Bill Andrews on Best Choice Medicine

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Greetings and welcome to the United States Transhumanist Party Virtual
Enlightenment Salon. My name is Jannati Stolieroth the second and
I am the Chairman of the US Transhumanist Party. Here
we hold conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers
in longevity, science, technology, philosophy, and politics. Like the philosophers

(00:22):
of the Age of Enlightenment, we aim to connect every
field of human endeavor and arrive at new insights to
achieve longer lives, greater rationality, and the progress of our civilization. Greetings,
ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our US Transhumanist Party
Virtual Enlightenment Salon. Today is Sunday, August seventeenth, twenty twenty five,

(00:45):
and we have an important conversation in store for you
on ways to accelerate the availability of emerging medical treatments
to patients who need them the most. And joining us
today is our distinguished panel of US Transhumanist Party officers,
members advisors, including our Director of Visual Art Art Ramon

(01:11):
Garcia Our twenty twenty four US presidential Vice presidential candidate
and Director of Community and Citizen Science Daniel tweet Are,
twenty twenty Vice presidential candidate Liz Parrish, who is also
the founder.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
And CEO of Bioviva.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
Our member from Texas who heads the Texas Transhumanist Party,
Alan Crowley, our friend David Wood who is the founder
of London Futurists and the executive director of the Longevity
Escape Velocity Foundation. And our special guest today, a returning
guest who is very much admired throughout our community, a

(01:55):
good friend of mine, doctor Bill Andrews, founder and CEO
of cra Science and the Biotechnology Advisor of the US
Transhumanist Party. And today Bill will be discussing best Choice Medicine.
It's a new proposed pathway to provide possible life saving
experimental treatments to patients suffering from aging associated non communicable

(02:18):
diseases who would otherwise not survive without treatments. So Bill, welcome,
and please let me know when you're ready to begin
with your presentation and we will share it up here
for our audience to see.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
I'm ready, okay, so let's see.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
I will pull up your screen here, but I see myself.
So let's start with the other slide for a moment.
So this is the slide show that you have which
is static.

Speaker 3 (02:56):
Let me go on.

Speaker 2 (03:02):
So there is a.

Speaker 1 (03:03):
Paper that Bill Andrews co authored with Liz Parrish. Yes,
so let's add your other presentation to the stage for
a moment.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
Here it is.

Speaker 3 (03:20):
You see red screen? Okay, yes, okay. So a lot
of us think of aging as something like this. We
hear expressions all the time like aging gracefully and a
mess with finesse and all kinds of things that make

(03:43):
us kind of something make some of us think that
aging is good and something that we should all embrace,
and that's wrong. Those of us that have experienced working
and assist living homes or nursing homes or hospices know
that aging can be like this in a lot of
the cases. And I'm just going to push the hide

(04:04):
button here, so it's staying at the bottom. Disappear, so loops,
that didn't work. Okay, hold on, okay, can you still
see my pictures here?

Speaker 2 (04:13):
Yes, we can see your picture.

Speaker 3 (04:15):
Because there was something on my screen that I had
to close in it and we disappear. Okay. So now
this is something that we have to do something about.
And it's not just we don't want to just make
people look healthy and stuff like this when they get older,

(04:35):
we want the goal would be to have something more
like this, where people are feeling young, looking young, behaving young,
et cetera. This is something now I want to say.
Aging is a stupid thing in my opinion. And you
can go to YouTube videos and you can find where

(04:56):
I have YouTube videos on why we age, how we age,
how not to age. And we age because it was
evolutionary advantage, advantageous for our species to eliminate the longer
lived after we raised our young, because it increases diversity

(05:18):
within our species. And increase diversity within our species increases,
and this is true for every species, not just humans.
It increases the species' ability to survive rapidly changing environments.
So at least it increases the ability of some members
of the species survive rapidly changing environments. And now now

(05:39):
we're in control of our own evolution. I was watching
presentation by Liz Parish the other day on Superhuman and
she talked about how in the sixteen hundreds, fifty percent
of us died from infectious diseases, but nowadays only three

(05:59):
percent of this die from infectious diseases, and that's because
humans now have the ability to control their own evolution.
We don't have to rely on the three hundred thousand
years of human evolution anymore because in the last several
thousand years we have really figured out how to start
controlling it ourselves. Now there's something that's coming along now

(06:20):
called the silver tsunami, and that's partially because we've been
partially successful at dealing with the aging problem. And the
silver tsunami is the fact that now that people are
living longer and healthier, a lot of the world is
going to start suffering from too many a longer lived
people and not enough shorter lived people to take care

(06:44):
of these people. And this is especially going to be
true in Japan, where in twenty fifty forty percent of
Japan's population will be over sixty five, which means only
sixty percent will be under sixty five, and they're going
to have to be Those under sixty five are going
to have to be doing all the other jobs that
exist in the world, and there's not going to be
enough people to take care of those people that need

(07:07):
assistance that are over sixty five. So this is another
reason why we have a lot more work to do
to solve the aging problem. And so instead of letting
all these people get old. One solution to this silver
tsunami is to keep them young or make them young, okay,

(07:28):
keep them part of the workforce, make it so that
they don't need somebody else to take care of them. Okay.
So I've always been of the mind that we need
to make the world happier and healthier. This has been
a mission of mine my entire life. I have been
involved in so many things. This is a list of

(07:48):
a lot of different products that I have developed, invented,
or co invented that have been all peered towards the
idea of making life for humans happier and healthier. And
pets also. I don't want to go through this list,
but you can see human growth hormone to supplies, manage,

(08:09):
and activator, which are big drugs that are comps used everywhere.
There's a lot of cancer treatments that I've developed that
you can see below. Beta serah on the first drug
for treating multiple sclerosis. My whole life, especially in the
biotech industry, has been try to develop ways of treating

(08:29):
people to make people happier and healthier. Okay, So, about
twelve years ago I met Liz Parish, and before a
few years before that, she started asking the questions, why
are there no cures for diseases that we've known about

(08:50):
for centuries, And so she started really looking into this
and started finding out that one of the big problems
was funding, and so she called me. She contacted me
one day because she had learned about tilomere biology and
thought that tilomre biology was something that should be funded

(09:11):
because it had an opportunity to solve a lot of
the problems. And I was on my way back from
Victoria up in Canada, where I'd been given a presentation,
and I stopped in Seattle to meet with her and
her partner who had co founded a company called Biotrove. Okay,

(09:31):
the whole reason for this company was to try to
find funding for the researchers that were trying to make
the world happier and healthier. Okay, So she and I met.
I was impressed with her enthusiasm and determination to actually
do something to help with the problems of the world

(09:52):
right now, and so shortly thereafter she started coming finding
out the reality of the situation that it really is
hard to get funding when most investors that are more
interested in a quick return on investment and not interested
in funding things that are going to take a long

(10:14):
time to get a return on their investment. So she
started a company called Bioviva to start becoming more active
in this role of trying to find ways of curing
diseases that we've known about for centuries. And she went
and got an MBA and she did her thesis to contribute.

(10:36):
Her mission wasn't to try to benefit herself, Okay, so
when she first came to me, so when she first
started finding out that it was tough for people to
find funding to do research, she came to me. She
showed up my work one day and said I would
like to treat myself with one of your gene therapies.

(10:58):
And she didn't say I'm depressed at how much I'm aging.
Can you do something to help me? She said, I
want to treat myself with your gene therapy so that
I can show the world that it's safe and efficacious.
And I mean I didn't consider her the word perfect
model for showing efficacy for aging, but it was worthwhile

(11:23):
to get let her try it to show safety. But
at the same time, I was kind of worried, and
so I told her, don't tell anybody where you got
it from. But you know, because I was afraid that
if she had some negative consequences, I might end up
being in prison, so she kept it a secret. So
she went and treated herself, showed that it was safe stuff.

(11:43):
And then, unfortunately, a big, big problem in this field,
there's so much controversy about the fact that there are
a lot of Charlatan's in the field, and so it's
guilt by association. So people started saying that she was
making it all up, she didn't really treat herself. So

(12:03):
I actually agreed to actually admit that I was the
one that provided her with the gene therapy, and she
really did and moving forward, but that still wasn't enough.
She went and got an MBA and the mission that
she did, the reason why she got the NBA was
to pursue best choice medicine, okay, and that was what
her MBA thesis was on. I was a reviewer of

(12:25):
that thesis and I was actually blown away with the idea.
It wasn't I mean, a lot of people have thought
about some things like this before in the past, and
I'm going to talk about a few of the things
that had been done before, but there was this enthusiasm
and determination again to really make this happen that really
really got to me, and so I got actually involved.

(12:49):
And the solution to all the problems that I had
just discussed above and many many more is best choice medicine.
So after she got herr MBA, and she and I
went ahead and published Best Choice Medicine in the journal
Bio Medical and Allied Research. This is the title right there,

(13:12):
and so let me just really quickly just describe what
best choice medicine is. Best choice medicine is let terminally
ill people and as well as people living lives that
are not worth living, choose to test any experimental treatments
of their choice in hopes of saving their own lives.

(13:38):
I agree with Liz Parrish. I think is this complete
nonsense that if somebody's told that they have six months
to live and they know of somebody that thinks they
have a possible cure for their disease, the FDA says
you're not allowed to take it because it might harm you.

