Skip to content

155: Seeking Immortality Through Gene Therapy – with Liz Parrish

subscribe to the awesome health course on itunes

According to this episode’s guest: Liz Parrish, people should be demanding access to the latest gene therapy treatments.  

According to Liz, effective gene therapy that treats and heals a plethora of diseases could be in place today if not for the human race’s mistakes in prioritizing our funds. Trillions of dollars have been invested in war machines, for example, when we could have used that money to advance humanity into a healthier, more productive, and enjoyable way of life. 

As you can see, Liz thinks big – but she’s not only a dreamer – Liz is a doer. 

As the Founder and CEO of BioViva, Liz devotes her life to pursuing scientific advancements that extend healthy lifespans in humans using cell technologies. 

Liz will tell you that aging is a disease caused by cell damage over time. Her company uses BioInformatics to gain knowledge through collecting, storing, and analyzing data from clinical studies. Liz advocates for overhauling the U.S. medical system so that drugs proven successful in animal trials can be offered more rapidly to human patients. Our aging population needs urgent healthcare. 

As a passionate science evangelist, Liz is a popular speaking guest. She serves as a motivational speaker in the life sciences field and is a strong proponent of advancing regenerative medicine modalities. She enjoys educating laypeople about the promising field of gene therapy and is actively involved in international educational media outreach.

Tune in and meet this humanitarian, entrepreneur, innovator, podcaster, and a leading voice for genetic cures.     

In this podcast, we cover: 

  • Liz’s story on how she ended up in the bioinformatics and gene therapy business
  • How our current healthcare system slows down anti-aging solutions
  • What gene therapy is and how it can benefit you
  • Why gene therapy isn’t affordable or available for most people today
  • How BioViva is giving people at all income levels access to gene therapy
  • How risk aversion is killing us
  • The age Liz thinks she will reach
  • How the media harms scientific progress
  • And more

“I went looking for cures for kids and ended up at a conference.”

Two seminal moments occurred in Liz’s life back in 2011 and 2013.  

Only ten years ago, Liz was a layperson, not working in the longevity and gene therapy field. Her destiny began to change when she volunteered in 2011 for a stem cell project that aimed to educate the world on the regenerative capacity of stem cells. This sparked an obsession with stem cells – what makes them different? Liz began researching and discovered their differences, which she shares. 

Then, in 2013, her son was diagnosed with type one diabetes. One day, while in the hospital with her son, Liz asked the doctors about the fabulous research she had been studying on stem cells. Was any of this available for her son? NO. The hospital bluntly told her that stem cell therapy was “experimental medicine.” They made it sound dirty. 

The doctors even had the nerve to tell her, “Your son has a treatable disease. Kids dying here. Maybe you should consider yourself lucky?” 

This rude attack did NOT sit well with Liz. She pondered, “Why does this technology not translate to humans?” 

So, Liz searched for pediatric cures and ended up at a conference that introduced her to the promising future of gene therapy. 

The rest, as they say, is history.   

Liz practices what she preaches 

Back in 2015, when she launched BioViva, Liz proved she doesn’t just talk the talk. She walks the walk. How? By becoming “patient zero” in her own experiment. 

She willingly injected herself with two gene therapies. Since then, her results look promising. She tells Wade, “I took two gene therapies, and my biomarkers are great. We have a biostatistician working on those now, and we’ll be releasing those with a short synopsis.”

“My telomeres slowly keep getting longer. My triglyceride levels are low. My blood glucose levels are low – this is something that we see in medical tourism as well…Telomeres are not a perfect aging clock, but they are an indicator of a disease state. Having a better length on your telomere is a good thing. So that should mean better overall health.”

Keep your eye on Liz – she’s a walking gene therapy experiment, as well as a bold individual willing to offer her body to the furthering of scientific advancement. 

Science geeks will enjoy this episode with Liz Parrish. As an entrepreneur, she fosters scientific advancement in gene therapy by employing scientists, raising funds for research, and using her leadership and marketing skills to spread the word on the fascinating works happening inside the labs at BioViva. 

Check out this episode – you may end up living longer than you currently think possible.  

Episode Resources: 
Check out more about Liz Parrish & BioViva 

BioViva Science on YouTube
Liz Parrish on Instagram
Liz Parrish on Twitter
BioViva Sciences on Facebook

Read The Episode Transcript:

Wade Lightheart: Good morning. Good afternoon. And good evening. It's Wade T Lightheart from BiOptimizers with another edition of the Awesome Health Podcast. We're broadcasting live from Sedona Arizona today, and we have got an amazing topic for you. We're going to talk about aging and the idea that aging is actually a disease and that it should be tackled with therapies that can address cell damage incurred with time. Bioinformatics should assist by collecting, storing, and analyzing data from clinical studies and the facts are rapidly. Aging population needs urgent assistance. We must speed up the time. It takes for a drug proven successful in animal trials to be offered to human patients. And our guest today is none other than Elizabeth Parrish, who is the founder and CEO of BioViva accompany, committed to extending healthy lifespans using cell technologies. Liz is a humanitarian and entrepreneur and innovator podcast or in a leading voice for genetic cures as a strong proponent of progress in education for the advancement of regenerative medicine modalities. She serves as a motivational speaker to the public at large for the life sciences. She is actively involved in international education, media outreach. And we are going to dive into a lot of topics today, including gene therapy, some of the R and D she's been able to do at Rutgers university, what bioinformatics is, and maybe one of the most controversial topics, which is patient access. Liz, welcome to the show.

 Liz Parrish: Well, thanks for having me. I just, I want to live in that intro. I need to raise my energy level to match yours. That is amazing. That's inspiring. And, and that is awesome, which is the name of your podcast.

 Wade Lightheart: Okay. Thank you very much. And so let's talk about maybe a little bit of background. How did you get into the topic of bioinformatics and gene therapy? When I hear those things, I go, is this like Frankenstein lab? Is there like computers hooked up to myself? What's going on? What are these things mean for the layman and understanding and how did you find yourself in this exciting field?

 Liz Parrish: Well, I was a lay person and in from 2011 to 2013, I volunteered for a stem cell project, a project that was educating the world about the regenerative capacity of stem cells and how magnificent and awesome they were. And I became interested in why stem cells are different and they're different because of their genetics. So all cells in your body have the same genes, but some cells have genes that actually up-regulate regeneration and repair your body. And that was all fabulous and fantastic. Except for in 2013, my son was diagnosed with type one diabetes. And while I was in the hospital, I asked them about all of this fabulous research that I had read about and studied with the stem cell group and ask them if any of that was available for my son. And they said, not only was it not available for, for my son, they labeled it experimental medicine, and which sounded like a really dirty, awful term.

