The Great Age Reboot - Global Macro Update

The Great Age Reboot - Global Macro Update

Show Video

Your period of twenties, thirties, forties,  fifties will be expanded, so that instead of   feeling at age ninety like the typical ninety  -year-old does, you will feel at age ninety like   the typical forty-year-old you did feel like then. How would you feel if you learned that you were   going to live to be one hundred or  even one hundred and ten years old?   Would you be thrilled because you could now  spend more time with family and friends,   maybe even get to know your great-grandchildren,  do all those things that you have on your bucket   list that you thought you maybe wouldn’t get to? Or would you be terrified because you’re   already struggling to come up with enough  retirement savings to last into your eighties,   and how are you possibly going to  fund a retirement into your hundreds?  Well, that scenario might be closer than any of us  realize. Today, we’re going to explore that with   Dr. Michael Roizen. He is the head of Wellness for  the Cleveland Clinic, and he has got a new book   coming out called, The Great Age Reboot, where  he takes a look at the very real possibility, in   the next decade, of healthy lifespans increasing  by up to thirty years... and what that means for   our retirements, what that means for our society,  and our economy, and our personal finance. I hope  

you enjoy this discussion with Dr. Michael Roizen. Dr. Roizen, I am so thrilled to be speaking with   you today. Thank you for joining us to talk  about how we are all going to live a longer,   healthier life, the financial and economic  ramifications of that, and what you’ve got   to tell us in the upcoming book, The Great  Age Reboot. Really excited to hear about it,  My privilege. And thank you and  John for letting me do this.   And that’s really why we wrote the book, because  there’s a lot of economic and policy implications   that come with longevity as a disruptor. Agreed. And that’s what we do at Mauldin   Economics. I’m always interested  in the financial, the retirement,  

the economic, societal implications. But I think before we go there,   we probably need to get a preview from you of  why you think we’re on the cusp of longer life.   Because we’ve been hearing about this story for a  while now, and for many people, it’s still science   fiction. But from what I understand, you feel  like we really are very close to some serious   breakthroughs. What’s got you thinking that way? Well, first of all, there are fourteen   different areas where there has been exponential  progress in understanding the mechanism of aging.   And with fourteen shots on goal, we think there’s  at least an eighty percent probability that one   of these will switch from whole animal models. In all fourteen have changed the rate of aging,  

have actually rebooted to a younger age... those  animal models, and at least two animal species.   We’re now seeing human trials  beginning. And we can talk about that   because they’re really exciting. And what that means is,   we’ve been on an upward trajectory in life  expectancy of about two and a half years,   every ten years. Now, you may hear if you will,  “Well, what’s happening to life expectancy with   COVID? And I thought there was a decline.” Yes, there was a decline, just like there was   with the Spanish flu. But life expectancy as  reported by the CDC is, what happens if COVID  

keeps killing people at the same rate it did last  year and the year before? We’re not going to have   that hopefully for the next fifty years.  They didn’t have it after the Spanish flu.  We expect life expectancy, which has gone upward  from lower left to upper right, if you will,   at two and a half years per decade, per ten  years, since eighteen ninety. We expect in   the next ten years, there will be a thirty-year  shift upward, but it won’t be you’ll have many   older years—you will reboot to a younger self. We predicted in nineteen ninety-eight with Real   Age, that sixty would be the new forty. That  came true. I’m now predicting that ninety will   be the new forty by ten years from now, which  means you’ve got a lot more living to do.  Wow. So, you’re saying that essentially a human’s  lifespan will be stretched out if you will? 

That’s right. Your period of  twenties, thirties, forties, fifties   will be expanded, so that instead of feeling at  age ninety like the typical ninety-year-old does,   you will feel at age ninety like the typical  forty-year-old, you did feel like then. You’re   going to get to reboot backwards. That  means you’ve got a lot of productivity.  

It also means a lot of difference in how you plan  for the economics of this, and how society plans.  You mentioned there’s fourteen key  research areas that are underpinning   your thoughts around this. Can you touch  on two or three that you feel are the most   important and give us a couple of examples? Well, I’m going to give you a couple examples   that are really incredible because  they’ve moved into human testing now,   and you may have even seen them as headlines. One of which everyone knows about is gene editing.   If you have the amyloid gene that increases your  risk of heart failure substantially so that people   with this gene develop heart failure and have  what we call ejection fractions—the amount of   blood their heart puts out with each beat is only  twelve percent or less of what they have in their   heart, as opposed to the normal person, you or I,  hopefully, have fifty-five to sixty-five percent.   They’ve got a life expectancy, when they’re  at twelve percent, of about six months. You  

knock out that gene that produces that amyloid  protein, and in animal models, they end up with   a normal lifespan. Well, they’ve now done that  in twelve people that they’ve published on.  So this is already done—by more  than eight months—in Australia;   and of those twelve, seven now have ejection  fractions over thirty-five percent. And instead   of six months’ life expectancy, they expect them  to live over eighteen years. Radical change. 