(14:01):
There's other reasons too, For instance, it might cause abuse
of the whole system of regulating drugs and stuff. But
the point is is that that person then dies, and
that person didn't get a chance to try, even if
it was a low probability of success, didn't even get
a chance to try something that they thought could possibly

(14:21):
save their lives. So this has got to be something
where they can even try to use a treatment that
hasn't even been tested in animals. If they choose, there
shouldn't be any restrictions on their choice of what they
want to try, and if they can't find anything, they

(14:41):
should be allowed to have the choice of letting themselves
be frozen while they're still alive, because there's a lot
of possibility that waiting until after you've died in freezing
might be too late, it might not be something that
we can recover from. Better chances are if you freeze
yourself while you're still alive. So let it be their choice,

(15:02):
and all within the US, the patient's choice should be
the best choice medicine, and that's the whole point of this.
So what's really a key part of best choice medicine
is to have a committee of some kind that does
what's called critical meta analysis, and that's to really find

(15:26):
out what is good and what's not not. Just because
it got published in a peer reviewed literature, or because
it got approved by the FDA, but because it's got
a good experimental design, there's good data analysis on it.
The whole concept of the treatment that is being reviewed
is logical. The probability of success, the probability of everything

(15:53):
about it makes sense. There's a lot of common sense
statistics that make a lot of sense. There's statistical theory involved,
sensible conclusions are drawn from the data. And because this
is still a work in progress, anything that I say
in this presentation, I'm going to be ending with what else?
Because I'm actually reaching out to the Transhumanist Party right

(16:17):
now and members of the Transhumanist Party to help with this. Okay,
I'm thinking we have to make this happen and soon,
and so what I'm going to be hopefully is that
I'll get a lot of people on board to participate
on this call to participate in people who listen to
this video to participate and come up with ideas to

(16:37):
contribute towards this concept of this choice medicine. Okay. Now,
the reason why we have to have critical meta analysis
is because you can find anything you wish to be
true in the scientific peer review of literature. There is
so much that falls through the cracks. It is so
easy for companies that want to promote act to actually

(17:01):
get a paper submitted and it's pure reviewed, and get
it submitted and then be able to claim that, hey,
I got a pure reviewed article that proves that my
product works. And this is exactly this example that I
have here isn't an example of a product, but it
is an example of how there's something wrong with the

(17:23):
pure reviewed system. Okay. This is two papers that came
out in two thousand and I pick those these two
papers because they are very close to my research. Okay,
dealing with tulameris. Okay. So this top paper, published in
October fifteen, two thousand, says that when treated with tulameris,

(17:45):
the cells become immortal. Okay. Then the second paper says,
when treating with tulamris, the cells don't become immortal. Okay.
These papers deal with the exact same cells, the exact
same conditions. Everything about these papers are identical, and surprisingly
they were published only two weeks apart from each other

(18:07):
in the same journal. Okay. This is the most ridiculous
thing I've ever seen in terms of peer reviewed literature,
and it means you can't trust anything, because how could
reviewers review one paper and then review another paper that
gives the exact opposite conclusion and allow both to be
submitted for being included in their journal. Okay, So Best

(18:31):
Choice Medicine the whole idea is that it'd be a
new agency housed under the Department of Health and Human
Services shown here right next to the FDA. Okay, This
is not a way of circumventing the FDA completely. Only
it would only be allowed if people were told by

(18:52):
their doctors that they have and incurable disease and they
have like six months to a year to live, then
they would fall under the jurisdiction of choice medicine. This
should be thought of as something that will help the FDA, Okay,
not interfere with the FDA. So the Best Choice Medicine
would have to have some boards, some scientific and medical boards,

(19:16):
and the boards have to be focused on what's best
for the patient in this case, not what's best for
regulations and et cetera. Okay. So the first thing that
the medical board has to do is ask does the
patient qualify to be able to participate, to be able
to try any drug that they choose Okay, now this

(19:38):
question opens a whole can of worms, and I would
say it could be one of the biggest obstacles to
making best choice medicine actually exist. And as soon as
somebody gets told that they do qualify, and they do,
and then they're told that they're allowed to choose any

(19:58):
treatment that they want, even if they had any tested
an enemies, this opens the door for pharmaceutical companies and
stuff like that to say, hey, why don't you test
my drug even though it won't cure your aging, because
You're allowed to treat yourself with anything, and I'll pay
your family like half a million dollars after you pass away.

(20:21):
And so we could suddenly find a lot of patients
suddenly applying for stuff like that, thinking they can't be cured,
at least they know that their family would be well
cared for after they pass away. I mean, that's a
good aspect of this thing, but it's actually a bad
thing because it opens up a lot of opportunities for abuse.
But I think before I get through a lot of

(20:43):
more details about this best choice medicine, I think the
solution to this is that the best choice medicine has
to hold the companies the pharmaceutical companies that exte are
providing the treatments accountable. So they the pharmaceutical companies, etc.
That come to Best Choice Medicine and say that they

(21:05):
want to provide their treatment to patients that qualify Best
Choice Medicine then reviews it and then the company is
then protected from criminal criminal negligence if the drug doesn't work.
But if they don't go through Best Choice Medicine and
the person patient dies and the person going to die anyway,

(21:27):
but if they believe that the patient died earlier than
expected because of the treatment, then the pharmaceutical company has
to be held responsible for criminal negligence. Okay, so that
would be I think the solution to that. I just
wanted to get that out the way before you go on.
But other things that the medical boards have to do
is they have to review patient's choice for treatments and advice. Okay,

(21:50):
so a patient, if the patient has ideas about how
they want to get treated, the board can review and
give advice on the treatment that the patient might not
have access to. They can also advise alternative options and
I underline options here because the board isn't supposed to
guide the patient into making best suggestions. The board is

(22:12):
supposed to provide the options and still let the patient choose.
Then they can also do due diligence on those providing
the treatments such as the pharmaceutical companies, etc. Small balotech companies,
and find out if they're somebody, if they're an organization
that can be trusted, they can protect the patient from abuse.

(22:34):
As I said beforeg companies might start using these patients
as guinea pigs and experiments because of the fact that
they're legally allowed to try anything they want. But the
best Choice medicine boards would also be networking the suppliers
such as the pharmaceutical companies with the patients and vice versa.

(22:56):
And again what else Okay. So I'd like everybody to
keep thinking about how they can help with moving this
mission forward. But the key thing is to remember that
it's the patient's choice, okay. And that's what best choice
medicine is all about. When you are somebody that has
been told that you have six months to a year
to live, it's your choice. Okay. Another thing about the

(23:21):
key thing that's why I put this all by itself
about these medical boards is that they would be overseeing
databases of patients, physicians, treatment options, and results. And this
might not necessarily become public information because of the fact
that pharmaceutical companies and stuff like that might not want
their results released, especially if the patient ends up having

(23:45):
some negative effects. But the pharmaceutical company at least is
given the option of fixing those problems if there is
any unforeseen negative results. So we don't know. This is
something that's got to be discussed in future discussions. How
to deal with these results. Do they become public information
to the or do the pharmaceutical companies have the ability

(24:07):
to restrain them from being public. The next question that
comes in, how do you define life threatening? Okay, so
Alzheimer's is a life threatening disease. Anybody who has Alzheimer's
has pretty much more no longer than six years to live,
and when they reach a point of not even remembering

(24:29):
who their family members are, they have less than a
year to live. Okay. Now, of course, at this time
these patients aren't going to be able to choose a treatment,
but they can choose treatments beforehand. Let their family members
know this is what I want to do. And there's
also power of attorneys that can be applied so that
when they do get treated, the power of attorney can

(24:50):
choose the treatment. So people with Alzheimer's are an example
of somebody that should be considered somebody that would qualify
for dest Choice medicine and be able to be treated
with anything they choose. But getting back to aging in general,
even getting old or longer lived is a life threatening disease. Okay.

(25:17):
So a healthy eighty nine year old and keys they're
healthy eighty nine year old as an eleven percent chance
of dying by the time they're ninety Okay, that's high risk. Okay.
And so even when you're an eighty nine year old,
you should be given the option of choosing anything you

(25:37):
would like to anything you think could really save your life. Now,
the question comes down to always asking the question when
is the risk from no treatment greater than the risk
from treatment? And I can guarantee that the risk from
no treatment when you have Alzheimer's and you're eighty nine

(25:58):
years old is a lot higher than than the risk
from the treatment. Okay, as long as the long as
the Best Choice Medicine Board has reviewed it enough to
show that the risk isn't it is safe enough to
proceed and sometimes the most serious risk of the patient
is not treated the patient, and that's something that's always

(26:20):
got kept kept in mind by the board and everybody
else involved in the regulations. Okay, so this number varies
between who who you talk to, but I always just
go with because I'm not keeping count. One hundred and
fifty thousand people die every day. If we eliminated aging,

(26:44):
half of us would still be alive and healthy in
one thousand years from now. And here's a reference that
where a study has been to come.

Speaker 2 (26:51):
Up with that.

Speaker 3 (26:53):
But the reason why I'm presenting this at a Transhumanist
Party meeting, it's because half of us. What about the
other half? Okay, there are a lot of people that
are having debilitating diseases there, living life that are not
worth living because of dehabilitating diseases and things that only

(27:18):
the Transhumanist Party can help in the whole focus of
transhumanists in general. And so I'm calling on the Transhumanist
Party to actually participate in everything that we're talking about
here with best choice medicine. And so I want to
point out some people are going to say, they're going

(27:41):
to say that, you know, we shouldn't be doing this,
it's wrong and stuff like that. But there is icing
on the cake that could be persuade used to persuade
some of these people to to accept something like best
Choice medicine and that clinical testing will cost a lot
less and take less time. Now that's not a goal
of mind is to get people healthier and healthier to

(28:03):
treat them. And yeah, as a side effect, clinical testing
will cost less and take less time because there would
be so much data generated from these people. But my
mission is to make certain that these people get treated irregardless. Regardless,
there'd be faster drug approval. That data would be available
to the FDA under conditions that I discussed before that

(28:28):
would allow possible faster approval of treatments because they got
tested in humans without possibly ever you being tested in analysts.
A more a research project would be initiated because people
would know that they have new routes of getting approval
that are a lot less expensive. Research will accelerate faster

(28:49):
because of this. Then there'll be these databases that I
mentioned patients, physicians, treatment options, which I meant to include
their end results. Again, what else? Okay, So presently there
are Bestoy's Medicine isn't the only thing that's working towards
this end. There has been this pay to play model

(29:09):
that was launched in June twenty sixteen, where if there
was a treatment and it was really expensive for doing
clinical studies, the FDA was now allowing the patients to
participate in the in the clinical studies to pay for
the treatment. But the problem is it only is allowable

(29:33):
when the price tag is so high that the trial
couldn't be done otherwise. Okay, so this isn't this opens
up the door for just a few treatments. Then there
was the armat Regenitive Medicine Advanced Therapy that was announced
and approved in December twenty sixteen. Now this is something

(29:55):
again that will allow treatments to be where patients can
get more access to these treatments, but it's only available
for regenerative medicine drug candidates such as gene therapy, which
is good, but there's a lot of things that are
not gene therapy that could patients could be could benefit from.
Then there's the Right to Try Act May twenty eighteen.

