There have always been people who have feared growing old
and the decline in health associated with aging. However, people with these
fears may no longer have to worry thanks to TA-65, an anti-aging drug. Isolated
from various species of the Astragalus plant, TA-65 (Cycloastragenol) helps
prevent aging by activating telomerase, which results in increased telomere
length and ensures that cells stay healthy and live on. People have been taking
the drug for a while now, and apparently it works pretty well for them. You can
listen to some of the testimonials of people taking TA-65 here. But for all the
good TA-65 has done for people already, others are very concerned that TA-65 theoretically
increases the risk of oncogene-mediated cancer.
The obvious question after hearing TA-65 can theoretically
promote cancer is, “how?” TA-65 could induce telomerase activity in cancer
cells that would otherwise have undergone apoptosis. TA-65 could also facilitate
cancer by inducing telomerase activity in pre-immortal cancers, where
telomerase activity is currently not present. Doing this could make otherwise
treatable cancers more untreatable by giving pre-immortal cancers the means to
become immortal.
Though this risk isn’t fully understood, there are still
those who still stand by the product and doubt that TA-65 does anything
significant to increase the risk of cancer. One reason TA-65 proponents stand
by the drug is the fact that about 85% of cancers express telomerase activity. Therefore,
many cancers already become immortal, and taking a telomerase-inducing drug
like TA-65 isn’t going to make immortal cancers any more immortal. Moreover,
TA-65 is short-lived—if cancer occurred, all one has to do is stop taking TA-65
and their lengthened telomeres will shorten, allowing cancer to be treated
without having to take into account any effects of TA-65. There’s also the fact
that long telomeres ensure that chromosomes are protected, which lessens the
chance of getting cancers that occur when telomeres become too short. Proponents
also point out that there is published evidence that Cycloastragenol (the
active ingredient in TA-65) has been shown to reactivate telomerase expression
in human cells, showing that the drug’s ability to enhance telomerase is not theoretical,
unlike claims that TA-65 facilitates cancer.
However, there seems to be as many negative arguments for
every positive argument about TA-65. For instance, there is no published
evidence proving that TA-65 causes significant extension of telomere length or
cell life span. Moreover, the ability of TA-65 to induce telomerase activity
could cause cancer by keeping cancer cells caused by oncogene up-regulation
alive when they would have otherwise died. As it stands, your immune system is
responsible for destroying many cancer-like cells on a daily basis. It’s not
crazy to think that TA-65 and its telomerase-inducing effects might help one
cancer cell stay alive and develop into full-blown cancer. Telomere length would
probably have to be significantly longer for this to happen though, and
proponents of telomerase could even use their opponents’ arguments against them
by saying TA-65 only lengthens telomeres by a modest amount. As a result,
cancer cells would not have significant protection that allows for continued
uncontrolled proliferation. However, admitting that TA-65 only lengthens
telomeres by a modest amount begs the question of why it is even being used as
an anti-aging treatment and calls the drug’s efficacy into question.
Whether TA-65 does or doesn’t cause cancer, there are still
many questions that remain. For example, does TA-65 help enough? Many of the
initial studies of TA-65 were done in mice. There are large concentration
discrepancies between mice and humans when size is taken into account. Are
TA-65 concentrations in humans proportional to what they were in mice when
researchers obtained results that proved the drug’s worth, and if not, is it
safe or even economically feasible to increase the drug’s concentration to
these levels? It already costs a little over $9,000 for the first six months of
the drug between initial testing and the actual supply. Finally, what if TA-65
does cause cancer? Would the risks of cancer outweigh the anti-aging effects for
someone who experiences a noticeably poorer quality of life without the drug?
In closing, TA-65 shows us how there are two sides to every
story. It’s fair for TA-65 opponents to suggest that the drug causes cancer,
but one must understand that the way it causes cancer is theoretical and hasn’t
been proven. Conversely, TA-65 does seem to have some anti-aging effects, but
one must remember that pharmaceutical companies put a lot of time and money
into developing drugs and will often try to hide side effects or
over-exaggerate the product’s efficacy in order to make a profit. No matter
what the case though, I’d definitely think twice about using TA-65 if I were
given the opportunity.
References
Andrews,
William, and Michael West. "Turning on Immortality: The Debate Over Telomerase
Activation." LifeExtension.com. Life Extension Magazine, Aug. 2009.
Web. 26 May 2014. <http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/aug2009_Turning-onImmortality-The-Debate-Over-Telomerase-Activation_01.htm>.