Think about another one. They’ve knocked out  the gene that causes hemoglobin S, so hemoglobin   sickle cell in sickle and thalassemia means you  can’t deliver oxygen. You knock out that gene,   seventy-five of the seventy-six  people who’ve been treated with that   feel enormously better. Don’t have the  same life expectancy pain they had.  And there are a number of other areas  like this. Colon cancer predisposition,  

you can knock that out in animal models. It’s  been done. It’s now moving into human trials.  Another one that’s moving into human trials in  New Zealand is knocking out the gene that causes   cholesterol to accumulate in your arteries  instead of processing it in your liver.  Another one, and you can go on and on.  These are all moving into human trials,   and they’re occurring fast. How much will it cost?  It’s really inexpensive, for the materials. The   trials are going to do this for approval for  the serious and life-threatening diseases,   like Alzheimer’s—knocking out, or actually  editing, the E4 gene, which increases your risk of   dementia about sixfold. Knocking that into the  E2 gene, which decreases that. It’s editing it  

from E4 to E2. It’s just one amino acid change  in the DNA, formatted one DNA peptide change.  And what happens? You get an E2, which decreases  your risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. So   that’s going to be tried. That’s one example. Another one is what we call senolytics.  

When you have one old cell, the cells around it  become old. It puts out a hormone, if you will,   that makes each other cell old around it.  The whole thing doesn’t function well.  With senolytics, you knock out  that old cell, and the rest of   your body becomes younger, doesn’t get old. Well, guess what? Therapeutic plasma exchange  

is used at the Cleveland Clinic—we did about  twenty-two thousand of them for other diseases.   But imagine if you did this for  just aging, and you get younger.   That’s what the young-blood hypothesis said was  possible. Well, now it’s been done for dementia.  So in the AMBAR study—you can Google AMBAR,  A-M-B-A-R—in the AMBAR study, a 2B3A study that   was done through FDA, two centers in Spain, two  in Chile, two in the United States, Pittsburgh and   Cleveland... what happened? They gave treatments  for five months, and after fifteen months,   every one of the twelve areas of cognitive  functioning from memory to visual, spatial,   cognition to speed of processing... every one  of them got better. They didn’t get worse the  

way the control group did. They actually  improved and reversed some of the dementia.  I want to make sure I understand this, Doctor.  Everything that you’re saying, it sounds like it’s   applicable to people living now. In other words,  a fifty-, a sixty-year-old, this is going to help   them. It’s not just unborn people that are going  to benefit from this technology. You’re saying   that is actually going to apply to... a reversal? One of my co-authors is Albert Ratner,  

who’s ninety-four, was the CEO for twenty-five  years—CEO and co-chair of the board—of Forest City   Enterprises. And he says, “Mike, you shouldn’t say  it’s in the future, because it’s happening now.”  That’s right. These are beginning to happen now.  And so there’s a second phase three or study,   FDA approved, that’s going on AMBAR that’s already  started. That the FDA has said to the company,   I understand—it’s in the press release—that  if they get approval for this, if they come up   with the same results, the FDA will give them  approval as a treatment to reverse dementia. 

And in each of the fourteen areas—I’ve given you  just two of them, and you can tell my excitement   and my passion for this—in each of these fourteen  areas, these are moving into human trials.  It’s really incredibly fast. Everyone knows what  exponential is from the chip. Diamandis said it   best at one of your conferences: thirty linear  steps— thirty yards closer to the end point.   Thirty exponential steps—one, two, four, eight,  sixteen, thirty-two—it’s twenty-six times around   the Earth. That’s how fast the science is going. When we did Real Age, starting in about   eighty six, I would read one article every three  months that was key. By two thousand, it was one   every three weeks. Now it’s one every thirty  minutes. That’s how fast the science is going  

and how fast the change is occurring. We think, based on these early results,   as well as the fact there’ve been fourteen... Let  me give you another one that I’m thrilled with.   This is one that Patrick Cox has written about.  And Mike West, who spoke at your conferences,   and Patrick, who’s spoken at your conferences...  described as induced tissue regeneration.  It is turning white fat  back into pluri-potent fat.   Where does the fat cell come from? An original fat  cell can go to white fat, which is what hangs off   of our belly and causes inflammation. Or in the  womb, it can go to brown fat. Brown fat is what  

