“About two-thirds of the human body is water.”

This is a statement we’ve grown up hearing. When you picture this, I imagine you view liquid water inside our bodies being mixed with cells, proteins and all the other fun stuff. But what if I told you that this water is not the liquid water you and I are most familiar with? And no, it’s not ice or vapor form either.

Water in our cells behaves in its own way. And this behavior of water dictates many important functions of cells, including our health and the manifestation of disease. So what I’m saying is:

1. Water in our cells is not just free-flowing liquid water - it behaves in special ways.

2. This special behavior of water dictates critical functions in our cells that determines our health, including potentially, cancer.

In today’s essay, I will introduce you to one forgotten theory in biology that explains how water in our cells plays a large role in bioelectricity. And if you’ve read my previous essay on bioelectricity or listened to any of my podcasts with Mike Levin, you will be familiar with how bioelectricity1 is critical in cancer, regeneration, and longevity.

Here is what I will discuss:

1. A theory on how the structure of water in cells effects bioelectricity (Association-Induction hypothesis or AIH)

2. Longevity Implications of taking AIH seriously

3. My water-bioelectric theory of cancer (hypothesis, but not crazy)

Association-Induction Hypothesis

Don’t be afraid of the textbook-like name of this hypothesis. The basics laid out simply, which I’ll do, will widen your perspective on understanding not just cells, but also disease and health.

In my bioelectricity essay, I wrote about the role of ion channels and ion pumps in enabling the flow of selective ions in and out of the cell, which thereby creates a charge difference inside and outside the cell. This results in bioelectricity when these charges flow.

Pertaining to ion pumps, I made a small footnote saying that the ion pump theory had come into question, critiqued by what is called the Association-Induction hypothesis proposed by Gilbert Ling. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve taken some time to zoom in on this small footnote, and realized that this theory ought to be explained through more than a footnote.

Ion pumps don’t work - Membrane pump theory rejected

Ling rejected the membrane pump theory which was key in explaining how ions distribute inside and outside the cell. Briefly, the membrane pump theory states that ion pumps (proteins on the cell membrane) are responsible for pumping in and out certain ions - mostly pumping in potassium ions and keeping out sodium ions. This difference in ion concentration in and out of the cells creates a charge difference.

In addition to other critiques of the membrane pump theory2, Ling said that in order for the pump to work, it would require amounts of ATP that are larger than what is feasible for us to generate. So, there must be a different way in which cells create their ion distribution, and this different way was laid out through his AIH theory.

AIH states that there is a tight coupling between the proteins, ions, and water inside our cells, and it’s the nature and structure of this connection that gives rise to ion flow dynamics, and ultimately bioelectricity. Let me explain.

Water and AIH

As mentioned above, typically, it’s assumed that water in our cells behaves like the liquid water that is familiar to us. Ling said that water in our cells is in fact not in a free-flowing state - if you punctured a cell, you wouldn’t have water gushing out. Instead, water is bound in multiple layers to the proteins inside the cell in a structured way. The core concepts of AIH are as follows:

1. Proteins are central to cell structure and function. They have binding sites where other molecules, like ATP, can attach.

2. ATP (the energy currency of the cell) binds to proteins and polarizes them. What this means is that ATP shifts the protein’s electron distribution, thereby creating charge.

3. Polarized proteins generate tiny electric fields.

4. These electric fields of the protein in turn influence nearby water molecules, which get attracted to the protein and just like magnets, form ordered layers.

5. Each water layer in turn attracts other water layers. Thus, these water layers reinforce one another, creating what Ling called a “stacked dipole” structure.

6. The result is structured (or ordered) water bound to the protein surface.

   1. As mentioned, this water behaves very differently from normal liquid water — it’s more organized, stable, and selective.

7. Structured water and polarized proteins create an environment that attracts some ions and excludes others. Specifically, it favors potassium (K⁺) and excludes sodium (Na⁺). For why, see footnote3.

8. This natural preference for potassium helps maintain the electrical difference between the inside and outside of the cell, which is vital for processes like nerve impulses and muscle contractions.

If you glossed over the above points, here is the TLDR version of AIH that explains it.

TLDR:

ATP binds to protein and polarizes protein. Polarized protein attracts the nearby water molecules which get ordered in layers by the protein. This ordered water selectively adsorbs potassium ions, not sodium ions. Thus, the inside of the cell has higher potassium ions compared to sodium, which creates a charge difference. This charge difference leads to bioelectricity.

In the membrane pump theory version, the ATP pumps do work to push the sodium ions out of the cell, whereas in Ling’s version, the tight connection between ATP-protein-water creates an environment whereby potassium ions are naturally attracted to the inside of the cell, and sodium ions are not.

What this means is that in the AIH model, proteins, water, and ions work together as a coherent, self-organizing system.

1. The system remains stable without constant energy input, unlike traditional models that rely on membrane pumps and active transport.

2. This makes the living cell an electrically ordered environment, not just a bag of chemicals.

Before I can state my cancer theory, I have to explain how researchers have taken Gilbert Ling’s AIH ideas forward. Again, these are relevant to understanding how we age.

AIH extended: Coherence, Microtubules, and Mitochondria

As explained, AIH implies a tight connection between proteins-water-ions. This connection creates a stable configuration in the cell, providing organization to other molecules and structures in the cell and allowing them to work smoothly. At the same time as these structures benefit from the protein-water-ion stability, they also contribute to adding stability to the cell.

Microtubules are one such structure, I want to highlight. They are long, cylindrical protein filaments that form part of the cytoskeleton, the cell’s internal framework. Microtubules are traditionally known for roles in cell division, transport, and structural support, but emerging theories suggest they might even play a key role in consciousness. Because of their highly ordered and polar structure, microtubules may help maintain and transmit coherence across the cell by acting like biological cables — organizing electric fields, guiding molecular traffic, and possibly coordinating long-range order among proteins and water. They may even support subtle vibrational or electromagnetic signaling that helps preserve the polarized state described in AIH.

The below is how the connection between AIH, mitochondria, ATP, and microtubules likely plays out:

1. AIH maintains order in cells by organizing proteins, water, and ions into a stable, polarized matrix that functions without constant energy input.

2. This ordered matrix helps stabilize the surrounding intracellular environment, influencing the behavior of organelles, cytoskeletal elements, and signaling molecules.

3. Other structures contribute to maintaining cellular stability as well — most notably, the microtubules.

4. Microtubules are known to generate coherence / stability in cells by providing cell’s internal timing, communication, and spatial organization. They are like the conductors of a biochemical orchestra. For example, microtubule oscillations can help synchronize timing for ion channel openings, vesicle transport, gene expression timing, cell cycle transitions etc.

   1. The oscillations also generate EM fields which might be how microtubules coordinate these activities mentioned above

   2. So any dysfunction in these oscillations could result in internal EM field collapse, coordination across cells breaks down, and might lead to cellular incoherence (which could be a marker for disease and death)

5. There is a 2-way feedback loop between AIH and microtubules. Any disturbance in stability created by AIH may affect microtubule oscillations. And any disturbance in microtubule oscillations may affect AIH or in general the cell’s stability

6. There is also a 2-way feedback loop between microtubules and mitochondria.

   1. Microtubules guide mitochondria to areas where ATP is needed. Mitochondria frequently travel along or anchor to microtubules. Given AIH needs ATP, microtubules play a role in guiding ATP to AIH.

   2. Microtubules depend on mitochondrial ATP to maintain their own polarized state and structural integrity.

7. So any disruption in microtubules might cause mitochondria guidance to collapse. And any disruption in ATP might cause microtubules to not perform leading to incoherence.

Implications of AIH

If the Association-Induction Hypothesis (AIH) is correct, it challenges many foundational assumptions in modern biology and medicine. It suggests that the cell is not primarily driven by random molecular collisions or by membrane pumps using constant energy, but rather by a stable, structured network of polarized proteins, ordered water, and selectively adsorbed ions. This perspective radically elevates the role of water from passive solvent to active organizer of life. In terms of aging, it implies that cellular decline may not be caused solely by damage or mutation, but by the gradual loss of this internal coherence — the ability of proteins to maintain polarization and structure surrounding water. If that’s true, interventions aimed at preserving protein structure, ATP availability, and water ordering could become central strategies for extending healthspan. In medicine, this framework could lead to new diagnostic tools that detect early shifts in cellular order, and new treatments that restore the cell’s natural electrical balance. Overall, AIH reframes the cell as an organized, self-regulating system — and opens the door to rethinking aging, disease, and healing from the ground up.

My cancer theory based on AIH:

The ideas / inspiration are largely borrowed from a chapter titled A New Paradigm of Cancer: Loss of Coherence Precedes Mutation from Laurent Jaeken’s book The Coacervate-Coherence Nature of Life.

The common paradigm in the field is to think of cancer as being caused by genetic mutations. Due to damage, our DNA acquires mutations which turn cancerous - this is known as the somatic mutation theory of cancer. People like Dr. Seyfried have challenged this theory saying that it’s not genetic mutations that cause cancer, but in fact it’s damage to the mitochondria. In some cases, the mutation might be downstream of the mitochondrial damage, but it’s not the primary cause. Charley Lineweaver with his Atavistic theory of cancer says that the genetic mutations that cause cancer are not random as stated by the somatic mutation theory, but can be predicted using an evolutionary lens.

