Latest / Ageless and Timeless Podcast® / BILL LAWRENCE JD. MS, Ph.D. - American biogerontologist

Transcript

BILL LAWRENCE JD. MS, Ph.D. - American biogerontologist · Ageless and Timeless Podcast®

0:09
Good morning everyone. This is Michelle Hughes from Ageless and Timeless. Today I
0:14
have a very special guest, so I always have special guests, but today
0:17
very very special guests Doctor Bill Laurance. He is, As you know,
0:23
we've been doing a series on peptide bioregulators because we think at Ageless and Timeless
0:31
that this is one of the greatest developments and breakthroughs in anti aging. And
0:37
we always say health span and lifespan because both of them are very important.
0:42
So doctor Bill Laurence has a very interesting story. I'm going to quickly tell
0:47
it to you and then I'm going to let him take over because he's going
0:50
to be showing us some very scientific background to the peptide bioregulators and the pro
1:00
to call that is being used by It has been used in Russia for forty
1:03
years. So doctor Bill Lawrence, who was introduced to me by Phil Mickens,
1:10
who was a prior guest on Ageless and Timeless if you've been watching,
1:15
and they've been friends for many years. And doctor Bill Lawrence is the US
1:23
representative for the Saint Petersburg Institute, which is headed up by a very famous
1:30
scientist named doctor Kavinson, and they are the ones that were approached by the
1:34
Russian government to begin to find solutions for the deterioration of some of the people
1:44
in Russia, particularly after Chernobyl and some of the athletes and the military,
1:49
and really in Russia, you can buy these biopeptides right like they're just food
1:55
supplements because they are amino assets, and so you can buy them in stores
2:01
and they have been available that way for all these years. They're just starting
2:06
to make an entry into well the last seven years, I guess they've been
2:10
making an entry into the US. So anyway, back to doctor Bill.
2:15
He started out in as an attorney and then he moved over to real estate
2:22
development. He was a tax attorney first and then a real estate developer,
2:25
and then he recognized that life span and the health span were far more important
2:30
to him than making another five million or whatever in his real estate projects.
2:37
So he went back to school. This is just such an amazing story.
2:39
But he went back to school, got his PhD and basically a nutrition I
2:45
believe, and at University of California, correct Bill at UCLA. Yes,
2:52
yeah, okay, so he got his doctorate and he began to do this
2:58
studying, and he's had a couple of these studies that he's done with people
3:04
like you and me are mostly now medical people, to test how the peptide
3:10
bioregulators are affecting a health span and lifespan. And wow, he's going to
3:19
tell you some stuff that's going to just knock your socks off when you hear
3:23
about the results. And so we'll am going to turn this over to you
3:28
and welcome to Aids, Liss and Timeless this morning. We're so happy to
3:30
have you on our show. Thank you, Michelle. It's my pleasure to
3:35
be here. Actually, it's my pleasure to be any place. I'm just
3:38
happy I woke up this morning. We'd love to hear that quick backstory and
3:43
then we're going to get into the presentation. I don't have longevity in my
3:47
family. I was raised in the Mormon Church, where we do a lot
3:51
of genealogy, and so I knew the history over a couple of hundred years,
3:54
or at least a good part of the history. And all the men
3:58
in my family law died in their fifties and sixties. My father had his
4:02
first biocardio infarction at fifty seven, fatal at sixty four, there was only
4:09
one man going back about two hundred years, not that we didn't have dat
4:13
on everybody, but where we had the data, there's only one man out
4:15
of all of that that made it past sixty five. He made it to
4:18
seventy. So, yes, I was in my entrepreneurial period. I practiced
4:24
law, originally actually as a district attorney assistant in Los Angeles County, prosecuting
4:30
cases, where I learned the importance of data or evidence as we call it
4:33
there. It's been practice law for about ten or so years, and then
4:39
an entrepreneurial period. And what I found about myself was that once I learned
4:43
how to do something, I get bored with it and it's time to move
4:46
on. But my father's death triggered a whole new direction for me. I
4:50
was in my early forties, i guess at that point, and I knew
4:55
the history, but the fact that he died, you know, at sixty
4:58
four, was startling and I decided that, yes, as you mentioned,
5:01
Michelle, that earning a few more million dollars was not all that important if
5:05
I wasn't going to be around to spend it. So I started researcher.
5:09
Well went back, got the PhD, started researching basically longevity and so forth,
5:14
and I'll get into it in the slides in terms of how I got
5:16
with the Russians. I'm running two clinical studies, been going now on the
5:23
seventh year for the telomere study, in about four years on the DNA methylation
5:28
study. And what we're going to see is the evidence that these peptides bioregulator
5:33
peptides, which are very different than the regular peptides that are sold across the
5:38
country, not that those aren't don't have some value. Most of them are
5:42
synthetics. They tend to be used for things like weight control, cognitive enhancement,
5:47
their growth hormones, libido energy, and so forth, and those are
5:51
valuable things. These peptide bioregulators are in a class by themselves because what they
5:58
do, if you see from this slide, is they can produce organ regeneration,
6:02
they can reduce mortality significantly, and we're going to see the evidence of
6:08
this and they can actually reverse biological age. So let's go. It's we
6:15
call it the peptide Longevity program. There's two clinical studies. There's a telemere
6:18
study and a DNA methylation study. And as an attorney and as a scientist,
6:27
this is so true. Produce the data. If you don't have the
6:30
data, I'm not interested. I sit in medical meetings, Michelle, just
6:33
like you do. And when a speaker gets up and starts talking about this
6:38
wonderful intervention or a wonderful product or whatever and doesn't have the data, that's
6:43
the time. Thank goodness, those meetings have WiFi. That's the time for
6:46
me to start checking my email. I have no interest in studies that are
6:50
not backed up by evidence, and they have to be human studies. Too
6:55
few percentage or too small a percentage of animal studies actually transfer to humans and
7:00
so forth. So it's the data. In the legal business we call it
7:04
evidence. In the scientific we call it data. So the precious thing that
7:12
the slide is talking about, Edison and Steve Jobs is time. That's probably
7:16
not probably that is more valuable than what you got in your bank account.
