Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott
Speaker 1: Barry Kaufman, where we give you insights into the mind, brain,
Speaker 1: behavior and creativity. Each episode will feature a new guest
Speaker 1: who will stimulate your mind and give you a greater
Speaker 1: understanding of yourself, others, and the world we live in.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening and enjoy the podcast. Today on the
Speaker 1: podcast we have Liz Parish, who's CEO of Bioviva Usa, Inc.
Speaker 1: Which is committed to building gene therapies to eradicate disease
Speaker 1: and extend healthy life. You know, no big deal. She's
Speaker 1: a board member of Radish Medical Solutions and founder of
Speaker 1: Biotrope Investments and Media. She's actively involved international educational media
Speaker 1: via the International Loungectivity Alliance, of which she is a
Speaker 1: board member on which she serves as secretary. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for talking to me today, Liz, Oh, thanks
Speaker 1: for having me. I'm always excited to talk to people.
Speaker 1: I am excited to talk to you. I really enjoy
Speaker 1: talking to people who are ambitious and have great, big
Speaker 1: visions of universes that are possible that don't currently exist.
Speaker 1: And you know, like I'm just saying, you know what
Speaker 1: you're committed to. What Bioviva is committed to is a
Speaker 1: very you know, what some may think is like science fiction, right,
Speaker 1: or they may think it's some sort of goal that
Speaker 1: just seems wholly not possible. But you would beg to differ, right,
Speaker 1: I would. So a lot of people think that age
Speaker 1: reversal and living more youthfully longer, many more years is
Speaker 1: science fiction and actually science fact. So we're doing these
Speaker 1: technologies already in animals and in cell culture human cell culture,
Speaker 1: so we're really excited to actually move these into human
Speaker 1: bodies and see if we can mitigate the diseases of
Speaker 1: aging and also reverse engineer what's happening at the childhood
Speaker 1: level of disease. So there are accelerated aging symptoms that
Speaker 1: children have in some disease states, and then there's also
Speaker 1: monogenic diseases and congenital diseases in general. So if this
Speaker 1: actually has a big implication for the whole world and
Speaker 1: the whole disease state in general, and disease is a
Speaker 1: very big thing to take on, and a lot of
Speaker 1: people wonder how we could be so savvy is to
Speaker 1: take on disease in general. But a lot of the
Speaker 1: diseases that we get in our lifetime are actually diseases
Speaker 1: of biological aging, and so this is one of our
Speaker 1: big targets. So if we actually go after biological aging
Speaker 1: as a disease, rather than going after cancer independently, heart
Speaker 1: disease independently, Alzheimer's and atherosclerosis, things like sarcopenia, we go
Speaker 1: after the aging of the cell. We actually find that
Speaker 1: we might have be able to knock out these symptoms
Speaker 1: in one fell swoop, and one fell swoop may be
Speaker 1: multiple therapies, but we're looking at the cell in a
Speaker 1: very different way than we used to. Liz, let's tack
Speaker 1: up a little bit a second, because you didn't you know,
Speaker 1: you weren't born with this interest, you know, as a child,
Speaker 1: were you Were you a very inquisitive, curious child, Like, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I was. I think it was really interesting
Speaker 1: about me as a child. Now, bioviva works with all
Speaker 1: human gene sets, so I should just tell you that.
Speaker 1: But as a child, I kind of saw the limitations
Speaker 1: of the human body, and I thought we were more
Speaker 1: than our parts, and I thought, well, what was really
Speaker 1: holding us back and from being being able to jump
Speaker 1: like a horse or run long distances like a dog
Speaker 1: or are things like that. And I always kind of hoped,
Speaker 1: without thinking on the the realm of superpowers, that I
Speaker 1: could do those kind of things. And I thought that
Speaker 1: people inherently should be a bit different from one another
Speaker 1: than they are now. And I think in the future
Speaker 1: that sounds really projected, and this is more projected. I
Speaker 1: think in the future, well probably will choose for independent
Speaker 1: traits more so than we think that we could do now. Now,
Speaker 1: that's really outside of what we do right now. What
Speaker 1: we do right now is very level headed, it's very pragmatic,
Speaker 1: and it's very possible these things will be possible in
Speaker 1: the future, but we don't have the technology to do
Speaker 1: that at this time. So right now, where are we at.
Speaker 1: You can replace a single gene, correct, Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: So we actually don't replace a gene right now. We
Speaker 1: add a gene and so some of the things I
Speaker 1: just talked about we can actually test on or touch on. Sorry,
Speaker 1: we have a myostatin inhibitor and it can make you
Speaker 1: more muscular. So certainly you're going to jump a bit higher,
Speaker 1: you're going to run a bit faster, you're going to
Speaker 1: be a bit stronger. We have things like this that
Speaker 1: we have working already, but in the future, you know,
Speaker 1: we're definitely going to have probably even more switches in phenotype,
Speaker 1: I would think. So if I see you in the Olympics,
Speaker 1: you know, next Olympics, so I know what's going on there. Yeah.
Speaker 1: If I look twenty and I'm winning the I see
Speaker 1: with Pirates on TV, I'm like, with Pirates. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that what We've probably gone entirely off topic now,
Speaker 1: haven't we. But but yeah, I think that we will
Speaker 1: have the opportunity and the pleasure to actually bring people
Speaker 1: back to more youthful states and make them hopefully stronger, smarter,
Speaker 1: more visually accurate than they ever were before. And so
Speaker 1: that's kind of that's a real improvement to the situation.
