Longevity science lives between promise and noise. The most useful voices are not the loudest ones. They are the ones willing to ask what is proven, what is plausible, and what remains wishful thinking.
The first myth is that we're close to solving aging. We're not close to solving aging. But I like the mindset it gives me by not planning to die. So I'm not planning to die. If the world decided suddenly this is the most important problem, which by the way it is, and we actually put resources towards the problem. It's hard to predict how fast things would advance. Every day that we bring forward the defeat of aging, we're basically saving 110, 000 lives. And that's quite easy to get out of bed for. Do you predict someone is going to die from peptide misuse in the next six months? Absolutely. Yeah, 100%. What is your beef with David Sinclair about? My biggest beef with David is that he plays fast and loose with the truth. I mean, I'll give you a specific example. In the longevity space, what are we collectively lying about? Well, what is the most dangerous thing in the longevity space right now? Honestly, I would say the single most dangerous thing is the same thing that it's always been. The what I've always called the pro-aging trance. The fact that people are so terrified of aging that they find irrational ways to put it out of their minds and they just cling to those irrational rationalizations come what may and that slows everything down. Super interesting. We had Dario on the podcast recently. He's very optimistic about longevity escape velocity happening in 1015 years and and one of those reasons is that he's in his 60s and that he really needs longevity escape velocity to happen in 15 years and something he said is well we're all going to die anyway. So when we talk about the threat for example of super
about the threat for example of super intelligence killing everyone his response to that is well we're gonna die so why don't we just push forward and would you agree with someone like Daria largely yes I mean I think you know I've always been driven by humanitarian motives not really by thinking of myself or my loved ones or anything like that um really just because you know the math the mathematics is much more powerful that way you know if you're trying to save your own life then you know whatever you do you might increase your probability of making it to longevity escape velocity by a few percent if you're even if you make a really big difference whereas you know every day that we bring forward with the defeat of aging we're basically saving 110, 000 lives and that's quite easy to get out of bed for what's your purpose for being in the space Johannes do you look at longevity escape velocity as this kind of dream kind of utopian land that we're going to be walking to No it was never my intention um my intention was always about feeling good and feeling Well, and most people are not feeling happy and well when they are sick. So my way was always to be as healthy as possible because when your body is healthy, your mind is healthy, you we talked before about mitochondrial psychobiology. When your mitochondria working well, your brain is working well in you feeling happier about life. And no, for me in my opinion, it's not important how long, it's more important how you feel about life. Yeah. Matt, are you what's your stance on LEV? Well, I I first of all, I don't think those two positions are mutually exclusive. I think you can believe in both and and want both. And
believe in both and and want both. And that's sort of where I land. I am all for longevity escape velocity. Where I I think differ maybe a little bit from Aubrey is my optimism that we are approaching longevity escape velocity. And again, I'm very data driven. I'm very evidence-based. The data to me is clear. We have not made significant progress in the field towards longevity escape velocity as measured by our ability to robustly slow biological aging or increase lifespan even in laboratory animals. And so I think it's hard for me to envision that we are approaching longevity escape velocity in the next 10 years 15 years. Now I would love to see that happen but I guess where maybe I land is we should have that as a goal. That is a perfectly reasonable goal and we should be realistic that what we can likely accomplish in the next 10 or 15 years is less than that but still extremely significant from a societal perspective 15 20 plus years of health span for sure and probably increased lifespan in humans we should be approaching both fighting for both but but I don't want to suggest that we need to pick one or the other and I think that's where this this debate in the field between health span and lifespan sometimes is a distraction that that doesn't really need to exist. Yes. I sometimes give talks with a slide entitled health span versus lifespan with versus crossed out with a big red cross, you know. Um because you I mean I'm completely in agreement, you I think one thing that is really overlooked is that even though experts
overlooked is that even though experts in the field are, you know, they cover a range a spectrum of um predictions of time frames for how much how long it's going to take to get this or that amount of progress. It doesn't actually translate very much at all into disagreements about what the highest priority research ought to be. You know, like there are people who are more pessimistic than that, like Eric Verden for example. Yeah, you know, we we all pretty much agree on what the right research is to do now to maximize the speed of progress, even if we may disagree about exactly what speed that will turn out to be. You know, as one of the people that promoted the health span concept, it was always a bit of a construct, you know, because you had a large percentage of the population that when you said longevity, they were like thinking about their grandmother who was sick and, you know, on oxygen and why would you make that person live longer? and they didn't understand that what we were really trying to do was to push the process out and keep everybody healthy longer as well. So health span became a term largely to convince the public of that. I I don't I think it's a false dichotomy. I mean the way to increase lifespan and not health span is to do the medicine reactionary medicine we're doing today. That's working very well at that. [clears throat] [clears throat] Uh I think longevity research is going to push both out. Yeah. And of course the difficulty that has arisen is that when people hear the word health span they think only in terms of compression of morbidity. In other words they kind of it it's as if people are being heard sort of saying yes well okay yeah if you stay healthy longer then you will stay alive longer
longer then you will stay alive longer but almost apologizing for that rather than celebrating it. I I call longevity the side effect of going out focusing on the big levers that again I really believe at least for the average American can get 15 years of health span for most people. I don't know how much it's going to increase lifespan. So there's a lot we can do that doesn't even necessarily involve you know gerotherrapeutic drugs or or things like that to have a large impact on quality and quantity of life for people today. Yeah. And then what we need to do is on top of that layer on the advances that are happening now or in the pipeline. And I would just add one thing quick to that. I think there's a difference between median lifespan and maximum lifespan. I'm very confident median lifespan is going to go up. I think maximum lifespan is an more interesting debate right now. I also think it will go up too eventually. But I think there's if you look at some of the human data right now, you can make the argument and Peter Fedichev makes this argument that um the interventions we're looking at right now, you can stack them together and that may square the curve and get more people closer to the maximum, but it's unlikely to really push the maximum out. And we don't know if that's right or not, but it's certainly a viable argument at this stage. But to be clear, we're talking species lifespan, which was 120, 130 years. Matt, what is the worst thing happening in the longevity space right now? I don't know if it's the worst thing. I mean, I think one of the things that that we have certainly seen is with the amplification of interest in longevity uh and amplification of misinformation.
