Nicolás Cherñavsky & Nina Torres Zanvettor

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 Stolierof 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.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our US Transhumanist
Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon. Today is Sunday, November two, twenty
twenty five, and we have a fascinating conversation in store
for you about an experiment that will help us to
understand and bring about rejuvenation in rats and provide some

(01:01):
insights to hopefully, in the not too distant future, also
contribute to rejuvenation in humans. So joining us today is
our distinguished panel of US Transhumanist Party officers and members.
I am Jannati stolier Off, the second Chairman of the
US Transhumanist Party. With me is Art Ramon Garcia, our

(01:22):
director of Visual Art. Also joining us is David Wood
who is the founder of London Futurists and the executive
director of the lv Foundation, which is the Longevity Escape
Velocity Foundation, also doing excellent rejuvenation work in mice via
the Robust Mouse Rejuvenation Studies. And our special guests for

(01:45):
today are Nicolas Cheniawski and Nina Torres Zanvatoor, who are
both the co founders of the Rejuvenation Science Institute in Brazil.
The Rejuvenation Science Institute has the mission of carrying out
and promoting scientific research in the field of rejuvenation, longevity

(02:06):
and aging. Its ultimate goal is to develop rejuvenation therapies
to eliminate the limit that aging imposes on human lifespan
and prevent the age related diseases such as cardiovascular diseases,
cancer and Alzheimer's disease, which kill one hundred and ten
thousand people worldwide every day at the very least. And

(02:27):
this death toll is just horrific. It's ongoing and it
needs to stop. So I invite Nicolaus and Nina to
discuss their efforts and seeking to replicate a famous rat
rejuvenation experiment that was undertaken by Professor Harold Catcher, in
which the researchers extracted small extracellular vesicles from the blood

(02:51):
of young pigs and injected them into old Sprague dolly rats,
reporting that they managed to rejuvenate the animals according to
a series of parameters including memory, grip strength, blood markers
and essencells and others. And actually, what was remarkable about
Harold Catcher's experiment is it led to a world record
in rat longevity. Sima, the rat who died in early

(03:16):
twenty twenty three reached the age of fourteen hundred and
sixty four days, which is just a little over four years,
about four point zero eight years. And no rat has
lived at least in any sort of recorded publication for
over four years prior to that time. So I'm really
fascinated by the attempt to replicate this experiment because that

(03:40):
is what science is all about. It's about replicability. So
Nicolas and Nina please tell us more.

Speaker 3 (03:48):
Well, hi everybody, and thank you for inviting us. So yes,
well we actually we heard about Harold's research in early
twenty twenty because he published an article in by Archive
and in the article they reported fifty four percent epigenetic

(04:10):
rejuvenation as measured by Steve Horbitt, doctor Steve Herbert, who
is the creator, the inventor of the epigenetic clock. So
it was very impressive and so far there there is
no reported epigenetic resovenation as extensive as this one. And

(04:33):
basically I don't will yeah, well you want to tell
the whole story.

Speaker 4 (04:39):
Well a bit first, Hello everybody, the audience, the people
present here. So in fact, we had a background on
the resuvenation field before twenty twenty. We had and we

(05:00):
have a publisher that edited and translated and published books
of the regolnation field. And so in that moment twenty twenty,
we were indeed a bit tired of the lack of
success of the rejuvenation therapiest that existed at the time.

(05:30):
And in fact, to be honest, even the theoretical part
of the aging theories weren't really good enough in our opinion,
they didn't make total sense. So when that article was published,

(05:56):
it was very important because despite it was on by archives,
Steve Horvot was the first author, and I thought Steve
Horvot wouldn't put his name as first author in something
clearly wrong, you know. But of course that doesn't mean

(06:22):
it was right. But that was very important. So I
read in Josh Mitteldorff's blog the news article written by Josh,
and I talked to Nina, so what is this fifty
four percent? And I thought that researching like ten minutes

(06:45):
would be enough to I understand that this was probably
something wrong and something you know, because every time we
see news news article like our super reguvenation result, and
if you really go to the internet and research a bit,

(07:11):
you in some minutes you say you perceived that this
probably is not something worth it. But in this case,
when I researched a bit, they opposite happened. The thing

(07:31):
seemed to me to be more robust, like, for example,
when I learned the history of hard culture, it is
a scientist with his whole life he researched aging, and
he was involved in the discovery of the gene of.

Speaker 3 (07:52):
The human breast cancer ging.

Speaker 4 (07:54):
Yes in nineteen ninety four. And then I saw that
the first thing I did was to write to Aubrey
the Grave, because we translated and published Aubrey's book in
two thousand and eighteen, and we were you know a
bit close to to Aubrey. So the first thing is

(08:17):
I wrote to Aubrey and wrote, Aubrey, did you see this?
What do you think you know? I was expecting Aubrey
would reply something like, oh, yes, this is completely wrong.
You don't need to give attention to this because this

(08:37):
isn't this. So what amazed me is that Aubrey didn't
reply that. He replied something and Big was like, well,
I don't know. First it seems too good to be true,
like that was the first argument of Aubrey's so that's

(09:00):
not really an argument. And then he said, well we
have to see that the experiment we're done by a
person without a lot of supervision. Well Aubrey had some
arguments to be wary about it. But what amazed me

(09:25):
it wasn't like a blunt answered like no, no. So
this coming from Aubrey was very significant. So oh, okay,
let's let's dig a bit more so. One important author
of the article was Rodolpho Goya Scienti, a scientist from

(09:50):
Argentina that I already had heard about it about him,
but I didn't know him personally. So I contacted Rodolfo.
This was five years ago. More more than five years
ago and today we are very good friends with Rudolpho.

(10:12):
We visited him in La Plata and we met in
in Buenos Aires. So since in these five years, uh,
many things changed. But then Rudolpho explained experiment, and uh
that was another thing that made us to to think, wow,

(10:34):
but this seems like something real and not some you know,
some scam or marketing thing. This seems a scientific experiment.
So that made us to contact Holoculture, like I think

(10:55):
I contacted on LinkedIn like in two thousand and twenty.
Then we started to talk by bail and because since
the beginning, our interest wasn't just you know, support, like, yes,
this is true, this is rejuvenation invented. Oh, since the beginning,

(11:20):
our intention was to well, let's let's clarify this is
this true. So everything we did since was to to
know if it's true. So so we talked to to
Harold and he presented us actually it was his partner

(11:42):
in the company. And then as we edited and published books,
Harold in some moments said, oh I am writing a book,
so okay, we said, let's publish a book if you
if you accept, okay, So we edited his book prepare
the book, and when it was ready, we decided to

(12:08):
go there to launch the book and to know Harold too.
So unfortunately it was during the COVID quarantine and I
have Polish nationality, so I was able to go to
the US, but Dina, the consulate in some power of

(12:33):
the United States wasn't issuing visus because of the COVID problem.
So Nina went with me to Mexico. We were stayed
there fifteen days and then we went I went to
the United States to launch the book. So there we
I mean I met Harold met actually and we launched

(12:57):
the book. It was very very interesting the launch, and
then actually invited us to help the company with a
communications consultancy. So during one and a half year we
helped the company with this communications consultancy. But we reached

(13:22):
the moment that we didn't see progress and our aim
is rejuvenation. I mean, my parents are seventy eight, seventy
nine years old, Nina's parents are old too, so we needed,
you know, progress in the research, and we thought it

(13:44):
was better to stop with the communications schools sustency and
then in May twoy twenty four, we created the Rejiovenation
of Science Institute, because in October twenty twenty three, finally

(14:06):
three and a half years after the publishing of the
article of twenty twenty, in October twenty twenty three, they
published the article in Gerdoscience saying what they had given
to the Reds Herald and.

Speaker 3 (14:24):
His team, because in the article on bio archives, they
didn't say what was exactly the thing that they injected
into the Reds. They said it was a plasma fraction.
But then in October twenty twenty three they explained it
in this peer reviewed article the whole process. They explained

(14:49):
that this plasma fraction, the whole process of isolating the
plasma fraction. They Herold even says that is the exoson
Riach fraction of the plasma. And so there was a
process that could be in theory replicated as and now

(15:11):
in this new article of October twenty twenty three, they
reported sixty seven percent resuvenation, so it was fifty four before.
And then Civi Harvard did new analysis because he I
don't know, he did improvements in his epigionetic clock and

(15:31):
things like that, and now they were reporting sixty seven
percent of the pigionetic resuvenation. So like we are, we
always are looking at scientific articles in this area, in
the resuvenation field, and there are a lot of other
researchers in other parts of the world. They're working with exosomes.