Based on AIH, another theory on cancer is that it’s caused by loss of coherence in the cell. According to AIH and AIH extended that I explained above, normal healthy cells are in a stable coherent state created by the coupling of proteins-water-ions, and the mitochondria-microtubule connection. A breakdown in any of these stages might lead to loss or order in the cell. What if cancer is this loss of order beyond repair? The theory of cancer I’m proposing is that cancer is a loss of order as maintained by AIH. So the question is what stage does this loss of order occur? There could be different levels of causation that creates loss of order in AIH. Similarly, there could be different levels at which to target cancer. Let’s start with looking at the different levels of causation in AIH that could cause disruption to the cell, and ultimately cancer.

1. ATP Deficiency -> Protein not polarized

   1. In AIH, ATP plays a critical role in polarizing the protein which leads to the protein-water-ion connection

   2. Any deficiency in ATP, might disrupt this coupling and hence the coherence in the cell

2. Protein dysfunction -> ATP can’t bind correctly

3. Water doesn’t polarize despite ATP + Protein being fine

   1. This could be due to the water structure itself breaking down

4. Water fails to adsorb the right ions, thereby disrupting the normal charge of the cell

5. Protein-Ion-Water connection is fine, but EMF field is still disrupted

6. Microtubule dysfunction -> Collapse of intracellular coherence

   1. Dysfunction in microtubules might mean that ATP is not guided to the right place or it might mean a general loss in coherence and EM fields given microtubules play a large role in being the cell’s conductor

7. Mitochondria dysfunction which not only disrupts ATP, but is also unable to guide microtubules to the right place

Based on AIH and AIH extended, these are the different levels which could get disrupted, potentially leading to cancer. I recognize that is a bit of a reductionist view, but it’s helpful in parsing out the details and figuring out what to investigate. Of course, given the feedback loop between these different levels, it could be the case that several of these levels fail and a failure in one level causes the other levels to fail. It’s not necessarily the case that in order to fix the problem, we have to fix the level that failed first. In other words, we may not have to address the root cause. We could make a fix at a different level which could restore order back to the cell (again due to the feedback loop and back-up mechanisms that our cells use). For example, if the cell’s coherent structure fails because of ATP deficiency, which in turn causes microtubules to fail as well, we don’t necessarily have to fix the ATP deficiency. We can perhaps fix the microtubule dysfunction without fixing the ATP deficiency which could be enough to restore the cell back to order.

Understanding AIH and its different levels gives us a starting point to investigate cancer from an AIH (loss of order) perspective.

Implications of Cancer theory

If cancer is due to a loss of order and coherence in the cell, and because of a breakdown in one or more of the factors I mentioned above, it implies that we should be looking at some of these levels to diagnose and solve cancer.

We could diagnose cancer by measuring a change in the water structure for example4. Some of these diagnostic methods have been tried, I haven’t gone deeper into them to know enough. Or we could solve cancer by restoring the normal EM field of the cell. Perhaps next time I’ll cover some of the different avenues we should explore to diagnose and solve cancer.

Deaths from cancer only keep rising. Clearly whatever we’re doing right now is not working. Maybe our current theory of cancer being a genetic disease is wrong. We need to test new cancer theories. And this cancer-AIH theory seems promising, yet very underexplored.

Follow me on X @aasthajs and Insta @aasthajs for more on longevity.

Share

Thanks to Benjamin, Cameron, and Glix for feedback on this essay.

The standard “wear and tear” story of aging may be incomplete. Dr. Peter Lidsky—a virologist and evolutionary biologist argues that aging is programmed. He says aging can be an adaptive strategy for controlling pathogens, a concept he calls the “pathogen control hypothesis.”

In this episode, we dig into the evidence behind this idea, the immune system in aging, and what his theory means for longevity interventions.

Timestamps below cover the topics discussed well.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 — Aging ≠ Wear-and-Tear

3:44 — The Case for Programmed Aging

8:48 — Why Program Aging at All?

11:09 — The Pathogen-Control Hypothesis

14:26 — Why We Get “Sick Time”

24:37 — Rising Lifespans, Explained

27:36 — Bowhead Whales’ Longevity Edge

31:15 — Why Lone Animals Don’t Live Forever

34:00 — Planaria: The “Immortal” Worm

35:00 — Do Infections Speed Up Aging?

36:46 — When Immunity Starts to Slide

38:17 — Why Fertility Has a Deadline

42:49 — Extending Life via the Immune System

1:00:35 — How Honey Bees Rejuvenate

1:10:50 — Can We Tackle Aging? Healthspan to 90s+

Related:

If you’re enjoying the podcast, support my work, leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, subscribe on your platform of choice, and share with family and friends!

P.S. Check out the longevity products I use.

Share

“We can use the rule of evolution to optimize cancer therapy. The standard practice is that any therapy is given at maximum tolerated dose continuously until progression. It's almost a mantra that they have. Evolutionarily, you could hardly do it worse.” 

The current treatments on cancer do not account for how evolution works. Dr. Robert Gatenby has been studying evolutionary and game theory dynamics in the progression of cancer. He established the first cancer biology and evolutionary program in the U.S.

We can leverage this evolutionary information to provide more effective cancer treatment, which he discusses in this episode. Dr. Michael Levin is my co-host.

Timestamps below cover the topics discussed well.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 – Cancer as Tissue Damage, Not Just Mutations

8:48 – How Evolution Supercharges Cancer Cell Fitness

11:04 – Debunking the “Primitive Cell” Myth

12:06 – The Herd Mentality of Cancer Cells

14:57 – Why Cancer Dynamics Go Beyond the Genome

22:27 – Networks and Information Flow Inside Cells

26:56 – Shared Goals: The Secret to Cellular Cooperation

29:55 – Genome = Hardware, Information = Software

36:26 – Healthy vs. Cancer Cells: Competing Information Systems

39:05 – Evolution Turns Harsh After Reproduction

41:03 – How Cancer Rewrites Its Own Information Playbook

43:07 – Adaptive Therapy: A Patient’s Guide

50:45 – The Limits of Adaptive Therapy

53:12 – Hunting for Better Cancer Biomarkers

55:11 – The Tumor Microenvironment’s Hidden Role

59:42 – Why We Must Look Beyond Genetic Data

Related:

If you’re enjoying the podcast, support my work, leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, subscribe on your platform of choice, and share with family and friends!

P.S. Check out the longevity products I use.

Mitochondria might be one of the most important organelles inside our cells. Best known as the cell’s powerhouse, they don’t just make energy; they regulate metabolism, control cell death, drive immune function, and may even be the reason multicellular life exists at all!

It’s no surprise they’re implicated in nearly every major disease, from heart disease and cancer to neurodegeneration, especially as they decline with age. What if we could slow or even reverse that decline by giving cells fresh, healthy mitochondria? That’s the promise of mitochondrial transplantation—a groundbreaking approach Mitrix Bio is pioneering.

In this episode, I talk with Mitrix Bio CEO Tom Benson about the science, the potential, and the early results from people already lining up for their trial.

Timestamps below cover the topics discussed well.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

00:00 – Injecting new mitochondria into the body

01:39 – The evolutionary link between mitochondria & aging

04:35 – What happens when mitochondria grow old?

06:18 – Why do humans outlive most animals?

11:30 – The hidden role of mitochondria in heart disease

12:30 – Why the brain stays sharp even as we age

15:30 – The energy crash after 30 — mitochondria’s role

19:04 – Why doesn’t the body fix broken mitochondria?

22:42 – Mitochondrial defects in children explained

24:14 – How to test mitochondrial health

27:36 – Mitochondrial DNA: eternal or fragile?

33:18 – Where transplanted mitochondria actually come from

34:59 – Growing mitochondria in a bioreactor (sci-fi or real?)

39:07 – How neurons build their own mitochondria

40:52 – Mitochondria and the cancer puzzle

44:23 – The mind-body connection runs on mitochondria

48:32 – How chemo & radiation wreck mitochondria

50:38 – Proof mitochondrial transplantation works

56:06 – Sauna, fasting, sunlight — mitochondria hacks

1:00:01 – Do different races have different mitochondria?

1:02:57 – Why stop at 130 years?

1:04:48 – What could make this fail?

1:10:03 – How to volunteer for the Mitrix trial

Related:

If you’re enjoying the podcast, support my work, leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, subscribe on your platform of choice, and share with family and friends!

P.S. Check out the longevity products I use.

Many of the ideas presented in this essay are from Dr. Nick Lane’s (scientist and author of many popular prize-winning science books) book Vital Question: Energy, Evolution, and the Origins of Complex Life.

Alas, antioxidants don’t work

For years, popular media has told you that eating plenty of antioxidants is the secret to longevity. Stock up on those blueberries and Vitamin C. Yet, we haven’t cracked Methuselah’s code with this apparently neat hack. Antioxidants, so it was believed, can counter the accumulation of free radicals in our body, which over time cause damage and aging. The problem is that the science on this has been debunked, however, popular media has not reversed its stance. Luckily, it’s not a hefty crime as blueberries and Vitamin C in the right doses are healthy for you. However, the idea that large or even small doses will make you live longer by combating free radicals is dubious at best.

