TransVision Madrid 2025 Summit - Presentations by Jose Cordeiro, Aubrey de Grey, and David Wood - Transhumanist Party Enlightenment Salon

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 Stolier 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 (00:39):
Aging is a natural process, but it's a process that
you both our health and wealthy.

Speaker 3 (00:47):
We are lucky to have longevity researchers developing rejuvenation therapies.

Speaker 4 (01:17):
Welcome to Transvision twenty five.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Good morning everyone, and a warm welcome to Transvision the
Longevity Summit. Thank you also to the Mayor of Madrid
who did this early announcement, and thank you for getting
up earlier and joining us. So it's a bit of
a last minute change, but always a positive one when
we have the Mayor arriving. So what we'll do now
is that kosem our wonderful host, will host a twenty

(01:51):
minute presentation and then we'll resume with our original programming
from ten. So just mingle network or speak to each
other little and within five minutes, who say, we'll be
back on stage. But a warm welcome, and it's going
to be an amazing day, I'm sure of it.

Speaker 4 (02:08):
Okay, we had a fantastic day yesterday, so we were
in all media, in all media, TVs, radios, newspapers, So
we are very excited that we are carrying Longevity into
the mainstream. We are taking Longevity into politics, institutions and everywhere.

(02:28):
We are beginning the second day of our fantastic event
with almost fifty speakers, half of them international, half of
them Spanish, and also ten times more participants. We have
four hundred and fifty people registered, some for yesterday, some
for today, but again they are coming at ten at

(02:50):
ten am, which is the official beginning time. We did
this last year. It was a major success. We will
do this again next year on October first, you know,
is International Longevity Day. And my goal is to change
the Spanish flag once again, because now the Spanish flag
says plu sultra. Before it used to say non plus ultra.

(03:14):
Remember this is the country far beyond far beyond, and
I want to go from Plus Ultra today to Vita
plus Ultra live far beyond. Actually, I was just talking
to Steve Horbas. He told me just now that a
third of the researchers in Alto Slams are Spanish. Isn't

(03:36):
that incredible? A third of the researchers. So we are
so proud of the Spanish researchers, even if they are
not in Spain, because Madrid is our capital and the
most longevous city in the European Union, and it is

(03:56):
actually getting even more longevos overtaken maybe Japan, and that
is why we have this meeting here, and we have
been with different people in the last few years. We
brought also Kuan Carlos is Pisua Belmonte, who was at
Folk Institute. He was the deputy director and now he's

(04:17):
in Altoslabs in southern California. We also had two years ago.
This sometimes goes faster than my mind. I need neural
link connection. We had a shan Ya Yamanaka also here
in Spain at the Royal Academy of Medicine over Spain,

(04:42):
where we gave him the Spanish equivalent of the Nobel
Prize in Medicine in Spain, and last December we also
had Peter Diamandis in Madrid and he spoke about what
he's doing with Evolution Foundation and I am really excited
because this will change the game. This is a game changer,

(05:04):
the X Prize that should be awarded by the end
of twenty thirty, with six hundred teams participating, all the
way from startups, big pharma companies, all kinds of universities, hospitals, clinics.
They are going for this prize. I was there with
Peter who had studied with me at MIT when you're

(05:27):
ahead of me, and he announced all the teams competing,
over six hundred teams, including five Spanish teams and one
Spanish team in the top forty forty teams, even though
it's from Barcelona, that's part of Spain, so we are
happy about our Catalan team as well. But anyway, this

(05:48):
is a game changer. By the end of twenty thirty,
I do expect to have biological recovenation with some therapists
and as Peter Diamond has explained, the goal is between
ten and twenty years of biological rejuvenation for people over fifty.

(06:08):
Originally it was for people over sixty five and they
lowered it to fifty. So all of us will benefit
from these therapist coming up, so that you come also
next year if you were not able to join our tours.
So it will be two days before the conference again
we will go to the most beautiful city in Spain, Segovia,

(06:30):
the city of my mother, to see the roman Acuaduct
and the beautiful, the most impressive castle in the planet,
which is the al Castle, the Segovia, the inspiration for
noin Svannstein built by Lodrig the second near Munich, Bavaria,
and also the inspiration for the Disneyland Castle. So you

(06:51):
have to come here and with me. As I said,
we are enjoying this being in old media. We read
the Madrid Longevity Declaration in the three most important political
places here in Madrid, at the office of the President
of the Community of Madrid, which is the State of Madrid,

(07:11):
at the Congress of Madrid or of Spain, the Congress
of Spain, and at the City Hall whose mayor we
just were listening to the Mayor of Madrid. Today during
lunchtime we will show to documentaries longevity hackers that is
coming out now for Galla TV in all European languages.

(07:35):
He's coming out in French, in Spanish, in Italian, in German,
because the original documentary is in English, but now through
Guaya TV, it will be in the major European languages.
I appear there and I am happy to say it
was recorded here in the College of Medical Doctors of Spain.

(07:58):
But many other people we have all the way from
Tony Robbins and Peter Diamandis, Aubrey de Gray, Liz Parish,
all of these people working on longevity, Maria Blasco from
Spain as well, who was director of the Cancer Research
Institute at that time as well. This doesn't want to

(08:20):
follow my instructions, Okay, well you know this is what
we did. These pictures are not from yesterday, but you
know what we did if you joined us. In fact,
I do think I put a few pictures from now.
Let me see, yeah, this is from yesterday. This was

(08:45):
our audience in this beautiful place yesterday and me waving
the flag of Vita plus Ultra. And if you look
on the last picture to the ride, we had an
intruder in the march. We had someone who was in
that march that we wanted to eliminate the gream Reaper.

(09:08):
So the green Reaper was with us, but we got
rid of him, fortunately, and that is our goal to
get rid of the grim Reaper forever. We count with
the most important institutional support from the Royal Academy of Medicine.
We had the president of the Academy speaking yesterday and

(09:30):
talking about the death of death. He named personally my
fantastic author David Good and myself. This is an honor,
one of the most prestigious doctors in Spain talking about
the death of death. He's an oncologist and he knows
that there is already biological immortality and he's not afraid

(09:51):
to talk about it. Anyway. We're in Madrid, so we
have the support of course of Madriam. If you want
to try this, we are doing some experiments, so please
do try this. Get your phones out and try the slights.
Because we are doing the poll. We want to show
by the end of the day the results of the polls.

(10:14):
There are like three questions online, so please answer those questions.
It would be interesting to see what you think. Take
a picture, Take your phones out and take a picture.
So again we are very proud to have a fantastic
scientific committee beginning with George George himself that you listened

(10:36):
to him yesterday, and then also a local organizing committee
with top people including directors from this institution, the College
of Medical Doctors. We had an incredible program yesterday and
we are having a more incredible program today as you
can look at the agenda. We are going to begin

(10:57):
officially at ten with the keynote by Aubit the Gray.
Aubit the Gray will be speaking at ten and then
we have uh doctor Andrea Mayer, and I am so
honored to have you in Madrid. Andrea, I love what
you do. I love the things you say, even if
sometimes you are even less less politically correct than me,

(11:21):
but you are a leader in this movement, so I
truly admire what you're doing. So one of my favorite
talks with Aubrey is Andrea Mayer. So she's given the
second keynote she will give be given also a keynote
speech tomorrow at nine am for the Semal. Semal is
the Spanish Society of Anti Agent and Longevity Medicine. She

(11:46):
will be opening that event tomorrow, so and she will
be speaking in English, of course, but there will be
human translation. There will be human interpreterslated into Spanish, so
that you know you can listen to her in Spanish
instead of written subtitles made by artificial intelligence. We have

(12:11):
a packed day with many great speakers, many great institutions,
and during lunchtime we will show the two documentaries we
are talking about Longevity Hackers, part of it, only part
of it because it's too long. And also we will
show the premiere of a new documentary for Spanish TV.

(12:34):
It's not out yet, it will be public in a month.
It will go in Public TV National Spanish TV, and
it's called The Last Man to Die, The Last Man
to Die. And some of our speakers here also appear
in that documentary, of course, overy the Gray Least Parish

(12:56):
and some other faces that you will recognize. We will
also have a special presentation during lunchtime about cryonics by
Ben Best, who was president for a decade of the
Cryonics Institute in Michigan. So we think also Plan B,
as I call it cryonics, is Plan B is also important,

(13:17):
so we just added that to the program. Then, before
beginning the afternoon sessions, we will listen again to the
Beatles and Charlie Kamm playing Yesterday that has been transformed
into Tomorrow Tomorrow beautiful, beautiful adaptation using artificial intelligence with

(13:39):
Paul McCartney singing Tomorrow and talking about immortality. So don't
miss it out if you haven't seen it yesterday. This
is the premiere official premiere of that video in Europe,
so don't miss it. Then we have again fantastic, fantastic
presentations in the afternoon, and we have a marvelous closing.

