What if aging could actually be reversed? And why are investors putting money into companies trying to make it happen?

Dr. Karl Pfleger spent a decade at Google after earning his PhD in Computer Science at Stanford. Today, he's an aging biotech investor who has backed around 30 companies working on one of the biggest challenges in medicine: reversing biological aging.

His investment philosophy is unusually specific. He's interested in therapies that repair the molecular damage associated with aging, rather than simply slowing down the aging process.

In this episode of Return on Health, Niko Hems and Miguel Medina speak with Karl about where the aging biotech industry is heading, which scientific breakthroughs could make the biggest difference, and what it would actually take to demonstrate that a therapy reverses aspects of human aging.

We discuss:

→ Why Karl invests in age-reversal therapies rather than interventions that merely slow aging

→ What makes an aging biotech startup worth investing in

→ Senolytics, stem cells, and epigenetic partial reprogramming

→ Why biological age clocks aren't sufficient proof that an intervention works

→ The regulatory challenges facing aging biotech companies

→ Why immune system rejuvenation and thymus regeneration deserve more attention

→ Whether people alive today could live to 150

→ Why Karl thinks rapamycin, GLP-1 drugs, and single-intervention lifespan studies receive too much attention

→ His personal longevity routine, from exercise and nutrition to supplements and sleep medication

→ Why he believes healthcare systematically underestimates the harm of doing nothing

Karl also explains why he thinks aging research remains severely underfunded compared with cancer research, and what needs to change to bring more therapies into clinical practice.

Chapters

00:00 Why invest in reversing aging?
03:44 From Stanford and Google to aging biotech
08:20 What would a world without biological aging look like?
12:28 Can we reverse aging within our lifetimes?
19:20 The ethics of radical life extension
25:03 How Karl evaluates aging biotech investments
31:10 What makes a biotech startup investable?
33:12 The evidence investors want to see
38:08 How do we prove an aging therapy works?
44:03 Aging versus lifestyle-related disease
50:01 The potential of thymus rejuvenation
50:38 Karl's personal longevity routine
56:42 Rapid-fire questions
57:11 The most promising hallmark of aging
58:29 What's overhyped in longevity?
59:45 The experiments Karl would fund
1:03:29 What needs to change in healthcare?

About our guest

Dr. Karl Pfleger is an aging biotech investor, former Google engineer, and Stanford-trained computer scientist. He founded AgingBiotech.info, a resource tracking companies and developments across the aging biotechnology industry.

Learn more: https://agingbiotech.info

About Return on Health

Hosted by Niko Hems and Miguel Medina, Return on Health brings researchers, physicians, entrepreneurs, and critical thinkers together to question assumptions about health, medicine, and longevity.

Subscribe for conversations about the science, business, and future of human health.

#Longevity #AgingResearch #Biotech #AgeReversal #KarlPfleger

Can chronic infections drive chronic disease?

Dr. Richard Horowitz has spent more than four decades treating patients with complex chronic illness, including Lyme disease, long COVID, chronic fatigue, neurological symptoms and multi-system disease.

His central argument is controversial: many chronic illnesses cannot be explained by a single diagnosis or a single cause.Instead, Horowitz proposes a framework of interacting factors including persistent infections, environmental toxins, microbiome dysfunction, intestinal permeability, nutrient deficiencies, sleep, mitochondrial dysfunction, dysautonomia and chronic inflammation.

But how much of this is actually proven? And where does association end and causation begin?

In this episode of Return on Health, we push Dr. Horowitz on exactly those questions.

We discuss

• Why some patients remain symptomatic after Lyme disease treatment

• The debate around chronic Lyme disease and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome

• Borrelia, Bartonella and Babesia

• Biofilms and bacterial persister cells

• His 16-factor MSIDS framework for chronic illness

• Mold exposure, mycotoxin testing and its clinical limitations

• Heavy metals, microbiome dysfunction and intestinal permeability

• Dysautonomia, POTS and mast cell activation

• Why a positive test does not necessarily mean something is causing symptoms

• How Horowitz decides which potential drivers to treat first

• His dapsone combination protocol for chronic Lyme disease

• The risks and required screening before dapsone treatment

• Why observational results and clinical experience are not enough

• The need for randomized controlled trials

• Lyme disease, neuroinflammation and Alzheimer's disease

• His published case involving P-tau217 and other Alzheimer's biomarkers

• Why improving a biomarker is different from proving an effect on dementia

• What conventional medicine may be missing, and where alternative approaches can go too far

Horowitz himself acknowledges one of the central limitations: much of this work still needs stronger evidence capable of moving from association toward causation.