Free radical theory of aging

The myth of blueberries extending lifespan comes from the free radical theory of aging. Free radicals and reactive oxygen species are unstable molecules with unpaired electrons that are primarily produced in the mitochondria as a byproduct of cellular respiration. During cellular respiration, mitochondria produce energy (ATP) by transferring electrons through the electron transport chain. Some electrons "leak" and react with oxygen, forming free radicals. They are highly reactive and readily interact with nearby molecules like DNA, proteins, and lipids, causing “oxidative damage.”

It was believed that over time the damage from these free radicals surpasses the body’s ability to repair itself. This results in damage to DNA, proteins, tissue and organ functioning, all of which result in aging.

Debunk the free radical theory of aging or a new twist?

The free radical theory of aging has not withstood testing. While free radicals often rise with aging, the case for free radicals causing aging has not been established. Even better, there is no clear evidence to show that antioxidants increase lifespan. In fact, high doses of antioxidants might come with a level of risk for reasons we’ll discuss below. Dr. Nick Lane says in the book Vital Question “Many long-lived animals have low levels of antioxidant enzymes in their tissues, while short-lived animals have much higher levels.”

If all this is true, should the free radical theory of aging see the grave? Many gerontologists do consider it to have found its grave. However, Nick Lane has a more subtle version of the free radical theory of aging which is worth taking seriously. Instead of the graveyard, perhaps a different explanation is warranted.

A new spin to the free radical theory of aging

(If easier, I have a diagram flow chart below which easily summarizes and explains this theory)

The old theory said that free radicals are bad for us, and if we can reduce the number of free radicals using antioxidants, then we can slow aging. But biology is not as black and white as this theory makes it sound. Many biological reactions and molecules have a dual effect – they can be beneficial and harmful at the same time. For example, we know how Vitamin D is useful for us, but in large quantities it can be harmful.

It’s important to recognize that free radicals are not all bad. They serve 2 very important functions in the body:

1. Signaling to cells to optimize respiration (Free radicals are released when respiration is not optimal. Free radicals tell the mitochondria to make more copies of itself to increase mitochondrial capacity and allow for optimal respiration).

2. Apoptosis (cell death) of deficient cells.

What causes respiration to not be optimal?

Free radicals are released when respiration is not optimal. But what causes sub-optimal respiration?

1. When there is a respiratory deficit - demand for respirations exceeds supply.

2. Mitochondrial DNA is incompatible with the nuclear DNA - Mitochondria are the only organelles in human cells that have their own DNA outside the nucleus. As a result, there are sometimes compatibility issues between the nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA, both of which have to cooperate to carry out bodily functions.

When there is a respiratory deficit, free radicals signal to the cell to correct this deficit by increasing mitochondrial capacity. As a result, the mitochondria that release the most free radicals will make the most copies of themselves. Note how free radicals are not “bad” in this case - they are a signal to the body to make more mitochondria, which is great if the mitochondria are healthy.

Let’s look at the 2nd reason for sub-optimal respiration in more detail.

Mitochondria DNA incompatible with nuclear DNA

The reason for sub-optimal respiration could be the mitochondria’s incompatibility with the nucleus. In this case, the most incompatible mitochondria produce the most free radicals, and hence make more copies of themselves. (Remember: free radicals are a signal to fix sub-optimal respiration by making more copies of the mitochondria). This would result in an increase in incompatible mitochondria or mitochondria with a lot of mutations. An increase in mitochondrial mutations, could result in the cell dying by apoptosis (cell death). However, in some cases the cell might not die.

When a cell with mitochondrial mutations dies by apoptosis

If the cell dies by apoptosis, it may or may not be replaced. If the cell is replaced by a healthy cell, life is good. If the cell is not replaced, fewer cells remain to do the same job, and they have to bear more of the burden. This might result in them becoming physiologically stressed resulting in changes to gene regulation or loss of tissue, and hence aging.

When a cell with mitochondrial mutations does not die by apoptosis

In this case, even though the cell has a large presence of incompatible (damaged) mitochondria (each cell has hundreds of mitochondria), the cell does not die by apoptosis. If the energy needs of the cell are less, it can be met by deficient mitochondria. However, a large presence of deficient mitochondria might cause the cell to become senescent, leading to inflammation, and in extreme cases, cancer.

Summary: Aging when Mitochondrial DNA is incompatible with Nuclear DNA

To summarize, sub-optimal respiration might be due to the mitochondria being incompatible with the nucleus. Free radicals are released as a signal to the mitochondria to make respiration optimal by making copies of itself. However, more copies of incompatible mitochondria are not good. It means more copies of mitochondria with mutations.

A large presence of incompatible mitochondria might result in cell death. If cell death is replaced by new healthy cells, then it’s fine. But, for whatever reason, if new cells are not formed, then fewer cells remain in the body resulting in loss of tissue and aging.

According to this new spin, aging is because:

1. Damaged cells die and are not replaced by new healthy cells. It results in fewer cells, loss of tissue and more stress to the remaining cells.

2. Damaged cells don’t die. They cause inflammation and potentially cancer.

Free radicals are not the cause of aging. They merely signal damaged cells in some cases.

Conclusion

Note how this spin to the free radical theory of aging contrasts with what was previously thought. The conventional view is that free radicals cause oxidative damage leading to aging. However, this version of the free radical theory of aging does not invoke free radicals to be the causal factor in aging. It says that free radicals are a signal when there is an energy deficiency and that something could be wrong in the body. And this energy deficiency could be due to imbalance in supply and demand or due to existing damage to mitochondria. Free radicals play a role in apoptosis to kill the damaged cell, but this results in tissue loss which builds up over time and causes aging.

We conflated free radicals being a signal for poor health with free radicals being the culprit of poor health. In fact, as noted above, free radicals are helpful in signaling to the body to make respiration more optimal and to kill cells when they are unhealthy.

This is why targeting free radicals with antioxidants does not work. Free radicals are not the cause of the problem, they are signals that there could be a problem.

If you have any thoughts on this post, I’m curious to know - please write to me or comment!

To living longer,

Aastha

Related: This post ties in to the metabolic theory of cancer which states that cancer is caused damage to the mitochondria. See my interview with Dr. Thomas Seyfried to learn more.

The most prevalent cancer theory is known as the somatic mutation theory (SMT). The theory states that cancer arises due to random genetic mutations which lead to uncontrolled cell growth.

SMT was first proposed in the early 1900s and it gained traction with the discovery of oncogenes and the genetic revolution in the 1970s. Since then, it has been the dominant paradigm for cancer. However, it doesn't lack criticism. Critics have pointed out that many cancers lack driver mutations, some cancer mutations occur in non-cancerous cells as well, and tumors with similar mutations behave differently depending on context pointing to the role of the tissue environment in cancer as opposed to just mutation.

In 1971, Richard Nixon declared war on cancer. Since then, we’ve unfortunately made little progress in solving deaths from cancer. 1,700 people a day continue to die from cancer in the U.S. And if someone were to have a stage 4 glioblastoma today, the outcome is no different than what it was 100 years ago.

It’s possible that these outcomes look so poor because the underlying theory of cancer is incorrect. We can’t solve cancer on the basis of an incorrect or incomplete theory. This also implies that we should be open to new alternative theories that might have better explanatory reach.

Over the past year, I’ve interviewed researchers who’ve offered new theories to explain cancer. Many of them are promising and worth exploring. This post summarizes some of the alternative cancer theories. I discuss:

1. The Bioelectric theory of cancer

2. The Atavistic (evolutionary) theory of cancer

3. The Metabolic theory of cancer

4. The Germ theory of cancer

5. Upcoming: The Water-bioelectric theory of cancer

The Bioelectric Theory of Cancer

The bioelectric theory of cancer says that cancer is a disruption in the bioelectric signals of cells and tissues. Every cell has its own resting membrane potential. In cancer, this resting membrane potential is disrupted when compared to a healthy cell. Researchers also speculate that these bioelectric signals act as a glue to coordinate cell behavior. Imagine a single cell has its own goals and motivations, just like how you as an individual have goals. But say you’re part of a sports team, as a team you have your own team goals, and the coach is the glue that coordinates behavior. Similarly, bioelectricity is the glue that coordinates cells to work in tandem. A disruption in this bioelectric signal can cause some of the cells to go rogue and not coordinate with the rest of the cellular group. This is what leads to cancer. In other words, bioelectricity is the language cells use to communicate with each other, and a breakdown in this communication results in some cells going astray from the group, resulting in cancer.

For more on the bioelectric theory of cancer, see:

X posts here and here

The Atavistic Theory of Cancer

Paul Davies and Charley Lineweaver popularized the Atavistic theory of cancer as they began to study it from an evolutionary lens.

The atavistic theory of cancer states that cancer cells revert to an old memory they have from billions of years, but forget the new memory. The old memory pertains to constant cell proliferation, which happened as single-celled creatures, and in fact in embryogenesis as well. The new memory pertains to regulating cell proliferation and cells knowing when to stop cellular division. In cancer, it seems like cells forget this new memory and revert to the old memory.