(30:20):
A lot of news coming out of Montana on this
now and this is now where patients are given the
right to try, but only if the treatment has already
passed phase one of clinical studies, and that again limits
the kind of treatments that patients have. If they find
a treatment that they have that the treatment has not

(30:42):
been tested yet through phase one clinical studies, they're not
allowed to take it. Some new things that are just
coming along recently are the FDA Modernization Act and the
FDA is also has announced that they plan to phase
out animal testing, and that was just recently in April
two thousand, two twenty five. We have to see how
both of these pan out yet. All Right, so setting

(31:06):
up something like best choice medicine is a really big challenge.
And what are some examples of the biggest challenges ever,
And what comes to mind is sending a person to
the moon and starting a war on cancer. So John F.

(31:27):
Kennedy announced in nineteen sixty one, let's send a person
to the moon. In nineteen seventy one, Richard Nixon declared
a war on cancer. Okay, Now it's not the first
time that there's people been fighting cancer and stuff, but
this was a big step forward in trying to get
a cure for cancer. Okay, So John F. Kennedy and

(31:52):
whoever assigned this project Person on the Moon to NASA.
It was led by James Webb and the majority of
the work was done internally. Okay, they didn't license work
out to academic labs all over the world, etc. Now
Richard Nixon and his all politicians involved with him assigned

(32:17):
the War on Cancer to the National Cancer Institute, led
by several people that lasted on the average about three
years each and the majority of the work was done externally.
This is where grants were offered to labs all over
the world. And the difference between Person on the Moon

(32:39):
people were working, even if they were off site, not
in working internally, they felt like they were working for
NASA War on Cancer. When people started applying for grants
and getting grants, they didn't feel like they were working
for the National Cancer Institute. They felt like they were
working for themselves. Person on the Moon was success. We

(33:01):
made it. We got a person to the moon. We're
on cancer is still limited success. It has not really
achieved anything like what the goal of getting a person
on the moon, and a lot of people would have
guessed getting finding a cure for cancer probably would have
been a lot easier in getting a person to the moon.

(33:21):
But what I think we learned from this is that
it's important to keep things internal, to keep control of things,
and I think that that's one of the things that
has to be done with Best Choice Medicine. Now, I
mentioned Best Choice Medicine has to have a committee that's
doing critical meta analysis, but I think that critical meta
analysis cannot be licensed out to labs all over the world.

(33:44):
It has to be done internally, So people have to
be a part of Best Choice Medicine. One new exciting
thing that's coming across really soon is that there's now,
let's see, I'm forgetting the name of it. There's going
to be a rally for healthy Longevity. There's going to

(34:08):
be a march on Washington in September twenty twenty six.
The Coalition for Radical Life Extension has gotten the okay
to have this happen, and Best Choice Medicine is the
number one thing on this list to have the rally endorse.
They're also going to be classifying aging as a treatable

(34:30):
condition and also expedite approval for longevity therapies. All Right,
so September twenty twenty six, that's too long from now.
I think we need to be doing something sooner, maybe
have a lot of stuff done in time for this
rally that could contribute to this rally. And again I'm

(34:53):
thinking that the Transhumanist Party is a source of getting
a lot of stuff done. Forces with Liz Perish and
need to make this happen. What can we do now? Okay, Well,
funding is the big problem. As I'd mentioned, that's how
Liz Parish got into where she is right now because
she had learned just like everybody else, that funding is

(35:15):
a real nightmare finding funding. Where is this funding going
to come from? How much funding is needed to set
up this best choice medicine. I mean, a lot of
people that are going to be on this committee, they're
going to need salaries. They're going to need some sort
of way of paying for their participation because not because

(35:37):
they're not motivated without salary, but they have to. They
have to survive on something. Okay, So we need to
build a team now. We need to find people that
are skilled at critical analysis to be able to analyze
these things. And as I said, there's a lot of
people out there that will will promote a particular product

(35:57):
just because it has one press release or because it
has one peer reviewed study. So we have to have
people on a team that know how to do critical
meta analysis. Okay, so we can do critical meta analysis. Now,
we can already be advising, provide an advisory resource for patients. Now,

(36:19):
we could be networking suppliers and patients now. And even
though we can't, so it is supposed to. This is
something we want to do in the United States. We
could begin with treatments offshore at least for now, Okay,
while we wait for best choice medicine to be approved
in the US, because, as I said, one hundred and

(36:41):
fifty thousand people are dying every day, So let's hurry
up and get this going. And again, what else? Okay,
So I'm on a mission, and so's Liz Perish to
make the world a happier and healthier place. And I
got to say, a lot of people on this call
that I saw, even on the advisory board, they're the

(37:02):
same mind. I don't see any of these people trying
to market products for their own benefits stuff. I think
there are a lot of us here here because we
are all interested in making the world happier and healthier.
And as I said, this whole business of aging is
stupid getting rid of the longer lived after we raised
our young. That's why we've evolutionary process has evolved in aging.

(37:25):
That's why we haven't evolved a way not to age
is because things that eliminate the longer lived after we
raise our young actually contributes to the success of the
survival of the species by increasing diversity, and we just
have to do something about that. So, in conclusion, I

(37:47):
want to say, when a patient is suffering from a
life threatening disease or a disease that makes life not
worth living, the patient's choice is the best choice, and
we need to stout allowing patients to be making that choice.
And so I'm calling for people to support Best Choice
Medicine For more information, go to best Choice Medicine dot com.

(38:08):
Thank you very.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
Much, Yes, thank you Bill for that presentation, and we
all appreciate the importance of maximizing the ability of patients
to choose. I think this is an area where all
transhumanists are aligned, and Luis Royo points out in the

(38:32):
chat the importance of building the US Transhumanist Party so
that there can be more longevity advocates who are emphasizing
this right of patient choice. Now, I would like to
invite Liz Perish to offer a few remarks about best
choice medicine, since this was the subject of your thesis. Liz,

(38:55):
what would you like to say to add to Bill's presentation?

Speaker 4 (39:01):
Well, number one, I was completely overcome by Bill's presentation there.
I think that, you know, the things that.

Speaker 5 (39:10):
I was heartened by and flattered.

Speaker 4 (39:13):
By is that the truth of the matter that even
though historically we're sort of made out to be these
big personalities and the media kind of goes on these
attacks of us.

Speaker 5 (39:27):
Or a hero or villain, that that's not the case.

Speaker 3 (39:33):
And Liz cut off.

Speaker 1 (39:38):
I think your audio cut out. Let's see, hopefully Liz
can get her audio back.

Speaker 5 (39:47):
Is it back now, Yes, it's back.

Speaker 2 (39:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (39:50):
The thing is it keeps attaching to my phone, which
I'm not sure why, so I put my phone at
some distance. Anyway, I was just really flattered by Bill's
presentation and his representation, and it was really true. Bill
and I have been here, you know, trying to help
and rally the troops to do something not for ourselves
but for the whole world. And if we can look

(40:11):
at it as a mission like that, I think it
will be imperative that we move forward. And you know,
it was really with Bill's help that we got that
published after I did my thesis, and so thank you
so much.

Speaker 5 (40:23):
Bill.

Speaker 4 (40:24):
I just love working with you. It's been a pleasure.
I've worked with Bill it for over ten years, and
he's a really good person, and I've met a lot
of people who really weren't.

Speaker 5 (40:36):
And I'm sad to say so.

Speaker 4 (40:38):
I really believe that if we take this mission to
heart and we push it forward, we could save millions
of lives and eventually our own potentially, And that's fantastic,
And it's so important that people who can't speak for
themselves today, who are dying, have someone speak for them.

(40:58):
We've had family members now choose to be humanely euthanized.

Speaker 5 (41:04):
And why are we allowed to do that?

Speaker 4 (41:06):
I mean, I believe in that choice, but why are
we allowed to do that but not try new medicine.
It's because of an inherent distrust of a system that
we didn't build. This was a system that was vastly
politically built by the wrong political side. And we need
to bring heart back into medicine, carrying back into our neighborhoods.

(41:29):
We have to build a different culture for the future
and the Best Choice Medicine Plan gives us the ability
to do that. And putting it under the Health and
Human Services and removing it from a connection of the
us FBA allows us to establish something new for patients
who are dying today. And if we can't help those
patients who are dying today, if the best thing that

(41:50):
we can give them is a faster death if they
can afford it.

Speaker 5 (41:54):
We have failed.

Speaker 4 (41:56):
We know that medicine has come farther than that, and
we know that in order to understand if we have
cured aging or not, we actually have to try drugs
in humans. So you know, I think that we're going
to have to help people who have become very confused
and distrustful of an entire system. Rightly, so you know,

(42:20):
from the media to the drugs to everything else. You know,
everything has become big business. We need to sort of
create a transparency for new business and new cultures and
new ideas to come in, and we need to really
be fighting for our biological freedom. So this is this

(42:43):
is imperative. And I was just really impressed that Bill
was going to do this talk today, and he is
the best speaker on this. I just can't believe it.
I'm absolutely honored to work with Bill, So thank you.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
Yes, thank you, Liz.

Speaker 1 (42:59):
And to your point in regard to people being portrayed
as heroes and villains, Daniel Tweet rights, the media thrives
on heroes and villains and wants to simplify to that level,
much like the two party duopoly in politics, and he
also observes it's unfortunate that the majority of people may

(43:22):
actually be afraid of more freedom, including having more agency
over their own power of life expansions. So those are,
let's say, troubling observations. But yes, a lot of people
may have concerns that if maximal patient choice is allowed,

(43:43):
perhaps some patients might make the wrong choices. And our
friend Eric Hennegan, who writes Less Cure Aging, by the way,
he does point out that in general, the more desperate
a person is, the less rational their decision making process.
And I understand that in the Best Choice Medicine pathway,

(44:06):
there is this review board that helps guide the patient
toward making an informed decision. So perhaps you could discuss
that in a bit greater depth. How can such a
review board or oversight committee help to, let's say, counter

(44:29):
any consequences of that kind of desperation, where a patient
might be perhaps overly inclined to select a treatment that
most people would recognize just won't work for that condition.

Speaker 4 (44:42):
Well, if you look at the law and the Bahamas
that just went in, a lot of people think, you know,
the Bahamas just opened up to gene therapy, and literally
there are companies just putting pamphlets out that they're doing
business in the Bahamas. That's not the case. We work
with them on that. There's an ethics board and a
scientific review board. There's a second scientific view board behind

(45:02):
that just in case the first one can't handle the material.
So the technology that comes in is the most likely
to help.