(15:55):
They're showing very impressive results. So this is like the
line of research that we are most interested in. And
so as they reported an even bigger epidionactic rejuvenation, we
were like, well, someone has to reproduce this. We weren't
seeing anyone trying to reproduce this experiment, this method of extraction,

(16:20):
and you know, try to do step by step what
they did and see the results. So we were already
friends with a professor here in our city. We live
in a city which has a university called it Unicoke,
which is one of the most important universities in Latin

(16:41):
America and in Brazil in terms of research. Sorry, and
so we talked to him. He already worked with exo zomes.

Speaker 5 (16:51):
But more in the sense of any but more in
the sense of understanding.

Speaker 4 (17:02):
Take water, more in the sense of stem cells from
adipos uh adipose tissue stem cells exosomes. So Maury worked
already almost with the same thing that Harrow was was working.

(17:23):
So we knew Maury from some years, but we were
more inclined to other areas of research. So when we
started to be interested in small cellar vesicles exosomes, Maury said, oh,
finally you were. We we are in the same page,

(17:45):
so let's do something together. So uh, fortunately, uh, we
we had lived in the city and we are able
to uh make this collaboration with unicamp and they have
a complete lab, all the equipments, necessary sites. Mauri has

(18:09):
published in Nature and the influenced, you know, scientific journals.
So one thing that I would think about is that
in twenty twenty we didn't know what they had given

(18:32):
to the Reds, so it could be anything. I mean,
it was a secret, and so we were like lost,
like all you had was the trust in Stive, Harvard
and herd Cuture. You know. However, after the publication of

(18:56):
the article in Geroscience in October two thousand twenty three,
it changed because when we knew it was exos almost
from young source, we we thought, well, but there are
many articles that also indicate that, and that increased our

(19:18):
interest because let's suppose it was a completely different technology,
a complete new technology, something nobody heard about something that
Harold invented, Well it would be different, like, well, maybe
it works, but it would be the same, just trusting

(19:39):
in Harold. But when we knew that it was small
so st vesicles from a young origin, we we thought, well,
but there are many indications of that, so it makes sense.
So that helped us to uh, you know, started at

(20:02):
the institute and we decided to make a nonprofit entity.
And it wasn't easy decision. I mean, uh, and it
could be a company, but uh, the main reason to

(20:23):
make a nonprofit entity is that, uh, we think that
the secrecy in the reumination field, uh is not the
best policy right now for the field. I mean the
secrecy is linked to the intellectal property and patents, and

(20:48):
it's linked to the investments. I mean people who invest
need the secrecy to recover the money later. Okay, I understand. However,
Muh in the rejuvenation field, we are very in the
basic science point there is no proof of principle. Yet

(21:10):
there is no red or mice really rejuvenated, you know,
not just a life extension, I mean rejuvenation to take
a young, old vice and transform it in a young
mice nobody did it did that, So there.

Speaker 3 (21:28):
Is nobody that was reproduced that was confirmed, you know.

Speaker 4 (21:33):
Yes, so maybe they did it privately in their companies.
I don't know. But so we are in a point
that the secrecy is counterproductive because if you take the
wrong line of research, you will waste all the money.

(21:53):
You have many examples like people of Google that invested
in twelve years ago with a company Calico billions of dollars,
the Amazon owner that invested billions some years ago. If
you pick the wrong line of research in basic sciences,

(22:17):
you can lose everything. So investors want something more, you know, predictable,
something that can return the money invested. And so there
is a lot of secrecy in this field. And we thought,
for example, the heart of capture the company twenty twenty,

(22:42):
they didn't reveal it what they had given to the
red and they took three and a half years to
say it. Forty forty million people die every year from
age related diseases. Forty million in three and a half years,

(23:02):
you have like one hundred thirty five million people dead.
If we delay it the arrival of reguvenation three and
a half years. I'm not discussing the attitude of companies. Specifically,

(23:23):
I'm discussing the convenience of the system of investment and
intellectal property for rejuvenation sites. Now, once the proof of
principle is done, like once we rejuvenate a red or
a mice, and everybody can do it in their labs. Okay,

(23:46):
this is how we rejuvenate a red even if it's
a very basic process. Once the proof of principle is done,
maybe it's possible to make companies to develop that. For example,
when the plane was invented, to talk about something that
is very close to David Wood because he wrote the

(24:06):
book The Ebolition of Aging and he talks about the
invasion of the plane. So after you know, Santo Dumont
is a Brazilian that so for us Brazilian he invented
the plane for the you know, the people in the
United States were the brothers, right, Okay, But when Santo
Dumont fly around the Touchefel in Paris and you know

(24:34):
with his plane, after that, okay, the government and the
companies everybody, uh went to the technlogy and developed rapidly
the plane. But the plane of Santos Mont was very basic.
But he proved the principle and it wasn't a very

(24:55):
big company or very big even the brothers, right, you
know they were a big company, a big capitalistist or
a big government. Not at all. The proof of principle
is different from the technological development. So what we want
to do is to prove the principle. And we are
not invented anything. We are just saw the article of

(25:19):
Herold and we thought that the system of incentives wasn't
prepared to immediately repeat that to verify if it was true.
So we were like two people in Brazil, but we thought, well,

(25:39):
we have to do something because I think eventually this
will be proved in some way, but this is urgent.
It should be done now. And so we didn't have
another option than to make this nonprofit institut too and

(26:00):
to make the collaboration with unicamp with Professor Moury, and
last year we did the first part of the experiment.
We already produced the Plassber fraction of hard Catcher in
the university here last year and injected in young rats.
Because that's a story. I believe Albret the gray will

(26:24):
be okay that I tell you, I hope, But that's
nothing very important. But we had a meeting with Aubrey
de Gray, Dide Cornell from Realis and Professor Moury, Me
and Nina last year and in the beginning of two

(26:48):
ty twenty four, and Aubrey said, I believe that in
the moment you inject the preparation from young pigs in reds,
they will die from anaphylactic shock.

Speaker 3 (27:06):
And we said also because it is a very big
amount held reports injecting a very high amount of this
plasma fraction.

Speaker 4 (27:15):
Yeah, and extremely high amount, this ridiculous high amount of
pigs protein in reds. So Albrace said, I believe it
probably will probably die instantly of an aphilactic shock. So
instead of doing the whole experiment and raise all them money,
take all the work, why don't you do a small

(27:38):
experiment and injecting young reds, like three young rats, just
to see if they die instantly, and then you don't
need to make the whole experiment. You can just report
that the reds die and d From Really's thought, it
was a good idea. He funt that experiment with five

(28:01):
thousand dollars because it was a small experiment, and we
did it. So I went to a farm here three
hours from here, we have veterinary we collect the blood,
the blood of the of the young pig. We went
to the university lab together with doctor Moray and the

(28:25):
a scientist that works.

Speaker 3 (28:27):
Post doctor researcher, a.

Speaker 4 (28:28):
Post doctor researcher. We did the isolation. Then we injected
in the reds and there was nothing wrong like no
signs of toxicity, acute toxicity, no signs of acute imunogenicity.
The reds continue to eat and to gain weight, to

(28:51):
gain weight.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
We did also histological analysis to see the organs and
they were fine like in this acute experiment, showed any
signs of toxicity.

Speaker 4 (29:05):
And when we showed the results to all reach, he
was very you know, surprised and happy. You know, wow,
now I'm more confident in this. And then we decided
to proceed to the whole experiment and we set this
together with the university, this budget of seventy five thousand

(29:29):
dollars and started to raise the resources. Then we published
the article in the European Journal of Biological Research reporting
this experiment of twenty twenty four and up to now
we raise it around fifty five thousand dollars. It is

(29:52):
around seventy three percent of the total, and it LEDs
twenty one thousand dollars yet, and on May we will
go to the farm to collect the blood of the pigs.
I mean three days ago the farmer informed us that

(30:15):
ten pigs were born recently.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
So because we need the blood of around ten pigs
because in this experiment that we will start in May
of twenty twenty six, we will actually have two treated groups.
We will have twenty five months old rats, which is
the same age that HEROD used, but we also have

(30:44):
seven months old rats because Professor Morris suggested that we
could also test if the plasma fraction kind of.

Speaker 4 (30:57):
Could keep young rats young, sorry, and not just rejuvenate
red but keep young reds young too.

