Longevity InTime: Autonomous AI Institute. Anti-Aging Digital Health Immortality Transhumanist AI Channel

Remember the "Second Heart" implant from Cyberpunk 2077 that resurrects the player after death? We haven't reached that level yet, but reality is getting pretty close, just less spectacularly and much more quietly. In the US, a woman was implanted with a defibrillator due to Brugada syndrome, a rare genetic disorder in which the heart can suddenly enter a life-threatening arrhythmia. Sometimes without any symptoms. A person can simply go about their day and suddenly find themselves on the brink of cardiac arrest. The implant itself is located inside the body and constantly monitors the heart's rhythm. If a dangerous malfunction occurs, the device automatically delivers an electrical shock and restores normal rhythm. This isn't resurrection after death, but rather preventing the very point of no return. In this story, it's not just the device itself that's important, but how it developed. The disease was long considered predominantly male, making it more difficult to diagnose in other patients. The doctor underwent special training to install a more appropriate device, rather than a standard solution. This is no longer just cookie-cutter medicine, but the adaptation of technology to the individual. And here's where things get interesting. Today, such implants protect against sudden death. Over time, such systems could become not only a therapy but also an enhancement—protection from overload, automatic stabilization, and perhaps even the expansion of the body's capabilities.

Do you believe in this? Tempus AI just launched an AI that predicts 123 cancer biomarkers from a single image. No repeat biopsy. No waiting weeks. Results in 5 minutes. When cancer tissue samples run out, patients face weeks of delays waiting for repeat biopsies - or worse, miss out on critical treatment information entirely. It's called "quantity not sufficient" (QNS). The biopsy doesn't give enough tissue for full molecular testing. So patients wait and the treatment gets delayed. Tempus just solved that with Paige Predict - an AI that analyzes standard tissue slides and predicts which biomarkers are present. Here’s how it works: ▶ 1. Predicts 123 biomarkers across 16 cancer types The AI predicts biomarkers in lung, prostate, breast, and other cancers. Doctors then prioritize which confirmatory tests to run first - maximizing results before tissue runs out. ▶ 2. Results in approximately 5 minutes Traditional molecular profiling takes days or weeks. Paige Predict delivers predictions in about 5 minutes - automatically included in the clinical report. ▶ 3. Built on 200,000+ patient datasets Trained using data from over 200,000 de-identified patient cases. Validated across multiple diverse datasets to ensure accuracy. Since the launch, Tempus has cut tissue waste by 18% and reduced QNS failures by 15%. That means 15% fewer patients waiting weeks for repeat biopsies or missing out on molecular testing entirely. After 25 years in healthtech, I know the best innovations solve daily clinical problems. A cancer patient shouldn't wait weeks for answers when tissue runs out. This solves that. Would you trust AI predictions to guide your cancer testing if it meant getting answers faster?

“I saw my mother off on a plane - she was visiting us for three weeks in San Francisco. I really wish I could rewind time, or at least slow it down. But physics says that reversing time is practically impossible, even in toy models with all their chaos, and here we have all of life with all its diversity. And biology says that aging, that is, time, is inexorable - it will grind everything and everyone down with its "positive entropy production." Life tries to combat this with hypercontrol through "ontogeny repeats phylogeny." Reversing time won't work, nor will fighting aging, but at least the next generation will learn from the mistakes of the previous ones and document it in their DNA. So we live in endless cycles of suffering and learning. And in the middle, our life is between two infinities. All my life, I've wanted, if not to reverse time, then at least to slow it down. It took six years of therapy to learn to sleep at night, not think about death and not worry about how little time there is. Well, how do you learn? Gradually blur these thoughts, so that the fear of time's irreversibility gives you a little space to try to do something about the inevitable - aging and death. Mom waves after security and heads to the gate, and before her eyes is my father, who waved just like that in his ridiculous fur hat and blue scarf at the Yaroslavsky Station eight years ago. My father has been gone for almost three years, but the feeling of nausea from the irreversibility of time never goes away. "Have you ever considered leaving aging behind? And what made you stay?" my colleague asks me. And what should I tell her? Where can I go from it, if it will never leave me and is slowly sharpening its claws? Hug your loved ones from me - it's never clear how much time you have left.” Andrey Tarkhov