The atavistic theory also states that cancer mutations are not random, they can be predicted from an evolutionary lens. According to the theory, cancer is reversion to primitive cellular forms and by mapping the evolutionary genetic tree, we can predict the ‘newer’ genes from the ‘older’ ones, and determine which older primitive genes will be turned on in cancer. This prediction has important implications since by knowing cancer’s pattern of reversion, we can begin to target some of it’s weaknesses.

Find out more:

X posts here and here

The Metabolic Theory of Cancer

The Metabolic Theory of Cancer proposes that cancer is caused by damage to the mitochondria. It is primarily a disease of defective cellular energy metabolism, particularly due to mitochondrial dysfunction, not a disease of genetic mutations.

This theory contrasts sharply with the Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT) by claiming that genetic mutations are secondary — a downstream consequence of metabolic breakdown, not the root cause.

Cancer starts when cells lose the ability to efficiently generate energy via oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) in the mitochondria. To survive, cells shift to primitive fermentation pathways — especially aerobic glycolysis (i.e., the Warburg effect).

Thomas Seyfried, researcher who has driven forward this theory states that you can see mitochondrial dysfunction in every cancer cell. Find out more:

X posts here and here

The Germ Theory of Cancer

This is probably one of the least well-known theories, but very promising. The proposition is that cancer and other chronic diseases might be caused by latent viruses and infections. We already know that Human Papillomavirus (HPV) causes cervical cancer. And research indicates how the EBV virus shows up in Multiple sclerosis, and chlamydia pneumonia shows in Alzheimer’s. Similarly, HBV and HCV viruses are strongly associated with lung cancer and Helicobacter pylori is associated with stomach cancer.

Paul Ewald, popularizer of this theory, states how genes cannot explain the full reason for chronic diseases, and even if some viruses don’t cause cancer, they certainly seem to be a role. We see that treating glioblastoma patients with antiviral treatment is a promising therapy. Even breast cancer is associated with viruses.

X posts here and here

Note that none of these cancer theories proclaim to the be the only way that cancer arises. The theories are open to the idea that there could be multiple different reasons and hallmarks of cancer, including the ones mentioned above. We should be more open to the idea of incorporating some of these theories when studying cancer, and not solely be fixate on the somatic mutation theory of cancer.

In an upcoming post, I’ll be writing my conjectures on what I call the Water-bioelectric theory of cancer. If you want to nerd out on it, stay tuned! And let me know of other cancer theories on your radar.

To beating cancer,

Aastha

Share

"The fundamental unit of life is not the cell, nor the individual, but the lineage of information propagating across space and time." "We need to focus not on what life is made of, but on how the universe acquires the information to make it." - Sara Imari Walker

The origin of life is one of the most exciting and perplexing questions to ponder. Darwin gave us answers to the evolution of life. But how did life begin in the first place?

Sara Imari Walker attempts to answer this question by looking at the physics behind life’s emergence. She says that in order to understand life we need a new physics. This is a bold hypothesis which involves the creation of a new branch of physics, and theories at the intersection of biology, physics, and astrobiology.

This has lent her to collaborate across disciplines with top minds like David Deutsch, Michael Levin, Lee Cronin, Paul Davies, and Chiara Marletto.

Understanding the origin of life is not merely a theoretical problem - it can have vast implications involving the creation of new life, and our regeneration capabilities for longevity.

Below are some notes from her book, Life As No One Knows It - The Physics of Life’s Emergence. You can also watch her interview with Joe Rogan should these notes pique your interest.

For the practical longevity folks out there, heads up that this post is more on the side of the frontiers of biology.

These notes were first posted on X as a thread. I’ve kept the thread format below given it makes for an easier read.

1. What is life? Philosophers and scientists have been asking this question for aeons. Schrodinger’s famous book What is life has inspired many others to explore this question. Yet we have no answer.

2. “We cannot derive life from the known laws of physics, even if we are pretty sure it must be consistent with them.” Perhaps we need to reframe the question from What is life to Life is what??

3. Three hard problems: Origin of life is not the only hard problem. There are 2 more that plague both scientists and philosophers. The three are origins of mind, origins of matter, origins of life.

4. “The hard problem of consciousness: that existing feels like something (at least for us). The hard problem of matter: that nothing can be observed to exist outside of interactions. The hard problem of life: that abstractions (information) matter in determining what can exist.”

5. All 3 hard problems are linked to one fundamental question: “Why do some things exist (or experience existence) and not others?"

6. We need a new physics to understand life. To do so, Sara Imari had to narrow in on the key problem of life. “Which aspects of life will prove too stubborn in our attempts for reduction to known physics and chemistry. That is, we wanted to identify the property that constitutes a candidate for the hard problem of life.” And that question is: “How is it that information can cause things?”

7. “The challenge is how to make the concept of information physical, such that we can recognize how it matters to matter.” “This is a key feature of information – it can be copied between very different things. This is why we call information “abstract”: it seems not to depend on the physics of the substrates you store it in or access it from.” Genes are the prototypical example of this in biology. This concept of information is inspired by David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto's constructor theory.

8. "Focusing on the problem of what can exist and when resolves much of the ambiguity about the causal power of information – that information can cause things to happen. Saying information is causal merely points to the fact that some things that come to exist require something that already exists to assemble them. Some require longer chains of causation and thus are more “informational”.

9. Assembly theory: “With our work on assembly theory, we are not attempting to define life. Instead our aim is to provide a formalism for unifying life and the inanimate. How can we uncover the physics that gives rise to life and allows the transition from nonlife to life to even happen?”

10. “The new physics needed to explain life starts with understanding what exists and why. That is, it starts with selection of, and for, what gets to exist as physical objects.”

11. “Life is the only thing in the universe that can make objects that are composed of many unique, recursively constructed parts. Assembly theory – theory of physics that considers life’s objects as fundamental.”

12. “To get to a testable theory, we are doing something unusual: we are working backwards. We’re asking what we can measure about molecules in the lab that would indicate when they are objects that can emerge only via selection and evolution.”

13. Origin of life scam: "The fundamental unit of life is not the cell, nor the individual, but the lineage of information propagating across space and time." "We need to focus not on what life is made of, but on how the universe acquires the information to make it."

14. "Our aim was to shift the focus of approaches to the origins of life from traditional prebiotic chemistry to how the combination of theoretical advances, artificial life, messy chemistry, and new ideas about information and matter could energize progress."

15. Universal constructor: Lee Cronin's company Chemputer is working on a universal constructor for all chemical spaces they have explored so far in the chemistry lab. The hope is to scale this up to search large volumes of chemical space all at once.

16. Summarizing: Sara Imari is working on a new theory of physics known as Assembly theory to understand the emergence of life. It hinges on the problem of what can exist and the information that can cause things to happen.

I’ll admit that it’s hard to summarize such a book or understand the depth of it through notes and quotes, so if you’re interested pick it up.

I’ll be back with some writing on understanding cancer soon.

To living longer,

Aastha

Share

Can we detect cancer so early such that we find the very first cell of cancer? Not just stage 1 cancer, but the first cell of cancer.

In this episode, Dr. Michael Levin and I speak with Dr. Azra Raza:

• She is an oncologist pioneering early detection of cancer using electric signals. So far, our best solution to curing cancer has been to detect it early, and she wants to take this further, by nipping cancer at the very first cell.

• Her story with cancer is also deeply personal as she lost her husband to the disease.

• You can see in the episode how much she cares about solving cancer through early detection, and how aggrieved she is about the fact that not only have we made zero progress on cancer in the last 100 years, but doctors are also not focused on cancer prevention.

Dr. Raza is also the author of the book The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last.

Timestamps below cover the topics discussed well.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 New theory of cancer

1:45 What causes cancer?

5:39 Hybrid cells in cancer

11:16 Why do cancer cells become immortal?

14:14 Detecting the first cell of cancer

17:09 Stress causes cancer cells to fuse

21:40 Cancer drugs don’t work universally

25:54 Personalization of early cancer detection

29:29 Detect cancer early using electrics

35:46 Anguish of cancer patients

39:06 Cancer progress hasn’t moved in 100 years

44:04 Doctors don’t think of cancer prevention

46:54 First Cell Therapeutics - Azra’s company

50:55 What is the first cell stage of cancer?

54:55 Advice for cancer patients

If you’re enjoying the podcast, support my work, leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, subscribe on your platform of choice, and share with family and friends!

P.S. Check out the longevity products I use.

Share

Support My Work

What if chronic diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s are caused by infections we’ve overlooked?

We assume chronic disease is caused by genetics and / or lifestyle. However, evolutionary biologist Dr. Paul Ewald says latent viruses and pathogens play a critical hidden role in many diseases.

For example, we already know that Human Papillomavirus (HPV) causes cervical cancer. And research indicates how the EBV virus shows up in Multiple sclerosis, and chlamydia pneumonia shows in Alzheimer’s. Deeper investigation into viruses and disease is warranted and will help with better diagnosis and treatment.

