On my health stack, you can see my exact collection of non-toxic health products I use (9 categories including sleep, fitness, clean water, lighting, air quality, non-toxic kitchen). Follow me on X @aasthajs & Instagram @aasthajs for more.

Most of us think hydration means drinking more water. Dr. Gerald Pollack, Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Washington, argues that this misses the bigger question: What is the state of water inside our cells and how do we harness it for energy?

His research suggests water next to biological surfaces behaves differently from water in a glass. He calls it EZ water. It excludes certain particles, carries electrical charge, is more gel-like than liquid, and can act like a battery giving us energy.

Dr. Pollack thinks healthy cells are largely filled with this EZ water. When cells lose it, they lose function. He thinks severe loss may be part of cancer.

Given the special properties of water, hydrating our cells is not merely about drinking more water. It requires a proper understanding of the properties of cellular water, and what stimulates it. So the most important question is: How does cellular water work and how best to hydrate our cells?

Below are the key takeaways from my podcast with Dr. Gerald Pollack, the science behind them, and what I would actually do with it. Because his work is controversial, I’ve also included what’s established, what’s disputed, and what critics say, based on my own follow-up research.

Premium subscribers also get 3 bonus clips that didn’t make the episode: Pollack on Gilbert Ling, membrane pumps and ion channels, and what he thinks the cell membrane actually does.

In This Bonus Takeaways I Cover:

1. Why 99% of the molecules in your body are water, and why Pollack thinks biology underestimates it

2. What EZ water actually is and how it might power our health

3. Why an exclusion zone forms: Pollack’s H₃O₂ explanation vs. the critics. And Gilbert Ling’s model of water

4. How light charges EZ water and why infrared matters most

5. Where Pollack thinks EZ water exists inside your cells

6. How cells use the shift from structured water to liquid water to do work

7. Why Pollack thinks cancer cells are severely “dehydrated”

8. Practical protocols to build EZ water and energy:

   1. Drinking water, deuterium-depleted water, and why deuterium may matter

   2. Why Pollack is so interested in fresh plant juice

   3. Sunlight and infrared light

   4. Red light therapy and sauna for EZ water

   5. Grounding and the electrical mechanism Pollack proposes

   6. Turmeric, holy basil and ghee: what his lab found

   7. Hyperbaric oxygen, PEMF, FSM and magnets

9. What depletes EZ water, including anesthetics and his unpublished Wi-Fi experiment

Plus 3 bonus clips that didn’t make the episode:

1. Where Pollack agrees and disagrees with Gilbert Ling

2. Why he doesn’t think membrane pumps and ion channels explain the cell’s electrical state

3. What he thinks the cell membrane actually does

These podcast conversations are dense. In the bonus takeaways, I pull out the most important ideas, explain the science in plain English, add the critical context, and turn it into practical takeaways you can actually use.

In about 10 minutes, you get the key insights from the full episode without having to piece them together yourself. Premium subscribers get these takeaways for every episode, my own daily protocols, and direct email access to me.

If you want the practical version of what these scientists are saying, plus the evidence for and against it, become a premium subscriber.

Subscribe now

Read more

“Water is actually at the center of all biological activity. It’s not peripheral, it’s absolutely central.”

“If you have a minor lack of EZ water, you have dysfunction. If you have a major lack of EZ water, you have pathology. If you have a serious loss of EZ water, it’s cancer.” — Dr. Gerald Pollack

Most biology textbook assume that the water in our body serves a background function in health. Water is discussed as a solvent in which DNA, proteins, and other organelles float around.

But what if a large portion of the energy in our body is coming from the water in our cells? And what if a disturbance to the structure of this water in our body can cause cancer and other diseases?

Dr. Gerald Pollack is a Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Washington, and is one of the few brilliant minds studying the importance of water in our cells. He says that water is not the background. It is doing the work. Water is a battery that is providing us energy.

Dr. Pollack also rejects the idea that the water in our cells is the same liquid water we drink. He says the water inside of us is more like a gel, think jelly-like. Pollack calls this “EZ water” or “Exclusion-Zone water”. Some others call it Structured Water.

The most important point he makes is that all healthy cells have this EZ Water. A lack of EZ water is a hallmark of disease, including cancer. This is why cancer cells have a low electrical potential, it’s the lack of this negatively charged EZ water that causes it.

If he is right, the question to ask is, how do we maintain and build EZ Water in our cells? Dr. Pollack goes into many free tips on how to do so in the podcast. In particular, we discuss the impact of sunlight, grounding, magnets, sauna, deuterium-depleted water, and more on the EZ Water in our cells.

“If you can implement procedures that build EZ water, you ought to be able to reverse the cancer.” — Dr. Gerald Pollack

What we discuss in this episode:

1. How 99% of the molecules in our body are water molecules, and how water is not just a background solvent.

2. What EZ water is, and how it gives us energy.

3. The role of infrared light and sunlight on water in our cells.

4. Why every cancer cell is dehydrated.

5. What builds EZ water: sun, sauna, red light, grounding, juicing, deuterium depleted water, turmeric, holy basil and ghee.

6. The effect of Hyperbaric oxygen, PEMF and magnets on EZ water.

7. The link between dementia, other diseases, and EZ water.

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

If you wish to receive bonus takeaways from each podcast episode, and my detailed practical protocols, you can become a premium subscriber. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

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

Check out my health stack of the exact non-toxic health products I use. For the full collection of 500+ health products curated by me, see Health Stacked.