uh and amplification of misinformation. Maybe what I would suggest is that the signal to noise ratio has shifted a lot more towards noise and so it's become really hard even for for people who are informed to be able to separate the signal from the noise. And so I think that's a real problem and I don't honestly see it changing in the near future. But I think one of the things that I have tried to do is be a voice that can start to help separate what's real, what's evidence-based from the aspects of information out there that that are not real or evidence-based. Johannes, what is a good signal in the industry and what is noise? So I would say a good signal is that the interest is growing so much that more people are taking care of the health. What about noise? As an owner of a clinic, it's also a problem because they are coming pretty sick and saying, "Yeah, I want to start with peptides and they not even have a real blood panel." Yeah. And this is also a problem. Very interesting. Brian, would you agree that? Yeah, I would agree with that. I think that uh what's amazing to me when I work with longevity clinics is you have people coming in, these are upper middle class to high net worth people and a third of them have some chronic condition. and they don't even know they have and they want to jump right to some, you know, advanced treatment for something and it's like, let's do medicine before we do longevity medicine. You know, there there's that there's this gap between the two and people are ignoring one and trying to jump to the other. But maybe that's a problem with the way that longevity medicine has come to be perceived because I would suggest that that real longevity medicine or what I
that real longevity medicine or what I would call health spent medicine is in fact starting with what's actually going to move the needle, right? That's the important part of longevity and health span. The un unfortunate part is because of the way the field has been portrayed in what I would call influential influencer culture or wellness culture, the shiny object incremental stuff is where a lot of people think they need to start. That's where the investment goes too to the shiny objects and and I'm not sure that's that's it should be more balanced. Let's put it that way. So, can you make money from the signal, Aubrey? I wish I knew. Uh I mean you know I don't I'm one of those people I don't really have an entrepreneurial bone in my body so I always find it difficult to speak the language of people who want to make money but I mean I think so I mean I think the what we've seen over the past six or eight years especially is a growth of interest from early stage investors who you know they want to make money eventually even though they know that it's quite a long way down the road before the things they're putting money into it will actually translate into revenue. And so yes, I think at this point we have reached the stage where money can be made. It's just that you know some things are much easier to make money from than others and things that are not so easy or look not so easy tend to get very neglected whether by investors or by donors for that matter. Very interesting. So Johannes, as a longevity clinic owner, do you find that people should come in with a with the good signal and look after their health,
good signal and look after their health, eat, sleep well, um exercise and then the noise should follow the let's say the peptides, the energy precursors, whatever it might be. Yes, absolutely. They should start with the basics to a basic blood panel. And yesterday in the pre presentation I said that uh we have papers that even up to 95% have some health condition. So only 5% are really healthy. So we have to start to uh doing a human - centered medicine and the root cause medicine. Okay. What are the causes that making you sick in some way and then start to optimize in some way. Before we get back into it, a quick word on NAD clinic, our new sponsor. If you spent any time looking into longevity and peptides, you'll know that it's all very overwhelming. Everyone's got a product, a protocol, and half the time you have no idea what's actually in the bottle. That's exactly the problem NAD Clinic is solving. They've built a one-stop marketplace for longevity and performance medicine, offering everything from best-in - class NAD, diagnostics, and peptides. So, if you want to navigate this space properly, NAD clinic is where to start. Do you predict someone is going to die from peptide misuse in the next six months? 100%. Of course, obviously. I mean that will happen. It happened in the last 6 months. Now I think the question is did they die from the peptide itself or from some impurity in the the manufacturing. Most often the severe adverse outcomes from people
severe adverse outcomes from people using peptides, especially research grade peptides they buy on the internet. Bad idea folks. um is because there's an impurity in there that leads to an allergic reaction, right? So yes, people will die. Um unfortunately, uh and you know, we just have to be prepared for that. I think the maybe the larger question is given the current environment, are enough people going to die that there's a pendulum swing back towards, you know, hyper regulation? Right? because what we have seen is a a gradual shift towards um lack of enforcing the regulations that are in place. Um and so and I'm not necessarily like I don't I'm not super thrilled with the idea that you have random people selling peptides on the internet, but I think people should have access to medications as long as they're fully informed and peptides are medications. But I think the concern is that if there are some catastrophic events that get a lot of press, and the press loves it when there's catastrophic events, like at Radfest last year where two women almost died, um that that could lead to a pendulum swing back the other direction and it makes the entire field look bad. Yeah. Uh yeah. I I mean, yeah. what what he said really you know the um it's good that we have a minority of the human population who are inherently not very riskaverse who are early adopters and you know who act as guinea pigs you know one of the um uh things that Brian has become uh fond of saying is that we have
become uh fond of saying is that we have this new research species now called the billionaire um and uh I think you know that's that's the way we should think about it we got get as much data as we can out of something that's going to happen anyway, namely early adopters taking risks. Can I comment on that though because I I agree with the concept, but what I have seen is it's not a small percentage of the population. It's not early adopters. So, and I'll give you a very concrete example. So, my wife and I were at dinner, this is now several months ago, and a friend of hers, typical late4s middle-class woman, struggling with weight. Um, she gets this text from her friend who says that her new functional medicine doctor prescribed her five peptides. And I'm like, "Oh, really? What peptides?" And so, one of them was FDA approved. Three of them were experimental peptides. One isn't even a peptide. It's a small molecule where there are like three mouse studies, right? And this is just you know a a very average person. This is not the. 1% you know risk averse. She trusted her functional medicine doctor and this guy was in my view completely unethical in the way he was treating her. [snorts] So the problem I one problem I think is that this has become so talked about in popular culture that that many people don't understand the actual risk profile. And it's not that they're willing to take the risk. They don't realize there's and that comes back to what you were saying about incentives that you know the problem here is of course the functional medicine doctor that that was