We discuss:

• Genes cannot explain the full reason for disease

• Role of viruses in cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, diabetes

• Strong associations between certain viruses & disease

• Glioblastoma and antiviral treatment

Dr. Paul Ewald is also the author of Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease, and Evolution of Infectious diseases.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Role of infection in chronic disease is neglected

2:40 Role of viruses in Alzheimer’s

10:50 Connections between Alzheimer’s, diabetes, cardiovascular disease

15:57 Genes cannot explain the full reason for disease

20:47 Strong association between Alzheimer’s, chlamydia pneumonia, and APOE4

28:16 Multiple sclerosis and EBV virus

35:08 Latent viruses may in fact be active & cause cancer

41:41 Sexually- transmitted pathogens correlated with cancer

46:50 Viruses that cause cancer (EBV & breast cancer)

53:09 Hodgkin’s lymphoma and virus

57:15 Stanford study showing EBV as leading cause of MS

1:00:19 Do viruses attack the mitochondria and cause cancer?

1:01:38 Glioblastoma and virus / antiviral treatment

1:07:07 Virus vs. oncogenes causing cancer

1:14:17 Breast cancer BRAC1 mutations & virus association

1:15:59 Vaccines against viruses

1:17:56 Practical steps if you test positive for infectious viruses

1:24:57 Could cancer relapse be due to persistent virus?

1:27:48 Protect the immune system

1:29:38 Areas Dr. Ewald is excited about

If you’re enjoying the podcast, support my work, leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, subscribe on your platform of choice, and share with family and friends! You can also check out the longevity products I use.

Share

Support My Work

“It’s not all in the genome, the genome is the hardware, it’s the software that runs the damn thing (organisms), which is why all of the work that you’ve (Michael Levin) done on bioelectricity is so very important..The first time I heard you explain it, I said, “My god, this guy is going to win a Nobel prize.”

 - Pamela Lyon commenting on Mike Levin’s work

What if our cells have memory and cognition? What if by associating cognition merely with the brain, we’ve been thinking about it incorrectly?

In this conversation with Dr. Pamela Lyon, who does research on the biology of cognition, and Dr. Michael Levin, whose research is focused on bioelectricity, we discuss:

• Cognition and creativity is not merely associated with the brain and nervous system

• Implications of this view of cognition for regenerative medicine and longevity

• Is stress response the source of our creativity?

This podcast will make you re-think how you view cognition. This new view of cognition extending to all our cells is mind-bending - it changes how we approach medicine and longevity therapies. Timestamps below also cover the topics discussed well.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Intro, Basal cognition

1:00 Our view of cognition is incorrect

8:50 What does biology have to say about cognition?

12:12 Cognition in xenobots

14:20 Cognition and cooperation in microbes

30:03 Bioelectricity and cognition

33:58 Is stress response the source of our creativity?

43:27 Mike’s paper: Stress-sharing as a cognitive glue

47:31 Implications of cognition not only being associated with brain

56:55 Cognition in AI

1:02:33 View of cognition in the East

If you’re enjoying the podcast, support my work, leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, subscribe on your platform of choice, and share with family and friends!

P.S. Check out the longevity products I use.

Share

Support My Work

We’re only just waking up to the benefits of sunlight and red light for mitochondrial health, lowering blood glucose, and potentially treating Parkinson’s disease and cancer.

Dr. Glen Jeffery, my guest today, is at the leading edge of this research. We discuss:

• Health benefits of sunlight and red light

• Harmful effects of blue light & LEDs

• In the 2nd half of the podcast, I ask him rapid fire practical questions that everyone wants to know about light, ranging from how much sunlight should one get to what time of day is best for infrared light exposure.

Some great nuggets you don’t want to miss! Timestamps below cover the topics discussed well.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Intro

0:59 Light impact on public health

3:08 Light research is understudied, mitochondria is impacted by light

6:05 Red and blue light impacts on mitochondria

8:25 Benefits of red light - wound healing, lower glucose

15:09 Are there downsides to red light?

16:59 Does time of day impact red light benefits?

22:05 Red light and cancer

26:00 Blue light is making you pre-diabetic

37:46 n=1 light experiments

39:22 Mitochondria & Longevity

46:21 “Sunlight offers a unique package”

Rapid fire questions:

53:40 Is sunlight good enough for red light?

55:10 How much sunlight do we need?

56:07 When should you get sunlight?

56:55 Should you worry about afternoon sunlight?

58:57 Can you get sunlight on cloudy days?

59:38 Does sunscreen mitigate benefits of sunlight?

1:00:12 Should you not wear caps and sunglasses in sunlight?

1:01:43 Clothing and sunlight

1:05:52 Sunlight through window?

1:06:16 Are blue light blocking glasses helpful? (see 1:19:31 for more context)

1:08:17 Do Artificial sunlight lamps work?

1:08:51 What wavelength red light is the best?

1:10:56 Time in front of red light device

1:12:41 Body exposure to red light

1:15:37 Lighting at home at night

1:19:31 Differences in blue light for mitochondria vs. circadian biology

1:24:18 Stop using LEDs

1:25:24 Does light impact the bioelectrics of the mitochondria?

1:26:55 Mitochondria in melatonin mop up ROS

1:31:29 Benefits of fire light?

1:35:33 Open questions on light and health

1:37:28 Support Live Longer World

If you’re enjoying the podcast, support my work, leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, subscribe on your platform of choice, and share with family and friends!

Share

Support my work

Sneak-peak update: I recently recorded some fascinating podcasts on how different types of light impact our health, and the effects of dormant viruses on disease. Stay tuned!

Beyond the Gene

In my previous essay Longevity Frontiers Beyond Genetic Medicine, I discussed how biology should be asking questions that extend beyond genes. Biology has heralded genes as kings but what if they do not deserve that status? What if there are important answers buried in information that resides outside of our genes?

Despite the ubiquity of the terms genes and DNA, they are of course not the only important structures in our body. Our body is a bag of cells, organs, tissues, hormones, chemistry, physics, electricity, and many other compounds, the biological names of which will alienate most of us.

Looking beyond the gene means taking seriously some of the other factors that are encoded in our bodies. Last time, I introduced you to one such realm – bioelectricity.

In simple terms, you can think of bioelectricity as what the name implies – electricity that runs through our cells. These electrical signals are shown to have significance in anatomy, embryogenesis, regeneration, wound healing, cancer, and perhaps aging.

However, what does it mean to say our bodies have electricity? No, these electrical signals are not the woo-woo signals a lot of spiritual-esque people will claim they feel. These signals are grounded in physics, or what one may call biophysics.

In today’s essay, I will explain some of the science behind the creation of these electric signals in our bodies.

Bioelectricity and Longevity

You must be wondering why I’m harping on about bioelectricity. Is it just some academic science or can it have practical implications for aging and curing disease? Why does bioelectricity matter?

Deeper understanding of the way our cells use bioelectric signals could have enormous implications for solving diseases. Research indicates that bioelectric signals have significance in cancer, regenerative medicine, anatomy, wound healing, embryogenesis, and perhaps aging.

Let me briefly explain the connection to bioelectricity for some of these, beginning with the deadly monster that is cancer.

Research shows that cancer cells have a different bioelectric state compared to healthy cells. So, could we restore cancer cells back to their healthy state by tweaking the bioelectric signal of cancer cells? This is counter to the current way we treat cancer which is by destroying them. Instead, perhaps we could simply revert cancer cells back to their healthier state, which is what Mike Levin has shown in tadpole models.

Regeneration: Planaria (flatworms) are remarkable creatures that never die. If you cut a planaria in half or even multiple pieces, each piece somehow regenerates the missing parts to form a full planaria again. And not only do these pieces regenerate, but they can in fact regenerate into different shapes, like this 2-headed planaria! Controlling this shape is achieved through tweaking the bioelectric signal of the planaria. Imagine if we could tweak our bioelectric signal to regrow lost limbs and body parts?

Wound healing: Bioelectricity plays a crucial role in wound healing by guiding cell migration, stimulating tissue regeneration, and modulating inflammation.

Aging: It has been noted that as we age, the resting membrane potential of cells gets disrupted. Further, disruption in bioelectric signals has been noted in many hallmarks of aging. So, could we figure out how to tweak the bioelectric state of our aged cells and restore them to a healthy state again?

What does it mean to tweak the bioelectric signal? What are bioelectric signals? I explain below.

Basics of Bioelectricity

Now that you see how bioelectricity can have a big impact on solving disease and boosting longevity, hopefully you will have a deeper appreciation of the field.

It is also helpful to note that most of us are already aware of electric signals that power our neurons. The same electric signals power the rest of our cells, just at slower time scales - milliseconds for neurons vs. minutes or hours for other cells. These electric signals in neurons and other cells is what is called bioelectricity.

In the rest of this essay, I will explain some of the science behind the creation of these electric signals in our bodies. I think it’s much easier to take bioelectricity seriously once you understand some of these fundamentals. It’s also pretty cool to learn about how cells create electric charges. It’s not very difficult to grasp and I’m not going to go into many details. I’ll explain the basics and the terms that are often used so you are familiar with the lingo and can begin to appreciate more of the science behind the electric charges in our bodies.

First, some physics

Feynman once said everything is made of atoms. Our bodies and cells too have atoms. Atoms have electrons and protons. If an atom has a greater number of electrons than protons, it has a negative charge. (i.e. Cl-). If an atom has a greater number of protons than electrons, it has a positive charge. (i.e Na+). So, electrons are negatively charged particles, and protons are positively charged particles. If an atom has an equal number of both electrons and protons, it is net zero charge.