Speaker 3 (31:04):
Yeah, so we have ten rats. There are seven months old,
ten rats that are twenty five months old. So also
it's a bigger amount of rats than HEROLD uses that
can use it six six rats and also have control
for both, so ten young and ten old. And so

(31:27):
we need around the blood of around ten pigs for that.
And yeah, so we raised it, as Nicolas said, more
than seventy percent of the budget. With this money, we
can't do the experiment, but not all of the measurements
because we want to do grip strength memory tests that

(31:50):
it is something that heralded, and also blood markers and
epigenetic age. If we don't have like the full amount,
we will have to keep the blood of the animals
and do these blood markers and epigenetic epigenetic age later
when we have more money. But this funding came a

(32:13):
lot of this seventy percent that we have fifty three
thousand dollars something like that, so a lot of it
came from Do Not Age dot org.

Speaker 4 (32:25):
Is fifty five thousand dollars from do Not Age twenty
five twenty five thousand dollars, yeah, yeah, it.

Speaker 3 (32:32):
Came from Do Not Age dot org. And then ten
thousand dollars from here is the Angoe from Belgium led
by a DDA, and also a lot of donations big
and small, like one thousand dollars donations and three dollars
donations that we have so far. So yeah, and we

(32:54):
are trying to raise this money to do the whole
experiment and also ideally if we see signs of rejuvenation
or if we see that the reds are not aging,
for example, we also want to keep these animals alive
and keep giving them the pleasant fraction to do a

(33:17):
longevity study to see how long they will live. But
for that we need another different budget. So this seventy
five is basically to reproduce Herald, which is a five
months experiment. In terms of when the rats start getting
the injections, you.

Speaker 4 (33:35):
Know, we have we have thirty nine different dollars and
the fact is that you know, ninety five percent came
from three or four dollars. The other thirty five girls

(34:01):
gave a smaller amount. We are very happy with any donations,
like recently a person from Chile started donating three dollars
per month, and we we think our vision for the
future is dead, like you know, thousands of people giving

(34:24):
just a bit. Uh. But to be honest, we are
so close to the to the beginning of the of
the experiment that I suppose that donations a bit uh
bigger will be important. Uh not in the long term.

(34:46):
In the long term, we we want uh small amounts
from many people. Uh. And uh. Well, regarding herd Catcher,
UH just a a bit worried about it. Harold is
a very I mean very special person. I call him

(35:12):
every month to see how is his health. You know,
he's eighty one. He will be eighty two years old
in a few months, and I'm a bit worried about
his health because there are people with eighty one that
are very well. But it's not a case of Harold.

(35:35):
He's doing his best to advance with the research in
the way he can. But you know, Harold chose a
path many years ago, ten years ago. He chose the

(35:56):
path a different path economically speaking, he chose the path
of you know, intellectual property and patents and companies, investments
and profit, and that is his line, you know. So

(36:19):
we are trying another path. I mean, we just want
to know if it's true. And you know, his company
is trying the patent, is trying to get the patent
since you know, five years ago, and you know, as

(36:39):
patents are, it's a process that can take decades. You know.
But as I told you, every year forty million people
die from age related disease. So if you wait twenty
years too, you know the pat and but uh, we

(37:02):
are just reproducing an experiment published in a peer revealed
scientific journal. So I believe this is in line with
with all you know requirements, and it makes make sense
to verify if so important experiment could be reproduced. So

(37:28):
I talked to Harold, you know every more, you know,
to check if he is all right, you know, And well,
I hope we can help produce rejuvenate Harold too, right.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
Yes, absolutely, And I hope that advances and human rejuvenation
will come in time for those alive today, especially many
scientists and transuming a static kids who are currently in
their sixties, seventies, eighties. And I think there is a

(38:06):
realistic chance if Aubrey de Gray is correct in his
probabilistic timeframe, and his current estimate is of a fifty
percent probability of longevity escape velocity arriving eleven to fifteen
years from now, so in the late twenty thirties, that
would be a sufficient amount of time to help those

(38:32):
who are currently in those decades of life and who
are in good health. So if they're able to at
least maintain decent health until then, then perhaps rejuvenation by
the technology will help them. And certainly that is my hope,
and that is the hope of essentially everyone in our movement.

(38:54):
To our audience, I wanted to highlight several links once again.
First of all, Here is the website of the Rejuvenation
Science Institute. If you're an English speaker, this link will
take you to the English language version. And also here
is a link to make a donation to the Rejuvenation
Science Institute. As mentioned, the majority of the funding thus

(39:19):
far has come from several large donations, such as from
dono age dot org and heal so I've highlighted their
websites for you to check out. But small donations are
also welcomed, and small may be a relative description, so

(39:39):
based on your resources, I donated one hundred dollars recently,
and for some people that's a small amount. For some
people that may be larger than they could afford. And
if you can afford ten dollars or three dollars, I
think that would be welcome. Also, so Mike Lausine wonders
with smaller donation be more ideal because he thinks if

(40:03):
you get large donations from rich people, they might be
transactional like Trump and want a return of so called favors.
But of course, at this stage, with this scale of funding,
we're not talking about funders like Trump.

Speaker 1 (40:15):
We're talking about people who are aligned with the mission,
people like Deer Carnel, for instance, who has been known
to make donations of several thousand dollars sometimes tens of
thousands of dollars to these kinds of experiments that may
only require money on that scale. But I think to

(40:36):
decay something that is important is the experiment tests something
that hasn't been tested very often, that has been ignored
or bypassed by a lot of studies for various reasons.
And one aspect that I think is noteworthy is the
potential for a longevity study here, because all too many

(40:57):
experiments that try to show rejuvenation, they essentially have an
arbitrary cutoff point, like after sixty months or something like that,
or even a shorter time period after a year, they
just say, okay, this is it, We're stopping the experiment,

(41:18):
and the animals get euthanized, even though that treatment could
have prolonged their lives. So I think it's really important
to do that longevity study. And I know you have
some additional budgetary requirements that would be needed, but this
was what was remarkable about how Catchers experiment. It produced
Sima the rat, and that made headlines, and I think

(41:39):
that's important for advancing people's understanding of what is possible
in terms of rejuvenation. But I also wanted to reinforce
your point about nonprofits and transparency of research. So the
way you've structured this would essentially avoid the need to
keep secret what you're doing and what you're administering to

(42:01):
the rats, so it would all be accessible to other
scientists who would want to do similar experiments or variations
on those experiments, and that could also leverage the ability
to make advances in the field because they could have
additional resources that they would do their own experiments with. Now,
for our viewers, I just wanted to confirm the size

(42:26):
of the experiment. So you would have ten young rats
that you mentioned around seven months old and ten old
rats around twenty five months old, and then you would
have ten young controls and ten old controls, so forty
rats in total for the experiment. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 (42:44):
Yeah, that's correct.

Speaker 4 (42:46):
Yeah. Well, yeah, we'll inject the preparation at the beginning
of the experiment and three months later and two months
after the second injection will measure against the genetic age.

Speaker 3 (43:05):
Yeah, because another difference from Harold's work is that we
want to measure the pigenetic age before the injections and after.
So these five months after the first injections, which is
something that he didn't do, but he did liking several
tissues because they killed the rest, they ultonized the rets.

(43:28):
But we want to keep the reds alive, so we
won only do the blood, so we'll do the blood
before and after.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
Yes, that's very good and I think very promising for
you to take that approach. And one more link that
I will share before turning the floor over to David
Wood is a link to last week's stream that we
did in collaboration with Transvision Madrid. We have done three
streams about the recent Transvision Madrid summit, and this particular

(44:02):
stream that we showed last week included remarks by doctor
Steve Horvath on epigenetic clocks. So please check that out
if you haven't seen that yet, because you will see
Steve Horvath's work highlighted and he would be a great
collaborator for any sort of study. I'm glad that you

(44:24):
have him on board, so David, please go ahead with
your remarks.

