NutraSift: The nutraceutical innovation podcast

Can we actually reverse aging? Scientists just put it to the test in humans.

8 min · 10 de jun de 2026
Portada del episodio Can we actually reverse aging? Scientists just put it to the test in humans.

Descripción

This week, the first patient was dosed in a landmark trial of ER-100, the first cellular reprogramming therapy to reach people. We unpack the science behind "making cells young again": how three Yamanaka transcription factors reset the epigenetic clock without touching your DNA, why dropping the cancer-linked one matters, and the clever doxycycline "off-switch" that makes it safe enough for the clinic. Then the practical aspects. Gene therapy is reversal in the clinic, but what about the rest population? We dig into where natural bioactives fit for everyday prevention, why ingredient synergy beats single molecules, and how AI is bringing personalized formulations to longevity. Publications of interest: World-first: therapy to make cells young again trialled in a person [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01836-7https://www.lifebiosciences.com/life-biosciences-announces-first-patient-dosed-in-phase-1-trial-of-er-100-for-optic-neuropathies/ [https://]  https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07290244 [https://]  https://www.technologynetworks.com/biopharma/articles/re-setting-the-epigenetic-clock-to-reverse-cellular-aging-413392

Comentarios

0

Sé la primera persona en comentar

¡Regístrate ahora y únete a la comunidad de NutraSift: The nutraceutical innovation podcast!

Empezar

2 meses por 1 €

Después 4,99 € / mes · Cancela cuando quieras.

  • Podcasts exclusivos
  • 20 horas de audiolibros / mes
  • Podcast gratuitos

Todos los episodios

78 episodios

Portada del episodio Can social media serve as Real-Word Data for supplements?

Can social media serve as Real-Word Data for supplements?

What if the millions of supplement experiences shared online could point us toward what actually works? We dig into a first-of-its-kind study that matched 216,350 Reddit comments against 15,760 clinical-trial records to test whether social media chatter lines up with real evidence. The findings are striking: the most-discussed ingredients were more than 3× as likely to have trial evidence behind them (39% vs. 11%), and the effect scaled steadily. The more a benefit was discussed, the stronger its link to clinical support (odds ratios climbing from 2.1 to 5.5). We unpack why this matters. Supplements largely escape the post-market surveillance that tracks prescription drugs, leaving over-the-counter use nearly invisible, even as lived experiences pile up in public forums. We explore how consensus (not just volume) carries independent signal, how contested claims might hint at personalised supplementation, and why aggregated social data, treated carefully as a measurement instrument, could become a credible real-world resource for prioritising hypotheses and designing sharper studies. Not a replacement for clinical trials, but a powerful new lens. You can find the full publication: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.26.26356690v1 [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.26.26356690v1]

10 de jul de 20269 min