Speaker 1: We want to improve the human body so that we
Speaker 1: don't actually just go down the same route of aging
Speaker 1: and cellular degeneration. So why did you when? First of all,
Speaker 1: when did you form this company? And when did you
Speaker 1: get into this specific area of interest? So let's see,
Speaker 1: I think that I've been always interested. I think that
Speaker 1: I've always been interested in biology and sci fi all
Speaker 1: of my life. And it's funny how many people come
Speaker 1: through that route. It's really the people with the big
Speaker 1: imaginations who imagine something before it can happen that sparks
Speaker 1: everyone's desire to do better. This company was actually formed
Speaker 1: just January twenty fifteen. It was a couple of years
Speaker 1: in the making, so it didn't just come out of
Speaker 1: thin air. It had a lot of time and thought
Speaker 1: and effort in collaborating a team behind it. I was
Speaker 1: thrust into this most recently about three years ago, when
Speaker 1: a child I cared very much about became sick and
Speaker 1: I ended up in children's hospital. And actually it wasn't
Speaker 1: the first child I knew to become sick. I actually
Speaker 1: have a few friends who had kids with immunological diseases
Speaker 1: and various other problems. But this time I ended up
Speaker 1: in Children's Children's hospital with this child, and I looked
Speaker 1: around and I thought, you know, I know, we've come
Speaker 1: farther than this. I started asking around at the hospital
Speaker 1: what they were doing with stem cell work and genetics,
Speaker 1: and I was surprised to find out that it's such
Speaker 1: a big hospital, one that's known for being on the
Speaker 1: cutting edge, that they weren't doing any of those things,
Speaker 1: not for this disease type. And I felt like it
Speaker 1: really was. It was a command in my mind that
Speaker 1: we couldn't we couldn't proceed this way any longer. That
Speaker 1: these kids that were around me were dying and they
Speaker 1: had no option, and they weren't going to see any
Speaker 1: of their firsts, and I felt like we should be
Speaker 1: pioneering much more quickly. I knew at that point that
Speaker 1: a lot of stem cell work was going on at
Speaker 1: Harvard and Stanford, but a vast majority of it was
Speaker 1: doing being done offshores. And I questioned that, you know,
Speaker 1: why are we seeing such good results but we don't
Speaker 1: have any options for these kids right now? Why is
Speaker 1: it okay that they're dying. Why is it okay that
Speaker 1: we're letting them go? Why are we calling you know,
Speaker 1: certain forms of medicine experimental medicine when everything that's come
Speaker 1: through the FDA, we're dying while we're taking it's felling
Speaker 1: these kids. I think that we could do better than that.
Speaker 1: So that put me into a catalyst of traveling to
Speaker 1: genetic conferences, and I ended up at a SENS conference
Speaker 1: at Cambridge in the UK, and it was a genetics conference,
Speaker 1: and I thought, I think this is where the cure
Speaker 1: for these diseases is going to lie. And it was
Speaker 1: a longevity conference, and I thought, well, well, this is
Speaker 1: actually pretty shallow. I thought, you know, why are people
Speaker 1: trying to live longer when we're actually losing our kids.
Speaker 1: But I decided to keep an open mind and to
Speaker 1: sit through it. And I don't know, day one or
Speaker 1: day two, with the jet leg on top of me,
Speaker 1: it just really hit me that this was going to
Speaker 1: be it, that we were going to take on aging
Speaker 1: as a disease, that we were losing over one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people a day to aging diseases. Each one of
Speaker 1: these persons has the potential to step up for a
Speaker 1: therapy that may in fact save their life, and that
Speaker 1: we could use these technologies to save these kids. And
Speaker 1: I just you know, I started, I hit the ground
Speaker 1: running and refused to stop. Well, I mean, you've been
Speaker 1: called some people call you the fire starter, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: And I think that that really comes from my my
Speaker 1: ability to just look at the situation in a really
Speaker 1: different way. You know, I think that regulation is important,
Speaker 1: safety is important, but at the same time regulation and
Speaker 1: safety is killing people. Certainly, if you look at the
Speaker 1: history of gene therapy, you know, there was one real
Speaker 1: visible case of one person who died of gene therapy
Speaker 1: and it really shut the industry down. This was a
Speaker 1: person who was really too sick to take the gene
Speaker 1: therapy and shouldn't have taken it to begin with. And
Speaker 1: it was a viral vector that gave an immune response,
Speaker 1: which was a double whammy, and it killed the kid.
Speaker 1: But every year, you know, upwards of over one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people die of adverse drug effects, and these are
Speaker 1: from prescription medicine that's taken as prescribed. And you know,
Speaker 1: we this is completely covered up. You know, it's covered
Speaker 1: up under ade drug effect. No company is held liable
Speaker 1: not to mention. Like I said, you know, if you
Speaker 1: have athroscleoridic plaques then you take statins, you're very likely
Speaker 1: to die of heart disease regardless of those statins, and
Speaker 1: they have a myriad of side effects. We believe that
Speaker 1: we can actually solve this at the genomic level, that
Speaker 1: we have genes that we can upregulate. We're looking for
Speaker 1: we're looking at one right now that we already have
Speaker 1: working in humans, and we have some antecdotal data. It's
Speaker 1: only a couple people, but it appears to reverse athroscleroidic plaques,
Speaker 1: and it has a myriad of health benefits. On top
Speaker 1: of that, it treats circopenia, which is the muscle loss
Speaker 1: over years, and so you know, cycopenia causes frailty, you
Speaker 1: lose muscle mass, you fall down, you break your hip.
Speaker 1: That's seven percent of the population. Atherosclerosis, if we're right,
Speaker 1: is heart disease that kills over a third of the population.
Speaker 1: What we're saying is that the data is out there.
Speaker 1: We're going to create more data. And if we're sitting
Speaker 1: on cures, it's time to stop doing business as usual,
Speaker 1: it's time to cure people health. Actually, I don't believe
Speaker 1: that health should come at a cost. Right now, these
Speaker 1: therapies are massively expensive. People have to pay top dollar
Speaker 1: to get them from us. Probably the most expensive therapy
Speaker 1: that we would ever come out with. Most of that
Speaker 1: would go into building the gene therapy, and I could
Speaker 1: tell you which one that is, but not all of
Speaker 1: them are that expensive. But at the same time, I
Speaker 1: can't really advertise prices because we work outside of the
Speaker 1: US and so you know, but the thing is that
Speaker 1: you can't get the costs down to that We're trying
Speaker 1: to target every cell in your body. For some of
Speaker 1: the gene therapies, you can just target a much lower
Speaker 1: amount and have the full benefit. So the difference between
Speaker 1: gene therapies, I don't know if your listeners would be interesting,
Speaker 1: but some proteins that genes make, So genes make proteins,
Speaker 1: and proteins make you. And that's the most simplistic way
Speaker 1: to think of it. Proteins are shared outside the cell, okay,
Speaker 1: And when they're shared outside the cell, your body doesn't
Speaker 1: need to make as many of them because it's shared
Speaker 1: for your whole system. There are other proteins that are
Speaker 1: not shared outside the cell. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: they degrade if they go outside of the cell immediately.
Speaker 1: So we have to target nearly every cell in your body.
Speaker 1: And that's really only one gene therapy that we're looking at.
Speaker 1: Right Can every cell have a copy? Do they have
Speaker 1: a copy of the gene? Yeah? So the two gene
Speaker 1: therapies that we're working with right now that we're pushing
Speaker 1: forward first are genes that your cell has a copy of.