Speaker 6 (44:30):
Well, first thing to say is this is an extremely
interesting set of ideas and I really hope this project
can go ahead too quickly is novel, and with the
understanding that where the plasma is coming from, it suddenly
makes it extremely interesting. My first question is to Nicholas

(44:52):
and Nina. There is a kind of difference in view
between what Aubrey has been suggesting and what Harold has
been suggesting. Aubrey has said, well, aging is multiple types
of damage. You know, there's damage in the mitochondria, there
is damage in DNA, there's damage in the extracellular matrics,

(45:13):
and so on and so on. Therefore we're going to
need multiple different approaches and cause a plural approach, Whereas
Harold Catcher has said, well, actually there's one or two things,
maybe just one thing that controls everything else. And in
Harold's view, it's the signaling between cells. You know, there
cells are sending messages to each other the whole time,

(45:34):
and if the cells think, well, this body's getting old,
it puts them in a different mode. Whereas if you
could change the signaling as he hopes to do, or
maybe he has done with the exosomes, then that by
itself will be sufficient to rejuvenate and we wouldn't need
multiple types of damage intervention. So where do you stand

(45:56):
on that bearing in mind that after all, Seema did
die in Duco despite getting some rejuvenation treatments, maybe Seema
would have needed more often treatments, or maybe these treatments
only repaired some of the types of damage and there
will be the other treatments necessary for the other aspects
of aging.

Speaker 4 (46:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (46:15):
So yeah, you are correct in terms of how Herold
views aging. He basically it sees it as a signally
process that is controlled epigenetically. So the idea is that
the signals somehow change the pigenetic of the cell, and

(46:37):
then the cell by itself could use its own mechanisms
to repair itself. So our opinion is based not only
on Herold, but like there was a paper by a
group from China in twenty twenty four. I think that

(46:57):
they injected young plus asthma from humans and from rats
from mice, I think into mice and not the plasma. Sorry,
they extracted from the plasma the exosomes, these moistrare cellar vesicles,
and they measured a lot of things things that Albret

(47:19):
mentions in his book, for example, lipe of foucing. I
think that's how it's called. That is a it's like
an intracellar kind of garbage that accumulates inside the lysosomes
that can't be degraded, and so they measured that and
the rats, the old rats that sorry, I think it

(47:41):
was mice. The old mice that received the treatment, they
had less lipe of posing. So it was like an
example that maybe Herold is correct in the sense that
the cell maybe has the mechanisms but to repair these damages,

(48:02):
but they're just not The cells are not employing these
mechanisms because they receive a signal that says, no, you
need to be old, you need to be degrading, you know.
So I think in general we are more alignment with
this idea of the signaling, but we're trying to check

(48:23):
if this experiment is true. So it's not like we
have like conviction, you know.

Speaker 4 (48:31):
And in this experiment of the Chinese group, original in Nature,
I think it was in April twenty twenty four, they
also measure the ages.

Speaker 3 (48:40):
That ages is advanced g location aimed products, so it's
format in the extra cellar matrix.

Speaker 4 (48:52):
It's one of the seven basic damages that Aubrey describes
about aging, and the most instant interesting is that it's
something in the extracellular major matrix. It's outside the cells.
So apparently, according to this Chinese experiment, the young ex

(49:13):
zones interspecies because it's humans to my were able to
recuvenate not only lipa fussing, that is another Aubrey degrees
the basic damage inside the cell, but also something outside
the cell, the ages. So it's interesting your question, David,
because Aubrey and Harold are our our two references in

(49:41):
this field. I mean, and I remember I was talking
to Aubrey by Mayo in twenty twenty when Harold published
the article, and I was having a conversation by they
with Aubrey because there was something that I didn't you know, accepted,
you know, in his Augury's theory that it was like

(50:06):
uh for me in that time, I saw that Aubrey
had had described it like, uh, the seven basic damage.

Speaker 3 (50:16):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (50:16):
They were like seven basic diseases, seven basic problems that
our genes can solve for for evolutionary reasons. But Aubrey
was able to instead of talking of the diseases downstream
like Alzheimer of utero sclerosis, he was able to go

(50:41):
upstream until the molecular cellular level to describe it what
are the basic diseases. But they're there. Let's say this
is they're problems. Uh, there're our genes are aren't capable
to solve Okay, And Aubrey's said, this is aging. We
don't have the genes to solve them. So when I

(51:06):
saw Harold's article, I thought, hey, maybe there is something
upstream to the seven damage accumulation process that already described,
something that regulates them. And that's what I think about
Herold's theory. Harold described a mechanism upstream to outrate damaged processes.

(51:36):
I mean it's something that by signaling tells to the
cells like, Okay, your damage repair level should be that
of let's say forty years old person, or your energy
production should be this like seventy years old person. So

(52:00):
and and then if you don't have enough damage repair,
of course the seven kind of damage will accommlate. So
what Hadad says is something upstream what Albrea says and
Aubrey I just I already talked to Aubrey about it,
and Albrea says, man, I don't care how this damage

(52:24):
is repaired. If you find a way to repair the
damage using an upstream process, that's fine to me. So
that's our position. I think they are both very good
biologies and we want to to use you know, uh,
this this potency and not to have like discussions that

(52:48):
you know, our opposition. It's just we are all in
the in the same in the same page here, I think,
or almost in the same page. And yeah, sorry Nina
when to help Aurora a bit, but she will be
here in a minute. My next question is about E five.

(53:09):
How confident are you that you understand now what's in
E five? Well, you can actually replicate the experiment by yourself. Yeah,
if five is the name given the company gave to
the preparation, and the preparation according to the article in

(53:33):
twenty twenty three in your science is extracelary particles. It's
not just most cellar vesicles, not just exosomes. And Professor
Morey told us that the Society of Master Service Vesicals
recommends that when you have a preparation that includes not

(53:55):
only small serve vesicles, you have to call excel particles.
So that's why we call it exceleratar particles from the
plasma of young pigs. So, uh, there is there are
small exosomes there because Harold may made this this test

(54:20):
in this exterminal experiment. But even Harrold, there is an
interview there is an interview harrowed in Harold in which
he said that maybe there are another particles there, like
exo meers or super meers. Uh, some particles that can

(54:43):
be part of the effect. So maybe it's not just
exosomes this preparation.

Speaker 3 (54:51):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (54:52):
The fact is that, uh, this is a posterior step.
Like first we have to be sure that these rejuvenates,
because if this rejuvenates in seventies sixty seven percent, the
reds and the memory and gip straining and everything and this,
you know, get being replicated and established. Okay, we discovered

(55:14):
you know, okay, how to capture article is right, you know,
the humaniteam knows how to rejuvenate mammals. Then there will
be another step, like, for example, to know in this

(55:35):
preparation what exactly are the signal which exactly are the
signals the signaling of aging. It will probably need some
kind of repeated experiments or the use of artificial intelligence
to decipher the code. I personally believe that there will

(55:57):
be a code that the cells communicate using a code,
and we have to be called decipher this code to
know how the cells communicate and use this code to
tell the cells. Okay, you have to have the phenotype

(56:19):
of a twenty five years old person and not a
seventy years old person. This would be a posterior process.
And it's funny that five years ago when I first
saw the article of Harold in Josh Mitteldorf's blog. You know,

(56:40):
the first thing I thought it was that it was
some kind of code there, like for example, the Yamanaka
jeans are just an example. They are able to rejuvenate
a cell, not an organism yet, but a cell. Okay, So,
but maybe there are other seas besides the Yamanaka jeans.

(57:02):
Maybe there are thousands of signaling signals a part of
you know, the four Yamaaa jeans. So I remember I
talked to Michael Ray from the Central Research Foundation about
that in twenty twenty. Michael, there should be some kind
of code. So I have this idea since then, even

(57:25):
before I knew that it was small sort of vesicles.
So to answer your question, David, first we have to
to know if it works, and then you know, it
doesn't need to be us to know is in these
preparation ex actly because David asked what is in the

(57:49):
preparation precisely? So I said, first let's see if it works.

Speaker 3 (57:53):
Yeah, Harold, Well, well, first of all, sorry I had
to go change a diaper daughter needed. But yeah, so
Harold didn't do like a full characterization of the plasm fraction.
He just did a Western blood that confirmed that there
are monstress are vesicles present in the plasm fraction. So

(58:18):
this is something that we want to do as well
during the longevity experiment if we have the funds. We
also want to do a better characterization. So we don't
know exactly what it is. We know in general that
there are small so cellar particles, because we can't say
for sure that it's only exosomes are only monstres sellar vesicles.

(58:42):
But yeah, this is something that is also important to
see what it is exactly.

Speaker 4 (58:50):
Yeah, because we don't want to use pigs or kettle
to rejuvenate eight billion people. I mean, it's impossible, it's
not ethical, terrible in all senses. We have to understand
what it is and what is the code is the
main point for me to synthesize that in some way

(59:12):
and don't need to use animals. You know that that
is just the proof of principle.

Speaker 6 (59:18):
It's not the white pigs currently. It's not just for
convenience that it is easy to get the blood from
young pigs as opposed to blood from other animals.

Speaker 3 (59:29):
It's basically because we want to do as close as
possible as what Herold did.