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

00:00 Water in our cells is central to every disease
00:38 Why almost nobody in biology studies water
01:18 99% of your molecules are water. So why is it treated as filler?
03:41 What water is actually doing inside a cell
07:44 Gilbert Ling, and the book that made his students say all of biology is wrong
11:25 The experiment that started structured water research
14:09 Why cellular water behaves more like a gel than a liquid
16:29 The moment they realized water is a battery
18:29 What charges the water battery, and it isn't food
19:43 Is all the water in your cells this kind of water?
23:46 Why he says we shouldn't even call it water
24:57 Does energy actually come from ATP?
27:23 If ATP isn't the fuel, what is it doing there?
30:38 What every cancer cell has in common
33:47 Free things that rebuild the structure of your cellular water
34:48 Turmeric, holy basil and ghee: what his lab found when they tested them
35:11 Morning sun, red light, saunas and grounding
36:22 Hyperbaric oxygen, and how he went looking for it
37:26 PEMF, FSM, and the magnet result that surprised him
41:42 Do WiFi routers shrink the water in your cells?
43:47 The dementia case & water connection
46:32 His answer to the strongest criticism of his work
51:13 Healers, water memory, and the paper he's about to publish
54:36 What anesthesia does to the water in your cells
55:07 What changes if he turns out to be right
57:30 One thing behind almost every disease?
59:07 Why he thinks water drives volcanoes and earthquakes

For premium subscribers, I will be releasing highlights and practical takeaways from this conversation with Dr. Gerald Pollack, so if you want those, please consider upgrading.

Related Posts / Podcasts:

For decades, biology thought that our genes would predict disease and health outcomes. And that the ability to alter our genes or create genetic-based medicine would be the end to all diseases. The Human Genome Project began in 1990 and was declared complete in 2003, with exactly this dream in mind. The idea was that if we are able to sequence the entire genome, we will be able to map genetic defects to diseases, and find the cure to all diseases. As Denis Noble puts it:

“The promise was that by 2010, ten years later, if you had a cancer, you would go to your GP, show him your DNA sequence, and he would prescribe you the right medication.”

This dream hasn’t held up.

Denis Noble, one of the foremost figures in systems biology, has been arguing that we have wasted the last 70 years in biology chasing this genetic dream. He says our health does not reside in our genes. He is the author of several popular science books including The Music of Life and Dance to the Tune of Life, that have altered the perspective of many in the field, including mine.

Denis says that instead of being myopically focused on genes, we should study functional networks in biology. If we have the wrong theories and conceptual frameworks around disease, developing treatments is going to always lead to dead-ends.

I recently released a podcast with Denis Noble, going in depth into all of this. This post is a companion to the episode, covering practical and bonus takeaways.

This was my 2nd time interviewing Denis Noble, and the first was in conjunction with Michael Levin.

In This Bonus Takeaways I Cover:

1. Why your genes are a CD and not the CD player

2. Why genes (polygenic risk scores) fail to predict who gets cancer, heart disease, or Alzheimer’s

3. Why gene therapy applies to roughly 4% of disease, and why it is not the solution for most chronic diseases

4. How your behavior and environment may be passed to your children without any change to your DNA

5. Why Denis Noble says your mother’s egg cell carries as much information as your entire genome

6. Why chasing a single optimal biomarker misunderstands how the body works

7. What our cells are doing to repair our DNA right now

8. Why a cancer behaves like an organism growing inside us

9. The heart drug that exists today because a team stopped looking for genes

These podcast conversations are dense with insight. In these bonus takeaways, I pull out the most important ideas from each episode, explain the science in plain language, and turn it into clear, practical steps you can use right away. 10 minutes with one of these will leave you smarter about how your body works, and with something you can change about your health starting today.

Subscribe now

Read more

Michael Levin is a researcher at Tufts University who has made massive contributions to the field of bioelectricity. He is one of the most fascinating thinkers working today, known for the radical idea that goal-seeking intelligence isn't unique to brains but operates at every level of biology, from cells to tissues to whole organisms. He draws on computer science, cybernetics, philosophy, and biology to see the body as a collective of problem-solving agents.

More recently, he has turned to the question of why we age. His theories bring a genuinely different perspective to the field, one that locates the cause of aging not in damage or genes, but in a loss of purpose at the cellular level. In this essay, I break down the theory he puts forth in a recent paper called Aging as a Loss of Goal-Directedness: An Evolutionary Simulation and Analysis Unifying Regeneration with Anatomical Rejuvenation.1

Development as a shared goal of the cellular collective

We all start life as a single cell. This single cell starts to rapidly divide. Groups of cells have to come together to produce organs, tissues, and body parts to give us the shape we eventually get. How do cells know how to construct a liver or a kidney or a heart? This question belongs to the area of morphology, meaning shape. In other words, how do cells know what shape to take on? We still don’t have good answers to this question.

What does seem clear is that morphology is a job that requires a group of cells or the “cellular collective” to work together. After all, for specific organs and body structures to take shape, it is a collective of cells that have to band together to do the work.

If you are in the camp that is comfortable with providing some agency to cells, you would say that cells possess the intelligence to come together and help in our development - to go from single cell to embryo to baby to toddler to teenager to adult. During this entire growth phase, the collective of cells come together to accomplish the common goal of development. In order to do so, they exchange information using biochemical, biophysical, bioelectrical and other signals. These signals are information exchanged between cells to collaborate smoothly in our development.

Let’s go with the analogy of a basketball team whose shared mission is to win the NBA. The players come together and exchange information through language, gestures, and other signals to move towards their goal of winning the NBA. Our cells too have languages they use to accomplish their shared goal of development.