7:21
Is just time. How much time do I have in this existence? So
7:28
these are the two studies, a telomer activation and a DNA. A client
7:31
sent this a little slide to me. Basically, that's me trying to pull
7:35
back time and slow it down. And we all do that that's what we're
7:39
doing. We know, with the supplements and the various interventions and the fasting
7:43
and so forth and so forth, we're trying to slow the time down,
7:46
and that is a valuable intervention. I continue doing that as well. But
7:50
there's another way of doing this. By the way, you probably have heard
7:56
that billionaires are bankrolling huge and investments in research basically to slow the aging process
8:03
down or and again that's slowing the aging process. While that's valid, I
8:09
think it's also helpful just to be able to add additional years. So it's
8:13
a two prong approach. But they're spending billions of dollars at this point.
8:18
These are people who have made their billions and so forth, and have realized
8:22
that they have a lot more money than they have time left and they want
8:26
to do something about it. So we have three parts of this program and
8:33
this presentation. The first part is organ regeneration, second part is mortality reduction,
8:41
and the third part is biological age reversal. So there's three sections of
8:45
this presentation. This is, of course the aging paradigm that we're all familiar
8:50
with. Okay, we're young, and then we're middle aged, and then
8:54
we're older, and we have as we get older, we have all the
8:58
vulnerabilities to various diseases and so forth. And Professor Kavanson and I at the
9:05
Saint Petersburg Institute have a very different paradigms. This is the picture of the
9:11
paradigm that we operate under. So this is the institute that I'm affiliated with.
9:18
I've been with them for I guess about ten years now. I came
9:24
to them because of Google Translator, ten fifteen years ago, even longer.
9:28
I've been in this field thirty years now. I was looking for anything to
9:33
do with longevity interventions, etc. Research etc. Google Translator made it possible
9:39
for me to be able to see non English research, published research and so
9:43
forth. So I could see papers from China, I could see papers from
9:48
the Middle East, from Israel and so forth, and including Russia. And
9:52
I ran across a paper that will come to at a moment of published study.
9:54
That was the game changer for me. This is the Institute's half in
10:00
Saint Petersburg. If you've never visited, Saint Petersburg gets a lovely place,
10:03
so put it on your bucket list. These are brilliant researchers and scientists Professor
10:09
Cavnson is standing right in the middle of that. Professor Cavnson is extremely well
10:15
known throughout Europe and virtually unknown here in the US, even though he was
10:20
nominated for the Nobel Prize. He's been the president of the International Association of
10:24
Gerontology for the entire Europe region on and off for many, many years.
10:31
He has published over seven hundred scientific publications, and yet he's unheard of basically
10:37
here in America. It's it's a sad situation that America tends not to want
10:41
to look beyond their shores in terms of science. Unfortunately, they'll look at
10:48
British in Israeli kinds of studies, but beyond that, they're just not very
10:52
interested. The original studies that were done that I'm going to show you some
10:58
of we're not just done in Russia. Some of them were done with the
11:01
National Institute of Aging here in the United States, but also as you see
11:05
here, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium and so forth is where a
11:09
lot of these studies were done. So they're not just Russian studies. It
11:11
was just that the Russians were sort of the spearhead behind this. Today's podcast
11:16
is brought to you by Jametria Products. Jemitria is based in Carlsbad, California,
11:22
and they manufacture ultra high quality dietary supplements using chi Qui technology. G
11:31
as you probably know, is the energy that runs throughout our bodies and is
11:37
the basis of Chinese medicine. Use the code ageless and get twenty percent off
11:41
your order. I highly recommend Jametria's products. I personally use the complete aminos,
11:50
the heart gems, and the methusela life which is an RNA and DNA
11:56
subling will spray. The website to go to is www dot Mtria dot com
12:03
slash g qi hyphen Technology and there you'll find out more about this fascinating company,
12:13
their products, and the technology. Professor Kabinson basically has said that what
12:20
these peptides are is that their signal molecules and that they regulate gene expression,
12:26
and we're going to see that later in my presentation. In terms of the
12:28
gene expression interventions, this is the Hayflick limit. This is one of two
12:37
studies that caught my attention. The Hayflick limit basically named after Leonard Hayflick,
12:41
UC SAN Francisco. It's basically how many times human cells can replicate, and
12:46
the answer is they can replicate about somewhere between forty and sixty times. That's
12:50
the Hayflick limits. So what this study showed from Russia is that they could
12:54
exceed that by about twenty to thirty percent. That caught my attention at that
13:00
point, because, in other words, instead of having forty to sixty what
13:03
we call passages, I could add another ten to twenty passages, which would
13:09
equate to another ten to fifteen twenty years. What Professor Kavanson's team also found
13:16
was that with these peptides that become they stimulate protein what we call synthesis.