functional medicine doctor that that was doing this and they're making money. Yeah. [clears throat] And I don't want to blast functional medicine docs. There are some really really good functional medicine docs. Right. But you're going to get less good ones as a result of the I mean I think you're dependent on your doctor anywhere though. I mean we we the more I interact with the standard medicine doctors, you know, we're doing this longevity clock and they're using it so we're interacting with them. I feel like a lot of things are falling through the cracks where there is, you know, good me good evidence and this should be done and bad decisions are getting made. I think you're always dependent on who you choose to provide your medical support, you know, and whether it's standard medicine, functional medicine, longevity medicine, and this goes back to the signal to noise. How do you separate the good providers from the bad providers? And it's hard to do. It's really hard. Yeah. Also, in Australia, it's really hard decision. Johannes, do you prescribe peptides? And if so, which ones? So in in Austria, it's really hard regulated. So we only do it uh in an inner circle like with friends, but not regular with patients because it's really strong regulated and it's not allowed. So we are not really doing it. We we using good peptides on ourselves or with friends and in really close circles but not like randomly and it's not the time for it because we in my opinion we have two less studies and you have to do so much things before like the basic blood panels the sports and everything before. So no it's not and to be clear you're talking about non-approved peptides. So, cuz this is where again there's a lot of we need to be clear in our language about
be clear in our language about I'd like to just add to that cuz we're starting a whole research program in my lab because none of the longevity science there's not none very few are working on peptides and yet you know so there's not people aren't trying to put the science the preclinical and clinical science behind this right now and yet peptides are some of the most successful look at GLP-1 I mean these are active molecules your body ones we're interested in your body makes um they're designed over evolution ution to do things. They're often very stable. This is a great potential class of drugs, whether it's longevity or disease. And it needs more research because we you always talk about the fact that when we're looking for drugs, we're only looking under the lampost and there's many other things out there. We haven't looked at peptides. We don't even have a lamp post. You know, we have a flashlight. You know, it's it's we need to expand this 100%. Matt, do you think there's a positive correlation between how bullish someone is on longevity escape velocity and how old they are? No. Or if anything, it's probably the opposite of the correlation you're thinking of and in that there are a lot of very young people who who are very bullish on on longevity escape velocity. Yeah. Okay. That's certainly true. Yeah. Okay. On this table, we've got business owners, we've got pure longevity scientists, and we've got m a mix as well. So first of all, someone who owns a clinic, what is one thing that longevity scientists don't understand? Yeah, what is one thing? [sighs] [sighs] We have lots of things we know that are
We have lots of things we know that are working. For example, let's talk about NAD plus infusions. I was talking about that yesterday. We have only one randomized control placebo trial and we've got results and they used NAD + for schizophrenia and used it for addicts and we see it in the clinic that it's working for most of the people and we are doing NAD + infusion. We're seeing they're getting better, they're feeling healthier, they're so we seeing it's working but we don't have so much studies on healthy adults or in some ways it's it's extending lifespan and so it's important to have the connection to the patients and I think outcomes over opinions in some cases when we see okay the patient is happy and it's working why why we don't do it because when we seeing it's safe and it works why we don't do it we cannot wait for a really long time to have the right studies yeah I So, that's a perfectly valid um perspective. I think where I land, again, being somebody trained as a scientist who really values evidence-based medicine or or datadriven medicine, is um first of all, we don't know what's placebo effect. And I think it's a legitimate argument to say even if it's placebo effect, as long as somebody feels better, great. The safety piece is where it gets really hard because you said it's safe. We don't know if NAD infusions are safe over the long term. We don't know. Maybe we're going to find out that people are getting really really sick if they have repeated NAD infusions 5 years down the road. That's why we need sort of large clinical trials where we can actually evaluate what is the efficacy, what is
evaluate what is the efficacy, what is the safety look like. So I am all in the gray area that we're not going to get those clinical trials in the near future. Can I just add a point to that because we don't know if JLP1 are going to be safe. We do. They've been around for decades plus, right? We've got long-term data now and nothing is completely safe, right? Obviously, this is a a balance, but once you have hundreds of thousands, millions of people using a drug and then you get into the 10 plus, 15 plus year range, you start to have a pretty good feel of like if there is a long-term side effect, how bad is it going to be? I don't want to suggest GLPS are completely safe. They're they're not, but we know a lot about how to use them safely. And so, um, we don't have that for NAD infusions. We don't have that for a lot of the shiny what I call the shiny object stuff. And I I want to add something to NAD + infusion to the safety. It's around 60 to seven years used in medicine and when they're using it for really sick people for uh addicts for um abusing alcohol and they're getting in 10 days in a row up to three grams NAD over the whole day. So really high doses. We never use these high doses for really sick people and they're getting healthier, getting better. Um, I don't be scared about long-term side effects in healthy people when we it's Well, I would say it's almost the opposite. You're willing to tolerate if somebody is very sick. If somebody's healthy, then if you have even modest side effects, you should be concerned about that, right? Again, the the riskreward ratio changes depending on
riskreward ratio changes depending on the patient's situation. [clears throat] And again, I don't I'm not really worried about NAD infusions. I don't think the risk is super high, but everything has a risk. And and the reality is we just don't know, right. And the peptide space is full of this stuff. This is a fascinating thing about longevity clinics and I'm very supportive of them. I like working with them. But it's really, you know, typically in a you go to a medical clinic, it's about safety and efficacy, whatever you're doing. And these longevity clinics are in a different area. It's, you know, clinical practice and research almost at the same time because [clears throat] if you draw a hardline, you know, pharmaceutical viewpoint of what's proven, very few things are proven. But a lot of clinics say exactly what you say and they have data to support it and and that things are working. Uh they don't have the kind of data that the pharmaceutical pharmaceutical industry wants to see but it's still interesting data. So it's a gray area. So to me it's not about safety and efficacy. It's about trying to maximize safety and transparency. You know, it's like I think if clients want to come in, be empowered to make decisions in the longevity space and try things and they understand the risk and reward of that and they want to do it, that's great. But the key thing is the clinic has to be direct with them about here's the evidence, here's what we think is going to happen, here's the potential risk, you know, you decide and and those are the clinics that I'm trying to work with. And I think that informed consent piece is really important, right? Yeah. The riskreward ratio is precisely the point and it's really the in fact this could have been my answer to your earlier question about what's the most dangerous thing in longevity. What we do
dangerous thing in longevity. What we do is basically we try to develop and we try to provide preventative medicine and preventative medicine has always been an insanely hard cell precisely because people are so bad at being rational and having a sense of proportion about risk and reward. You know the example I often give is with clinical trials that like you know in 1999 one teenager died in a clinical trial for gene therapy and the whole of gene therapy was closed down for god knows how long. You know the number of lives that will end up having been lost as a result of that is insanely large. And yet you've got drugs that you've got obviously an excessively riskaverse regulatory regime in pretty much all countries in the world that delays the approval of safe drugs. And again, many lives are lost, but it doesn't make headlines. It's something that this is one of the biggest problems that we have completely failed really to address. And I don't know how we can I agree with that. And and I also want to add one to NAD + and and these topics. Uh often patients are coming and they say, "Yeah, I want to start with NAD plus infusions." And in 80% of the cases, I'm saying uh yeah, you have to start to regulate the nervous system. This is the first step. So we start with brain mapping, neuro feedback, nervous system regulation. And I'm don't I I really say them okay what's uh really the topic and this is a human - centered medicine not a business centered because when a business owner lots of them will say yes you do n plus I'm earning lots of money with it but we have really focus on their client and I believe in long-term these clinics will