(14:02):
By eight pm we will have actually another zoon presentation.
Liz Parish, who has been in Spain four or five
times already with us, couldn't be here this time in person,
but she will be talking about gene therapies and her
presentation is quite nice. She says, I am a genetically

(14:23):
modified organism a GMO, and so you will be soon,
so all of us will be genetically modified very soon.
And that will be her presentation this afternoon. And at
eight pm we have like the Vice Minister of Science
of Spain. She will be closing for the Government of

(14:46):
Spain the Vice Minister. We will also have the Science
Counselor of Madrid, who is an immortalist by the way,
so I like to bring immortalists here, so people who
are open about living longer and longer, healthier and healthier,
younger and younger. So anyway, Nino Quesada, who is a

(15:10):
very good friend of mine and will be clothing together
with the Vice Minister, and to make it interesting once again,
we will have a flamenco dancer, just one song. But
you need to experience Spanish music because Spain is the
land of fiesta and siesta, so you need to understand, uh,

(15:32):
the fiesta and the siesta part. And tomorrow also I
want to invite you we are going to have another
celebration at the Royal Academy of Medicine in the same
place where two years ago we had sa Yamanica, where
we gave him the equivalent of the Spanish Nobel Prize

(15:54):
in Medicine. So Sheenja Jamenica was with us two years ago.
Here in Madrid. We are collaborating with him in some activities. Actually,
one of the doctors that got the award yesterday, for
those who know or who are Spanish, Pedro Gijen. Pedro
Gijen is working with shen Ja Jamenica and Juan Carlos

(16:17):
is Pisua, so we are very happy to have had
Shenja Jamenica. We will have a cocktail, a closing cocktail.
If you are still in Madrid, join us at six pm.
It is open, it is free and there will be
a fantastic cocktail. So join us tomorrow at six pm
at the Royal Academy. Is a beautiful place, not as

(16:40):
beautiful as this, but it's beautiful. It's you know, also
three hundred years old building anyway, So let me give
you an additional presentation. Most of you know I studied
in MITA. During my first working life, I was in energy.
Now I am into a longevity and I only do

(17:01):
longevity now because this is very exciting. When I graduated
in mi T forty years ago, the biggest industry in
the world was energy. Forty years ago, out of the
top ten companies in forms, nine were energy companies Excellent, Mobile, Shell,
British Petroleum, Texaco, Total, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Today,

(17:27):
nine out of the ten biggest companies informs are technology
companies Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Nvidia, et cetera, et cetera.
In twenty years, the biggest companies will all be longevity companies.
So I am happy you were here because this will

(17:48):
be the biggest industry in the next twenty years, which,
by the way, let me make a side joke. We
have the biggest and exposition about fruits and vegetables in
Madrid yesterday and today. That is why there are no hotels.
I know some of you had to pay even a
thousand euros to get in a hotel yesterday and today,

(18:11):
and that is because of the largest fruit and vegetables
fair in the world, which is held here in Madrid.
Unfortunately it coincided this year, only this year, by very
bad luck, coincided, so there are no hotel rooms and
there are also no taxes. I know some people had

(18:32):
to wait one hour to get uber or to get
a taxi. Fortunately Madrid has a fantastic public transportation system
and I take the subway myself, but anyway, there were
no taxeses. The city has collapsed. But I'm very upset
that it has collapsed because of fruits and vegetables. And

(18:52):
I love fruits and vegetables. I eat fruits and vegetables.
But this should be bigger. As Andrea was telling me,
why is don't jevity not bigger. Why don't we have
like the fruits and vegetables They brought in one hundred
and twenty thousand people to Madrid, one hundred and twenty
thousand people for fruits and vegetables. However, about longevity. In fact,

(19:16):
Andrea Meyer was telling me that, you know, if you
go to one of the big cancer conferences or Alzheimer's conference,
says you have fifty thousand people, eighty thousand people. Why
don't we have that amount of people here? Why we
only register four hundred and fifty people in person and

(19:36):
a similar number online. Why only that? Why not even
one thousand? So I hope Andrea will give us the answer,
because she's very direct and not always politically correct. So anyway, Oh,
and I have a question for Aubrey. Aubrey, I will
ask it because you are a great philosopher. Also, you

(19:58):
have to give an explanation about immortality for dictators because
I love your brief, short answer, but you need to
expand it because now that Puttin and s jin Pin
have said that they want to be in mortal we
need to give an answer. I have my own answer,
I have seen yours. I like, so we have to
expand on immortality of dictators. Anyway, this is a random talk.

(20:23):
I still have thirteen minutes until we begin with our
moderator and then our first keynote speaker of the day.
I work with the Millennium Project, just like my co
author David Gooon. I lead the group for Latin America
and staying with another colleague in the Basque Country, and

(20:46):
we work about the global challenges. I am pushing always
for longevity, but we do studies about the future on
many things, and we have presented many books. I was
actually at the World Economic Forum that was presenting this
of Latin American the year twenty thirty, and it was
with the Nobel laureate Mario Vargazosa, who wanted to be immortal.

(21:10):
Sadly he died. It is tragic when someone wants to
be immortal in the flesh. He is, of course immortal
through his writing, but as good as Goody Allen said
very deep thought, I want to be immortal, not through
my work. I want to be immortal by not dying. Okay.
So I actually talked to Mario Vargaziosa a few weeks

(21:35):
before he died, and I proposed cryonics to him because
I do think in extreme cases, like in my mother's case.
I don't know if you saw, my mother was in
the march yesterday and he was marching very well. But
she's ninety four. At age ninety four, you can do
the curve. Statistics don't lie. So in that case we

(21:58):
have plan B. And this is what I'm working on
also plum B. And I propose that to Mario Aargas
Josa and to one of the winners of last year award,
and to the first winner of the award yesterday, the
famous lawyer, Spanish lawyer Antonio Garriguez Walker. I proposed to
him to take him into cryonics. And you know what

(22:22):
he told me. This is an answer I have never heard.
I have heard all excuses about not going into cryonics,
and he gave me a very interesting one. He's remembered.
This is the most important lawyer in Spain. His company
sells over eight billion euros in legal services. And he
told me, I cannot go into cryonics because I don't

(22:44):
want anyone to have access to my brain where I'm
not aware, because I have secrets of state in my brain,
so that does have to go with me. So he
cannot be cryonically Frosten. That's his explanation. Probably over has
a better counter explanation, but that's what he told me,
and I thought it was quite interesting. I never heard

(23:05):
that that reason for not to be into cryonics anyway.
So we lost a great mind, Mario Vargaziosa, and I
hope we don't keep on losing great minds because they
don't think about plum being And I am trying to
get this moving, but it's not moving, so I just

(23:26):
keep on trying and trying well. I was also with
the US President a couple of times, first in person
in Las Vegas and then on CNN talking about this.
He's also interested in longevity, if you have any doubts
about that anyway, this we need to fix this before
Aubrey steaks, please, because this is not working. So we

(23:51):
had the pleasure to listen to great Kers Ryan. I
was with him together also into in a conference, the
biggest technolog the conference in Europe which is called the
Mobile World Congress, one hundred and twenty thousand people in
Barcelona in our competition, and Rakers Will changed for the
first time his date for longevity scale velocity, even though

(24:14):
in his book that just came out last year. He
still talks about twenty twenty nine to twenty thirty, but
then in Barcelona in February this year he changed to
twenty thirty two. This is the first time that I
have seen him changing dates. Anyway, two dates is not
too much of a change, but he changed his date

(24:35):
in the bad side. You know, I would like to
have changed to twenty twenty eight, not to twenty thirty two. Anyway,
population is stabilizing and beginning to decline. It is a tragedy.
It is a tragedy. But the economy keeps on growing exponentially.
If you look at the vertical scale, this is an
exponential curve of the GDP grow domestic product per country.

(25:01):
There are already countries that have over one hundred thousand
dollars of income per year per person. This is incredible
because until the eighteenth century we were in what the
famous British economist Maltus said, we were in the Maltution trap,
and the income was only one thousand dollars per person

(25:22):
per year. Now, in the richest countries we are over
one hundred thousand dollars and this keeps on increasing exponentially,
which I think is beautiful. The economics keeps on growing exponentially,
even though if the population are going down. David and Aubrey,
we need to fix the clicker before obre goes. You

(25:45):
can see that even the Dow Jones, the Industrial Index
of the New York Change is growing exponentially. With wars,
without wars, with pandemics, with COVID, whatever, it grows exponentially.
This is fantastic. There is an exponential growth of the economy.

(26:06):
There is also when the clicks. If it clicks, you
can see that development is being faster and faster and faster.
I am giving up on the clicker and I will
say next, next, So the economy is growing exponentially. Next.
And this began next.

Speaker 5 (26:27):
Next.

Speaker 4 (26:27):
Hello. After we left the Maltusian trap behind. In the
eighteenth century, there was no economic growth. And this is
what Maltus called, or was called the Maltus trap, no
economic growth. But with the industrial revolution that began in Britain,
the world economy grew one hundred percent. On the twentieth century,

(26:49):
it grew four hundred percent in this twenty first century
is probably going to grow two thousand, three thousand percent.
I am so excited about the possibilities of the future.
Where do I click? Okay, so talk to him just

(27:11):
in case. He says, I can click anywhere. Let's see. Okay,
it did work. So there is this exponential growth. Things
are moving faster, getting cheaper and smaller and better. So
this is what we call exponential change. And there is
a big change between moving linearly or moving exponentially. If
we move linearly, after thirty steps, we have walked thirty meters.

(27:36):
But if we move exponentially and we double, and we double,
and we double and we double. After thirty doublings, we
have walked over a billion meters. I have gone around
planet Earth twenty six times. This is difficult to understand
because we think linearly. We are linear beings that grew

(27:56):
up in a linear world. But technology is growing exponentially.
Also longevity. This is so beautiful. Life respectancy is growing
exponentially in this past century. You know, in the time
of the Roman Empire, life respectancy in Madrid was twenty

(28:17):
in the capital in Rome was twenty five years during
the Roman Empire. Then it went from twenty in Spain
to forty in the year nineteen hundred to eighty years
in the year two thousand and Right now in Madrid
is eighty six point one years of age. If you look,

(28:38):
what is growing more most is the red part, which
is education. This is important because it's education, innovation, creativity.
This is why humanity is advancing, because we are not
just animals that is sleep and work. We have education
and this is the sector that keeps on growing. We
have more and more education, innovation, and hopefully this will

(29:02):
sober everything. But there are people against technology, like the
famous Ludaites in the United Kingdom. When the United Kingdom
began the Doceral Revolution that changed the world, there were
people who didn't like technology, who didn't like robots, who
didn't like machines, and they destroyed the machines. Fortunately, the
machines won. And because the machines want, we live in

(29:26):
this advanced world. Because machines make humanity, all of humanity
move forward in all areas. So I don't like the
Amish because they are in the eighteenth century or some
other groups. Like where I was born in Venezuela, we
have the Yanomami Indians. They don't want any technology, not
technology for thousands of years. They don't even want to

(29:50):
speak the modern languages. Of Spanish and Portuguese. They don't
want anything from the outside world, and that is okay,
that is okay, that's really what they want. And I'm
pretty sure that before there were people who didn't want wales.
You know, when the will was invented about five thousand
years ago, probably there were people who did not want wills.