Speaker 5 (45:10):
It doesn't. It's not the wild West. It's not oh
we have a drug.

Speaker 4 (45:13):
I think that that's what a lot of Charlatans in
this area want. They just want you to say, oh,
it's just legal to do, and then they don't read
what it actually says. So in this case, there's an
indemnification because a scientific review has done its best effort
to understand the molecular mechanism of the drug, and an
ethics board has made its best effort to decide that

(45:37):
patients within a certain parameter qualify for that drug. So
this is, you know, this is what we don't really
have with the USFDA now. So the USFDA, if you
want to get into a clinical trial right now and
you have a life threatening illness, you have to meet
a onslaught of criteria. If you have co morbidities, you

(45:58):
won't qualify. If you're over eighty, you won't qualify. Even
if you could have lived to one hundred and ten,
they'll just let you die. There's a whole bunch of
criteria that doesn't get met, and so we cannot continue
to go with mantras. A drug should be safe before
it's used in patients. Everyone, everyone on the planet can
agree with that, and yet we have a myriad of

(46:19):
unsafe drugs that were either approved and pulled within a
year or were used in clinical studies and found not
to be saved. So what we have to do is
we also have to realize that patients are intelligent. We
have worked with a myriad of medical tourism companies over
the years, over the last eight years, and the idea

(46:43):
that you're intelligent enough to decide whether somebody should take something,
but they're not intelligent enough if they're going to die
in the next six months. It's just absolutely false. Get
out of your head. Stop thinking you're the smartest person
in the room. Because these people need access to drug
and if a scientific review board has said in your

(47:03):
condition this is safe enough to use, it's worth the try,
and an ethics review board has said that too. The
public needs to get out of other people's use of medicine.
Stop blocking people from saving their own lives. Stop with
these crazy mantras that, oh it sounds so logical and

(47:25):
we all believe it until it's your head on the
chopping block, or your.

Speaker 5 (47:28):
Child or your parents.

Speaker 4 (47:30):
This is a mandate that we stopped the mantras of
bullshit so that people can actually live and that these
boards are built correctly. So there is I mean, look
at this drug that they had for Alzheimer's. It was
to help diminish beta amyloid plaques in the brain. It

(47:52):
got approved until they found out that it was actually
detrimental to the patients, and a whole bunch of people
in the USFDA were shareholders. You know, we have to
This is why there is no trust in the system.
We have put the wrong people and we haven't really
done the checks and balances to make sure that the
right people continue to stay in positions of power and

(48:15):
decision making.

Speaker 5 (48:16):
And recently, my own company just last.

Speaker 4 (48:19):
Week was attacked for a paper that had been published
for three years on one photo that was that was
replaced a year ago because they didn't realize no reviewer.
We had the best reviewers in the world. We didn't
realize that one photo that was no material to the outcome.
What I'm trying to tell you there is an attack
on our industry. There's attack on people living a long time.

(48:41):
We need to get qualified people in so we can
start saving lives because it's one by one. The media
and the big interests are trying to make this whole
thing fall. With patient data, with humans living healthier longer,
that's how this whole industry is going to serve. We
have to let the truth prevail and give scientists, ethics board,

(49:04):
and the patients the right to move forward.

Speaker 3 (49:08):
And let me add responding to Eric's point, I did
mention that you're here. There's a can of worms that
as soon as we as soon as best Choice medicine approves,
somebody to be able to take any drug at their
choice or treatment at their choice. That does open up problem,
and that's that the patient might choose to do something

(49:30):
that's the wrong thing to do, Okay, And that's why
that's why I was talking about this can of worms.
The companies that are providing the treatments they have to
be they have to work through best choice medicine. The
patient doesn't the best patient can choose anything they want,
but when they when they get a treatment, the company
they're providing the treatment is still going to be they

(49:52):
should work through the best choice medicine because if they don't,
they'll be guilty of criminal negligence if that person suffers
any kind of symptoms that is not helping that person.
So at the same time, any patient is going to

(50:12):
want to be working with best choice medicine because best
choice medicine is going to be making the best decisions
for them or advising them. They're not going to make
the decisions for them. They're going to be advising them
on what decisions they should make. And yes, they're going
to be desperate, okay, and it's that's part of that's
part of the thing. But but if somebody is imminently

(50:34):
going to pass away God, and they have no choice.
I'm okay for desperation as long as the desperation is
something that really has a good chance to working. And
that patient did get the opportunity to listen to the
committee that best choice medicine is made up of. And
let me let me just add one other thing, okay,

(50:54):
because let's just mention this paper that just atracted. I
was one of the reviewers for this paper. I believe
this paper that is actually regarding CMV as a factor
for gene therapy is probably one of the most revolutionary
things that can ever happen in the field of gene therapy.
And I am shocked that there are people trying to

(51:18):
block this study going on, and Lizen't I are trying
to right now find funding to move this forward because
I believe everything you ever hear about gene therapy and
the problems that exist with gene therapy are going to
be solved with this new system that Liz Parish came
up with. Okay, And so I am I'm a little

(51:40):
horrified with I don't want to call it corruption that
exists in the world right now, people trying to block
I forget what the term Liz used, but high profile
people things like that, and when some of these high
profile people are really just trying to do the best
to make the world a happier, happier pas.

Speaker 1 (52:04):
Yes, thank you Bill for those comments and for those
who would like to read the paper and question. It's
entitled New Intrnasal and Injectable Gene Therapy for Healthy Life Extension.

Speaker 6 (52:20):
It was.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
Retracted, but not.

Speaker 1 (52:24):
All of the authors agreed with the retraction, and Liz
was among the authors who did not agree with you.

Speaker 5 (52:31):
Even George Church.

Speaker 4 (52:33):
Even George Church said he was completely on the fence.
But when you're at Harvard, you pretty much if somebody
question something, you have to retract. But he is he's
quoted saying that he was on the fence. He thought
it was a really good paper. I want to also
point out I want to point out something that's really
important because Bill and I and a lot of people

(52:54):
here who I've supported and who have supported us over
the years. You know that we come to these meetings.
I did Best Choice Medicine, then Bill picked up Best
Choice Medicine with me. I've worked in several legal locations
for new laws and why I want you to guess
what I've never been paid for any of it, none

(53:16):
of it. We're not here to get rich off of
somebody living. We're here to create value.

Speaker 5 (53:23):
For the world, because otherwise there's nothing to live for.

Speaker 4 (53:26):
And so, you know, we have to think about things differently.
We have to think about like, some people aren't working
for money, They're working because they want a better future.
And I just really wanted to point that out because
you know, when Bill and I talk, we never talk
about that.

Speaker 5 (53:40):
We never talk.

Speaker 4 (53:40):
About you know, this man, these many years that we
put in on on the legal side of things to
help people to get access, didn't make a penny and
didn't even get paid to travel to locations to speak
on it. Maybe maybe somebody paid for an airflight and
a hotel once, but that's it. This is really we

(54:05):
have to band together and make this happen.

Speaker 1 (54:08):
Indeed, and similarly, the US Transhumanist Party functions on an
all volunteer model, so we have essentially the same kind
of dedication to the outcome. We want to see the
outcome irrespective of who gets paid. And certainly our officers
put in a lot of time and effort in the

(54:31):
form of their contributions so that we can all one
day reverse aging and live indefinitely. So thank you very
much for those comments, Liz. And now we have David
Wood who has a few.

Speaker 7 (54:42):
Remarks, well, this is a really important initiative when I'm
honored to be part of this discussion where the best
choice medicine is being presented. So well, my questions and
comments are about how can we band together more people
in support of this initiative, how can we find allies

(55:06):
even within the pharmaceutical industry or even within the regulators,
even within the FDA, because in my experience that there
are people in that industry, there are regulators who would
like to have greater access to patients to experimental treatments,
but they are afraid of one or two things. And

(55:26):
so my questions are how can we build on what
Bill was already saying to provide assurance that this won't
be opening a devil's tornet of strange things. So one
of the concerns is that actually this is sometimes positioned
as a choice between no treatment or a treatment, and

(55:50):
the risks of both are weighed up. What's the risk
of no treatment, what's the risk of a treatment? But
in reality is often there's more choices in that because
it's not just the first treatment that the patient's got
in mind. The patient has learned about a treatment, they've
been contacted by somebody, they have had advice, but it
turns out that their situation is different from somebody else,

(56:13):
so it may be there. It's not just no treatment
or the first treatment that the patient is very much
keen to try, and there may be a different kind
of gene therapy, there may be a different kind of
treatment altogether that's relevant to them in a very small way.
I had this myself. I had bad knees a few
years ago, and somebody said you need courteres On injections,

(56:34):
and the thankfully a GP, said no, you don't, you
need a proper physiotherapy. And I went to the physiotherapy
and I got a very good one, and my knees
are a much better shape now. So this is a
case when somebody who had more expertise than me was
able to talk me out of something that I wasn't
even convinced of fully myself. But I was thinking about.

(56:55):
As has been said, people in a life threatening situation
can be more desperate, and so it does come down
to not just best choice medicine, but informed best choice medicine,
so isn't really The key here is to be able
to demonstrate how these review boards are going to scale up.
This has already mentioned sometimes you need more than one
review board, but this costs money, it does say, require

(57:19):
people to get behind it. So my suggestion is that actually,
maybe within twelve months, there's going to be another thing
that's going to help these review boards. There's going to
be another thing that's going to help their meta analysis
that build points to, and that is the rise of bioagents.
That is, AIS that have been specially trained on a
broad range of medical treatments. And we often used to

(57:42):
saying AIS are biased, and that's true if they're only
trained on a very limited field. But we've got the
ability now hopefully to let AIS read a much wider
range of data. So I'm looking to the near future.
People already calling twenty twenty five the year of the
DCI summer, this centralized sign summer, which is the opposite

(58:05):
of an AI winter. By the way, the AI winter
is where everybody gets depressed that the AI isn't working anymore.
It just happened twice in the past. But people are
looking to the release of bioagents later this summer, We've
still got a few months left which can for the
first time pull together more data. So how will these say,

(58:25):
review boards actually scale up and be able to persuade
people not just to go with the first treatment that
is on their mind, but sometimes to try a different
sort of treatment rather than just give up and not
do anything at all.