 Liz Parrish: And they said, you know, your son has a treatable disease. There are kids here dying. You know, maybe you should consider yourself lucky. And boy, I'll tell you all of that just didn't fit in my head. Why does this technology not translate to humans? So I went looking to find cures for kids, and I ended up at a conference. It was vastly about aging, but they had the professor of genetics from Harvard there and other people who are talking about the genetic root cause of disease. So I thought this was well worth my time. And I got super turned on to a field that not only can help an aging population live better, longer, but can cure those childhood diseases as well. And that's through the modality of gene therapy, using therapeutic genes that upregulate regeneration and cure a plethora of childhood and aging diseases, and then help us succinctly and exactly cure the congenital diseases that we otherwise couldn't cure. What these regenerative therapies essentially making a whole population of humans healthier, happier live longer. Well, so that's how I got started. And it's been a long road since

 Wade Lightheart: Then. Okay. Yeah. I think a lot of people don't understand some of the complications that arise from conditions such as type one diabetes and the long-term consequences. And of course the, the later part of the, the aging process is significantly more likely to have a bunch of, of, of what I'd say life compliments, compromising consequences over and above the natural aging process. And if you really understand the course of a lifetime of someone who has diabetes, you can recognize a certainly as a mom would say, Hey, wait a second. I think it would be great to start using some of these texts. Now, so that the future, the, what we call the bio span belt, the how long you were able to live healthily by is a higher probability of success, which seems to make a moral and ethical sense. Then there's the side of it, of people, which you talked about in your, in your biography about people who are in the aging process right now and are on what I would call therapeutics.

 Wade Lightheart: And what I mean by that to, to qualify is we have a medical model that is not based on treating the cause of disease. According to the new England journal of medicine, it is designed not to treat or cure disease, but to address the symptoms of, and that model generates tremendous amount of profits for people who are on a drug that you are dependent on to live some sort of semi compromise, normal dependent lifestyle on those companies, because of the way the profit design is built into it, as opposed to addressing the fundamental issue, which is what I believe you're talking about in gene therapy. Is that what you're kind of thrust is inside your research?

 Liz Parrish: Yeah, absolutely. It's so we're focused on therapeutic cures through gene therapy. We are not concerned or considering multiple treatments for people and limping them along through life on a di dependency. The beauty about gene therapy is that it's considered in many cases, a one-time treatment for a lifetime therapeutic benefit. Now, as we look and study gene therapies over time, you may need to take them maybe every five or 10 years, but the beauty of the technology is long-term up-regulated expression at the cellular level of therapeutic genes that are natural to humans. So when you think of it, it's almost like the most holistic thing to possibly do. The drugs that you're talking about previously are pills that you often take. They're often in pill form. You know, they hurt your liver. They damage your kidneys. They have a myriad of side effects. One of the side effects you might be looking for in a, in something called a statin is lowering your LDL cholesterol.

 Liz Parrish: But one of the other side effects is one in four. People will get type two diabetes from those drugs and one in 10 will get dementia. And those drugs are not well expressed to the population. Now, am I saying, don't take your drugs. No, I'm not saying that. Keep taking your drugs as prescribed by your, by your doctor, but you must push for legislation. You must push your political affiliates to actually pass better regulation in, in drug standards and better access for patients. And that's essentially what I've been writing my thesis on is a, is a new route to drug development in which patients who are terminally ill or have no other treatment for their disease. Remember heart disease, Alzheimer's cancer. These are life sentences. Even if you can remiss them or slow them. Those are life sentences. Those people should have access to the best medicine, not medicine that's over 15 years old, which by the way, anything that your doctor can prescribe you is over 15 years old innovation in medicine is happening way faster than that. And we need people to get access now.

 Wade Lightheart: So can you explain to our listeners how gene therapy, what gene therapy is, how it works and who is most likely to benefit from it? And who's using it maybe now today, and who's not able to use that under the current political environment that we find ourselves in.

 Liz Parrish: Yeah, so that's a lot of things. So what is gene therapy? Gene therapy is the delivery or the editing of genes in your body. So the delivery in this case would be of a therapeutic gene that upregulates regeneration into the cells to make cells behave more youthfully. So what is aging? Aging is cellular degeneration over time. It's the body, you know, slowly going through like an entropy type system, but it's not necessary because our bodies naturally killed themselves. Right? But with over time, the damage just accumulate so great when we bet it's hard for them to heal the damage. So when we use these types of genes, it basically overcomes the amount of damage. And the idea is to regenerate faster than you degenerate, therefore living healthier. So when we deliver gene therapies, we use, it sounds very scary, but we use debunked viruses.

 Liz Parrish: And what that is, is a virus in the case of most gene therapies today, it's AAV, it's a virus that is ubiquitous. It doesn't really get people very sick. But it has the ability to dock with the cell and put genetic material into the nucleus. And so it can't get you sick. We take our visibility to replicate. They're called attenuated viruses. They can't get, you said, and then we trick them into delivering a human genes, essentially. And that is how we get the genes in there. Then the gene goes on to replicate a protein. So the genes in your body make proteins, and that makes you, and so these have a therapeutic benefit to the cells and then the cells around them. And that's what gene PRP is. Now, there are hundreds of gene therapy trials going on. So, you know, our company, isn't the only person the only company doing gene therapy.

 Liz Parrish: And I'm not the only person who has taken gene therapy. There are gene therapies for hemophilia, a and hemophilia B and sickle cell anemia. And they're doing, they are literally working towards a cure for those diseases. And then there's a few gene therapies that have already passed through regulation like spinal muscular atrophy, which is a childhood disease. And there's a Lux. Turner has a drug that actually helps with congenital blindness and severe combined immune deficiency, which is boy on the bubble disease has been effectively cured with gene therapy. Now, the problem is, is when you said, well, who then gets access to these therapies? Well, these therapies are really expensive. So one example is severe. Spinal muscular atrophy. Let's pull that one up. That is a often found in children who are infants, and if they don't get access to the gene PRP, they would die within months. The gene therapy itself costs over $2 million.

 Liz Parrish: This is not where we can go with this technology. I mean, essentially the technology is expensive. It's very cost prohibitive to build a gene therapy per person. It's, it's not BS. It's not like making pills, but we need to create gene pair bees that are actually affordable to the whole world. And so when you're treating a rare disorder like spinal muscular atrophy, which is a great thing to treat because children need these gene therapies immediately you're actually treating a small percentage of the world. And so the research and development and everything goes behind those drugs becomes enormously expensive for a very small population, but treating aging with gene therapy should make cost-effective drugs for everyone. And so who's the target market, it's everyone. So whether you have type one diabetes or you have dementia in your family, those are all life sentences. And those are all something that diseases that could be benefited from regenerative medicine. Some of those like autoimmune disorders, like type one will need more specialized gene therapies in combination, but helping people live longer healthier in general is just, you know, that's the first place to start.