13:24
And they're very specific, and I'll talk about how they where they come from,
13:28
and where they go and so forth. But what he found was that
13:31
these peptides could create a biological reserve by an increase that biological reserve by about
13:37
forty two percent. For those of you who are as old as I am,
13:41
if you remember, there were a few cars back in the forty or
13:46
fifties and some motorcycles. I had one in the fifties where when you were
13:50
running low on gash, you could throw a little toggle switch, and there
13:54
was a reserve tank and with the regular gas tank that would give you an
13:58
extra gallon or so of gas to be able to finally get to a gas
14:03
station. Well, the human body, it turns out that Professor Kavnson's team
14:07
discovered that you can create a biological reserve, and that biological reserve shown here
14:13
will basically result in about thirty five to forty more years of life over the
14:18
normal seventy five to eighty. The seventy five to eighty is basically is based
14:24
on Russians and Ukrainian longevity reports. Here in the US, it's a little
14:30
bit longer than that, but the ideas that we have within us just having
14:35
to access that as you have to have the trigger and that's these peptides that
14:39
will trigger that biological reserve. This is professor Kavinson. He was in the
14:43
military back in the seventies and so forth, and what was happening was that
14:48
the Soviet Union military was aware that the US was developing lasers and audio kinds
14:56
of weapons where they could blind the the other military on the battlefield, create
15:03
hearing problems from and so forth. They also were aware that the submarines core
15:07
that we're going out back in the seventies and so forth in what today we
15:11
would consider very crude submarines that were built in the fifties and sixties and very
15:18
crude radiation protection from the nuclear reactors. Were coming back with all sorts of
15:22
medical issues. So they'd be on a three or four month tour, and
15:26
these are young men, typically in their twenties, the officers in their thirties,
15:31
and they would come back and they would have primarily thymus issues, immune
15:33
issues, and so the Soviet Union military basically said to their military scientists and
15:41
officers, you need to figure out a way of protecting and basic regenerating through
15:48
some form of rejuvenation these young soldiers. And so they threw a lot of
15:54
money at it. And people had this idea that scientists just wake up with
15:58
a light bulb lighting up over their head one day and they have a wonderful
16:03
discovery. That, of course, is not the way that it works.
16:06
You always build on the shoulders of people that have done the work before you.
16:11
But probably the only exception that we know of in the world of science
16:15
is perhaps Einstein. He didn't build on anyone else's research and discoveries. He
16:21
thought it all up himself. But otherwise, so in this case that's true.
16:25
Ivan Pabloff, that most people know as the scientists that was involved in
16:32
what we call conditional physiology conditional conditioning, where he was using the dogs to
16:40
study the physiology of digestion, gastric juices and so forth. And so when
16:45
Professor Kavnson was given the assignment to figure out to come up with something that
16:51
would be protective and rest in restoring the health of these soldiers, he used
16:56
the work of Ivan Pavloff, who received the Bill Prize in nineteen oh four,
17:02
the first Russian Nobel prize. He used the work and it was Ivan
17:07
Pavelov that had the concept of these very small what he was originally calling proteins,
17:12
later he named them peptides, and that's where actually the terminology came from.
17:18
And the difference between a protein and a peptide is simply how many amino
17:22
acids And we'll get into this later. If you have a very small number
17:26
of amino acids, then you have a peptide. And the arbitrary cutoff is
17:30
if you have fifty or fewer amino acids in chain and they can come from
17:36
a lab or they can come from food. You have a peptide if you
17:38
have more than fifty amino acids in that chain, and some proteins have a
17:44
thousand amino acids in the chain, you actually have a protein. So Pavelov
17:48
discovered and then Cabinson used that work and he figured out that if you have
17:53
very very short chains that has two amino acids, three amino acids, four
17:59
amino acids, those peptides are powerful because they pass intact through the digestive system,
18:06
through the gastic system, and they can actually penetrate cell membranes, including
18:11
the blood brain barriers. In other words, they can get into the cells
18:15
and they actually get into the nucleus because they are so small, and that's
18:18
why they're so powerful. So, as I said, this is the submarine
18:23
corps that they started using them in. Then they expanded it to the Soviet
18:29
Union cosmonauts when they would come back from space. They also were experiencing various
18:33
medical issues and again primarily immune compromised, and they started using the peptides for
18:41
them. They used it for government officials. Here, they're using them for
18:45
some of the Russian Olympic teams, for recovery after competing and so forth.
