Reversal of aging and immunosenescent trends

The title of this post is essentially the same as the 2019 human clinical trial:

“Epigenetic aging can be reversed in humans. Using a protocol intended to regenerate the thymus, we observed protective immunological changes, improved risk indices for many age‐related diseases, and a mean epigenetic age approximately 1.5 years less than baseline after 1 year of treatment.

This is to our knowledge the first report of an increase, based on an epigenetic age estimator, in predicted human lifespan by means of a currently accessible aging intervention.”

“Example of treatment‐induced change in thymic MRI appearance. Darkening corresponds to replacement of fat with nonadipose tissue. White lines denote the thymic boundary. Volunteer 2 at 0 (a) and 9 (b) months” “Reversal of epigenetic aging and immunosenescent trends in humans”

Here’s a 2017 interview with the clinical trial lead author:

“You might also say that what also happened was to just postpone death from infectious diseases to after 60-65 years of age, which means that the same basic problem still remains.”

The popular press botched the facts as they usually do. I won’t link the UK Independent article because they couldn’t be bothered to even define epigenetic clock correctly.

A science journal article did a better job of explaining the study to readers. However, they often used hyperbole instead of trying to promote understanding.

Josh Mitteldorf’s blog post 1st Age Reversal Results—Is it HGH or Something Else? provided the most informative explanations:

“In 2015, Fahy finally had funding and regulatory approval to replicate his one-man trial in a still-tiny sample of ten men, aged 51-65. That it took so long is an indictment of everything about the way aging research is funded in this country; and not just aging – all medical research is prioritized according to projected profits rather than projected health benefits.”

Take care reading the post’s comments. Both non-scientist (such as Mark, Adrian, and others) and scientist commentators (such as Gustavo, Jeff, and others) attempted to hijack the discussion into their pet theories of reality in which they imagined themselves to be the definitive authorities. My discussion comment – with respect to a Mayo Clinic warning about DHEA – was: “19 instances of the word ‘might’ doesn’t lend itself to credibility.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.