 Wade Lightheart: I like the approach because you know, it only stands to marketing 1 0 1 and ultimately it's going to be money that drives this whole system to get it to the population. If you have millions and millions of, you know, a third of the population dies from cancer. A third of the population dies from diabetes. A third dies from heart disease. Okay. So like, okay, let's just so we've got, we've got cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Okay. So if we are able to address that with gene therapies, let's say those three issues, we're going to be able to drive the price per person down significantly because there's so many people suffering from it that a lot of that tech is going to be able to distribute it and then bring the cost per unit down. And when you will, all, it would seem that attacking it from the one that has the most positive impact would be the logical case. Why does that not been the case to date in your opinion?

 Liz Parrish: Well, in my opinion when gene therapy, when we first started getting the glimpse of gene therapy and the 1970s, all of the technology around it, wasn't quite there yet. And it wasn't put made as a priority. It should have been a priority. It shouldn't have been a project that was run as hard, if not harder than the U S military, instead of creating killing machines, we should be, you know, actually saving lives. And then in the 1990s, it, the gene therapy area emerged really strongly. And then it had a major setback. So in 1999, a, a patient died of a gene therapy. His name was Jesse Gelsinger and he died due to a reaction to the viruses that they used to use at that time. That that virus is specifically not used anymore for that reason, but the problem with humans and the problem with our perceptions is that it was time to take a moment for pause on that viral vector, but it was not time to stop because this year alone, over a hundred thousand people will die in the United States, taking their prescription drugs as prescribed as adverse events, severe adverse events, and that's not publicized.

 Liz Parrish: So we, we tend to focus on the shark attack rather than focusing on the tidal wave. Right? One person dies in a shark attack. We fix ourselves to that. We say, stop, you know, stop all slowing in that area forever. And then the tidal wave wipes out a bunch of people and we call it a natural disaster. So, you know, it's actually quite unfortunate that it slowed the industry so much. And if it had not although, you know, my heart goes out to that family and that, that child that there, there, there is nothing that can replace that loss, of course, but because of that, droves of people potentially have died of diseases that that should have been addressed by gene therapy over the last two decades.

 Wade Lightheart: Well, I think we have to look historically and all progress inside of humanity has come at a risk consequence to the people engaged in that, whether that was sailing to north America, from, you know, an overpopulated tyrannical regimes in Europe that made the average quality of life for an average person unbearable, it was better to take the risk. And yes, a lot of people died on that, that voyage. And a lot of people got sick and a lot of people didn't make it. And many people died when they got here, but that became the foundations of perhaps the most contributive nation in the world history. You could go back as far back to 10,000 generations, you know, in tribal warfare, a woman running from, you know, a burning village, carrying her babies across the Savannah. No difference there was certainly risk, but the risk of staying where they was, was you're in a burning village with somebody who wants to butcher you and your family.

 Wade Lightheart: And, and so we're not able to, we're not able to contextualize this experience. And I think there's a north American. I would say it's a real hiccup in is that we, we don't, we we've sanitized death in such a way that it's kind of put in this you know, sanitized tightly contained box that we never really deal with. It's just kind of put away. And there's a little minor statistics that you talk about once in your life with your life insurance provider and that's right. And as opposed to when you're walking down the streets of Calcutta and there's people dying on the ground or dead bodies, and you're surrounded with the, the magnitude and impetus of sudden and quick death, or tragic and long-term suffering, which is overwhelming. And this, I do believe creates a perception issue, which leads to let's just face it, inadequate policy. Can you tell me how you have been kind of fusing your work at R your R and D at Rutgers with this theme called bioinformatics to maybe start changing this whole mindset, to be able to distribute gene therapy in, in a, in a moral and an ethical way in a universal way that makes it more accessible to people?

 Liz Parrish: Yeah, absolutely. And first I'm going to apologize because my dog stuck his head and like made some noises. Well, I want to touch on what you said. It, that's, what I'm trying to get to the risk aversion is literally killing us at this point, because we're not demanding access to new technologies. Our risk aversion is what is going to lead to more deaths than absolutely necessary. And at any point even though bioinformatics is very useful, AI cannot solve this problem for us because biology is very complex. So we have to learn more about biology and how drugs work before AI can absolutely fix the problem, but it can do it can go a long ways to helping us. So at Rutgers university we decided that we, we got a project together and decided that essentially what we're doing in gene therapy is inefficient.

 Liz Parrish: So AAV, even though it's a relatively safe carrier of genes to the cell has its own limitations. And curing aging is not going to be one gene curing aging is going to be a multitude of genes. We know that it's a very complex disorder. We look at the hallmarks of aging, there's nine different hallmarks and not one gene actually will fix all of those problems. So what we do with bioinformatics is we look at what genes will work and what genes will help in what areas. And then we combined the resources of some very intelligent people on the planet to try to find a vector that could, in this case, I'm talking about an attenuated viral vector, a virus that can't get you sick, but in a vector that could actually carry all of those genes. And so we we decided to look at the Seidel Seidel, omega live virus. It's a, it's a big word but you can break it down to CMV as what we call it. And it delivers multiple genes to cells. And not only did the delivery method work, our mice yes, you have to do this stuff in mice initially. They lived 40% longer than the controls. So that's really fantastic. Let me really quick get someone to help me with this dog.

 Wade Lightheart: Sure. All right. We're back from a minor interruption from our canine friends, man, and woman's best friend, but as we get a little bit deeper into this topic of gene therapy and why you're such a big advocate for it, particularly around aging, can you explain, you brought up a couple of points here about like how AI can't solve the problem. And you've got I would say intelligent resources who are looking at the vectors of aging. Is this part of the bioinformatics conversation? Is that what that means? Like, can you explain how that bioinformatics that word, which I haven't heard before specifically what that is and how does that determine what you do? So

 Liz Parrish: What I mean by AI can't solve the problem because that will be a very inflammatory statement to a lot of people. AI is on us. Okay. We have to put what we actually understand into AI. We are still learning how genes interplay with the other 20 some thousand genes when you manipulate them. So there are some things that we, as humans need to understand just like a calculator, a calculator doesn't really know one through zero. We had to understand one through zero, and then we program it to give us even a greater understanding. So AI is able to do amazing things. It will solve a bunch of our problems, but we're still at that early point where humans are still part of the input process. And so what I'm saying is today, this is still very much manual learning and it's still animal studies. Otherwise we would just be able to, you know, type in a gene. And then the AI system would tell us everything that, that Jane does every interaction. So we're still in a very human dependent point of AI. So we're still at the early calculator. Maybe we know one through five, but not one through

