A research team from the Japan Advanced Institute published a research paper this month describing an innovative and promising approach to cancer treatment. They report on a bacterial species extracted from the gut of the Japanese Tree Frog that demonstrated a 100% cure rate in a mouse model of human colon cancer. All the untreated mice died; all the treated mice lived, and became resistant to this cancer thereafter. The bacteria (Ewingella americana) were handily cleared from the body of the mice, and they are unlikely to pose a danger to humans when this therapy is translated.
Crucially important — the bacteria not only attack the tumor but also enlist the body’s own immune system to aid in the assault. It may be that the bacteria are well-adapted to reproduce inside the tumor, and they grow to a critical mass where the body’s immune system comes in to pounce on them; only then does the immune system notice and attack the cancer. “The underlying therapeutic mechanism encompasses selective tumor colonization and proliferation by this facultative anaerobic bacterium, coupled with potent direct cytotoxic effects against cancer cells and comprehensive immune-mediated tumor suppression through coordinated activation of neutrophils, T cells, and B cells.”
When the episode is ended, the tumor resorbed and the bacteria eliminated from the mouse system, the mouse immune system is left primed to prevent recurrence. Contrast this to the action of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy targets any cells that reproduce rapidly, not only the tumor but (visibly) the patient’s hair follicles and (invisibly) the patient’s immune system. When the dust clears, the patient is left in an immune-impaired condition, vulnerable not only to infection but to recurrence of the same cancer or a more aggressive one. Chemotherapy accelerates the GrimAge clock, and we all have anecdotal experience that it ages patients visibly.
The team knew just what they were looking for. They were systematically exploring bacteria strains from the microbiomes of amphibians and reptiles for anti-tumor activity. All the tested bacterial strains were pre-tested for pathogenicity in mammals, and three candidates advanced to a stage of optimizing treatment protocols in mice. Ewingella was the best of the three.
In the past, this same Japanese group has looked inside tumors for “oncolytic” bacterial strains that might already be well-adapted to parasitizing a particular cancer. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. These results, too, have been promising. “Based on these considerations, we hypothesize that the gut microbiome represents a vast reservoir of bacterial diversity, encompassing strains with potentially exceptional antitumor properties that remain largely unexplored.”
The human microbiome is known to have major effects on susceptibility to disease, including cancer, and remains an opportunity for exploring new therapeutic potential. Our gut bacteria manufacture many of the proteins that keep us healthy, as well as some that can make us sick. The Japanese authors point out in their introduction that there is already a literature on human gut biota in relation to cancer. “The mechanisms underlying these microbiome-cancer interactions are remarkably diverse, encompassing direct genotoxic effects, chronic inflammatory processes, immune system modulation, and metabolic reprogramming of the tumor microenvironment.”
A small number of researchers have become interested in the intestinal microbiome, but so far, we don’t have enough understanding of interrelationships among species to be the basis for effective treatments.
These spectacular, early results for the effectiveness of a bacterial strains in fighting cancer remain in a backwater of medical literature. You can be sure that if any molecule had shown such promise, the public relations machine would be in full gear, promoting the breakthrough in Science Magazine and in the news media as well.
The universe of bacteria and fungi with potential for treating human disease remains an untapped resource which could be seminal for the future of medicine.
Our American for-profit model of medical research has introduced distortions into the field, and whole areas of possibility are being neglected. Lifestyle changes, exosomes, natural hormones, traditional herbs — all of these are non-patentable, so no company is motivated to invest in researching their potential.
It’s not just that pharma companies fund their own in-house research as well as research at medical schools. Government-funded research is overwhelmingly the same model. Everyone is looking for one molecule for one disease, preferably a new molecule that can be patented.
Through the last century of medical research, we have come to view the body through a biochemical lens. Our bodies are also ecosystems of symbionts, commensals, and parasites, each with multiple counter-balancing and reinforcing effects. We look for biochemical imbalances as the root of disease, when some diseases are better understood as ecological imbalances.
