正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

David Sinclair's lab is using AI to build a pill that reverses aging for $100. Right now, their gene therapy costs roughly $10 million to manufacture. It requires a direct injection into the target organ. That's not going to work for 8 billion people. So Sinclair's team made a...

673,934 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

David Sinclair's lab may have just found the $100 pill that reverses aging. Over the holidays, his team ran what he calls a "hail mary experiment." They gave old mice a "longevity" cocktail three times a week for 4 weeks. He didn't reveal what's in it - only that it contained molecules that work on the four longevity pathways that control the epigenome. They weren't expecting any significant results. Yet every treated mice came back physiologically younger while the controls didn't. Biological age clocks confirmed the reversal. This changes the trajectory for longevity medicine. The gene therapy his company is taking into human trials costs over $10 million to manufacture per batch. It requires a direct injection into the target organ. These oral molecules cost roughly $100 for a month's course. If they're able to put these molecules into a pill that patients can take instead of them using a multi-million dollar gene therapy, they'd save a ton of money. "Imagine in 10 years you just take a pill for 4 weeks and you get younger. That's what we're headed towards. I can see how this is going to happen." The proof of concept exists in animals. Now it's a race to get it into humans. — David Sinclair (David Sinclair) on Peter Diamandis' (Peter H. Diamandis, MD) Moonshots podcast PS. David Sinclair is speaking at SynBioBeta on May 6th this year, discussing the science of slowing and reversing aging. If longevity is the world you're in, the investors, partners, and scientists shaping this space will be in the room. You won't want to miss it:

John Cumbers

56,080 次观看 • 2 个月前

David Sinclair says the first person to live to 150 is a teenager who's alive today. He's taken flak from colleagues for years over this prediction. He doesn't care. He still stands by it. "The first person to live to 150 has already been born." Here's why: A 14-year-old today has 80+ years of exponential technological progress ahead of them. Just look at what's happened in the last 10 years: • His lab reversed aging in monkey eyes by 95% • AI now does in 2 months what would have taken thousands of years. • His team has oral molecules that made old mice young again in 4 weeks • The first human age-reversal trial begins in January And that's just the beginning. There'll be more advancements in major medical technologies and therapies soon, including in: • Gene therapy • AI-designed drugs • Whole-body rejuvenation • Epigenetic reprogramming All of it will arrive within a teenager's lifetime. Sinclair believes this is a realistic projection of where the science is heading. Sinclair's advice for everyone is to stay healthy long enough to intercept what's coming. — David Sinclair (David Sinclair) on Peter Diamandis' (Peter H. Diamandis, MD) Moonshots podcast PS. David Sinclair is speaking at SynBioBeta on May 6th this year, discussing the science of slowing and reversing aging. If longevity is the world you're in, the investors, partners, and scientists shaping this space will be in the room. Grab your ticket in the comments below.