18:52
Unfortunately, Chernoble created a huge cancer radiation issue. But they use these peptidi
19:00
They brought a lot of these patients to the Saint Petersburg facilities and they use
19:06
these peptides to basically intervene and were able to significantly reduce the cancer deaths as
19:12
a result of the radiation from Chernobyl. Now we're going to I'm going to
19:18
throw you throw at you a lot of clinical studies. We're not going to
19:21
go through them because you can all read and so forth. I just want
19:23
you to see that there is proof to all of this published clinical studies to
19:27
all of this. Here we're talking about peptide bioregulators. They have become so
19:37
what would I call it so effective that President Pewton a couple of years ago
19:42
gave President around Professor Cavnson Russia's highest civilian award for his forty some odd years
19:49
of medical and scientific service to the Russian people. And this is a photo
19:56
of him presenting that award. And what Cavenson has said here is that he
20:00
believes that peptide pharmaceuticals, No, there's just short peptides rather than large protein
20:07
peptides and chemical drugs will become most crucial development in the world for treating various
20:12
diseases. These are the peptides that we use in the clinical studies that I
20:18
administer. There's approximately twenty three of them, depending on how you count them.
20:25
But the point is there are peptides for the brain, the pineal gland,
20:29
the adrenal gland, the kidney, the prostate, the vision, the
20:33
liver, et cetera. All the major organs have a specific peptide. They
20:37
are sourced from twelve month old calves that are very carefully raised. And so
20:42
what they do is they harvest the organs from a twelve month old calve,
20:48
and they take the liver and they do a process of filtering and production and
20:53
so forth to be able to create these capsules that are one hundred percent food
21:00
supplements they call them in Russia, but they're one hundred percent made up of
21:03
amino acids that come from an animal. And we do this here in America
21:07
in a very small way. For those people who are on some kind of
21:11
a thyroid medication. If it's the natural thyroid oftentimes called armor or nature thyroid,
21:19
it comes from a pig. If they're on the synthetic versions, they're
21:23
called synthroid and over. It works on the same principle. So when you
21:27
take a peptide's safe for the liver and you inject it or you swallow it,
21:34
that liver peptide does not just sit in the digestive system. That passes
21:38
right through, passes through the membranes, and it goes to the liver of
21:42
the human being. It doesn't go to the brain. It doesn't go to
21:45
the heart. Just like the thyroid medication that you get from your pharmacy,
21:51
when you take that, it doesn't go to the brain, it doesn't go
21:53
to the kidney, it goes to the thyroid. And we won't get into
22:02
the technology of this, I think, Michelle, we're going to have a
22:06
question answer period in probably another session. But this just simply shows this is
22:11
a pancreas peptide. And what it shows is it's cleaving to the DNA.
22:15
It goes to what we call the major roof, so it kind of locks
22:18
on and it will flow through the body. If it's a pancreas peptide,
22:22
it will flow through the body, pass all the membranes, and it will
22:26
then attach itself to the pancreas, not to the liver, not to the
22:30
brain. It seeks out the organ specific peptide from which it originally came.
22:37
So this is what we call biological hallmarks of aging. These are probably the
22:44
primary, generally most accepted ones. There are others, And so when I
22:51
was setting up the clinical studies that I was interested in terms of longevity and
22:56
determining can these peptides be used for longevity, I had to choose, and
23:00
I chose two different approaches to biological aging. I chose telomeres and I chose
23:07
DNA DNA methylation. Those two were chosen because they're probably the most advanced in
23:15
terms of studies. There are over four thousand telomere studies on problemetic at this
23:21
point. But what is very important is that with blood samples we can actually
23:27
determine a baseline for telomeres, a baselines for DNA methylation levels, and then
23:33
the intervention with the peptides, and then a year or so later we can
23:37
retest. And so telomere shortening and DNA damage were the most practical biomarkers for
23:44
aging. So organ regeneration, Okay, what the peptides do is at the
23:53
cellular level. They then start this organ regeneration and Professor cabins and calls at
24:02
biological reprogramming technology and that's really what it's doing with basically altering I shouldn't say,
24:08
turning on and off certain genes, tissue regeneration except from So let's take
24:15
a look. Okay, we're going to look at retinal functions. This becomes
24:18
the evidence or in science world, data reflecting or basically confirming that these peptides
24:27
are a powerful organ regeneration. These are the published studies that we're put out
24:34
about twenty some odd years ago. Let me get this out of the way.
24:44
Okay, these are published studies in Russian with regard to the use of
24:48
these peptides for retinal interventions retinal diseases. So what these are are we call
25:00
them feel of vision scans. What they show is a before and after on
25:04
patients before peptide intervention, after peptide intervention. So this happens to be a
25:11
diabetic retinoplastic. What you see on my left here is where you see the
25:15
green, that's what people have left in vision. Where you see the black,
25:21
they have no vision whatsoever. There Where you see the red, they
25:23
have a slight bit when you see the yellow. Some vision, but not
25:29
very good. So the peptide buyer regulators for the vision were used for a
25:33
couple of years, and the field of vision test on the right shows the
25:37
results where you see a huge amount of green. That means that this person
25:41
has had restored vision at this point, and it's true for various retinal diseases.
25:48
Here's degeneration. In America, there's very little that can be done to
25:55
restore vision or to even stop the progress of macular degeneration and diseases. In
26:00
Russia, if they catch it early enough, they can actually they can almost
26:04
always stop the progression. But if they catch it early enough, they can
26:08
then reverse it. So what we have here is on the left we have
26:12
a person macter degeneration. You start losing the vision in the center at this
26:17
point, and so you see people looking out of the peripherali of their eyes
26:19
all the time with their heads turned. So as we see here there's black
26:23
and there's yellow. In here there's some red. So this person probably isn't
26:27
driving a car anymore because it would be difficult. A couple of years of
26:33
peptide intervention. Over here on the right we see a lot more green and
26:37
a lot less of the black and the yellow. Here's one of my favorites.