(30:13):
You know, anything is possible, but to change that idea.
Singularity University was born in two thousand and nine, and
because I knew both Ray kers well for forty years
and Peter diamandis from MIT, you know, I got involved
as one of the founding faculty of Singularity University, where

(30:33):
we have had every year Over the Gray because of
course Over the Gray is the most famous public figure
on these issues in the world, even though sadly he
was called a charlatan by my alma matter. MIT Technology
Review said that he was a charlatan in two thousand

(30:54):
and five. What is beautiful is that they said for
give us MIT Technology Review because they saw that what
Aubrey was saying was reality. But anyway, I like to
talk about Kaka. This will be the last thing I
will do. You know, the Kaka theory of evolution of technology.

(31:15):
When I went to MIT, I used punch cards. Punch
cards had one K. Basically there were different sizes, but
normally was ten by one hundred. Ten by one hundred
is a thousand. That was one k. I use one K. Fortunately,
it moved from mechanical memory into electromagnetic memory. But the
first floppities of eight inches they were also one K.

(31:39):
One k in Spanish, I explained one K plus one
K in Spanish is one ca plus one ca is
s equal to one kaka one caaka. This is how
technology changes. I used kaka at MIT. At the Massachusetts
Institut of Technology, I used kaka, and from caaca we
moved to floppy disc smaller of five hundred and twelve cacas.

(32:03):
Then we moved into even a smaller floppy disk of
one point four mega. And now I have a pen
drive here with a time machine shape of one terabide
one terabide. We have gone from kaka to terabyte in
forty years, and this is not stopping anytime soon. As

(32:26):
Ray Kurzfeld explained yesterday, this is not stopping anytime soon.
This continues, this continues, and so we have moved from
kaka to terabided and if you look at my pen
drive of one terabide, in twenty years, this will be kaka.
This will be kaka. One terabide will be kaka in

(32:49):
twenty years. And this is now starting in biology because
it's moving faster, faster biology than computer science. If you
look at the incredible acceleration of biotechnology is moving much
faster than KACA in and More's law, both in cost

(33:09):
and in time. And with that beautiful thought about the
Kaka theory of evolution, I want to call back our
fantastic moderator, Sabina Gafka, please thank you.

Speaker 2 (33:24):
I'm a co founder of brain gim, which is at
the intersection of a and longevity, and also the founding
member of Superhuman Network, which is really about connecting science, investments, innovation,
and culture and catapulting the evolution of longevity and also
the advocacy of longevity. And I actually also went to
Singularity University that Hossey spoke about. They have an executive

(33:48):
program there outside of San Francisco. But enough about me.
Yesterday we explore the science of aging from cellular models
to translational therapies. We took, of course, longevity to the
streets of Madrid and walking, and today we're going to
go even deeper, really into the bold visions of the

(34:10):
future of clinical realities and social and economic structures and
see where we are at the moment and with these
exponential times, where we're actually heading when it comes to longevity,
and longevity of course steps into everything that has to
do with our globe here, from our health to our infrastructures,

(34:31):
because we also need to build the environments where we
can thrive and have health. And with that, I think
that's a perfect segue to introduce our first keynote of today,
who really, as we've heard, is one of the most
radical but also one of the most enlightened voices in
this field. And for decades he's argued that the problem

(34:51):
of aging is a problem that science can solve. And
he is the architect of the concept lev longevity escape
velocity that Ray of course spoke about yesterday and Hussein
mentioned today, and that is the idea that the medical
advances can one day twenty thirty through twenty thirty two,
we'll see keep us biologically younger than we are chronologically.

(35:16):
And he's Chief Science Officer of the leb Foundation, and
he continues to push rejuvenation research from theory towards translation.
Please give a round of applause to Dr Aubrey de Gray.

Speaker 5 (35:38):
We thank you so much, Sabiya, and thank you to
Hodai and the other organizers for inviting me to get
the first talk of today. Yeah. I mean, I've got
a lot to say, and so it's probably rather good
that I apparently have more than half an hour to
say it because the program put the adjustments to the

(36:01):
program caused by the mayor's schedule allowed an expansion of
the program this morning. Yeah, as I mentioned that, I
have a particular answer to the question won't dictators live forever?
Which is one of the most common concerns that people

(36:22):
raise when.

Speaker 4 (36:24):
We talk about.

Speaker 5 (36:26):
Doing something about aging. You know, when I give answers
to these things, I've been doing it for a long time,
and it gets very boring because nobody who raises these
concerns actually wants to be reassured. They want to carry
on thinking that aging is a blessing in disguise, so
that they don't get their hopes up and get you know,

(36:49):
emotionally invested in the idea that progress might happen in
time for them. So I try to kind of be
a bit humorous about these things, but at the same
time I try to say what's true. So in the
case of dictators living forever, my standard answer is that

(37:12):
dictator is high on the league table of risky jobs.
Not many dictators die of aging in the first place,
and moreover, the ones that do tend to organize their
own succession before they die, so they are effectively immortal anyway.

(37:33):
But I don't usually give that answer when I come
to Spain, because Spain is pretty much the only exception
to this. Franco, of course, you know, did not organize
his succession, and Spain, of course a democracy again, so
it's a little bit of a weak argument when I
come to Spain. Nevertheless, here we are all right. So

(37:56):
since since the first talk of the day, I thought
I should give a fairly general overview of where I
think we stand in the process of developing medicines that
will bring aging under comprehensive medical control. Of course, I
will also talk about the specifics of what we do

(38:19):
at LV Foundation, or I should also say, you know,
I really ought to have made a different logo that
had periods full stops after the letters, because we don't
call it LEV foundation. We call it LEV foundation. It's
an acronym for longevity escape velocity of course. Anyway, so yeah,

(38:42):
let me start with a reference to the last talk
of yesterday. Rayk Oswell gave as always, a really excellent
survey of the concept of exponential growth and accelerating change,
and as as I just mentioned, he talked about his

(39:03):
prediction of how soon we would reach longevity escape velocity,
and this is something that he's been talking about for
a while. He gave a particular year he likes to
do that. He said, he reckons we will get there
in twenty thirty two. I think that's a little bit
over optimistic, only a little bit. I think that we

(39:24):
will probably get there sometime in the second half of
the twenty thirties, between maybe twenty thirty six and twenty
thirty nine. So you know, that's not much of a difference.
And of course our predictions are probabilistic, though I say
that I think we have a fifty to fifty chance
of getting there within twelve to fifteen years from now.

Speaker 6 (39:50):
But the main.

Speaker 5 (39:51):
Reason why I am a little bit more pessimistic in
terms of time frames than Ray is actually something that
was highlighted in the first question that was asked to
Ray at the end of his talk edarn A, I'm
not sure if he's here today, asked the question what

(40:12):
are we actually short of right now? Do we need
more intelligence or do we need more data? I believe
we need more data, even more than we need more intelligence,
and so the data that we need most, the data
that's most important, is data that takes a long time

(40:34):
to generate, because it's data on lifespan, on how long
an organism can live when they are given this or
that treatment. Now, the good news is that we don't
necessarily have to work in terms of human lifespan. I

(40:54):
believe it will be good enough to work with any
other mammal like a mouse, for example, and mice only
live maybe two and a half years, so it's not
too bad. But we do have to work with mammals
because we need to inspire humanity. So Jo just mentioned
it is scandalous that there are one thousand times as

(41:20):
many people in Madrid right now for a festival focused
on fruits and vegetables as there are people at this meeting.
It's ridiculous. So we need to change that, and the
only way we will change, that is, by making real
progress in animals that have legs and fur and so on.

(41:45):
It won't be good enough to do it with fruit
flies or nematode worms, all right, So that's why at
LAV Foundation we work with mice. But I will get
to that later. First of all, I want to talk
about it few more things. Let's see if it's working. Okay,
it's great. I'm going to start by giving you my

(42:07):
favorite definition of aging. And I need to do this
because everyone has their own definition of aging. It's appalling,
you know. Aging has been the major, the number one
preoccupation of humanity since the beginning of civilization, and yet
we can't even decide on the way to define it.

(42:30):
It's terrible. So this is my definition for me. Aging
is the combination of two processes. A process on the
left where metabolism creates damage, and that process starts even
before we are born, it goes on throughout our whole life.
And then a second process on the right, where damage

(42:51):
creates pathologies sickness in later later in life. That process
only begins in middle age. All right, So what do
I mean by these two processes. Metabolism is the word
that biologists use to encompass all of the things that
the body does to keep us alive from one day

(43:13):
to the next. And it's a really, really insanely complicated
network of processes, very very hard to understand. We have
a very poor understanding of it in fact. But here
it is. Damage is the set of changes that the

(43:35):
that occur throughout life as a result of metabolism. Now,
this is something that's actually quite easy to understand because
it's not specific to living organisms. Any man made machine
does damage to itself as a consequence of its normal operation.

(43:56):
It like for a car, for example, creates rust. You know,
if you use a car, it's going to rust. It's
going to accumulate rust. And the key thing that I
just said that matters the most is the word accumulate.
Damage continues to accumulate. There is more and more of
it as any machine gets older, and that is just

(44:20):
as true for living machines as for non living machines. Now,
of course, the question is why would I use the
word damage to describe these changes that occur to the
structure and composition of the body as a result of

(44:41):
the body's normal operation, And of course the answer is
the right hand process Here, the body is set up
to tolerate a certain amount of these changes that happen
as a result of being alive, but only a certain amount.
Eventually there is more than that, and that's when the
body's function starts to decline, both physical function and mental function.

(45:07):
And that's what we call the pathologies of late life.
So this is all you need to know in order
to understand aging well enough to be able to think
about how to fix it. Of course, it's important to
understand as much as we can about the details of

(45:29):
these processes and these concepts, but at the top level,
this is enough to start thinking about how we might
do something about aging. So first of all, what is
doing something about aging? In terms of this definition, it's
very simple. We want to separate metabolism from pathology. We

(45:53):
want to allow people to continue living, in other words,
performing metabolism without getting sick, in other words, without the
pathologies emerging. So how would we do that, Well, first
of all, let me talk about pathologies a little more.