What happens when cells have completed their goal of development, aka we are fully developed adults? What binds these cells together once the goal of the cellular collective is accomplished? Do cells now begin to disband? Is this where aging begins? Once the basketball team has won the NBA, do some players start to disband? Some consider leaving the team for a new one. Does this begin the degeneration process?

Subscribe now

Mike Levin’s radical new theory of aging

Michael Levin’s new theory proposes that aging begins once cells have achieved their common goal of development. Without this shared goal, they no longer have a higher guiding goal to band together. You start to see degeneration and loss of information sharing between cells, manifesting as aging.

After cells have completed development, there is “informational dead end of completing one’s mission and not having a new setpoint toward which to strive.”

“primary new proposal here is that complex goal-driven systems can experience a kind of intrinsic disorganization after they have met their goal. In the absence of strong effort toward targets in morphospace, the cellular collective begins to disband, giving way to systemic disease states such as degeneration and cancer the inevitable outcome of a body that increasingly becomes a group of individual cells, not a unified higher-order morphogenetic agent.”

The problem is that post development, the main job of cells is maintenance and repair. However, Levin says that evolution taught cells to develop, but didn’t teach cells to be good at maintenance.

“organisms learned during evolution with development as the primary goal; once they reached that goal, we observed that they don't regenerate by themselves and slowly show signs of morphological deterioration, e.g., aging. In this sense, aging can be seen primarily as a loss of goal-directedness, the goal of development being different from the goal of maintenance of the anatomy over timescales exceeding development.”

My question to Mike is: why would evolution not teach skills to be good at maintenance?

Levin’s theory explains why self-regenerating animals don’t age

This theory also explains why organisms like planaria that are constantly in growth or regeneration mode have very long lifespans. Because if you are constantly growing, cells always have a shared developmental goal to strive towards. The process of disbanding and going your own way (aging) doesn’t occur much.

“Our model predicts that indeterminate growth patterns (or regeneration) should correlate with minimal aging phenotypes, as persistent morphogenetic goals would prevent the loss of anatomical homeostasis goal that characterizes aging. This aligns with observations of negligible senescence and extreme longevity in species like lobsters, certain sharks, planaria for continuous regeneration, and some trees and fungi that maintain continuous growth throughout their lifespans.”

But don’t we have regeneration and repair as well?

Levin argues that post development, while we do have regeneration at the local tissue level, there is no higher order mission of developing the embryo that bands ALL the cells together. When we’re an embryo we strive towards the global goal of building the organism. Post development, the global goal is complete. Yes, cells still have local goals of tissue regeneration at the local level, but what is binding the entire organism together? What is the goal of ALL the cells that brings them together?

After development, there's a void at the top. No mission. No shared goal. Just cells doing their individual jobs, slowly drifting apart.

Multi-competency architecture: Your body solves problems at every scale

Understanding Mike Levin’s concept of “multi-competency architecture” will add to the explanation. Multi-competency architecture is Levin's term for the fact that your body solves problems at every scale. Molecules fix molecular problems. Cells fix cell problems. Tissues fix tissue problems. Organs fix organ problems. During development, all these scales are aligned toward one shared mission: build the body. After development, each scale keeps doing its local job, but there's no longer a mission uniting them all.

“Another important aspect of biology, so far neglected in the models of aging is multiscale competency. Biological systems implement an architecture in which context-sensitive problem-solving operates across various levels, from molecular networks to individual cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and even collective groups such as swarms. This structure allows biological entities to solve problems within specific domains and problem spaces relevant to each scale (metabolic, physiological, anatomical, and behavioral state spaces), contributing to the overall adaptability and resilience of life.^”

This theory argues that current aging theories neglect the idea of multi-scale architecture which is critical to understand cellular goals. Post development, while cells may maintain regenerative goals at the local level for a while, there is no shared mission that unites them across local scales at the organismal scale.

In-silico simulation

Mike Levin’s lab built a computer simulation to test this theory. They created virtual organisms made of cells on a grid. Each cell has a tiny neural network, think of it as the cell’s brain, that reads the states of its neighboring cells and decides what to do. Every cell shares the same “DNA” (the same neural network weights), just like every cell in your body shares the same genome. But each cell behaves differently because it’s reading different neighbors.

They used an evolutionary algorithm to train these virtual organisms to grow a smiley face pattern from scratch, purely through local cell-to-cell communication. No central controller. No master blueprint. Cells just talk to their neighbors and self-assemble the pattern. Think of it as a simulation of embryonic development.

Once the smiley face was fully built, they let the simulation keep running. The cells kept doing their thing, reading neighbors, updating states, but there was no longer a goal to work toward. Development was complete.

The smiley face slowly fell apart. Eyes blurred. The mouth distorted. Features disappeared. And this happened with zero damage introduced. No genetic mutations. No cellular noise. No external stress. The morphological decline was purely a consequence of the system running past its developmental goal. Aging emerged on its own.

They then tested whether adding damage, things like communication errors between cells, genetic corruption, or reduced cellular competency, would accelerate the decline. It did. All of these made aging worse. But none of them caused it. Even with perfectly functioning cells, aging still happened. In their model, the damage we associate with aging were accelerants, not the root cause.

In my mind, this is the most surprising implication. Most of us tend to think of aging as damage accumulation. But in Mike’s model, aging happens whether there is a damage or not. The damage merely accelerates aging.

Do we all have dormant regenerative potential?

