Proposal for Enhancing Experimental Anti-aging Treatment with Young Plasma

Large doses of young exosomes, delivered intravenously, have been shown to have extraordinary rejuvenation power in rats. We have known this for 5 years, but translation to human trials has been slow, not for technical reasons but because of trade secrets and intellectual property law and the inability to guarantee that he who funds the translation research will profit from the finished product.

In the interim, a cottage industry has developed around a weaker human therapy based on the technique that is so successful in rats. Plasma infusions are a well-developed, safe and approved procedure for trauma injury and other applications. It has been adapted by clinics in Texas as an anti-aging therapy. For some tens of thousands of dollars, an old person can buy two liters of blood plasma from a guaranteed healthy young donor. 

For those with the money to spend, the limit of two liters comes about because the volume of the body’s circulatory system can be stretched only so much. Putting extra fluid into the system, with extra pressure on the arterial walls, can be dangerous. Typically, one liter of blood plasma can be removed and two added, for a net volume increase of one liter. (An adult might have 5 liters total, so this amounts to a 20% expansion of the blood volume.)

Some people report good results from this procedure, but no one has been restored to youthful appearance, health, endurance, and learning potential comparable to the rats in the laboratories of Harold Katcher or Xi Chen. I’m guessing this is because the exosome dosages in these rat experiments were far larger than the ~35% replacement that is achieved in the Texas clinics. I believe that Katcher and Chen both used exosome infusions large enough to overwhelm the reservoir of old exosomes in the blood of the old rat. 

Proposal for infusing larger plasma doses in human trials

Blood plasma is 90% water. If it is the water volume that limits the dosage of young plasma, an obvious work-around is to concentrate the exosomes and other plasma ingredients before infusion. Freeze dried plasma is already a well-developed technology, in use for 80 years. Under a vacuum, the plasma is evaporated and the evaporation lowers the temperature. Over the course of 10-20 hours, almost all the water is removed, and the plasma is reduced to a slurry.

This technique has been developed for the convenience of long-term storage only, so that, in hospitals, plasma is routinely reconstituted to full strength before administration. But by adding less water, the plasma could be reconstituted at triple strength or more. In this way, a much larger dosage of young plasma could be infused in the old patient.

Refinements

Platelets are miniature cells responsible for blood clotting. It will be necessary to remove platelets from the plasma, because blood with 3 or 4 times the healthy concentration of platelets poses a danger of clotting, heart attack, and strokes. It may be advisable to remove albumen and some other elements of the plasma to keep their concentration within normal limits. 

There is an experimental anti-aging clinic in California, where old blood plasma is removed and replaced with albumen. It probably makes sense to remove old exosomes as we add young exosomes

We do not yet know

The principal uncertainty is whether the young exosomes are able to reprogram the body’s epigenetics, with a result that is self-sustaining. If we are lucky, then the reprogrammed body will produce its own young exosomes; if we are unlucky, then infusions of young exosomes will have to be repeated, perhaps as often as the blood turns over, which is a few months; if we are very unlucky, then the infusions will have to be repeated as often as exosomes are cleared from the blood, which is less than one day, and the treatment becomes completely impractical.

But results with rats suggest that the rejuvenation has some staying power. 

 


Discover more from Josh Mitteldorf

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

77 thoughts on “Proposal for Enhancing Experimental Anti-aging Treatment with Young Plasma”

  1. Josh – very good update on this promising area. Now have the $101 million x-prize for first to demonstrate 20 yr rejuvenation in humans so maybe this can have some spending money on R&D for this area.

    Reply
    • How are they going to determine if the person really is 20 years younger? The only sure way is to do the intervention with at least 20 people and wait and see how long before they die. If we use any more indirect marker, they’re sure to bicker over which marker or aging clock to use.

      Reply
  2. I have mixed feelings about this. It’s one thing to be a human “lab rat”, it’s another to pay reasonably large sums for the privilege to be one. It reminds me of the hucksterism around life extension over the millennia.

    But it’s a free country. I’m watching IL-11 blocker trials myself. It has passed Phase I, there are several Phase II trials going on for various fibrotic diseases (lung, kidney). It has shown many of the same health and life extensions in rats.

    Reply
  3. This would be a worthwhile experiment. My feeling is that the treatment would have to be repeated roughly every six weeks. I recently had an infusion of amnionic fluid and saw some remarkable results. A reduction in my arterial stiffness of 2 years, increase in exercise capacity and improved sleep and recovery measured by my Oura and Withings scale. Tantalizing, I also saw a reduction in my biological age on the Gero sense app, which correlated much closer to my biological age, which showed that there was some underlying change taking place. Things more or less returned to baseline after six weeks. I believe this number tallies with immune clearance, though I may be wrong in believing that. Would my biological age have reduced further with subsequent treatments I can’t say, and unfortunately it’s currently prohibitively expensive to run that experiment. But while my data is very limited it does point in the right direction.

    Reply
  4. Interesting read! A study on mice (doi:10.1093/cdn/nzab055_009) suggested that daily 14-hr intermittent fasting significantly increased small evs/exosomes by 38%.

    Reply
  5. There was also the umbilical cord plasma safety study that showed promising results. Plasma concentrate was injected weekly (1 ml intramuscular) into elderly human subjects over a 10-week period.

    A repeat of this experiment for intravenous injection would be very informative!

    The concentration factor was 100x, “The entire components of a 100 ml of hUCBP were concentrated to 1 ml volume, processed as described above, and were subsequently injected by syringe intramuscularly, generally in the deltoid, by the Study Physician once a week, for a period of 10 weeks.”

