The Truth About Longevity, Cancer and What We're Getting Wrong | Dr Jack Kreindler

0:00They are scavengers of NAD and these inflammatory processes love and need NAD 60, 70, 80 times more than normal cells. Wow. Okay. That's why there's... There's a hole in the bucket. It's not just the bucket has stopped producing NAD. There's a hole. Those holes are filled at the bottom with hungry mouths saying, please give me whatever's dripping through here. So what happens if you fill up that bucket with high pressure NAD? You're fueling the cancer cells. You're fueling the cells that are doing the job. And there is research now that's showing this, by the way. I know very well. And this is one of the fundamental things of like, okay, this is an example of people that know everything there is to know about biology.

0:53and the difference between the people that know everything there is to know about biology and the people that know they don't is the people that know everything there is to know about biology when they make a mistake people die it's quite extreme it is and and also like the last thing that i think about doing if someone comes into hospital is sticking up an iv infusion in them if they don't need it why because it's a plastic bag with pfasks massive amount of microplastics it's got it's plastic who on earth knows how those bags have been stored and manufactured and made before they're uh they're filled up with whatever it is you're going to inject in somebody there there are forever chemicals in the linings of of bags it's not that ivs are really cool i mean you give somebody that cannot absorb fluids you give them ivs you can practically wake up the dead yeah it's miraculous what you can do with an intravenous infusion imagine days where we were not able to put in iv bags and people many people die either of hypovolemic shock or you know like not having enough blood volume etc fluid volume in their in their system so they would lose their lives because of lack of blood pressure uh through to not having enough of anything yeah whether it's glucose whether it's salts whether it's sugars it's life-saving but the last thing that nav intravenous drips are becoming like the new thing I mean, I would avoid an IV bag like the plague if you didn't need it.

2:26I've got an amazing infusion device. It's a huge bag with an incredible filtration system. It's called My Gut. It's an amazing bag. It contains the most incredible ways of filtering things and making sure that the right things go in and the bad stuff goes out. Popping that directly into a vein is one of the goofiest things I can imagine that you'd ever want to do. And yet the placebo effect is huge. You know, we talked about anti-doping. The World Anti-Doping Association doesn't really care so much about some of the stuff you put in the bag. What does it care about? The volume. It's the amount that's in the bag that they don't like.

3:12You can put in vitamins, you can put in different stuff, not banned substances, but if you put in things that expand the volume of your blood, if you put a lot of that in, they don't like it. It is not that it is ineffective, but you don't want to be doing it if you don't have to. And so what you need to do is you need to do something daily, like we talked about before. It's like if you're doing things toothbrush level once or twice a day, that is almost certainly going to be better for you than doing something at the Sixth Sense's hotel in Ibiza in the spa. That's a great spa, by the way. It is a great spa.

3:52It's a fantastic spa. But doing that once a year is not going to increase your longevity. What is, is blocking those inflammatory pathways. And maybe, if you want, taking an NAD precursor. NM. Yeah. That's a great rapper from the 80s. but yeah because that's the precursor to nad but do you think i mean i from when i wrote my article it's it's not like abundant that that's going to massively like hugely boost them but there is some data that shows that's probably more effective than taking an nad yeah if you take a precursor every day and you block the pathways that are sucking that nad up in the wrong places i'm pretty sure that we will find better outcomes on that than massive doses of a highly potent substance that is scavenged by bad cells yeah um so well i think the fact that one two of us are going to get cancer in our lifetime we don't really want to be kind of pushing anything more in there that can kind of aggravate that even further it's not quite one and two but is it not one and two is it one 103.

5:01Yeah, I mean, you are right. Half of us will die with cancer, diagnosed or undiagnosed. But one in seven to one in four of us will die of cancer. So I think it's important differentiation. It's not as scary as one or two of us will get cancer. And yes, we will. But we will only find out once they do an autopsy. It's like, oh, I had cancer. Yeah. And you didn't die a bit. But yeah, cancer is one of the big things. So what I really don't like is anything that could end up rapidly increasing the risk of getting cancer. It's like the biggest, scariest one. It's a little bit like the story of some of these synthetic peptides where people say they're natural.

5:53No, they're not natural. Most of the peptides that are being talked about are absolutely not anything that is associated with a gene that we have in our bodies. They're snips of molecules that our own bodies produce. And we don't know what they do long term yet. This is the whole data point. But if there's any sniff of those things producing cancers, that's the hardest thing to treat. yeah okay cardiovascular disease you can spot it yeah maybe you could reverse it um i don't know a bit of inflammation that's making your skin go a bit redder than you need it to or give me a bit of photophobia when you're uh yeah okay let's stop and let's see if we can do you don't want to get cancer that's not cool it's awfully difficult to treat cancer uh that sounds so blindingly obvious But that's why people who genuinely want people to be still skiing and playing chess when they're 90 are worried about some of the things that self experiments that people are doing.