(46:13):
If we ask, if you ask anybody in what ways
can people be sick? Then they will give an answer
that looks a bit like what you see on this table.
They will say, well, there are infections that's column one,
things that come from outside. Then there are inherited diseases,

(46:35):
things that a small number of us get as a
result of having genetic different problems in genes that we
inherit from our parents. That's column two. Then there's the
big one, the age related diseases like Alzheimer's, almost all cancers, athereosploitis,

(46:56):
all the things that we are so scared of that
happen later in And then nearly everybody will say that
this fourth category of ways to be sick, which is
not a disease, people call it aging itself, and it
is not even very well defined, things like frailty, things

(47:16):
that consist of declining function without disease. That's what most
people say. And there's a very big problem with that
classification of ways to be sick. The problem is that
the stuff in column three is called diseases and the

(47:38):
stuff in column four is not, And that makes people
believe that the things in column four are inevitable, that
they are off limits to medicine. Even in principle, that
won't do at all, because it's not true. Actually, the
difference between column three and column four is purely semantic.

(48:01):
It's just a matter of terminology. The things in column
three are just the aspects of aging that we have
chosen to give disease like names to, and the things
in column four are the ones that we haven't.

Speaker 6 (48:14):
That's all.

Speaker 5 (48:15):
So that's really important because everybody knows that the things
in column three are very much not off limits to medicine.
We are spending a lot of money and a lot
of time trying to develop cures for the things in
column three. It hasn't worked, And fundamentally, the reason it
hasn't worked is because we are mostly trying to apply

(48:39):
the same kinds of medicines to column three that we
have already applied to column one. We are effectively treating
the diseases of old age as if they were infections,
and that's not likely to work. In fact, this is
something that I can also illustrate with reference to my
definition of aging. Remember that our goal is to separate

(49:04):
metabolism from pathology. Well, we could, in principle do this
by separating damage from pathology, and that's what geriatric medicine
today is all about. We try to forget about danage
and to attack the pathologies directly, as if they were infections,

(49:25):
and lo and behold, it doesn't work. It's crazy because,
of course the damage is continuing to accumulate, so anything
that tries to address the consequences of damage is bound
to get to become progressively less effective as time goes on. Now,

(49:47):
I'm not the first person to notice this or to
say this. More than a century ago a few people
began to realize that attacking the pathologies of late life
directly would never work, and they said, we need to
be more preventative in order to separate metabolism from pathology.
We should not try to separate damage from pathology, but

(50:10):
instead we should try to separate metabolism from damage. Going
back to the analogy with a car, this means basically
making the body run more cleanly and create damage more
slowly than it naturally does. And that's where the whole
field of gerontology came from. We looked at the living

(50:31):
world and we said, well, okay, some species live a
lot longer than others. They somehow have better metabolism that
runs more cleanly. So the idea was maybe we can
emulate that if we study aging really well. But it
also hasn't worked. The reason it hasn't worked is partly

(50:52):
what I said earlier, that metabolism is an insanely complicated
network of processes, but worse than that, it's it's a
network of processes that creates damage as an intrinsic feature.
The creation of damage is just inextricably intertwined with the

(51:15):
things that we need metabolism to do to keep us alive.
So that hasn't worked either. So that's why twenty five
years ago I started to focus on a third way
to separate metabolism from pathology, which is, of course, the
maintenance approach. In the maintenance approach, we do not try

(51:36):
to interfere with either of the two processes that comprise aging. Instead,
we separate the processes from each other by going in
and periodically removing some of the damage that metabolism has created.
If we become good at that, then we can let

(51:58):
metabolism create damage at the normal rate. We don't need
to slow that down because by removing damage we can
still prevent it from accumulating to the level that causes
the right hand process that causes pathologies to emerge. Now,
as I said, this is exactly what we already do

(52:21):
successfully with simple man made machines. This car is more
than one hundred years old, and it's working. It's working
just as well as it was the day that it
was built. Why not because it was designed to last
one hundred years. It was probably designed to last ten years.

(52:42):
But here it is preventative maintenance. If it is sufficiently comprehensive,
just works.

Speaker 6 (52:50):
It just works.

Speaker 5 (52:51):
It completely transcends the idea of any kind of warranty
period on the machine. Now, of course, in order to
implement the maintenance approach, we do need to know some
things about damage. We don't necessarily need to know very
much about the mechanisms that cause damage to be created,

(53:15):
but we do need to know what the damage is.
So back in the year two thousand I created this
classification of damage. This is the left hand side of
this table. These are categories of change that happen in
the body throughout life, and they all can kill you

(53:40):
if they go too far. So for example, loss of cells,
that is simply when cells die and they are not
automatically replaced by the division of other cells, and of
course that happens in various parts of the body. A
very well understood one is Parkinson's disease. Which is caused

(54:03):
by the loss of a particular type of neuron. All right,
so we've got these seven categories. Now we have to
describe how we would repair that, how we would do
preventative maintenance. And it's fairly easy to do that, or
at least I was able to do it twenty five
years ago. In the case of cell loss, the answer is,

(54:27):
of course stem cell therapy. We can put cells into
the body that are of the right type to divide
and transform into replacements for the cells that the body
is not replacing on its own. Most of our cells,
of course, do not need that, because when they die,

(54:48):
the body does replace them by cell division. But some cells,
especially in places like the brain, do not do that.
So stem cell therapy is the naturalative. And indeed stem
cell therapies are now in many like I think five
clinical trials for Parkinson's disease, and everyone is very optimistic

(55:12):
that we will really be able to eliminate Parkinson's disease
in this way. I will not go through all the
rest of these, but of course I can always answer
questions later. So how's it going. Are we making progress? Well?
Even twenty five years ago, stem cells were a very

(55:32):
interesting idea. Lots of people were looking at them. There
was plenty of research. So I have never actually worked
on stem cells because other people were doing it. But
most of the other in fact, really all of the
other categories were at a much earlier stage of development.
There were some of them, you know, I were my

(55:53):
own ideas how to do the maintenance. Mostly it was
ideas that were not being pursued within the biology of aging.
They were being pursued for other reasons. But now, well,
I mean it's not good. We still only have a
few hundred people at this conference, but it's a lot
better than it was. We have a few hundred companies now,

(56:17):
startup companies that are pursuing these things. This is really
good news. And you know, we also have alternative approaches.
We heard a bit yesterday about partial reprogramming, which is
in some cases a very promising way to address cell

(56:38):
loss that's easier in some ways in some cases than
stem cell therapies. It probably won't work to help Parkinson's disease,
but in other cases it may very well help, and
that's really good news. And in fact, all of the
other categories now have multi different ways potentially to be repaired.

(57:05):
So this idea has now become very widely accepted. As
they mentioned, when I first put it forward, it was
quite controversial. A lot of people thought that it was unscientific.
But thirteen years later a group of very eminent scientists,
including Maria Blasco who was here yesterday, put out a

(57:28):
paper called The Hallmarks of Aging, which has become by
far the most highly cited paper in the whole of
the biology of aging this century. And it's basically the
same idea that I had put forward a decade earlier.
So it's very gratifying that this is a concept that
has now become mainstream now. Capedro de modal Haize yesterday

(57:53):
talked about the need to understand aging better, to have
a better theoretical work for aging in order to make progress,
and I agree with Pedro about many things, but I
don't agree with him about that. I think that actually
we already understand aging well enough to be able to

(58:17):
make progress in fixing it. And I often use the
precursor the example of the immune system. The immune system
is a really complicated part of the human body, or
indeed the body of mouse, and we still don't really

(58:39):
understand the immune system very well. In fact, my wife
Natalie Coles gave the talk yesterday about Maria Brannias, who
was the oldest person in the world. When Natalie drew
her blood, there was a particular finding that Natalie highlighted
which we completely don't understand, a very very large population

(59:00):
of a type of white blood cell that is normally
very rare. There were huge numbers of this particular type
of white blood cell in Maria Brownias's blood.

Speaker 6 (59:14):
We have no idea what so our understanding is.

Speaker 5 (59:16):
Very port but our understanding of the immune system two
hundred years ago was a tiny fraction of what it
is today. We understood very, very nearly nothing about the
immune system. Why do I mention that because two hundred
years ago, a few people took the tiny amount that

(59:38):
they did understand about the immune system, and they thought
about it and developed ideas for addressing infectious diseases using
what they knew, and it worked. Edward Jenner and Louis
Pasteur saved millions and millions and millions of lives just

(01:00:05):
by inventing really simple elementary medicines like vaccines, or even
just the concept that hygiene is a good idea. Millions
of lives. Despite knowing almost nothing about the nature of
infections and the nature of how the body combats infections,

(01:00:28):
I believe that we can do the same thing with aging.
We must always remember that the body is on our side.
The body is not fighting us, trying to kill us.
The body is trying to keep us alive. It just
doesn't have all the tools that it needs to keep

(01:00:48):
us alive forever. So our job as medical researchers and
as medics is simply to give the body a few
more tools, few more things that it can use to
augment what it already has. And those extra tools can

(01:01:08):
be really primitive in some cases. How do we know that, Well,
the main thing we know is that in mice we
can already extend lifespan quite a bit by various techniques.
There's one technique that is not really relevant to our

(01:01:32):
work to extend the healthy lives of human beings, and
that is something called calorie restriction. Most of you have
heard of it. It works really pretty well in mice.
You can get them to live quite a bit longer
if you don't give them as much food as they
would like, but it works progressively less well in longer

(01:01:53):
lived species, and we understand why that is true. It's
really a product of evolution. We just have a weaker
ability to respond to calorie restriction than short lived organisms do.
So I think there is actually too much attention given
to calori restriction and to drugs that emulate calorie restriction.