Speaker 6 (59:34):
Because why did harold pig pigs?

Speaker 4 (59:38):
He said that it is because pigs are relatively similar
with humans. I mean, if you have to choose an animal,
pigs are relatively the anatomy is similar.

Speaker 3 (59:54):
So there are some things from pigs that we use,
like for hard valves and things like that that we
use that are from pigs. So I think it was
something like that.

Speaker 4 (01:00:05):
Yeah, and the pigs are you know, already eaten, Like
one billion pigs are eaten every year in the world
and the blood is usually wasted, so that you know,
helps too, I believe.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
Thanks, yes, thank you for those answers and also for
those who are interested more in the ideas of Michael
Ray since he was mentioned. He gave a comprehensive presentation
for our Virtual Enlightenment Salon on August sixth, twenty twenty three.

(01:00:47):
As to his assessment of the state of progress in
longevity research and in each of the seven sense strains
of damage repair. But it is a very intriguing idea
that there may be something that could be affected upstream
of multiple types of age related damage that could lead

(01:01:12):
to a convenient, concise damage repair approach for several of
these types. At the very least, John H has an
interesting comment, all biological roads lead to oldness. Find that
one thing and the rest falls into place. That idea
appeals to me very much. It's spare and elegant, and
he later stated he likes the way Nicolas and Harold

(01:01:36):
are thinking, So thank you very much for those comments, John,
And here is a link to the paper by Harold
Catcher and his team. This was published in December of
twenty twenty four in the Aging Cell magazine. It's entitled

(01:01:56):
E five Treatment showing improved health span and lifespan in
old Sprague Dolly Rats. So take a look at that
paper if you are interested in additional details about the study.
And then we have a question from Mike Lausine. He wonders,
wouldn't we also have issues of the human body's T

(01:02:20):
cells or white blood cells attacking animal plasma or blood.
How do we get around that? So, if you're injecting
rats with pig plasma, would there be an adverse immune
reaction or have you found in your safety study essentially
that this doesn't happen.

Speaker 4 (01:02:39):
Just one thing. The article you mentioned by Herald is
the second is another one of two thousand, twenty twenty
four is the seema's article. The article in which they
described the further experiment is from twenty twenty three of
in Generoscience.

Speaker 3 (01:03:00):
Okay, just a comment, yeah about this is definitely something
that needs to be ensured that that the this plasma
fraction is safe. So in our experiment that we did
with young spread on the rats, we injected a huge
amount of this plasma fraction into the animals, and in

(01:03:23):
terms of an acute experiment, so it's not like long term,
we didn't see signs of toxicity or any signs of immunogenicity,
so didn't see signs of the blood cell, the the
white blood cells trying to attack attack the plasm fraction.

(01:03:44):
There are also a lot of experiments from other groups
that they inject exosomes it small vesicles from human blood
into rats and they also seem to be fine, Like
there is no UH immune reaction, so they seen that

(01:04:06):
in a lot of articles. Other researchers say that they
have low image immunogenicity, these most solar bicycles. UH. But
of course if these research is to carry on, because
we're first just trying to reproduce it, but then we
will if it's if it is reproducible, if the writers

(01:04:27):
of nate, if they live longer in the loungevity experiment,
we will have to do a full safety experiment. So
this is something also that we were thinking about.

Speaker 4 (01:04:39):
UH.

Speaker 3 (01:04:40):
That is much more expensive, but that is something that
needs to be done as well. And after that, this
is in animals, so a full safety study during everything
according to like ft A and the European Agency for
for UH, I don't remember exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
The Urinean Medicines Agency, correct.

Speaker 3 (01:05:08):
Yes, that's right. So yeah, so we want to do
that as well. If we have we are successful, and
this is done first in rets as well in rodents,
and then usually they test in another animal species, so

(01:05:28):
like primates, non human primates before testing humans. But here
in Brazil, I don't know if it's the case in
other countries, but there is like a group of patients
that they call compositive patients. That are patients that like
they tried, they are dying. They tried everything that they

(01:05:51):
could do. They have no other treatment option. If you
have something that is proven to be safe only on
on DS, you could give it to them.

Speaker 5 (01:06:03):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:06:03):
So in theory, if this is effective, and this is
proving to be safe only in reds, even if only
in REDS, we could try to do an experiment in humans.
But in this case of people who are already dying,
they have no other choice, no other treatment. They exhausted
of their options. So this is something as well that

(01:06:26):
we are thinking. But this is much ahead.

Speaker 4 (01:06:29):
Yeah, but Michael's question is extremely important. But that was
the line of thinking of our really great. I mean,
that's why we injected the big preparation in reds and
in the RADS didn't have any problem. And as Dinah said,

(01:06:51):
there are many studies. There are in the bibliography of
our article, which had the last year several articles showing
interspecies injection of exosome the smalls or vesicles and without
any monogenicity. So, you know, Michael, that is a question

(01:07:14):
that should be answered by experiments, but not just by experiments,
you know, in the book of hard culture Delusion of knowledge. Uh,
he have he made an extensive rationality, an explanation since

(01:07:35):
the beginning of life three billions ago to explain why
the mechanism of age determination should be shared a lot,
but by the living organ organisms. And uh that would

(01:07:56):
explain why mammals would have the same mechanism because you know,
Harold explains how even uni cellular beings uh three billions
here years ago could already use signaling to regulate aging

(01:08:18):
since aging begun because Harrold said that, uh, aging begun
with sexual reproduction because you know, bacteria or bacteria don't age.
I mean they reproduce sexually, and so they don't have aging.

(01:08:41):
They can die, uh, but they don't have this this
process that uh, sexually reproducing beings have aging. So uh,
as Harold explained in his book, he's a great biology
I mean, uh, that's that's incredible in Harold, he's a biologist.

(01:09:04):
He's not an enterpreneur. He's not you know, show man,
he's not.

Speaker 1 (01:09:14):
You know.

Speaker 4 (01:09:16):
Other things. He's a biologist. And he explains how this
code could be very ancient, the code of regulating aging.
So maybe mammals shared this code and the experiments show
that the experiments are showing that interspecies injections of exosomes

(01:09:40):
are not imlogenics. So we will continue to do those
experiments and as Nina said, if this experiment works well,
intend already in twenty twenty seven, after this experiment to
start the safety experiment. Here in Brazil, Santa Caterina, there
is aity that is probably the only facility of Brazil

(01:10:04):
that can test rodents safety road tins accorded with Brazilian
authorities requirement until twenty fourteen, not.

Speaker 3 (01:10:13):
Only Brazilian requirements FDA e m A, they follow the
same guidelines.

Speaker 4 (01:10:18):
Yeah. Also because Brazilian authorities follows FDA and e m
A widelines. The copy paste Yeah no, no, it's not
copy paste. Is more they say the in the law,
in the Brazil law, it should be the requirements of
the FDA and e n A. So until two thousand fourteen,

(01:10:40):
there wasn't any facility in Brazil that in which you
could test something in rodents to according to the Brazilian
authorities requirement. So in two thousand fourteen it was created
in the state of Santa Clarina facility colled CM, which

(01:11:03):
tests according to good laboratory practice. So this is a
like it costs like ten times more than this experiment
will do that here, but it's approved by not only
as Lena said, not only Brazili authority, but is follows
the requirements of the international good Laboratory Practice. So after

(01:11:28):
that experiment in twenty five and seven, if everything goes well,
goes well, we could try in compositive patients, you know,
because people there is no lack of people dying at
any minute, so you know, but I hope in fact

(01:11:50):
that other scientists and laboratory in the world could do
the same. And if we test safety in this internationally
approved facility in Santaca Arena, people in other countries could
use that test of safety to test in compositive patients,

(01:12:16):
patients you know, who don't have any option in any country.
That is what we expect. It's not just Brazil, it
just it's not just us. We want to make everything
public in order people around the world do it in
their countries in their legislation. You know.

Speaker 2 (01:12:40):
Yes, indeed, thank you for that thorough answer, And I
will also post a link to the book that you
mentioned by Herald Catcher, which is called The Illusion of Knowledge.
The paradigm shift in aging research that shows the way
to human rejuvenation. It can be found on Amazon and

(01:13:02):
here is the link. Definitely a good read to get
some insight in how Harold Catcher views aging and the
approaches that could be pursued to combat it. So thank
you very much. And we have an interesting question from

(01:13:23):
art ramon Garcia, and he wonders, can it be assumed
that this fractional plasma only benefits a mammal if it
comes from a longer lived mammal donor. And where this
comes from is the observation that pigs are longer lived
than rats, and the pig donors plasma were used to

(01:13:48):
rejuvenate the rats. So if something analogous works in humans,
would the plasma have to come from mammals who are
longer lived and humans such as certain whales for instance,
or even a greenland shark that it would be hard

(01:14:09):
to get anything from a shark. Would it have to
come from some creature that's longer lived than humans.

