you don’t have to be there for an entire month (they’ll prioritize people who stay monthlong but they’ll allow others to come)
I’m unsure on coming, there wasn’t much on Roatan when I was there in 2022… This is being widely advertised now, so there are more people, but
“What caveat should I be prepared for?
One annoyance on Roatan beaches and areas close by are: sandflies
These don’t hurt and aren’t dangerous, but itch a lot”
Nope, won’t be doing that. 
It’s nice to see another experiment like this happening after the success of Zuzalu. It’s unlikely I will be there though.
I am not myself persuaded that these experiments in terms of a regulatory environment are on the route to scientific progress. They act more like an informal conference.
I understand the arguments about regulatory constraints, but in the main those regulatory constraints do not prevent biohackers from experimenting where the experimental subject is themselves.
Speaking purely personally I would think attending one of these events would hold back my own work because it would be disruptive.
That is not to say that I would do anything to discourage people from setting these events up and/or attending them, but I don’t see the merit personally.
I disagree somewhat on the regulatory constraint not preventing biohackers from experimenting. Certainly if you have some supplement/drug and equipment in your posession then you can experiment on yourself without needing regulations. The problem is, there are many things that you won’t have access to in most countries because they are regulated. This can include prescription drugs, experimental compounds and novel treatments that are not approved yet. Therefore, for many cutting edge experiments, you need to be in a place that has little regulation if you want to do self experiments with the things. This is why the Minicircle gene therapy company is based in Honduras, where Vitalia.city will be taking place.
In the UK it is legal to import prescription medicine for personal use apart from controlled drugs.
From Anatoly Karlin twitter at Vitalia in Prospera (where you might get the genetically modified oral bacteria that might prevent cavities)
Europe is behind NA and Asia for cell and gene therapy:
Aubrey de Grey longevity escape velocity: 50% chance in 12-15 years:
Embryo selection for QALY / longevity.
Alex Tabarrok says FDA is bad and should move from paternalism to consumer reports model according to Anatoly:
Milei and author of the book?
I wish he would stop spreading this hype. I think such highly unrealistic predictions do more harm than good specially coming from such an influential person in the industry.
He has, however, tended to do his marketing this particular way. To a great extent the patter of various speakers is now well defined.
Aubrey has a particular view as to what causes aging. I disagree with him. Then again he thinks biohacking is a waste of time and sees no merit in it. (Hence he disagrees with me).
The real problem with research is that blue sky research is not that predictable. However, funders want predictability.
It happens to be that I think I now have a reasonably good handle on the mechanistic causes of aging, but the “experts” think I am wrong and are unwilling to discuss it.
My own view is that solving the main causes of aged based diseases will reveal other difficulties with maintaining creatures. However, I think is worth having a go at improving health and seeing what is left once a lot of deterioration can be mitigated.
If you’re not an accredited researcher on aging but want “experts” to listen to you, one thing to consider, if you have the time and capability, is to publish a well referenced peer reviewed study that explains your theory of the causes of aging.
In philosophy, I think Bernardo Kastrup had a hard time being listened to, he resolved this problem by getting a second Ph.D in philosophy, after he already had a Ph.D in computer engineering, the Ph.D in philosophy consisted of only peer reviewed papers he wrote for his ideas which he also later compiled into a book.
So a peer reviewed paper is an excellent way to get “experts” to listen to you I think.
There is no enthusiasm from journals to even start the process of considering this. To be honest given that I have the protocol to fix this and it does not require regulatory approval for people to use it I think I am best concentrating my time on things like the XPrize.
I am not particularly bothered that the “experts” won’t engage. It either works or it doesn’t. I think it works to some extent at least. In the end time will tell.
You may not get the top journal of your choice to publish it, but I bet you would find some decent ones. I think there are even some open access journals that almost anyone can publish in as long as what you write is good enough to pass peer review.
I had an issue with different paper I wrote where it was rejected because from time to time I drink alcohol and I think results remain valid when the subject is drunk. They are still real results.
I have also asked for the opportunity to present at a conference and that was rejected out of hand.
In the end I have a defined strategy for dealing with this and I am going to continue working that way.
An update from a visitor to Vitalia:
The curious technophile ventures forth across the small and wondrous meatspace of a pop-up city-within-a-charter-city in Roatan, Honduras, chronicling the emergence of an experimental biotech startup hub, crypto-augmented Special Economic Zone, and nuclear reactor of liberal governance, big brains, and disruptive ideas¹.