 Wade Lightheart: Zero. Here's a question that I know is going to be on everybody's stuff because he lived debates. And there's two, I guess, you know, for janitors of, of, of these two conversations and one is, will AI eventually take over humans and will gene therapy create mutants or be used for by military operations to, you know, create super soldiers or takeover other people, or will we create these fusion artificially intelligent, genetically mutant species? Like, like how do you navigate the potential negative side effects with the potential benefits? Because I think there's a lot of what I would call social media conversations. And you have, you know, whether it's Elon Musk making his commentary on a Joe Rogan podcast saying, nah, basically it's done for humanity. We're going to be fused creatures. And other people may be on the religious side that says that, you know, like hyper religious, like we need to exterminate all of these experiments because it's unnatural and not holy. And then we have a scientific community such as yourself, which you're saying, no, this is the most noble and ethical thing that we can do for the quality of life for mankind moving forward. What's that like in your, what, what is the parameters that you put on those things as a company and in your research? I think people would be interested in knowing that

 Liz Parrish: Yeah, old boy, that's a lot of things. I mean, we, we could really break that down into a multitude of areas. I mean, humans are ever evolving. So, you know, we're already, as you mentioned, were already evolving with devices that are becoming an like an extension of our minds and, and in many ways, they're very great. Now, if you get into advertising, they're probably not that good. If you know, something is steering you towards buying decisions, but they give us the ability to not have to remember everything. And that's really fantastic. So when you're looking at hardware and software, you, you know, you're looking at the merging of a human with the future that we can't quite foresee, but we do, we can start with some experiments. We can look at a multitude of species as a matter of fact, 99.9% of all species who already have gone extinct.

 Liz Parrish: Correct. Then we know that we have to make decisions for ourselves. So if this was a static world and it was utopia, we had abundance for everyone and no one had to want for anything. And that the climate wasn't changing and pollution, wasn't developing and genetic mutations weren't happening because of a myriad of pollution issues and other things and disease wasn't prevalent. Then I would say that we would be in a situation where we were doing everything right. Especially if we had very few limitations that's not the world we live in. And so that's the world though. We can create through technology. And so as much as we built a roof over our heads and we learn farm and raise crops, and then we learn to create the calculator that, you know, now quite independently works better than I do.

 Liz Parrish: We have already substantially changed things and antibiotics and immunizations are the biggest game changers in lifespan, as a matter of fact. So with that, if you take antibiotics out of the equation, if people want to die naturally most people watching this would already be dead. So we live much longer than people just did 150 years ago. And that's all on the back of science, it's sanitation, antibiotics, immunization, and workplace safety, which is a form of science itself and all of the science and the engineering and structure around you. I mean, you know, just some 70 years ago, you know, people were still making light sockets that might shock people to death, you know, because they weren't really working out the problems and the, and then they eventually did work out the problems. So when we're looking at the future human, we need to be a little bit more open-minded.

 Liz Parrish: And actually, this is a great thing. I have spoken at many religious events, Mormons Christians. I met the Dalai Lama on stage and had a a live discussion with him about gene therapy. You know, all of these religions actually really love this. I mean, they, they would, of course believe that the science being given to us is something worth using. Now. There's probably some people in some places that are not maybe up on, you know, they might be, they might have congregations that speak differently about technology. But many of those institutes believe that this technology was handed to us and, and it is a divine bright to participate in technology that would help us live longer and healthier. And that is the message of their Messiah's right. Or their goals, odds or otherwise. So it's not all groups, but certainly some groups, but yeah, let's put things into historical perspective just to get back on the right track and show where at one point we thought very incorrectly and then how we change that, but how we can even change that to the better.

 Liz Parrish: So in a, in 1960, we saw a big shift in 1960 wasn't that long ago, maybe for you and I longer ago for people who are younger than us. In 1960, it was the first shift to the government, right? Helping to actually fund a cure for cancer. Now, why did this happen? This happened because of a couple nonscientists advocate. They were just patient advocates and a couple of medical doctors getting together to say that maybe cancer wasn't just natural. Does this sound familiar? Cause everybody says, aging is natural. You shouldn't treat it. It's a natural, well, it was believed by the us government that cancer was not a fundable condition because it was a natural process that people just got cancer. And it wasn't worth putting money into a natural process, but because a few, very few people got together, like six people got together and they started petitioning back then when it was much harder to do that, sending things into the mail all over the United States and got letters back in support that they were able to radically change the stance of cancer, being just a natural condition that shouldn't be treated.

 Liz Parrish: And now people live decades after diagnosis. So you can see how the mindset change is really the biggest barrier to treating aging in model organisms in mice, we've extended their healthy life span. I mean, they keep their hair, their musculature their, their cognitive ability much longer. They lived 40% longer, happier and healthier than their peers and what we did. Wasn't new science. The same gene has been used a multitude of times. It's been used in human cells. I used it in my human body in 2015 to start this company along with another gene called FOLA Staten, it's called LA telomerase, reverse transcriptase. It's a gene that just lengthens the telomeres at the ends of the caps of the chromosomes. And this is not new technology it's been around, but no one's funding it to get it through clinical trials.

 Liz Parrish: And these are really the next steps either the next steps of saying, okay, you know, so today people are like, antibiotics are natural and immunizations are fine with many people, not all people, but many people. And they understand the health benefits and washing my hands is a good idea. They don't understand they're participating in science. Gene therapy would just mean that you go in maybe once every 10 years and you take an injection takes 20 minutes and you would leave and you would just cut your risk of let's say heart disease, cancer, dementia, and type two diabetes more than in half. If our S our animal studies are right. And

 Wade Lightheart: Which pretty, which is a pretty profound statement on itself. You're saying, you're saying that that technology right now exists,

 Liz Parrish: The technology exists, and it works in mice. We want it to work in humans. And that's the goal of our company.

 Wade Lightheart: Do you think if you had all the green lights that that would be deliverable to the population at large, do you think if you can get the, if you can get the green lights from the political environment that would allow you to do that?

 Liz Parrish: I think that we could start doing it next year. If we could get the green light in humans by my thesis, by the, by what I wrote as a, as a route to ethically help people right here in the United States, we could have the infrastructure for my guidelines within a year. And I believe that they're absolutely reasonable and that Congress could in fact sign off on those. Now that would take the population of the country, at least a percentage of the population demanding that. So here are some good examples, aids vaccines. You know, there, there is no aids vaccines. They're still building on that, but the aids drugs. So people came out in droves, they walked on Washington, they demanded access to drugs for HIV, and they got them within two years. The COVID 19 pandemic. We have immunizations within one year. If they want to move fast, they can move really fast. It doesn't have to be approved, right. There could be another route, just like the vaccines to getting access to these gene therapies that wasn't approved, that we could still be collecting vital data and helping patients right now.