we have as kids around our organs in our chest to  keep us warm when our mother isn’t swaddling us.  Well, imagine taking white fat, regressing it into  pluri-potent fat, and then turning it into brown   fat. That’s been done in three animal species. The  biggest one is lambs. I didn’t understand this,   but lambs develop non-alcoholic fatty liver  disease. They eat too much, apparently,   and they stop producing wool—meaning  they die and stop producing wool. This   has even been done at Crimson in lambs. This isn’t science fiction anymore. We  

may eliminate obesity if this really works in  humans. And Mike West says, “We’re less than   three years away from knowing whether it works  in humans in a large-scale, inexpensive way.”  I got to give Mike West another plug. He also  took the immunogenicity of stem cells away. He’s   developed that technique. Stem cells are very  expensive to grow to twenty to fifty million.   They’d have to take them out of you, culture  them. It would take a month to three months  

to get twenty million to fifty million  to give you back to repair something.  Stem cells are the matriarchs that will  repair everything if we do it right.   But if you take away their immunogenicity, instead  of that being a one-off and very expensive for   each person, I could grow thirty trillion  heart stem cells and treat a whole bunch of   people with them because you wouldn’t reject  them, and we’d heal heart attacks that way.  And now we even think you’re going to be  able to take plaque out of the artery.  

Each of these areas is advancing so fast that we  think that it’s really quite likely that we’re   going to change, not only the rate of aging but  reboot you back. So it’s not just slowing aging,   but you’re going to have many  more years at a productive self.  How far away do you think most of this is?  For filtering into the general population?  Well, if you want to try therapeutic plasma  exchange, you just go to a plasma donation   center and donate a unit of plasma  once a week or something like that.  

That’s how fast you could do that if you wanted to  jump ahead. But from a standpoint of when we think   we will have one of these techniques, it’s clearly  within ten years. It’s probably longer than   two to three years—just for the FDA approvals. Even if the AMBAR study reverses diabetes in a   second trial... well, it’s about an eighteen-month  trial, so that’s two years. And by the time you   analyze it and get the approval, it may be  as much as three years if that really works.  Within ten years, then you can think  of a lot of this will be actually... 

If you make it ten years—and the third part of the  book is what you should do now, so you can plan...   the second part is the finances part, if you will.  It’s all about the policies and what you do in   finances, and what we should do as a country. The  third part is what you should do personally. And   to make sure you don’t have what we would  call “something in an organ or a system   that limits your ability to get a reboot.” If you will, you want to have an as good   functioning brain as possible. Everyone knows  it’s a lot easier to stay thin than it is to   get thin if you’re fat. That’s the same with  every one of these processes in the human  

body. It’s a lot easier to stay healthy  than it is to reverse and get healthy.  You want to stay as healthy as possible so that  the reboot on whatever organ you need works   in a system that has everything. That brings up another point, Ed,   I just want to bring. We think sometime in  twenty fifty or so, thirty years from now,   you may go in one end of the car wash and come  out a younger person. Some of the animal models   show that. But for now, it’s going to be organ  by organ. And so that’s why you want to keep   as many of your organs and systems young for as  long as possible until the reboot comes along. 

How much of an increase in lifespan do you  expect, from a practical perspective, that these   technologies and sciences will bring to us? Conservatively, it’s thirty years.   So if you look at the animal models... The  person who heads up the Google Moonshot,   Calico, for longevity... they have one, and  they’ve recently switched to doing what Mike   West and Shinya Yamanaka are doing. They went  to ITR, finally, after doing a whole bunch of   other things, but the person who heads that  conservatively thinks that we’ll be able to   do this at least once... in these worms  that extended their lifespan fivefold...   that would be you living to four hundred. We don’t think that’s likely in human terms  

in the near future, but in worms, she was able  to do a fivefold extension. I think thirty years   is conservative. We don’t know you’d be  able to get a second reboot or a third.  Believe it or not, the science...  they rebooted mice through three  

readily available drugs that turn on  induced tissue reprogramming, regeneration,   from one-hundred-seven-week-old mice (the  equivalent of one-hundred-four-year-old humans),   to thirty-seven-week-old mice, the  equivalent of thirty-four human years.  They haven’t had another seventy weeks or  so yet on those mice—that’s how recent this   is—to know whether you can do it again and  again and again. At least you get one shot   at thirty years older. Which means you have to  change your financial thinking about things.  And it also means all of our  family structures will change.  