Speaker 3 (01:14:19):
Yeah, that's a very interesting question. Sharks are not mammals.

Speaker 5 (01:14:24):
They're not.

Speaker 3 (01:14:25):
But yeah, so I think that the idea from Herod
is that no, that it doesn't He needs to be
long lived longer, with a longer lifespan. Another reason that
he used pigs is that he wanted to give a
very high concentration of this aging signating. So if he

(01:14:50):
would take from a rat, from the blood of a rat,
he would need a lot of rats. So the idea
is that to take a large animal and then you
concentrate it and then he injected and I think he's
he was thinking about like four times the amount that
the animal already has in their body. So if they
have like a signaling that says that he needs to

(01:15:12):
be old, he just takes like from a bigger animal
the signally because the animal is younger, the signaling that
says he needs to be young, and concentrate it in
an amount that is like four times the signaling that
the old animal would have to overcome the natural signaling

(01:15:33):
from the animal. I think it wasn't based on like
pigs being longer livid than the rats. I basically I
think his idea is a bit similar to what also
is still Doctor Seve Horbert said that like his epigenetic

(01:15:54):
clock measures like what percentage of your lives you have lived,
you know, so it works for the same epigianetic clock
works for a lot of different animals, a lot of
different mammals. I think he made epigianetic clock that works

(01:16:14):
for all plucental mammals based on this idea that how
much of your life span you have lived, like seventy
percent or fifty percent. So I think Harold has the
same idea in the sense that if a pig lives
I don't know twelve years, I don't know how long

(01:16:35):
a pig lives, but if you take his blood when
he had lived I don't know, twenty percent of his
life span, then it's similar to the signaling that he
has in the blood is similar to signaling that a
human would have at twenty percent of their livespan. I

(01:16:55):
think it's basically that.

Speaker 4 (01:16:57):
Yeah. I mean, in the rationality of world, the signaling
indicates to the cells they should behave in a young manner,
like a young phenotype. So if the if the pig
is young, it would mean the cells are receiving these

(01:17:21):
signals telling the cells to behave young. So in that explanation,
if you inject those signals in a human which lives
more time than a pig, but the signals will indicate

(01:17:46):
that the cells should behave in a young manner, corresponding
to as Nina said, the percentage of the leave that
species live, uh so is like signaling of youth. Youth

(01:18:08):
for red can be seven months, for a human can
be twenty years, for a whale can be sixty years old.
But this youth because is at the terminate age phenotype,
that is a determinate degree of efficiency of repair mechanisms

(01:18:35):
and energy production.

Speaker 2 (01:18:40):
Very interesting, Thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (01:18:42):
And Ard Ramone follows up with another question, So could
humans get this plasma from the calves of cattle, for example,
because they're young creatures.

Speaker 3 (01:18:57):
Yeah, we think so. In theory like that Herald chose
the age of the pigs because they it's the blood
of a pick there is around six or seven months old.
So the idea is that is a pig that already

(01:19:17):
is supposed poverty, but it's very young. So I don't know,
like twenty years old if it was a human something
like that. So I don't know the age of the
cavs how old they would have to be to be
something equivalent that they already are post puvescent. It's property, yeah,

(01:19:38):
post poverty. But I think in theory you could use
other mammals.

Speaker 4 (01:19:46):
Yes, indeed.

Speaker 7 (01:19:50):
We are waiting for people to do it with other species.
I mean it would be very interesting. Yeah, so it's interesting. Two,
the question of pig lifespans arose. Here's the Wikipedia entry
on pigs, which suggests that the maximum recorded lifespan for

(01:20:11):
a pig is actually twenty seven years, and on average,
in captivity if they are not eaten, pigs can live
for fifteen to twenty years. So actually that is quite
a bit longer than I think most people would expect
of pigs. But some pigs can outlive dogs or even cats,

(01:20:34):
though cats with good care in captivity can live for
twenty plus years and the longest lived cat was actually
thirty eight years old. But this is a fascinating discussion
as well, because if these kinds of exosome treatments from

(01:20:57):
animal plasma are successful and rats and this can be replicated,
the logical follow up questions that a lot of people
will have will be along these lines of what can
work in humans and how can this be scaled up?
So thank you for your responses there, and I will

(01:21:19):
also highlight a comment that was made by David Wood
because he had Harold Catcher as a guest in the
London Futurists webinar four years ago entitled a Paradigm Shift
in Aging Research. It has over forty four hundred views

(01:21:41):
right now, so please go ahead and watch it after
the salon. And David, I know you have another question,
so please proceed.

Speaker 6 (01:21:52):
Yes, so my question slightly philosophical, but and I'm not
trying to say we shouldn't do experiments. I absolutely agree
that doing the experiments as a scientific approach, we should
do the experiments with an open mind. But I want
to come back to this possibility that there can be
a single thing that will reverse aging rather than multiple things.

(01:22:17):
And by the way, as I've been listening to you,
I've also been talking to Aubrey, not Aubrey the person,
but Obri the bot that's aub r dot Ai. I've
been having fascinating conversation with the bot about Horold Catchers experiments.
And it matches what you said that Abi thinks the

(01:22:38):
experiments are indeed worth replicating and going into The bot
does think, however, that there's probably more than one component
in the E five that's important. There's probably several different
things that needs to be put in so even if
it's just one treatment, there's probably several things going on on.

(01:23:01):
But my question is this, because I've heard Obray, the
real human one, come up with this objection several times.
He says that if there was a single thing that
could make a difference between bodies aging and not, then
evolution would have found it and there would have been
some organisms that would have said, you know what, I'm

(01:23:22):
going to not do this a decline. I'm going to
keep my signaling in youthful. And these individuals were therefore
live longer, and naturally they would pass their new genetics
down to subsequent generations. So that's one argument why there

(01:23:43):
has to be multiple things that need to be solved
to solve aging. Otherwise, if it was just a single thing,
we'd see long lived species emerging. And then know Harold
objects to this because he says, no, no, no, you
shouldn't think of about it as evolution of the individuals.
You have to think about his evolution of the species
is good for the species if there's plenty of variety

(01:24:05):
and individuals die off so that there can be variety
in subsequent generations. But the counter argument to that is
always it's the objection to group selection, which is that
individuals who don't follow that general template will actually tend
to live longer and their genes will tend to multiply.

(01:24:26):
So I don't know if you've any thought on that,
or maybe you just want to stick with the experiments
and let's figure out whether this works or not.

Speaker 3 (01:24:35):
Yeah, so I think you are correct in what Harold
says about that. He talks about it in his book,
not only about the variability, but also like if you have,
for example, an wolf that is fifty years old, he's strong,
he doesn't age or age very littles, and he knows

(01:24:57):
everything like an old wolf knows, like there would be
no competition for the young. So yeah, it's this idea
of group selection, not not the individual selection. That also
in terms of ecological niche like not only inside the group,

(01:25:18):
but how this animal relates to his ecological niche, you know.
But like personally, like I'm not a biologist, I can't
answer that very well. Uh, we we basically want to
see herold. I think he mentioned this. I think he

(01:25:39):
mentioned in some interview that he thinks in his plasma
fraction is not only the exosomes are the small as
our vesicles that are doing something that he thinks other
small as a particles there might also be contributing to
the fact, like exisomers, supermirs, things like that that are
in the blood. We also talked because a lot of

(01:26:02):
research in this in small vesticals, they try to find
like what micro rna inside the small vesicles is responsible
for the results, for example, And we talked to a
researcher from Spain she also works with this, and we
asked her about that of the micro ironase and she

(01:26:24):
also she talked that she thinks the whole small social vesicle,
like even the proteins in the membrane and everything might
be contributing to the facts. It's not just one thing inside,
you know. So in general I think herold and in

(01:26:46):
theory we agree that it is like a combination of
a lot of things, is like several types of things
inside the.

