(00:00 – 01:37) GLP-1 agonists have leapt from diabetes control to broad cardio- and neuro-protection, convincing major pharma that prevention is now commercially attractive and pushing pipelines away from pure disease management.
(02:10 – 06:38)Phil Newman (founder/CEO, Longevity.Technology) explains how a career in disruptive-tech marketing and a 2018 article on Juvenescence led him to build the site into the leading news-and-data hub for the longevity industry, now refocusing on investor-grade analytics.
(07:51 – 14:32) He maps the sector’s evolution: Longevity 1.0 (today’s wearables, clinics) → 2.0 (disease prevention & organ-level age reversal in ~5–10 yrs) → 3.0 (systemic rejuvenation in 10–15 yrs).
(14:32 – 20:44) Standardizing aging biomarkers is “nearly there”; global longevity clinics expect harmonized diagnostics and care protocols within a year, paving the way for population-level prevention.
(20:44 – 28:08) Newman’s “10 Levels of Longevity” span DIY biohacking to Level 7 targeted age-reversal (e.g., Life Biosciences’ phase-2 partial reprogramming for eye disease) and organ-maintenance bridges like xenotransplantation and 3-D-printed organs.
(29:04 – 33:30) Big pharma and startups are forging multi-million-dollar deals to pair existing drugs (e.g., GLP-1s) with novel molecules, accelerating a pipeline of phase-2 prevention combos.
(33:30 – 39:13) 2024–25 funding data show larger rounds but fewer deals—capital is flowing to late-stage firms, leaving a mid-stage financing gap VCs, family offices, public markets, governments, and foundations must fill.
(39:45 – 44:13) Near-term scalable advances include senescence-focused therapeutics; whole-body (systemic) age reversal remains a 10-15-year target.
(44:13 – 47:02) Regulation is loosening: Montana’s expanded Right-to-Try law and the UK NHS’s mass reimbursement of GLP-1s signal greater openness to earlier access for promising longevity drugs.
(47:02 – 53:37) Newman expects living healthily to 120 to become normal within ~20 years if morbidity can be compressed; as an XPRIZE Longevity judge, he sees the competition accelerating standout anti-aging technologies.
We have to start with educating general population about lifestyle changes to prolong life. It has to be taught in school, starting in early childhood. The concept of longevity has to be accepted by the majority. Unhealthy habits (smoking, drinking, drugs, excessive sugars consumption, sedentary lifestyle) have to be eliminated first. Only after healthy lifestyle becomes generally accepted norm we could implement other longevity interventions (gene therapy, etc). I don’t believe that life span will change soon. In 5-10 years it may change for the wealthy only.
For example the GLP-1a are an example where a lot of people are improving their metabolic, cardiovascular, kidney and perhaps neurological health - as well as obesity without necessarily starting with lifestyle (even though that restart helps some people then improve lifestyle too)
An other example is that while many on this forum maximize lifestyle and supplements/medical molecules, quite a meaningful seem to optimize medical interventions without necessarily optimizing exercise, etc
While advances in longevity science are promising and may soon benefit some individuals in wealthier countries, I remain skeptical that we’ll see a significant increase in the average global lifespan in the near future. Many of the factors that most impact life expectancy—such as war, political instability, extreme poverty, limited access to healthcare, high child mortality to mention a few continue to affect large portions of the world’s population. I’m not talking about the participants of this forum or middle/upper class of the developed countries.
Even if breakthrough technologies emerge, their benefits are likely to be unevenly distributed. Without addressing these deep-rooted systemic and humanitarian issues, it’s unlikely that we’ll witness that the majority of humanity will live significantly longer lives, regardless of how far science progresses.
I see what you’re saying now. Access to new things is always unequal, and the people who have access to it might not even care.
One of my biggest concerns is as new things come out they are patented and the price is prohibitive for mass adoption. I feel like there needs to be a reworking of the patent system when it comes to health. People should be rewarded for inventing new helpful health interventions, but it shouldn’t make cost prohibitive for the consumer.
The economics of drug research and development and trials need to be taken into account, but the cost of people suffering and dying also needs to be taken into account.