    Umbilical cord plasma concentrate has beneficial effects on
    DNA methylation GrimAge and human clinical biomarkers

    James Clement1,2 | Qi Yan3 | Megha Agrawal1 | Ramon E. Coronado4,5,6,7 |
    John A. Sturges8 | Markus Horvath3 | Ake T. Lu9,10 | Robert T. Brooke3 |
    Steve Horvath9,11

    Reply
    • As adults, we require “prime of life” plasma from healthy and sex-matched young adults, not cord-blood derived plasma intended to support unborn fetuses. One example is yFFP® normalizing my previously low testosterone, now for eight years, without any testosterone-specific treatments or supplements. Older women also benefit from sex-match hormones and other components of plasma, as Stanford published in 2019 that the proteins most strongly associated with age also changed significantly with sex.

      Unlike receiving a large volume two-liter or three-liter infusion of plasma from health-examined young sex-matched donors, the volume of plasma in cord blood typically ranges between 60-80 ml, which then necessitates over thirty cords which are not donor sex-matched, nor do tissue banks receive any donor health history, given there are three categories of birthing: great-average-traumatic, which can alter exosome signaling.

      Reply
      • Tom
        Is there some way you could concentrate the young plasma as Josh is suggesting?

        If you could remove some water we can get past this 2 liter volume limit?

        freeze distillation/condensation or vacuum distillation in a rotovap?

        Reply
        • Hi Fred. As I have repeated throughout this comment stream, plasma was approved in 1938 and we currently transfuse 10,000 units of plasma in the US every day, 20% from young donors. TACO is a universal IV speed and volume issue that depends upon the receiving patient’s circulatory condition, with lowering the rate of administration, or the volume administered per day the long-proven protocol. There is no 2-liter limit, and I just received 4-liters over three days with absolutely no issues. I know that many on this blog do not fully understand our regulatory system, with the removal of water not only unnecessary, but it is also absolutely inadvisable other than on a battlefield, with freeze drying FDA approved only in 2018, again, only for use in battle. As they say in the military, this conversation is entirely a false-flag proposal. The other and more concerning aspect of this communication is the relentless “more of one molecule is better” mindset that completely overlooks both the naturally perfected complexity and balance of plasma and all its essential cohorts. Now it is exosomes, overlooking as is often the case with stem cells, their tissue specificity. Previously, depending upon the promotion, it was one peptide, GDF11, out of five thousand peptides, or maybe LL37, or maybe GLS1, with others promoting hormone replacement, etc. It is all of the above, but only during an eight-year window, 18-25, when we are at our biologic best. The random collection of let’s say exosomes, from other animals, or non-age and sex identified donors is both ill-advised and an approval nightmare that will take years, cost millions (both in IND costs and the additional cost to “manufacture”), and the fact that it will require sterilization and like a heart transplant or IVF, that loss of bioactivity directly results in a loss of efficacy, as has been known since the 1950s when the “Source Plasma” (PPTAglobal.org) first formed and employed ethanol to sterilize plasma that resulted in a more than 30X loss of efficacy. As Mother Nature continually attempts to inform us, “Our plasma controls our programmed aging and don’t mess with my perfected meals. Simply collect plasma from sex-matched humans at their “peak of life.” On that note, I am still unsuccessfully seeking an 18-year-old interested in swapping his plasma for my 73-year-old plasma…

          Reply
          • Young people may be reluctant to swap plasma because maybe they may not realize that plasma does not contain red blood cells as does whole blood transfusions.

            Older red blood cells can change shape and become less flexible, which can affect blood flow.

            Transfusions: Transfusions of older blood have been linked to adverse outcomes like infections, organ failure, and death

          • Hi Heather, you are correct. Although we have been performing apheresis-device driven plasma exchanges and then plasma-collections since the 1960s, and hemodialysis (apheresis can also be performed with a hemodialysis-device) with TPE now receiving a lot of attention within the “longevity” community, as if they just discovered the value of “oil changes” that keep you “clean” but are not reparative to any real extent, despite those procedures having literally been employed on people tens of millions of times worldwide over the decades, the general public is unaware of the sharp distinctions between blood donations that can only be performed 6-times a year because they are debilitating due to the loss of cells vs healthful plasma donations that reconstitute within 48-hours and can be legally performed 104-times a year. The underlying reason for this ignorance is that the Red Cross and AABB have been contractually committed to supplying “reds” to hospital surgeries since 1947, so they avoid mention of the debilitating aspects of cellular loss so as to not discourage any further the altruistic 1% of our population that donates to them, while 90% of all plasma is collected by pharmaceutical companies (since the 1950s the raw material for 20% of all drugs) that keep a comparatively low profile and use cash to keep their donors coming in. When, not if, the general public becomes aware that they can get paid to receive weekly detoxifying plasma exchanges with saline, all will change, especially when the regenerative properties of bio-hacking with Young Plasma becomes known so as to encourage donors to contribute to blood banks for therapeutic human benefit, and not just sending it overseas to manufacture more big-pharma profits, but only “longevity aficionados” will eventually alter that landscape, as both the RC/AABB and big-pharma have no upside, for opposite reasons, to informing anyone of what is already available to them by simply donating plasma to blood banks for their own and the recipients’ benefit. Too much information, but if a young person donates weekly during their peak 18-25-year-old window, that volume will allow 150 aged patients to receive 2-liter treatments while earning themselves $40,000. I call that infinitely Renewable Regeneration which forms a perfect circle that is beneficial to both our young and old!