Speaker 4 (58:41):
Well, we definitely don't want people going with just one
one treatment opportunity. I mean, it may start with only
a few approved treatment opportunities that are the best for
certain conditions. But the whole thing is based on a database.
So if there are conditions and there are treatments, and
those treatments maybe are start to get some safety data,

(59:01):
but they could be cross used into different diseases. We
want that all to be open, so that as the
treatments basically become more diverse, that people have access to
more and more qualified information and using data sets and
actually having material. Of course, patients have to work with

(59:23):
doctors and they have to sign informed consent, and they
also have to sign off that it's experimental medicine. But
these AI systems one great thing about them is they
can help us help the patient better understand the material
as well.

Speaker 5 (59:36):
But AI still has to be tested.

Speaker 4 (59:39):
We're still doing the code keeper, we're still using AI
systems to help us with papers, and it's still hallucinating
every day, so we need to make sure that there's
always someone, a human still between that data.

Speaker 5 (59:56):
And also, even.

Speaker 4 (59:58):
Though AI is great picking up things that we've already done,
biology is actually complex and in every body that is
on this call is different from one another, and so
your outcomes could be different. And so there still is
a lot of human work in understanding that the idea
that you know, somehow an entire brain will be understood

(01:00:20):
by AI and the drugs in which would need to
be used then in every different brain would be understood
is a ways off. So there's always going to be
have to be that human component. So AI may come
up with some ideas. We've used it to look at
gene therapy and some of them would be devastatingly deadly,
and we know that. So you know, we will watch

(01:00:44):
AI get better, but we will also keep an a
I on AI, and I am sure that it is
quickly going to be keeping an eye on us as well,
so that you know, maybe some red flags it can
also throw in for people with different conditions, comadities, or
different drugs that they're on, and that will help.

Speaker 5 (01:01:04):
So the two groups will help one another.

Speaker 4 (01:01:07):
But the idea that one is well, especially AI right now,
is somehow going to solve the whole problem for everyone.

Speaker 5 (01:01:17):
I don't think that that's going to happen.

Speaker 4 (01:01:19):
It could happen, but we won't understand if it happened
until we do studies in humans. It will never be
able to de risk the study in humans. But Bill,
I'd like to hear your answer.

Speaker 3 (01:01:32):
Well, when it comes to AI, I've actually not been
a fan of it in the past, but I've often
putting AI to the test, and recently new versions of
AI have impressed me a lot, and so I'm I'm

(01:01:52):
One of the tests that I do is like I'll
ask Who's who who what people in the world have
won Milk Prize and an oscar, And I'm always disappointed
that that al Gore doesn't show up as one of
the answers, But now all of a sudden, he is
showing up. But it's so I think I'm excited right

(01:02:17):
now about the future of AI and all biochemical biotech
research and stuff like that working together to come up
with solutions that are I'm more excited about them than
gust before.

Speaker 7 (01:02:36):
Even humans are limited in what they can understand. The
sad fact is that many people become experts in one
field by doing a great deal of work and research,
they too easily imagine they might be an expert in
another field as well, because they forgot how much they
had to learn to become the expert in the first place.
And especially in medicine, there's so many different aspects of medicine.

(01:02:58):
So somebody may be very skilled in lots of medicine,
but in a new field they may not appreciate the complexities.
But still they want to lay down the law a
bit too readily. So I think we need to get
the whole bunch of people involved. We need to have
a collaborative spirit, which is why I come back to
my question, how can we get more people bonding, banding

(01:03:21):
together for this, including the people who already within pharma
and within the regulators, who aren't all trying to squash this.
They're just concerned that people in some desperation might spend
a lot of money, or they might require a lot
of money to be spent because if there's a treatment
started off, it could be all kinds of complications and

(01:03:42):
so on.

Speaker 1 (01:03:46):
Yes, thank you for those remarks, David, and we have
a few comments in the chat along these lines. In
regard to AI and its role, Mike Lausine writes, AIS
right now our own as good as the humans who
interact with them, and indeed the human generated knowledge base
that the AIS draw upon for freedom rights. We need

(01:04:10):
more AI to just observe the human body, so perhaps
collect data about the human body. Though the AIS will
need to have some sort of interface for data collections,
so they can't just be essentially analytical systems. They need
to have in empirical data gathering capability as well.

Speaker 7 (01:04:30):
For that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:32):
Eric Hennegan fears that AI won't be able to contribute
much to our understanding of biology because the complexity might
be irreducible, and he notes that the anthropic CEO Dario
Amide has the same concern. I do hope there's some reducibility,
some amount of sense that the AI can glean, even

(01:04:53):
by accessing large amounts of data that humans individually cannot
possibly read, at least not the same human With regard
to all of those vast amounts of data, and if
the AI just has a much larger data processing capability
than we do, it might be able to generate some

(01:05:18):
insights or discover some insights that we would have missed.
But it is certainly an evolving field, and there are
a lot of open questions about what these AI systems
can or cannot do. But to Bill's point, there are
some impressive capabilities that would have been difficult to conceive

(01:05:40):
of just a few years ago. So perhaps there are
some grounds for hope there. Bill, we don't like to celeborate.

Speaker 3 (01:05:50):
I just don't think that AI is going to do
it all by itself. Okay, right, We're still going to
have to be working together with AI, but I'm a
lot more excited about that possibility just in the last
few weeks.

Speaker 1 (01:06:05):
Yes, absolutely, and I think human AI collaboration is going
to be much more powerful than either AI by itself
or humans by themselves.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
Now we have.

Speaker 1 (01:06:19):
Dan Elton joining us, Dan, I wonder if you have
any questions or comments for Bill or Liz.

Speaker 6 (01:06:28):
Well. I had a comment which I said, I have
been experimenting with AI to actually help with meta analyses
and reviewing the scientific literature because it is very challenging,
especially when you're looking at a complex condition like long
COVID to make sense of the literature and all the

(01:06:50):
different treatments that are being studied.

Speaker 1 (01:06:56):
And so.

Speaker 6 (01:06:58):
I I have I have been actually setting up some
infrastructure to be able to scrape and pull down thousands
and thousands of papers and then call the chat GPT
api to have chat rept basically read all those papers
at lightning speed. And initially my plan is just to

(01:07:22):
just to get kind of a listing of all the
different things that are being studied, which for a condition
like long COVID, which is actually pretty hard to get
a comprehensive listing. So all that is to say, I
think I definitely think AI could be useful just for

(01:07:44):
understanding literature. And someone mentioned like, you know, the quality
of the AI outputs is kind of a function of
the inputs, but I actually think I actually tried feeding
in some scientific papers that I was pretty sure were false,

(01:08:08):
and GPT four was actually quite skeptical as well. So
I would I would just encourage everyone to keep an
open mind about about AI, as it's improving a surprisingly
fast paced and it's also I think they're fine tuning

(01:08:31):
it to to be more to have sort of more
awareness about what is trustworthy and what is what is not,
what is true and what is.

Speaker 4 (01:08:46):
False, and Dan I would agree. I would agree that
it is improving, but when you're looking at complex papers
like gene therapy, this is where a lot of it
falls apart, and I would just double check and read
the papers. I think that it is getting better. We're
still testing it. We just tested it again last week

(01:09:08):
and it still had hallucinations. But the problem is sometimes
it's it's pulling from the discussion in other areas and
it thinks that like for instance, we were looking at
a gene therapy deliver that delivery that was a non
vector based and it thought it was a Lenty based
gene therapy, and if we would have put that into
our database, that would have been vastly incorrect, and it

(01:09:31):
actually could have been harmful if it was an integrating
Lenty virus. So instead we had to read the paper
and actually pull that. It pulled the vector out of
the discussion, so I would. I know a lot of
people are using it. We used it the other day
and we thought we had found the perfect database for

(01:09:51):
finding names for new companies, whether they was a dot
com available, and what the trademark wight was on the names,
and almost in every case, even though it looked absolutely
right and correct, it was wrong. So again I would

(01:10:11):
just double check it, especially if if there's any sort
of thing where it might be it might appear that
it's agreeing with you. I also then, would you know,
we always want to double check ourselves as well.

Speaker 5 (01:10:27):
I'm not accusing you of that. I know that you're
actually very.

Speaker 4 (01:10:30):
Cognitively cognizant of how you're minded, and you don't have
a lot of cognitive dissonance. But yeah, I still would
double check it.

Speaker 5 (01:10:40):
I would.

Speaker 4 (01:10:40):
I would take the time to read the paper and
again chat. GPT five seems to be a lot cooler.
You know, you can download HTML. Claude is awesome at
what we do programming. My husband works for Adobe, so
you know they do that to double check some of
the code and things like that. But yeah, again, really.

Speaker 6 (01:11:04):
Really really good at programs.

Speaker 1 (01:11:07):
Me.

Speaker 6 (01:11:07):
I agree, I just I would. I've been surprised how
much better it's gotten since gppfore with the you know,
with the ability for thinking or reasoning.

Speaker 4 (01:11:19):
Yeah, yeah, I've been doing some tutorials. It is very cool. Uh,
but again, when when.

Speaker 5 (01:11:24):
It comes to your health, please just go ahead and
read the PAP.

Speaker 3 (01:11:28):
Of course, GTP five is one of the ones that
I just reviewed that I thought, oh, that's an amazing
step forward. But the problem is AI can do meta analysis,
but it still is not capable of really doing critical
meta analysis yet. And because it doesn't, so I've there's

(01:11:49):
YouTube videos where I have compared meta analysis to critical
meta analysis and opposite conclusions. Because when you when you start,
because a lot of a lot of papers get published
simply because of the fact the authors are trying to
promote something, okay, whether it's a product or philosophy or
something like that, and a lot of times if you

(01:12:13):
if you do research to prove them wrong, it's not
worth publishing, okay. And so there's sometimes weighted problems of
one opinion versus or another that can't be resolved unless
you do critical met analysis, which means looking at the
experimental design, does it make sense, is it logical? Is

(01:12:33):
you know it is? And looking at the way the
data was analyzed and it was not just with the
statistics accurate, but was the statistical theory accurate? And that's
something that i've had a lot of training classes, and.