Maybe the most surprising finding from the simulation: even after an organ completely disappeared from the virtual organism, the surrounding tissue still carried a memory of where that organ used to be. The spatial information persisted, like a ghost of the lost structure encoded in the neighboring cells.

This means the blueprint doesn’t vanish when the structure degrades. It goes dormant.

And in biology, we see hints of this. Salamanders regrow entire limbs. Planaria regenerate whole bodies from tiny fragments. The information to rebuild is clearly stored somewhere in the tissue. Levin’s model suggests that humans might retain similar latent information. We just lack the signals to reactivate it.

The cells already have the construction manual. They ran it once during embryonic development. The program is still in the DNA. What’s missing isn’t the instructions. It’s the trigger to re-execute them. My question to Mike: Why don’t we have this trigger?

Going back to the basketball analogy. The players who won the championship are still elite athletes. They still know how to play. They’re just sitting at home without a game to play.

What does this mean for regenerative therapies?

The simulation also tested different strategies for restoring lost organs. The most effective approach wasn’t telling individual cells what to become. It was providing contextual information, the correct relationship between a cell and its neighbors.

This makes sense when you think about how development works. A cell doesn’t know it should be a liver cell in isolation. It knows it should be a certain type given what its neighbors are doing. Development is a relational program. So regeneration needs tissue-level and relational signals.2

In the simulation, resetting damaged cells to an early developmental state and letting them re-read their neighbors was far more effective than forcing cells into a specific identity. You’re not rebuilding the organ. You’re recreating the conditions under which the organ originally built itself.

This is exactly what Levin’s experimental bioelectricity work is exploring outside of this simulation. Cells communicate through voltage gradients, electrical signals that encode tissue-level patterns. His lab has already shown that manipulating these bioelectric patterns in frogs can induce eye formation in places eyes don’t normally grow. The cells had the program to build an eye all along. They just needed the right contextual signal.

The implication for anti-aging: instead of chasing individual types of molecular damage, senescent cells, oxidative stress, telomere shortening, the deeper lever might be restoring the tissue-level signaling patterns that give cells a shared goal. Not fixing the parts, but restoring the mission.

One way to put it is that aging begins once cells complete their mission of development. So what if we could reverse aging by restoring a common mission?

Regenerative medicine is about getting the band back together and giving them a new season.

Follow me on X @aasthajs & Instagram @aasthajs as I parse through the snake-oil in longevity. If my work is useful, become a premium subscriber.

Browse my health stack across 12+ categories (sleep, fitness, non-toxic kitchen, clean water, skincare, diagnostics, lighting).

For the full collection of 500+ health products curated by me, see Health Stacked.

Share

Related Posts:

“The Selfish Gene is written brilliantly. It just happens to be basically incorrect.”

“It’s not the DNA that determines what is passed on to the next generation. It is the living cell.”

“Your genes are like a CD. Studying the CD itself will tell you nothing about the music.”

— Dr. Denis Noble

For 70 years we have been told a single story about biology: that our genes are a blueprint, a program running our lives from the inside, and that if we could just read the code we would cure disease. Denis Noble, the Oxford physiologist who built the first working mathematical model of the heart, has spent decades arguing that this story is wrong. Not that genes do not matter, but that they are not the thing in charge.

Dr. Noble’s point is that genes are a database the living cell draws on, not the program running the show. The proteins our DNA codes for do not decide what we do with them, any more than the pipes of an organ decide what the organist plays. The causation happens at the level of the network, the whole living system, not the gene.

He argues this is why the Human Genome Project never delivered the cures we were promised in 1999, and why the polygenic scores meant to predict who gets cancer or heart disease do not actually work when put to the test. He explains how a living cell corrects its own DNA errors with an accuracy no chemical process can match, how traits can be inherited without any change to the DNA at all, and why the mother’s egg cell may carry as much information about who we are as our entire genome.

Dr. Noble is one of the founding figures of systems biology, the man Nature asked to review the book declaring the genome is not the blueprint for life. He has debated Richard Dawkins directly, and as he puts it, if he is right, the selfish gene has had evolution backwards for over fifty years.

What we discuss in this episode:

1. Why the Human Genome Project never delivered the cures we were promised in 1999.

2. Why polygenic scores fail to predict who gets cancer, heart disease, or Alzheimer’s.

3. Dr. Noble’s long-running clash with Richard Dawkins and the selfish gene.

4. Why he says evolution itself works nothing like we were taught.

5. Why purpose and intelligence run all the way down, from the immune system to a predator chasing its prey.

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

Bonus practical takeaways from this conversation on How to Think About Health Beyond Your Genes here.

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

Check out my health stack of the exact non-toxic health products I use. For the full collection of 500+ health products curated by me, see Health Stacked.

I am Aastha from Live Longer World and this episode was co-hosted with Cameron Borg of Ricci Flow Nutrition.