(01:02:16):
But we have plenty of other ways now to extend
mouse lifespan. And what's most important is that some of
those ways work well even if you start them in
middle age. Mice normally live about two and a half years.
We're interested in things that work even when you don't

(01:02:39):
start doing them until the mice are already one and
a half years old, and we've got a lot of
them now, so I believe that we can potentially get
a big increase in lifespan, much more than we can
get with calorie restriction, just by using things that we
already have in our tool. Now I'm talking about mice

(01:03:04):
rather a lot, right, Why, Well, I don't care about mice.
I know you nobody care about mice. But the thing is,
we do care about mice as a means to an end.
If we really can once we really can make a

(01:03:25):
huge difference to how long mice live people will believe
the world will believe that soon we will be able
to do the same thing for human beings. We just
need to get there. I've mentioned already most of what
he's on this side, that calory restriction does not work

(01:03:46):
so well in long lived species. Also, it doesn't work
so well when you start late in life. So you know,
we're making no progress making those approaches work better, and
we will not because it's an evolved response. But with
damage repair, with the maintenance approach, we have the potential

(01:04:07):
to go further. So what am I doing about this? Well,
at LAV Foundation, we are trying to do exactly what
I have described. We are taking interventions treatments that other
people have already shown to work in mice starting late

(01:04:29):
in life, and we are putting them together in the
same mice at the same time. That is the way
that we think we will get bigger results. We think
that we should be able to get an additive effect.
So in the first experiment that we did of this nature,

(01:04:49):
which started nearly three years ago it ended about six
months ago, we took four treatments. I have them listed here.
One is actually not a maintenance thing, a damage repair thing.
It is a color restriction mimetic. That's to say, it's
a drug which causes which causes the body to think

(01:05:15):
that it's not getting enough food. And it works pretty well,
but as I say, it will not work so well
in humans. The other three are types of damage repair.
One of them is to give these old mice some
new blood stem cells from young mice. Another one is

(01:05:36):
to give mice an additional amount of telomerase using gene therapy.
This was inspired actually by some of the work of
doctor Blasco who spoke yesterday. And the third one, which
was also discussed yesterday, was is to give it a synolytic,

(01:05:57):
a drug that specifically culls off a type of well
that we accumulate during life, and it seems to be
bad for us, and we use this thing called galactose
conjugated livero clacks. Let's say we started when the mice
were already one and a half years old, and well,
it went pretty well well back and again. So in

(01:06:21):
the female mice, we had ten treatment groups, a group
that was getting all four of these treatments, a group
that was not getting any of them, and eight groups
that were getting some subset of the treatments, and the
result was quite encouraging. The group that we're getting all

(01:06:48):
of the treatments is denoted by the red line here
the thick red line, and as you can see, they
were doing better than anybody else. On the axis is
the age of the mice, and on the y axis
is the proportion of the mice that we're alive up
to a given age. This is called a Kaplan Meier curve.

(01:07:09):
And the thick blue line is the control mice that
we're getting none of the treatments, and as you can see,
the mice that were getting some subset of the treatments
were somewhere in the middle. So that's what we hoped for.
We got an additive effect, but we did not do
any better than what calorie restriction can do or indeed

(01:07:31):
wrap of mice in on its own, which is what
we want to do. We want to get ideally two
or three times as big an effect as we can
with the In this experiment, the male mice, it was
more complicated but basically the same concept, and we made

(01:07:53):
it many many things about the health of these mice,
like how their memory and their physical agility, their strength,
their hearing, their eyesight, The curvature of the spine is
something that has studied in mist because it changes with age,

(01:08:15):
so lots of things, and we still have to analyze
a lot of the data that we obtained in this way.
I always like to emphasize that I don't really work
on longevity. I work on health. Longevity is a side
effect of health, and that's why it's important to work
on health. We want to keep people alive for as

(01:08:36):
long as possible, but the way we will do it
is by keeping them healthy as long as possible. And
of course this is not a new concept. Another thing
that came up yesterday, which a couple of people mentioned,
is that the goal of our work is to add
life to years, not just to add years to life.

(01:09:01):
I want to highlight that. A lot of people attempted
to omit, to leave out the word just in that sentence.
People will say the goal is to add life to years,
not years to life, and that's a very very different statement.
It kind of says that adding years to life would

(01:09:22):
be a bad thing, even if the extra years were
healthy years, and I believe that is nonsense. The longevity
side effect of adding life to years is something that
we must celebrate and not apologize for So what should

(01:09:45):
we do next? And I said, we were very happy
that our first study combining interventions in life was a
demonstration of the concept. It proved that we could get
an additive effect when we combine things, but we did

(01:10:05):
not get the effect size that we were hoping for.
So in the next study that we want to do,
which is described in detail at the website at the
top of this slide, we are going to use more interventions.
We are probably going to have eight interventions instead of

(01:10:27):
only four. That means that the experiment will be even bigger.
The first one used one thousand mice and the second
one will use two thousand mice. All of the interventions
that we will test will be genuine damage repair maintenance,
and they have all been shown to extend life individually,

(01:10:48):
so we are optimistic that we can get a much
bigger effect when we put them together. Nobody else is
doing this kind of experiment, and that's terrible. We desperately
need a lot of experiments like this because we need
to test things like different doses of each of the interventions.

(01:11:09):
We can't do that with one study. Even this study,
as I described it here, is going to cost about
six million dollars. Jeff Bezos just gave a few years
ago three billion dollars to a new company, Alta Labs,
to investigate aging. Mahu Khan, who spoke at the beginning

(01:11:30):
of yesterday's session, leads a group called Evolution in Saudi Arabia,
which is funded to the tune of one billion dollars
per year for twenty years, and they are not doing
this kind of experiment either. You know, it's got to

(01:11:51):
be done. It's the quickest way to bring human aging
under proper comprehensive medical control. So, as I said, we
are using more interventions next time because we think it's
got a better chance of giving a big result. But

(01:12:12):
I want to highlight something that really comes back again
to what rayk Oswell said last night. Progress is accelerating.
It's still fatty slow, but it's really accelerating. In the
time three years ago when we were designing the first study,
we had hardly any choice. The interventions that we used

(01:12:35):
in our first study were really the only ones that
had been shown to work when you start late in
life in terms of extending mouse lifespan. But in those
three years while we were doing that study. Lots more
have been published, lots of new studies that really seem

(01:12:55):
to work, and we think it's going to continue to accelerate.
So we are really desperate to get going in doing
this experiment. For those of you who want more details
of the studies that have inspired the inclusion of these
various interventions, please take a photo of this side, because

(01:13:19):
these numbers are the identifiers in PubMed, the big medical
database that reported all of these things. So very important
to understand that these are recent and they are success stories.
I'm going to end by talking about some of the

(01:13:41):
support that is being given to this work by the
cryptocurrency community. In the crypto community, there is a lot
of interest in this work. I often speak at cryptoconferences
and I'm the only non crypto speaker. The reason I'm
there is just because there's a big fan base, if
you like. And some of those fans got together over

(01:14:03):
the past several months and they created a token, a
cryptocurrency token that's called aubray a U B R A
I and it's of course, you know, based on me
and our work, and you can buy it and if
you do, you will be helping our work. Yeah, we

(01:14:23):
we get the transaction fees. You know, we may indue
course just self some tokens to get some more money.
So this is good news. The guy Mark there, as
I'm mentioning there is actually Mark Bernagher who is the
co founder of another conference series that happens each year,
and he started in Switzerland and he made his fortune

(01:14:47):
in the cryptocurrency world. So that's a great case of
leading by example. And there's also an AI agent, a
chat pot that you can you can convert with on
Twitter on x It's also called Aubrey. Don't forget the
underscore at the end of the of the r L. Yeah,

(01:15:12):
I mean, it's it's pretty amazing. It is modeled on me. Again,
it is. It gives sensible answers to basically any question.
I mean, maybe not exactly what I would say, but
pretty close. And unlike me, it doesn't sleep. It's it
has much more bandwidth than Little Meat. So that's very

(01:15:33):
very good news. And there's even a version of it,
an audio version. You can talk to it and it
sounds like me. It's terrifying. And they've done wonderful graphics
as well. There we go here. You know, you know,

(01:15:54):
I don't know what to say, you know, it's pretty incredible,
so happy about this. So I will just end by
talking about advocacy. You know, there are many really powerful
advocates for longevity here. Of course, Hoaseiah is one of
the most important, and I've been, you know, doing a
lot of advocacy for the past twenty years as well

(01:16:15):
as overseeing a lot of the science. We need a
war on aging. And when I say that, I do
not mean something like the war on cancer that happened
fifty years ago in America. That was very significant in
terms of the increase in funding for cancer research, but
in that surul numbers in dollar terms, it was tiny.

(01:16:36):
It was imperceptible to the American public. We need a
war that is on the scale of COVID five years ago.
Humanity was faced with a new challenge, and humanity faced
that challenge and took it on and COVID was defeated.

(01:16:58):
Think about what happened then. Everything that we thought we
knew about institutional bureaucracy and regulatory inertia and so on
just was thrown out of the window. Governments just ignored
all of the rules that they had created because they
knew that the priority was to save lives, and yes,

(01:17:20):
it was dangerous, and I think we can now say
that probably quite a lot of people died as a
result of the haste with which vaccines were developed and distributed,
and a lot of people are still sick as a
result of those vaccines. But when I say a lot,
it's actually a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of

(01:17:44):
people whose lives were saved by those vaccines as a
result of the vaccines being distributed really fast. It was
less than a year from the time COVID emerged to
the time that vaccines had been developed distributed globally. Before COVID,

(01:18:04):
the quickest that that had ever been done was more
than ten years. So that is a lesson for humanity.
When we actually want to fix something, we can and
a medical thing, and now that we've done it once,
we can do it again. The problem, of course, is

(01:18:25):
that COVID was a new problem, and aging is a
very very old problem which we have put out of
our minds. So what we need to do is make
the public care about aging. When the public care, governments
will care and everything will just happen. So we need

(01:18:46):
to get influences. Joe Rogan, Oprah Winfrey, people like that
to be up there saying now's the time to have
a war on aging. And I believe that that will
happen when the subject matter experts are able to come
out and say, yes, we have made we have made

(01:19:06):
so much progress in mice that now we can actually predict,
not as precisely as RAID does, but somewhat we can
predict how soon we will have a chance of bringing
human aging under medical control. Once the subject matter experts

(01:19:27):
in this field find it possible to predict timeframes, which
I've been doing for twenty years, then I believe the
war and aging will start. So I will stop there.
Thank you very much for your attention. Of course, we
can only do this work because of the money that
is donated to LED Foundation, so I've put the qr

(01:19:49):
cod up there for anyone who wants to help. We
wrote a review last year which describes the science of
our work in more detail. That's in the middle, and
I will be happy to that questions if anyone wants,
or I'll be here for the whole of today and
tomorrow actually at SML, so I will enjoy talking to

(01:20:11):
all of you. Thank you, I'll give.