 Wade Lightheart: So here's a question for you then that comes up in my mind, of course, we're operating out of the United States at the moment and the political machine nations that are involved in that process, where in the world is already, greenlighted this process that I am quite sure if the technology's available, there's somebody somewhere with a big bank account. That's saying I'm all in you know, there's individual private citizens flying to space. Now why wouldn't individual private citizens then doing that. And, and is there places that, you know, that that's happening or do you anticipate that those are going to start to emerge as the pressure of having something that valuable and useful becomes available? People are going to find a jurisdiction where they can do this?

 Liz Parrish: Well, absolutely. So there are companies who are already participate in these types of technologies. We work with them because we do buy, we will do bioinformatic data. That's essentially essentially the assessment of data in a study that is done anywhere in the world under any premise, as long as we can help design the study, because we think that human data is way more important than animal data. So the mouse data that I just talked to you about the caveat with that is mice are not a good predictor for what happens in a human we've seen it over and over again. We've seen companies spend a hundred million dollars on animal studies for a drug that never works in a human. So it's just really the wrong way around and drugs like penicillin and aspirin would have never made it through small animal studies because they would have killed them.

 Liz Parrish: So, and those were definitely crucial to the survival of humans. So, you know, and I think that there should be a basic SEF safety slash efficacy study in an animal model. So you could basically have some end points to go by, and then people should be accessing this type of technology very quickly. But as far as people who want to get access to these technologies, those that, that type of access is available outside of the U S I can't say specific areas because it depends on doctors, and it depends on the person participating under the right legal consent medical doctors in certain jurisdictions can, can help patients who consent to take, get access to a multitude of different therapeutics legally.

 Wade Lightheart: So let's talk about your company specific and what you're doing in regards to your paper. We might want to talk about what you've been able to demonstrate with your paper, that your thesis that's coming forward, and this whole topic about patient access and, and where your company is going to make this technology available right here in the USA. What are you? Can you paint us that picture? So that we could say, Hey, you know what, I want to get behind this. I want to get behind this. I want to, I want to live. I want to be 25 forever. I wanna, like, I wanna live to be 150 and the, you know, rocking it down the street on my bicycle, doing wheelies. Like, how, like, is this a potential possibility? Do you see this happening? When, how, what have you been able to demonstrate so far?

 Liz Parrish: Well, in our animal studies, we had demonstrated that the animals live younger, healthier, longer in my own body in 2015, when we launched the company, I took two gene therapies and my biomarkers are great. We have a biostatistician working on those now, and we'll be releasing those, but a short synopsis. My telomeres slowly keep getting longer. My triglyceride levels are low. My blood glucose levels are low, and this is something that we see in medical tourism as well. So there's, there's basically what that, what that would show is probably benefits to protection against type two diabetes. The lengthening telomeres would just be, so telomeres are not a perfect aging clock, but they are an indicator of disease state. And so having a better length on your telomere is actually a good thing. So that should mean better overall health.

 Liz Parrish: So w there are two routes that we could go with our drug development. One is the regular regulatory route. We do another few years of millions of dollars of animal studies. And if we still have a dime left we may be able to start our fierce invest investigational new drug. It's called an ind in humans. And then we have about eight to 15 years from there to get a drug to the population. A lot of people can't wait for that. My thesis is based on a new route of regulatory system based on the medical need to treat non-communicable diseases, aging associated noncommunicable diseases, which are the biggest killers on the planet. You already alluded that cancer, heart disease, dementia and type two diabetes kill 80% of the population. And that now non-communicable diseases are the biggest killer on the entire planet.

 Liz Parrish: So people, so, you know, what does a non-communicable disease? It's a non-infectious disease. It's it's, it's vastly the diseases of aging. Mostly the top for noncommunicable diseases are all aging related diseases. So in my thesis, you know, we would be working towards a regulatory new path that is disconnected from the United States FDA. It is still housed under the health department therefore having that oversight that is the part of government that's vastly overseen by the president. There's three there's, three pillars of government. And what it would do is essentially be a database for anyone with a non treatable disease or a terminal disease could put their name in and their condition and biotech companies like ours. If we have something to treat that condition, we can come up with innovative ways with the patient or nonprofit organizations in order to treat them immediately.

 Liz Parrish: We would have a minimum guideline instead of the millions of dollars to do business with the FDA. We'd have a minimal guideline of pre-imposed criteria for data gathering. We would demonstrate that data, whether the drug worked or didn't work and then be able to actually use it to surpass a phase one safety and halfway through phase two efficacy of the USFDA, therefore giving patients who need the drugs immediately, who don't have 15 years to wait access now, whilst gathering data that would apply towards our FDA approval down the road and shorten the span that we would be in that, those sort of phase discoveries before Lee releasing a drug on the population, the more data, the more effect towards the phase trials.

 Wade Lightheart: I remember specifically a news conference with the former administration and the government. And they brought in a lady who had a terminal condition and under the right to try program. I believe it was classified. She took an experimental drug, which she was able to make a full functional recovery and extend her life, which was a pretty remarkable statement that went largely unreported in the media, which I thought was, which I thought was a major breakthrough that we, we, we had a policy, we, we implemented policy. It was like, Hey, look, you've got a terminal condition. You don't have this time. Okay. Yes, there's some risk involved, but we know what the result is otherwise. So why not have the right to try? And I do believe that the government should sh let's qualify this first statement. Government representatives should not place their perceptions over an individual citizen who is essentially an aspect of the government to take their shot at life, provided that they understand the risks and provide it that they're doing. So and, and recognizing that the liability falls fully on their own choice, because yes, some of these things like you alluded to in the past, aren't going to work like the experiment in 1999. But we knew that that, that one wasn't going, like, w some of these aren't going to work, but some of them are, and from those wins, we can learn and develop these things at which could have, like you said unbelievable positive benefits over the longterm.