Ions are atoms with a charge. In other words, any atom that has either a positive charge or a negative charge (no zero charge), is called an ion. Ions are fundamental to bioelectricity, as I explain below.

Voltage in cells and membrane potential

Our cells contain different ions, mostly sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), chloride (Cl-), and calcium (Ca2+). Cells typically maintain different concentrations of these ions inside and outside the cell, separated by the cell membrane. When you have a difference in concentration of ions on either side of the cell membrane, you get a difference in charges across the cell membrane (on the inside vs. outside the cell).

Any time you separate charges, you create a voltage, which is simply the work needed to be done to push 1 unit of charge from point A to point B. So, when you have different concentrations of charge on the inside of the cell (point A) vs. outside the cell (point B), you create a voltage. In biology terms, a voltage across the cell membrane is known as the membrane potential. You will hear the term “membrane potential” a lot in bioelectricity, so it pays to get familiar with it.

Diffusion

You might wonder: Why is there a difference in ion concentration across the cell membrane? Didn’t we learn about diffusion in chemistry class which says that ions should move from a state of high concentration to low concentration until equilibrium is obtained? If this were the case, there should be no voltage, given that there would be no difference in charges across the membrane. So, why are we still seeing voltage and membrane potential?

Ion Channels, Ion pumps, and Selective Permeability

One of the reasons for the charge differential is because our cell membranes have something called ion channels. Ion channels are proteins that allow specific ions to flow across the cell membrane. For example, sodium-gated ion channels only allow sodium ions into the cell, which means that negatively charged chloride ions might not be allowed inside, creating different charges across the cell membrane. This is the phenomenon of selective permeability where certain ion channels are permeable to certain ions and not others. So, you can say that ion channels block diffusion and create this charge difference or the membrane potential across cells.

Another reason for the charge difference across the cell membrane is the role played by ion pumps1, which are also proteins on the cell membrane. Ion pumps are pumps that use energy from ATP (energy currency of the cell) to move ions in and out of the cell, against the power of diffusion. For example, the sodium-potassium pump (Na+/K+ ATPase) actively transports Na+ out of the cell and K+ into the cell. This pump moves 3 Na+ ions out of the cell and 2 K+ ions into the cell against their concentration gradients, using ATP for energy. This creates a higher concentration of Na+ outside the cell and K+ inside the cell, again creating a difference in ion concentration across the cell membrane, which gives rise to the membrane potential.

Electricity or Bioelectricity

How does all of this give rise to electricity in our cells? Electricity is the flow of charge. We’ve established how we have charged ions inside and outside our cells. In response to various stimuli, ion channels and pumps open and close, resulting in charged ions moving in and out of the cell. The flow and movement of these charged ions creates electric currents, giving rise to the word “bioelectricity.” In other words, the reason we get electricity is because ions are not static, they are shuttling in and out of the cell due to the work done by ion channels and pumps, thereby resulting in the flow of charge or bioelectricity.

Analogy I got from ChatGPT that I thought was useful:

Think of the cell membrane as a dam with gates (ion channels) controlling the flow of water (ions). When the gates open, water flows through, creating a current. Similarly, when ion channels in the cell membrane open, ions flow through, generating an electrical current. The membrane potential is like the pressure difference on either side of the dam, driving the flow of water when the gates open.

Simplified image showing the movement of ions and bioelectricity. Source.

Resting membrane potential

Even at rest, all cells have a voltage difference across the cell membrane known as the resting membrane potential. Recall that this voltage difference or membrane potential is created by a difference in charge across the cell membrane. In most cells, the resting membrane potential is around negative 70mv. It arises due to a tug of war between diffusion and electrical gradients. Let me explain with an example.

Most cells have a higher concentration of potassium ions than sodium ions. At rest, many potassium ion channels are open in the cell membrane, which means they are selectively permeable to potassium ions and favor their passage. Given that potassium ions are higher inside the cell than outside, diffusion causes them to leave the cell, gradually resulting in the cell becoming more negative. At some point, the exit of potassium ions is halted by the increase in negative charge inside the cells. This is because opposite charges attract, and the negative charge inside exerts an attractive pull on the positively charged potassium ions outside. When the diffusion force and the electrical force balance each other, it gives rise to the equilibrium potential or the resting membrane potential.

Tweaking the bioelectric signal

You’ve seen me mention “tweaking the bioelectric signal” a few times in the beginning. This is the analogous version of gene editing for bioelectricity. Now that you understand the basics of bioelectricity, you can begin to see how we can manipulate these signals for longevity and regenerative medicine. For example, you can inhibit the activity of an ion channel or pump and change the ion flow which would alter the voltage of the cell and the electric flow as well. There are other methods for tweaking this signal too, which I won’t go into here. But isn’t it cool if in the future we’re able to tweak these signals not just to have 2-headed planaria or an extra frog limb, but also to cure cancer, and restore lost limbs to humans?

Conclusion

Even though I’m classifying bioelectricity as a frontier field in biology, the research is in fact not new. Scientists have been looking at bioelectric currents in animals, plants, and humans since the 1700s. Luigi Galvani, Giovanni Aldini, Harold Burr, Clarence Cone are some of the early pioneers of this field, and the torch has been carried forward by the likes of Denis Noble, Richard Nuccitelli, Ken Robinson, and of course Michael Levin.

After Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of the DNA, the gene-view has occupied center stage in the realm of biology. By gene-level view, I mean biology’s inclination to herald our genes as the most important code to decipher and solve major questions. This is the reason areas like bioelectricity didn’t receive much limelight. However, after decades of research on genes, we now know that they don’t have all the answers, including how shape is formed, and the causes of most diseases. The human genome project was launched with one of the promises being that this will help us map the genes responsible for causing deadly diseases. But this promise was not fulfilled. Not necessarily due to a lack in mapping. But because genetic risk scores are not useful in predicting disease. Biologist Denis Noble says that “what this tells us is that genes are too low a level to see [biological] functionality. We need to get back to network analysis and what we were doing before the genomics revolution.”

Blaming or praising DNA for everything is taking a reductionist view. It’s about time we started reviving areas of biology outside of genes too, if we want a better understanding of the secrets of biology and longevity.

Bioelectricity is exciting not just because it could be an important medium for solving disease, but also because it will expand our repertoire of knowledge, which will bring us one step closer to solving aging.

To living longer,

Aastha

Subscribe to Live Longer World podcast on YouTube

Share

Thanks to Benjamin Anderson for feedback on this essay.

“The [current] standard of care for glioblastoma is responsible for the overall poor survival and death of these patients. I’ll stand by that because I have the scientific evidence to support that.”

“They’re all the same disease. Brain cancer is not that different from breast, colon. They all have the same problem with mitochondria. They’re all dependent on glucose and glutamine.”

- Dr. Thomas Seyfried

Cancer kills 1,700 people a day in the United states alone. Billions are spent towards solving it with little to show for. Could it be because the current theory of cancer is based on a flawed explanation? My guest Dr. Thomas Seyfried says yes.

He is a Professor of biology, genetics, and biochemistry at Boston College. He has over 150 peer-reviewed publications and is also the author of books such as, ‘Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer’.

Thomas Seyfried challenges the existing paradigm that says cancer is a genetic disease. He says that instead cancer is caused by damage to the mitochondria. Understanding this completely overturns the management and prevention of cancer.

We discuss:

1. Why cancer is not a genetic disease

2. Why cancer is a metabolic disease originating from damage to the mitochondria

3. How metabolic therapy, management of glucose and glutamine, can be used to manage cancer

4. His December 2024 paper outlining a proposal for ketogenic metabolic therapy in glioblastoma

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Timestamps and related episodes below.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Cancer is not a genetic disease

5:04 Origins of somatic mutation theory of cancer

8:04 Mitochondrial damage causes cancer

13:42 Is mitochondrial dysfunction involved in every cancer?

16:14 Mitochondria in cancer cells ferment

21:52 Target glucose and glutamine to manage cancer

28:51 Hyperbaric Oxygen therapy for cancer

31:04 December 2024 study: Role of glutamine in cancer

33:35 Can metabolic therapy be done at any stage of cancer?

36:44 Combine chemotherapy with metabolic therapy

38:05 Drugs to target glutamine

40:30 People will say “I want metabolic therapy”

44:04 “Failure to understand biology”

47:48 National Cancer Institute’s take on Dr. Seyfried’s theory

49:34 Why does Peter Attia think cancer is a genetic disease?

53:09 “I think about this 24/7; we’re right!”

55:56 Glioblastoma treatment protocol study

59:22 Resistance to breakthrough ideas in science

1:01:40 Radiation fuels cancer!

1:04:52 Current standard of care is responsible for poor survival rate in glioblastoma

1:07:14 Metabolic therapy for epilepsy, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s

1:12:22 How to prevent cancer

1:13:49 Young, healthy individuals in their 20s, 30s with cancer

1:15:05 Resources on following metabolic therapy

1:17:43 How to support Dr. Seyfried’s research

1:18:51 New cancer questions Dr. Seyfried is researching

1:21:32 Closing thoughts

Related Episodes:

• The Cancer-Diet Connection & Otto Warburg - Nobel Prize Scientist under Hitler | Sam Apple, Author of Ravenous

• Modified Ketogenic Diet for Optimal Health & Exercise | Dr. Dominic D'Agostino

• Ketogenic Diet for Brain Health & Longevity | Dr. Dominic D'Agostino

• The Evolutionary Theory of Cancer | Charley Lineweaever

• Bioelectricity and Cancer w/ Michael Levin

If you’re enjoying the podcast, please leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, subscribe on your platform of choice, and share with family and friends!