believe in long-term these clinics will stay these others will close in long term term I just say something to that point because there are many people who enter the longevity space wanting NAD IVs and I had Eric Verden on the podcast um a few weeks ago and he's been studying it for two decades and he was saying, "Well, the data is showing us that it doesn't work." And I rebuttled him and said, "Um, but look, why are so many people taking it and wanting it and feeling better from it?" And he mentioned placebo and the B3 or whatever that they add to the IV. It doesn't it I feel something is just not not adding up here. Yeah. So, there are lots of clinics we see all over the world that is working. Even there lots of uh clinics for uh ERF uh IVF is working with NAD + because they're seeing better results. So we we know that it's working but yeah we have not the big data here. It really comes down to exactly what Brian said that you know longevity clinics are doing treatment and research at the same time. you know, uh we are trying to find out what works and the fact that it's preventative medicine means that one is having to do long-term followup and monitoring in order to actually find things out that are definitive. Yeah. Can I raise a couple of concerns though is I think that the challenge is that because because of the way this is being done, the data aren't being collected in a manner that scientists are going to feel comfortable with. Right? The other issue I have with with some of these things and I think NAD infusions fall into this category is many of these what again
category is many of these what again what I would consider sort of incremental procedures right for most people um are revenue generators for the clinics and so there's an incentive to first of all say that it's working and secondly to get more people to buy the procedure right and so how do you this is this would be like when drug companies pay for research how do you remove that intrinsic bias from the data collection. And I think you mentioned it with NAD. I also see this with stem cells. You know, clinics are they can make a lot of money off of stem cell infusion. Uh and all of the health span and lifestyle and all the measurements and stuff they don't make the the profit margins are not that high on. And so they run to the stem cells. Everybody gets a stem cell injection. And then, you know, I'm not against uh stem cells either particularly, but I think that's you know, the let the icing on the cake. Let's do the cake first and that's what we need to get clinics to do. Absolutely. Yeah, 100%. Are the billionaires, this new species, are they actually driving what you're looking to research in the labs? There's always this hilarious. So, I mean, I think first of all, it's a complete myth that that the billionaires are putting a substantial amount of resources into the field. They should be, but they're not. I mean it's a tiny fraction of all the billionaires in the world like maybe nine who have actually put money into longevity research or aging research and it's a tiny fraction of their net worth and it's a tiny fraction of the NIH budget or NIA budget. So
budget or NIA budget. So it is a complete myth that millionaires that first of all that that what we're talking about at this table is only for billionaires or that billionaires are driving the research in the field to any real extent. I mean there are specific examples. Altos for example that's a large research endeavor um that's funded largely by Jeff Bezos also some other uh high net worth individuals but that's one company. So in the grand scheme of things I think we would all agree it'd be great if the billionaires would step up. There's a lot of lowhanging fruit that could be accomplished in this field. It's still resource starved. I mean what I'm seeing it's it's becoming like a new status symbol for lots of because they have everything they have enough money and they have everything in their life and then they want more health that what I'm seeing form of status so so they're going to they're spending money on their healthare but they're not funding the field right and even there I mean I think it's worth saying you know these guys are getting buff and looking good in their 60s7s they're not going to live to be 100 most of them it's not going to significantly because because we haven't done anything significant to slow biological aging. Yeah. The best healthcare in the world isn't going to get you most likely to 110 years old in good health. Back to peptides. Can you name me one compound in particular you're particularly worried about? I'll give you a class. I think um uh peptides and small molecules that target the mitochondria I get concerned about because of course the mitochondria are
because of course the mitochondria are the powerhouses of the cell. Um, and we have a classic example of a drug called ditrophenol that became widely used in the 1930s and killed hundreds of people because it's a mitochondrial uncoupler and it's a weight loss drug. So people started taking it, they So, so people started taking it, they started losing weight. It's comparable to, if not more effective than the GLPs, but one of the side effects is when you turbocharge the mitochondria, you generate heat. And so people started dying from hypothermia or they got strokes or they got cataracts. So um so anyways I I think targeting mitochondria there are great mitochondrial drugs and we need mitochondrial drugs but we also need to be careful when we are messing around with the powerhouses of the cell. Yeah I mean um to that point uh the classic example of course was a drug named MPTP which um causes Parkinsonism. Basically, it's now become an actual um research tool because you can make a tolerable um phenocopy of Parkinson's disease in mice using this chemical, but it was discovered because it's addictive, right? Yeah. Actually, maybe one thing to add to that is um uh so when we're talking about about peptides, we when we know the mechanism of action like the growth hormone secrets, right? People have been taking growth hormone for many years and we have a pretty good feel for just what supplementing growth hormone itself is is going to do in terms of safety and efficacy. And so we can be pretty confident that a peptide that boosts the
confident that a peptide that boosts the body's natural growth hormone production isn't going to have side effects worse than that. Right? So I think it's if you know something about the mechanism of action, you can do a an initial riskreward calculation. And I think really what I'm talking about is the catastrophic risk, right? the the risk of something really really bad happening. So I'm not so worried about the growth hormone secrets because the worst that's problem I mean cancer is one thing you'd think about but again we already know that even actually supplementing with growth hormone doesn't increase the cancer risk by 100fold right so um that that's kind of the way I think about you know classes of peptides or other other experiment we really need to backfill this research with these peptides because people are using them and I I believe some of them are doing interesting things and good things but we in many cases we don't know mechanism And one of the nice things about peptides is based on our knowledge of biology, you can look at the peptide and sort of get an idea for what it might be doing in most cases, but that's not evidence. That's a hypothesis. And they're offtarget effects and these things are going to have them, too. Uh I think they're extremely promising, but um you know, we're just we're jumping into humans. I'm not necessarily against that. Uh but we need to get the research to go with it because it you know when people tell me the mechanism of a peptide I'm like we don't know that you know we that's an interesting hypothesis. Yeah Yeah we've seen quite a bit of success in the longevity industry recently. Life
