The Cure for Death Means Billionaires Will Live Forever—and Be Rich Forever

Yes. It’s really interesting. He mentioned a hard limit. That the mice seemed to die no matter how many further injections they were given. This aligns with my hunch that we all have a built in expiry date. I expect it will be incredibly challenging to overcome that. Finding out what’s killing the mice will be huge. That said, I’d take an extra twenty five percent in good health.

1 Like

Whatever ultimately causes the death of the mice, it’s still “just biology”. Not downplaying the work that will go into solving it, but it’s all just biology. We shouldn’t think of these current upper limits as universal laws or witches’ curses. They will eventually be figured out.


It strikes me that what they are doing has a limited ability to improve something (possibly some aspect of mitochondrial function) and once they have maximised that other processes dominate.

1 Like

@John_Hemming @Paul_2.0

It actually does not seem to be what Dr Klausner is saying, but what David Barzalai (@agingdoc ) - incorrectly (?) says in his tweet? Or do you have any other reason to believe it is remaining life span? Dr Klausner seems to say that it is average lifespan - not remaining.

See here from the original source that Barzalai has as the basis of his on tweet:


You may be right. Time will tell.

Hello Neo. Hope everyone in biohacking-land are doing well, staying healthy but not doing anything too crazy (I’m an evidence-based biohacking physician-scientist myself so intended playfully) :slightly_smiling_face:

For the record, spelled Barzilai (just like Nir’s spelling, no close relation to our knowledge:… as for this study, it’s not yet a preprint so early to say.

Keep in mind everything tends to get hyped-up in longevity and while I believe the field is making great progress, this latest work coming out of Altos Labs not yet even pre-print. “Remaining life” can be quite misleading even when, for example, controls are short lived or even with long-lived controls if the mice are close to the natural expected survival (taken to an absurd extreme extending expected life from 1 day to two is technically a “doubling” of expected remaining lifespan).

Altos Labs is doing some incredible work. Stay tuned for preprints. My Twitter (X) account makes an effort to keep up-to-date with the latest research (both good and bad, regardless how I feel about the study); I’ll try to remember to post an update when more details come out beneath my original post here:

Oh, in case anyone is curious what I think about longevity communication and biohacking from Dublin Longevity Summit:

Best wishes to all. :medical_symbol:


I don’t know, the recent threads about importing vials of peptides for injection from Russia…


Thanks for engaging Dr. Barzilai.

100% agree that there is a lot of hype and that we have to be careful to not overshoot.

Still some people exagerate, some (but fewer) people understate and others are less biased in either way. I haven’t followed Dr Klausner closely, but from what I’ve seen from him say about Altos in the past, from that he seemed to be balanced and not hyping things from the Aspen panel where he discussed the increase in lifespan and given his background with eg having been the Director of the National Cancer Institute, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt to not be on the hype spectrum until we see him say hyped things.

100% agree and this was an issue with the Rejuvate Bio study that anchored to remaining life.

What I don’t understand is why “remaining” life is being discussed in the context of Altos work? That is not how they discussed the result in the clip you shared.

Is there any other source or reason for why remaining life metric is relevant here?

Otherwise it seems like, while we of course should be cautious and wait for the paper(s), we should not change what Dr Klausner said, and he clearly says 25% increase in average lifespan and he does not mention any weird metric like “remaining”.

Am I missing something? Do you not agree that he says 25% increase in average lifespan?

Thanks for all you do in general, have found your twitter feed very informative and helpful! :pray:


A thoughtful and balanced response Neo. We need more of that, and not only among educated longevity enthusiasts but also within the scientific community itself.

“…they still die; they die about 25% longer, but they still die…”

Indeed, there is ambiguity there, which is the point I tried to make. Namely, until we have the preprints in our hands, both the rigor of design and the significance of this statement can’t be elucidated.

Regardless of this particular study, I am a cautious optimist that partial epigenetic rejuvenation and related methods hold significant potential. They are less validated in animal models than, say, rapamycin (have more to prove), but there are also theoretical reasons to hypothesize a higher potential ceiling, given adequate time. We will see, and as I do for rapalog (and other nutrient-sensing and metabolic modulators), I would like to see this work supported. Kind regards. :medical_symbol:


If it’s good enough for Putin, it’s good enough for me. :grin:


Well, with the death of Dr. Khavinson, it may not have been good enough for Putin. :wink:

1 Like

I think things that activate SOX2 encourage autophagy through that pathway. The improved in MMP is attacking aging directly. (I think a reduction in Mitochondrial membrane potential is one of the two basic causes of aging)

Think that first comment was just a verbal “typo”. About 10 seconds later he is very clear that he is talking about average lifespan, see around 1 min 10 second into the clip in your tweet.

Agree on everything else: still early, we need to see publications, this area could be truly transformational, but it may also not practically work and if far, far from proven even in mice yet.

1 Like

Appreciate your attention to detail, Neo; I share the same temperament. My caution lies in assessing scientific precision without seeing the data, especially with ambiguity between statements. My original post highlighted this as one of possible scenario (I also mentioned short-lived controls but emphasize there may also be many others).

As an experienced manuscript reviewer for high-impact peer-reviewed journals, I know the devil is in the details. I don’t trust statements made at scientific conferences, particularly those with some ambiguity, until I’ve carefully critiqued the methods and results myself.

I wish more readers could focus on these details, Neo. The next step is to avoid reading too much into the comments until we can evaluate the data ourselves. Hope that helps. Best wishes and stay skeptical.


Andrew Steele jumps into the discussion on the lure of longevity for the billionaires…



The use of OSK or OSKM gene therapy, as pioneered by David Sinclair’s laboratory, has emerged as a more effective approach in wild-type rodents [11]. Our research in the hippocampus of aged rats corroborates the advantages of OSKM gene therapy. To date, notable applications of OSKM or OSK gene therapy in vivo include a study on retinal aging in a non-transgenic mouse model [11], enhanced fertility in wild-type female rats via hypothalamic OSKM gene therapy [12], lifespan extension in aged wild-type mice through intravenous OSK gene therapy [26], and the results of our current study. Overall, our findings add to the growing evidence supporting the potential of in vivo Yamanaka gene therapy as a rejuvenation strategy.


That actually wasn’t too bad. But the new one he talks about from “Ordinary Things” looks even more entertaining. Just Started watching it…so far about longevity influencers…pretty funny.

How to Live FOREVER | Ordinary Guide

Note to @RapAdmin Dave Asprey is right there next to David Sinclair.


I think this could have been put in the humor section! Too funny!


Or the Bryan Johnson thread…the long section on him was quite revealing because it kinda poked and probed him more. But in the end, he came off as a little strange but human, vulnerable and likable.

1 Like