26:44
This is red and Nias pigmentosa. A lot of black in this one.
26:47
Before pep tide usage, this person basically has no vision to speak of,
26:52
okay, And a person who has red and Nitas pigmentosa explains to me
26:56
that it feels like they're looking through a straw and all they can see is
27:00
what they can see through the straw, and then finally the straw closes down
27:04
where they have nothing. On the right, as a person a couple of
27:07
years after peptides were used, where very little or I should say, there's
27:11
been a significant increase in the green, a significant decrease in the black.
27:18
What extent this person's life has changed, I don't know, but I have
27:21
to make the assumption that with this on the right, that this person has
27:26
somewhat of an ordinary life, Versus on the left they were basically blind morbidity.
27:33
The Russians did some large studies eleven thousand employees of gas Prom, which
27:37
is a large oil and gas operation in Russia and so forth. What they
27:42
wanted to know is if they use these peptides could they reduce the number of
27:47
sick days that employees had. So they had eleven thousand employees. In the
27:51
control group, they had three thousand employees, and at the end of twelve
27:56
months, they had two point seven times less acute respiratory disease lung problems in
28:03
total morbidity. Now which total sickness time off was reduced by two point three
28:07
times, that's a huge windfall to not only the benefit of the individuals who
28:12
are less sick, but also to the company. So let's go to mortality
28:17
reduction. This is the study that caught my attention originally. That is the
28:22
peptides of the pineal gland and the finest prolonged human life. I saw that,
28:27
and I read through the studies and so forth. Next thing I knew,
28:30
I was on a plane to Saint Petersburg more or less, and I
28:34
went knocking on their door some ten years or so ago, and I said,
28:38
you have to let me in. I need to know what you're doing.
28:42
I want to be part of it. They were very gracious about it.
28:47
They had never seen a scientist or really anyone from America interested in what
28:51
they were doing. They took me in and I've been with him ever since.
28:57
See if I can get this box, we're here out of the way.
29:02
There we go. Okay, this is one of the published studies.
29:06
It was shown that long term treatment with peptide preparations increased a lifespan by twenty
29:11
to forty percent. And we're going to now see this in a summary.
29:17
So this is a summary of that clinical study that was published. What we
29:21
have here is two groups of people. We have what the Russians called an
29:23
elderly group at sixty to seventy four years of age, and they have then
29:30
what we call the control group here in the middle of the yellow. And
29:33
the control group was using what they call poly vitamins. In other words,
29:37
they weren't using any peptides. They were just doing what they normally would do
29:41
in terms of their own vitamins and so forth. Let's go down here to
29:44
the where it says mortality rate in the course of twelve years. After twelve
29:49
years in the control group in this age bracket of sixty to seventy four,
29:56
forty four percent of these people had died. That was the mortality rate in
30:00
the peptide group. And this is using just one peptide. As I mentioned,
30:06
earlier. There's about twenty one or twenty two peptides now, but using
30:10
just one because they only had two that they had created at this time.
30:12
This study is about twenty five years old. Using one peptide, they were
30:17
able to reduce over twelve years in this group sixty to seventy four, they
30:22
were able to drop the mortality rate in half. It was twenty two percent.
30:26
So it went from forty four percent to twenty two percent with one peptide.
30:33
Then we had an older group here, and this is now the group
30:37
I'm in. I mentioned earlier that the men in my family line die in
30:41
their sixties and their seven fifties and sixties, and that's what prompted me to
30:47
move out of the entrepreneurial world into the medical world. I'm going to be
30:52
seventy seven in another two months at this point, so this is a group
30:56
I would be in. The Russians aren't very diplomatic, call them old people.
31:02
But in this case they added a second peptide, and so using two
31:07
peptides, that's the pineal gland peptide and the finus peptide. The control group
31:11
the people who not using the peptides. Basically it was eighty one point eight
31:15
percent or eighty two percent of these people died, which would be normal over
31:21
the course of six years for that age group. And these are people in
31:23
Russia and the Ukraine in the study who do not have the same longevy that
31:29
we have in the West Okay. But using just the pineal gland peptide,
31:34
they reduced the mortality because part of this group is only on the one peptide
31:40
and another part was on both. But they basically reduced the mortality from eighty
31:45
one point eight or eighty two percent down to thirty three huge reduction in mortality.
31:51
I am unaware of anything in the world, any intervention, any drug,
31:56
any lifestyle factor that has evidence behind it that gets that shows a reduction
32:02
from eighty two percent down to thirty three percent in the course of six years.
32:07
The other thing it's very interesting about this study of the older people actually
32:13
have both of these studies, they only used the peptides for the first two
32:15
to three years. So this study over here, the twelve year study where
32:20
they reduced by fifty percent the mortality, they only used the peptides for the
32:25
first I think it was three years in the twelve years study and then people
32:30
were off the peptide. It wasn't continuous like drugs in America, and they
32:34
only used the peptides for basically about ten days out of each month for three
32:38
years, and they produced these kinds of dramatic mortality reductions. They also have
32:49
cancer reduction with the peptides. And because we don't have a lot of time,
32:52
I'm just going to quickly go through. What they were doing was using
32:58
various chemical and light and so forth in mice to try and induce tumors.