Speaker 6 (01:20:20):
Yeah, thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:20:21):
Aubrey always giving us such a great perspective of where we.

Speaker 6 (01:20:25):
Aren't aging auregy. Just hopefully we have some questions for you.
Let's start with that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:31):
Any questions in the audience sees the moment. We have
one from Steve Hobart here Epigelic.

Speaker 7 (01:20:39):
Cos Yeah, Aubrey, wonderful presentation. I really applaud you for
your effort in the mouth study. I think it's very
valuable for the whole field. I had a technical question.
You probably are very aware of this paper by caba
Line about the nine hundred day rule in the control

(01:21:01):
the median survival should be nine hundred days. I very
carefully looked at the Kavlin myograph. I didn't quite see it,
but maybe you could comment on it.

Speaker 5 (01:21:09):
Yeah, so this is a very important thing. A lot
of the work that is published in this field and
that gets you know, general audience headlines and so on,
really isn't actually as significant as people say it is.
And the reason it isn't so significant is because the
comparison that is being shown is between mice that get

(01:21:32):
some treatment and mice that don't. But the mice that
don't get the treatment don't live very long that they're
impaired in some way. Maybe they only live to let's
say two years instead of two and a half years.
That doesn't sound very different. But if the amount of
life extension that you're getting is only let's say three months,

(01:21:53):
then that means that your treated mice are still living
less long than normal treated mice in somebody else's lab,
and that's not good. So it's very important to use
long lived controls, and that determines first of all, which
strain of mice you use. We use a strain called

(01:22:15):
Black six, which is actually used by most longevity researchers,
and they lived about two and a half years nine
hundred days on average, So that's what we are aiming for,
and actually in our next experiment we plan to give
all of our mice a calorie restriction mimetic wrap of micin,

(01:22:36):
which will probably mean that the mice live on average
to nearly one thousand days without any other treatments. In
our first study, we didn't quite get to nine hundred days.
We got to about eight hundred and fifty days, so
that's not quite where we'd like to be, but it's
close enough that someone like Matt Cablin would probably not

(01:22:57):
well has not complained doctors.

Speaker 6 (01:23:00):
Great, thank you so much for the talk.

Speaker 8 (01:23:03):
I think you have a unique gift for clarity and
bringing people together. I wanted to ask your opinion on
the topic. So, as you said, the immune system has
been manipulated with elementary medicines such as vaccines, even when
the knowledge of it was reductive at least now, for instance,
companies like Omniscope are part of the foray into deeply

(01:23:27):
understanding that system. And you said we need a war
and aging similar to COVID, and COVID arguably was a
public health intervention to reprogram the human immune system en mass.
Since the immune system is one of the whole marks
of aging. Do you see in the future immune system

(01:23:48):
reprogramming as a part of geroscience, as was featured in
your tables of interventions.

Speaker 6 (01:23:54):
I'm curious to.

Speaker 9 (01:23:55):
See how far you think we can push that to
advance health span now that we have an immensely deeper
understanding all the way to cellular therapies.

Speaker 5 (01:24:06):
Right, great question. So absolutely, we need to rejuvenate the
immune system, just as we need to rejuvenate every other
system in the body. The immune system has an extraordinarily
pervasive role in keeping us alive and keeping us healthy,
not only eliminating infections or so eliminating almost all of

(01:24:29):
the incipient cancers that we would otherwise get. But I
would like to emphasize that what we are doing in
this field, what Ominoscope is doing, what other people are doing,
is not really an attempt to understand the immune system better.
It's a way of characterizing describing the immune system. But

(01:24:50):
whether that leads to more understanding remains to be seen.
And that's okay. If we can rejuvenate the immune system,
put it back into the state that it was at
a younger age, then we don't really need to understand
why that system works better than an old immune system.
Another great, really important example, which actually Steve Forbath was

(01:25:13):
involved with a couple of years ago, is to rejuvenate
a very important component of the immune system called the thymus.
This is an organ that creates a big subset of
our white blood cells called tea cells, and it's atrophies
really early in life, like in early adulthood. We get

(01:25:36):
away with that. It's kind of evolution allows it to
atrophy because by the time at agrophies, it has already
created a population of T cells. That keeps us pretty
healthy for decades after that, so we kind of don't
need to make anymore. But of course, now that we
are living so long, we do need to make more.

(01:25:58):
So rejuvenating the thyma is an absolutely essential part. But again,
we don't really understand everything about how the thymus works.
We understand a hell of a lot more than we
did two hundred years ago, but there's plenty that we
don't understand, and that's fine.

Speaker 6 (01:26:14):
Just a brief question.

Speaker 10 (01:26:15):
Then then we have ten It's good to have time
and frames to make the change. It's also good to
have orders of magnitude. How big do you think we
should use a mice to fight aging?

Speaker 4 (01:26:26):
Right now?

Speaker 5 (01:26:27):
How many?

Speaker 6 (01:26:28):
How bigger should it be?

Speaker 5 (01:26:29):
Right? So this is a really important question. One of
the concepts that I introduced many years ago is the
concept of longevity escape velocity, which we mentioned earlier, and
the idea here is that if we can postpone the
health problems of late life, so that means column three
and column four in that table I put up, if
we can postpone those things by twenty years, then we're

(01:26:53):
basically done. We've done the hard part of being aging
under comprehensive medical control because basically, in twenty years we
can be very sure that we will improve those treatments
so that we can give the same people who are
twenty years older some new rejuvenation that will give them

(01:27:13):
another twenty years and so on. So it's the reason
I use the tern escape velocity is because it's a
bit like gravitational escape velocity. If you fire something up
into the sky at a slow speed, it comes back down,
but there is a certain speed above which it doesn't
come back down, So that's kind of similar. Now, it

(01:27:33):
turns out if you think about that, that longevity escape
velocity is easier to achieve for long lived species than
it is for short lived species. That's the other way
around from everything we normally think about in the biology
of aging. Normally, long lived species are harder to help,

(01:27:55):
but in the case of longevity escape velocity, you know,
it's touch and go. Whether we will ever reach LV
with cats or dogs, I am certain that we will
never achieve it with mice because even if you double
the life span of mice, you will not have enough
time to figure out what to do next to double
the same mice as a lifespan again. All right, so

(01:28:17):
what do we need to achieve? Well, I have defined,
maybe rather arbitrarily, a threshold which I call robust Mouse
rejuvenation RMR, and that threshold is to take middle aged mice,
as I mentioned, mice that are already one and a
half years old, and to give them an extra year

(01:28:39):
of life, an extra twelve months, so that they on
average live to three and a half instead of two
and a half years. Now, why did I chuse that threshold,
Because what we can currently do is four months. We
can take mice that are one and a half years
old normally live to nine hundred days. We can get

(01:29:00):
them out to slightly over one thousand days, maybe twelve
hundred maybe sorry, maybe one thousand and thirty or one
thousand and fifty if you're lucky. Now, the thing is,
we could do that half a century ago. We've made
no progress. Jeff Pedro mentioned this yesterday. You know, we
have it's pitif how much we have failed to do.

(01:29:22):
So that means if we can get twelve months, that's
three times the effect size. That would be really dramatic.
It wouldn't be longevity escape velocity, but it would be
dramatic enough for people for all the subject matter experts
to go out there saying, yes, we are in a
different world. So that's my threshold. I think, thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:29:40):
For that thorough answer. Thank you, doctor Augum.

Speaker 1 (01:29:43):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:29:47):
So now is the time for my coauthor to give
up a fantastic presentation. Okay, if there is another picture
like this, a fantastic presentation about their longevity. So welcome David.

Speaker 6 (01:30:02):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 11 (01:30:10):
So I will talk about the death of death later,
but I will start by building on the very interesting
and valuable presentations of both Dylan and Angel. I will
talk about the longevity dividend, but I'll talk about a
problem with the longevity dividend, which i'll call the longevity

(01:30:31):
dividend paradox, and I'll also talk about how we can
solve that paradox and take full advantage of the dividend.
I'll start with our frightening chart. Various people are frightened
by this chart. On the x axis is increasing age,
and on the vertical axis is the annual cost of

(01:30:55):
somebody of that age to their health service. This is
based on searched on the UK, but I'm fairly sure
it would be similar throughout the world. So a ten
year old, for example, costs a little bit less than
one thousand British pounds on average to the health service.
Sixty year old costs about two thousand, and sundry in

(01:31:18):
their mid eighties cost five thousand. And in case you're
wondering what the strange little bump is, can you guess
that's for women of a child bearing age that need
services in connections with their pregnancy and childbirth. But the
biggest finding in this chart is, of course, it's older

(01:31:39):
people who cost the health service more, and that's because
these older people have more infirmities, multiple things wrong. There
is a famous statistic from the US looking at medicare,
which points out that twenty eight percent of medicare is
spent on people.

Speaker 6 (01:31:58):
In the last year of their lives.

Speaker 11 (01:32:01):
Now what frightens people as they imagine what's going to
happen if people live even longer, and they're worried that
this chart is going to keep on going up and up,
with more costs with more old people, and even more
costs with even more old people, which is why some
politicians in unguarded moments say I wish these old folk

(01:32:23):
would hurry up and die, not when the journalists are listening.