longevity industry recently. Life biosciences with their partial reprogramming reprogramming um retro of course have just raised at a $ 1. 8 billion valuation. Matt, what is your beef with David Sinclair about? Um, well, I think my biggest beef with David is that he plays fast and loose with the truth. And so, again, I think it's important as scientists that we are precise in our language and we tell people the truth. And David has a track record of not doing that in many occasions. What do you think about his per his program with Life Biosciences? So, I think there's a couple things to say. Um, one is the the epigenetic reprogramming as just as a technology. I think uh among the interventions that are being widely studied right now probably has the highest ceiling in terms of the potential for a very large effect size. So I am all for uh continuing to research that technology moving it in into clinical trials. I I like what life biosciences is doing. There are other companies um working on this as well. I think starting with the eye makes sense because the likelihood of catastrophic outcomes again is lower than it would be if you worked in other tissues or talked about systemic reprogramming. So I'm interested cautiously optimistic that that program will be successful. I hope it will be and I think it's probably a coin flip at this point whether it's going to work. Um so I think we'll just have to wait and see. I guess [snorts] the way that I look at what the people in this field who are respected
in this field who are respected scientists but are also entrepreneurs say the way I look at it is, you know, it's no different than any other walk of life. Caveat mtor, you know, people who are selling things tend to play a bit first and loose with the truth. And um one just has to take that into account when evaluating what they're saying. Yeah, that's a really interesting point, Matt, because there's always going to be a high-risisk um ratio in in the space. And so, what do you mean a high-risisk ratio? As in like for for a molecule to get to market, you know, that how many failures are there in in the valley of death? So, could it be that David is well-intentioned and that just he just failed? No. I mean, I'll give you a specific example. So, he and his brother started a company selling supplements for dogs and he made a claim in a press release. This is the first clinically proven supplement to reverse aging in dogs. That was just a flatout lie. I don't see how you're well-intentioned. You make a statement about dogs and it's not true. Matt's coming after you. But I mean, that's hardly the first time. So again, when you have a pattern of behavior, like where does it cross the line from exaggeration to lying? I don't know. But that was a lie. Aubry, how do you feel? So you are a longevity scientist who is constantly fundraising for your foundation. How does it feel when someone like Demis Arbis raises $ 2. 1 billion for a startup that is just starting to get into this space, you know, the health and longevity space? Well, I mean, Disabus is a special case in my view for a bunch of reasons. First of all, because I've been friends with him since he was an undergrad. We both
him since he was an undergrad. We both went to Cambridge. Um, secondly, because even though I've had the privilege of meeting a large number of very smart people through my career, I think I would genuinely say that Dennis is the single smartest person I've ever met. But also because he's he's got very good judgment about what to work on. You know, he created isomorphic labs out of Deep Mind because it gave him more freedom to do uh things that, you know, he felt were important for health. and he's definitely very focused on um on using AI for the benefit of mankind in general, but for health in particular. Do you think his statement of curing all diseases in a decade is possible? I am always nervous about sentences that use the word disease to cover age related chronic conditions. almost as sus as nervous as I am about sentences that have the word aging in them because people mean different things by different I mean one could David would David Sinclair going back to the previous topic would probably say that he wasn't lying when he made the statement about dogs because he just it's true for some definition of the word aging you know it's that bad um you know Mark Zuckerberg said something like you know the CI is going to cure all diseases by the end of a century. I didn't think that was a very useful thing to say. Uh but if we're going to
thing to say. Uh but if we're going to include, you know, all of the age related conditions that we know about among the category of diseases that are going to be cured, then the only way that the statement can be true, whatever time frame you're talking about, is if we cure aging. Whatever we mean by aging, you know, if we actually extend health span robustly. I mean, let's be honest. When when somebody puts a timeline on that, can we think of any timeline that's ever been met, you know? It's always takes longer than you than people say. And I don't know if it's irrational over exuberance or just trying to get people excited or or what it is, but if you look at history, you know, things happen, but we almost never in some, you know, wild timeline that's thrown out at this early stage of a development project. And maybe AI will change that. I think strategically what you should do is make the timeline far enough out that that if it's if your prediction is right, you're still going to be alive and if your prediction is wrong, you're going to be dead. So, it doesn't matter. Actually, I mean, I do want to push back a little bit on that because the thing about uh prediction of time frames is that sometimes things happen much more quickly than people predicted, you know. I mean if you look at the trajectory of uh progress in developing software to uh determine the tertiary structure of a protein you know which of course course and everybody saw that coming. Yeah. And people predicted that it was going to happen way before it happened. But people predicted people were overoptimistic for a long long time and then suddenly they were over pessimistic you know bang it happened far faster
you know bang it happened far faster than anyone thought. Yeah. When it happened that's for sure. Yeah. I I think you could point to co vaccines as something that happened really fast or you can argue whether that was you know I think they were good. Some people still argue but it happened quickly and and to meet a need and that was pretty interesting. That's right. I often talk about that. My favorite slogan these days is we need to make aging the new co and you know get governments to sweep away all the bureaucracy and all the inertia. And I think that's what's hard with these predictions is because you know like my uh push back is based on evidence that the field has actually made larger and larger effects on aging biology. But that's in the context of being chronically underfunded. If the world decided suddenly this is the most important problem which by the way it is or at least it's in the top few um and we actually put resources towards the problem commensurate with the the potential payoff. It's hard to predict how fast things would advance. a lot faster than they have. And that's what happened. Essentially, the world decided CO could be a huge problem and they put a lot of resources into it. This is fundamentally a resource allocation problem. Yeah. Brian, you are bringing a new biological age test to the market. Does the industry does the world need another age test? Yeah. No, I don't know what we're thinking. I I think the I got frustrated with the biologic aging test. Not from a research perspective. I think these methylation clocks and proteomic clocks all these things are interesting from a research perspective but I didn't think at an individual level in a clinic they were working very well and when we talked to doctors they were like epigenetic clock
doctors they were like epigenetic clock and what does this mean but the biggest problem is that if you go to the doctor and say you have or the longevity clinic and say I have these 13 methylation sites that are making me 10 years too old it's not actionable there's nothing the doctor can do to change that parameter and that makes clinics is worried because they want to help people and if they don't they're doing a test they don't know how to move the needle on the test it's a big challenge so uh in collaboration with Yan Gruber and Fun at National University Singapore we went back and we said let's look at clinical parameters that doctors understand and make a clock that predicts mortality [snorts] and so we're using HBA1C and LDL and all these standard things that are done very accurately in clinical labs all over the world and doctors doctors are trained to understand and then what we come back with is a mortality risk adjusted age. So if we say you're 50 it means you have the mortality risk of a 50-y old and a priority list of biomarkers to target if you want to bring that number down. And all of these numbers are all of these analytes are targetable. We know how to change LDL. We know how to change HBA1C. We know how to change it if your vitamin B is, you know, too low. All these things are modifiable. And so I think that's the advantage. A clinic can say, "All right, you target these two things. We know how fast it's going to work. We can use on label medication. We can use lifestyle. We can use supplements. We use whatever. Uh and in 4 months, we think we're going to bring your mortality risk down by four years." Then