Speaker 4 (01:26:57):
Sorry, you know, with Aurora, I will continue, David, you
did very well the you know, the narration of the
argumentation between Aubery and Harold, because when you said what
Alurays said, I I would say what Harold said, but

(01:27:17):
you said first, and then you said Aubrey's answer. But
the exam point in a gate. It's it's good. I mean,
imagine a wolf of that, you know, randomly hes amitation
that he can admit the signal of youth forever. So

(01:27:41):
the wolf is three hundred years old, and if he
has uh like descendants, little wolf, they don't they want
to stand a chance against this wolf of three hundred
years old and in his perfect physical shape. So it's

(01:28:05):
a wolf that knows everything of that a wolf can
know very strong. So evolutionarily, okay, this wolf want evolution
won't advance in that case. H But as as Harold said,

(01:28:27):
says that precisely that fixed and unlimited lifespan for the
species is necessary to the velocity of evolution.

Speaker 3 (01:28:41):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (01:28:41):
So, of course that is an important question, a theoretical question.
But I suspect that experiments and the practice will answer that.
I mean, once we have some proven techniques and experiments,

(01:29:03):
we could also better uh this question. But it's indeed
a very a very good good question. But you know,
there is another thing in Harald a vision of aging,
a vision that goes to billions of years ago. Uh.

(01:29:24):
You know this this mechanism uh is I'm too old?

Speaker 3 (01:29:31):
Uh?

Speaker 4 (01:29:31):
And this this aging mechanism is too old, and maybe
I mean that influences this evolutionary thing, but I agree
it's a very interesting question and I think it will
be answered by experiments.

Speaker 2 (01:29:53):
Yes, thank you for that answer. And we have an
interesting question from super fin guy. He wonders do all
animals that reproduce sexually age? Because we know of several
species of animals that are negligibly sinescents, so their rate

(01:30:13):
of aging is a lot slower than even that of humans.
For instance, certain species of tortoises, or the whales that
we mentioned, or the greenland sharks, or even naked mole rats.
Now we don't know exactly how long the naked mole
rats can live, but in a lab setting they've been

(01:30:33):
observed to live for as long as forty years, and
one wouldn't expect animals of their size to have such longevity.
But it does seem like tissue samples from naked mole
rats who are older do not show that much more
sineszence as compared to ones who are younger. And all

(01:30:53):
of these animals that I mentioned do reproduce sexually, So
is it necessarily the case that sexual reproduction requires aging
or is it just more of a probabilistic observation that
organisms that have that mode of reproduction will tend to
age because of this group selection idea that you mentioned.

Speaker 4 (01:31:17):
The question is you know, I wasn't here. The question
is if all sexually reproducing animals age, for example, naked mored.

Speaker 3 (01:31:29):
Well, like we are not like the people who studied
biology and did this all these series. We're trying to
to see if this kind of rejuvenation therapies, regovenation research
is reproducible. Is real science, like like you mentioned it

(01:31:50):
in the beginning, Like real science is someone needs to
reproduce it. So I don't know if we are the
best people to answer that.

Speaker 2 (01:31:59):
Like we read a lot about it.

Speaker 3 (01:32:00):
But yeah, basically that's an argument the Herald does make
in his book that aging began with sexual reproduction, even
in when you sell their organisms that have this kind
of reproduction, because they do like two organists do conjunction

(01:32:23):
something like that. And but yeah, we basically we need
to do research like more people.

Speaker 4 (01:32:31):
Yeah, but the one thing the animals you mentioned, any
of them live forever. I mean they can age and
at a slow pace, but there is no animal that
live forever, even the naked more rats. There was recently

(01:32:53):
a paper in which Steve Horvard participated. I believe that
they measured the genetic age of the naked morad and
it advances. They age pigienetically and they die too. They
live a longer lot a lot of time. There are

(01:33:16):
no immortal, sexually reproducing animals. The hydra. It doesn't age,
but it reproduces sexually as far as I know. So
we have to distinguish the animals that age very slowly

(01:33:39):
that biologically immortal animals. This should be proven. I mean,
I'm not sure if even the naked morats, if they
are really immortals. I mean, I don't know if you
have some information that, but that is no proven.

Speaker 3 (01:34:04):
I think in English they call it the biologically immortal jellyfish,
not hydra.

Speaker 4 (01:34:10):
The no, no, this is another one, and she's talking
about the toutopsis is another case is the jellyfish that
turns into a very undeveloped form and then in a
very developed form, then again in a so they can

(01:34:32):
live forever doing that thesis. But there's not a case
of hydra. The hydro is another animal, but it doesn't
reproduce sexually.

Speaker 2 (01:34:42):
Yes, interesting, thank you for that. Response, and it seems
that there could be creatures that reproduce sexually that age
a lot slower than most animals, but they still age
at a certain rate, and that seems to be at
present a consequence of that mode of reproduction. But hopefully

(01:35:04):
rejuvenation treatments can do something about it. Now, the next
question has two parts, a general part and a specific part.
The general part comes from Daniel Tweed and he wonders
is there enough information and research sharing going on amongst
various lifespan researchers these days? In your opinion, how would

(01:35:27):
you comment on whether or not there's enough information sharing?
And then the specific part of the question is on
information sharing from Harold Catcher. So you mentioned it took
about three and a half years from the time that
these treatments were administered to the rats to the time
that his team disclosed what substance was administered. So do

(01:35:52):
you know what ultimately led Harold Catcher and his team
to make that disclosure. They kept that in formation secret
for three and a half years, but then they decided, okay,
it's time to share it with the world. What happened
to lead them to make that decision.

Speaker 4 (01:36:10):
At that time?

Speaker 6 (01:36:11):
Do you think.

Speaker 3 (01:36:13):
Yeah, I think they were waiting for the patent to
be like officially processed. Like they didn't It's not that
they get got the patent, but they submitted everything and
then there was like a some times.

Speaker 4 (01:36:29):
One and a half years that they have to wait for.

Speaker 3 (01:36:32):
The Patent Office of the United States to make a
document just to guarantee that it's there, even if the
patent in the end is not granted. I think it
was that that they were waiting for that.

Speaker 4 (01:36:47):
Yeah, theoretically, patents should be made in a way that
a skill it in the art person could read the
patent and make the procedure. So theoretically when the patent
request was published, there was no secret anymore. But so

(01:37:11):
I think that this process of you know, because the
patenting process is not just to request the patent then
the US Office patent it's all. They are all public documents.
You can follow the patenting process of anything on internet.

(01:37:34):
You know, it's all public information. So, uh, there is
a process in which the US patent offices say okay,
but I think this this and this, and the patenting
requesting entity says okay, but I mean there is a
dialogue and when you know this article was published in

(01:37:58):
October two thousand twenty three, the patent request was already published,
So I think I think that was the essential point.
But I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:38:11):
Yeah, not something that we know personally. We are guessing.
But like in general, like Herold doesn't disclose a lot.
He's very secretive. He's worried even like with hiring people
to work for him, because they will know the secrets,
you know, things like that. So he is not someone

(01:38:33):
that is very open to do collaborations. You know, he
doesn't tell us much or anything.

Speaker 2 (01:38:42):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:38:43):
But in terms of how is the collaboration in general
with scientists in this area, what I see personally is
that people who work in academia are more open to
disclose everything because basically that the research is already paid, right,

(01:39:04):
like that there was a grain from a government or
something like that, and so they can disclose. Usually the
most closed ones are people related to companies. Even there
are academic researchers that are also involved in companies, but
in general they they are open to the academic researchers

(01:39:27):
are more open to collaboration and to disclose information.