 Liz Parrish: Oh yeah. And in 1999, the gene actually worked. It was the developed, the delivery method actually made the kids sick, but no I'm telling you that what you're saying is spot on. And a lot of people will say, wait a minute. Well, then there is right to try. So there is something, but right. To try, doesn't work for new, innovative drugs. It's only for drugs who have been at least through phase one trials, which is millions of dollars to do after your many multi-million dollar animal studies. So, you know, most of the innovations that are like the best innovations for today are still in the earlier phases. So just in case your listeners are like, wait a minute, then why wouldn't people just use right. To try, well, it's limited itself. And, you know, we need, wait, we need a good news network, like good news network, because this case that you're even talking about with this woman, I don't even know what she took, what she was cured of. Imagine when you're diagnosed with something and you're told that you're going to die, you don't have the wherewithal to, to go and do a bunch of research. And in right to try, you have to do a bunch of research. You've got to actually go and find a drug candidate that might help you and talk a company into using it on you. So,

 Wade Lightheart: So which leads us to this next question, which, which is, this is where we are as a civilization right now with the advent of proliferated media, which is run through mathematical algorithms, which are supported by a variety of companies or individuals with certain political agendas that they want to push forward. And I was, I'm a big fan of listening to particularly Eric and Bret Weinstein who run Eric is a, I believe a physicist of great acclaim. And his brother is an evolutionary biologist. And th they have very interesting and well thought out perspectives, and they're not political in their endeavors. They go through systematically what I call real science and bring it to a point where some of us lay people can understand. But one of the common elements that you talked about between Brett Eric and Brett's wife, Heather there's, these are three PhDs, which have world changing technology that they have proven and demonstrated in a university setting, which are being coordinated off by these political machine nations, which that is not widely distributed to the, to the public as opportunity.

 Wade Lightheart: And in Eric's case is we have we're, we're still running on the technology that was developed 70 years ago in physics, essentially in the world today. And that if within their sphere or their they're literally supper table, they have three people who have life changing. How many of these people, such as yourself who are standing here and saying, look, I could deliver this in a year. If we had the go ahead lights, who knows the amount of human hours of quality of life that might reel, or the value that's created, like the it's not even measurable, the exponential possibilities of this, what is it going to take to blow past these platforms which are coordinating off these breakthroughs because of whatever agenda they're trying to serve, what, like, how do we get past this? Like how do we smash these things and, and let people live their lives the way that they always have?

 Liz Parrish: Well, I don't know the people that you're talking about, but it sounds fantastic. I think that, you know, again, it's, it's grassroots movement. It really comes down to what people demand access to just like an HIV. The COVID demanded that the government do something fast, but maybe that was more on their heels. Politicians are, are servants of the public. And oftentimes that is forgotten. The whole thing has sort of been flipped on its head that we appear to be servants the other way around, we just get what were dulled out. People really need to demand access. And I know that's like the hardest thing to say, because then that puts it on everyone. Who's listening to go and do something about it, but it really is that people need to March on Washington and demand access to aging treatments.

 Liz Parrish: They need to demand that these new innovative drugs actually get to people. And not just for me and not just for my company. I'm talking about all of these companies who are putting their necks out there that are likely to just go bust, because we can't keep up with the pharmaceutical amount of money that the pharmaceutical companies have that they put behind lobbying and put behind how much it costs to do drug development and be raising and raising bar of that. Did you know that it was estimated by Tufts university? Just a couple of years ago that now to get a drug through development and get it to the public is now $2.6 billion.

 Wade Lightheart: I, I, a hundred percent, I hadn't heard that particular topic. I knew I,

 Liz Parrish: Why is it $2.6 billion? Why that doesn't even make sense? Because the amount of money doesn't mean the drug is safer. You know, the unsafe drugs are passed all the time, drugs that come out on the market, and then they have to be pulled off the market because they harm too many people. How is it that that money equates somehow that these are safe drugs, the gene and cell technology areas where people want to be, that's where you want to invest, because that's the, that's using your, your, your cell becomes a drug factory. You don't have, you know, all of these, you know, sort of misfires all over the body and will things go wrong probably, but they don't have to go wrong to that exponential amount that they have historically gone wrong with this more exact science that is yes, backed by AI and big data and things like that, that is growing with our ability to amass the knowledge into those systems. So, so

 Wade Lightheart: Let's talk about that specifically, because you've illustrated a point that how being in the holistic nutrition industry, we've been dealing with a highly regulated conversation for the last several decades as pharmaceutical organizations and their political machinations really coordinate off what we can say or do with a relatively inexpensive health technology. And you're on the opposite end of that spectrum, but still providing opportunities again. And we're up against the same I guess hygienic enterprise where the amount of money, power, and influence that a very small group of companies have in our political system seems to be distorted just much like our information distribution system is now become the same thing. In other words, if, if it's, if it's not something that we agree with that just gets squeezed out on an algorithm, if we don't like what you have to say, even if it's truthful, we just squeeze that out on an algorithm. We don't like the way that you're coming together with this effective cost-effective technology. That's going to upset our hundred billion dollar marker. Then we're gonna, we're gonna coordinate off progress. Isn't that a death sentence for humanity itself, because we're not able to, I mean, we've been able to survive and do well on the planet because of evolution because of our impetus to innovate. What happens, if, what happens? Do you feel if a species stops to innovating?

 Liz Parrish: Well, the it's it's the death of the species. It's the 99.9% of species. And the problem is, is that ego gets in the way, but we're talking about distinctly three different industries, and therefore there should be three different than in that case, regulatory paths. We're talking about natural products, many of them that have really good clinical trial data by the way just in case someone doesn't know you should, you should always go look that up. There's a lot of evidence behind these and it's less expensive to get the evidence because they're naturally occurring products. Then there's the nutraceutical, not the nutraceuticals. That's where we were before then there's the pharmaceuticals. And these were, they, these were made with good intention. Some of them are still good. Drugs are certainly necessary right now. And they are formulations that generally started by spinning off of the nutraceuticals and becoming patents, things that were patentable, but some of them did get better at what they were doing.

 Liz Parrish: They sometimes came, became more detrimental to, so this is a completely different industry, and this is the U S FDA. And this is they're often, there are some really bad players in there. So these are the, where we get some good drugs and a lot of bad drugs. And that has that crazy regulatory route that takes forever and for a good reason. And again, those drugs often get through those routes and turn out to harm people, but then there's the gene therapy. So here let's think of this as a matter of cost, we've got the nutraceuticals, we got the pharmaceuticals, and then we've got the gene theory. The gene therapy needs a different path because it's more succinct, exact science at the cellular level. We can glean a lot of what happens from a dish and then move it into the whole organism. And but you can see why these should have completely different regulatory paths and your area shouldn't be fighting with this area. And my area shouldn't be fighting with this area. There there's th they're their own pillars and there, there should be, you know, just completely different paths, but with good evidence base for humans, because that's what matters most right. And so I think that, you know, that kind of helps demystify. Now, what I'm trying to do in my thesis is demystify this one and this one, these two, because this seems to be the ones that need decoupling in my mind's eye. Perhaps we should be doing three. Well,

 Wade Lightheart: I think there's a fourth phase, which I kind of referred to, which is the dissemination of information, because you can't have a movement. For example, if you're talking about what you do, and that gets regulated by the Google algorithms, for example, to use an example, guess what nobody knows about it. And for example, specific to our conversation here is a person on a right to try stuff that almost nobody knows happened. I happened to come across the press conference through an alternative media, and the woman was exceptionally excited and delighted. Obviously she had a death sentence, she had her a radical new drug therapy and she's living healthy and wonderful and was so excited about that. Went nowhere. You know, like you don't see this disseminated on CNN. You don't see this on, you know at the top of your YouTube box or your apple news box on your media phones.