mortality risk down by four years." Then I think that's an actionable thing that clinics can do. And that that's why we're trying to to push this forward. the the paradox for some people is why nobody did it before because obviously as you say these measurements are all traditionally out there. Um I think perhaps it's just that nobody that it needed the epigenetic clock revolution to explain to people how to do the math you know and that was a revolution by the way I think it was a major advancement field. Yeah, Johannes, I think it it perfectly fits the biological age to that what I said before because this this is a language that clients and patient can perfectly understand. This is a biological age and I want to reduce it. And so it start to makes fun in some way as some fancy interventions make more fun than doing everyday sports as an example. And when they see yeah I can reduce my biological age it makes more fun for them and they maybe going more into it. Also they're excited about how is my HIV when I doing with the neuro feedback and their sleep gets better sometime. Last time I had a patient he was doing neuro feedback and then he said yeah now four weeks later I doubled my deep sleep. I don't know why this happened and now we've done nor feedback and we seeing amazing things from the nervous system regulation then they're happy when the results are getting better and biological age. I'm not happy with most of the tests that are on the market but it makes interesting and fun for them. It's the language of the patient. But isn't there also the risk that if the number goes the wrong direction, it's counterproductive? And so that that to me, I mean, we didn't you didn't talk about this, but the issue with the the epigenetic age tests that are on the
epigenetic age tests that are on the market is there's no statistics. There is no difference big enough that you can be confident that it's real. And half the time it's going to go the other direction. 100%. I a lot of these clocks are black box. You don't know what they're doing. So Johannes, your question here is where exactly is the line between legitimate longevity clinic and longevity grifter? I would repeat that what I said before and I talked also in the keynote about that we have to focus really from you know a business centered medicine is a standard standardized protocol and they focus mainly how the clinic is going and when we are focused really on the human yeah then this is the difference when really companies or doctors or clinics are focused on the human okay what is best for them and in the long term you know when it's about health and it's a really intimate thing it's a You have to trust your practitioner and your doctor and when they feel that they're really in good hands and they doctor really wants that they get healthy and not only spending money on his clinics. I think this is the solution for this and this is also the difference. But but with that in mind, okay, you might have a doctor who is, you know, stacking correctly and and measuring correctly, but it's like, you know what, let's make a bit of extra money. Let's add extra three peptides onto your protocol. Is that a grifter move? It depends what you have in mind. when you have in mind okay that I'm making more money yes absolutely and if it I'm always asking okay the client how much time do you have how often can you come for example if you're doing uh IV
for example if you're doing uh IV treatments or hyperbaric how much time have you how much money have you how what is your goal and then we we make a treatment plan for them and when they say yeah I want more about this when they really want to do more yes they can but I'm saying okay you're coming here the example I had before yeah I want to do n then I say No, at first we have to regulate your nervous system and if it fits then maybe we can do after it it fit fits to your goals but we have to do the most important things and then we can talk about the other things. I think hyperre's a great example of that because I see a lot of clinics people come in once every two three months and they do it and I don't think that's really doing anything for them. you know, the evidence there's there's decent evidence. I think that it helps people. But that's the evidence is based on people coming for 5 days a week and doing this, you know, over a period of time. And I think if people are willing to do that and the clinic's willing to promote that, they're probably helping people. I think if they're just saying come in whenever you feel like it, every two, three months, maybe people like it and that's fine, I guess. But I don't think it's really, you know, helping move the needle for their aging. And I think a lot of clinics do that because they only have one of these things. You can't put people in every day and you know it it's and so it's hard to scale it and it's easy to take advantage of. So So great that you pointed out it's it's with lots of things like this because when I'm becoming clinics uh patients from other clinics and they're saying yeah they told me I I can do uh every two weeks one time hyperbaric or to try one NAD infusion and come three months
one NAD infusion and come three months later. And both of them is not true because you stack it really up and if you want to have a real effect you have do it really for a short time really intense then we have have effects and this is also uh this would be also the difference we have to be complete clear if you do it only sometime it not really work also with neuro feedback you do you have to do it in the beginning weekly that you have effects and not only once a month it will not improve and I always saying that and you do it really or not. Yeah. And I I think this is pointing to a bigger problem. I mean, first of all, I think um there is no I don't think there's a clear line between, you know, legitimate clinic and grifter, right? There's all sorts of gray area in the middle. And and I think it's important to recognize the vast majority of physicians and clinics in this space are well-intentioned, right? There are some that are genuine crooks, right? But the vast majority are trying to do a good job. I agree. One of the problems is there is not yet a consensus on protocols, what works, what is works sometimes, and and how to deploy these things. And so what you get is it's a very uneven space and um like you said, you'll get somebody coming from a different clinic that does it completely differently than the way you do it. And we don't know who's right because we don't have the data, right? You know you're right or you think you're right. The other doc probably thinks they're right. So I think until we get to a point where we have uh some sort of recognized body that is giving sort of consensus recommendations on longevity medicine, health span medicine, whatever this evolves into around the different
this evolves into around the different approaches, the different protocols that then at least doctors it'll be this sort of transition from fringe medicine to hopefully at some point proactive health care will be traditional medicine. Right? that'll be the standard and then it'll be sort of worked out how that's done and then there'll be people still working on the edges and so patients who want to get the more edgy approaches can get access to it. Right now mainstream longevity medicine is the edge, right? And that's why it's so I think that we have to be careful how we regulate that and how we decide what's what's legitimate and what's not because I don't think the field's ready for like you have to do this, you can't do that. we need to be more uh nuanced about how we develop those regulations because clinics are doing all kinds of different things and and I don't think anybody can say that you should only do this and not do that. We just don't know right now. So, uh we need to develop sort of the regulation but do it in a way that's like I'm not suggesting regulation. I'm suggesting uh a body of experts who can put forth recommendations so that at least patients can know. Yeah. But I think that can get too rigid. I you absolutely. So So what what is the one red flag someone should look out for when they're looking to get onto peptides. Uh well, first of all, I would say don't go to a longevity clinic looking to get on peptides. That's not where you start. And that would be my red flag. The clinic should start with, do you have a problem that we need to fix that's going to become a chronic disease or kill you in the near future? And what does your lifestyle look like? So if the clinic