Speaker 6 (01:12:49):
Yeah, I can see that. Another thing I've looked at
and other people have been looking at seeing if AI
can detect fraud or those sort of things. And it's
actually it's a challenge there as well, because it requires
a very careful finding some some evidence of fraud requires

(01:13:11):
just a really careful detailed analysis. But it's you know,
I think with if you they have features now where
you can increase the amount of thinking or computation, and
you know, I think it's worth it's worth continuing to

(01:13:32):
test the AI to see.

Speaker 5 (01:13:34):
Trust me, we are excited about it. Yeah, we are
so excited about it.

Speaker 4 (01:13:38):
I mean, that's why we're working with it constantly because
anything that we don't you know, that we don't need
to do, especially in the code keeper, we would like
to outsource that. But but so far on this side,
it still needs a human to ensure that what it's
pulling up is not an hallucination. But yeah, I mean

(01:14:00):
I'm you know, of course, we're pro technology and I'm
not trying to speak against it. I'm just being cautious
so that people don't start to get their health information
from it quite yet.

Speaker 1 (01:14:16):
Yes, and that's a very important point. Indeed, Deda Cornell
rights that he agrees with you. Liz Chat GPT and
all lllms are still not totally reliable and you can
never copy and paste yet, so a human should always
proof freed the content and make any adjustments that are necessary.

(01:14:39):
I think the value of subject matter expertise is actually
more important than ever, so contrary to claims that AI
will make specialists and knowledge workers obsolete, I disagree AI
can make knowledge workers more productive. But having deep expertise
in a field is very important to even be able

(01:15:00):
to tell that something is a hallucination. Because if a
layperson asks a large language model to analyze, say a
vast amount of literature, and this could be scientific, peer
reviewed literature on gene therapies, the lay person wouldn't know
if the AI was hallucinating. It requires somebody who actually

(01:15:23):
has studied gene therapies in order to be able to
tell what is a hallucination.

Speaker 2 (01:15:31):
Now, David also.

Speaker 1 (01:15:32):
Points out what the new bioagents will probably be able
to do is to suggest very interesting new hypotheses. It
will then be up to human researchers to evaluate these
new hypotheses, and I think that is an important point.
David elaborates. It's similar to how it may take a
maths genius to propose a solution to a hard maths puzzle,

(01:15:56):
but an ordinary maths researcher can then verify if the
solution is actually sound. So yes, there could be that
kind of complementarity.

Speaker 4 (01:16:08):
It makes sense, you know, in the game of chess
against aging. You know, obviously a computer can do better
than that. I think that I'm just saying a cautionary tell.
If we keep saying if we just wait, we might
be able to do it better and safer. That is
deadly to one hundred and ten thousand people today, and

(01:16:30):
that's going to be deadly to thirty six million people today.
So whenever we say if we just wait, if we
just wait six more months, and if we just then
give it eight more months and oops, that messed up?
Now everything is, you know, or if we just give
it one more year or ten more years, because I
have time, I'm not here for me. I'm here for

(01:16:53):
the people who have no voice today. I'm here for
the people who need access to this today, tomorrow, in
the next year. So you know, we certainly are excited
about these technologies. We certainly want to work hand in
hand with them, We certainly want them to be exact,

(01:17:14):
but right now we don't have time to wait for perfection.

Speaker 1 (01:17:19):
Yes, indeed, and this has been very salient for me
this year because I have lost several people whom I
knew very well. I lost my grandfather, and I lost
our good friend John Carrotz, who was a US Transhumanist
Party officer. And just yesterday I found out about the

(01:17:40):
death of a well known runner in northern Nevada from cancer.
His name was Peter Sinnett, and he was remarkable for
having won the first Journal Jog race in Reno in leave.
It was nineteen seventy one, so this was the oldest

(01:18:06):
still ongoing race in Nevada, and he was a very
young man when he won it. He ran every mile
at a sub five minute pace, and I think he
held the course record for a very long time. I
met him last year at the running of the Journal Jog,
and he was seventy four at the time. What I
didn't know was that he had cancer when he was

(01:18:31):
running the last Journal Jog, and he died in December
of last year. I just found out about it yesterday
because I looked him up and I wanted to know
how he was doing and whether he would be there
at the next journal jog. And this was just such
a shock because he was only seventy five and he

(01:18:51):
was otherwise an excellent health but cancer got him. And Bill,
I don't know if you had a lot of familiarity
with him, a lot of interactions with him, but this
really shocked me when.

Speaker 3 (01:19:07):
I found out. Yes, yes I have, I've run the
journal job many times. I know who I did not
know he passed away until just now.

Speaker 1 (01:19:15):
That's pretty say tight, yes, And I think this actually
can bring us back to the discussion of the War
on cancer because Richard Nixon declared the War on Cancer
during the same year as the first Journal Job nineteen
seventy one, So people who were young back then are

(01:19:39):
dying of cancer now and ten years ago, almost ten
years ago. In twenty fifteen, we had a panel discussion
entitled how can life extension become as popular as the
War on Cancer? And of course, Liz, you were one
of our notable guests on that panel, and that was

(01:20:00):
when you first informed the world that a patient had
successfully received a combination gene therapy. We did not yet
know that it was you, but you said the patient
was doing well after that experiment.

Speaker 2 (01:20:16):
So that was nearly a decade.

Speaker 1 (01:20:19):
Ago, and we were already discussing, well, how can we
get the pursuit of longevity to become at least as
popular as the War on cancer, because at least people
don't ideologically question the War on cancer. But David has
said in our internal chat it would be worthwhile to

(01:20:39):
discuss this to a greater extent in terms of where
the War on Cancer fell short of aspirations, especially as
compared to the Apollo Moonshot that John F. Kennedy inspired.
But even with the Apollo Moonshot, we did succeed in
landing people on the Moon, but humankind has not been

(01:21:02):
back on the Moon for now fifty three years, so
something there failed as well. It seemed like sometime in
the mid nineteen seventies there came about this turn inward
in the focus of a lot of let's say, grand
political projects and cultural aspirations, and that has really limited

(01:21:25):
what we have been able to achieve in the physical world,
whether on the macroscopic scale of space exploration and colonization
or the microscopic scale of overcoming diseases, including aging. So
I would welcome any thoughts on that, David, Liz Bill
and anybody who.

Speaker 4 (01:21:44):
Just happened literally what happened, you know, in the seventies,
there was so much movement towards science and technology, and
even the suits, the moon suits that we went that
we are actually built to take to the moon can't
even be replicated today. What happened to us, I mean,

(01:22:08):
and what was what was the critical cocktail that created
a society who was interested in these endeavors, you know
the sixties. Look when you when you just look at
the architecture from the sixties, it's so cool. It's almost
you know, spacey. It's the retro vibe is almost like,

(01:22:30):
you know, we were ready for aliens and everything else,
and you know this round concept and these these disc
shaped lanterns, and anyone who hasn't seen.

Speaker 5 (01:22:42):
It just go back and look at what retro furniture.

Speaker 1 (01:22:44):
It was.

Speaker 4 (01:22:45):
We were really going to amp up in science and
space and everything else, and.

Speaker 5 (01:22:50):
Then we just kind of didn't do it.

Speaker 4 (01:22:54):
In the in the culture towards risk aversion and playing
the game of small iterations took over, and the cost
of an education skyrocketed. You know, in the seventies, you
could pay for a four year college with a minimum
wage job and I think you made a dollar seventy

(01:23:14):
eight and you only had to work part time. You know,
today it takes you know, two parents working and help
from the grandparents and alone often to get someone through
a four year college. We have done a lot to
block the future for humans, and it's quite devastating. The

(01:23:36):
cost of housing is skyrocketed. Everything is kind of shutting
out next generations and not really planning for them.

Speaker 1 (01:23:48):
This is.

Speaker 4 (01:23:50):
I would say, it's not just that science didn't stop.
Something happened with the culture. And I think that that
sociologically would be where studying.

Speaker 6 (01:24:01):
Well, yeah, it's a great book that covers some of
this actually, which is called Where Is My Flying Car?
And it's kind of looking at well, why didn't we
get the flying cars and the you know, electricity too
cheap to meter and you know, vacations on the moon
and all these things they were predicting back in the

(01:24:21):
nineteen sixties. And I won't go into it now, but
but there were you know, there there was environmental movement
and there were yeah, there was a shift towards against
like yeah, shift towards uh, you know, more regulation and things.

(01:24:42):
But uh, there was also a shift you know. Well,
I guess the thing I wanted to bring up, which
was build off what Bill mentioned earlier. He mentioned how
it's to internalize. I think the term you use was

(01:25:02):
internalize a lot of things. So like with them and
with the Apollo program, and also something like the Manhattan Project,
it was a a very large program that was uh

(01:25:25):
that was sort of where where all the components were
operating together in in in a in a cohesive structure
where I won't say like rigidly hierarchical necessarily, but it
was a it was a comprehensive program, right with with
thousands of people and millions of dollars. Whereas I feel

(01:25:49):
like with cancer research it's it's it's many many small
teams that are all working in sort of uncoordinated fashion.
That's sort of my impression with biomedical research in general.
So I think we may need to consider like a
new model where the government or or I guess private

(01:26:13):
individuals fund the larger, larger teams. Something like al those
labs actually comes to mind as an example.

Speaker 2 (01:26:24):
Very interesting.

Speaker 7 (01:26:26):
I wonder to what extent the lack of progress with
war on cancer can be attributed to sociological factors, as
we're discussing now changing culture to what extent it just
was a much harder problem technologically, biologically than people had
the imagined. Because one reason that the War on cancer
got going due to the advocacy of people like Mary Alaska,

(01:26:50):
is that there had been some progress against cancers in
their previous decades. Sydney Farber famously made some breakthroughs in
the treatment of leukemia for children, which there had been
a death sentence, and people never spoke about cancer because
if you've got cancer, you were dead.

Speaker 8 (01:27:04):
That was it.

Speaker 7 (01:27:05):
Whereas there were some signs early on that some cancers
could be cured, but it turned out that cancer was
just much much harder because there were so many different
varieties to it, and arguably they didn't really tackle it
from the viewpoint that many of us on this corp
would now say, which is that by the time cancer exists,
it's too late. It's because there's been lower level accumulation

(01:27:28):
of damage, whether it's telling me as have got too short,
or mitochondria have stopped working, or there's been too many
mutations in the DNA. All of these things are probably
the earlier causes. So it may be that the reason
cancer has not been cured as quickly as Nixon and
others hoped for is just was harder and we need

(01:27:49):
a deeper approach, which is what we are now bringing
from the anti aging point of view. So yeah, I'm
sure there are sociological which would improve the culture. But
I wouldn't want to say it's just a people didn't
organize themselves properly. I think maybe they needed to wait
for the deeper tools and methods which we are now bringing,

(01:28:13):
arguably from the Fourth Industrial Revolution, improvements in biotech and
nanotech and the AI which we can apply, which were
impossible in the nineteen seventies, and people didn't even know
that they couldn't take work, they didn't know how hard
the problem was.