 Liz Parrish: That's because now what we need to tell people is, you know, it's hard, you know, you're on, you've had a long day and you sit down to your computer and, or your phone and you see options, okay. We all have options. And one of them is the shark attack. The other one is the big bloody mass. The other one is, you know, mass destruction. And there might be one that is just something good, you know, and it just doesn't get clicked on. So we have to make better choices. You know, often I'm like, oh, I go to click and I have to stop myself. I say, oh, you just don't do it. Just don't do it because that's what perpetuates. It is really our choices. When we start making different choices, the whole media will start making different choices, but it comes down to how we're wired. We are wired to, for the disaster, you know,

 Wade Lightheart: And make the love response to the threat. The threat protection mechanism is why people slow down on a highway. Why people click on the car, crash killed three people. Why people focus on the negative as opposed to, so would you say as a civilization, part of getting this advocacy is to transcend our old amygdala based mechanisms, which are working on threats and instead directing our consciousness towards opportunities. Absolutely.

 Liz Parrish: And, and one way to kind of retrain your brain and get really excited about the future is well, Hans Rosling he was the, he was the health minister, I think of Finland or Sweden. Sorry, here I am. It's been a while since I read that book, but he wrote a fantastic book about progress and the world has not become a worst place. If you look at the media, it actually even shows in his diagrams, people who watch the media tend to think all of these terrible things are happening in the world and that they're exponentially out of control and humans are awful. And, you know and you know, we're doomed. And yet science shows that we've actually become a better world in all ways. And we use science for the good, sometimes it gets used for the bad, but the media extrapolates that rather than, you know, talking about, you know, the true human rights and the, the absolute ethic issues behind all of these type of new technologies, even we recently came under fire for doing business with companies that do offshore studies.

 Liz Parrish: It was considered unethical that a accompany had treated dementia patients with a gene therapy. Did this article say anything about many, you know, more than half of the country can't afford healthcare. I mean, in a meaningful way, they might be able to have some basic healthcare insurance, but that doesn't mean they afford to go to the doctor. Does that D did they say anything about the price of insulin? Something that takes pin cost pennies to make it's the sixth, most expensive liquid on the planet, at least in this country, it is. Did they say anything about how the United States is only 5% of the world's population? We take 75% of the pharmaceutical drugs, and we have the shortest lifespan of any industrialized country. No, they didn't talk about any of the real ethical issues of what forces people out of the system to try to stay alive.

 Liz Parrish: They didn't talk about the astronomical costs and how, you know, people die, not being able to treat basic disease. They didn't talk about, you know, people having amputations because they're in their insurance, won't pay to have a limb reattached and the complications. I mean, it's really it's really disappointing to me. I have not lost faith. I'm very much a mother. And I think that as humanity, we just need to grow. We need to set our egos aside and we need to move on. I'm not giving up, but I'm really sad that the media, instead of seeing a, a situation and saying, wow, these people are really trying, because that would be good news and people might not click on it. They make up a story. And essentially, you know, bastardize a whole bunch of companies who went out on a limb to help people live longer and healthier. You know, it's just, it's weird to me. And it was all paid for too. People didn't give money to participate or nobody got tricked or scammed, or, you know, it's, it's just a very sad state of affairs. It, the media is often lying to you. They're just trying to get a click.

 Wade Lightheart: Well, you know, it's, I found it interesting, I think recently it was identified to give an example of this related to my field. I think Dr. Mercola was outlined as one of the most dangerous persons in society by the current administration, a doctor that spent his life advocated health technologies to people to experiment with none of which have any negative consequences, which I found quite humorous. 

 Liz Parrish: Well, I don't know him, but I imagine in his case it will actually just gain him 10, you know, millions of followers and probably millions of dollars. I mean, you know, the, the net effect is that, you know, people are, are pretty, they'll click on it, but they're pretty tired of the media.

 Wade Lightheart: So let's talk about BioViva particularly as we're winding up, I want to be mindful of your time. What are you doing? How are you raising capital for this obviously hyper expensive endeavor? And what are the requirements that you see from both an engineering or a business engineering, as well as a political engineering components in order to make the therapies available to the population?

 Liz Parrish: Oh, that's, that's a lot. So we will be opening to funding in September. This is 2021, and we're excited about that. We'll be doing our big push to move these drugs to preclinical status. That's in animal models, acceptable for human use and to ind for the regulatory system because we're not giving up. We really are just huge proponents of not getting in any debates or battles. I really love humans. I know why they get polarized. I know the why they become on teammate and team B. And I want to be a mediator between those two, so I can sit here and I can complain about a few things. But the truth is I'm really a mediator to a better future. And so I want to work with the government. I want to work with grassroots movements in order to show that the demand is there for these technologies and that people want to live healthier and longer.

 Liz Parrish: So it's both a social engineering and biological engineering on the research and development side. We'll continue to spill out good data on how awesome these therapies are working or where they're not working which is just as important. Failures is just as important as your successes and really build towards a new world and the world of the future is people getting along. It's taking care of the planet and it's living healthier longer. And I believe that, you know, living healthier longer is one of the biggest keys to the other two because it makes people feel like they're more engaged and more they have a lot more to lose if the climate doesn't go very well. It also we know there's something called mortality priming. As we become older, we get more, maybe you might call it. Curmudgeony where we start stockpiling resources and becoming insular.

 Liz Parrish: That's not how we want to be as a species. We want to reach out to each other. We want to connect. We want to solve the problems. Now there's touchy issues around solving problems because when you start to uncover what the actual issues are, again, people get their egos into it. So we have to learn to disengage the, you go and move toward the future. Now, you know, because you know, me, I believe that the future is genetic engineering. I believe that we need to be an open-minded species prepared for the future. We're going to have to take a few risks, but the benefits are massive. And of course, as you know from following me, I believe that, you know, I, my ideal biology would be one that interfaces with AI, but that we genetically make justice fast and just as relevant so that we never become irrelevant through biology and gene therapy.

 Liz Parrish: So I believe that the, the March of the future is change. And I believe that those who want to live long and well will they will need to be open to change and that people who are not you know, will not join the future, you know, they, they will pass normal lives and the species hopefully will become a healthier and happier species in which you know, we don't have to see our children get sick of disease. And if, and if they are born sick with a disease, we can quickly change it with injection. And and then we can see what, what humanity is really all about. When we have time and health, we may do the most amazing unexpected things and live in the most amazing and unexpected ways with, you know, love and value and traveling to outer space and traveling to the depths of our oceans and living in peace, which would be a fabulous future for us.