          • I am not certain about the “perfect circle” concept. We don’t know the long term effect on the donor’s health and longevity of a large number of early (18-24) plasma extractions.

          • Incorrect. 20% of our blood and plasma supply has been collected from young donors since 1942 and literally given the tens of millions of therapeutic apheresis procedures performed worldwide on patients of all ages, and the additional 50,000 apheresis procedures to collect plasma that are performed in the US every day (with there being more than 160 blood bank organizations worldwide), we actually have overwhelming data that dispels all those myths and speculations. Apheresis is detoxifying and healthful. Although too many high-volume TPEs with one individual can cause immunoglobulin (IVIG), potassium, and other depletions, plasma donations are capped at 1-liter, with most donations averaging 750-ml, which do not require supplementation, or even albumin, even if performed twice a week.

          • Can you point to long-term (20+ year) studies on the aging and life span of young plasma donors? I ask because if one is removing aging related components from a young donor, what effect will the drop in these components have on the aging rate of of those donors? Is there any proof (research on these components; i.e. titre levels over time) that there is no drop in levels, or that the levels are replenished in a few hours (or a day or two at most). Shucks, I’d settle for this testing in rodent models.

          • George, Fuhgeddaboud the rats! Josh loves it when I say that, but the facts are that you will learn much more when available from the experiences of millions of humans than you will from a pack of murinae. You can easily look it up yourself – the proteins-peptides-exosomes-cytokines-hormones-minerals in plasma reconstitute within 48-hours, which is why it is not debilitating, nor robbing your youth, as in-fact their surge in replenishment is one of the foundations of therapeutic plasma exchanges and is the justification for allowing donating as much as twice a week legal. PS – we at Spectrum Plasma cap collecting from individual donors to a maximum of once a week, and only after the donor passes a health exam and protein-level test, and their plasma donation a pathogen test, because we are all about our health and sex-identified donors maintaining high levels of all their youth factors.

          • Tom, in the long run, the answer will not be plasma based. It will be in defining the exact parts that are needed and artificially producing them. It is clear from the research that many different components will be needed; many of which we do not yet know. (check thymus regeneration research for example.) Plasma exomes currently seem to increase lifespan by only 25% or so on average. No example has show a doubling; which is a sobering reality. Xi Chen’s group has isolated several active RNA sequences from plasma that seem to be effective; and several that seem to accelerate aging.

          • George, we will agree to disagree. The complex composition of our plasma during our 8-year peak-of-biologic-perfection, which varies greatly based upon sex, makes your approach not only unfeasible due to its simplification (hey, the good news: GDF11. The bad news: only 4,999 peptides to go!), this forum continues to completely overlook the essential quantum properties of life in another critical (or in just one of many bio-preserved comparative examples, organ transplants – fatal) underestimation. Said another way, I completely disagree if you believe a lengthy and expensive IND process for each molecule, which is manufactured from plasma and then sterilized, will be more efficacious and/or economic. That approach always reminds me of someone building a car from the parts department, hopefully not forgetting something like a fuel line or brakes…, believing it will be better and/or cheaper than just buying it fully assembled off the showroom floor!

    • As adults, we require “prime of life” plasma from healthy and sex-matched young adults, not cord-blood derived plasma intended to support unborn fetuses. One example is yFFP® normalizing my previously low testosterone, now for eight years, without any testosterone-specific treatments or supplements. Older women also benefit from sex-match hormones and other components of plasma, as Stanford published in 2019 that the proteins most strongly associated with age also changed significantly with sex.

      Unlike receiving a large volume two-liter or three-liter infusion of plasma from health-examined young sex-matched donors, the volume of plasma in cord blood typically ranges between 60-80 ml, which then necessitates over thirty cords which are not donor sex-matched, nor do tissue banks receive any donor health history, which is a concerning omission given there are three categories of birthing: great-average-traumatic, which can significantly alter exosomes’ signaling.

      Reply
      • The results of the trial indicate otherwise, although yFFP is also beneficial.
        The 100x concentration factor may be the decisive key to reproducing or even improving on Katcher’s results. This can be done directly in human trials right now.

        Reply
  6. Excellent essay, Josh. We also must wonder if like other rejuvenation therapies, such as caloric restriction, that have a truly great effect on mouse and rat longevity, young plasma therapy may have also a lesser effect on longer lived mammals such as ourselves.

    Reply
  7. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. What am I missing? I’m not a phlebotomist or a technician of any kind. “Translation to human trials”? What’s to translate? Humans are bigger than rats, so larger doses are called for. But isn’t that a matter of arithmetic? Why is there a need for translational research? Is it to demonstrate viability of the procedure in order to have approval for a commercial enterprise? That anyone involved with this would think about money boggles my mind. This is more valuable than money.

    I wouldn’t mess around with half-hearted plasma concentration measures. Do what Harold Katcher did. Is it that we don’t know what he did? Is Yuvan keeping that under wraps, hoping to make money from that secrecy? The patent for E5 is public, so anyone with some basic lab equipment, and a relationship with a butcher, and what not could make some. Is it just that we don’t know exactly how to administer it?