Speaker 4 (01:28:29):
Yeah, I think to add to that point is that
if you need evidence that we can extend lifespan, actually
it is a culture problem because it's already there. That's
what open heart surgery is. In some cases, that's what
taking anasparin is for a very small percentage of the

(01:28:50):
people who take asperin if you read the Coppern report.
But for some people that's what it is. For some
people it's blood pressure medicine, so we have successful. So
for some peoples it's antibiotics and immunizations, so for many
people we have already extended lifespan. So if you need
the evidence, it's actually clear as day that that's what

(01:29:12):
medicine does.

Speaker 5 (01:29:13):
Okay, that's what science does.

Speaker 4 (01:29:15):
And I do agree with David though we're on the
precipice of new medicine. But actually it's right in line
with the old medicine. It's just a next generation. It's
a reiteration of better medicine on top of what we
already have, which is what we always used to accept
and tell businesses got so big that they could shut

(01:29:37):
it out. And you know, really, I implore you to
take your health very seriously because the idea that somebody
else certainly has your back is just not the case.
The biggest lobbyist in the United States is the pharma industry.

(01:29:57):
They were embedded into the US FDA. They're trying to
actually pluck that out now and create a more streamlined system.
I still believe that best choice medicine is the only way.
There's no sense in fixing something that's broken. But medicine
has been good, So I'm not against what those iterations.

(01:30:18):
They have definitively extended lifespan and so if you need
that evidence, it's already there. And actually just helping people
see that is really important. But this is this is
the next generation of better drugs, and I'm just asking
the world to take a look at it and that

(01:30:40):
these different systems of design of businesses start.

Speaker 5 (01:30:46):
To embrace it.

Speaker 4 (01:30:47):
But if we keep going back and we keep waiting
for a mandate for a let's say, like solar, everybody
was asking the energy industry to bring in solar, but
the energy industry was an oil industry. So I mean,
you know, who are you asking to change something? You
have to change it, you know, you have to change
it as a society and as a mandate. And you know,

(01:31:10):
ALTOS as a description of an initiative is fantastic, except
for it's not really government funded and the private industry
can't fund everything. They have the most money probably, but
they can't fund everything. So we need a mind shift.
We need a shift on a groundswell of people who

(01:31:30):
demand accuracy and that we're providing accuracy to the best
of our ability, and that we understand the limits in
all systems, and that we use all systems to move forward,
including AI and machine learning and different things that we
already have.

Speaker 5 (01:31:47):
It has to be an integrational approach.

Speaker 4 (01:31:50):
But somehow we're going to have to trust a system
and see that the system is trustworthy. People generally are
using technology good, and that we need to keep on
that path and make sure that we don't stop here.

Speaker 3 (01:32:06):
So I have some comments on cancer. I don't know
how many other people on this call have been in
the trenches of working on cancer, but I've done a
tremendous amount of cancer research. I was actually National Inventor
of the Year for my cancer research in the United
States because I've developed, As I said at the beginning

(01:32:28):
of this thing, I've developed a lot of different treatments
for cancer that have been approved in clinical studies, etc.
But I've been I can look back on all that
and I can see lots of corruption. Okay, there's I've
been involved in many clinical affairs meetings and etc. On
cancer drugs. I've developed cancer drugs that I said would

(01:32:50):
never work, and they still got push forward. I came
up with ideas on here's things we should be doing
to cure cancer, and sometimes these weren't my ideas. I'm
not a person that's would ever say not invented here,
And this, this example is like working a lot live.
I'm her ideas. I'm not not working on them because

(01:33:11):
they weren't invented here. I've pursued a lot of ideas
that I thought were good ways to actually cure cancer.
And I've got some projects here going on as cer
sciences right now that I think would be really great
towards care and cancer, but funding blocks and or you know,
trying to get grants, et cetera to work on and

(01:33:33):
you can't do it because various political issues and stuff.
And I've seen I've seen many many people apply it.
Like even this is the best example of all. When
I was in graduate school and working in a plant
lab because there was a moratorium i recommon at DNA
research at the time, so I couldn't work on mammalian cells.

(01:33:54):
I was working with plants to do recommon a DNA research.
The major professor that I had was having troubles getting grants,
and so he to study an organism called chloro uglinic
gricillis which had chloroplasts. It's a single say organ and
he was just doing studies on that he couldn't get

(01:34:15):
grant funding, so as a last desperate effort, he put
the word cancer twice on every page and the application,
and I thought, well, that would never work. And then
one day the lab assistant comes running through the left
saying we got approved. Full of up. It's the Cancer
Society approved the grant to study chloroplasts. And that's an

(01:34:41):
example of the corruption that I've seen, and I don't
think that would have ever happened in massive Okay, but
I've seen a lot of great cancer ideas be popood
for one reason or another, and partially because it's too expensive,
take too long, or something like that, but least it
was in the direction of actually doing something. And I've

(01:35:03):
seen a lot of drugs get moved forward that I
was actually saying that will never work, including some of
the drugs that I invented that did get approved by
the FDA. Best example is Rytello, which has just been
approved recently by clinical studies. It took thirty years to
get approved because the cancer's kept coming back. And that's

(01:35:25):
what I kept saying back thirty years ago. I said,
this will never work because it increases the risk that
the cancers will find a way to mutate to to
come back, and sure enough it did, but it still
got approved and they spent tons of money on it.
I could go on and on. I'm just David. I

(01:35:46):
know you were saying that maybe that's not the problem,
but I strongly believe that the problem has been mismanagement
as a national cancer institute, and the amount of corruption
and money being thrown away for useless thing was that
made no sense, logical sense because somebody was just interested
in making a name for themselves or getting a lot
of making a lot of money for themselves.

Speaker 1 (01:36:10):
Yes, thank you Bill for sharing those observations. And recently
on the US Transhumanist Party website, we published an article
of yours that included some of the situations that you
related just now. The title was one that I had

(01:36:31):
inserted into it, the systemic problems in contemporary academia and
research funding. But it does speak to a lot of
these issues where the institutions seemed to be grievously flawed
in a variety of respects. And there has been a
discussion of peer review in our YouTube comments. So Daniel

(01:36:55):
Tweed wants to know how can we fix flawed peer
review special actually, since Liz had this experience with the
questionable retraction of her paper, and Daniel also notes if
AI can fix broken peer review, that could be useful.

(01:37:16):
So what are your thoughts on this? How do we
fix flawed peer review? And can AI help even if
it doesn't provide the entirety of the solution.

Speaker 4 (01:37:28):
I think that this is a really good question. Bill
might have a better answer for that. So, I mean,
the reason that a company like ours would do something
at a university is because they have the equipment, equipment
and then know how, you know, we didn't touch the
science that went into that paper, So there are are
this is right under investigation right now. If there was

(01:37:48):
anything wrong with that paper, that is the responsibility of
the universe and university and its scientists, and there will
be accountability there if it is. Because you can bully
people for three years and then retract things so that
the public doesn't have access to those things, I.

Speaker 5 (01:38:07):
Mean, why why would that? Why would that have happened?

Speaker 4 (01:38:10):
There's a lot of uncertainty here, and I know that
we want to feel like we live in a perfect world,
but we don't. There's a lot of agendas out there
that I have found since I since I just came
here as a mom, reaching out trying to try drugs
so that we had a better future, I have ran
into the best people that I didn't even know existed

(01:38:32):
that have.

Speaker 5 (01:38:33):
Just absolutely lightened my heart.

Speaker 4 (01:38:35):
And I have run up against absolute criminals and stalkers,
and why they exist is because they make money existing
doing what they do. There's special interest there and I'm
not sure.

Speaker 5 (01:38:47):
What this is. We hope to get to the bottom
of this, but.

Speaker 4 (01:38:53):
Bill might have a better idea of how how do
you actually keep peer review.

Speaker 5 (01:39:00):
Or keep science more sound.

Speaker 4 (01:39:02):
I know that when we started, one of the reasons
that we went with a big university is because I
was told, and I definitely quoted this in many talks,
that eighty five percent of papers were not reproducible. That
means that science was building on science, that was building
on science. The potentially the first papers weren't even sound.

(01:39:24):
And so when that paper that we did start to
go through review, what a lot of people don't know
is it went through six months of more science before
it was even put through final review of everyone due
to one reviewer.

Speaker 5 (01:39:40):
Being so hardcore.

Speaker 4 (01:39:42):
I'm making sure there was data to back up the data,
and that was someone on this call. Bill put us
through six months more of actual testing. So he was
hard on it, I mean, pull your hair out hard
on it. But I was glad because I had paid

(01:40:02):
for it. And you know, our company in total put
in over a million dollars to make better science for
humans and put it out in the public so that
people could use that. So if there's something wrong with that,
we're going to get to the bottom of that. But
if there was nothing wrong with that, then all signs
point to three years of sabotage, and one way or another,

(01:40:27):
we need to know. We all everyone on this call,
and everyone in the world needs to know.

Speaker 3 (01:40:32):
I'm the reviewer from hell.

Speaker 5 (01:40:35):
For the reviewer from Hell.