33:04
And they found that if they gave these mice peptides beforehand or during treatment,
33:08
that they could dramatically reduce the tumor incidence. So just taking one this is
33:14
the pineal gland peptide. It's a drug induced tumor. In the control group,
33:19
they were able to produce a tumor in eighty one percent of those mice.
33:22
When they had the mice that had a peptide, the one peptide,
33:25
it reduced down to the incidence of tumors to twenty six percent, dramatic reduction.
33:32
Okay, so the first study that actually it was the second study,
33:37
but it's more relevant to present it this way. It's called an epigenetic methylation
33:42
study, and what epigenetics is, it's basically, how do our genes react,
33:49
what genes can we turn on and turn off? And epigenetics is not
33:55
about the genes themselves, but it's about what effects our gene what we call
34:00
gene expression. It's what do we do that supports or doesn't support gene functioning.
34:06
And so we know that things like diet, stress, exercise, sleep,
34:09
climate, nutraceuticals, peptides, and so forth can have a positive or
34:14
sometimes a negative impact on turning on and off genes. And it's all about
34:21
what we call gene expression. And what the Russians found, and this is
34:24
a published study, is that if they use these short peptides, they were
34:30
saying here two to seven amino acids all the ones that we're using, or
34:32
two to four amino acids, that they can penetrate into the nucleus of the
34:37
cells and do things like tissue regeneration, etc. The Russians were studying this
34:45
whole field of DNA methylation is a relatively new one here in the United States.
34:50
I would say it's gained popularity in the last five to seven years because
34:53
we can now test for it. The Russians were doing this twenty years ago.
35:00
This is a book that Kevinson published in twenty seventeen and Peptides in the
35:02
Epigenetic Control of Aging, And what has made it popular is that doctor Horvist
35:09
Stephen Horvitz at UCLA, he and his team of scientists have been able to
35:15
figure out and basically measure and provide a rough epigenetic age or biological age based
35:22
on genetic I'm sorry, based on methylation. So the ideal here behind the
35:29
slide is that we can now measure major organs in the body and come up
35:35
with a composite DNA methylation or what we call an epigenetic age. And Horvist
35:43
says, you can think about this whole thing as being rusting rust. That
35:46
is so what he found was that if you're aging eight years faster than your
35:52
calendar age, that you have a one hundred percent increased risk of dying compared
35:57
to your same age peers. On the other hand, if you're aging or
36:01
your epigenetic age is seven years less than your chronological age, you have half
36:07
the risk of death. So, showing this on a chart, if a
36:10
person here has let's say seven years older than their chronological age the epigenetic age,
36:15
they have an eighty two point five percent increased risk of dying compared to
36:20
their peers. On the other hand, this shows decrease mortality risk. So
36:24
if a person was four years younger than their chronological age, they have a
36:30
twenty eight percent reduced risk. And so of course you don't want to be
36:32
the increased risk. You want to be in the decreased risk. Orvis says,
36:37
it's great that we can do this, but we don't have a pill
36:39
or an intervention, and he is unaware that we Indeed we do. So
36:45
we did a proof of concept study about five or six years ago where we
36:51
had people who had been on the Teelemer study, because that was the original
36:53
study that we started with. About seven years ago. We had people on
36:58
that study and we did a baseline epigenetic because yet the commercial epigenetic testing has
37:05
only really become available last couple of years. Anyway, with the people who
37:08
had been on a Telmere's nine subjects, we tested them. They were five
37:12
point four two years younger than their chronological age. Then we took a control
37:17
group of non peptide people fifteen those people who had never been on peptides tested
37:22
them and they on average came out about two years older. That's what I
37:27
find now with the almost one hundred people in the clinical studies is that Americans
37:30
tend to be two to four years older than their epigenetic age. So we
37:38
put these people on a program, these fifteen people that we just talked about
37:42
that we're basically two years older at baseline, put them on a two year
37:45
program, and two years later using the peptides, the average group of this
37:51
fifteen were four and a half years younger than their epigenetic age. At this
37:57
point their epigenetic age was. So let's see how it worked. So we
38:00
do these tests, so we see here's Daniel. Daniel had a chronological age
38:07
of fifty three. He has a DNA age of fifty five, so he's
38:09
two years older epigenetically than his chronological age. That's about where a lot of
38:15
Americans come in. At two years older, he has a twenty five percent
38:19
increase risk of mortality. Two years later, So after being on a peptide
38:25
program, he now was four years younger. So his epigenetic age had been
38:30
reduced from what it was before to fifty one. He is now four years
38:34
younger than his chronological age, four years younger. He has gone now from
38:38
an increased risk down to a twenty eight percent reduce risk in significant reduction and
38:45
all cause mortality risk. This is a fellow here who baseline at age fifty
38:51
seven, his epigenetic age was seventy two, fifteen years older. This is
38:57
a person who's got serious risk factors of mortality risk of about two. We
39:04
put him on the program and about three years or so later we had reduced
39:08
to where he now was only six years older, not fifteen. He still
39:14
has an increased risk, but dramatically reduced. This is myself. At my
39:22
baseline, I was four years less than my se age because I had been
39:24
on peptides for a number of years. I retested last year I think it
39:30
was, and I had now improved that too. I'm ten years less than
39:32
my sage. My epigenetic age is ten years less. We now have the
39:38
ability to actually determine the epigenetic age of a person's immune system, and that's
39:45
what this test shows. So this happens to me. My test, my
39:49
immune age is sixty two with a biological age last year of seventy six.