7:04Even more worried about the physicians who genuinely are of the belief that these things are net net positive. That said, in elite sports doping, in I believe it's a Dutch study which has been looking at bodybuilders over a very long period of time. there hasn't been, with the anabolic steroids, there hasn't been an increase in cancer. There's been an increase in deaths from two things, cardiovascular disease and rage. And rage? Yep. Because the testosterone levels have become so high. Yep. Wow. People getting into fights, but not cancer. But that's the anabolic path. The other routes to enhancing human repair may also enhance, Like you say, like the NAD pathway, it's kind of like we don't yet know is the bottom line.

7:56And trials, they stop running after short periods of time. They don't carry on for decades and decades. I think that was one of the most surprising things I had on this podcast the other day with a psychiatrist called Mark Howitt. I can't say his name, but he's incredible. We spoke about antidepressants. Right. And he said the longest trials in antidepressants are eight weeks. no then normally six to eight weeks but nobody ever goes on antidepressants for six to eight weeks people are on them for years wow and we have no long-term data of coming off them yeah and that's why when he says you're going down from 10 20 to 10 your brain doesn't have as much of the dip but then 10 to 5 your brain goes hits the dip quite quickly and then 5 it's like you fall off a cliff yeah and so he's like you know when you're on it for that long and then actually the doctor thinks you're having a relapse so they put you back on the medication and they tout up the dose again and so you know there is no long-term data on people that have been on antidepressants for 10 years because all the studies are around six to eight weeks a brilliant peptide that we know about what do you think is the most you must know the answer yeah okay The P is peptide, right?

9:15So I think we probably have now near enough like 100 million life years worth of data. Oh, wow. When you think about the number of people that have been on it for a year or 10. Yeah, yeah, that's a long time. Well, that's kind of cool because you've had a bunch of people of all sorts of ages, sexes, ethnic backgrounds, social backgrounds, genetics, everything, like even postcodes and whatnot. and so many people have now been on this for so long because bear in mind that they were discovered 40 years ago you know they weren't discovered just the other day they just become mainstream they just become mainstream do you know the story about how they were found it's a very fascinating one a long time ago in a desert called the Nevada desert a venomologist was particularly interested what is a venomologist?

10:15a venomologist is someone that looks at the venom of creatures and tries to find out what they do what a cool It's a great job. And decided to try and find out what might be in the saliva of this rather ugly lizard called the Gila monster, G-I-L-A, monster that lives in the desert, in the Nevada desert, because it was able to switch its appetite off when there wasn't food for several months. interestingly and found out by sequencing the saliva that it looked particularly like human glucagon-like peptide GLP and said oh this is interesting it lasts an awful lot longer than GLP GLP is known for dealing with insulin sensitivity and appetite and various things which we know about now of course and said oh, this is interesting because it lasts an awful lot longer than the very, very short half-life that you get with the little pulses of GLP that the human body produces to say, hey, stop eating and now start absorbing stuff.

11:23And that became the first GLP-type drug, which helped people, kids without that gene, had a gene defect, who always had diabetes, basically, from the time they were born. And then later on, it became, oh let's take human GLP add a sticky bit at the end of it to make it last longer in the blood and that's when the big blockbuster happened which was the famous days of a Zempick which you might have heard of a long time ago semaglutide and liraglutide the earlier drugs and it's only recently that they became well known but it goes back a long way so we've actually been having safety data on this type of peptide for a very very long time I don't think a drug, I don't think a medicine, I don't think anything is really properly tested for 40 to 50 years.

12:19We only really know what these things do, what anything does after a couple of generations. That's the reality. The limited randomized controlled trials that we do, which test antidepressants for eight weeks, which I find incredibly shocking. Oh, it's like an expose, eh, that episode. But even psychedelic research is using much longer timeframes than that for refractory depression. So this is very intriguing to me. But we are woefully bad because we don't have time to run 40-, 50-year trials. All the money. I mean, who's going to run a 40 - to 50-year trial? Society itself will run a 40 - to 50-year trial.

13:04You'll definitely not run it if there's a pattern that's going to run out or if there's no pattern at all. Yeah. So I think that's actually really fascinating that in all of this, we just have to have the humility that we actually don't know what's going on. Do you know what one of the best lines I ever heard, which was about a scientist? It said, you know, and you've met a good scientist when they try and prove their own hypothesis wrong. Yeah, that is science, isn't it? And I think we've lost our way in that where everyone's trying to prove that they know exactly what's going to happen, exactly what this molecule is going to do, exactly what the supplement means.

13:48And they're peddling through their own rhetoric as opposed to trying to actually say, no, what happens if we take this? Like, what are all the things I need to try and prove that this is wrong? And it stayed with me for years. So when I try and look at evidence of what things are coming out, are they marketing selling something or is it actually that they're really trying rigorously to prove something wrong? Yeah, there's marketing and there's science and there's, I mean, really great marketing can transform rubbish science. Massively. But amazing science seems to be unbelievably useless at reversing good marketing.

14:26because a lot of it is so boring right yeah it's so what are you saying boring i love the sound no but you know i think you know when