system is partly flawed or not, doesn't change the fact that it is superior. Whether we based our choices on sensible speculation doesn't change the fact that speculation is inferior to evidence based choices.

Involve in helping people, i also understood that western medicine is pretty good for acute disease (i.e. acute coronary disease) but has a strange way to manage the spirit, the diet and another things leading to a poor vital status. So i gain interest in parallel medicine.

Indeed, holistic approaches are not in the realm of classical medicine (I believe "western medicine" to be a derogatory misnomer; medicine is practised that way everywhere around the world; other approaches are simply "non-classical", "unconventional" or "holistic").
However, I believe this won't change a lot, studying medicine alone is pretty difficult and taxing but if we made all MDs study nutrition, supplementation, exercise physiology & so on they might never get their license. They should know all the necessary basics, but in the end they only need to be knowledgeable enough to send you to someone who got a clue (e.g. nutritionist).

But well, i agree with you that better aging would be cool but the society will also have to deal with all the growing number of elderly people. Who pays ? How long have we to work to spare money to live well when we get retired ? Will we live longer and also work longer ? That's a question.

Some of those questions are answered over at fightaging. Look at the side panel "Objections Answered". There will be no problem with money, retirement and work, at least there won't be any negative changes. It will be highly disruptive in a positive way.

#19 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 May 2009 - 02:40 PM

In the medical litterature, the french paradox is attributed tu a moderate consumption of red wine


Getting back one of your initial thoughts, some people have speculated that the French paradox is NOT attributable to rsv in wine, but perhaps the totality of nutrients, or even the alcohol itself (alcohol and aging). Some of the paleo-dieters around here have even speculated that the traditional French diet is healthier because many dishes are (or were) cooked with saturated fats instead of high PUFA oils.

#20 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 10 May 2009 - 04:30 PM

In the medical litterature, the french paradox is attributed tu a moderate consumption of red wine


Getting back one of your initial thoughts, some people have speculated that the French paradox is NOT attributable to rsv in wine, but perhaps the totality of nutrients, or even the alcohol itself (alcohol and aging). Some of the paleo-dieters around here have even speculated that the traditional French diet is healthier because many dishes are (or were) cooked with saturated fats instead of high PUFA oils.

This may be sort of a dumb question, but:

Have there been any population studies on the French who do not drink wine (assuming there are any)?

There very well could be no paradox at all, as you mentioned. I remember reading someone even speculate it was due to more D3, in the Southern regions of France.

But has anyone studied two groups of French, with more or less equivalent diets, one who regularly drank wine, and one who didn't? Should be one way to see if it's diet or wine, showing a benefit. It wouldn't necessarily mean resveratrol increased longevity, but it would rule out diet.

#21 Danniel

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 18
  • Location:München

Posted 10 May 2009 - 07:14 PM

In the medical litterature, the french paradox is attributed tu a moderate consumption of red wine


Getting back one of your initial thoughts, some people have speculated that the French paradox is NOT attributable to rsv in wine, but perhaps the totality of nutrients, or even the alcohol itself (alcohol and aging). Some of the paleo-dieters around here have even speculated that the traditional French diet is healthier because many dishes are (or were) cooked with saturated fats instead of high PUFA oils.

This may be sort of a dumb question, but:

Have there been any population studies on the French who do not drink wine (assuming there are any)?

There very well could be no paradox at all, as you mentioned. I remember reading someone even speculate it was due to more D3, in the Southern regions of France.

But has anyone studied two groups of French, with more or less equivalent diets, one who regularly drank wine, and one who didn't? Should be one way to see if it's diet or wine, showing a benefit. It wouldn't necessarily mean resveratrol increased longevity, but it would rule out diet.


On the same line: why is the french paradox ... french? There are many countries in Europe where wine drinking is a kind of national sport (Spain, Italy, Romania). The same positive effects should be observed there.

#22 nfkb

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 May 2009 - 07:48 PM

In Medicine we do not use products if the result is not positive for the patient. We do not prescribe drugs just because "it's cool, even it doesn't improve that much, it's not gonna harm". We have to prescribe drugs that can really help the patients. If we're not sure or confident in this, we must avoid prescribing to "test" "to see" : primum non nocere...