One example is mold testing. A patient may test positive for mycotoxin exposure, but that alone cannot establish that mold is responsible for their symptoms.

The same question comes up when we discuss Alzheimer's biomarkers. Horowitz presents cases in which P-tau217 and other biomarkers changed after treatment, while we challenge what can actually be concluded from a surrogate biomarker without clinical outcome data.

About Dr. Richard Horowitz

Dr. Richard Horowitz is an internal medicine physician focused on Lyme disease and complex chronic illness. He has treated more than 13,000 patients and developed the MSIDS framework discussed throughout this episode.

His new book, Ending Chronic Illness: A Revolutionary New Program to Reverse Inflammation and Heal Persistent Disease, will be released on October 13, 2026.

Richard Horowitz

Website: https://cangetbetter.com/

New book, Ending Chronic Illness: https://cangetbetter.com/Book

Website: https://www.endingchronicillness.com/

Return on Health

Website: https://returnonhealth.de/Watch and listen to all episodes of Return on Health on YouTube, Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Return on Health is hosted by Niko Hems and Miguel Medina Stanivukovic.

We speak with researchers, physicians, founders and skeptics about longevity, prevention and the future of health, with one rule: strong claims deserve strong questions.

Important

This episode discusses experimental and controversial diagnostic and treatment approaches. The views and clinical claims expressed by guests do not constitute medical advice or endorsement by Return on Health. Some approaches discussed are outside established clinical guidelines and require substantially stronger evidence.

What if the most promising drug for slowing aging already exists.. but we still do not know whether healthy humans should take it?

Dr. Matt Kaeberlein is one of the leading scientists studying the biology of aging. His work has focused on mTOR, rapamycin, cellular aging and the mechanisms that may allow us to extend healthy lifespan.

In this episode of Return on Health, hosts Niko Hems and Miguel Medina challenge Matt on how far longevity science has actually come.

They discuss what aging really is, whether the Hallmarks of Aging are causes or consequences, and why changing one pathway or biomarker often fails to produce the health outcome we expect.

The conversation then turns to rapamycin. Matt explains why it has some of the strongest preclinical evidence of any potential longevity intervention, why it has extended lifespan across multiple animal models, what decades of use in transplant medicine tell us about safety, and why the doses used for longevity are very different.

They also discuss the biggest unanswered question: does any of this translate meaningfully to healthy humans?

Matt explains why he personally uses rapamycin periodically, what he thinks about emerging evidence in chronic inflammation and ME/CFS, and why its effects on mTOR do not necessarily mean it will accelerate age-related muscle loss.

The episode also takes on some of the biggest claims in longevity.

Matt argues that the human evidence behind NAD supplementation remains weak, warns against stacking large numbers of supplements with uncertain effects, and explains why many consumer-facing biological age tests are currently far less useful than their marketing suggests.

They also discuss longevity escape velocity, whether AI could accelerate aging research, rapamycin vs GLP-1 receptor agonists vs metformin, and why companion dogs may be one of the most useful models for understanding human aging.

━━━━ 👤 ABOUT THE GUEST ━━━━

Matt Kaeberlein, PhD is a scientist focused on the biological mechanisms of aging and interventions that may extend healthspan.

His research has covered mTOR signaling, rapamycin, cellular aging and lifespan regulation. He is also a co-founder of the Dog Aging Project, which studies how genetics, environment and interventions influence aging in companion dogs.

━━━━ 🎙️ ABOUT THE HOSTS ━━━━

Niko Hems is Head of Strategy & Medical Communications at YEARS, a preventive medicine company using longitudinal and multi-modal health data to make prevention more personalized and data-driven.

Miguel Medina is co-host of Return on Health, a podcast built around a simple idea: a system produces the outcomes it is incentivized to produce — so better health outcomes require better incentives.

━━━━ 💡 KEY QUESTIONS ANSWERED ━━━━

• What actually causes biological aging?
• Are the Hallmarks of Aging incomplete?
• Why is mTOR so important for longevity?
• Can rapamycin really slow aging?
• How strong is the human evidence?
• What are the main risks and side effects?
• Does rapamycin interfere with muscle growth?
• Could it help with chronic inflammation or ME/CFS?
• Is there strong evidence for NAD supplements?
• Are biological age tests useful yet?
• Is longevity escape velocity scientifically realistic?
• Rapamycin vs GLP-1s vs metformin: where is the strongest evidence?
• Why could studying dogs help us understand human aging?