Speaker 1: One of them is turned off, it's repressed, and the
Speaker 1: other one down regulates as you get older. So this
Speaker 1: is just blowing my mind that this is the word
Speaker 1: having this conversation and this is really happening. I know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot of people go, oh my gosh, wow, So
Speaker 1: who you know, when is somebody going to do this?
Speaker 1: And and and then I say, you know, our doctor
Speaker 1: actually did it five years ago, right. I remember I
Speaker 1: heard you you talk about that and you said, he's
Speaker 1: at least a year ago. You said, he's doing really well. Oh,
Speaker 1: he's doing he's doing He's you know, he's recently had
Speaker 1: his ct angiogram. He has zero plaques in his arteries.
Speaker 1: Get out of here. Wow, he's in fantastic shape. He
Speaker 1: you know, he's uh, he's able to just get up
Speaker 1: and do what he needs to do. You know, he
Speaker 1: can go and run, he can go and jog, he
Speaker 1: can go and hike. And you know, he's in his
Speaker 1: forties now, which is not too old most of us
Speaker 1: can still do those things. But you know he can
Speaker 1: do them with a certain eloquence that the rest of
Speaker 1: us who don't have the advantage. Yeah, for sure. So
Speaker 1: you know where I come from this is, you know,
Speaker 1: understanding the genetics foundation of motivation and behavior cognition. Yes,
Speaker 1: and so I you know, there's there's fascinating research, you know,
Speaker 1: you looking at twins separate a birth, try to quantify
Speaker 1: the distinction between how many how much is our differences
Speaker 1: in a certain trait influenced by nature versus or genes
Speaker 1: versus the environment. So he came out recently looking at
Speaker 1: academic motivation. So let's just take academic motivation for instance,
Speaker 1: and you see that it's entirely that there's a very
Speaker 1: very strong genetic basis to the desire to learn academic material.
Speaker 1: And the only thing that is non genetic is unique,
Speaker 1: the unique variants to each individual person, not the shared
Speaker 1: variance by the two twins, meaning that like in an
Speaker 1: educational classroom, it seems like academic motivation is strong influenced
Speaker 1: by a combination of the genes that are shared by
Speaker 1: the two twins and the unique interaction of the genes
Speaker 1: with the teacher. And that knowledge is very interesting to
Speaker 1: think about. And what if we like found owned what
Speaker 1: those You know, there's going to be a lot there's
Speaker 1: gonna be a lot of genes interacting with each other,
Speaker 1: and there's going to be up genetics a play etctera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. But we discovered what all those genes are
Speaker 1: I mean, is it? Is it not? Is it foreseeable
Speaker 1: at all in the future that that gene therapy could
Speaker 1: act on things like academic motivation? Oh? Absolutely, I think
Speaker 1: that it will. I think that there is a lot
Speaker 1: that we have to learn. So one of the genes
Speaker 1: that we're looking at now is obviously the clotho vs,
Speaker 1: which is associated with higher IQ. What's interesting is what
Speaker 1: they found with that gene is that if you have one,
Speaker 1: you have a tendency to live longer. They think that
Speaker 1: it might have to do with something with the reasoning
Speaker 1: system of the brain, but there's research. Sorry to interrupt
Speaker 1: you a second, there is research showing that IQ is
Speaker 1: correlated with longevity. Yes, but this is interesting. Other people
Speaker 1: have said that if you have two of the copies
Speaker 1: of that same gene, you're more prone to depression. So
Speaker 1: it would be interesting. Some of the most famous existential
Speaker 1: philosophers of all time could have told you that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think. Actually, I work with a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are like that. They're you know, they're pretty motivated people,
Speaker 1: but they have an underlying Yeah underlying is this really it?
Speaker 1: And I think it's because they're so smart and their
Speaker 1: brains work so fast. Luckily, I'm not one of those people,
Speaker 1: so I think that we will be able to manipulate
Speaker 1: the brain. Our company, before bio Viva was formed, we
Speaker 1: formed out of a company called neural Gene and that
Speaker 1: that company expressly was developing gene therapies to treat neurodegenerative diseases.
Speaker 1: And that's our first patent actually for Bioviva came over
Speaker 1: from the doctor who worked for neural Gene and he
Speaker 1: brought the patent for the for H factor. It's essentially
Speaker 1: something that he found with using stem cells in patients
Speaker 1: with ALS and Parkinson's. So he's expressly worked with patients
Speaker 1: with ALS for I think about six or eight months,
Speaker 1: and he was treating them with stem cells to the
Speaker 1: brain and they were showing recovery within twenty four forty
Speaker 1: eight hours. They were showing the ability to have cognition
Speaker 1: that they hadn't, to have physical abilities that they hadn't had.
Speaker 1: People who hadn't spoken for eight months called him up
Speaker 1: within a week to say thank you. People who hadn't
Speaker 1: been able to stand up were standing up. Now these
Speaker 1: were small feats, but they were big jumps, and he
Speaker 1: realized that there was no way possible that anything in
Speaker 1: the brain could be recovering and that quick of a
Speaker 1: time that something else was happening, and he went deep
Speaker 1: to the research and created the first patent for what
Speaker 1: turns out by a VIVA and that was the release
Speaker 1: of this H factor from stem cells. So when you
Speaker 1: take stem cells and you tear them out of one
Speaker 1: spot in the body and you throw them in another,
Speaker 1: one thing that they are doing is they're signaling, and
Speaker 1: they're signaling like crazy. Their job is to signal and
Speaker 1: say there's damage, there's damage, recover, recover. They suddenly get
Speaker 1: cells signaling that have gone dormant or they have gone
Speaker 1: dormant for two reasons, maybe biological aging and maybe because
Speaker 1: of the disease itself. Things start signaling and you start
Speaker 1: to see this massive improvement. But all of those stem cells,
Speaker 1: almost all of them, if you track them, go leave
Speaker 1: the area. And it's true that within a matter of
Speaker 1: weeks to months these patients regress back into their disease state.