    If I were going to do research, I would try to develop some sort of dialysis type delivery. Blood flows out of you into some sort of apparatus. Old-age exosomes are removed. Young-age exosomes get added. Blood flows back into you. Do it while you sleep. This could make things practical in Josh’s “very unlucky” scenario. Which, I bet, even if true, isn’t all that bad. A treatment that needs to be repeated as often as exosomes are cleared from the blood surely wouldn’t have to be done for the rest of your life. Probably you could do it for a while, Then the reprogrammed body will produce its own young-age exosomes.

    Reply
    • Hi Fred. My wife and I established a non-profit research institute in Brazil in 2024 and carried out an experiment in which we injected the preparation of extracellular particles that Harold Katcher described in his article published in Geroscience in 2023, into young rats (not into old rats yet), because we wanted to know first if it would cause a toxic or immune acute responde. We published the scientific article in December 2024: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.28.625646v1 , but in short, there was no acute immune or toxic reaction. Now, we are preparing to inject the preparation of extracellular particles in old rats, in an experiment that will be carried out together with the University of Campinas (Unicamp), one of the most relevant universities of Latin America. Everything we do is published, as you can see in our article, including methods and results. By the way, we gave an interview to the YouTube channel Modern Healthspan some weeks ago about it: https://youtu.be/0IqkXiUI_YU?si=NhW_crU_3r2AJ-u_ . A hug for you. I loved your affirmation that this has more value than money. That’s the spirit.

      Reply
      • Salut Nicolas, je viens de regarder ton interview avec Modern Healthspan. Quel plaisir d’apprendre que les travaux engagés par Harold Katcher ont été repris par d’autres et que tout ça n’est pas perdu ! Et j’apprécie en particulier votre démarche de faire ça de manière transparente. La voie prise par Yuvan de chercher à faire déposer un brevet n’a été qu’une perte de temps et d’efficacité à mon avis. Et on voit que ça n’a débouché sur rien.
        Je me suis inscrit à la newsletter et j’espère avoir des nouvelles bientôt.

        Reply
      • Hi Nicolas, I just watched your interview with Modern Healthspan. What a pleasure to learn that the work started by Harold Katcher has been taken up by others and that all this is not lost! And I particularly appreciate your approach to doing this in a transparent manner. The path taken by Yuvan to seek to file a patent was only a waste of time and efficiency in my opinion. And we can see that it has led to nothing.
        I have subscribed to the newsletter and I hope to have news soon.

        Reply
      • I would just like to make a remark on one point. I understand that you used pig blood in an effort to reproduce as faithfully as possible the experiment done by Harold Katcher.
        Now, if it works and we look a little further, don’t you think that there could be a problem if we want to change scale in a sustainable way (and if we plan to live a very very long time, this subject must be a major concern)? Is it possible to produce this serum differently? But I imagine that it is still too early to be able to answer this question…

        Reply
        • Hi Patricio. Yes, of course, pigs’ blood (or mammals’ blood) is not a good source to implement this therapy in humanity in general. However, the aim to rejuvenate rats, non-humans primates and then humans with small extracellular vesicles from young pigs is just to prove that rejuvenation is possible, and that would validate the aging theory of Harold Katcher (shared by Josh) that aging is determined by signaling, so rejuvenation should be achieved by injection of signaling that indicates youth to overcome the signaling that indicates old age. After we rejuvenate humans with sEVs from young pigs, the whole world will research urgently how to synthesize the signaling without blood from young animals. But we need to prove it first rejuvenation is possible, and an indeniable reality.

          Reply
          • What exactly is wrong with the pig blood? Katcher says these signaling mechanisms are highly conserved across mammalian taxa.

          • Regarding the pig’s blood, there is nothing wrong with it from the scientific point of view. However, planning to rejuvenated humanity with pigs blood means to use around 8 billion pigs to make only 1 dose per human. So the scale of using pig’s blood is so big, that the outcome is unpredictable. I think it’s safer, once proved that rejuvenation is possible with pigs blood, to try to synthesize the young signaling, if it’s possible.

          • Fred, there is nothing wrong with the pigs blood, in scientific terms. The problem of planning to use pigs’ blood to rejuvenate humanity is that you would need around 8 billion pigs only to make one dose for each human. So the scale of using pigs would be so big, that it’s hard to predict the outcome. I think it’s more safe that, after proving rejuvenation with pigs plasma, we learn how to synthesize the youth signaling (if it’s possible).

        • Although plasma can be transfused interspecies, be aware that Stanford profiled more than 100K humans and found that the composition of plasma alters dramatically as we age, with them able to determine a person’s age to an accuracy of three years. The composition of plasma also varies greatly between sexes, with exosomes, depending upon the source, signaling regeneration, or on the darker side, exosomes participate in the development of diabetes and its associated complications, critically contribute to the spreading of neuronal damage in Alzheimer’s disease, and non-proteolysed form of Fas ligand (mFasL)-bearing exosomes trigger the apoptosis of T lymphocytes. Tissue specific, tumor exosomes can alter the recipient cell function and phenotype, impacting both surrounding and distant non-tumor cells to promote a favorable microenvironment for cancer proliferation. Knowing the donor’s health, age, and sex is critical to capturing exosomes that will exclusively promote regeneration. It is unrealistic to expect to collect exosomes from humans or animals of all ages and sexes, like slaughterhouse pig blood, and have it be optimal for human longevity use in older individuals. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33539013/#:~:text=By%20this%20mechanism%2C%20exosomes%20participate,the%20apoptosis%20of%20T%20lymphocytes.