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Connect with Matt:

Dog Aging Project: https://dogagingproject.org/

What if one of the most basic ideas in nutrition — that a calorie is a calorie — is the wrong way to think about metabolic health?

For decades, Robert Lustig has argued that obesity, diabetes and other chronic metabolic diseases cannot be understood through energy balance alone. His central argument: what happens to food after we eat it matters, and added sugar — particularly fructose — can disrupt metabolic function in ways calorie counting fails to capture.

In this episode of Return on Health, hosts Niko Hems and Miguel Medina challenge Robert on how strong that case actually is. They discuss his research on sugar restriction, controlled feeding trials that appear to contradict some of his conclusions, food-industry influence on nutrition science, ultra-processed food, agricultural subsidies and the incentives shaping what we eat.

The conversation also turns to Ozempic, Wegovy and other GLP-1 drugs.

━━━━👤 ABOUT THE GUEST━━━━━

Robert H. Lustig, MD, MSL is a pediatric endocrinologist and Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics at UCSF.

He spent decades researching childhood obesity, diabetes and metabolic disease. His 2009 lecture “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” has been watched more than 25 million times on YouTube and made him one of the most prominent and debated voices in nutrition.

He is also the author of Metabolical, Fat Chance, and The Hacking of the American Mind.

━━━━🎙️ ABOUT THE HOSTS━━━━

Niko Hems is Head of Strategy & Medical Communications at YEARS, a preventive medicine company using longitudinal and multi-modal health data to make prevention more personalized and data-driven.

Miguel Medina is co-host of Return on Health, a podcast built around a simple idea: a system produces the outcomes it is incentivized to produce — so better health outcomes require better incentives.

━━━━⏱ CHAPTERS━━━━━

00:00 Who Is Robert Lustig?
00:52 What Is Metabolic Disease?
04:02 Mitochondrial Dysfunction Explained
09:11 What Does Metabolism Actually Mean?
10:45 Is “A Calorie Is A Calorie” Wrong?
15:35 Why Robert Thinks Fructose Damages Mitochondria
17:08 What Happened When His Team Removed Added Sugar?
22:49 Niko Challenges Robert On Contradictory Fructose Studies
29:23 Does Food Industry Funding Distort Nutrition Research?
33:10 How The Food Industry Shapes Science
35:20 The Center To End Corporate Harm
38:23 How Do We Fix The Food System?
41:18 What Can Ordinary People Actually Do?
44:50 Microplastics, PFAS & Other Metabolic Exposures
48:02 Can We Feed 10 Billion People Without Ultra-Processed Food?
51:47 The Most Underrated Metabolic Biomarker
52:45 Why Robert Refuses To Share His Personal Diet
53:14 What Foods Should People Eat More — And Less — Of?
54:46 What Robert Lustig Changed His Mind About
56:59 What Would He Change About US Food Policy?
58:09 How Food Subsidies Shape What We Eat
01:01:50 Robert Lustig On Ozempic, Wegovy & GLP-1 Drugs
01:04:35 The Potential Downsides Of GLP-1s
01:08:30 Why Robert Says We Still Have To Fix The Food
01:09:35 What Should Change About Healthcare?

━━━━━💡 KEY QUESTIONS ANSWERED━━━━━

• Is “a calorie is a calorie” biologically misleading?
• Why does Robert consider fructose different from glucose?
• What happened when his team restricted sugar without reducing calories?
• Why do some controlled feeding trials reach different conclusions?
• Does food-industry funding distort nutrition research?
• How much does ultra-processed food contribute to metabolic disease?
• Is fasting insulin an underrated biomarker?
• How do food subsidies influence what we eat?
• Are Ozempic and Wegovy solving obesity or treating the symptom?
• What concerns does Robert have about widespread GLP-1 use?
• Why does he think healthcare should spend far more on prevention?

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Connect with Robert:

Website: https://robertlustig.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-lustig-8904245/
UCSF: https://profiles.ucsf.edu/robert.lustig

What if aging is less like an inevitable biological process.. and more like damage that can eventually be repaired?

For more than two decades, Aubrey de Grey has argued that aging should be treated as a medical problem driven by the accumulation of molecular and cellular damage. His most famous idea, longevity escape velocity.