39:57
And what's interesting is that in the next few months we're going to be able
40:00
to instead of just having an overall epigenetic age assessment, we're going to be
40:06
able to actually test for and report the epigenetic age of a person's liver,
40:10
heart, brain, thyroid, stomach, kidneys, et cetera. In the
40:16
words, we're going to be able to be organ specific, which will really
40:20
help us when we are using the peptides to focus on those organs that have
40:24
an older epigenetic age. This also is fascinating. We can now determine a
40:30
person's pace of aging, in other word, your rate of aging. So
40:34
if one point zero is your chronological age every year, every twelve months,
40:38
we can also determine what your biological pace of aging is. In this case,
40:44
this is mine and mine was at zero point eighty five. That means
40:47
I'm aging fifteen percent slower than my chronological age. This is a person who's
40:57
pace of aging is one point seventeen. He has accelerated aging. I won't
41:00
go into the details. So this is the type of a protocol that we
41:05
use. We use all twenty one of the various peptides for heart, kidney,
41:08
muscles, pineal vision, and so forth, and we do a spreadsheet
41:14
where we're using various usually five or six different peptides every month over the course
41:19
of a year, and then we retest people. The average decrease in epigenetic
41:24
age was four point six years with forty seven participants over two year period.
41:30
Now that doesn't seem like a lot, but remember it's percentage risk reduction that
41:34
we're looking at. So if a person was four point six years older epigenetically
41:39
than their calendar age, they had about a sixty percent increase all cause mortality.
41:46
Biological age reversal, it is possible to reverse people's biological age. These
41:52
are what we call telomeres. I don't have time today to go into,
41:54
but they're the endcaps on our chromosomes, and every time we have a cell
41:59
replication, the endcap shortens a little bit. And there are all sorts of
42:02
studies that show that if you have that, telomeres are linked to aging,
42:12
to mortality and a chronic disease. In other words, people with shorter telomeres,
42:15
and we can measure these telomeres have a lot of health problems and they
42:20
typically don't have the longevity that a person with longer telomeres has. This is
42:24
Elizabeth Blackburn. She wouldn't would receive the Nobel Prize in two thousand and nine
42:30
for her work with telomeres, and she says longer telomeres have less risk of
42:35
developing the common illnesses of aging. We know from over two thousand studies on
42:42
pub med that the short telomeres play a central role in every major disease,
42:46
and this chart shows the various diseases that are associated with short telomeres. This
42:52
fellow, Michael Fossil, has written the only medical textbook in America that deals
42:58
with telomeres. He's brilliant fellow. He's working in this area. His statement
43:05
is that telomerus activation is the single most promising approach to reversing the i effects
43:09
of aging. He's a wonderful guy. I disagree with him. It is
43:13
a very important approach. I'm not sure that I would call it the most
43:16
promising, but it's very important. The same thing with this fellow, Bill
43:21
Anders is a researcher in this field. He calls it the telomere is the
43:24
clock of aging. So forth. Yes, it's very important, and it's
43:30
one of the two studies that we're doing. But DNA methylation is equally important,
43:36
maybe even more important in terms of biological aging. So we ran a
43:39
clinical study to see if we could lengthen people's telomererors using these peptides. And
43:44
we had fifty two people in the original study, and the peptides did all
43:52
sorts of wonderful things, a lengthened telomeerrors, and there we go. Okay,
44:07
these let me back up here. Okay, these are my labs starting
44:14
in twenty twelve before I had anything to do with peptides. At this point,
44:19
I was sixty six years of age. My telomere age though on this
44:23
baseline test with out of a seventy two year old. In other words,
44:27
I had accelerated aging due to telomere loss. Okay, and it makes sense
44:31
because we know that stress is a huge driver of shortened telomeres. So I
44:37
retested a couple of years later. I'm now sixty eight, still not on
44:42
the peptides, and at this point my telomeres have shortened even further. I'm
44:47
at this point, at age sixty eight, I have the telomeres of seventy
44:52
five year old. Not a good direction at this point. So October twenty
44:57
fifteen, I meet with the Russians. I go on a telomere program.
45:00
I go on a PEP type program, and I'm now seventy, but my
45:04
telomere age is dropped down to sixty eight. The first time there's been a
45:07
reversal, and I continue on. This is twenty eighteen. I'm seventy two
45:12
years of age at that point, but my telomere age is now forty four.
45:17
A couple more years, I'm in seventy three. At that point,
45:21
my telomeres are that of a thirty five year old. And I continued,
45:23
and my telomeres tend to run them around forty right now, this is my
45:28
significant other Vests who at age sixty had accelerated telomere lost. Her telomeres were
45:34
that of a sixty three year old. We put her on the program a
45:37
couple of studies in protocols in between. At age sixty two, her telomeres
45:43
were brought down to that of a thirty three year old. This is Vess.