Speaker 1: What's fantastic about this therapy is that it has the
Speaker 1: ability to maybe tackle als and parkin and we actually
Speaker 1: don't know there may be uses outside of that. So
Speaker 1: the brain is a very important zone for us and
Speaker 1: something we'd definitely like to look at. We'd like to
Speaker 1: work with things like depression and various other things. I
Speaker 1: think that what we'll need. Right now, we have gene
Speaker 1: therapy so we can insert sorry, So right now we
Speaker 1: have gene therapy so we can insert a gene. In
Speaker 1: the future, we'll have genetic engineering, where you know, we're
Speaker 1: using kind of crisper type methods to cut things out
Speaker 1: and put good copies in credible And then in the
Speaker 1: very a little bit farther off future, hopefully closer than
Speaker 1: we think, we'll have genomic engineering. And I think that's
Speaker 1: really what you're thinking of, is when you're thinking of,
Speaker 1: you know, all of the chromosomes working in harmony, Will
Speaker 1: we have to switch a chromozoon out? Will we cut
Speaker 1: you know, half of one off and replace it with
Speaker 1: something good and half of the other. When we look
Speaker 1: at all the genes and how they're they're essentially making
Speaker 1: music together, we find all the bad players and witch
Speaker 1: them out, that will be genomic engineering, And that is
Speaker 1: when our future will be much more bright than it
Speaker 1: is now. But right now it's looking pretty good. Maybe
Speaker 1: the look of a movie I saw recently, you probably
Speaker 1: know exactly what I'm talking about. That where there's this
Speaker 1: like beauty company there they say that they will make
Speaker 1: you look much younger, and what they actually did is
Speaker 1: they just replaced all the genes and the person was
Speaker 1: not the same, and you know, and the son was like,
Speaker 1: where'd my mom go? Where'd my mom go? And it
Speaker 1: raised lots of I don't know, did you see this movie?
Speaker 1: I wish I could remember the name of it. No,
Speaker 1: I didn't. You know. The thing is, I rarely ever
Speaker 1: watch a movie. My friends will say, oh, something, going
Speaker 1: to watch one movie this year, so we have to
Speaker 1: choose what that movie is, and so I see very
Speaker 1: few movies and I don't watch TV. And I think
Speaker 1: that it's it's cute because I often, you know, people
Speaker 1: will say, oh, what you do reminds me of this movie,
Speaker 1: and I always look at them and I say, now,
Speaker 1: I want you to be the movie you want to see,
Speaker 1: like go out there and do something great. Because but
Speaker 1: but I do appreciate moves. I mean I do enjoy
Speaker 1: it whenever I do sit down to one. I just
Speaker 1: don't do it very often. So I wish I knew
Speaker 1: what that was. That's totally fair. I can't say I
Speaker 1: really enjoyed this movie that much, but it did get
Speaker 1: me thinking. You know, if we ever got to the
Speaker 1: point where we could kind of genetically engineer like like
Speaker 1: copy like entire like the entire genome, you know, how
Speaker 1: similar would would we would I be? It is a
Speaker 1: good question, and you know it has to do with phenotype,
Speaker 1: and so we know we can increase your muscle mass, right,
Speaker 1: but we don't know that we can change what your
Speaker 1: nose looks like. Those are really big, big, intricate problems
Speaker 1: that we don't have time to look into now. Of course,
Speaker 1: we would love to have time to look into that
Speaker 1: in the future. That would be a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: And that's why we're trying to knock aging off and
Speaker 1: pass that on to free cures for the world, and
Speaker 1: then we can work on the more fun aspects of
Speaker 1: the genome. I will never be done. It's just far
Speaker 1: too big to ever be done. But I do wonder
Speaker 1: about that myself. You know, what can we change? We
Speaker 1: can probably change pigment and things like that. Now, so
Speaker 1: with gene therapy that you know, the great thing about
Speaker 1: it right now is we can add a gene and
Speaker 1: that sounds in comparison to genomic engineering so weak. But
Speaker 1: the great thing about it is we don't risk your
Speaker 1: body not identifying those other cells, and so there's the
Speaker 1: possibility of changing out massive parts of your genome. But
Speaker 1: if you think about it, we don't really have the
Speaker 1: technology right now to not only do that, but to
Speaker 1: keep your body from rejecting that. So if I, you know,
Speaker 1: shove my blood into your system, your blood, your body's
Speaker 1: going to try to eradicate that. In the same way,
Speaker 1: if we were eloquently able to change a bunch of
Speaker 1: your genome and didn't change all of it, you know,
Speaker 1: one part of your body would be attacking the other body,
Speaker 1: much like an organ transplantation, right right you mentioned maybe
Speaker 1: think of that Russian man who had agreed to have
Speaker 1: his head or something put on another person's body. Did
Speaker 1: you see that, Yeah, I did see that. I was
Speaker 1: really I'm really proud of him for being a pioneer.
Speaker 1: I think that we have to come into our pioneering spirit.
Speaker 1: I think that we have to realize that there may
Speaker 1: be something to lose to make a better future. Now,
Speaker 1: gene therapy is a lot less threatening than a head transplant.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, there are hundreds of people
Speaker 1: going through clinical trials of gene therapy right now, and
Speaker 1: no one's dying. People don't die from the gene therapy anymore.
Speaker 1: As we work into new gene therapies, there may in
Speaker 1: fact be a likelihood that some of them will be
Speaker 1: unknown what exactly will happen with them. But this is
Speaker 1: done so carefully that I don't think we'll have that.
Speaker 1: But I'm really proud of him being a pioneer for that.
Speaker 1: And I think that somebody said something that made sense
Speaker 1: to me. I saw it in an email stream. They
Speaker 1: said they shouldn't be calling this a head transplant, they
Speaker 1: should be calling it a body transplant or something like that,
Speaker 1: because actually, grossly, he's achieving a brand new body onto
Speaker 1: his head. The outcome this will be a fascinating process
Speaker 1: to watch. I can totally understand why he wants to
Speaker 1: do this. I'm really surprised that about people who cling
Speaker 1: so tightly to life that they can't see how someone
Speaker 1: who can think clearly but can't use the rest of
Speaker 1: their body would want to just go on in that state,
Speaker 1: a state that will inevitably kill them. Do you sell
Speaker 1: you have immense compassion? Oh? Yeah, that I have. You
Speaker 1: know that people often ask me, because this is a
Speaker 1: longevity company, They're like, so, are you afraid to die?