In this episode of Return on Health, hosts Niko and Miguel challenge Aubrey on how realistic that vision actually is, what his latest mouse rejuvenation experiments can tell us about humans, why his first major study fell short of its ultimate goal, and what would have to happen before rejuvenation becomes real medicine.

Aubrey also explains why he believes aging can be approached through repair, why combining interventions may matter more than testing them one by one, why current biological age clocks are still limited, what he thinks the Hallmarks of Aging get wrong, and why he believes the first person to live to 1,000 years has probably already been born.

━━━━👤 ABOUT THE GUEST━━━━━

Aubrey de Grey is a biomedical gerontologist and one of the most prominent voices in longevity science. He is the founder and President of the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation, where his work focuses on developing and testing combinations of rejuvenation therapies aimed at repairing different forms of age-related damage.

He is also known for developing the SENS framework and popularizing the concept of longevity escape velocity: the idea that sufficiently effective rejuvenation therapies could extend healthy life long enough for progressively better therapies to arrive.

━━━━🎙️ ABOUT THE HOSTS━━━━

Niko Hems is a longevity expert and Head of Growth at YEARS, a company building a longitudinal, multi-modal health dataset to make prevention personal and data-driven.

Miguel Medina is co-host of Return on Health, a podcast built on a simple idea: a system always produces the outcomes it's incentivized to produce.

━━━━⏱ CHAPTERS━━━━━

00:00 Is Aging Actually A Disease?

02:17 Aubrey's Latest Mouse Rejuvenation Study

08:23 What Actually Counts As Age-Related Damage?

13:59 Can Mouse Longevity Research Translate To Humans?

16:25 How Do We Measure Anti-Aging Effects In Humans?

20:36 Can The First Person To Live To 1,000 Already Be Alive?

23:18 Longevity Escape Velocity Explained

28:16 Did Aubrey's First Mouse Rejuvenation Study Work?

32:11 How Do You Choose Which Longevity Interventions To Combine?

37:37 SENS vs The Hallmarks Of Aging

43:32 What Has Aubrey Changed His Mind About?

45:39 What Should People Actually Do Today?

47:54 Why Longevity Research Struggles To Get Funded

53:32 Prevention vs Rejuvenation

55:35 What Aubrey Would Change About Science

57:16 The Strongest Argument That Aging Can Be Repaired

58:08 Aubrey's Personal Longevity Protocol

58:41 Are Biological Age Clocks Actually Useful?

01:00:18 How Should Healthcare Change?

━━━━━💡 KEY QUESTIONS ANSWERED━━━━━

• Is aging actually a disease?

• What does Aubrey de Grey mean by accumulated biological damage?

• Can age-related damage actually be repaired?

• What is longevity escape velocity?

• Could the first person to live to 1,000 already be alive?

• What happened in Aubrey's first robust mouse rejuvenation experiment?

• Why is he now testing a combination of eight interventions?

• Can longevity results in mice realistically translate to humans?

• How can we test rejuvenation therapies without waiting decades for mortality data?

• What is the difference between the SENS framework and the Hallmarks of Aging?

• Are biological age and epigenetic clocks reliable enough for clinical trials?

• What has Aubrey changed his mind about after more than two decades?

• Why does he think current research funding creates the wrong incentives?

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Connect with Aubrey:

Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation: https://www.levf.org/

X / Twitter: https://x.com/aubreydegrey

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aubrey-de-grey-24260b/

What if one of the most popular ideas about cancer is simply wrong?

For years, social media has promoted the idea that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease - one that can be starved, hacked, or even reversed through diet. But cancer geneticist Dr Moritz Przybilla argues that decades of genomic research tell a very different story.

In this episode of Return on Health, hosts Niko Hems and Miguel Medina explore why cancer is fundamentally a disease of DNA, why aging remains its greatest risk factor, what the evidence really says about ketogenic diets and sugar, and where cancer research is genuinely moving next.

Moritz also explains why most people misunderstand cancer prevention, why early detection may save far more lives than chasing miracle cures, how healthy tissues quietly accumulate mutations throughout life, and why the future of cancer medicine may lie in predicting risk decades before a tumor ever appears.

━━━━👤 ABOUT THE GUEST━━━━━

Dr. Moritz Jakob Przybylla is a cancer researcher at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Cambridge. His research focuses on cancer genomics, early cancer evolution, and developing new approaches for cancer risk prediction, prevention, and early detection. Alongside his research, Moritz is passionate about making cancer science accessible and combating misinformation with evidence-based education.