45:46
This I have to disclose. This is not a current pitcher. She's
45:50
now going to be sixty seven this month. This was taken when she was
45:54
sixty five. But this is what a sixty five year old healthy with the
45:59
telomere of a thirty three year old looks like she's a competitive ballroom dancer.
46:06
This is Professor Kavnson sitting there very happily with Vess after we brought in these
46:09
results where her telomeres were that of a very young adult. This is tour
46:17
Bright. Tour Bright is a US Olympic athlete, gold and silver medical winner.
46:23
Her doctors, Olympic doctors had done telomere tests, which greatly surprised me,
46:29
but they did, and her teelemere baseline at age thirty two was equivalent
46:35
to a fifty six year old older woman. And I mentioned earlier that stress
46:39
is what drives at and of course these athletes. She had started training at
46:44
age three, as I recall, had been under years and years of stress.
46:47
So we put her on the protocol and a couple of years later we
46:51
brought her telomeres down to age equivalent thirty one. This is the spreadsheet of
46:57
the people's results. The average reduction in biological age based on telomeres is almost
47:04
twenty two years over the three year period. This is the bridge, okay,
47:09
and what this is The concept is there are amazing kinds of things coming
47:15
that are on the cusp of being available that are coming over the next ten
47:20
years. And if you look down here at the bottom where it says it
47:22
lists some of the major it says stem cells, DNA repair, telomeers.
47:27
Okay, well we're doing the DNA repair and we're doing the telomeers. The
47:30
idea is, if you can stay healthy over the next ten years, you
47:35
will be able to take advantage of these kinds of longevity intervention stem cells,
47:39
replacement of organs, three D printing, microbots, and so over. But
47:44
you have to stay healthy for this next ten years. There is more than
47:50
ten billion dollars have been invested in research on longevity by these companies. Most
47:54
of these are billionaires companies again as I said, who have a lot less
48:00
time than they have money, unfortunately, and they have built campuses and large
48:05
buildings, and they've hired research staff. Some of these places have a hundred
48:08
sciences working for them, and eventually I think they're going to turn out something.
48:13
Right now, they're just turning out research papers. Unfortunately, there is
48:16
not a single intervention that these labs have produced that action can be used today
48:22
safely to make an positive impact on longevity. But the idea is use the
48:30
peptides to reverse biological age, to regenerate organs stay healthy for the next ten
48:37
years with both the peptides and other things that people are doing, supplements and
48:42
exercise and all the rest of that stuff, so we can take advantage of
48:45
what hopefully these people will discover. So current aging expectations that the world has
48:53
and the peptide paradigm of aging that Cabinson and I have at the Saint Petersburg
48:59
Institute is this. And I can safely say that with our peptide program,
49:05
based on all the evidence, we can extend people's lives ten to twenty years.
49:09
I'm seventy seven. I fully expect to be about as healthy as I
49:14
am today when I hit a hundred. And that is the program. Michelle,
49:21
Wow, I don't know what to say. Bill. I'm just so
49:28
in awe of everything that you've accomplished, and I'm sure my viewers are feeling
49:32
the same way. Where do we go from here? I would love to
49:37
have you come back, and I would love to have a chance to have
49:40
an interview on many questions that came up as you were presenting, and of
49:46
course I didn't want to interrupt, so if that would be okay with you,
49:52
we'll schedule something maybe in the mid part of July or whenever it's good
49:57
for you. But before we say go, because I think we have almost
50:01
run out of time, why don't you just give us a quick summary of
50:06
where you see yourself going in the next five years. I'm going to be
50:14
going across that bridge that I've showed you because those things, you know,
50:20
the peptides are not the sole answer. That is, they are the most
50:23
amazing thing available today. Okay, there's nothing else that comes close to doing
50:29
what these peptides can do. Other peptides that you see advertisings over have some
50:32
value, you know, the ones that you know like BPC one fifty seven
50:37
is great for wound healing and so forth. There's energy peptides, there's weight
50:40
loss peptides, and those are great things to do because that's quality of life,
50:45
right. And I had a person, a doctor I was talking to
50:47
the other day, said to me, build, what you don't realize is
50:51
that you know he was like almost eighty. He says, what that does
50:54
for me is it tells me I've got at least ten or fifteen years of
50:58
life. Whether on the other hand, I was thinking about I go.
51:00
I need to go update my will at this point, and that's the psychological
51:05
impact. So to answer your question, I will continue doing the research with
51:09
the clinical studies on these peptides, but I'm also looking at everything else that
51:14
might be available well for people that want to take the initiative to be part
51:22
of this. I know that you're accepting only medical people into your clinical studies.
51:30
I just want to be very clear about this to anyone that's watching today
51:35
that if you are a medical person and you have an interest, please do
51:39
not contact doctor Bill Lawrence. Please contact me because I'm going to be the
51:45
initial screener for anyone that would be presented to him. Bill, thank you
51:50
so much for today, and I want to wish everyone a wonderful weekend.
51:54
And before we say goodbye, just to let you know that my phone number
52:00
if you want to reach me, so it's eight O eight six three nine
52:05
zero nine zero four, and feel free to call me to let me know
52:10
if you have interest if you are a medical practitioner. Okay, thank you
52:15
so much, Bill, have a beautiful weekend and we'll be talking to set
52:20
up our next meeting. Thank you, Michelle. It's been a pleasure,
52:22
all right, take care, Bye bye,