"Primum non nocere" is meaningless. You should take the risks that your patient wants you to take disregarding "primum non nocere", which is only useful if your patient can't consent. However, I agree that it's wise not to prescribe substances without human data (with some rare exceptions). I don't know if I'd recommend or "prescribe" RSV if I was a doctor.


Hello,

i do not agree with this. A patient does not have all the experience and the understanding of some problems... People not involved in managing benefit/hazard ratio in Medicine cannot deal with difficult problems. It's easy to read some information on the web, but we have to put back people in the real life...

So i think that we first have not to harm a health status... in intensive care medicine i see so many people that are sick (30% mortality) just beacause of bad drugs management : NSAIDS, coumadin, etc. And these drugs have some benefit, so it's always a benefit/hazard ratio bet.

Thank you for the other parts of your post, it was interesting ;)

ciao

rémi

Edited by nfkb, 10 May 2009 - 07:55 PM.


#23 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 10 May 2009 - 11:56 PM

In Medicine we do not use products if the result is not positive for the patient. We do not prescribe drugs just because "it's cool, even it doesn't improve that much, it's not gonna harm". We have to prescribe drugs that can really help the patients. If we're not sure or confident in this, we must avoid prescribing to "test" "to see" : primum non nocere...

"Primum non nocere" is meaningless. You should take the risks that your patient wants you to take disregarding "primum non nocere", which is only useful if your patient can't consent. However, I agree that it's wise not to prescribe substances without human data (with some rare exceptions). I don't know if I'd recommend or "prescribe" RSV if I was a doctor.


Hello,

i do not agree with this. A patient does not have all the experience and the understanding of some problems... People not involved in managing benefit/hazard ratio in Medicine cannot deal with difficult problems. It's easy to read some information on the web, but we have to put back people in the real life...

So i think that we first have not to harm a health status... in intensive care medicine i see so many people that are sick (30% mortality) just beacause of bad drugs management : NSAIDS, coumadin, etc. And these drugs have some benefit, so it's always a benefit/hazard ratio bet.

Thank you for the other parts of your post, it was interesting ;)

ciao

rémi


The last time I visited my doctor, he allowed that he had learned a lot of medicine from me. I hope he will not have a problem with the risks I want to take.

#24 nancyd

  • Guest
  • 249 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Bay Area, California

Posted 11 May 2009 - 12:16 AM

At this point even Dr. Oz mentioned that it would take a long time, and he is comfortable with taking resveratrol, even if it's not FDA approved.


Dr. Oz is receiving profits for promoting it.

Edited by nancyd, 11 May 2009 - 12:17 AM.


#25 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

Posted 11 May 2009 - 03:49 AM

"they claim that resveratrol mimics calorie restriction"


Andre, it does. At least partially. One of the most significant peer-reviewed studies published in recent years was entitled, "Resveratrol is a partial CR mimetic" at even "low" doses (equivalent of 800 mg/daily in 150 lb. human, not a dose sufficient to trigger SIRT1 activation). That study was discussed on these boards endlessly. Didn't you post in the threads?

Here's a link to study:


http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0002264

Abstract:

Resveratrol in high doses has been shown to extend lifespan in some studies in invertebrates and to prevent early mortality in mice fed a high-fat diet. We fed mice from middle age (14-months) to old age (30-months) either a control diet, a low dose of resveratrol (4.9 mg kg−1 day−1), or a calorie restricted (CR) diet and examined genome-wide transcriptional profiles. We report a striking transcriptional overlap of CR and resveratrol in heart, skeletal muscle and brain. Both dietary interventions inhibit gene expression profiles associated with cardiac and skeletal muscle aging, and prevent age-related cardiac dysfunction. Dietary resveratrol also mimics the effects of CR in insulin mediated glucose uptake in muscle. Gene expression profiling suggests that both CR and resveratrol may retard some aspects of aging through alterations in chromatin structure and transcription. Resveratrol, at doses that can be readily achieved in humans, fulfills the definition of a dietary compound that mimics some aspects of CR.