John Cumbers

84,263 次观看 • 3 个月前

Former medical coder and whistleblower Zowe Smith explains how the Covid PCR "tests" were likely used to collect people's DNA and send said DNA to gene banks. This DNA, Smith hypothesizes, can now be used by Larry Ellison's Stargate program to create genome-tailored "vaccines." This clip of Smith (Zowe Smith), who is also the author of The Covid Code: My Life in the Thrill Kill Medical Cult, is taken from a conversation with Charlie Robinson (Macroaggressions Podcast with Charlie Robinson) posted to the Macroaggressions Rumble channel on December 3, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "Genetics is, you know, all basically eugenics. And so fast forward to 2020 when I started realizing, oh, there's these false positives with the test. And I knew that you didn't even need to have a test to be diagnosed with it. The doctors had to look at you and say, oh, I think you have Covid. So that's so smart that you were thinking, oh, it's gotta be a genetic screen. "Because at some point down the line, I've actually found documentation from the CDC that ordered every CLIA certified lab to send genetics, sequences to one of two different gene banks. G I S A I— G I S A I D. So GI SAID, or NCBI, one of those two gene banks. And it did say in the fine print, like, oh, these sequences for Covid. "But I asked David Rasnick, who I did an interview with, and he actually knew Kary Mullis and worked with Kary Mullis at one point, who invented PCR. And I asked him this specifically. I said, so obviously the PCR can run an entire DNA sequence. And here's this instruction. I showed him the document. I said, okay, they're sending these sequences and people are trolling me. You know, the Internet masses are commenting back saying, oh, no, that was just the sequence for Covid, for the variant of COVID because they had like six of them listed out. "And I asked him, do you think they're actually, like, after they run the PCR test and they get this sequence and then they have to send it to the gene bank, do you think they're actually spending the time to edit it and cut out just that section? Or do you think they're just sending the whole thing and then the gene bank can decide which section they want to take as their sequence? And he goes, they don't have the time to go in and edit all of that. I mean, they could, but most likely, no. Most likely they're just sending the whole thing. "Then the gene bank that, that they send it to, and he's shown evidence of how much DNA has been sent to these gene banks. They're tracking all of it carefully. So, yeah, that's absolutely what they're doing. Well, NCBI and GISAID, I haven't looked into who owns them, but there's another one that was creating PCR tests. And I believe that all of the PCR tests were doing the same thing, sending, genetic information back to some, some hive mind, whether that's NCBI or, you know, some other gene bank. "So it's generally the testing places that are, you know, having it send back. So there is the Human Genome Project in China, which is now, I forget the name, it's, it changed its name, but it's the biggest biotech company in China now. And they made PCR test kits, PCR and the IgG, which is the antibody test, and they send it to America. And who do you think is getting those results back? "So our DNA is going to some Chinese database. And even our own American military has flagged that gene bank as being a problem because they have all our individual information. And when you go to that gene bank and the other ones are really similar when you look at like why they exist and what they think they're doing with our DNA. Because I was really interested in why are they collecting all of this? They're obviously going to use it against us in some way. "So what is that? How do we get ahead of that or how do we stop it? And it says on the the one in China anyway. And the other ones basically say it and not in so clear terms that they are collecting our DNA because they need this massive amount population genomics so they can create vaccines and therapeutics or drugs, biologics tailored to our individual genome. "And then we have Larry Ellison come out with Donald Trump on day two of the administration saying exactly that. We're going to use AI to analyze your blood, which is how they get the DNA gene sequences. It's AI that creates the DNA gene sequences, that sends it to the gene banks. That's why it's electronic and they can send it, because it's using AI. It's not like, you know, a sample that they're sending. Physically, it's a digital code. It all comes together."

Sense Receptor

35,149 次观看 • 6 个月前

What started as a standard White House announcement quickly turned into one of the most revealing Oval Office moments of the year. Trump was there to declare that Washington, D.C. will host the 2027 NFL Draft. But when reporters started firing off questions, the real fireworks began. First up: immigration. A reporter asked Trump about a new program offering undocumented immigrants $1,000 to self-deport. His answer was blunt—and surprisingly layered. “Yeah, we have millions of people that have come into this country illegally through an administration that didn't know what they were doing. They didn't have a clue. And now we find out officially they didn't, because the president was incompetent. But I could have told you that before.” He explained the idea behind the plan: offer people money to leave—and if they take the offer and prove to be hard-working, they might be allowed back in the right way. “But what we thought we'd do is to self-deport where we're going to pay each one a certain amount of money, and we're going to get him a beautiful flight back to where they came from. And they have a period of time.” “And if they make it, we're going to work with them so that maybe someday, with a little work, they can come back in if they're good people, if they're the kind of people that we want in our company, industrious people that could love our country. And if they're not, they won't. But it will give them a path to becoming, you know, to coming back into the country.” He made it clear that there would be no second chances for those who ignore the opportunity. “So we're going to have, self-deportation, where they deport themselves out of our country, and we'll work with them, and we're going to try. And if if we think they're good, they have, you know, the people we want in our country, they're going to come back into our country. We'll give them a little easier route. But if they don't work and if we take them out after the date, then, they're never coming back.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