 Wade Lightheart: Quick question for you. How long do you think that you'll live healthily?

 Liz Parrish: I don't know. For me, it's never been about that. So when I hope a long time now, I

 Wade Lightheart: Really don't. How do you determine that? How do you see a long time? What would you, what would be a long time for you at this stage with your understanding of what is just lying on the edge of possibility here, which has got to be both an exciting and frustrating situation?

 Liz Parrish: Oh my gosh, it's so exciting. It is frustrating and it's exciting. And I think that that's one of the reasons that people don't look at this technology seriously because they're afraid they won't see it in their lifetime, because it really is going to take a movement of all, of, most of society, at least 10% of society to demand access to this. You know, when I started the company I took a couple of gene therapies for humanity's sake, and I did a lot of writing around that time because I didn't know if I'd live or if I would die from an, and it really didn't matter to me. As long as someone learned something from what I had done, I'm not afraid of death. I don't want to be dependent. I don't want to be sickly at the same time, but now that I've looked at this technology, if I died, don't feel sorry for me. I'm, you know, whatever. But I don't know why someone would pick an age that they want to die at. I don't pick up, I'm just saying based on, you know,

 Wade Lightheart: What do you think? So, one of the questions I was asked on Dave Asprey's podcast and they said, well, what, how old do you think that you're going to live? And I think Dave said he was going to be 180. And my business partner said like 180 or 150. And I said some random number, 150, but in my heart of hearts, I thought I got a shot at one 20, I think based on the growth of possibility from my perspective at that point. And when I answered the question, I felt a little bit disingenuous because I, I thought I was moved by the conversation more than I actually believed. What do you feel in your I'm just talking strip away of the science, took away all the stuff. What do you think you can legitimately live to in this lifetime based on what you have access to, what you think that you'll be, or what you think will cultivate over the journey of your company?

 Liz Parrish: Oh, is this company keeps going? I just, I don't, I don't, I just don't. I can't, I couldn't. I mean, the thing is when, when, once we prove that you can break the 125 span, as long as we are regenerating bodies, if you're healthy, what do you die of? You die of a natural disaster. You die of a, of an accident. If right now we, we would have evidence that this type of technology should keep a person who would probably die around 85 alive to about 110, but I don't think we're done. So I know we're not done because now we're looking at combining genes. And so as soon as we hit the mark, where we can actually make the body regenerate just a little faster than a DJ generates,

 Wade Lightheart: That's, that's, that's a, that's a, that changes the Delta in a completely different direction. So you don't want to put a limit on that.

 Liz Parrish: Yeah. I, I don't think I could, cause that's kind of, I'm not really good at telling the future, but I can say that when you look at model organisms out in the world, you know, like Bo had Wells they shouldn't, they're ginormous entities that have multitude of cellular divisions. They can live over 250 years. You know, there are the immortal jellyfish that, you know, go back and forth between, but I, I really don't know if that qualifies or not. Sometimes when I break that down there clams that are alive for 500 years, and then you'd say, well, there's a metabolism thing, but then the bowhead well has to exert a lot more energy than, than the liberal among, among clam. I think it's called. So I think that it's, we just are slowly unlocking keys. And I think that right now we have keys to live a natural life span, just very healthy.

 Liz Parrish: But the keys were not done. And as we combine these different keys to aging that's when we're probably going to see much more impressive outcomes, and then there are genes still to find. So that again, that's where AI can't just randomly go in and find a gene for us. We've got to find the gene, tell it, and then, you know, start studying it. And and that's also will be a big game changer. And the truth is we live in those the Zilla genic grocery store, right? So the we're all made of DNA. So the DNA of other species. Okay. That sounds crazy. Right. But the lights that genes from light sensing algae have already been used in humans and humans who were blind can see because of those and these are in clinical trials. So it's possible that we will start picking and expanding our genome based on benefits that other species have to combat cancer, to combat a myriad of things. And we'll blur the line between physical enhancement and and health. And that will be that that'll be a beautiful moment for us.

 Wade Lightheart: Well, I think it's safe to say that we're, we probably could have some certain common elements, which I believe that the, the, the homosapiens as they are to this point have, are not going to make the transition. Whether we become a homo digitalis, homo, genetic engineered, whatever this or some fusion of that. I think that the, I think that that cast has already died and that the, the end is already here for homosapiens. It is only a matter of time, whether it's in this lifetime, the next lifetime, like, you know, the next generation next generation is based on what you're saying is available right now, based on what artificial intelligence engineers are having, the robotic engineers that are happening, we are standing on the precipice of a, of a almost unimaginable future. And your company is on the forefront of I think what's a very exciting gene therapy technology, which could have some significantly positive ramifications for the world at large. And I certainly wish you the best of success in that. Where can people find out about you, your company, and get involved in maybe changing the the ignorance around this technology?

 Wade Lightheart: I'm sorry, this dog is having a gun. He's excited. Maybe he's going to join us on the next, you know, he's going to get somebody he's going to learn how to speak. And he can actually communicate in English in a way that we can imagine, if you can imagine that we could get her dogs so they could learn English or whatever, and they could speak with us. Maybe, maybe we maybe they know something that we don't like. They seem generally to be pretty happy. Maybe the population could learn something from,

 Liz Parrish: Yeah. Oh no. Yeah, absolutely. They're fantastic. Companions and extending pet lifespan is, is a big area of interest. So you can learn more about [email protected]. That's where you'll find some of our kits that we have for cell. And that's where you can contact us if you're interested in other things that we do, like our research and development. And you can find us on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram, and that's not my wheelhouse, but there is a group in the company that take care of all of that. And if you reach out and ask a question, there'll be happy to answer it.

 Wade Lightheart: Well, Elizabeth, this has been both an exciting and thought provoking conversation, I think for both myself and for our listeners and I welcome their comments, their likes their questions, and I encourage them to actually follow your company and what you're doing at BioViva and to understand what is potentially at stake and how we can get this to move forward. So I want to thank you for taking the time out of your extremely busy schedule for being here. And I would like to invite you probably to come back to the podcast at some point in the future, as this thing moves forward, because I know it's a part that we're very interested in understanding and seeing the development in the future, both myself and Matt, as the co founders of our company and what we see as the future. We've had many of these conversations over our 20 years and many more to come. So thank you for joining us today and for all our listeners. Thank you for joining this enlightening conversation about genetics, gene therapy, bioinformatics, patient access, what you can do about accessing technology that can disrupt the aging model that we currently have. Thanks so much for joining us today. I hope you enjoy this podcast and we'll see you on the next line. Take care.

Posted in

Leave a Comment