Speaker 1: I'm not afraid to die. I'm not afraid of death
Speaker 1: for anyone. I am immensely shattered by suffering. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: get that. It comes through so clear, and also that
Speaker 1: you want to increase the quality of living. And you
Speaker 1: say something, how we die has everything to do with
Speaker 1: how we live, right, Yeah, it does. It has everything
Speaker 1: to do with how we live. And the more humanity
Speaker 1: that the world has injected into its veins makes a
Speaker 1: better world. We've seen that over and over again. If
Speaker 1: you look at the industrialized country, how they treat their
Speaker 1: animals is changing, how they treat each other, how they
Speaker 1: feed the rest of the world. We inherently get better
Speaker 1: the better our lives get. And I think that humanity
Speaker 1: would get a big boost up from eradicating a lot
Speaker 1: of these us suffered a lot of the suffrage from
Speaker 1: these diseases. They do not create a humane world. And
Speaker 1: you can see that gentleness leave someone as they become
Speaker 1: diseased and as they become more and more in pain,
Speaker 1: and that just you know, there are so many sayings
Speaker 1: that I think need to be knocked down because they're
Speaker 1: really ideas of the lowest common denominator. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: I think that we reach so low today in society
Speaker 1: that you know, we comfort ourselves with sayings like, oh,
Speaker 1: you only get what you can handle. You know, talk
Speaker 1: to a family that has a kid who's sick or
Speaker 1: a kid who's dying. They can't handle it. There's just
Speaker 1: nothing else they can do. But go on. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't drop dead because you're handed something you can't handle.
Speaker 1: You know, people say things like, well, on your deathbed,
Speaker 1: you'll wish you would have worked less. You know, that's
Speaker 1: not true. That just means that you did something that
Speaker 1: you didn't actually have a passion for. We should work more,
Speaker 1: We should try to achieve everything we can in this world,
Speaker 1: and we should incorporate the people that we love into that.
Speaker 1: If we really loved what we were doing, then they
Speaker 1: would be incorporated into our lives. We must work, we
Speaker 1: must achieve, we must get things done. We should not
Speaker 1: be sitting around and and you know, working on this
Speaker 1: low standard of achievement that you know a lot of
Speaker 1: the world is starting to have. Yeah, I don't want
Speaker 1: to sound like sickophant here, But that sounded very politic.
Speaker 1: What did it sound like? Poetic? It was very esthetic,
Speaker 1: Like everything you just said was very aesthetically pleasing to me. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm glad. I mean, you're a doer, and I think
Speaker 1: that it's not inherently a person's fault if they're not.
Speaker 1: But what we need to nurture for each other, for
Speaker 1: our communities is passion. And passion and being able to
Speaker 1: pay the bills should go hand in hand. And so
Speaker 1: I think that that's you know, I often, you know,
Speaker 1: people do they give me names like fire starter and
Speaker 1: things like that, because there's a lot wrong with society
Speaker 1: and we sort of need to burn and raise a
Speaker 1: lot of ideas to the ground so that we can
Speaker 1: start over, so that we can start over with For instance,
Speaker 1: this is one big pet peep that I have is
Speaker 1: safety and efficacy equals you know, a billion and a
Speaker 1: half dollars in the US. So to get through the FDA,
Speaker 1: you need to raise about a billion and a half
Speaker 1: dollars now, and I hear that that's increasing all the time.
Speaker 1: But actually money and safety and efficacy shouldn't have anything
Speaker 1: to do with each other. They're actually two different things.
Speaker 1: And it's and it's a it's a problem that people
Speaker 1: have separating those things. I've had people say no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you know you have to you have to go through
Speaker 1: the system, and why should it cost so much? Why
Speaker 1: should saving a life cost so much? Uh. Some of
Speaker 1: the therapies that we work with are very hard to patent. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you can't patent a gene and the viral vectors
Speaker 1: have been patented. And people will say, well, you can't
Speaker 1: make a company, you can't treat people with unpatentable therapies
Speaker 1: because you know where do you make your money. Well, actually,
Speaker 1: you can make money by treating people. You can do
Speaker 1: the right thing by treating people. You can those those
Speaker 1: two things just don't go together. We have to stop
Speaker 1: this mentality of patent, patent, patent, shut the other guy
Speaker 1: out when it comes to cures. That is not where
Speaker 1: we should be. That's a nutraceutical thing. That's a pharmaceutical thing.
Speaker 1: But pharmaceutical is a neutral suiticles sit to the left. Okay,
Speaker 1: there's nutriceuticals. They were very powerful for their time. They
Speaker 1: still work. There's vitamins and minerals and various things there.
Speaker 1: Then there's pharmaceuticals and they're like a bumped up nutraceutical
Speaker 1: that basically has a bunch of side effects, and some
Speaker 1: of the side effects help us with disease states, and
Speaker 1: a lot of them don't. A lot of them make
Speaker 1: us feel terrible. But those are all on the left.
Speaker 1: Those are all marketing products, okay. On the right should
Speaker 1: be the cures, and everyone should have access to those cures.
Speaker 1: Those cures should be free for the world, and there
Speaker 1: should be no debate as to whether a company is
Speaker 1: doing the right thing or whether a company can make
Speaker 1: money doing that. Of course, a company can make money
Speaker 1: doing that. As a matter of fact, if you will
Speaker 1: hold the cure for athrosclerosis, just check out what you
Speaker 1: know how much money statins make every year. And if
Speaker 1: it's not even a patentable idea, it's just a therapeutic
Speaker 1: that you're giving, you could as well. We try to
Speaker 1: drive the costs as low as possible, get them as
Speaker 1: close to what it costs to actually have a therapeutic
Speaker 1: made for the human body, so that we profit very little,
Speaker 1: so that we can move the data forward. But of
Speaker 1: course we want these to be free, which is a
Speaker 1: lot cheaper than that. In the future, we have to
Speaker 1: come up with a new idea, and the new idea
Speaker 1: is just a completely different way of thinking. And there's
Speaker 1: always going to be a market for pharmaceuticals, and there's
Speaker 1: always going to be a market for nutraceuticals. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, when everyone's beefed up on gene therapies
Speaker 1: and living youthfully to one hundred and twenty or whatever
Speaker 1: it is, whatever their target goal is in living just
Speaker 1: how they want to look and just how they want
Speaker 1: to feel. I guarantee they're still going to take nutraceuticals.
Speaker 1: They're going to want to make sure they're maximizing everything.