Even now, when you were born, it was unusual for  grandparents and parents to be both there and be   viable, et cetera. Now we’re talking about  great-great-grandparents, great-grandparents,   grandparents, parents, and children all living  at the same time... and with divorce and other   things, you’re going to have tribes if you want. And stretching out the human lifespan—I’m   just trying to think through the societal  implications—does that mean that,   for example, women would be having children  into their fifties if they so choose?  You’re pretty good at asking questions.  Almost all of the animal models have used   male animals to do the regression. And the males  are able to regain testicular function, regain   sperm, even after they’ve lost it. Meaning, the  mice. Now, the eggs seem to be limited still. 

Now there is a major project, again, with part of  Google’s help—and part of Jeff Bezos and a number   of others —that’s going on in New York City to  talk about ovarian regeneration. But so far,   that has not been a major focus of many groups. I think that some people hearing this type of   information, Doctor, are going to be absolutely  thrilled. And I think others are going to be   terrified. Because we already are on the cusp of a  retirement crisis in this country. I think [for] a  

lot of people, the thought of living a financially  secure life into their eighties is a challenge.   What do you and your co-authors come up  with for how to deal with living to one   hundred and ten? That’s daunting. Well, I’m going to tell you that   something occurred while we were writing this that  we didn’t expect. Peter Linneman is an emeritus   professor at Wharton, who is another co-author  on the book, and he took the lead on this. But  

in Australia, Singapore, and Denmark, they  force you to save 3 percent of your income   starting the first year you go to work, not  in a Social Security fund—they have that as   well—but in a separate retirement fund that  is guaranteed to earn 4 percent per year.  If you do that, at 3 percent of even a  fifteen-dollar income that grows and,   if you will, principal grows  four percent per year...   and you do that with just even a fifteen-dollar  per week income starting at age 22 and working   to 65, you end up with around two hundred and  fifty thousand in today’s dollars at retirement.  But if you work to 95, it’s one point million  dollars. And if you work for an employer who   matches it, it’s two point eight million in  today’s dollars. Well, that’s mandated in those   three countries, and it’s working well, but it  does away with a lot of the wealth inequality. 

Well, imagine that the US did that. The incredible  thing is, while we were proofing the book   in the last six months, the House of  Representatives—in a bipartisan way, without   any fanfare, four hundred forty-to-five—passed  this. You probably even haven’t heard of it.  I didn’t know that. And it’s now in the Senate. I’m told it’s   working its way through the Senate. I don’t know  whether they’ll have time to do it before they   go on whatever the leave is that they go  on, but this happened. And so maybe... 

How did I miss this? How did all of us? Maybe this will actually   happen in a way... a policy will actually lead  the way. But essentially it is if you save, save,   save early—which, saving early is just postponing  consumption; it’s being able to consume later—if   you do that, the extra compounding, the extra  years of compounding make a huge benefit.  In addition, if you’re going to live  thirty extra years, you’ll probably work   twenty more of it because you don’t want  to have nothing to do for fifty years.   If you work and pay taxes and pay  Social Security and pay Medicare...   those trust funds—which Neil Howe,  who also spoke at your conference,   says they’re going to go bust, based on the CBO  estimates, sometime in the early thirties—will   be solvent. And there won’t be a problem with it  because you’ll be not taking it out but paying in.  Now, it will require the policymakers to change  the eligibility years. And they’ll probably do it  

gradually, but as Peter Linneman says, there  will be a huge political fight on it. But if   there’s enough money, things always get worked  out. They will fight over who pays for it. Each   group wants the other group to pay for it. But  it will end up... there’ll be enough money, so it   will get paid for. The thought is that retirement  funding won’t be the problem it is now, even with   the decreased birthrate that’s occurring now. What about implications for the healthcare sector,   Doctor? You’re talking about some pretty  amazing technologies that are going to   need to be implemented for a lot of people,  but at the same time, you’re talking about   making people healthier. Does it bring healthcare  costs down, or does it increase them? Does it  

force a change in the way that our medical system  is structured? What are the impacts, in your mind?  All of those three occur. Let  me go in first. Obviously,   plastic surgery will do well. If you’re living  to 95 and feeling forty, you want to look forty.  Now, believe or not, many of these have not  been tried on skin aging. One of which has   is hyperbaric oxygen, and out of the ninety  people who did the trial, only 13, all men,   volunteered for the 12 biopsies that showed what  happened to their skin. But as they healed and  

got younger in their brain and in their muscle in  that trial, their skin also got younger, and they   increased both elastin and collagen production  from what’s called hermetic hyperbaric oxygen.  What it is, is it’s two atmospheres down  to one atmosphere, two to one, two to one,   tricking the body into thinking it was going from  one to 0.4... that is when the body gets hypoxic,   it regenerates stem cells and repairs things.  Well, going from two to one in hyperbaric oxygen,   the body thought it was still getting  hypoxic and generated more stem cells   and skin, brain, muscle, pancreas all got younger. 