The Indian think tank ORF proposes pre-written rules for mind uploading: it wants to protect neural data as a special category, and discuss psychological continuity as a separate right. On April 21, the Indian think tank ORF published an essay on how the state and law should prepare for digital brain modeling technologies. The reason for this was Eon Systems' March demonstration of a simulated fruit fly brain. The author proposes pre-determined discussions on neural data protection, rules for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs)—systems that read brain signals and transmit them to a machine—and the human right to psychological continuity. The latest development here isn't in the Eon fly itself. After the March debate over what constitutes uploading, it became clear that the demonstration had many limitations. The team took an existing map of the fly's brain connections, overlaid it with a very simple neuron model, connected it to a virtual body, and obtained behavior similar to the real one. But the fly's body wasn't scanned, there's no direct recording of all the motor neurons, and such a system doesn't retain long-term memory at all. The new ORF text emphasizes not the strength of this result, but its political implications. If machines become increasingly adept at reconstructing cognitive states from neural signals, the question quickly expands beyond the laboratory. It boils down to who has the right to store, read, and use such data. The author draws a direct analogy with the formula "collect now, reconstruct later": today, a system can extract little from a signal, but tomorrow, the same archive can reveal much more about intentions, emotions, and stable personality traits. From this, ORF assembles a rather rigid vocabulary. Cognitive sovereignty here means that neural data cannot be considered a mere technical trace of a device. It is a sensitive layer of a person, because it can be used to reconstruct decisions, states, and personality traits. Therefore, the text introduces rights to mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity—that is, the preservation of the individual as a continuous system, not one that can be arbitrarily copied or edited. This language isn't just a figment of the imagination: back in 2017, Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno proposed discussing neurotechnology through four new rights, including cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity. Thus, the old debate "is it a copy or are you" has for the first time moved from the philosophical circles into legal language. This isn't yet a draft law, but an analytical text with proposals for future regulations. But ORF is already naming the agencies that will be responsible for this: India's CERT-In, the Department of Biotechnology, and the Defense Research and Development Agency (DRDO). From there, the conversation becomes quite mundane. Should cognitive data be considered a special category? Who is responsible for neural signal leaks? Is it possible to train models on other people's brain data for behavioral profiling? What if the same cognitive system starts working in multiple computing environments simultaneously? We're a long way from actually booting a human being. But legal language almost always emerges before the technology matures. Access regulations, restrictions, property rights, and security requirements emerge first, and then the market and laboratories begin to adapt to them. In the case of digital immortality, this means something simple: for the first time, the topic is seriously entering not only the debate about the future, but also the debate about control over consciousness.

Open AI posted on 20 of l March that their plan to build an AI scientist by 2028, the biggest Russian SberBank on 8 of April announced that it supports similar initiative in Russia https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/69d56d1f9a7947272a452eef Meanwhile Longevity InTime filed 3 patent applications in US before these announcements on fully autonomous longevity research AI institute

EL PAÍS showed how Peter Thiel's cryonics, Marc Andreessen's accelerationism, and the debate over regulation all converge into a single ideology of the techno-elite. On April 18, EL PAÍS English published a column combining cryonics, AI acceleration, nuclear energy, and frustration with environmental and government restrictions into a single political narrative. The logic is the same: death is treated as a technical problem, and regulators as a brake. On April 18, EL PAÍS placed Peter Thiel at the center of this narrative. Here, death is presented not as a limit, but as an engineering challenge. In May 2023, Thiel confirmed in a conversation with Bari Weiss that he had signed up for cryopreservation and formulated a stark position: "We must either defeat death or at least understand why it's impossible." However, he also described cryonics as an ideological gesture rather than a technology in which one can be confident. The author places alongside criticism of the FDA, the American drug regulator, and nuclear regulators, as well as frustration with environmental restrictions and discussions of civilizational stagnation since the 1970s. Greta Thunberg is needed here as a recognizable symbol of the camp demanding a slowdown. The logic is simple: if death becomes a technical challenge, then any institution that slows down experiments, energy, or computation begins to look like a hindrance. This is how EL PAÍS connects the conversation about immortality with the struggle over regulation, energy, and the right of elites to advance technology on their own terms. "We believe in accelerationism... Any slowdown in AI will cost lives," states Marc Andreessen's techno-optimist manifesto, where accelerationism is explicitly presented as the idea of ​​accelerating technology rather than putting new brakes on it. The column then connects this line with a discussion of superhuman AI and Mars: DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis says he's building superhuman AI, while Musk responds by saying he's making humanity a multiplanetary species. From this, EL PAÍS assembles a coherent political agenda: cryonics, AI, Mars, and deregulation must move faster than society, while those who already have the capital and infrastructure want to retain the right to determine acceptable risk.