All other platforms: here

Bonus practical takeaways from this conversation:

Timestamps:

00:00 The Selfish Gene Is Just Not Correct
00:21 What Are Functional Networks, Really?
02:09 Genes Build the Muscles, But Don't Move Them
09:42 Your Genes Are a CD, Not the CD Player
12:11 Can Your DNA Predict Your Disease?
14:23 If Not Genes, How Do We Find Cures?
18:18 Then Does Gene Therapy Even Work?
21:32 Why Scientists Can't Let the Paradigm Go
24:08 What Darwin and Lamarck Actually Said
31:42 Do Animals Choose? Darwin Thought So
38:07 The Finite Monkeys Problem With Evolution
45:15 Inheritance Without Changing Your DNA
49:31 How Do You Actually Reproduce Denis Noble?
50:49 Is the Selfish Gene Right From Evolution's View?
54:45 Answering Jerry Coyne: Isn't DNA the Recipe?
59:51 Who Wrote the Genetic Code?
1:08:22 The Problem of Form: You Can't Get It From Genes
1:12:01 The Mitochondria Accident That Made Complex Life
1:13:05 Why Big Life Needs a Heart
1:17:54 Why Mars Is a Pipe Dream
1:18:45 Mike Levin and the Alignment of the Body
1:21:29 What Does Denis Disagree With Mike Levin On?
1:24:59 The Biggest Taboo: Purpose in Biology
1:27:35 Is Consciousness Just Expensive Energy?
1:28:55 What Your Immune System Knows
1:42:01 How Birds at Altitude Prove the Point
1:44:29 Final Thoughts: Life Is More Interesting Than You Think

Previous Episode with Denis Noble & Michael Levin:

Share

Subscribe now

Dr. Moore-Ede discovered the master clock in the human brain and spent over two decades on the Harvard Medical School faculty. He has spent 50+ years studying circadian biology and is the author of The Light Doctor. I recently released a podcast episode with him. This post is the companion to the episode: every key idea explained simply, and what to actually do about it.

In This Bonus Takeaways, I Cover:

1. Why the LED bulbs in your home may be fueling cancer

2. Why melatonin is not the sleep hormone you think it is

3. How there is no blue light in nature after sunset, but your bulbs are full of it

4. The one specific blue your body clock runs on, and how LEDs get it wrong!

5. Why the red and infrared your cells need for energy are missing from every LED

6. Why banning the incandescent bulb was a mistake

7. Why avoiding the sun may be shortening your life, not protecting it

8. Why “night owls” are a myth

9. Why living on the wrong side of a time zone raises your risk of cancer

10. Why your kids are going short-sighted, and the light that prevents it

11. Which blue-light glasses actually work (most block the wrong blue)

12. The exact lighting changes to make, morning to night, to align your circadian health and prevent disease risk

Subscribe now

Read more

“Breast cancer as an example. A very rare disease, back before Edison invented the light bulb”

“We live in, junk light, essentially. It’s just like junk food.”

Breast and prostate cancer are linked to the LED lighting that constantly flood our homes and office spaces. So are heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

Dr. Martin Moore-Ede has spent his career understanding how different lighting affects us, and in particular how LED lighting harms human health. He discovered the master clock in the human brain, the suprachiasmatic nucleus, the tiny structure that tells every cell in our body whether it’s day or night, and he has studied circadian systems for 50 years. He says LED lighting is the "tobacco of our time, and that we now live in “junk light, just like junk food.”

LED lighting couldn’t be further removed from sunlight, which humans evolved under for millions of years. LEDs are also very different from their previous counterpart, the incandescent bulb, which was much closer in spectrum to sunlight.

The problem worsens when we use LEDs at night, because they suppress melatonin, which is not just a sleep hormone but a powerful antioxidant and repair signal.

Dr. Moore-Ede also argues we have the sun backwards. Fear of skin cancer has driven us indoors at a cost of roughly one hundred other deaths for every one it prevents. Avoiding the sun is worse than getting skin cancer!

I feel strongly about this episode because getting more sunlight and switching my lighting were the cheapest health intervention I have ever made, and have had the biggest impact on my health, sleep, and mood.

“This is time to take lighting into your own hands, and it’s a huge thing you can do for your health.” — Dr. Martin Moore-Ede

What we discuss in this episode:

1. Why breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, and diabetes all track with how much LED light we’re exposed to, especially at night.

2. Why melatonin isn’t the sleep hormone we think it is, and how it hunts down cancer cells while we sleep.

3. Why the people who got the most sun lived the longest, despite getting more skin cancer.

4. Why the type of blue in our LED bulbs is the exact wrong one for our body clock.

5. The red and infrared our mitochondria need for energy, and how LEDs contain none of it.

6. How living on the wrong side of a time zone raises our risk of cancer and heart disease.

7. Why wearing sunglasses on our morning walk defeats the whole purpose.

8. Which blue-light-blocking glasses actually work, and why most block the wrong blue.

See below for timestamps and products I use for better circadian lighting.

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

Bonus practical takeaways from this conversation on How to Fix Your Indoor Lighting for Better Circadian Rhythm here.

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

Check out my health stack of the exact non-toxic health products I use. For the full collection of 500+ health products curated by me, see Health Stacked.

All other platforms: here

Bonus practical takeaways from this conversation:

Products I use for better circadian rhythm

• VivaRays 4 in 1 Blue Blockers and UV transmitters: VivaRays makes 3 in 1 blue blockers that you can easily switch from day to evening to night. As we discussed in the episode, blocking blue at night is critical for preventing cancer risk.

  • Use my link https://vivarays.com/livelongerworld or discount code LIVELONGERWORLD for 10% off

• Healthy Home Shop Circadian Bulbs: The Circadian bulbs have 3 light settings that easily switch spectrum from daylight (full-spectrum) to evening to night (blue-light free). This is exactly what you want for mimicking the sun’s wavelengths indoors. And no WiFi required.

  • Use my link https://thehealthyhome.shop/livelongerworld for 10% off

• Daylight Computer No-blue screen: I love reading on my Daylight! They have zero blue light and are flicker-free. It’s such a peaceful reading experience, without causing you any eye strain.