Lifespan.io article by Arkadi Mazin
Original research article from the journal Gut Microbes
Discover more from Josh Mitteldorf
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are just so many ways to branch off of this research. I will start with only one. In mouse models of aging, around 50% of the the dead mice have multiple tumors. What would happen if on a mouse test, they were given this bacteria late in the test? Would the cancer rate in teh mice drop? =Would that lead to a longer net lifespan?
Great article shedding light on the importance of the microbiome fighting cancer.
In my practice, i routinely do genetic tests for various strains of gut bacteria and found interesting results. One of them is the surprising fact, that NONE of my cancer patients ever had sufficient numbers of AKKERMANSIA MUNICIPHILA. To the contrary, most of the had NONE !
I am not saying we can cure cancer in giving patients Akkermansia. But the microbiome plays an incredibly important role for human health and specifically for the immune system.
This is extremely interesting research.
However we must remember cancer feeds on sugar and struggles when carbohydrates are removed from the diet. A carnivore diet of meat eggs and fish would be my first response to any cancer.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention Josh. Such outstanding research and as you say, hardly visible at all. I would just beg to differ with you on one tiny point; there are some companies doing very good research on exosomes (with a focus on anti-cancer activity). One of these is Innovix (Code IIQ on the Australian stock exchange).
Cancer thrives just fine on glutamine. You can’t outsmart cancer by just restricting carbs
Yes, I know just one person who went on a strict keto diet after cancer diagnosis. She lived 3 years. I think that keto is sometimes very helpful, sometimes less so.
Incorporating a four days water only fast once a month might help to prevent any cancer.
Also, billions of dollars have been spent in longevity research. Has it anything accomplished that is better than the benefits of exercise and fasting?
Just asking!
I agree that venture capital and biotech startups are wasting a lot of money with research that is wrongly conceived, but
“Has it accomplished anything better than fasting?” https://scienceblog.com/joshmitteldorf/2024/05/27/robust-rejuvenation-with-exosomes/
Thank you. That is a big breakthrough.
Josh, I’m following your blog for more than ten years. I’m very well aware of Harold’s research. Just my gut feeling told me that his systemic approach might be a step forward to reverse aging. However, I’m just a layman.
Since Harold broke up with Akshay, where did all the affords ended up?
So, I keep doing what I’m doing at 74. Resistance exercise, hiking more than 200 km a month and water only fasting for 3-4 days once a month.
And I have a regime of taking supplements which I learned from this blog. I give you credit for this!!!
Stephan,
For your information, a Brazilian team is currently working to replicate Harold Katcher’s experiment. This team is the ICR (Instituto da Ciência do Rejuvenescimento), in collaboration with Unicamp University (Campinas, Brazil).
The transfusions are expected to begin this year, but they are still seeking additional funding.
I’m disappointed to hear Harold and Akshay have parted ways. But maybe they both work better separately for all I know. I hope they’ll both continue in this line of work. Does anyone know what their plans are?
As of a month ago, Harold had received funding to go into production creating enough E5 to treat a human, perhaps himself. He had hired a lab technician and was training the person.
Thanks for sharing. Go Harold!
I seem to recall Harold and/or Akshay were conducting (or getting set to conduct) trials on dogs. Did that ever happen? I worry that, like caloric restriction, E5 won’t be as helpful for larger mammals as it is for the small.
Hi Stephan. As Patricio mentioned, our institute ICR, in collaboration with university Unicamp (both from Brazil), will replicate this year (2026) Harold Katcher’s seminal experiment of rat rejuvenation, whose scientific article was published on October 2023 in Geroscience journal. On May 2026 we will collect the blood of young pigs, and in June 2026 we will inject the extracellular particles into the old rats. In our website, https://www.rejuvenescimento.org/english, we explain all the details. We will publish all methods, materials and results immediately. We raised already 75% of the total cost of the experiment (the total cost is US$ 75,000). It’s possible to contribute in our website.
As I think I said to you before, Nicolas, that’s a terrific thing you’re doing. Scientific findings need to be replicated.