351,051 次观看 • 1 年前

The Trump admin is GASLIGHTING us re: no CBDCs They know they can't do CBDCs because of the Constitution, so they're backdooring them with stablecoins Iain Davis explains— "the idea of a [CBDC] is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system" "CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it" "That's not going to work in the US because... it's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote... to coin money" "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work-round" "So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank" "stablecoins... slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency" "Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose, as central bank digital currency" This clip of Iain Davis (InThisTogether), author of The Technocratic Dark State, is taken from a Flashlights podcast (Flashlights Podcast) episode posted to Rumble on May 17, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "It's a constitutional right in the United States that the people, and only the people, oversee what they call the power, quote–unquote, it says this in the Constitution, to coin money. So the power to coin money is overseen by the people. "Now the idea of a central bank digital currency is that it will give these private institutions total control of a new digital international monetary and financial system. That's CBDC is programmable money that slots into that system. That's why they want it. "That's not going to work in the US because even though Congress, you know, Congress is the, is the dog which is wagged by the tail in this of the Fed, the Fed, you know, the Fed tells Congress what to do, not the other way round. But theoretically it could be the other way round. And theoretically the people could assert their control over the Fed if they only knew about it, which, not many people do, but they could do it, right? It's in the US Constitution. "Now that's a problem if you're going to embark on a global transformation of the entire international monetary and financial system when your leading reserve currency is the US dollar. So that's, you know, that could all go wrong very badly. "So what are you going to do about it? You need some sort of work round. How are you, how are you going to do which for the, you know, I, for many years, well, since central bank digital currency has been something that I've been looking at, I couldn't figure out why the US wasn't more enthusiastic about central bank digital currency. "Because it's the type of thing that the US administrations are usually right up— You know, they're really gung ho about that kind of centralized control of everything. That's right up their alley. So why, why don't they like it? And then it was the work of John Titus who pointed out this problem that they've got in the US with the Constitution that made me look at that and think, right. And then I started investigating that further. And he's right about that. That is a problem. "But then they obviously need some sort of workaround. How are they going to have. Because the main point of central bank digital currency from the surveillance and control aspect is that we will all need digital identity in order to access our digital wallets, which will contain the currency and the currency and the wallets and our, digital identities will all be programmable so conditions can be set on everything that we do. "Every transaction we make will be subject to condition through some sort of smart contract probably, which will control it. Right. So you know, if you say the wrong thing or you know, you, you just write the wrong thing online, you could be punished by algorithm by controlling your access to money... "And so the key to that is central bank— the programmability of central bank digital currency. But obviously that's not going to, may not work. There's a good chance that won't work in the United States which has got the US dollar reserve is an important currency. "So what are you going to do? So stablecoins and things like deposit tokens or tokenized deposits are variations of programmable digital currency. But rather than being issued by a central bank, they're issued by a commercial bank. So or in the case of stablecoins, a non-bank, a non-bank institution like Tether. So it's not a bank. "But you can use stablecoins for exactly the same. They slot into the system of programmability just as easily, if not more so than a central bank digital currency. So you can attach smart contracts to any kind of digital transaction using digital currency. Programmable digital currency and stablecoins do exactly the same thing, serve the same purpose as central bank digital currency or the other version, the commercial bank version is deposit tokens. Any of those will do. "Now in the US they've gone down the stablecoin route so they can issue the stablecoins which will be backed by US Treasuries, just like the dollar or just like any kind of dollar instrument will be one to one convertible for the US dollar. So the stablecoins are effectively the US dollar in, in digital form. "But instead of calling it a central bank digital currency, they call it issued by, it wouldn't have to be issued by the Fed. They call it a stablecoin, which is issued by a company like Tether or you know, someone like that. So it's the same system but using a workaround. And that workaround came with the Genius Act which, which came from an executive order that Trump made when he first came to office. "Because the Americans, quite rightly when they were electing their president, were concerned about central bank digital currency. I mean anyone that understands what it is should be terrified of it. So they didn't want it, and Trump promised that they wouldn't have it. Probably. I don't know whether he knew, but certainly the gaggle of technocrats that were around him knew that they weren't going down that path. Anyway, no chance of the US introducing it because of these problems we've just outlined."

Sense Receptor

13,996 次观看 • 1 个月前