Speaker 3 (01:40:37):
I tell you I am the toughest reviewer that you
will ever find. I make certain that all the eyes
are dotted and teasercross on everything. And and just so
you know, Liz, I don't know if I told you this.
I did write to the journal up pinning its and said,
ask why was this paper of the truck because I

(01:40:59):
have not heard a word. Nobody talked to me about it.
I didn't hear that it was retracted until you told me.
And there's something terribly wrong here, because that paper is
an excellent paper, and it's it's had all the eyes
cross and tees cross, eyes dotted and t's cross, and
I'm made certain of that. But I would say that

(01:41:20):
the number one most important thing to make peer review
more legitimate is to do away with this whole concept
of publish or perish. Okay, this is why. I don't
know what Lewis said, but I think ninety percent of
the papers that are published now are not reproducible. And

(01:41:43):
then what's really horrible is that then everybody else that thinks, well,
this benefits them, they start referencing that paper and suddenly
there's one hundred papers all saying the same thing. But
when you read them, all ninety nine of them just
reference that one paper that's the only data. This is
a really big problem. People. To get grants, they have

(01:42:07):
to have a lot of publications. That's why publish or perished.
If you don't have a lot of papers published, you
can't get a grant. And that's it's criminal. Okay. So
as a result, people are publishing anything they can just
to have to increase the number of publications on the
This is one of the reasons that I walked away

(01:42:27):
from academia forty years ago. Okay. I just couldn't believe
the games, the stuff that people had to go through
to get their research done, and how much corruption there was,
and how much illigent, illegitimate research was being done. So
I chose to go into industry instead. I did find

(01:42:50):
that that still had its load of problems too. But
since I started my own company, I have tried applying
for grants. I got the grants, I returned them because
of the fact that the small print had so many
different control issues in him that it made it so
that I couldn't couldn't do the research that I really
wanted to do. Okay, and but I right now I

(01:43:14):
am frustrated, don't I don't publish anymore. I rarely publish.
In fact, most of the publications that you'll see me
an author on were written by other people. And there's
been a lot of studies that I participated in where
I refuse to be an author because of the fact
that the other authors were baking data, making things up,
just trying to get and do it and want to

(01:43:36):
do press releases, just trying to get a lot of attention.
It's it's just become too much of a circus.

Speaker 4 (01:43:42):
And we tried to circumvent some of these issues that
Bill was talking about because we looked into why would
we go with the university and why would we write
a contract a certain way, and we went over the
contract with Rutgers for eight months. Number One, we would
fully fund it so it never had to look for
a grant. Number Two, it didn't have to work. We

(01:44:05):
had two gene modalities, gene delivery modalities, two different viral
vectors that they could use, and if one didn't work,
we would test the other one under the clause of
the contract, and neither of them had to work. We
couldn't retract the money if it didn't. And we felt
like that was a very important stop gap to put

(01:44:26):
in so that there wasn't a publish or parish situation
within that science, because we didn't want to be in
anything for us. My agenda is to get a combinatorial
gene therapy to the public that is affordable. I will
use drugs in humans, I will use them in my

(01:44:46):
own body. The last thing we want is something that
doesn't work. Okay, and in all of the talks that
we had with that university and their scientists were around
that this was fully intended to go to humans. This
was not this was not a pet project. This was
the money that my company had that we were given

(01:45:09):
to do something ethical and sound with and we did that.
So we tried to make sure that those issues were
not there, and again we will we will go into
a full investigation on this.

Speaker 1 (01:45:25):
Yes, thank you very much, Liz and Bill. Now, Daniel
Tweed writes, the Journal of Irreproducible Results was supposed to.

Speaker 2 (01:45:33):
Be a parody.

Speaker 1 (01:45:35):
But if such a huge percentage of results as irreproducible,
I agree it is the publisher perish mentality, the pressure
to put something out there that survives the current peer
review process, even if others cannot replicate those results. And
Daniel also writes, the more powerful the entity, the less

(01:45:56):
likely they are to admit a past mistake.

Speaker 2 (01:45:58):
There's probably formula there. Well, there are.

Speaker 1 (01:46:01):
Fewer consequences for a more powerful entity. Now, since we
have about nine minutes left in our salon, I wanted
to get to some additional questions, so let's hear from
Alan Crowley.

Speaker 2 (01:46:19):
Let's see it.

Speaker 8 (01:46:20):
Well, first I want to say thank you for allowing
us on the panel here. It's been a fascinating conversation
and I really like what two folks are doing here.
I just like I said to Bill, I kind of
get the hitting the miss with the developing medicines at work,

(01:46:41):
and sometimes you develop medicines a don't or whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:46:48):
I mean.

Speaker 8 (01:46:49):
In two thousand and three, I had cancer when I
got treatment, surgery and radiation, and then I've been cancer
free ever since. And it's really came down early detection,
adequate technology. H just a just an amazing set of
factors coming together. I thought, I mean, I was glad

(01:47:13):
I was living now instead of you know about any
other time in the past, right, Yeah, because I think
that description that excuse me, yeah, that David Wind's description
about the way people considered cancer like oh you got cancer, okay,

(01:47:33):
good to know you, right, you were you were dead
at that point.

Speaker 2 (01:47:37):
And I think.

Speaker 8 (01:47:39):
I think those those ideas are changing, because really refreshing.

Speaker 6 (01:47:47):
Ellen.

Speaker 1 (01:47:47):
I think you got put on mute. Let me see
I've unmuted you. Oh no, go ahead, all right, thank you.
I was gonna say, Liz, thank you for your passionate
words about getting people with medication and the treatment and

(01:48:07):
just developing the attitude and look around. Medicine works for people.
I mean, that's the thing.

Speaker 8 (01:48:13):
Let's put that at the forefront of what we're doing
for human beings on the planet. Anyway, And thank you again,
it's been a great discussion.

Speaker 1 (01:48:23):
Yes, thank you so much, Alan for those good words.
And yes, you were a beneficiary of modern medical science
and technology. We have made some strides in the war
on cancer. The mortality rates for most cancers have declined
materially since the nineteen seventies. There are still some very

(01:48:46):
troublesome ones like pancreatic cancer and certain types of brain cancers,
where the mortality rate remains stubbornly high. But it is
true that with all of the flaws of institutional medical science,
major progress has still been made. And Luisa Royo writes

(01:49:07):
in the chat the whole system needs to be done
over well. I wouldn't want to throw away the good
parts of the system. I wouldn't want to throw away
the parts that have been able to generate the progress
thus far. We just need to be vigilant as to
the flaws and the bad incentives and fix those and
hopefully make a stronger, more robust system as a result,

(01:49:29):
that will be able to catch the stubborn causes of
disease and death much earlier and fix them more efficaciously.
Bill Andrews writes in the chat that he has never
seen so many comments during a virtual Enlightenment salon. Yes,
there will be a way to provide them for reading afterward.

(01:49:53):
They will be memorialized on YouTube the next morning after
the video has finished process, so hopefully you will be
able to see all of those in the public will
be able to see them as well.

Speaker 2 (01:50:06):
Let's see if we can get in.

Speaker 1 (01:50:07):
One more question or comment from art Ramone in the
last four minutes.

Speaker 2 (01:50:15):
Just a quick comment.

Speaker 9 (01:50:17):
I'm thinking of doing some experimental picked up myself. I'm
gonna try these stem cells in January. Luckily I don't
have to leave the country for that one. But yeah,
i'd been willing to volunteer for any experimental therapies anti aging.

Speaker 1 (01:50:37):
Yes, thank you art Ramon, and we know that you
are one of the individuals who is willing to give
some of these experimental treatments a try. They've helped you
to some extent, and really that underscores the importance of
patient choice. Patients who know best about their own symptom,

(01:51:00):
their own conditions, including some of the weird aspects of
their health conditions that essentially enable them to accurately understand
what are the options and what are some of the
possibilities as well that emerging technologies have to offer. So
now we have about two and a half minutes, and

(01:51:25):
I wanted to highlight a comment from David about institutional problems. Sadly,
human flaws get in the way in almost every field,
and those include power seeking, personal vanity, and.

Speaker 2 (01:51:39):
Those kinds of attributes.

Speaker 1 (01:51:40):
I think it's an ongoing question how do we moderate
the fallout from those tendencies. We can, of course work
on our cognitive biases. We can utilize various tools of
thinking that philosophy and to some extent, literature and art
have made available to us throughout the ages. Transhumanism is

(01:52:04):
a continuation in my view of humanism, and a lot
of the insights of the humanist thinkers of the Renaissance
as well as the eighteenth century Enlightenment philosophers can be
applicable to our time as well. Eventually, we may be
able to re engineer human brains to get rid of
some of these flaws, but I don't think we're there

(01:52:26):
yet technologically. So now, in the last minute of our salon,
Bill and Liz, do you have any final words for
our audience on this admittedly vast topic.

Speaker 3 (01:52:39):
I do just really quick. I emphasized aging too much
during my presentation, but I want to point out that
elimination of the longer live to increase the survival of
the species also depends on our cancers, our heart disease,
all these other things that all the other disease, and
we have to focus on all tho it's not just agent.

Speaker 1 (01:53:00):
Yes, point well taken, Thank you, Bill and Liz. Any
final words for our salon?

Speaker 4 (01:53:07):
Well, I think it's just imperative that you know, we
we work together and we critically analyze the situation. We
don't sugarcoat it, and we certainly don't wait and that
you know, we en mass pick up this agenda as
the agenda of this party. Godani, you are an amazing
manager of this, this whole transhumanist party. It needs to

(01:53:34):
be I know, I know, isn't Dan, He's amazing This,
This wouldn't this part of it wouldn't happen without you.
But we need the expansion of manpower here now, and
we need the expansion of good ideas, and we need
to disconnect ourselves from from other maybe connections that have
been unhealthy for our area. So by bringing in, you know,

(01:53:58):
good people that might be able to help with this
and push towards this agenda, I think that we will
be able to bring better health and actually deliver on
what you have vastly built here.

Speaker 5 (01:54:10):
Once you came to this party.

Speaker 4 (01:54:11):
So I just want to really thank you, and I
want to thank everyone who has spent time watching this
and who is considering helping here.

Speaker 5 (01:54:20):
This is not a party.

Speaker 4 (01:54:22):
Line's sort of initiative. This is a health initiative for
the world, and it just so happens to be spearheaded
from people who exist in an idealistic mindset that we
can do better, and that we should do better, and
that we shouldn't actually wait for someone else. When you

(01:54:43):
look in the mirror, you need to say, who's going
to do this. I'm going to do this because I
can't wait for someone else to do this, and together
we can do better.

Speaker 2 (01:54:55):
Together we can do better. Thank you very much, Liz
and Bill.

Speaker 1 (01:54:58):
I am honored by your good words and this was
a wonderful virtual enlightenment salon. Our audience is echoing that
sentiment right now. Your work is crucial, and I think
best choice medicine is crucial. We will do all we
can to advance it so that we can all live
long and prosper

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Bill Andrews on Best Choice Medicine

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Bill Andrews on Best Choice Medicine

Stuff You Should Know