Old mice lived 10% longer after sharing a bloodstream with young mice. The effect persisted after separation. Parabiosis—the surgical connection of the circulatory systems of two animals—is one of the most impressive experiments in the biology of aging. A study from Duke University showed that 12 weeks of heterochronic parabiosis (an old mouse and a young one) extended the lifespan of old mice by approximately 10%. On a human scale, this is equivalent to a 50-year-old sharing a bloodstream with an 18-year-old for eight years—and gaining an extra eight years of life. At the cellular level, parabiosis radically reduced the epigenetic age of the blood and liver of old mice. Gene expression changed in a direction opposite to aging, particularly in hepatocytes, where mitochondrial electron transport chain genes were restored. Crucially, the effect persisted two months after separation. Complete parabiosis is impossible in humans, but alternatives are already being tested. Injections of young plasma improve memory and learning in old mice. One of the key factors is the protein PF4 (platelet factor 4), which is found in higher concentrations in young blood: it reduces inflammation and reverses cognitive aging. What remains unclear is whether specific proteins in young blood are responsible, or whether the dilution of pro-inflammatory factors in old blood is responsible. Or perhaps the stem cells transferred from a young donor are responsible. The mechanism has not been established, but the results are reproducible. https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/aging-process-slows-when-older-mice-share-circulatory-system-young

Sentcell Claims a Single Injection of Telomere Particles Derived from Immune Cells Extended the Lifespan of Old Mice by 17 Months In March 2026, a preprint from Sentcell, a company led by Professor Alessio Lanna, attracted the attention of the scientific community. The authors claim that a single subcutaneous injection of special particles isolated from CD4+ T cells increased the median lifespan of 20-month-old mice (the equivalent of a 60-year-old human) by 17 months. Some animals lived to 58–60 months—almost twice the biological limit of their species. The work is based on the hypothesis of the immune system as a distribution network for rejuvenation. In 2022, Lanna published in Nature Cell Biology a mechanism by which antigen-presenting cells literally "donate" their telomeres to T cells, preventing their aging. A new preprint expands this process to the entire body: according to the authors, T cells package the acquired telomeres, along with stemness proteins (Wnt5a, Notch1), into specialized extracellular vesicles called Rivers telomeres. Their key feature is the absence of the enzyme GAPDH, which is essential for glycolysis. The authors believe that with age, immune cells switch to glycolysis and stop producing these particles, disrupting the "rejuvenation delivery" system. These claimed results appear anomalous. Rapamycin and severe calorie restriction—the two most reproducible interventions in geroscience—typically yield a 15–25% increase in lifespan. Here, a 70% median increase is claimed with a late, single injection. By comparison, 12-week heterochronic parabiosis (connecting the circulatory systems of young and old mice) produced a rejuvenating signal in hepatocytes and a 10% lifespan extension, but the mechanism was unclear between the young plasma and the cell transfer. Sentcell proposes a more rigorous theory: rejuvenation is mediated by a specific telomere load. The study design is inadequate for the scale claimed. The main survival experiment was conducted in samples of n=10 animals per group. Data on oncogenicity are insufficient, despite the fact that the combination of telomere lengthening and stemness factors is a known cancer risk factor. Furthermore, the recently published full results of RMR1 from the LEV Foundation—1,000 mice, four therapies simultaneously, treatment from 19 months of age—showed that a single dose of damage repair is insufficient; damage accumulates again, requiring cyclical treatments. Sentcell's claim that a single injection "shifted" the survival curve by 50% appears, against this backdrop, to be either a fundamentally different mechanism or a data error. Alessio Lanna is both the founder and CEO of Sentcell and holds patents on the "river" technology—a direct conflict of interest documented in the article itself. The immediate verification process lies below the clinical trials: an independent laboratory must first reproduce the very existence of "rivers" and shift the survival curve without the participation of the patent authors. Until then, talk of human trials in 2025–2026 is premature. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.11.14.688504v1.full