━━━━🎙️ ABOUT THE HOSTS━━━━

Niko HemsNiko Hems is a longevity expert and Head of Growth at YEARS, a company building a longitudinal, multi-modal health dataset to make prevention personal and data-driven.

Miguel MedinaMiguel Medina is co-host of Return on Health, a podcast built on a simple idea: a system always produces the outcomes it's incentivized to produce - so if we want better health outcomes, we need better incentives.

━━━━⏱ CHAPTERS━━━━━

00:00 The Biggest Cancer Myth

00:57 Meet Cancer Geneticist Dr. Moritz Gerstung

02:04 Why He Left The Lab To Build A Public Voice

07:58 What Cancer Actually Is (Explained Simply)

12:21 Can You Really Prevent Cancer?

15:32 Which Infections Increase Cancer Risk?

17:15 Driver vs Passenger Mutations Explained

19:57 Thomas Seyfried's Metabolic Theory Of Cancer

28:49 Do Ketogenic Diets Help Treat Cancer?

32:59 Are 60% Of Cancers Really Unpreventable?

41:18 Metformin, Aging & Cancer Prevention

43:07 If We Could Slow Aging, Would We Prevent Cancer?

46:14 The Most Overhyped Cancer & Longevity Trends

47:11 Which Cancer Screening Test Should You Actually Get?

48:16 Moritz's Dream Cancer Research Project

49:35 How Healthcare Should Change

━━━━━💡 KEY QUESTIONS ANSWERED━━━━━

• Is cancer really a genetic disease?• Is the metabolic theory of cancer supported by current evidence?• Can sugar actually "feed" cancer?• Does the ketogenic diet help treat cancer?• Why are around 60% of cancers currently unavoidable?• Why is aging the biggest risk factor for cancer?• What are driver mutations and passenger mutations?• Can we predict cancer decades before it develops?• Which cancer screening tests are actually worth doing?• What is the future of cancer prevention?• How should healthcare shift from treating disease to preventing it?

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Connect with Moritz:

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/moritz-jakob-przybilla/?locale=en

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dr.moritzprzy/?hl=en

Most people think aging is a disease.

Professor Suresh Rattan thinks that's one of the biggest misconceptions in modern medicine.

The anti-aging industry has never been bigger. Every week there's a new supplement, a new biomarker, a new longevity protocol, or another promise that you can slow, reverse, or even cure aging.

But after more than 40 years studying the biology of aging, Suresh has reached a very different conclusion.

Aging isn't something to cure. It's something to understand.

In this episode of Return on Health, hosts Niko Hems and Miguel Medina sit down with one of the world's leading biogerontologists to challenge everything we think we know about aging, longevity, and health.

We explore why Suresh believes there are no genes programmed to make us age, why the anti-aging industry is selling false promises, what he really thinks about Bryan Johnson, David Sinclair, and longevity escape velocity, and why living well may matter far more than simply living longer.

━━━━━👤 ABOUT THE GUEST ━━━━━

Professor Suresh I.S. Rattan is one of the world's leading biogerontologists, with more than four decades of research into the biology of aging.

He founded the Laboratory of Cellular Ageing at Aarhus University in Denmark, coined the term "gerontogenes", founded the journal Biogerontology, and has published hundreds of scientific papers exploring why we age and what healthy aging really means.

His work challenges many of the assumptions driving today's longevity industry, arguing that aging is a natural consequence of life - not a disease to be cured.

━━━━━━🎙️ ABOUT THE HOSTS ━━━━━━

Niko Hems

Niko Hems is a longevity expert and Head of Growth at YEARS, a company building a longitudinal, multi-modal health dataset to make prevention personal and data-driven.

Miguel Medina

Miguel Medina is co-host of Return on Health, a podcast built on a simple idea: a system always produces the outcomes it's incentivized to produce - so if we want better health outcomes, we need better incentives.

━━━━━⏱ CHAPTERS ━━━━━━

00:00 Aging Is Not a Disease

01:39 Why the Longevity Industry Is Selling Products

03:32 Do We Actually Understand Aging?

08:40 Why Aging Isn't a Disease

18:22 The Truth About the Hallmarks of Aging

19:12 How Humans Already Doubled Their Lifespan

23:15 Bryan Johnson, David Sinclair & Living Forever

27:52 What Actually Helps You Age Better?

35:59 What Does It Really Mean to Be Healthy?