Share

Support my work

Genes are king. Or are they?

I was recently at a longevity retreat where a professor gave a talk on creating artificial organs using stem cells. Stem cells are undifferentiated, which means they are not yet specialized for specific organs. One of the challenges in using stem cells for creating specific organs like the kidney is that we need to ensure the stem cells differentiate into kidney cells and not liver cells. The professor spoke of his approach to do so, which was to identify specific genes for kidney cells, ensure each of the kidney genes transcribe into the correct proteins, silence some of the other genes, and so on.

As someone without a formal degree in biology, my head was spinning. The approach involved twisting every single gene-protein interaction to get to the right combination. I couldn’t help but wonder: “What if we manage to get every single gene combination right and still not get the right organ?” Or even if we do get every single gene combination correct, what if there is a simpler way of controlling the shape of organs, as opposed to micromanaging every gene?

Other questions flooded my mind: “What if we need to be looking beyond genes? What if genes don’t hold all the keys to organ function and shape? Are we being too narrow-minded by not broadening our thinking beyond genes?”

I’m of course not the first one to be asking these questions. Several biologists have started to voice the fact that contrary to prior beliefs, genes do not hold the answers to many questions in biology, and we need to be looking beyond them.

After Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of the DNA, the gene-view has occupied center stage in the realm of biology. By gene-level view, I mean biology’s inclination to herald our genes as the most important code to decipher and solve major questions. From the human genome project to scientists trying to understand every gene-protein interaction, the first thought that crosses our minds when we encounter most biological problems are questions like, “What genes are responsible for it? What genes are impacted by it? What genes can we silence? Was there a mutation in the genes?”1

In fact, genes and DNA are held in such importance that the gene language has permeated life outside of biology too. It’s common parlance to speak of a “company’s DNA” or utter statements like “It’s in your genes” or “She must have a genetic gift for it.”

Looking beyond our genes

Earlier I gave the example of the professor trying to perfect every gene-protein combination in order to create the right organ. Micromanaging every gene-protein combination seems akin to what computer programming was like when it first started – it involved manipulating the system at the hardware level. Now, all programming is done at the software level. It’s possible that in biology we are still stuck at the hardware level of programming by controlling the knobs that are our genes.

Furthermore, controlling at the level of genes strikes me as a reductionist approach, which may not yield the answer even after twisting every gene knob. A reductionist approach such as this also does not account for the idea of emergence in biology. Emergence here means that the outcome of larger systems cannot be predicted by the lower-level causal explanations.

“We are good at manipulating molecules and cells. We are a long way from control of large scale form and function. Biomedicine is about digging into the molecular level hardware, so genomic editing, pathway rewiring, protein engineering, all of these things are about the hardware. And if you think about the trajectory that computer science took this is what programming looked like in the 1940s and 50s, to program you literally had to manipulate the system at the level of the hardware. But now its all software.”

-Dr. Michael Levin in this talk.

But what if biology has a software layer too, which lies outside the hardware of our genes? In that case, we’d have to take seriously the levels of biology that reside outside our genes.

For, what if the answers don’t lie merely with the genes? What if there is significant code to crack outside the level of genes? What if we should be asking questions outside of genes? And what if there are other elements that might in fact be more important than genes and control our genes? Dr. Alfonso Martinez Arias says that genes are not the blueprint of life.

Let’s take a specific example to show that genes don’t contain all the answers. There is no information in our DNA that tells us how the shape of organs should develop and where in our bodies they should develop. How then do most of us end up with the same set of eyes, nose, ears, organs, and other body parts, and in the same place in proportion to our bodies? Why don’t some of us grow eyes on our hands or ears on our legs? How do our bodies know where our eyes should be when the DNA contains no information about it? Surely, they must be receiving some other signal that lies outside of the DNA.

The human genome project was launched with one of the promises being that this will help us map the genes responsible for causing deadly diseases. But this promise was not fulfilled. Not necessarily due to a lack in mapping. But because genetic risk scores are not useful in predicting disease. Biologist Denis Noble says that “what this tells us is that genes are too low a level to see [biological] functionality. We need to get back to network analysis and what we were doing before the genomics revolution.”

I’m not trying to discount the importance of understanding the genetic code. I think it is incredibly important. However, perhaps we should be asking more questions outside of genes too. And this is exactly what a growing number of scientists are now beginning to do.

Bioelectricity

Bioelectricity is one such realm of biology that dares to look beyond the gene-level view. It’s a view of biology that asks questions about our bioelectric code, i.e. the electricity in our bodies and its significance.2

Pop-science articles tend to make us associate electricity in our bodies to the firing of neurons and electric currents in our brains. A select few of these articles might extend the electric signals in our bodies to muscle cells as well.

However, neurons and muscles are not unique in their potential to pass electric signals. Electric signals run through every cell in our body. Neurons and muscle cells exhibit rapid transmission of electric signals, whereas the transmission of these signals in other cells is typically at slower speeds.

Bioelectricity is about the study of electric signals in our cells and their significance. Research shows how bioelectricity could have enormous implications in anatomy (the shape our cells take), wound healing, embryonic development, regeneration, cancer and aging.

I was first introduced to bioelectricity when I interviewed Dr. Michael Levin for Live Longer World. Mike Levin is one of the pioneers of bioelectricity and his lab has done some incredible research showing how bioelectric signals shape morphology (the shape our cells take), regeneration of limbs, and could be a cure for cancer. Yet, in a biology world dominated by genes, bioelectricity remains an underrated and small, but fast-growing field.

Another reason bioelectricity remains underrated is because people don’t grasp the biophysics that underlies the electric signals in our body. It sounds fascinating and even woo-woo to some extent, but without a deeper understanding it is hard to appreciate the field. Contrast this with the decades of information we’ve been given on genes and DNA. They are central to every biology book, have been brought to the forefront by many popular biology books, and are part of everyday conversation. All of this makes it easier for people to relate to genes and have a better understanding of them.

For more people to appreciate the true beauty of bioelectricity, we need media and information that explains not just the significance of bioelectricity, but also how bioelectricity works. What does it mean for our cells to be electric?

In my next essay, I will introduce you to these wonders.

To living longer,

Aastha

Subscribe to Live Longer World podcast on YouTube

Share

Live Longer World Mission:

Live Longer World has a two-pronged mission:

1. To provide information on the science of longevity through essays and interviews with scientists.

2. To provide practical longevity tips.

Keeping in mind this mission, I want to give you a glimpse into what is to come in 2025.

Information on the Science of longevity:

Over the years, as I’ve explored the science of longevity through my podcast interviews with scientists, I’ve realized that there are areas of biology that are promising but underexplored for various reasons I’ll touch upon in my future posts. Many of these underexplored areas could be extremely promising to longevity therapies in the future. If we are to advance longevity, we need to seriously study some of these fruitful areas which I call the “frontiers of biology and longevity”.

In 2024, almost all my podcasts have been related to exploring the frontiers of longevity – bioelectricity, looking beyond the genes, the atavistic theory of cancer. I hope to continue this in 2025. The problem with the podcast circuit is that too often people discuss what has already been discussed on a 100 other podcasts. I’d rather not do that and instead want to bring you fresh, underexplored, but promising information, giving you an early glimpse of where biology and longevity science are headed.

Longevity lifestyle practices like exercise, sleep, clean food, and even fringe ones, are incredible and as you all know I’m a huge proponent of them. However, sadly, these practices alone won’t significantly extend our lifespans or cure cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. For that, we need to advance the science of longevity. I recognize that not everyone likes to geek out on the science when there may not yet be practical takeaways. However, there are others who like to expand their knowledge of the underlying science of longevity that will take us down the path of therapeutics. Hence, my goal with Live Longer World is to make this science of longevity as accessible and interesting as possible, without dumbing it down. This might mean that some interviews are a little more technical than others, but it’s because I respect that caliber of my listeners, and now with tools like ChatGPT, it’s easier than ever to understand some of the more technical parts.

Practical longevity tips

I will continue to occasionally write posts on practical longevity tips like My 2024 longevity products or Blood biomarkers not covered by insurance, or do podcasts like how Glyphosate in Food is Killing us. However, the honest truth is that the biggest health benefits come from a few big buckets like exercise, sleep, clean food, mental health, which I’ve already written about, and to keep harping on them is not only unnecessary, but disrespectful to your time as a reader.

The job of health influencers is to keep churning content and hence they have to present details to you like it’s the most serious issue in the health space. There is no dearth of videos like “This one hack changed my sleep” and while they might not be wrong, they often don’t provide any new or very relevant information. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with health overoptimization. In fact, I too love to engineer the little details many times, but they’re secondary to the big buckets, and again they won’t solve the big diseases like cancer.

Live Longer World will write about longevity tips when (1) I genuinely think they might be relevant, and (2) I always only write about what I practice, so I have skin in the game. In so doing, I hope to not spam you with irrelevant or repetitive information.

