The Healthiest Wine in the World

I prefer wines made by doctors.

Now if I could find a wine featuring both oat bran and omega-3 oils, I'd never need to drink anything else...
 
There is a product in development by GSK that contains the equivalent of 400 glasses of wine (Resveratrol)...perhaps the first mainstream big pharma anti-aging compound
 
originally posted by drssouth:
There is a product in development by GSK that contains the equivalent of 400 glasses of wine (Resveratrol)...perhaps the first mainstream big pharma anti-aging compound
Click to expand...

If that is the molecule developed by David Sinclair's company (Sirtris), it is being developed not as an anti-aging compound, but as an anti-diabetes drug. My take is that they don't think that they could get "lifespan extension" past the FDA since you can't really prove efficacy in any kind of controlled trial.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by drssouth:
There is a product in development by GSK that contains the equivalent of 400 glasses of wine (Resveratrol)...perhaps the first mainstream big pharma anti-aging compound
Click to expand...

If that is the molecule developed by David Sinclair's company (Sirtris), it is being developed not as an anti-aging compound, but as an anti-diabetes drug. My take is that they don't think that they could get "lifespan extension" past the FDA since you can't really prove efficacy in any kind of controlled trial.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. If you're plenty patient. Mortality is a really unambiguous endpoint in a placebo controlled trial.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
The Healthiest Wine in the World
Click to expand...

Sharon,
I feel it only my duty as a certified pedant to point out that the healthiest wines in the world are likely to be those with active Brett and Acetobacter blooms, as it is impossible for an inanimate object to be healthy in any sense but a metaphorical one. The doctor may have made a more healthful wine, but I'd be interested in the data he's using to back up his claims. Oh, wait... "nutraceuticals" marketers don't have to provide data to back up their claims, do they? [insert demonic emoticon of your choosing here]

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by MLipton:
If that is the molecule developed by David Sinclair's company (Sirtris), it is being developed not as an anti-aging compound, but as an anti-diabetes drug. My take is that they don't think that they could get "lifespan extension" past the FDA since you can't really prove efficacy in any kind of controlled trial.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. If you're plenty patient. Mortality is a really unambiguous endpoint in a placebo controlled trial.
Click to expand...

Not a good enough control experiment IMO. You can factor out all known complicating factors, but still can't exclude unknown factors influencing lifespan. What you'd need for a good control group is a bunch of clones, but don't hold your breath waiting for that one.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by MLipton:
If that is the molecule developed by David Sinclair's company (Sirtris), it is being developed not as an anti-aging compound, but as an anti-diabetes drug. My take is that they don't think that they could get "lifespan extension" past the FDA since you can't really prove efficacy in any kind of controlled trial.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. If you're plenty patient. Mortality is a really unambiguous endpoint in a placebo controlled trial.
Click to expand...

Not a good enough control experiment IMO. You can factor out all known complicating factors, but still can't exclude unknown factors influencing lifespan. What you'd need for a good control group is a bunch of clones, but don't hold your breath waiting for that one.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...
Not really, unless I'm missing something. You take a big group and randomize them to Rx or placebo and see if one side lives longer. The problem is that you have to wait a long time to find out, and it's really expensive to wait.

Nathan?
 
A Chink is still smarter than a chimp (even one with a stats PhD)...

You take a big enough group and the randomisation pretty much sorts itself out. Basis of insurance and why parameterisation error in actuarial pricing isn't a huge concern for protection products. One might then take the seemingly apposite example of annuities but the bets there are of a slightly different nature.

Bottle of hipster wine for the VLM if he explains the previous sentence.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by MLipton:
If that is the molecule developed by David Sinclair's company (Sirtris), it is being developed not as an anti-aging compound, but as an anti-diabetes drug. My take is that they don't think that they could get "lifespan extension" past the FDA since you can't really prove efficacy in any kind of controlled trial.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. If you're plenty patient. Mortality is a really unambiguous endpoint in a placebo controlled trial.
Click to expand...

Not a good enough control experiment IMO. You can factor out all known complicating factors, but still can't exclude unknown factors influencing lifespan. What you'd need for a good control group is a bunch of clones, but don't hold your breath waiting for that one.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...
Not really, unless I'm missing something. You take a big group and randomize them to Rx or placebo and see if one side lives longer. The problem is that you have to wait a long time to find out, and it's really expensive to wait.

Nathan?
Click to expand...

Not Nathan (though can be vulgar if cornered), but...
Big group and long time are anathema to pharmaceutical trials, especially the wait since money can buy numbers of participants. Death is a great "hard" endpoint but would need huge trial to have hope of statistical significance because of relative infrequency of event (death). That's why pharma trials use surrogate endpoints, even though they are often of unproven meaningfulness. You could use people close to death to get higher frequency of endpoint, but would be much less likley to see beneficial drug effect if any.
So, would likely see bogus surrogate endpoints like levels of various substances in blood, perhaps scales of function and sense of well-being.
Charles
 
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
And Joe, if you're worried about the waiting, use a sample of old people.
Click to expand...
The trick there is what you think about the mechanism of action. Do you need a long exposure to have a benefit, or does it start to work right away? I suspect the former would be more likely.
 
originally posted by Charles Weiss:
surrogate endpoints,
Click to expand...
Charles, if you really think the FDA will approve a drug with an indication like "increased longevity" based on surrogate endpoints, I'll gladly take the other side of that bet.
 
Charles, if you really think the FDA will approve a drug with an indication like "increased longevity" based on surrogate endpoints, I'll gladly take the other side of that bet.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I was supporting the notion that study couldn't really be done for that indication.
Though I'm amazed at how far surrogate endpoints have gotten drugs for other indications, often incorrectly.
Charles
 
Do you need a long exposure to have a benefit, or does it start to work right away? I suspect the former would be more likely.
Click to expand...

I presented on a panel with Sinclair, about two years ago. Back then, there was indeed an identified (by them) immediate outcome but the full "longevity" effect (mostly a matter of near-term cellular changes, if I recall correctly) required longer-term exposure to the regimen. How long was, at that point, an unanswered question. Maybe they've got a different notion now.

It's exciting stuff, if there's any validity to it. Which I guess we'll see.
 
originally posted by Thor:
Do you need a long exposure to have a benefit, or does it start to work right away? I suspect the former would be more likely.
Click to expand...

I presented on a panel with Sinclair, about two years ago. Back then, there was indeed an identified (by them) immediate outcome but the full "longevity" effect (mostly a matter of near-term cellular changes, if I recall correctly) required longer-term exposure to the regimen. How long was, at that point, an unanswered question. Maybe they've got a different notion now.

It's exciting stuff, if there's any validity to it. Which I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

What was the panel about?
 
originally posted by Thor:

It's exciting stuff, if there's any validity to it. Which I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's validity, all right. Sinclair and others, in the last few years, have shown substantial lifetime extension in zebrafish and rats. In last year's Nature paper, Sinclair showed that genetically obese mice that were fed the usual ridiculously high dosage of resveratrol were statistically indistinguishable from the positive control group of non-obese mice; the negative control group of genetically obese mice who didn't get the resveratrol had short, unhappy lives plagued by diabetes, coronary heart disease and all of the other afflictions of the modern age. Hooray for Science!

Mark Lipton
[disclaimer: I am also a resveratrol researcher]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top