Speaker 1: They're going to continue to take aspirin and their pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 1: There's enough room for everyone here. You said as well,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so many things unpacked there. But hold on,
Speaker 1: how long are we talking here that we could actually
Speaker 1: people could live like I mean, we could actually decide
Speaker 1: like we want to with three hundred years. Well we
Speaker 1: you know what our company does is we say we
Speaker 1: look at a human and we say, potentially you can
Speaker 1: live to one hundred and twenty years. We're saying that
Speaker 1: that might be a human potential. We want you to
Speaker 1: live youthfully, well, strong, visually accurate, just right to the
Speaker 1: end of one hundred and twenty years. We are post
Speaker 1: with a question and a question that we'd rather have
Speaker 1: you answer than us, and that is, if you're healthy,
Speaker 1: what do you die of? Right? That's exactly the question, right,
Speaker 1: what are you dying? What are you dying of? I mean,
Speaker 1: like other than like in hit, run over by a
Speaker 1: car or yeah, what are you dying of? So what
Speaker 1: if I mean, isn't it technically possible that this would
Speaker 1: make Like if you like took yourself and like locked
Speaker 1: yourself in a shack for five hundred years, could you
Speaker 1: actually live that long? Well, we know that the human
Speaker 1: body actually likes to be worked. So if you put
Speaker 1: a car away like that, you might actually preserve the
Speaker 1: car as long as you didn't put gasoline and oil
Speaker 1: into it. But human bodies like to be worked. We
Speaker 1: don't know how long people could live. We would definitely
Speaker 1: like to find out. Would We would be thrilled to
Speaker 1: find out, and I hope that it's a very long time.
Speaker 1: Some of the charts that I show during one of
Speaker 1: my presentations shows the normal way to die, and so
Speaker 1: this is something that we had talked about before, but
Speaker 1: we didn't elaborate on. So what's normal? Okay, the normal
Speaker 1: way for humans to die is before the age of thirty,
Speaker 1: of infectious disease. This is this was normal all the
Speaker 1: way up to the advent of antibiotics and immunizations. Have
Speaker 1: I read ninety of people died from infectious disease? Oh?
Speaker 1: Absolutely so. The one graph that I have the plague
Speaker 1: was actually rampant that week that we took that data from.
Speaker 1: But if you look one hundred, two hundred years before
Speaker 1: or after that graph, still about ninety percent of the
Speaker 1: population is dying of infectious disease. So that is actually
Speaker 1: what we normally die of. So when people say, well,
Speaker 1: dying of aging is normal, I call it a situational opinion.
Speaker 1: It's only normal in your lifetime. You know, in your grandparents' lifetime.
Speaker 1: That actually wasn't normal. In your great grandparents' lifetime, that
Speaker 1: certainly wasn't normal, right. I think that what the graph
Speaker 1: is going to look like in the future. So right now,
Speaker 1: so infectious disease used to kill about ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the population. Now it kills three percent in the US,
Speaker 1: in an industrialized country. I think that the rest of
Speaker 1: the graph is you know, heart disease, nephropathies, cancer, Alzheimer's,
Speaker 1: diabetes type two, things like that, frailty and accidents. So
Speaker 1: that takes up the rest of the chart. I have
Speaker 1: a feeling that in the future, and this sounds very grim,
Speaker 1: but if you think about it by the numbers, it's
Speaker 1: very different. I think in the future, the graph is
Speaker 1: going to go look to look like the old graph.
Speaker 1: It's going to go back to look like the graph
Speaker 1: from sixteen sixty five, or ninety percent of the population
Speaker 1: or dieing of infectious disease. The difference will be that
Speaker 1: those people will be I don't know how old, three
Speaker 1: digits maybe even four digits old, whereas the people in
Speaker 1: the sixteen sixty five graph are obviously thirty and under
Speaker 1: more digits. You say someone can live to one thousand
Speaker 1: years of age. We really don't know. But what we
Speaker 1: do know is that if we reset cellular division, if
Speaker 1: we reset epigenetic expression to youthful states, and then if
Speaker 1: we upregulate the proteins, that will help the body clear
Speaker 1: etherteroscleroidic plaques, clear misfolded proteins. If we get the system
Speaker 1: to the point where it's behaving better than it ever did. Okay.
Speaker 1: A lot of people think when I talk about aging
Speaker 1: as a disease that I'm picking on people over thirty
Speaker 1: or I'm picking on people over fifty. It's usually like
Speaker 1: ten years older than however old they are, because they
Speaker 1: don't want to associate. But actually, you're born with aging
Speaker 1: as a disease, and so it's that accumulation of damage
Speaker 1: that's going on that leads to your end stage disease.
Speaker 1: And now more and more they're finding that you can
Speaker 1: actually look at the human body, of the twenty year
Speaker 1: old human body, and you can see symptoms, signs and
Speaker 1: symptoms of probably what will kill them in the future.
Speaker 1: I know that they're finding Alzheimer's as early as the twenties.
Speaker 1: Athroscloridic plaques can start building up as young as ten.
Speaker 1: Cancer is something we see in human bodies from about
Speaker 1: the age five and up. It's just at about sixty
Speaker 1: five years of age, your risk of mortality from cancer
Speaker 1: goes up about eighty five percent. We think that has
Speaker 1: everything to do with the immune system. The immune system
Speaker 1: just isn't catching it anymore, okay, but all of these
Speaker 1: things are accumulating over time, you're developing cancer's cells, but
Speaker 1: the immune system clears it out. So it's just a
Speaker 1: matter of time to when your immune system isn't as
Speaker 1: strong and doesn't clear them anymore. But we're seeing this
Speaker 1: accumulation of damage and misfolded proteins. What we have to
Speaker 1: do is we have to create almost a better human.
Speaker 1: So we can do this with human genes. We don't
Speaker 1: think that we have to look outside the human genome,
Speaker 1: although some people are really excited about doing that, do
Speaker 1: you right, like robots? Do we want What do you
Speaker 1: mean like like robots? Like, yeah, I mean with actually
Speaker 1: genes from other creatures. Okay, I don't know if we
Speaker 1: were going there for a second. Yeah, some people want
Speaker 1: to be like, you know, cats half cat or something
Speaker 1: like this. You know, we don't know what the advantages
Speaker 1: would be, but we wouldn't touch that right now because
Speaker 1: one thing we would not want to do is open
Speaker 1: up the human genome to any sort of diseases, right right,
Speaker 1: So we wouldn't want to create We wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: make humans into vectors that might make other people sick.
Speaker 1: We just want to use human genes. We've got enough
Speaker 1: of them and see what we can do now in
Speaker 1: a safe way. To get people healthy, and then that's
Speaker 1: that's the whole point. So if you're healthy, if you're
Speaker 1: honestly healthy, I'm not talking about when you're eighty five
Speaker 1: and you go in for an exam and then you
Speaker 1: come out. People tell me all the time they're like, well,
Speaker 1: I was told I was healthy at my last exam.
Speaker 1: I'm eighty five and my doctor said I was healthy. Well,
Speaker 1: he wasn't comparing you to me, and he was certainly
Speaker 1: wasn't comparing you to a seventy year old. He was
Speaker 1: comparing you to another person who's eighty. Okay, so you know,
Speaker 1: we so if you're truly healthy, not just what your
Speaker 1: doctor might tell you today, what do you die of?