40:40 Why We Age in the First Place

48:05 Suresh's Definition of Health

57:26 Rapid Fire: Can Humans Reach 150?

58:08 The Best Form of Hormesis

1:02:07 How Healthcare Needs to Change

━━━━━💡 KEY QUESTIONS ANSWERED ━━━━

• Is aging really a disease?

• Are there actually genes that make us age?

• Why do we age if evolution favors survival?

• Does the longevity industry focus on the wrong problem?

• What does Suresh really think about Bryan Johnson, David Sinclair and longevity escape velocity?

• Can supplements or biohacks meaningfully slow aging?

• What is the real definition of health?

• Why is hormesis one of the most important concepts in healthy aging?

• Can humans realistically live to 150 years old?

• How should healthcare shift from treating disease to promoting health?

━━━━━Connect with Professor Suresh Rattan

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suresh-rattan-7951804/

Most people think longevity is about living longer.

Dr. Jack Kreindler thinks that's exactly where we've gone wrong.

The longevity industry has never been bigger. Every week there's a new supplement, a new biomarker, a new biohack, or a new promise that you can slow aging.

But after more than 25 years working with elite athletes, founders, CEOs and patients facing life-threatening disease, Jack has reached a very different conclusion.

The goal isn't to live longer. It's to stay fully alive for as long as possible.

In this episode of Return on Health, hosts Niko Hems and Miguel Medina sit down with one of the world's leading physicians in preventive medicine and human performance to separate evidence from hype.

We explore why Jack has become one of the biggest critics of the word longevity, what he really thinks about Bryan Johnson and David Sinclair, whether NAD boosters actually make sense, and why purpose, relationships and resilience may be more powerful than the latest biohack.

━━━━━👤 ABOUT THE GUEST━━━━━

Dr. Jack Kreindler is a physician, physiologist and entrepreneur specializing in preventive medicine, human performance and healthy aging.

He is the Founder & CEO of WellFounded and previously founded the Centre for Health and Human Performance (CHHP) in London, where he pioneered a model combining elite sports science with clinical medicine.

Over the past two decades, he's worked with Olympic athletes, military personnel, founders, CEOs and patients with complex medical conditions - helping them maximize health, performance and resilience rather than simply adding years to life.

━━━━━🎙️ ABOUT THE HOSTS━━━━━━

Niko Hems

Niko Hems is a longevity expert and Head of Growth at YEARS, a company building a longitudinal, multi-modal health dataset to make prevention personal and data-driven.

Miguel Medina

Miguel Medina is co-host of Return on Health, a podcast built on a simple idea: a system always produces the outcomes it's incentivized to produce - so if we want better health outcomes, we need better incentives.

━━━━━━CHAPTERS━━━━━━

00:00 Why Jack Rejects the Word "Longevity"

01:33 What People Are Really Asking For

03:29 Healthspan vs. Lifespan

08:42 The Pillars That Actually Matter

12:02 What Happens Inside a Longevity Clinic

17:56 The Biomarkers Worth Paying Attention To

19:45 Why Human Connection Might Be the Ultimate Biomarker

28:25 Environmental Toxins & Modern Living

32:50 Are Toxins Really Making Us Sick?

36:14 Bryan Johnson, David Sinclair & Longevity Escape Velocity

40:03 What Founders Can Learn From Elite Performers

44:06 Burnout, Stress & High Performance

47:27 Can We Really Make 90 the New 60?

48:30 The Longevity Supplement Jack Would Never Take

49:40 The Supplements He Actually Recommends

51:15 Will AI Replace Doctors?

52:51 The Biggest Problem With Modern Healthcare

━━━━━💡 KEY QUESTIONS ANSWERED━━━

• Is the longevity industry focusing on the wrong goal?

• Can you actually extend your lifespan - or just your healthspan?• Are expensive longevity supplements worth the money?

• What does Jack really think about Bryan Johnson's Blueprint?

• Which supplements have the strongest evidence today?

• Why is VO₂ Max one of the most powerful predictors of long-term health?

• Are environmental toxins a bigger problem than we realize?

• Can AI become a better doctor than humans?

• Why might relationships, purpose and meaning outperform the latest biohacks?

• What would Jack change about modern healthcare if he could?

Connect with Jack

🌐 WellFoundedhttps://wellfounded.health

🏥 Centre for Health and Human Performance (CHHP)https://chhp.com

💼 LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/jackkreindler/