Fairly prestigious list of principals for this study:


Jamie L. Barger1, Tsuyoshi Kayo1, James M. Vann2,3, Edward B. Arias4, Jelai Wang5, Timothy A. Hacker6, Ying Wang7, Daniel Raederstorff7, Jason D. Morrow8,9, Christiaan Leeuwenburgh10, David B. Allison11, Kurt W. Saupe6, Gregory D. Cartee4, Richard Weindruch12*, Tomas A. Prolla2,3*
1 LifeGen Technologies, LLC, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 2 Department of Medical Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 3 Department of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 4 Division of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America, 5 Section on Statistical Genetics, Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America, 6 Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 7 R&D Human Nutrition and Health, DSM Nutritional Products Ltd., Basel, Switzerland, 8 Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America, 9 Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America, 10 Department of Aging and Geriatrics and College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America, 11 Section on Statistical Genetics, Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Nutrition Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America, 12 Department of Medicine and Veterans Administration Hospital, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America

Edited by TianZi, 11 May 2009 - 04:00 AM.


#26 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 11 May 2009 - 12:11 PM

In Medicine we do not use products if the result is not positive for the patient. We do not prescribe drugs just because "it's cool, even it doesn't improve that much, it's not gonna harm". We have to prescribe drugs that can really help the patients. If we're not sure or confident in this, we must avoid prescribing to "test" "to see" : primum non nocere...

"Primum non nocere" is meaningless. You should take the risks that your patient wants you to take disregarding "primum non nocere", which is only useful if your patient can't consent. However, I agree that it's wise not to prescribe substances without human data (with some rare exceptions). I don't know if I'd recommend or "prescribe" RSV if I was a doctor.


Hello,

i do not agree with this. A patient does not have all the experience and the understanding of some problems... People not involved in managing benefit/hazard ratio in Medicine cannot deal with difficult problems. It's easy to read some information on the web, but we have to put back people in the real life...

Treatment in the ICU is mostly time-sensitive and/or there's no time for remotely informed consent; but I'm talking about doctors making decisions for their patients, denying treatment and thus playing god.
It's not important if you agree: "primum non nocere" is used as an excuse for unconstitutional treatment. But probably I did not get my point accross well. I'm not going to accept that some doctors, who have less of a clue then many of us are going to make choices for us, even though we're free as per the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. If I choose suicide, I choose suicide. If I choose a dangerous treatment, I choose a dangerous treatment.
"Informed" consent is probably an illusion. So should we abandon phase I, II and III trials? Heroic measures? Experimental approaches? If there's a new therapy, you - as a doctor - are about as clueless as a well-informed patient, you only know the possible risks seen in prior trials, you can tell them the statistics, you can tell them everything else you know that is of relevance, but eventually the patient has to make his own choice. Unfortunately the community of doctors is pretty good at forcing their opinion on every other doctor under the banner of "primum non nocere" (I've pointed out some of the incredible hypocrisy which is justified saying "primum non nocere" in the transplant thread). Denying consenting individuals treatment (or euthanasia) is rape.
It's a clear violation of self-ownership to no one's benefit: "...each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use..."

Ok, we can get back to resveratrol.  ;)

Edited by kismet, 11 May 2009 - 12:17 PM.


#27 nfkb

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 May 2009 - 05:57 PM

Treatment in the ICU is mostly time-sensitive and/or there's no time for remotely informed consent; but I'm talking about doctors making decisions for their patients, denying treatment and thus playing god.
It's not important if you agree: "primum non nocere" is used as an excuse for unconstitutional treatment. But probably I did not get my point accross well. I'm not going to accept that some doctors, who have less of a clue then many of us are going to make choices for us, even though we're free as per the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. If I choose suicide, I choose suicide. If I choose a dangerous treatment, I choose a dangerous treatment.
"Informed" consent is probably an illusion. So should we abandon phase I, II and III trials? Heroic measures? Experimental approaches? If there's a new therapy, you - as a doctor - are about as clueless as a well-informed patient, you only know the possible risks seen in prior trials, you can tell them the statistics, you can tell them everything else you know that is of relevance, but eventually the patient has to make his own choice. Unfortunately the community of doctors is pretty good at forcing their opinion on every other doctor under the banner of "primum non nocere" (I've pointed out some of the incredible hypocrisy which is justified saying "primum non nocere" in the transplant thread). Denying consenting individuals treatment (or euthanasia) is rape.
It's a clear violation of self-ownership to no one's benefit: "...each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use..."