  • Use my link https://buy.daylightcomputer.com/livelongerworld for $25 off

• Chroma Circadian-Aligned Desk Lamp: The Sky portal desk lamp is a great circadian lamp for your workspace. It delivers bright light during the day, and red light as evening sets in.

  • Use my link https://getchroma.co/photonsfromaastha and code LIVELONGERWORLD for 10% off

For all the Lighting & EMF products I use, see my health stack

For the full collection of Lighting & EMF products I’ve curated, see Health Stacked

Timestamps:

00:00 LED Light Is the Tobacco of Our Time
01:33 The Connection Between Cancer and LED Lighting
04:05 Why Hormone-Driven Cancers Are Hit the Hardest
07:49 Is There a Link to Glioblastoma?
08:14 Why Melatonin Is Not the Sleep Hormone
11:40 There Is No Blue Light in Nature After Sunset
15:58 We Live in Junk Light, Just Like Junk Food
17:21 What Wavelengths Are LEDs Actually Missing?
20:44 The Infrared We Lost When We Banned Incandescents
22:52 The Two Ways LEDs Are Harming You
30:05 Health Stacked
30:56 White vs Yellow Light: Why It's the Wrong Question
33:59 Lux, Lumens, and a 100-Year-Old Mistake
38:27 What LED Light Does to Your Heart and Immune System
40:44 Why Regularity Matters as Much as the Light Itself
43:07 The Camping Study That Reset Everyone's Body Clock
45:26 The Longevity Data Is Mind-Blowing
49:56 Sunlight vs Skin Cancer: We Have It Backwards
53:03 The 450 vs 480 Spike Almost No One Gets Right
57:38 The Ancient Greeks Had No Word for Blue
59:52 Why Life Evolved to Run on Blue Light
01:03:13 Melanopsin: Your Body's Blue Detector
01:08:28 Do Melatonin Supplements Actually Do Anything?
01:10:42 The Hidden Clocks in Every Cell of Your Body
01:12:19 Why the Wrong Side of a Time Zone Can Kill You
01:15:37 Is There Something Special About Dawn?
01:17:12 Light and the Early Onset of Puberty
01:20:53 The Aggressive Kid Who Changed When the Lights Did
01:21:51 Should You Replace Your Windows?
01:24:00 Do not wear sunglasses in the morning!
01:26:44 What About Daytime Lighting?
01:27:41 Do Blue-Light-Blocking Glasses Work at Night?
01:29:33 Why Regulators Refuse to Look at the Evidence
01:31:20 Take Your Lighting Into Your Own Hands

For paid subscribers, I will be releasing highlights and practical takeaways from this conversation with Dr. Moore-Ede, so if you want those, please consider upgrading.

Related Posts:

He's a 97-year-old brain scientist who has spent 50+ years researching the importance of DHA (seafood) for the brain and how the brain won’t work without it. I recently released a podcast episode with him. This post is the companion to the episode: every key idea explained simply, and what to actually do with it.

In This Bonus Takeaways, I Cover:

1. Why it was DHA, not DNA, that built the human brain

2. Why DHA is just as critical for your vision as your brain

3. Why ARA (omega-6) is critical for the brain too, and why it’s wrongly demonized

4. Why ARA is critical in pregnancy

5. Why your body can barely make DHA and ARA from their plant precursors, and what to eat instead

6. Why the official advice to limit fish in pregnancy may be harming babies

7. How seed oils crowd DHA out of your brain, and why they barely existed before WWII

8. Why blindly avoiding saturated fat may be a mistake

9. What a 97-year-old brain scientist actually eats

10. Why grain-fed chicken lost 90% of its brain fat (DHA)

11. Why a fish oil capsule will never replace real fish

12. The theory that your brain runs on light, with DHA as a semiconductor

These conversations are dense with insight, and pulling out what matters most takes real time. That’s why I do it for you. In these bonus takeaways, I pull out the most important ideas from each episode, explain the science in plain language, and turn it into clear, practical steps you can use right away. 10 minutes spent reading these will leave you smarter about how your body works, and practical steps to improve your health starting today.

Paid subscribers get these takeaways for every episode, my own daily protocols, and direct email access to me. If you want to actually use what these scientists are sharing, become a paid subscriber.

Read more

 “We’ve actually been losing brain size, and with it, mental ill health has been escalating.”

“Homo sapiens had to be evolving in contact with fresh water, but more optimally with the estuarine regions where they had both fresh water to drink and where they had abundant seafood.”

Unless we pay attention to the importance of the brain and its nutrition, quotes, “We will become a race of morons.” - Dr. Michael Crawford

The human brain is smaller today than it was twenty thousand years ago. Not metaphorically, but measurably, by about the volume of a tennis ball, and it is still shrinking. Professor Michael Crawford has spent fifty years explaining why, and his answer is not genetic. The answer is the lack of a single fat - DHA, an omega-3, found in seafood.

DHA makes up the signaling architecture of every neuron we own, and the brain is so dependent on it that it has used nothing else for this job in six hundred million years of evolution. No DHA, no brain.

What Dr. Crawford has argued since 1972, across more than three hundred papers is that it was not our genes that built our extraordinary brains, but DHA drawn from the sea. It's why, he says, our ancestors could only have become human beside the water, where DHA was abundant, and why the modern retreat from seafood toward seed oils and processed food maps almost exactly onto rising rates of depression, autism, and dementia.

He also makes the case that DHA behaves like a semiconductor inside our head, that the official advice to limit fish in pregnancy has harmed generations, and that the dementia people fear in old age may be set in motion before they are born.