Speaker 6 (01:32:28):
But they are afraid. And I think it's true.

Speaker 11 (01:32:31):
If we had a continuation of normal aging, it would
be more expensive. But the idea of the longevity dividend
is that superageous actually don't cost more. And if more
people can be treated so that they are super ages,
this graph will move down and to the right. It

(01:32:52):
will move down at all ages, including early middle age,
and it will certainly move down.

Speaker 6 (01:32:58):
At the top.

Speaker 11 (01:32:59):
What I mean by superages, there is an actual definition
of the term. This is a picture of four famous superages,
their Can siblings.

Speaker 6 (01:33:10):
On the left.

Speaker 11 (01:33:11):
Helen, the oldest of the four, was nine years old.
On the right. They regrouped more than ninety years later.
All four of them lived beyond one hundred, and they
were remarkably healthy right through their lives, with little need
for health care. Two of them actually lived until nearly
one hundred and nine, and Irving Can was working two

(01:33:33):
days a week with pleasure right up into this one
hundred and ninth year. A superager is defined as somebody
who doesn't have cardiovascular disease or cancer, or diabetes or
cognitive decline by the age of ninety five, which is
why they don't cost the health service so much. Another example,

(01:33:57):
another example.

Speaker 6 (01:33:59):
Is this lady.

Speaker 11 (01:34:01):
Her name is Ethel Caterum from Surrey. She actually lives
about twenty miles from where I do. She's one hundred
and sixteen years old.

Speaker 6 (01:34:10):
She is actually now.

Speaker 11 (01:34:11):
The oldest woman in the world, and she is the
oldest British person ever. And she might look a little
bit stiff here, but if you look at the sky
News video of her talking with King Charles, she's full
of life and vitality, and she's cheekily talking about well,
fifty years ago, all the pretty women in Europe wanted

(01:34:32):
to marry you, didn't they. And he laughed at that,
and he needed some light relief because the two previous
days King Charles had to babysit Donald Trump, which.

Speaker 6 (01:34:42):
Is a real ordeal for him.

Speaker 11 (01:34:44):
Now, this woman Edith Caterum, she has no public record
of any major disease. She was a COVID survivor, but
despite her great age, she has not cost the health
service extra money. Another super age that I like a
lot is this gentleman. His name is Leonard Barnett Baden.

(01:35:05):
He was the UK chess champion in nineteen fifty four.
He is also the chess correspondent for the Guardian newslet paper.
He has been writing columns every week since September nineteen
fifty five. He has never missed a deadline. He is
now ninety six years old and no break and his

(01:35:31):
articles are still in high demand by top class chess
players because they are full of insight and intelligence. Ninety
six years old. Now you may think these are just
individual statistical anomalies, but thankfully is some statistics. If you
go back to the UK and look at how much

(01:35:52):
does somebody cost the NHS and the last year of
their life, if you go beyond eighty, actually it comes
down so somebody who lives to more than one hundred
doesn't cost so much in the last year of their life.
And the figures in Japan are even more striking. Now
sometimes when you see a graph like this, you might

(01:36:13):
wonder has the zero been missed out? But no, this
is an accurate graph. The people who die over the
age of one hundred and five costs only seventy percent. Sorry,
they cost seventy percent less in that final year of
their life than people dying between seventy five and seventy nine.
I've only managed to find figures for two countries, and

(01:36:35):
there's a bit of difference there. So if anybody's looking
for a project for their university studies or as a
citizen scientist, I invite you to dig out more such
data and explore it. But this is the longevityate dividend.
This is the principle that if you remain healthy for
longer like these superages do, it has major economic benefits.

(01:36:58):
What kinds of benefits? Of course, they are less cost
for the health service. There are less cost for your
family members. They don't have to take time off work
and cut into their career to look after you when
you get old and frail.

Speaker 6 (01:37:11):
Even more than that.

Speaker 11 (01:37:12):
They are contributing to the economy as producers like Irvin
Can doing his investment trading on behalf of his clients
right up until nearly one hundred and nine years old,
and as consumers as well. So people talk about their
silver economy or even their silver tsunami.

Speaker 6 (01:37:32):
What happened there? Silver tsunami.

Speaker 11 (01:37:37):
Isn't This isn't the final version of my slides for
some reason. Sorry, Now can we quantify this in terms
of how much money could be saved? And this is
the basic calculation behind The longevity dividend was first done
by these two economists from the Universe from University of Chicago.

(01:37:57):
They calculated that between nineteen seventy and two thousand, the
increased longevity, the fact that people remained active in contributing
to the economy at longer older age, contributed ninety five
trillion dollars over that period. Now, it did cost some
more money because people who previously would have died in

(01:38:17):
middle aged they cost some money in health services to
keep them alive. And these economists estimated that that costs
thirty four trillion, in which case there was a massive
sixty one trillion saving. And other economists such as William
Nordhouse has and his own calculations.

Speaker 6 (01:38:35):
He says that maybe.

Speaker 11 (01:38:37):
Forty percent of the growth in general national product is
due to people living longer and being active in the
economy longer. So that all happened without anybody sitting down
and saying, let's make it happen. That all happened without
people sitting down and said, hey, this is a good thing,
let's try and have more of it.

Speaker 6 (01:38:57):
And the first people to say let's.

Speaker 11 (01:38:59):
Have more of it, they wrote this article in The
Scientist in two thousand and six four Distinguished Gerontologists for
Distinguished Gerontologists Jael Shansky and others, and they basically argued,
it is economically sensible, that is financially wise, for society

(01:39:19):
to prioritize research not just into diseases of aging, not
just into individual aspects of aging, but aging as a
common root cause which can be addressed. They didn't use
the word then, but neuroscience was invented shortly afterwards to
capture this notion, and they wrote it up in more detailed.

(01:39:39):
They said, here's how much money is being spent already.

Speaker 6 (01:39:43):
It's pitifully small.

Speaker 11 (01:39:45):
Yes, there is budget going into diseases, but it's almost
always into trying to cure diseases after they've developed, and
there's very little going into actual aging like such, very
little going into what we call neuroscience. They said, please, please,
members of the US Congress, don't just give us thirty
five million, give us more like one billion to research

(01:40:09):
into this. And if you do this, we expect that
over a period of time we will delay slow down
aging by about seven years, so that these costs aren't
coming soon and we'll have more time.

Speaker 6 (01:40:21):
So did the.

Speaker 11 (01:40:22):
US Congress listen did politicians around Europe and the US say.

Speaker 6 (01:40:27):
Yeah, great idea. No they did not. Now in some
countries it's a little bit better.

Speaker 11 (01:40:35):
Saudi Arabia have put some money into this recently, Singapore
has put some money into this recently.

Speaker 6 (01:40:40):
But it's still.

Speaker 11 (01:40:41):
Only a fraction of what a sensible economic argument would
say should be done.

Speaker 6 (01:40:46):
And that is the longevity dividend.

Speaker 11 (01:40:48):
Paradox that although there's a strong economic argument, and you
heard it also from Dylan, politicians aren't acting on it.
And the question is why not? And I'm going to
offer you four reasons which people tell me when I
talk to them. I'll put them all on this chart,
and then I'll spend the rest of my presentations analyzing

(01:41:10):
these four answers and what, if necessary, can be done
about them. The first is some people say, this kind
of thing isn't what governments should do. You know, it
should be left to vcs and the marvels of the
free market. There's no need for government to come along
and put money into this kind.

Speaker 6 (01:41:26):
Of preventative measures. Other people say, well, there is a paradox,
but it's a paradox in human nature.

Speaker 11 (01:41:33):
We humans don't like doing unpleasant things to prevent diseases.

Speaker 6 (01:41:37):
We just want to keep on.

Speaker 11 (01:41:40):
Eating ice cream, keeping them on being lazy, and then
eventually we will stomp up and pay for the cure.
And this is tied to the argument we often hear
that big farmer would make no money out of prevention.
Big farmer just want to make people sick so they
can treat them when they're sick.

Speaker 6 (01:41:57):
That's a second argument. I wonder if you would put
your money on either of these two arguments.

Speaker 11 (01:42:02):
Argument three is that there's no consensus, and while the
money should actually be spent, there's so many different things.
If you ask ever be in this room what you'd
like government to spend money on, we might all say, yeah,
spend money on researching longevity. And they'd say what, and
we'd give them about sixty different answers. So there's a confusion,

(01:42:23):
and the final answer is that people say, well, yeah,
I like your argument. I would like to take the
advantage of these trillions, but frankly.

Speaker 6 (01:42:32):
I don't believe it.

Speaker 11 (01:42:33):
I don't believe that there would be these benefits, but
I don't believe that you have any idea how to
make people live significantly longer and healthier. And we had
it from angle angles take away from ardds. Yeah, we're
all still going to die. We had it from the
Longevity Biotech Fellowship that was meeting recently in Valencia.

Speaker 6 (01:42:52):
There is no proven solution.

Speaker 11 (01:42:55):
So people say, yeah, it doesn't matter how many zeros
go after the go in front of the decimal point.
Whether it's hundreds of millions, hundreds of billions, or trillions
or tens of trillions, it doesn't matter.

Speaker 6 (01:43:08):
Because you don't know how to achieve it.

Speaker 11 (01:43:10):
So it's of these four arguments, would you think is
the most significant.

Speaker 6 (01:43:15):
Let's look at argument one. This is complete nonsense.

Speaker 11 (01:43:19):
Governments do get involved in actions to prevent ill health,
to prevent accidents.

Speaker 6 (01:43:28):
For example, they got.

Speaker 11 (01:43:30):
Involved and they told the car industry in the middle
of the last century, you should take safety more seriously.
And the car industry executive said, we don't like to
talk about safety because people want to buy into the
fantasy of speed. And eventually the government put through enough
laws to mandate safety seat belts and crumple zones and

(01:43:52):
cars and to mean that when they did have accidents
there were much less casualties. Far too many people still
die from that, but it's much less than used to be,
and there are plenty other examples. Governments got involved in
banning lead in petrol, which had a big impact on
criminality and also on IQ, reducing criminality boosting IQ.

