Clicking links is req1uired for understanding of rationale for what I say. Particular interest is in what initiatives GOI should take. To be mailed/e-mailed to PM Mr. Modi, CM Yogi, Director IIT Kanpur, class-of-75 hoping some reader will forward properly.
Why should GOI take initiative NOW?
Two aspects are initiative in-this-direction and now. Principal DIRECTION argument is engineering - likely success of California efforts makes it risk known-unknown. Now is from patent restrictions that will hobble Indian efforts soon that will be launched anyway. The efforts also bypass Mexico, likely the beneficiary of California initiatives, which will attract California business of Medical Tourism, as opposed to Greater NOIDA or rest of India, likely to become a center soon. As far as US medicine goes, both Indian and Mexican medicine are Pitts, but Indian Medicine is likely to be better controlled and better destination for Arab and European customers. The amount of sales moment reliable word is out that 10 year healthy health span extension is likely by UP based hospital (Also assuming more interest as Greater Noida soon sees film city and Zaver airport). Whatever I say is likely hot air for all usual doctors, it is all based on genetics/DNA and is paradigm shift beyond germ-theory to Aging undoing by DNA medicine and surgery beyond stem cells, that itself is a new paradigm!
Assuming GOI decides to take initiative now based on some understanding of the aging relative efforts in California, medicine being developed based on 3/4 Yamanaka factors, relevant questions are
1. Can the effort be funded within Indian politics?
My model is the ARPA agency, responsible for nearly all major efforts in the last quarter of century 20 including GPS and internet. It is not Capitalism of that era, and certainly nor Socialism or Worse of that era. The Basic question is development speed despite political reality of uniform funding. Non-uniformity is a must if differential funding of initiatives is done based on how close projects are to stated goals. To avoid bureaucratic slow-downs, project orientation is a must. Project evaluation leaders themselves have a success based bureaucracy within the agency hidden to researchers through infrequent funding visitors who are trusted but verified. There are then two models of doing better than the market - tight study (with trusted but verified visitors) orientation and prize money. Latter is quite common for lesser goals. Both violate the equal spread political reality! India uses a third unequal strategy - event forced development (like road and homes for athletic events or border location). (Bihar argues low development as a reason!).
2. What is the risk level?
One way to argue about risks is the language used by Rumsfeld that drove most public and English grammarians to peals of laughter, when he used known-unknowns etc, being standard lingo in military. Any military unit must consider each episode as unknown force application, but the total damage expected can be estimated even though the intensity of fighting in each episode is unknown.
Applying that to aging is considered funding many places. You don't know which will work, but you can argue that some will work and the returns will justify the effort. Assuming some wastage, the funding may be uniform in the first round but not in subsequent rounds. Each effort, pending experience can be judged from similarity to California work as a start.
The ultimate work goal is instantiating of Medical Tourism for Age undo in India and in UP. It is likely nothing more than FDA approved TPE (therapeutic plasma exchange) repurposed for another benefit, likely safe and worst case, ineffective!
3. Will the funding make a difference?
Yes it will. TPE use for these purposes is novel and likely to be ineffective or too harsh for some patients. A pre-test/diagnose list can be drawn up. Aging organ age-type, also how many procedures, right NBE (I take NMN not NAD+ direct, add based on US experiences, better form, and protect NMN from liver etc)
4. How should the funding be managed?
Through funding visitors, managed internally in cost-effective manner, with rights to continue a project, reduced funding or end of project, protected from all political efforts to influence. The agency worked in the USA because not many politicians could influence the agency of Military! It is fascinating how many academicians repurposed their research to ARPA interests, BUT THAT'S WHAT VISITORS DO.
5 What difference will it make to me?
First, economically change direction not a bit, however sharing results a lot. Following detailed paper that convinced me to spend my money, and benefit from it from likely positive results, is not a science based effort but a risky engineering project which may still fail. In my judgment, the science is solid to the point of known-unknowns (engineering risk) but unknown-unknowns may still arise.
Who writes this, and why?
I am a US Citizen, India resident last 15 years, being IIT Kanpur dept. topper, glorious US experience in Research wing of Bell lab, talk to Harvard, son of illustrious Dr. Arya national disaster chief of India and UN advisor to Gujarat govt after the damaging earthquake. I have recovered some from my devastating TBI accident, work on resuscitating my quantum safe copy free encryption and defeat my aging to become youthful again, no matter the risk.