But the point is that, if you will,  plastic surgery will probably thrive.   Pediatrics, with a decreased birthrate, will  probably not grow at all. But when you look at   it as a whole, if you are able to eliminate  obesity, if you eliminate chronic disease,   we go back to the 1974 cost structure. Since 1974, our genes haven’t changed.   What changed is our habits and our lifestyle  that made chronic disease more likely.  

Obesity, which was on the order of 8 percent in  1974, is now 44.3 percent or something. Well,   if you eliminate obesity, you’ll go  back to the cost structure of 1974.  If you do that, what happens to medicine  is, instead of growing four times the cost   of medical care, which is now about... it’s 19.6  percent of GDP... goes back to about 13.6 percent.   And that’s a conservative figure as well.  But if you do it that way in the US,  

you don’t grow medicine. It grows  at about the same rate as GDP does.  So it doesn’t get bigger, even with the increase  in these treatments. It stays at about the same   rate and actually regresses as you eliminate  chronic disease slowly over the next thirty years.  When is The Great Age Reboot,   when is it coming out? Is it this month? The book comes out September 13th. 

Okay. And you can pre-order that  book on Amazon, I understand.  Absolutely. And so, as John mentioned it in one of  the newsletters—thanks to you and John and Patrick   Watson—I think, I should say thank you because the  book jumped up a considerable amount. Obviously,  

his readership, Mauldin Economics, have a  sizable impact. And there will be a sizable   impact and a sizable discussion in the book. What happens to housing? We’ll, if you’re going   to live in the same place for thirty years longer,  we’re going to have a great economic boom. You’ll   need more housing. Not only that, the extra  workforce, the human capital you’ll get by...  

if you now say you’ve got a forty-year  life-work span, meaning 25–65,   if you expand that twenty years because  you’re going to live thirty years longer,   you have increased human capital by fifty  percent. Which means a huge benefit in   GDP, a huge benefit in economics,  housing boom, and every other thing.  Now, there’s a whole bunch of spinoffs  from this research. One of those is,   we could make food in bioreactors like we  make beer. Just imagine making, if you will,   all the wheat we need, all the wheat Africa  needs, all the wheat South America needs,   all the wheat the world needs in bioreactors. Is it practical? Sure. How much would you   need? You would need a city the size of Los  Angeles with just bioreactor plants in it.  

And you would produce twice as much  food as is needed for the entire world.  That’s a spinoff of being able to gene edit  efficiently. With beer, it’s tough. You had   to wait for the darn yeasts to decide they wanted  to make beer, and then you keep that yeast spread.  

But now we can edit it so the yeasts can  produce grain. They can produce wheat.   They can produce rice. They can produce beans. Whatever you want, we can now do in a bioreactor.   And the incredible things that are  going to happen... And again, yes,  

we did speculate on some of those in the book, but  it is a huge... the reason I want people to look   at the book, whether they borrow it from a friend,  or get it from the library, or buy it themselves.  The key point is, what we want people to  do is to start to be able to think about   and plan for this future, so they’re  ready for it. And so your listeners  

and readers are ready for it before others. Well, there is certainly a lot to think about   and plan for, based on everything that you’ve  said today. Dr. Michael Roizen from the Cleveland   Clinic, thank you so much for joining us. I look  forward to getting a copy of your book the day   that it comes out, September 13th. Thank you. 

Viewers, you can access Dr. Roizen’s  latest book, The Great Age Reboot,   by pre-ordering on The book will  be coming out on September 13th. I hope you   enjoyed this interview. If you did, please do me  a favor—take a moment to subscribe to our YouTube   channel. I’m Ed D’Agostino, thanks for watching. 11,000 steps so far today... yesterday was 11,000  

as well... the day before, 13,000... The point is  that with walking... just walking gives you half   the total benefit of every physical activity.  So there are four physical activities that   make a difference how long and well you live—but  walking is the key, the basis, for all of them.

2022-09-07 13:45

Show Video

Other news