What makes the conversation land is that Dr. Crawford is 97 years old, lucid, and still doing research. He clearly knows something about the brain - the proof is in the pudding! He has authored the popular book The Shrinking Brain: Mental Health is affected by poor Brain Nutrition, has advised the WHO and FAO, and holds Japan’s Order of the Rising Sun for this exact body of work. He has been warning about this since 1972, when his own book on the subject prompted the line that we risk becoming "a race of morons" if we keep ignoring how we feed the brain. The unsettling part is how long this evidence has been sitting in plain view while the people who write nutrition guidelines have looked the other way.

“The brain won’t work without DHA. That’s just full stop.” — Professor Michael Crawford.

What we discuss in this episode:

1. The fat (DHA) your neurons refuse to run without, and how the brain shrinks when the modern diet starves them of it.

2. The evidence that human brains have physically lost mass since the Stone Age, and what changed in our diet.

3. Why Dr. Crawford says the official advice to limit fish in pregnancy is wrong, and harming babies.

4. How seed oils in nearly every processed food crowd out DHA from our brain cells.

5. The case that Alzheimer’s and dementia may be set in motion in the womb, even before we’re born!

6. The wrongly demonized fatty acid that infant formula still leaves out.

7. Why our ancestors could only have evolved a big brain by living beside the sea.

8. The claim that DHA works like a semiconductor, wiring our neurons to run on light.

9. What Dr. Crawford eats at 97, and the simple seafood rule he lives by.

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

If you wish to receive bonus takeaways from each podcast episode, and my detailed practical protocols, you can become a paid subscriber. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

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

Check out my health stack of the exact non-toxic health products I use. For the full collection of 500+ health products curated by me, see Health Stacked.

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

00:00 The Brain Food We Stopped Eating
00:32 "Your Brain Won't Work Without DHA. That's just full stop"
04:04 It Wasn't DNA That Made Us Human
06:50 How the Eye Built the Brain
08:00 Why Carnivores Are Sharper Than Herbivores
11:35 The Flowering Plant That Invented Pregnancy
14:22 The Placenta: An Organ Built From One Fatty Acid
15:35 Why Arachidonic Acid Is Wrongly Demonized
18:18 More Astrocytes Than Neurons: Who Really Runs the Brain
21:39 Health Stacked
22:38 DHA vs Arachidonic Acid: Two Different Origins
25:21 How the Fetus Hoards DHA and Rejects the Rest
30:31 Are Seed Oils Actually Starving Your Brain?
32:24 Why the FDA is wrong about Fish in Pregnancy
37:50 Do Fish Oil Supplements Work?
44:15 The Lack of Fish in Pregnancy is causing ADHD and Austism
50:10 Why Governments Only Care About Body Size, Not Brains
52:00 "A Race of Morons": The Warning From 1972
55:04 Does Dementia Actually Begin in the Womb?
59:16 Does the Father's Nutrition Matter Too?
59:40 The Importance of Arachidonic Acid that Infant Formula Leaves Out
01:02:24 How Often You Should Actually Eat Seafood
01:04:05 Can Vegetarians and Vegans Get Enough?
01:05:04 Can Genetics Let You Skip Seafood? The India Case
01:08:00 Why Humans Could Only Have Evolved Beside the Sea
01:11:55 Farming the Sea: What Japan Figured Out
01:17:22 The Collapse of DHA in Chicken and Eggs
01:20:52 Why Corn-Fed Everything Is Lower in DHA
01:22:32 The Semiconductor Theory of the Brain, Explained
01:27:20 What Dr. Crawford's Vision Is Like at 97 years old
01:28:39 The Rare Double-DHA Molecule in Your Retina
01:29:23 Where Dr. Crawford Lands on Saturated Fat
01:31:09 His Advice to Young Scientists: Challenge Everything
01:32:07 Closing: Why This Is a Three-Generation Emergency

For paid subscribers, I will be releasing highlights and practical takeaways from this conversation with Dr. Crawford, so if you want those, please consider upgrading.

Subscribe now

Related Episodes / Posts:

I recently released a 2-hour podcast with Dr. Stephanie Seneff that I think is one of the most important conversations I’ve ever had on this channel. This post is the companion to that episode - every key idea explained simply, and what to actually do with it.

Stephanie is a senior research scientist at MIT who has spent the last decade researching deuterium — a heavier version of hydrogen that sits in every glass of water you drink and every bite of food you eat. Most doctors have never heard of it. Medical schools don’t teach it. And Stephanie’s work suggests it may be one of the most important variables in human health.

She’s roughly 10 years ahead of the mainstream on this, and she connects it to exactly why:

• Gut health matters more than anyone realizes, and not for the standard reasons you think

• Most supplements may be harming you more than helping

• Cancer cells may not be broken, but running a cleanup operation

• Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s plaques may be doing something protective

• High-fat diets work for reasons no one in the keto world talks about

The interview gets technical in places. That’s deliberate, I didn’t want to dumb down the science. But I know technical content can be hard to follow in audio form, which is why I write these bonus takeaways. They explain everything important from the episode in plain language and end with practical takeaways on what to actually do with this information.

In This Bonus Takeaways, I Cover:

1. What deuterium is and why your body works so hard to manage it. The short version, explained simply.

2. Why carbs are loading you with more deuterium than humans have ever consumed. And the simple rule of thumb for which foods are highest and lowest in deuterium.

3. How deuterium physically breaks the molecular motors that produce all your energy. The mechanism walked through step by step.

4. The 80% deuterium-depleted fuel your gut bacteria are quietly manufacturing for the rest of your body. This is the section I learned the most from. Almost no one is connecting gut health to deuterium, and it changes how I think about the entire gut health conversation.