• Phantom Neuro has received approval for the first trials of a subcutaneous implant in the remaining arm after amputation that reads muscle signals and should give the prosthesis more natural control without brain surgery.

• PeptAI demonstrates how agent-based biology is attempting to transform peptide drug discovery into a rigorous screening process: nine consecutive screenings and the transfer of surviving candidates to an external lab. https://x.com/peptai_/status/2045103341332582542 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kzi3OuwAwMy1vlKkcLLvxdd4YszMag41/view?usp=drivesdk https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41038059/ https://x.com/BioProtocol/status/2033229362959462867

• Retro presented a roadmap for its fight against aging at ARDD: it wants to replace some cells with younger ones, and is attempting to rewrite the rejuvenation tools themselves using AI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB2G1R7ATJw https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2026/04/remaining-challenges-in-the-development-of-partial-reprogramming-therapies/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2026.01.007

• Following the sale of CrossBridge Bio to Eli Lilly for up to $300 million, Michael Torres offers VITARNA token holders the same path from a university project to a deal with Big Pharma. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/lilly-to-acquire-crossbridge-bio/

• Nautilus took on a study of 15,836 ancient genomes from Western Eurasia and shifted the conversation from gene evolution to the evolution of cultural systems. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10358-1 https://nautil.us/humans-evolving-one-way-or-another-1279967/

Following the death of Alcor employee and cryonics historian Mike Perry, the organization deployed its emergency response team, transported him to its center, and reported cryopreservation. On April 15, Perry, who had worked at Alcor since the late 1980s, was involved in a pedestrian accident and did not recover after resuscitation. In a post about his death dated April 15, Alcor stated that its DART team was on standby, transported him to its Scottsdale facility, and performed cryopreservation. An independent technical report on the quality of the procedure has not yet been released. Perry himself is important in this story. He spent nearly forty years monitoring Alcor patients, keeping journals, maintaining liquid nitrogen vessels, and writing a history of the field. In a 2014 update to his text on early cryonics failures, he formulated his mission as follows: "These disasters need to be documented, if only to make such mistakes less frequent." This phrase has practical implications. Perry wrote about early cryonics failures precisely as a chain of mundane glitches. The body remains warm for a long time, the team is late, the hospital delays access, transport is delayed, and then arguing about personality preservation becomes much more difficult. In March, The Guardian's analysis of a film about cryonics reduced the topic to the same point: the minutes during which the brain can still be protected from decay. Therefore, Alcor specifically describes DART, its full-time mobile team, as a standby, stabilization, and transport team. On this page, the organization writes that it assembled an internal DART team in 2023. Perry's case tests precisely this layer. According to Alcor, he was declared dead on April 15 at 9:59 AM. DART was already on standby, after which he was quickly transported to the center. Alcor co-founder Linda Chamberlain described the day this way: "Everyone at Alcor did everything possible to ensure Mike received the best possible cryopreservation." It's a powerful statement, but for now, it's only Alcor's own. There's no public report detailing the timing, temperature, quality of perfusion (i.e., the pumping of the cryoprotective solution through the vessels), or a list of interventions. Without it, it's impossible to verify how long it took before cooling began and how well the entire team—resuscitation, transport, and the lab—worked. In cryonics, this is no small matter. It's during this window that the brain loses structure due to ischemia, or lack of blood flow and oxygen. So the news here is more than just an obituary. On April 15, Alcor had to implement its own route on a man who had cared for its patients for nearly forty years. Days like these show cryonics at its most mundane, as a work of people, machines, and protocols that must deliver on time even on the worst possible day.