          Reply
      • And a hug back to you for the work you’re doing. I’m pleased you had the wherewithal to start a non-profit institute and I hope you have good fundraising success. It seems like you have leveraged pre-existing institutions well (Unicamp). Such leveraging is a big component of my mindset. Two ideas I’ve had in that vein… 1) Raise money through crowd-equity to establish a diyBIO facility, which could be a successful business venture while providing resources to incubate nascent efforts. (There is a maker-space in Philadelphia, where I live, which offers resources to start-ups for an equity stake in the enterprise. It seems to work well for them.) 2) Find a veterinarian who could offer E5 treatments to owners of geriatric pets. (I may have found one. We’ll see how that goes.)

        I have to confess to substantial disappointment too though, in learning of the general frailty of Harold Katcher, which you mention in the video. I assume that means he’s been using E5 on himself to no avail. I know he has a willingness to experiment on himself. He famously got rid of the age spots on his hand (through application of a topical GHK-containing gel I believe). I hope he’s just waiting to take the plunge for some reason, but that certainly isn’t good news.

        Reply
        • Fred, my wherewhital is my brain and my wife’s brain. We live in a simple apartment in Brazil, and we spent the last 8 years working practically without any financial return in rejuvenation compared with the time we worked on it. To keep a non-profit working in Brazil (just to exist), we need around 200 dollars per month. It’s something many people can do. And regarding Unicamp, that’s because for many years, we were friends of one of the best aging science of Brazil, who works on aging, Marcelo Mori. I knocked on his door in 2018, when Nina and I launched the first book we published by our publisher (which we created only to publish rejuvenation books). So that’s a lot of work involved in this. In the last week, I talked to around 10 universities of Brazil looking for rats to our rejuvenation experiment. I also talked to facilities in Argentina, México, South Africa, United States, France and India. My university graduation was journalism, not any scientific field (my wife is a chemist, though), so we are doing something that million of people could do. I see many people cheering for Harold as if it were a basketball game, when we have to enter the court and not just cheer. We have to make the science itself — the science should be the focus, not advocacy or business. Harold already did a lot for the rejuvenation science and for us — now it’s our turn. It’s not Harold that have to save us, it’s us that have to save Harold and the hundreds of millions of people that are dying right now in nursing homes and intensive care units. It’s all written in Harold’s article of 2023 published in Geroscience. People can also use the article Nina and I did it last year in our Rejuvenation Science Institute (ICR). In the next few weeks we will find the suitable rats (lucky them! Maybe the first biologically immortal animals) to be part in our replication of Harold’s experiment. You say that you could get a vet that can offer the treatment. It’s a possible way, but there are many ways to implement this, and Nina and I chose one of them, which is to first prove rejuvenation scientifically, and then go through the regulatory path of state approval in Brazil, reaching clinical trials. Also, we chose to do it in a non-profit way because we wanted to publish everything we do. Regarding your suggestion, if we take investments, we will have to try to return the money to the investors; but if we make a non-profit entity, we just need to try to return rejuvenation for the people who contribute, and can concentrate in that. I invite you to help Nina and I by becoming a financial contributor to our institute. If Harold is right, we will know it.

          Reply
        • Regarding the pig’s blood, there is nothing wrong with it from the scientific point of view. However, planning to rejuvenated humanity with pigs blood means to use around 8 billion pigs to make only 1 dose per human. So the scale of using pig’s blood is so big, that the outcome is unpredictable. I think it’s safer, once proved that rejuvenation is possible with pigs blood, to try to synthesize the young signaling, if it’s possible.

          Reply
          • 8 billion?! Seriously? I guess dosing isn’t a simple linear relationship with size, or Dr. Katcher never would’ve obtained enough for 8 rats. But also, I didn’t realize we knew so much about dosing already to make any judgments here.

          • Hi Fred. Of course we will only be sure if the linear relation by size applies when we try the extracellular particles in an animal other than rats, but according with Katcher’s theory, there is no reason for not to be a relatively linear relation by size. Yes, the relative (compared with the mass) amount of young signaling in a rat can be bigger than in a human, but as I said, we will only know that when we try in humans. But a linear relation is the best guess we have now, until there is a reason to believe otherwise.

          • Even at a linear scaling (with no cube/square distortion), you’re still looking at 60-90 times the rat amount for a human, at the same dose/Kg.

          • Hi George. You are right, we would need 64 billion pigs (not 8 billion pigs) to make only 1 dose per human. My estimation of roughly 8 pigs to make 1 human dose is correct (I just re-did the calculation), but then I said that we would need then 8 billion pigs people to make 1 dose per human. But if there are 8 billion people, we would need 64 billion pigs. So this only reinforces, as I was answering to Fred, why a plan to rejuvenate humanity shouldn’t be done thinking of using pigs or cattle. We need the pigs just to prove the theory and the method, and then, we need to synthesize the youth signals without using young animals.

        • Hi Fred. By the way, as George commented, if we use 8 pigs to make 1 human dose, it wouldn’t necessary only 8 billion pigs, but 64 billion pigs, to make 1 dose per human (as there are around 8 billion humans in the world). This only reinforces why it is not a good idea to make a plan to rejuvenate the whole humanity using pigs or cattle. We need the pigs to prove the theory and the method, and then synthesize the youth signals without using young animals.

          Reply
          • I didn’t realize your 8 billion pig figure was for the whole world. I thought it was for one person, hence my skepticism. I do not think in terms of providing this to the world.

    • Good, clear thinking. I agree with all of this. We might learn more about dosage and timing from rat experiments, but we could begin human trials now. And it’s a crime that no one is sponsoring this trial.