Could you be doing something better though? I don’t want to presume what your exact goals are, nor do I know all your circumstances of course. It just seems to me like you’re bogged down in some grueling fundraising, and I wonder if you could circumvent that by leveraging some things that already exist. I’m guessing a lot of that money goes towards feeding and housing a population of rats. Of course, there are geriatric mammals all over Brazil already being housed and cared for: pet dogs and cats. I think veterinarians should be incorporating E5 treatments into their day-to-day practice. This could be a money-making thing, and wouldn’t it be easier to raise money when there’s the prospect of a return? I know E5 isn’t patentable. I’m not talking about getting some megalomaniacal venture capitalist hellbent on making trillions. I just mean a small business supplying E5 to veterinarians, who of course report the results… Or perhaps veterinarians could produce E5 in house. I don’t know what their capacities are either. I’m not looking to spell out details here. I’m just making the observation that we live in a world with a lot of pent up demand and wherewithal for pursuit of E5 treatments. Maybe you should turn it loose, rather than building something up from scratch.
I think this is a really good idea, but we’re not ready for it yet.
The production of E5 is incompletely described, and is partially protected by patent. What Nicolas is doing is validating a public domain method for purifying a plasma extract with rejuvenation potential across species. We have to know with some certainty that this works before we can sell it to dog owners and veterinarians.
Thanks, that’s nice to know. I’m always in favor of public domain, open source approaches.
More certainty about efficacy is always better, but (though I guess it wasn’t clear from what I wrote) my notion included veterinarian involvement in the testing.
I’m now wondering what the patent holder (Yuvan?) is up to. They could do what I suggest. They have confidence in efficacy (presumably) and no need to establish a public domain methodology. Perhaps they have a better plan for realizing return on investment. If so, more power to them, but when does that materialize? The patent is like what, 6 years old now?
I feel vaguely out of the loop here. You’re my only window. Maybe you would like to do a post on the current lay of the land here; technically, financially, commercially, sociologically… introduce new players like Nicolas? Have you written about his group before? It might spur donations. Advocate for what you think should happen next. Just an idea. I know you’re busy. 🙂
Hi Alfred. Besides what Josh wrote, there are other reason for not to go through the path you suggest. Imagine, for a moment, that a small veterinary clinic starts using this technology in old dogs and cats. You say that their profit rejuvenating these animals could fund the research. However, have you imagined the consequences of a clinic starting rejuvenating old dogs and cats, anywhere in the world? Instantly it will be international news. Millions of people from all around would start flocking the clinic bringing their pets to be saved in the small clinic. Also, if this technology rejuvenates dogs and cats, why old people close to dying wouldn’t want to try it? I suppose you already understood my point. This is not an ordinary technique that can help a small business that can fund a research. Once rejuvenation arrives (for dogs, cats, rats or humans), it’s a revolution. And for doing that we only need to prove it works in a mammal, such as a rat. That’s our focus: carry out the experiment in a non-commercial environment to be able to be transparent and publish all methods, materials and results, working with an university and scientists that have a relevant reputation, making a totally reproducing experiment, and letting the rats live until they die but natural causes, using periodically the therapy — only that way we can start to convince society that rejuvenation arrived. If we try to do that in a small veterinary clinic, we wouldn’t have the backing of the scientific community, and without that, it can be more dangerous and chaotic. In sum, I think we should do it from inside the scientific community.
Well, I guess, practically speaking, the matter is academic at this point. (Pun intended.) I don’t expect to change your mind. And that’s fine. I’m very glad you’re doing what you’re doing.
Nonetheless, I think I’ll say that I don’t believe it would be international news. Rejuvenation is too far outside people’s mental frameworks and expectations about the world. It won’t register, make sense, be believed… Furthermore I see no need to convince society, or get the backing of the scientific community.
Also, I would like to see the technique proven on larger, more K-selected mammals. I worry it might be like caloric restriction, more useful for the small.
I don’t often get messages like this, and it’s deeply fulfilling for me to know that my work has touched some readers and that their health is better for having followed my guidance. You keep me going.
Josh,
Keep it up and keep writing. I’ve been reading your blog for a long time, though most often in silent mode. You have pointed out a lot of interesting research that I probably would not have come across otherwise. Also the comment threads following your posts often make for interesting reading.
Best wishes to you and all for a great 2026!