5. Why Stephanie stopped taking all supplements and the study that proves her point. The choline bitartrate research is genuinely shocking. Plus why folic acid in prenatal vitamins may be causing autism.

6. The most provocative idea in the entire episode: cancer cells aren’t broken. They’re running a cleanup operation for the deuterium overload that’s quietly driving the chronic disease epidemic. Once you understand this, the Warburg effect makes sense for the first time.

7. Stephanie’s exact daily protocol to reduce deuterium load. Everything she does - the food, the water, the baths, the sunlight.

The full takeaways below are for paid subscribers. Paid subscribers get highlights and takeaways from every episode explained simply, the practical protocols to apply them, my exact daily protocols, and direct email access to me. If you want to actually apply what the scientists on this channel are sharing, become a paid subscriber.

Read more

“Cancer comes about because there is too much deuterium in the mitochondria. And cancer's job is to try to fix that problem.”

“What is it that deuterium depleted water does that helps it to heal the cancer?”

“Cells in the gut make 400 times as much melatonin as the pineal gland, and very few people know this.” - Dr. Stephanie Seneff

There’s a form of hydrogen in every glass of water you drink that Dr. Stephanie Seneff believes is quietly fueling cancer, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. It has never shown up on a single lab test you’ve taken, and few people are talking about it.

It’s called deuterium — a heavier version of hydrogen, the most abundant atom in your body. It’s in every glass of water and every bite of food, and when it builds up in the wrong places, it disrupts the mitochondrial engine your cells run on. Stephanie’s argument is provocative: that cancer cells aren’t malfunctioning but running a metabolic cleanup operation in response to deuterium overload, and that the modern diet - grain-fed meat, processed food, glyphosate-sprayed crops is loading us with more deuterium than any generation in history.

This is a frontier hypothesis, and Stephanie (senior research scientist at MIT, published in PNAS, Frontiers, FASEB) is such an out-of-the-box thinker that it was a delight speaking with her. I came out of this two-hour conversation genuinely surprised at how underrated deuterium research is, and at how much she has worked out that hasn’t been published yet. Several ideas in this episode appear here for the first time.

“I don’t believe in supplements.” — Dr. Stephanie Seneff

This is Stephanie’s second appearance on Live Longer World. Her first, on what glyphosate does to your health, is below.

What we discuss in this episode:

1. What deuterium is and why it’s in everything you eat and drink

2. How deuterium breaks your mitochondria (and why this might be the root of chronic disease)

3. Why cancer might be your body’s repair response, not a malfunction

4. The two supplements Stephanie says you should stop taking immediately

5. The folic-acid-in-pregnancy and autism connection

6. How glyphosate breaks the body's deuterium defense

7. Why she drinks deuterium-depleted water every day (she drinks a brand called Litewater, use code LIVELONGERWORLD for 10% off subscription)

8. Practical steps to reduce your own deuterium load

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

Follow me on X @aasthajs and Instagram @aasthajs for more on longevity. Check out my health stack of the exact non-toxic health products I use.

Bonus practical takeaways from this conversation: How to Reduce Your Deuterium Load.

If you wish to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber. Hope you enjoy the conversation!

All other platforms: here

Timestamps:

0:00 Why deuterium might be the most important molecule you've never heard of
5:09 The hidden reason processed food is wrecking your health
7:25 How deuterium breaks your mitochondria
11:02 Glyphosate stops your body from rationing deuterium (and the osteoporosis link)
19:07 No one is connecting gut health to deuterium, until now
22:45 The two nutrients that help your gut clear deuterium
25:29 Methylation, melatonin, and protecting your mitochondria
33:14 Why melatonin supplements don't actually work
34:08 The two supplements you should stop taking immediately
38:06 How to make your gut produce low-deuterium water
41:12 How glyphosate suppresses your MTHFR gene
43:21 Why folate supplementation is a problem
45:06 "I don't believe in supplements", Stephanie's case against them
46:02 Why she's suspicious of fish oil
47:47 The folic-acid-in-pregnancy and autism connection
52:37 How glyphosate is quietly causing bone problems
56:22 Inflammation is really a deuterium problem
1:01:25 Gerald Pollack's EZ water and how your cells expel deuterium
1:04:59 Why breast milk is low in deuterium
1:09:03 Cancer's real job: repairing your mitochondria (and why chemo may be a mistake)
1:23:14 How deuterium-depleted water may help heal cancer
1:26:57 Deuterium and Parkinson's: how plaque traps it
1:30:37 How to fight Parkinson's
1:33:55 Why Stephanie drinks deuterium-depleted water every day
1:36:37 What glyphosate does to your sulfation system
1:38:38 How grounding reduces deuterium
1:39:42 Jack Kruse on glyphosate and melanin
1:40:08 Are seed oils high in deuterium?
1:45:05 Does where you live (and sunlight) affect your deuterium?
1:47:05 Practical tips to manage your deuterium load

Bonus takeaways from this conversation from Stephanie:

Subscribe now

Introducing Health Stacked

I built the health store I’ve always wanted. Health Stacked is a vetted marketplace of 300+ health and longevity products across 9 categories like sleep, fitness, non-toxic home, lighting & EMF, and more. Products are screened for plastic, PFAS, and 20+ toxins.

Inclusion is 100% merit-based.

For years, I've been searching for a health store like this, and didn't find it, so I built it. Every product has been hand-picked by me. Would love to know what you think!

healthstacked.com

Related Episodes:

“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