Speaker 6 (01:44:14):
There was the anti smoking campaign. Why do people live longer.

Speaker 11 (01:44:17):
Now in twenty twenty five than in nineteen sixty five.
A lot of it's due to the campaign against smoking.
A lot of it earlier in the last century was
due to sanitizing drinking water, insisting in all drinking water
needed to be properly cleaned before being sent back into
the system, promoting vaccinations. Many people said, Ooh, it's so unnatural, ooh,

(01:44:40):
it's against God's law, and then they accepted the vaccinations
and it cut again the illness. And earlier there was
the ensuring that milk was pasteurized rather than coming straight
from the cow and causing lots of childhood diseases.

Speaker 6 (01:44:56):
I guess government also get involved.

Speaker 11 (01:44:59):
In funding rect search into individual diseases, research which no
private corporation is going to do because it's too far
away from any commercial returns. This is called a public
good in the language of economics. So governments do all that,
but they don't fund guroscience, accept ad a pittance.

Speaker 6 (01:45:19):
So that's not the answer.

Speaker 11 (01:45:21):
So let's come to the second possible solution that we
humans and industry isn't interested in prevention.

Speaker 6 (01:45:29):
That's bollocks as well.

Speaker 11 (01:45:31):
Prevention is big business and it's a common lifestyle choice.
Think about lipidour I have some in my traveling bag
with me. It's a stat in which laws cholesterol why
to prevent heart disease and strokes. It's been incredibly successful
in boosting longevity. It's also being commercially successful for PISA.

(01:45:53):
Phisa's lifetime revenue for this is in the hundreds of billions.
Would certainly like more preventative to treat drugs like this.
We could talk about fossomax, which is a preventative drug
to help people who might otherwise have the brittle bones.
And there are sorry that one's for migrain and there's

(01:46:17):
a one to prevent people having brittle bones. And we
do spend money on prevention. We spend money to go
to suffer the indignity of having our teeth hygienically cleaned
and all being told off that we're not cleaning them properly.
But we endure that because it does help prevent gum
disease and brain disease. So that's not the answer either.

(01:46:38):
So to come up to date, I say people would
choose health span extension treatments once they are available, rather
than just being a nice point on a PowerPoint slide,
and once they're positive, results are evident. So where have
we reached. I've ruled out these first two solutions, but

(01:46:58):
I do think three and for are completely true and
completely relevant. There is a huge confusion in the longevity
community about what we would like government to prioritize. And
I'm going to borrow here from an analysis by Phil
Newman of Longevity Technology, who says there are ten levels

(01:47:19):
in which people talk about longevity. I added an eleventh.

Speaker 6 (01:47:22):
At the bottom.

Speaker 11 (01:47:23):
So sometimes when people say we should support longevity, they're
talking about changing our attitudes towards the elderly, providing mobility,
scooters and so on. Sometimes it's what we heard in
the last talk from Angel, the kind of wisdom of
the ancients, the wisdom of our grandmothers. More recently, there
are consumer diagnostics, wearable devices that give us more insight

(01:47:46):
and that can be very useful. There are also whole
kinds of longevity supplements which there's more all the time.
And then further up the stack. This is increasingly important
and increasing the big business there is a professionalization of
longevity clinical services.

Speaker 6 (01:48:03):
And then higher up the stack again.

Speaker 11 (01:48:04):
You get to what people like Peter or Atia in
his book Outlive and Eric Topple in his recent book
Super Ages both talk about, which is treating individual diseases
of aging, early detection and prevention of individual diseases of aging,
and stopping or reversing aging in specific organs or tissues.

(01:48:25):
That's interesting absolutely. Then you get to level eight, which
is the systemic, systematic reversal of aging throughout the whole body,
in which people become younger again. And I'm not going
to talk much here about level nine or level ten.
That's something for another day. And the reason I stopped
there is I'm now going to be more controversial. It

(01:48:46):
is the most controversial thing. I'm going to say we
should all be concentrating on level eight. Why because that's
when we're going to have by far the biggest bang
for the buck. Trying to solve aging in a lower
levels is only going to produce modest increments. But if
we do this, we're going to get beyond dual science,

(01:49:07):
which is slowing down aging. We're going to go to
duroscience plus, which is reversing aging. One might even call
it young jevity rather than longevity, and I might change
the title of my talk from the Young Jevity Dividend,
so from the longevity dividend to the young Jevity dividend.
But where are we there is now the question of evidence,

(01:49:30):
and we have a sad situation of what has sometimes
been called the vicious cycle of unchanging minds. The people
who control funding, whether it's inside governments, whether it's large
philanthropic funds, they say, well, I'm.

Speaker 6 (01:49:44):
Not sure where I should invest because they're.

Speaker 11 (01:49:47):
Not getting particular pressure from the public to invest in
specific areas. The public, in turn, aren't getting pressure from
their thought leaders. The people who've got huge YouTube following,
or the people who host very popular talk shows. They're
not giving specific advice, and there in turn are not
getting clear advice from the actual longevity scientists. If some

(01:50:11):
of these podcast leaders were to attend the Longevity Biotech Fellowship,
they'll come back and say, well, there's nothing happening here,
is there. Let's go and spend your money. I don't
know in the developing new flavors of ice cream, or
developing new vapes for this big business, or finding cleverer
ways to make people click on ads.

Speaker 6 (01:50:30):
That's where there's productivity.

Speaker 11 (01:50:32):
And why aren't the community us here and why aren't
we more unified? It's because we haven't yet got clear
evidence that we can point to. And why isn't the
clear evidence who we can point to. It's because the
most promising scientific experiments have been starved of funding. And
you go round this cycle. But we can drive the
whole cycle in reverse. We can make it the virtuous

(01:50:54):
cycle of mind changing if there is sufficient catalyst funding
and apply it in a particular area that will produce
quick results. And basically it has to be mice because
you can demonstrate not just biomarkers are changing, because the
public are right to be skeptical about biomarkers, because you
can measure all kinds of biomarkers and get contradictory answers,

(01:51:18):
and you can get people who claim their biomarkers have
gone down because in some aspects they're becoming younger, but
yet other aspects they're becoming more frail and prone to death.
So we've got to demonstrate that you can actually keep
something like a human, a mammal, a mouse, long and
alive and healthy for much longer than before. And with

(01:51:38):
this happens, more of the rest of the longevity community
are going to get off their skepticism. They're not going
to be afraid to say, actually, it's happening, and it
could happen quickly. That's going to change their minds of
the strong influencers and society, the people with large YouTube followings.
That in turn is going to cause members of the
general public to suddenly say, yeah, we had a war

(01:52:01):
against COVID, we need a war against aging. It is
abominable that my parents, my grandparents are getting old and weak.

Speaker 6 (01:52:11):
We should be doing more to support them.

Speaker 11 (01:52:13):
There are things we can do to support them, and
that's gonna make politicians wake up, and that's gonna drive
more funds around this cycle. Now, you may say this
looks a bit simple. You may say this looks a
bit naive, and I agree. So I have a larger
version of this chart which would take me twenty minutes

(01:52:33):
to explain. But don't worry, I'm not gonna walk you
through it. But basically, it builds in phases there's a
kind of a longevity escape velocity aspect to this too.
You get to a certain velocity and that brings in
more funding, which builds even higher the points I will
address at the very bottom there. Robust must rejuvenation two

(01:52:55):
is the experiment I think will make the big difference,
And when we go round that cycle times we will
get not just mouse rejuvenated, we will get humans rejuvenated,
robust human rejuvenation.

Speaker 6 (01:53:07):
We will get the longevity escape velocity.

Speaker 11 (01:53:09):
We will get aging solved for everybody with a huge
economic benefit, perhaps by twenty forty or perhaps by twenty
thirty five. But there still is an Achilles here Hill.
We need to get this thing started, and until recently
that would have been the end of my talk, but

(01:53:29):
I do need to tell you that in the last
few months LVF, the Longevity Escape Velocity, has now got
funding to keep us going due to remarkable actions by
the decentralized science community. Aubrey de Great talked a bit
about this this morning, but it's such an important piece
of news I just want to talk you through it again.

Speaker 6 (01:53:49):
There's an agent which is called Aubry.

Speaker 11 (01:53:52):
It's built on AI by a combination of LVF and
two of the most significant and important organized in the
decentralized science space, Vita Dow and bio Protocol.

Speaker 6 (01:54:04):
It's been specially.

Speaker 11 (01:54:05):
Trained on Aubrey Degrade's insights, his podcast appearances, his YouTube appearances,
his books and publications, and it is tied very importantly
to decentralized science funding, such that when people buy or
sell these tokens. First of all, we've already had half
a million allocated to us which have got our pilots running,

(01:54:28):
and every time there's an exchange there is zero point
seven percent which is allocated for extensions. Why do people
buy these tokens in part because it gives them access
to their agent at a deeper level. It allows them
to take part in conversations about the future of this project.
It shows their support for LVF, and it also shows

(01:54:50):
that they are want to being involved in creating Young
Jevity science.

Speaker 5 (01:54:55):
So that's my talk. It is the.

Speaker 11 (01:54:58):
Young Jevity dividend is within grasp via support for RMR two.
And if you're still not convinced, I can point you
to an article I wrote in the mind Plex magazine
recently which goes to the.

Speaker 6 (01:55:10):
Whole lot in more detail. And that article is called
ten Ways to help Accelerate the End of Aging. Thank
you very much.

Speaker 4 (01:55:24):
I forgot to say I like to joke about David
and you saw this fantastic presentation, really beautiful that he
studied in Cambridge, England. I studied in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But
also look at our ties. He has the tie with
the book in the Spanish and you have the tie

(01:55:45):
with the book in English, so we have different ties
for different audiences. So we are very proud to be
promoting this internationally.

All Episodes

TransVision Madrid 2025 Summit - Presentations by Jose Cordeiro, Aubrey de Grey, and David Wood

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;}TransVision Madrid 2025 Summit - Presentations by Jose Cordeiro, Aubrey de Grey, and David Wood