Speaker 4 (01:39:31):
But of course, I mean the answer is that that
is not too much information sharing. I mean, some people
say there are a lot of information sharing, but I
think the model in the state of grantee. You know,

(01:39:52):
in the universities, many times the professor asked the students
not to comment with you know, other peop people what
they are doing because somebody can copy. So it's not
just a patenting or intellectual property thing. Is the way
the academic grants work as well. So and the intellectual

(01:40:17):
property system also incentivize this secrecy. And you know, we
are trying to do different differently because people say it
can't be done. When you criticize the secrecy, they say, okay,

(01:40:40):
but there is no way to do it differently. You
can't attract enough resources if you don't promise to try
to get the bunny back, which is what happens with investment.
I meaneople put a lot of money and they are

(01:41:04):
promised that the money they will try to get the
money back. And for that you need some system. But
I mean, if you discover something, you have to ask
the state to forbid everybody to use it for twenty years. Okay.
It's a system that many good things were done that

(01:41:27):
discovered and implemented with that system, but also the non
profit system also invented many things in the history of science.
So there are examples of both things. And I think
nowadays in rejuvenation science because we are in the basic

(01:41:50):
science stage, because we are in the Internet age. I
mean today the cost of information sharing and is practically
zero with Internet. If you put an information on Internet,
it can be distributed globally at almost to zero costs

(01:42:13):
for the people who shared information. So it's not the
same to talk about intellectual property today and fifty years ago. Today,
if we don't share something, we are wasting this terribly
useful machine call it Internet. So I think we are

(01:42:36):
trying to do differently. We are trying to do with
the system that is prepaid. I mean, people who contribute
financially is not promised that the money will come back.
We promised to try to discover things that can help

(01:42:57):
them to regivenue that their relatives are able to live
and not die. You know, we can promise to look
for health and discovery that will save lives. That is
what we can promise. We won't promise to try to
have the money back because if we do that, we

(01:43:19):
have to make a lot of secrets, you know. And
I think at this stage in which we had to
prove the principle, we needed help of everybody. We need
the help of other labs, other labor authorities around the world, scientists,
so we can't keep secrets. And regarding Harold is like
Nina said, and like I said, you know, ten years ago,

(01:43:42):
Harold made the decision of this path. I don't know
if it was his decision, it was the way he
was able to do it. You know, he found out
actually and actually proposed this path of you know, intellectual property.
The end Harold follows follows it. He's very secretive. You

(01:44:04):
know that he was interviewed by many of you several times,
and he's very secretive and and he's very since sincere
about that. It's very said too. You know, I talk
to him every month. I call him to see how
how is his health, his family, you know, And he

(01:44:27):
told me I would like to be able to you know,
to share things and to say what I'm thinking about everything,
but I can't. And we have to respect that. It's said.
But instead of criticizing him, we have to, Okay, you

(01:44:55):
have the right to do it. He have a particular
situation you know, you can't demand so much of somebody.
He had already did he already did a lot, you know. Uh,
let's let's let Harold you know happy, you know, he

(01:45:16):
he he deserves to have, you know, tranquility. Uh. You know,
he has a beautiful family, and we have to do
the things now. You know, if the patent is approved someday,
you know, okay, it's that will be a new reality.

(01:45:40):
And okay, the tenters of the patent will have, you know,
the right to explore to sell the product. Okay, if
if that happens someday, Uh, Harold and natshe will have
the patent. That's fine. Uh, But as I said, we

(01:46:00):
don't know if the patents will be granted to them.
And people are that that are dying now, and we
have to know if it can be replicated. And you know,
I wish, I wish Harold the best, you know, and

(01:46:21):
we have to respect his secrecy. But we are a
different person but people, and we will follow our own path,
you know, and being friends of him, no problem at all.

Speaker 2 (01:46:37):
Yes, thank you for that response. And I'd like to
highlight a comment from Daniel Tweet, who writes, longevity is
its own reward. And I think many of us, especially
those who aren't seeking to earn an income from longevity experiments,
who are just seeking to have them happen, have that

(01:46:59):
attitude because one can do other things to make money,
and that is my view. As long as one has
health and youth and energy, one can do other things.
And Courchet also writes in the comments, any investment can
be amortized over an optimal lifespan, so the longer you live,
also the more chances you have of earning a return

(01:47:24):
on any investment that you make. And in the meantime,
super Thin Guy rights. Aging is a terrible thing for
where everyone involved, and that I think is the priority
to overcome that terrible thing. Now, David Wood does have
a follow up question, and I think you partially answered it.
His question was would the patent mean that researchers such

(01:47:46):
as the two of you who use E five in
your work, or who would use plasma derived from young
pigs may need to pay licensing fees? But per my understanding,
the patent has not been granted yet, so there's a
time window at present in which you wouldn't have to
worry about that, and you could proceed with the experiment

(01:48:07):
that would reinforce the need to do those kinds of
experiments sooner rather than later. Would you agree with that outlook?

Speaker 3 (01:48:16):
Yeah, so there is this aspect, and as well as
we are a nonprofit entity. As far as we know,
the patent the licensing fees is only if you seek profit.
So as we're doing this nonprofit, the university is also
not profiting from anything. As far as I know, there

(01:48:40):
would be no fees related to that because we're just
trying to develop this. But if our side of the
research led to a new intellectual property or a new
patent or something like that, I think then something that

(01:49:00):
like a license fee would be related to that. But
we're just trying to reproduce it in a nonprofit environment.

Speaker 4 (01:49:08):
Yeah. Even the agreement with university specifies that there will
be no intellectual property arising from this, and we ask
it specifically we don't want any intellectual property. I mean,
I'm not sure what about in a said I mean,

(01:49:31):
if only when you make some commercial if you sell
some product, you need the authorization of the tentor of
the patent. Maybe that I have already read that are
this is a very blurry case, you know, in which

(01:49:54):
only if you make a product and sell you have
to have the authorization of the patent, or if you
do it for your own use, you need to do
to the authorization of if you just do research. I mean,
but you know, as Nina said, we are a non

(01:50:17):
profit entity and we are just reproducing a scientific article.
Publish it in a scientific journal. Geoscience is the official
journalist journal of the American Agent Association, and it's a

(01:50:37):
it's a public article received a lot of attention, including
from Geroscience readers. They receive it because of this article
like herald, like a prize of attention, like this article
is very read in generoscience. So it's a public article

(01:51:00):
that and in science, reproduction is essential. I mean that's
it's not because you published an article. That is true
is after this article is published, uh, and UH is
reproduced and confirmed for other groups. Even if the technology

(01:51:21):
is a bit it's not exactly the same, but only
that it's transformed transform isn't true. So what we are
doing is true, UH checking if the article is reproducing, UH,
it is reproducible. And so in fact, in certain says

(01:51:43):
we are doing something that to be honest, it seems
of interest of of of of the company of juven
I mean, we are taking an article and on an experiment,
and uh, you know, if it's reproducible, I suppose that

(01:52:07):
it's very good for the company. They can say to
the US of his patent, Hey, our experiment is rejuvenating
rats around the world. This lab firm resil is that
has you know, immortal rats uh in their in their lab,

(01:52:28):
and you won't give us the patent. So I believe
that this can't help the company because they don't have
the patent. I repeat, they are trying. If you if
you if you go to the the public documents of
the patent requests, you see they are trying. They are

(01:52:51):
trying once again, and they try and they are denied,
and they try again. So our experiment could serve as
an argument like, uh, this is most successfully ever in
biological sciences. Maybe, and you won't give the patent to

(01:53:11):
Hirold and actually so and there is another point. Uh,
people are dying. I mean people are dying. Now besides
all what I said, besides all of that, you know,
people are dying. The investors of Juan are dying. How

(01:53:34):
the culture is dying, actually is dying. My mother is dying.
You are all dying. So if the patent doesn't exist yet, okay,
let's advance it. And if the patent exists someday, okay,
they can, you know, make the profits. I don't care.
I will be happy to see them billionaires if everybody

(01:53:58):
is reuvenated. But we can't wait. We can't wait. People
are dying now in the hospitals, in the nursing homes,
and I can cure it.

Speaker 3 (01:54:09):
One important thing that I don't know if we mentioned
it is obviously it's good for even if the results
are positive, if we are able to reproduce it. But
if we are not able to reproduce it, I think
it's bad news for them. But one thing that we
want to do in this experiment is to be completely
transparent with the results. So if the results are bad,

(01:54:32):
if it's bad for the animals, or if there's no
sign of rejuvenation, you know, we want also to publicize
this information, to publish an article if it's a bit
harder to publish, like a negative result article, scientific article.
But we also want to do something like that. We
want to be completely transparent. Like it didn't work, we

(01:54:56):
weren't able to reproduce it, you know, so this is
also something.

Speaker 1 (01:55:01):
It's impart than to mention absolutely and publishing negative results
is crucial for science as well. This was a fascinating conversation.
Unfortunately we are out of time for today's Virtual Enlightenment Salon,
but here I've posted again the link to make a
donation to the Rejuvenation Science Institute. Again, large donations are welcome,

(01:55:22):
but small donations are also welcome, whatever you can afford.
This experiment has a very modest budget as far as
experiments go, so seventy five thousand dollars to do the
initial experiment. A bit more if you want the longevity study.
I certainly want the longevity study, but please help out
the Rejuvenation Science Institute. I agree we are all aging

(01:55:45):
and dying and this needs to stop so that we
can all live long and prosper

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

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;}Nicolás Cherñavsky & Nina Torres Zanvettor

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;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Nicolás Cherñavsky & Nina Torres Zanvettor

On Purpose with Jay Shetty