Speaker 1: We don't know. Gosh, it's so fascinating because you know,
Speaker 1: you showed this one chart that was so interesting showing
Speaker 1: that between the ages of I guess you know, fifteen
Speaker 1: and thirty, our chances of dying from diseases about zero percent. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it really is. And if we can reset, can you
Speaker 1: reset every like thirty years, can we reset you back
Speaker 1: to that point? So that's we're talking about that now.
Speaker 1: So what we're talking about is whether some of these
Speaker 1: gene therapies should be transient gene therapies, meaning that we
Speaker 1: insert the gene, it only lasts for a limited amount
Speaker 1: of time, or it only if you want to think
Speaker 1: about it, is it only codes for that protein for
Speaker 1: a certain amount of time and it leaves yourself. Or
Speaker 1: if they should be upregulated permanently. Our company is kind
Speaker 1: of masters of the permanent upregulation. We're a bit of survivalists.
Speaker 1: We like that idea, but transient gene therapies definitely have
Speaker 1: their value. And so with a transient gene therapy, that
Speaker 1: would be something where you would come in, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe every ten years and you would get a gene
Speaker 1: boosting therapy. The reason, one of the reasons we don't
Speaker 1: like that right now is because we don't want you
Speaker 1: to have an immune response later down the road. So
Speaker 1: right to the genes themselves, you won't have a response,
Speaker 1: but to the vectors that we use, you might. And
Speaker 1: so if we did something every ten years or so,
Speaker 1: you know, you would probably have to take an immune
Speaker 1: suppressant in order to take it, because your body would
Speaker 1: get tipped off to some of the viral vectors that
Speaker 1: we're using, and we wouldn't want that response. That response
Speaker 1: might also knock genes out that we inserted, so that's hypothetical.
Speaker 1: But so one time gene therapy I think is the optimal,
Speaker 1: right at least for now. Yeah, is it painful to
Speaker 1: inject a gene into what I would it feel like? Oh? No, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's not painful. I mean it's painful in the sense
Speaker 1: of an intramuscular injection is not comfortable. So the difference
Speaker 1: would be Okay, if you don't have any indications that
Speaker 1: would make you need a diabetic type needle, then it
Speaker 1: might be hard to explain that to you. But for
Speaker 1: people who take human growth hormone who for people who
Speaker 1: are type two or type one diabetics, they use a
Speaker 1: really small needle and it's just a subcutaneous needle and
Speaker 1: it doesn't really have much pain at all associated with it.
Speaker 1: An intramuscular shot like we give is more like it's
Speaker 1: like an immunization. So yeah, you're going to have some
Speaker 1: soreness in that area. But you know, it's like I've
Speaker 1: said before, if we're right about the the myostat and
Speaker 1: inhibitor that may reverse athroscleoridic plaques, Yeah, that would be
Speaker 1: five shots in each of your legs, So that's ten
Speaker 1: shots total. But then you won't get open heart surgery.
Speaker 1: You know, you would be protected against those things. You
Speaker 1: would be protected against broken hips, you would be I
Speaker 1: think that the amount of discomfort would be completely acceptable,
Speaker 1: I would say so certainly. Seems so like get you
Speaker 1: said you hope to have evidence of age reversal by
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. Is that still Are you still on course
Speaker 1: for that? Do you think we are still on course
Speaker 1: for that? And we are very hopeful and I would
Speaker 1: I would love you to check back in in the
Speaker 1: next few months. So we are on course for that.
Speaker 1: We're a little bit afraid now it may slip to
Speaker 1: spring of twenty sixteen, but we're definitely still have two thousand. Well,
Speaker 1: if I win the lottery like tomorrow, like fifty billion dollars,
Speaker 1: I'll be checking back in with you on that. Well absolutely, yeah,
Speaker 1: I want you to definitely, you know, come in funding
Speaker 1: the company. We'll make you know, ten times your money
Speaker 1: back in the next five years. We'd be happy. We
Speaker 1: we actually don't need very much actually to get going
Speaker 1: comparatively to companies who are trying to How much you
Speaker 1: do need? Like, tell me what would be helpful if
Speaker 1: someone was listening to this podcast that's independently wealthy. Oh
Speaker 1: how wealthy are they? Let's see now, So actually we
Speaker 1: need about two point five million dollars would would get
Speaker 1: us to profit. They would be very happy with that profit.
Speaker 1: The whole is to build labs, and there's two ideas.
Speaker 1: It's two point five million dollars. We can build labs
Speaker 1: to get the cost down on the therapies, and we
Speaker 1: can start treating people. I feel like that that much.
Speaker 1: I was expecting you to say a lot more, but
Speaker 1: really the full monty deal and is not much more.
Speaker 1: Is four point five million total, because we'd like to
Speaker 1: bring in an extra two million to run two offshore
Speaker 1: clinical trials at FDA standards with an IRB, so that
Speaker 1: we can run our therapies directly with ten patients. You know,
Speaker 1: that would be our cohort that are absolutely diagnosed, with
Speaker 1: one group with athrosclerosis and the other group with Alzheimer's,
Speaker 1: And that is where the big push would be. It's
Speaker 1: to get that money. So it's to get the whole
Speaker 1: four point five million so we can run the two
Speaker 1: clinical trials. We can prove what we've got, and that
Speaker 1: would be a beauty, full, beautiful start. So I'm just thinking,
Speaker 1: like in the future, what if you prove this stuff
Speaker 1: is and it gets FDA approved, and you know, why
Speaker 1: wouldn't we have universal health care for this stuff? You know,
Speaker 1: like I, as a taxpayer, I certainly wouldn't mind. I
Speaker 1: don't think taxpayers would mind if they would be able
Speaker 1: to personally also be able to experience this right well,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, taxpayers should save a lot
Speaker 1: of money. The government would save a lot of money.
Speaker 1: Everyone would save a lot of money. A no brainer
Speaker 1: to me. Yeah, So right now we've hit the Silver
Speaker 1: tsunami in the United States and as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: for the whole world. So now you have to picture this.