lifestyle look like? So if the clinic doesn't start there, that's a big red flag. Sure. But if there's a peptide do a doctor who specializes in peptide if he says says I don't think you should go to a doctor specializing in peptides unless they're FDA approved like I don't but if they are don't do it that's not where you should start. Okay. So so what so so if someone is interested in peptides where should they start? Well I mean yeah I mean no matter has it right. The point is medical care starts from identifying the problem or the future problem um and then deciding you know among the entire universe of potential treatments which ones are most appropriate. Maybe peptides will be the right one maybe not. But if the doctor starts out with a general universal preference for a particular type of medicine rather than another type of medicine then that's a false premise that we should be starting with peptides. This is the influencer culture has convinced a lot of people that that peptides are miracle drugs that are going to change your life and healthy longevity is is still about medicine. You know, there there's very good medicine. Maybe we want to even use more proactive medicine and go on label medications earlier before people get out of reference ranges because we can see patterns or risk that's developing. We need to combine what we know about medicine with these new ideas, not just abandon them and jump into like the first into like the deep end of the pool. It doesn't make sense in the longevity space. What are we collectively lying about? Brian, what are we collectively lying about? You see clinics that say, "Come in. We're going to measure everything and we're going to give you a precision personalized definition for how you're
personalized definition for how you're going to live a healthy longevity as long as possible. We know how to do that. If somebody tells you that, they're either lying to you or they're lying to themselves." Because I think clinics can really help people. But it's an iterative process. You come in, you measure, you make decisions about what people should be doing. They get on board, they do it, then you measure again after a period of time, see how you've gotten, how things have improved, what might still be a problem, change the the approach a little bit, and ultimately over maybe 6 months or a year, you're really helping people a lot. But if you think you can do that just from a few measurements immediately and know exactly what to do, then I don't think we're there yet. I think one of the biggest lies is that there are shortcuts because we have to address really the personal personalized needs of the patients. We have doing a root cause diagnosis. We have to take talk about the blood work. We have to talk about stress, lifestyle, sleep, talk about also toxins like heavy metal envirmental medicine. Maybe it's in the US a bigger topic than in Europe. Also about chronic infections we have to talk all about this topics and that is and not like influencer style. Yes, I have done 10 hyperbaric treatments and now I have I'm full of energy. So we have really everyone needs a optimized inutilized protocol for themselves. Yeah, I think that's a great answer for for longevity medicine. So I'm not going I'll go back to the basic science for my so I talk about three big myths that I hear um propagated in in the field. And there's nuance here and I won't go into long explanations. Um but
won't go into long explanations. Um but the first myth is that we're close to solving aging. We're not close to solving aging. The second myth is that aging, biological aging is reversible. It's not reversible or at least not fully reversible yet. No. Well, I don't even think it this is a this would be an interesting question. I actually think it would be almost impossible if not impossible to completely reverse biological aging, but there's a lot of nuance there. We can reverse many aspects of biological aging. What can't we reverse? Entropy. Um, and if you think of biological aging, I'm going to get a little bit mathematical, as a uh a highdimensional vector where n is really big and the every every component of that vector is changing over time, you are never going to get back to a state that you were in previously. You can get to a different state. And so this is where I think there's a lot of nuance. Unfortunately, what I really mean is today when people are talking about reversing biological aging, they're talking about reversing a very small fraction of the changes that are going along with aging. Um, and they're again, it's a myth that we have reverse biological aging. We can improve health and that's great. Yeah. But we're not reversing biological age. Aubry, when does optimism become lying? Um, when it involves certainty. So I mean I think that the answer to your original question you know what is the field collectively lying about and this will make me unpopular is lying by omission in relation to time frame predictions. [snorts] I believe that when the overwhelming
I believe that when the overwhelming majority of the expert community is seen to shy away from making uh time frame predictions for this or that amount of progress, then what the what humanity hears is that it's never going to happen. And that means they don't get enthusiastic about resource allocation, which of course we've talked about already. Now, of course, any time frame predictions about any pioneering technology, including the um intervening in aging, has to be probabilistic, and mine always been probabilistic. But I really think that the thing that's going to shift public opinion in the direction of actually making aging the new COVID is when enough progress gets made in the laboratory that the bulk of the um expert community is willing to do what I've been doing for 25 years and actually giving time frame predictions. It doesn't matter whether those time frame predictions span a wide range from optimism to pessimism. it's it will be far far better than most people just not giving any prediction at all. So can I reframe your question because I think it's a really interesting question but I would frame it as when does optimism become religion because I think that's where we have really because that's where we have the divide I think between you know hardcore science and um people who adopt beliefs based on absence of data or little data and that's really what religion is right it's faith as opposed to data driven and again it's
opposed to data driven and again it's not again there's not going to be a dividing line but that's I think what we're really talking about is how comfortable are you believing something based on lack of data and as opposed to lying which is intentionally deceiving people into believing something that isn't true. But when does faith become lying? Well, I think it's a tough this idea of pessimistic matter induction theory which is like the idea that that the science is the most accurate version. I think it depends on whether it's something that where you can actually identify what is real and what is true. Right? So if we're talking about predictions, we don't know what the answer is. Right? there is no truth to is this or isn't this going to happen right now as opposed to things that are facts. If you're saying something that is not factual, that's that's a lie. And then I think intent matters because you can lie without realizing you're saying something that's not factual. Yeah. I think it's intent, right? Because you know belief is a faith is a belief system, right? And and you're entitled to that. line is often involves personal benefit in some way or another, you know, and and I think there's a dichotomy there. I do think it's important to recognize that it's faith though or at least recognize what is the level of evidence faith. I think what Julian may really meant is when does faith become lying to oneself that's a different debate. Yeah, that I think you know but there's a gray area again but don't I mean at some level we all lie to ourselves. So that's a, you know, in one sentence, where will the $ 1 trillion longevity drug come from?