Ok, we can get back to resveratrol. ;)


hello

that's a nice proselyte post, but we you have to deal with ethics problems in the real world is not the same than playing intellectually with great cool concepts... when to stop a treatment ? when starting a potentially very harmful treatment ?

in ICU we have to be quick at the very beginning but then problems appears... till where is it wise to go ?

i must also say that the habits are diferents in differents countries because of cultural point of views, the french medicine/doctors are not US doctors... cf also the socialistic french medicine and SiCKO :)

I do not think "primum non nocere" is not an excuse, it's a wise phrase to slow down too quick decisions taken under flashing/shinning new stuffs/drugs/treatments.

I agree that there is some hypocrisis under informed consent. I agree with you in this part but i think it's really difficult for someone to understand health/medicine issues. I can do a parallel thought with me going to the garage : i do not understand anything ! :) Even if i get some information the guy at the garage can tell me nearly what he wants, even i read on the subject i not able to take a decision without listening to him

i'm agree we should go back to rsv :)

ciao

ps i've bought a special fridge to stock Wine bottles in my flat (i've no cellar) :)
pps about some other part of the talk above ! French do not drink wine everyday, something interesting in the framingham study and other studies about diet habits, is that wine drinking people are often "low class" workers who also eats a lot of fats (cooking with butter and so on) Actually i do not see a lot of french people (20-40 yr old) who are drinking wine everyday, i guess the stats are gonna change ine the next years if it's the wine that is important (consumption is lower nowadays)

PPS is it possible to send personal message in this forum ?

Edited by nfkb, 11 May 2009 - 06:48 PM.


#28 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 11 May 2009 - 06:10 PM

"they claim that resveratrol mimics calorie restriction"

Andre, it does. At least partially.


The slides do not include the all-important qualifier "partially", and the information is arranged in such a way as to encourage the investors to infer that resveratrol will extend maximal lifespan in the same way as calorie restriction. In fact, as was later seen, resveratrol does not mimic calorie restriction in lean rodents in this rather crucial aspect. Since maximal lifespan extension by CR is very much emphasized in the slides, in the context their statement is as best disingenuous.

Edited by andre, 11 May 2009 - 06:15 PM.


#29 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 11 May 2009 - 09:06 PM

"they claim that resveratrol mimics calorie restriction"

Andre, it does. At least partially.


The slides do not include the all-important qualifier "partially", and the information is arranged in such a way as to encourage the investors to infer that resveratrol will extend maximal lifespan in the same way as calorie restriction. In fact, as was later seen, resveratrol does not mimic calorie restriction in lean rodents in this rather crucial aspect. Since maximal lifespan extension by CR is very much emphasized in the slides, in the context their statement is as best disingenuous.


One factor in the gene array studies, resveratrol did not inhibit IGF-1 where calorie restriction does. However, luteolin, another sirt1 agonist studied by Sinclair's group, does inhibit IGF-1.

nfkb: Il est possible d'envoyer des messages personnels, si vous rejoindre en tant que membre. Nous avons eu des problèmes avec les spammeurs d'envoyer des messages à nos membres, et nous avons dû désactiver la messagerie pour les utilisateurs enregistrés à l'arrêter.

Edited by maxwatt, 11 May 2009 - 09:07 PM.


Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 sweety

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 May 2009 - 02:25 PM

I am by no means a doctor but I have been reading how some think high doses might do more harm then good. I just have to say that even with regular medicine prescribed by a doctor comes with risk. The thing about regular prescriptions is that they are approved by the FDA but the medicine is use to treat not cure. Even if something natural was proven to be a cure for a disease the FDA would not a approve it because there would be no money in it. The sad proof is that they dont want to cure any diseases because the drug companies would be out of business and the FDA cash cow would be gone.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users