      I have contacts within the Kennedy HHS. I’ve already submitted a proposal to do this.

      Reply
        • From an editorial I wrote years ago, there currently remains a serious underlying problem to public-funded research: “Say goodbye to Bayh-Dole. I believe the American taxpayer, the true subsidizer of the majority of our world’s medical advancements, should become a beneficiary of their investments. Quite simply, there is a cost to the commodity (drugs and devices), its distribution (health care providers) and the expense of administration. Two of the three are straight business school problems. The first step in the cycle harbors our true opportunity.

          At this time taxpayers reap no relief from publicly financed research that is then commercialized by private business entities, or in a very growing and divisive trend, academia. The commercialization of medicine is a world-wide opportunity for America’s taxpayers to reduce their costs for and access to cutting-edge technologies through profits derived from foreign sales.

          I was there when Genentech was started by professors from the University of California, San Francisco using publicly funded research to launch their private endeavor. It is now time to make average Americans participants in the fundamentals of their medical future. Stem cell research and the resultant gene therapies will revolutionize medicine and that represents the greatest opportunity in history for our taxpayers to resolve the largest drain on our treasury, one that will only continue to get more costly over time if all remains the same.

          First, it is imperative, and our opportunity, to stop the rampant patenting of naturally existing essential elements like genes. Second, the Bayh-Dole Act (1980) must be immediately rescinded. Well intended as an alternative source of profit for academia to supplement publicly financed research, it has in reality turned into a corrupting and destructive force.

          As Dr. Michael Crichton pointed out in his book “Next”, “Taxpayers finance research, but when it bears fruit, the researchers sell it for their own institutional and personal gain, after which the drug is sold back to the taxpayers. Consumers thus pay top dollar for a drug they helped finance. Ordinarily, when a venture capitalist invests in research, he or she expects a significant return on investment. The American taxpayer gets no return at all. The Bayh-Dole legislation anticipated that the public would receive a flood of marvelous life-saving therapies such that the investment strategy would be justified. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. Secrecy now pervades research, and hampers medical progress. Universities that once provided a scholarly haven from the world are now commercialized…scientists who once felt a humanitarian calling have become businessmen concerned with profit and loss.”

          Twenty percent of academics do drug development. More than ten percent have a product already on the market. More than 40 percent have applied for patents in the course of their careers. Medical costs are spiraling upward at a rate that far exceeds inflation. Who is looking out for the taxpayers?

          If our elected officials really want to resolve the fundamental problem with our health care administration system at absolutely no additional cost to our country, make taxpayers participants in the profits (in reality the foreign profits and “at cost” domestic access to the products themselves) from drugs, diagnostic tests and therapies they are already paying to develop. Prevent the patent office from administering away our natural resources (genes, enzymes and tissue banks) to private entities.

          Everyone’s DNA should be mapped so that diseases can be anticipated and treated early at a much lower cost without the fear that insurance will become unattainable or that jobs will be lost (other than when others might become directly endangered, which in turn will reduce our costs, both in human and monetary resources). The opportunity is vast for us to quickly and simply resolve one of our country’s most perplexing problems.

          Be aware: many Universities are major holders of patents derived from publicly financed research and will they will adamantly tell you that their endowments and therefore their cost for tuition will be jeopardized by some of these suggestions. I spent ten years on various committees and boards with the University of California, San Diego, including the Chancellor’s Advisory Board (UC is the largest holder of patents of any University system). I can only point out that these Universities became established long before Bayh-Dole and that this is a case of doing the greatest good for the public. Besides, if we significantly reduce our health care costs, then we will have more resources to dedicate to making education more affordable and available.”

          Reply
    • Also, George, small extracellular vesicles (normally known as “exosomes”) from the stem cells of an old person will be old too, as even the stem cells get old (but not so much as the not-stem cells). Maybe there is a health benefit of that, but it won’t probably reach a strong rejuvenation. And also, when you cultivate the stem cells in vitro, they can lose gradually their “young” component, as there are scientific articles that showed that effect.

      Reply
  8. Another scam to get money from wealthy clients?
    Yes, it’s possible to extend longevity 20-50 times but not with plasma injections.
    Ant queens live up to 50 times longer while being fed by blood plasma of larvae. Larvae are babies of ants. Here we see plasma consumption, not injections. We may imitate such a diet for humans for peanuts. But to make money, a scam is necessary. Stem cell infusion scam, plasma dilution scam, resveratrol scam, and NMN scam.
    Now what? More plasma infusion to make even more money.
    And these people call themself as scientists. I have no words.

    Reply
  9. For Josh Mitteldorf
    I am engaged in solving health and rejuvenation problems using the technologies of the information field, which is not used by scientists due to the lack of ability to enter this field. From the database of the information field of the Universe, I take information using the radiesthetic method. In this way, I have solved the problems of diagnosing and treating cancer, HIV, coronavirus, heart and many other diseases. For treatment, I use my word by giving a command to change the magnetic field strength of hydrogen atoms. Thus, I can suppress infection, cleanse blood vessels, change the magnetic field strength of hydrogen atoms in nerve cells and thereby switch the aging process, which is embedded in everyone’s control programs in the Soul, to the rejuvenation process. Periodically, the rejuvenation process is interrupted by certain external influences, for example, when the external magnetic field on Earth increases above 4 A / m, or when there is cancer in the body. However, this slows down the rejuvenation process for a short time. According to the approximate forecast, the rejuvenation process lasts 395 days + time due to delays from external influences (the Earth’s magnetic field…). In about a month, I may have a complete end to the rejuvenation process. According to my data, the biological age on the 330th day of rejuvenation of the main organs began to correspond from 78 years to about 17 years to the chronological age, except for the skin, hair and teeth, which complete rejuvenation later.
    I suggest you join the rejuvenation process. To do this, I just need to give a command using your photo. However, I can give such a command only with your consent. All diagnostic, treatment and rejuvenation processes are safe using information field technologies. It will be interesting for you, as a specialist, to experience for yourself how the rejuvenation process of the whole body goes and express your opinion on the information method of rejuvenation.
    Ermakov Petr, Mirgorod