trillion longevity drug come from? My lab, of course, investors take note. Johannes, mitochondrial in I think in a mitochondrial area in some way. Best guess is we'll find out that GLPS uh are actually longevity drugs and that'll be the first place. Take my answer. I think we already have one. It's GLP's the but I want to say this differently, right? I want the first drug to come out that's targeted to longevity rather than targeted to disease and happens to affect longevity. I want it to be a I want to be able to start a company and go after longevity. You know the comp I'm starting biotech companies but we always have to pick a disease. And I get it. I understand it. We do it. It's the only way to raise money. But it's it's pushing us away from the trajectory we need to be going, which is how do we find the drugs that slow aging and target that directly? And we still can't do that with a drug. It's crazy. Yeah. Of course, my real answer is um there will not be a single drug or drug family that do that that is, you know, the holy grail, the silver bullet. We are, I believe, almost certainly going to see progress in dramatically extending health span only by a large portfolio of things that are done to the same people at the same time. And so on that note, Aubry, you've got, I think, five areas that you focus on. Have you looked to add a sixth or seventh area recently? Uh, actually, I've always had seven. Oh, seven. Have you looked to add an eighth one then? Actually, no. This is when when I am um in a frivolous mood and I
I when I am um in a frivolous mood and I uh am tempted to make fun of the hallmarks of aging. Um I always How many are we up to now? It's rather a lot. I knew you ask. I always point out that the hallmarks keep expanding and my seven deadly things from a decade earlier have rather conspicuously stood the test of time and not been added to and this is because I defined things in terms of damage whereas the hallmarks are defined in terms of declining this or that process. uh so you know someone I don't know remember who it was rather unkindly said that you know sense is a classification of aging and the hallmarks are a classification of the literature on aging uh which is a little unkind but it's more or less true over the next 5 years which of these therapeutics will be most effective and least effective so you've got NAD boosters NAD precursors plasma dilution partial reprogramming senolytics and rapamy as the most effective right as the most effective yeah uh plasma therapeutics, senolytics, reprogramming, NAD boosters. Okay. Why partial reprogramming is number four? Cuz I think 5 years is a short time frame to really know. But in 10 years, you put it a bit higher. I don't know about promise. Yeah. Again, if you're talking about what who's what's got the biggest ceiling I said this before, reprogramming has the highest ceiling. Yeah. In terms of what could be the largest effect size and so far the largest effect size is rapamy, at least in laboratory animals. And I think the data that I've seen and know is coming makes me bullish that that rapamy probably slows biological
that rapamy probably slows biological aging in in people and can be used effectively in a subset of people to pretty large effect size for health or quality of life. A terrible thing. I I agree with him. But I do believe in NAD precursors more than he does. And I actually take a sublingual NAD. I'm not I Let me restate that. I'm not so excited about precursors because I think they're not very good at making NAD, but I take a sublingual NAD directly that goes into the bloodstream and I do I think NAD helps. I don't know what putting NAD in the bloodstream particularly does. We can have a huge debate over what that does, but I see beneficial effects of that. So, I I'm more bullish on NAD, I guess, than you are. But otherwise, yeah, I actually don't really agree. I think that I would put NAD precursors or indeed um straight up NAD and rapcin at the bottom of my list just because I classify both of them as CRMatics predominantly and I believe that CR or indeed calmatics will never give more than a couple of years of extra extra healthy life or total life um simply because you know that's what [snorts] evolution has given us. long live species don't respond so well to famines whereas the other three things you mentioned fall more under the realm of turning back aspects of aging and so [snorts and clears throat] I would say all three of the others analytics and plasma dilution and um uh reprogramming have quite a lot of potential however I
have quite a lot of potential however I think that they have a great deal more potential in combination than they do individually individually so I would start with NAD precursors senolytics senolytics um plasma than reprowing rapomy at at last. Let me just add rapomy is at the top for me too. The best because same thing Matt said, the data is coming. I think that it's, you know, very promising. It's the best data in animal models and I think until something's better, I'm going to keep it at the top of my list. I don't think NAD is really a CRM medic either, but that's a different debate. But I I also don't think the effect size is huge. Can you talk a bit more about the data about rapex? It feels like it it kind of comes and goes and that's just because people don't actually know what the data is. It's perception, not reality. Okay, here's what we know. It's the best in animals. No question about it. Effects other than caloric restriction in mice effect size is largest, most reproducible, most robust. Everybody gets it to work. It works every time. Yeah. Uh and in humans, there are multiple vectors, multiple disease or pathological conditions where there is pretty good data that rapamy can have a positive effect. I again am not confident in saying that rapamy slows biological aging in humans but there are multiple places where there's there's accumulating data again none of us to the level of you know very large randomized control clinical trials I wish it was but compared to all the other interventions that we've talked about it's by far the best data in humans humans but are there any risks right now there's always everything has risks right but but when you look at the kind of the risk quotient
of the risk quotient it's an FDA approved drug so we know how to use it safely and I think what we've learned is the off label dosing thing. The only real side effect that's consistent is canker sores in about 15% of people. I'm going to take your job for just one second. So, one of the things people see right now is that rapamy hasn't moved biologic aging methylation clocks that much and they argue that that means rapamy is not working. Can you comment on that Dr. K? I mean again look if you have a choice you can look at functional outcomes like how well is the heart working or an epigenetic clock and decide which you think is more important. Gentlemen, we're going to finish off with one last question that I ask all my guests, which is, if tomorrow was your last day on Earth and you had to leave the world with one parting sentence, what would that sentence be? What the Who that would be that? That's my sentence. Yeah, I'm going out with the bless. No, I mean, I think I don't know that I want to leave the world with a parting sentence. So, uh, I guess what I would think to myself and and hopefully I've I've done this is, you know, try to do, uh, try to do big things that are going to have an impact and have fun along the way and do it with people you love. Yeah. I think if I only have one day, I'm not going to spend it trying to tell people what to do. I want to just have the best day possible. And I want to maybe what I'd think about though is why did I collaborate with I don't I think the laughs were too loud there, but collaborate with Matt, right? Yes. I'm just not planning on dying, so the custom doesn't apply. I also I don't plan on dying either. I think
I don't plan on dying either. I think Aubrey probably believes that more than I do, but I like the mindset it gives me by not planning to die, so I'm not planning to die. So So I I would say life is a joke and have fun. Embrace absurdism. [snorts and laughter] [snorts and laughter] Before we finish, I think we've covered quite a lot of topics. Is there anything else that you want us to mention? No, just thank you for doing this. Yeah, it's great. Yeah, it was a really nice conversation. Thank you.
Transcript auto-generated by YouTube. Verbatim — duplicates intentionally preserved.
This panel from The Beyond Tomorrow Podcast brings that tension into focus. The conversation moves through healthspan, peptides, NAD+, biological age testing, clinics, regulation, and the simple foundations many people skip while chasing advanced interventions.
The strongest longevity argument is not simply more years. It is more capable years. Healthspan asks whether the body can keep repairing, moving, thinking, and participating in life with less avoidable decline.
That changes the tone of the field. The work begins with sleep, strength, nutrition, cardiometabolic health, and risk reduction before it moves into experimental medicine.
Peptides, NAD+ therapies, mitochondrial drugs, and biological age tests can sound precise before the evidence is mature. The panel repeatedly returns to the same discipline: mechanisms are not outcomes, and plausible does not mean proven.
This matters because longevity attracts hope. Hope is useful when it funds rigorous work. It becomes costly when marketing moves faster than clinical evidence.
A serious longevity practice should explain uncertainty, screen for risk, avoid miracle claims, and place basic health measures above expensive add-ons. The best clinicians do not sell immortality. They help people become harder to break.
That is the practical promise of longevity done well: not a shortcut around biology, but a more careful relationship with it.
The future of longevity will be built by better evidence, not better slogans.
Put the basics first: sleep, strength, nutrition, metabolic health, and regular clinical care.
Be cautious with peptides, NAD+, and biological age tests unless the evidence and medical oversight are clear.
Judge longevity clinics by how honestly they discuss limits, risks, and uncertainty.