Speaker 1: You got to put your mind around the whole world.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about first world countries, we're talking about
Speaker 1: we're talking about the most populated places on Earth. The
Speaker 1: whole world, by twenty twenty crosses the Silver Tsunami. And
Speaker 1: what that means there's more people over sixty five on
Speaker 1: the whole planet than there are under five. The under
Speaker 1: five group really important group because they're the workforce. They
Speaker 1: are the force that is going to come up paying
Speaker 1: for the health care costs of all these aging people,
Speaker 1: and there are so few of them compared to the
Speaker 1: sixty fives and over that they cannot afford it. So
Speaker 1: if you have people living to one hundred and twenty,
Speaker 1: but they're retiring at sixty five half of their life,
Speaker 1: they're not working, they're not productive, and it gets worse
Speaker 1: from there. They're going to accumulate massive debt and the
Speaker 1: government is going to have to pay for massive amount
Speaker 1: of health care. So just over one presidential term, one
Speaker 1: four year term, the government could save something like fifty
Speaker 1: no five trillion dollars on healthcare if we eradicated the
Speaker 1: diseases of aging. Hell at that point, you know, I
Speaker 1: know a friend of mine, Bill Andrews, wrote a book,
Speaker 1: and in his book he said that the government could
Speaker 1: afford to pay you midway through life, pay ten year
Speaker 1: sabbatical where you could retrain, travel the world, do all
Speaker 1: the things you needed to do preparing for your second
Speaker 1: half of life. What job you would have for the
Speaker 1: second half of your life with the money, say a
Speaker 1: book that's stuff? Can you did I hear someonere that
Speaker 1: like right now? You could for one point three million
Speaker 1: dollars you could save your eyesight so that there is
Speaker 1: a there is a genetic cure coming out for eyesight,
Speaker 1: and it does run around one point three million dollars.
Speaker 1: So uh, that is for macular degeneration. And you know
Speaker 1: this is something that you know Biobiva could do for
Speaker 1: a fraction of that cost, maybe a fifth of that cost.
Speaker 1: It's okay. I have a couple of questions, and you
Speaker 1: know I am very respectful of your time, So just
Speaker 1: a couple more minutes. Are you personally thinking of trying
Speaker 1: and if that's too personal question, you know, I apologize,
Speaker 1: but you thought about trying any of this yourself. I
Speaker 1: would actually like our company based on built on with
Speaker 1: all the people working in it, based on people who
Speaker 1: were Okay, let me let me formulate that again, because
Speaker 1: I this is so crazy. I would like it if
Speaker 1: everyone who ran this company had taken these therapies. I
Speaker 1: would never make anyone take them, but I would like
Speaker 1: to see the people working with Bioviva to be that
Speaker 1: committed to them that we wouldn't give anything to you
Speaker 1: that we wouldn't take ourselves. Right, And so that basically
Speaker 1: answered my question, like that includes you, I would absolutely
Speaker 1: for them. Yeah, Well, so who else is in this
Speaker 1: space right now? So are you Are you a leader
Speaker 1: in this, in this revolution, so to speak? I think
Speaker 1: that we are so everywhere that I look around, no
Speaker 1: one seems to be equipped to make this move. Now.
Speaker 1: We did see this in offshore companies and medical tourism
Speaker 1: with stem cells. I guess that's one of the businesses
Speaker 1: that's most closely aligned. Although genetic cures are so much
Speaker 1: more powerful. I think that that stem cells are wonderful,
Speaker 1: and there will be areas that we will use stem cells,
Speaker 1: but actually, uh, you know, creating a more substantial protected
Speaker 1: genome should be the fixative cure. Uh, there are not
Speaker 1: a lot of people in this zone. I don't know
Speaker 1: anyone else. I know a lot of people who talk
Speaker 1: about it, say that they're gonna do it, say that
Speaker 1: they would like to do it. I don't know anyone
Speaker 1: else doing it. Incredible, absolutely incredible. So how far off
Speaker 1: are we from genomic engineering? I know you said that's
Speaker 1: the future genomic engineering. You should talk to our chief
Speaker 1: scientific officer about that. So his name is Abby Roy
Speaker 1: and he's at Oxford, and he would know more about
Speaker 1: how close we are to that. That's a ways off,
Speaker 1: and right now we focus on what we can do
Speaker 1: right now with keeping our researchers' minds open to that
Speaker 1: sort of technology. But our researchers are all expanding into
Speaker 1: like Chrisper type technology now and then more uses of
Speaker 1: gene therapy that we have available. We're very much are
Speaker 1: right now. What can we do right now? How can
Speaker 1: we intervene right now? How could we get people healthy
Speaker 1: right now who are dying right you know, But you're
Speaker 1: simultaneously also a visionary. Oh, absolutely absolutely. That's why I
Speaker 1: brought it up because we will continue to expand we
Speaker 1: will as our company grows and as we have more money,
Speaker 1: we will want to bring on the best talent in
Speaker 1: the world, and actually not just the best talent, but
Speaker 1: the most innovative people. That's a team that's that's worth
Speaker 1: so much. We're you know, the team that we have
Speaker 1: are people who think outside the box. They're not worried
Speaker 1: about things like reputation because they know that they're doing
Speaker 1: the right thing. You know, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people that will say, well, you can't do things this
Speaker 1: way because that's not how business is done. And we
Speaker 1: think that it's time to change business to make a
Speaker 1: better world, right And yeah, it's just really nice to
Speaker 1: hear someone doing what you're doing. It doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: you're you're motivated by the profit margin or by any
Speaker 1: sort of you know, because when you see these kinds
Speaker 1: of science fiction movies, people doing what you're doing are
Speaker 1: often paying as the bad guys. Do you know what
Speaker 1: I mean? Yeah, I know. That's why I don't watch movies.
Speaker 1: You know, that's a good point. When I talk about investors,
Speaker 1: investors will be really happy with what we've got it.
Speaker 1: But when I talk about why we do it, the
Speaker 1: people who came together in this company, not one of
Speaker 1: us did it to come to live high on the line.
Speaker 1: Nobody came for a Mercedes or a mansion or anything else.
Speaker 1: We came to get the job done. And we're taking
Speaker 1: the big risk to get a job done, to make
Speaker 1: a better world, because actually, I think that life would
Speaker 1: be a waste if you didn't do that. I don't
Speaker 1: have to live high on the line. I don't have
Speaker 1: to have big cars and big houses. That has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with my internal desire. Well, well, the investors
Speaker 1: want that, they probably will. That's not our goal at all.
Speaker 1: That's wonderful. Well, I wish you all the best and yeah,
Speaker 1: it'd be great to stay in touch. Well. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Thank you thanks for listening to The Psychology
Speaker 1: Podcast with Doctor Scott Barry Kaufman. I hope you found
Speaker 1: this episode just as an informative and thought provoking as
Speaker 1: I did. If you'd like to read the show notes
Speaker 1: for this episode or here past episodes, you can go
Speaker 1: to the Psychology Podcast dot com