Thanks Josh and happy new year!
This is important news, but there is an effective universal cancer treatment, which has been languishing for 30+ years.
Kindly see this petition on change-org: “Help bring an Ideal Cancer Treatment – effective, non-toxic & low-cost – to light.” Yes, yes, such a treatment exists.
https://youtu.be/0-H6RoHPx3c
This universal cancer treatment uses Gentle Electrotherapy to disable the pivotal enzyme RnR (Ribonucleotide Reductase) in cancer growth. Top cancer institutions in the USA and India have acknowledged its validity. It has proven effective in human patients, but it is not being explored and offered because it is not a moneymaker.
I hope you take an interest in this matter. Thanks.
Sorry, I included a link to the related video above instead of the petition. Here is the correct link:
https://chng.it/tstpsFFnzc
Yes, Happy New Year to Josh and all the posters. I love the site and comments, so thank you to JM and to the other contributors to the world of ideas.
Josh, did you ever do a post on gut biome and neurotransmitters? Or on coffee consumption? I’m curious about the modern use of screen time and/or dopamine insensitivity with so much work, smartphone, laptop and information or picture overload in the modern day.
The reason I ask is because I’ve tracked certain things that appear to be clear symptoms of balance, recharging, withdrawal, etc that for from 30-100 days (it’s reproducible in this range for years as I’ve tracked it) where relative anhedonia, cognition, motivation, all are decreased for that time period. Then it just goes away and one feels like himself again. I wouldn’t call it depression and dislike the idea in general of psychotropics; I do think it has something to do with the gut, food, healing and/or modern living with technology.
Do you have a theory why this could be? If anyone else might weigh in I’d also be appreciative. I have zero physical ailments and am in near perfect physical shape otherwise. Yes, exercise is also one of few things that makes me feel better, as does caffeine. Curious thing.
Best to all!
Patience – thanks for introducing yourself, and thanks for participating here.
Biome: I know it’s important, but from what I’ve read it’s individual and depends on whole bacterial ecosystems, modified by your history, your diet, and your genetics. I don’t know of anyone who has put all this together into an individual-based therapy yet.
Coffee: I refer you to Rhonda at FoundMyFitness.com. I know there are polyphenols in coffee associated with life extension. I know that occasional coffee can boost attention, creative energy, and productivity. I know that coffee every day is subject to compensation from the metabolism so the net result is that you have less energy, and you start drinking more coffee. When I take caffeine in any form, I don’t sleep as well.
Screens: I agree that we’ve come to substitute computers for human interaction. There’s a way in which it’s broader — access to a wide range of ideas and people around the world. But also shallower — the subtlety and the touch of human presence are missing, and we’re all paying a price. Are you saying that you feel more alive during the first months away from computer screens? I’m not sure I read your message correctly.
An interesting research paper from Italy suggesting why some people get very old
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-025-02043-4
This being a cancer treatment entry, I’d like to add something to it.
2-3 years ago, a poster asked about the Rife machine. I pointed out that this wasn’t really the venue to discuss it, but I provided the “deep dive” information I has obtained over a previous research foray.
However, in the period between my research and my posting, a major book length article (300+ pages) was made available on the Rife machine, with both a complete history, and engineering research, based on both photographs of the first Rife machine and the discovery of a non-working third model, from with both schematics and a working understanding of how it worked, and why attempts to recreate it have always failed. (Note, if you recreate it at the power required, you will get a major knock on the door from the FCC, as the Cancer frequency settings steps on an AM Radio frequency (1607 on the AM dial). and from the FDA, to boot.)
If you are interested, this is the “book” link. https://www.rifevideos.com/pdf/a_history/the_rife_machine_report_a_history_of_rifes_instruments_and_frequencies.pdf
A paper on using exosomes to repair COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease). See link (for full paper click on the view PDF on the top of the page). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235232042600009X
I was initially very excited to see the extracellular vesicles could work via nebulization/inhalation, as perhaps that could be an easier way to address aging, rather than accessing the blood. But perhaps that protocol is only helpful for pulmonary matters.
Lots of experiments and human trials yet to be done.