    Reply
  10. Exosomes, like stem cells, are tissue specific and young plasma’s cellular repair and regeneration entails much more than just exosomes. Exosomes are a signaling molecule that requires cohorts to enact regeneration. One liter of yFFP® has 1.84 trillion biopreserved tissue specific exosomes + over 10,500+ individual proteins (different fractions of albumins, fibrinogens, immunoglobulins, alpha-2-Macroglobulin, eNAMP, VPS35, etc.), 5K different peptides (including LL-37 antimicrobial peptide, GDF-8, GDF-11 growth and differentiation factors & GLP-1), 45 cytokines (including Interferons), 50 different sex specific hormones, enzymes and minerals. yFFP costs $5K per liter.

    Plasma contains NO cells, including no platelets. Albumen maintains osmotic balance, so unlike total plasma exchanges with saline that require the addition of albumin to balance the saline, whole plasma has natural balance, and no cohorts should be removed, including albumen.

    Separating (human donor) exosomes from its cohorts creates a new biologic without any safety data, which then requires sterilization to provide safety prior to human use. Sterilization removes quantum properties that were beneficial in the research environment, which then renders the exosome 30X less efficacious (calculated comparing biopreserved convalescent plasma dosing to sterilized COVID-IVIG, although increasing the volume of sterile immunoglobulins still does not match cFFP’s efficacy).

    Water volume is not a problem and transfusion associated circulatory overload applies to any IV, with for one example, the US prescribing more than 200 million liters of saline annually + millions of units of dextrose + lactated ringers, etc. The simple rule is to administer any IV at a carefully monitored rate and to a total volume that is appropriate for each individual patient.

    Removing water is not necessary, and its removal creates a “new” biologic problem. The FDA in 2018 authorized freeze-dried plasma ONLY for military combat use (prior to that the military was sourcing FD plasma from France). The freeze-drying process destroys bioactivity, but that plasma is only used to treat severe bleeding and coagulopathy, NOT regeneration, just as it has since WWI. I recently received a four-liter infusion of yFFP over three days to great benefit, without a problem.

    Results from 1K humans prove that yFFP has serious staying power. Stanford witnessed 2-liters last their PD patients up to two years. https://www.youngplasmastudy.com has documented diabetics whose blood glucose and A1C normalized within days of a 2-liter treatment, which has remained stable for four and five years, and still counting. A Stanford transplant nurse with “incurable” WMD cure in two-weeks and remain cured now for more than one year and still counting.

    Reply
    • Forgive if this is a dumb question. Is there any reason you couldn’t just hire a young healthy donor and go to a clinic and have the plasma transfused real time? After, of course removing ‘some’ from the recipient to make room and any other safety procedures/precautions that are indicated?

      Reply
      • Josh and I have previously “exchanged” on this and yes, there are a couple of problematic issues. “Warm” transfers are riskier, and the volumes are low, so it takes a LOT of sessions to achieve a clinical dose of 2 or 3-liters. Spectrum Plasma health examines, and pathogen tests every donation after it is made, and we do not release it until all is proven negative for problems. A warm transfer puts you at risk unless the donor was just tested prior, and didn’t without your knowledge engage in any risky behavior or just get infected (bit by a Zika mosquito, for example…) such that it was not yet detectable. The volume problem is that the average “donation” is 750-ml, so you will have to undergo three to four “warm” transfer-sessions over three to four weeks, best case, to achieve a standard 2 or 3-liter treatment volume. The beauty of SP with that we health examine, test, and store at -80C until we have collected the total treatment volume, which can then be safely warmed-up and administered over one or two infusion sessions. We call that “Keeping it Safe Simple Scientific”.

        Reply
  11. It would be nice to see PDENs maturing to full body rejuvenation and not just skin rejuvenation (as an alternative to human derived exosomes)

    Reply
  12. The covid psyop destroyed so many worthwhile human efforts. Let’s hope RFK Jr., Bhattacharya, and Makary reprioritize how grants are issued.
    About the only thing I gained was reversing hair greying by eating broccoli sprouts every day. I noticed dark hair growing in after two months in May 2020. I keep it up every day, and it’s continued for over 4 years now. So the epigenetic changes are more than an anecdote. Don’t know that it counts as rejuvenation for more than melanocyte stem cells, though.

    Reply
    • Thanks for the tip, PRice. Do you just eat them from the grocery store?

      Have you all tried anything else in terms of supplements that has even an anecdotal chance of working? It seems resistance training is really the only thing that “works” to deter aging, or at least increase longevity with some quality, in general.

      Reply
      • My routines:
        5 times a week, two hours of resistance training in the morning. About 10 km walking/hiking/skiing in the forest daily. Daily 16/8 intermittent fasting. Every third month 4 days of water-only fasting, and on the last day, 1500 mg of Fisetin dissolved in Olive Oil. Tree times a week sauna.