Looking forward to 2025

As I said, my focus will be on exploring the scientific frontiers of longevity and biology, while occasionally writing on practical longevity tips. I’ll do this through essays, as well as interviews with scientists.

If we want to live healthier and longer lives, and be free of diseases like cancer, we have to advance the science of longevity, especially the underrated areas. My goal is to not keep this science hidden inside labs or dense scientific papers, and instead spark the joy of biology in everyone. Let’s make longevity cool. And let’s Live Longer World.

To living healthier & longer,

Aastha

Subscribe now

Live Longer World Podcast

Today’s interview is a special one, with two great minds in biology coming together - Denis Noble and Michael Levin.

Denis Noble is a renowned biologist and pioneer in systems biology, known for his groundbreaking work on the electrical activity of the heart and his influential contributions to the understanding of biological systems.

Denis is an advocate for taking a systems integrative approach to biology, as opposed to the reductionist gene-centric view that has dominated the field due to Neo-Darwinism. The gene-centric view has failed us in advancing progress on many diseases, and we need to now take a systems based approach focused on functional networks within biological systems.

I’m sure most of you are familiar with Michael Levin already, given my ongoing podcast series with him. He is an American developmental and synthetic biologist at Tufts University, where he is the Vannevar Bush Distinguished Professor. His research is focused on bioelectricity and he is my co-host for this podcast.

We discuss:

• DNA is not the blueprint of life

• Why biology’s reductionist approach is flawed

• Everything that is wrong with Neo-Darwinism

• Epigenetic inheritance

• How to advance longevity and the cure of diseases

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Timestamps below.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Denis as Mike Levin’s hero

0:10 Denis’s journey to systems biology; cell voltage is a global property of the cell

3:45 Advice to young researchers pursuing systems biology

7:00 “Absolutely everything is wrong with Neo-Darwinism”

14:10 Epigenetic inheritance

19:12 Genetic vs. other information used by organisms

23:48 Biology textbooks have to expand beyond DNA in 50 years

25:03 Epigenetic processes are ubiquitous

28:58 If not DNA, what is the blueprint of life?

36:15 Rewriting biology textbooks is fundamental

39:57 “A lot of time has been wasted” (in biology)

46:52 Darwin on the “Origin of Species”

55:38 “Unfortunate that Philosophy and science have diverged”

1:00:31 Importance of Functional networks; DNA does not predict disease

If you’re enjoying the podcast, please leave a rating on Apple podcasts, Spotify or elsewhere, and share with family and friends!

Share

Today’s interview with Dr. Mustafa Djamgoz is part of my series with Dr. Michael Levin where we interview significant people in the history of developmental bioelectricity.

Dr. Mustafa was one of the first people to study the role of ion channels and bioelectricity in cancer, which he initially documented in a 1995 paper. His research showed that there was an uptake in voltage-gated sodium channels in all types of cancer metastasis, except prostate cancer, highlighting the significant role of studying ion channels in cancer.

Simply put, the spread of cancer cells is linked to increased activity in sodium ion channels, which regulate electrical currents in our cells.

Timestamps below capture the topics we discussed.

Note: The conversation can get technical in parts. In the next few weeks, I’ll be releasing some essays explaining the basics of bioelectricity which will hopefully pave the way to a deeper understanding of the field for those who are interested.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Find the links, papers referenced and timestamps below.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Playing with radios at age 17 to bioelectricity cancer research

4:31 Advice for young people entering bioelectricity

9:02 Biophysics and Cancer neuroscience

17:55 Role of bioelectricity in cancer

27:02 Cancer metastasis and ion channels

28:49 Sodium channel uptake and cancer invasiveness

36:59 Ranolazine, potential anti-metastatic drug

43:45 Funding for bioelectricity cancer research

50:21 Advice for cancer patients

Share

“The 21st century is the century of the cell.”

My guest today is Dr. Alfonso Martinez Arias, who is a development biologist and the author of the book The Master Builder: How the New Science of the Cell Is Rewriting the Story of Life.

Each of our cells has the same DNA. Yet they somehow differentiate into different body parts - eyes, ears, skin, and so on. There is no information in the DNA that tells our cells what to be. How then do they do it?

This is just one example of how contrary to what many might think, DNA does not explain every problem state in biology. Biology has placed too much emphasis on our genes, trying to explain every disease state using genes, when the answer might not reside with them. What if answers to these questions lies with cells?

Even though Dr. Martinez started off as a geneticist, he decided to pivot to understand the properties of cells better. By understanding our cells better, we can make further progress in understanding disease, longevity, and development.

This conversation is about the cell’s eye view of biology, and how the gene's eye view of biology might have mislead us. We also talk about why the popular selfish gene theory espoused by Richard Dawkins is incomplete. Looking beyond genes is instrumental to making progress in longevity.

Timestamps below.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity.

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Intro

1:15 DNA does not make us unique

5:28 Cells use our genes

10:42 “We have overstretched what genes can explain”

15:41 Relation between genes and cells

20:28 What about the role of epigenetics?

22:42 Cells use mechanical and chemical signals

27:34 Thoughts on bioelectricity and Michael Levin

32:28 Emergence of cells

38:10 Importance of biophysics; What is life?

42:32 Is cancer when cells lose control?

47:58 Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene is Incomplete

54:11 But what if genes control development?

57:29 How to complete the selfish gene view?

1:02:05 Cell’s eye view of biology

1:04:48 Understanding embryonic development; gastruloids

1:18:15 Questions Dr. Alfonso is pursuing

1:19:47 Thoughts from Feynman

Share

The following is a fascinating interview on cancer biology with Dr. Charley Lineweaver, whose research ranges from astrobiology to evolutionary biology and cancer. His work on cancer was done in conjunction with Dr. Paul Davies, renowned scientist and author of several popular science books. Topics include:

• the evolutionary and atavistic theory of cancer

• the incorrectness of the somatic mutation theory of cancer

• a novel take on attacking the weakness of cancer

• how embryogenesis could be viewed as cells reverting to old memory

• the origins of multicellularity

• “Cancer cannot do anything new”

The atavistic theory of cancer states that cancer cells revert to an old memory they have from billions of years, but forget the new memory. The old memory pertains to constant cell proliferation, which happened as single-celled creatures, and in fact in embryogenesis as well. The new memory pertains to regulating cell proliferation and cells knowing when to stop cellular division. In cancer, it seems like cells forget this new memory and revert to the old memory.

This theory has many deeper explanations and predictions which we dive into in the conversation. Enjoy!

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity.

Note: I recorded this interview before I started going deeper into bioelectrics and cellular intelligence, otherwise I would have asked him some questions related to that, since I see some parallels in his theory and Mike Levin’s work on cellular memory.

Apologies at ~33:00 the voice breaks off a little bit.

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Background in astrobiology

1:53 Evolutionary theory of cancer

6:22 Atavistic model: Cancer cells go back to “original state”

9:50 Atavistic theory vs. Cancer

14:44 Somatic Mutation Theory of Cancer is Wrong

22:36 Disagreement with Michael Levin’s work

24:17 Attack the weakness of cancer

27:45 Vaccine for cancer

38:08 Wound healing and cancer

41:23 Why new genes are more susceptible to damage

45:26 Origins of multicellularity

48:49 Predictions of Atavistic model

53:45 Cancer cells spread

56:52 Cell proliferation, Cancer, Hayflick limit

58:54 Doctors are not trained in evolution

Papers referenced / Relevant Papers:

• Cancer progression as a sequence of atavistic reversions

• Targeting cancer’s weaknesses, not its strengths

Share

Today’s interview with Dr. Ken Robinson is the third in my series with Dr. Michael Levin where we interview significant people in the history of developmental bioelectricity.

When Michael Levin was an undergrad, he compiled a bibliography of everything that had been written in bioelectricity and sent it to Ken Robinson, a pioneer scientist in the field. Ken looked at it and remarked: “ I was so astonished that it was so absolutely complete and I wondered what had motivated this guy to put this all together.”

In this interview, we speak with someone who inspired Michael Levin further into bioelectricity.

Ken Robinson has a long list of accomplishments in the bioelectricity field, covering the role of electric fields in guiding cell migration and more generally the function of electrogenic epithelia in embryogenesis. This is about a ~1 hour conversation in which he talks about his background, the history of the field, and his time in Lionel Jaffe's lab.

Watch on YouTube. Listen on Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Find the links, papers referenced and timestamps below.

Follow me on X @aasthajs for more on longevity. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Intro

0:38 Ken’s background - From physics to bioelectricity

6:10 Bioelectricity in the era of the “genetic code”

10:27 Ken’s first experiments in ion movement using light

23:25 Proton pump and its significance

26:07 Neurons respond to electrical signals

36:26 Working in Lionel Jaffe’s lab

47:39 Mike Levin as an undergrad

48:49 Membrane potential left-right asymmetry in cells

52:59 Epithelia is powerfully electrogenic

57:49 Advances for bioelectricity

59:27 Underrated people in the field

Papers referenced:

• Mike’s bibliography of bioelectricity papers

• https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/133/9/1657/52955/Early-H-V-ATPase-dependent-proton-flux-is

• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12372302/

Share