Tech Digest

The Constitutional Basis for Access to Anti-Aging Medicine

Stay Up to Date!

Simply enter your email below and click SIGN UP!

From Bioscience Expert Patrick Cox - The Most Life-Changing Book You'll Read This Year - Click Here

June 18, 2018

Dear Reader,

As off-label use of rapamycin spreads, I’m hearing anecdotal reports supporting the theory that the anti-aging effects demonstrated in multiple animal trials also apply to humans. If the benefits are comparable, low-dose rapamycin may add more than a decade to users’ healthspans.

The problem is, the FDA won’t allow manufacturers to cite evidence for rapamycin’s efficacy without going through trials that would take many years and cost many millions of dollars. This is further complicated by the fact that no regulatory pathway exists for anti-aging medicine.

The TAME study, spearheaded by Dr. Nir Barzilai, is trying to fix that problem. Metformin was not chosen for anti-aging clinical trials because it is the most effective anti-aging drug. I’m convinced generic rapamycin is much more effective if dosed correctly.

On the other hand, the generic diabetes drug has been used by millions and studied exhaustively, so it’s unlikely that trials would produce any surprises. The FDA has even granted permission to initiate clinical trials for the effect of metformin on aging.

No Gain, No Testing

Unfortunately, both metformin and rapamycin are generic—so no manufacturer has sufficient financial interest to fund trials that would prove either drug extends healthspans.

Source: wikimedia

Therefore, doctors will be cautious about writing prescriptions due to lack of legal protection. Similarly, insurance companies likely won’t cover drugs for any purpose they are not specifically approved for.

The TAME team, which includes many of the world’s top biogerontologists, is struggling to raise the money needed to create a pathway for anti-aging drugs. Even if it were fully funded and completed, it wouldn’t change the fact that no one has financial incentive to take rapamycin, or any other generic drug, through the same process.

Several biotech companies are developing variations of rapamycin called rapalogs that could be patented and taken through trials, but the process will take years and result in a much higher-priced drug. We’re told this makes sense, but it doesn’t.

I’m a full-fledged and unapologetically ideological capitalist, but I don’t understand why the government protects a system that discourages the use of generic drugs that could dramatically improve the quality and length of life. Instead, our system works primarily to promote patented and expensive drugs.

I don’t blame the FDA for being hypercautious, by the way. The agency is operating within an incentive structure that was created by Congress and overseen by democratically elected officials. Don’t let anybody tell you politicians don’t have the power to fix this situation. Nothing but inertia and vested interests prevents the creation of mechanisms that would speed promising anti-aging drugs into the hands of Americans who are facing a literal life-or-death dilemma.

Government is supposed to work for the people’s benefit. The purpose of the US Constitution, as set forth in the document’s first sentence, is to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

I can think of nothing that would promote the general welfare more effectively than adding a decade of health to our lives. It would benefit all of us as individuals, but healthspan extension would also make the country stronger and healthier.

The Case for Longevity


From a public-policy perspective, an extra decade of health bestowed on the overall population would change everything. It would allow older people to reduce their healthcare and insurance costs while continuing to save and invest. That would create the capital needed to grow the economy and create new jobs. It would also solve the retirement deficit and fix the major drivers of national debt, Social Security and Medicare.

Skeptics say it is politically impossible to extend retirement ages or reduce benefits. Consequently, they say, increased healthspans would make things worse by extending the length of retirement and Social Security costs.

The truth is, though, that a third of Americans retire involuntarily due to health problems, either their own or their spouses’. Another third retire only because their employers force older people out of the workforce to keep their insurance costs down. I don’t think many Americans would fight entitlement reforms if they were tied to significant healthcare reforms aimed at improving healthspans for older people. 

Congress could require that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) prioritize the review and accessibility of anti-aging medicines like metformin, rapamycin, vitamin D3, and other important supplements. The Japanese model of progressive approval could be combined with Right to Try legislation, giving older people access to the therapies that could save their lives. This would allow doctors to prescribe anti-aging therapies, companies to sell them at a profit, and insurance companies to cover them.

What’s Yet to Come

If this seems unlikely now, you should realize that metformin and rapamycin are only the beginning of the most important scientific trend in human history. I’m tracking therapies in the pipeline now that will be far more effective.

I predict we will see peer-reviewed proof in the next three years of lab animals having doubled or tripled their species’ maximum lifespans in good health. There’s no reason to believe the same benefits can’t be extended to humans.

What remains to be seen is whether Americans will have to wait 15 years to get access to these therapies, which is how long it currently takes to get a new technology from the lab to the market place. Or will politicians respond to the demand for life and abandon the obsolete 20th-century drug approval model?

I have no doubt that the powerful older voter bloc—once it has seen evidence that aging is the treatable cause of many if not most diseases—will demand real healthcare reform. By that, I mean access to 21st-century anti-aging breakthroughs in time to restore their health and save their lives.

If Washington D.C. weren’t so dysfunctional, our elected representatives would be preparing for that reality now. In the meantime, it might be a good idea for politicians to reread the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is government charged with protecting bureaucracies or Big Pharma. Their mission, as is clearly written, is to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.”

It’s not that complicated.

Patrick Cox
Patrick Cox
Editor, Transformational Technology Alert

Mauldin Economics


Stay in the Loop on Life-Extending Research
with Patrick Cox's Tech Digest

Tech Digest

Your privacy is very important to us. Please review our Privacy Policy.


« Back to Articles

From Bioscience Expert Patrick Cox - The Most Life-Changing Book You'll Read This Year - Click Here

Discuss This


We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.


June 18, 3:07 p.m.

Another alternative is to have the government directly fund the research studies needed through the National Institutes of Health. This eliminates the private investment needed so there aren’t significant private expenditures that need to be recouped by the drug companies and the resulting products could be priced at reasonable costs. The drugs described in the article already exist. There is no question that there is real potential societal benefit appropriate for government spending. Of course a prerequisite for this to happen is to have a functioning government capable of making an ongoing commitment to fund such a project and in our current political world, I am not sure this exists.

Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact


The Mauldin Economics website, Thoughts from the Frontline, The Weekly Profit, The 10th Man, Connecting the Dots, Transformational Technology Digest, Over My Shoulder, Yield Shark, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, Street Freak, ETF 20/20, In the Money, and Mauldin Economics VIP are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

Mauldin Economics has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. If you have a website or newsletter and would like to be considered for inclusion in the Mauldin Economics affiliate program, please go to Likewise, from time to time Mauldin Economics may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.

© Copyright 2018 Mauldin Economics