        Some of my supplements:
        High dose of Vitamin D3 balanced with Vitamin K2
        NAC
        Alpha-Ketoglutaric Acid
        Pterostilbene
        Glucosamine

        Also, I noticed that high-purity NMN shortens my recovery time from gym workouts and restores my energy level.

        One can guess my age (73) from my face and hands. However, people tell me that my body composition and agility seem to belong to a much younger person.

        Reply
      • Grocery stores are too expensive. I start with a tablespoon (10.7 g) of seeds, which cost about $.50. Grow to three days old (about 60 g), eat them in the morning with nothing else an hour before or after so as not to interfere with bioavailability.
        I’m trying to activate the Nrf2 / ARE signaling pathway, which still hasn’t shown up in anti-aging literature as a main factor. (?) The 2024 study https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-024-07038-6 “Nrf2 induction potency of plant-derived compounds determined using an antioxidant response element luciferase reporter and conventional NAD(P)H-quinone acceptor oxidoreductase 1 activity assay” tested 33 plant compounds, and ranked sulforaphane as the #1 Nrf2 activator, consistent with older studies.

        Reply
  13. @PRice

    I can confirm the growth of dark hairs.

    Actually, I started growing broccoli sprouts about two years ago after I read a comment from you about on this blog.

    Reply
    • Hi Stephan, good stuff! Don’t know why there aren’t more studies about reversing hair greying by eating broccoli sprouts or by otherwise activating Nrf2.
      Pretty easy to do, pretty easy to categorize as anti-aging. Pretty difficult to not recognize Nrf2 activation as reversing epigenetic changes. Maybe it’s one of those paradigms that Max Planck noted may take funerals to change.

      Reply
  14. I doubt the dosage and timing will be constant. If our age is determined by the sum total of the signalling from all our cells, communicated in the blood, then we will need a great deal of youthful signalling initially: I imagine dialysis for a day or two., repeated perhaps every week, then reducing to every month, then eventually only occassionally. The rate at which treatments can be reduced will be set by the ability of the treatments to lastingly restore youthful signalling. This depends ultimately on whether ageing is occurring because most cells are intrinsically old, in which case this will be very difficult, or it is occurring because the cell environment is old but many cells are just fine. I do have a worry that cells may not be driving this at all, but that it is the connective tissue that has aged. In which case we are in trouble.

    Reply
    • connective tissue can be also be regenerated. The main obstacle for it is that first the body when fully grown shuts down production of few essential particles like elastin, then it progresses in middle age onto ceasing production of even more of them like collagen. Processes of rebuilding cease to exist both due to be dialed down and due to lack of basic building blocks. But processes of destruction are switched on itself and amplified yet more due to ever greater damage. While we await more complicated platform like Elastrin’s, pure elastin amplified with GHKCu, while still limited, has spectacular effects.

      Reply
      • I agree that the basic building blocks are lacking, but supplying them doesn’t seem to reverse the problem. It may be that damaged collagen and elastin can no longer be degraded by normal digestion processes, or if they can, it takes a long time. I’ve never been impressed with GHK-Cu. Like taking collagen you are just fooling the body to ramp up production, which can only have short term effects without removing the bottleneck on supply of amino acid components, and also increasing turnover.

        Reply
        • younger deep wrinkles (up to 2-3 years old) dissapeared quite fast in 2-3 months. Then the process slowed and older ones are rebuilt very slowly. The first effects on oldest and widest were visible after 17 months ;/ Old deep scars on the face from acne after 2,5 years are hugely smaller now. It’s interesting what is most important in this protocol. I added elastin while I was taking GHKCu for few months and CaAKG for 1,5 year already (CaAKG at longer periods makes the skin very sagging which was already visible). And fisetin senolytic protocol used before made the wrinkles shallower but widened them considerably may play a role too. Wild ride live experiment.

          Reply
          • You state that you were “…taking GHKCu for few months and CaAKG for 1,5 year already (CaAKG at longer periods makes the skin very sagging which was already visible)”
            Please explain:
            1. Were you consuming them, or applying them locally?
            2. How did you determine that CaAKG actually caused sagginess?

            My experience has shown that applying GHKcu for 2 years has reduced sagginess substantially, but did not fully eliminate it.
            Still trying, and hope that sagginess will be completely eliminated

          • SilverSeeker, thanks for the case report. Very interesting. I always assumed collagen would be more important, but maybe you are right and it is elastin. The thing about collagen is that it is everywhere in the body and the deficit with age is huge; it is a bottomless pit. In terms of your protocol, would you send me details? mbw22uk(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk

            I am aware of AKG of course and I can confidently say it has no affect on skin. It does help with eye sight.

            GHK-CU do you take it topically or by injection?

      • A simple “Vampire facelift” with yFFP produces an almost immediate and incredible skin-thickening response. Employing a micro-needle wheel that you can purchase for $10 online or in “beauty” stores to prepare the skin to apply (some proteins are too large to “rub in”), our prescribers just pull a small volume of young plasma from the infusion bag, or during my last infusion, I pulled the residual plasma from the IV tubing after each of my infusion sessions ended, then micro-needled and rubbed it in myself. Pulling yFFP from the bag to use for joint injections has also been proven to be much more effective than PRP and other treatments. CellTex’s Stan Jones, a VERY experienced orthopedic surgeon, wrote a paper on his successes I can send you if have the interest.

        Reply

Leave a Comment