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

The Vatican's Theological Commission spent three years writing a 58-page document against transhumanism, and on March 4, it was published with the approval of Pope Leo XIV, calling the desire to defeat aging "naive and arrogant conceit." The document is titled "Quo vadis, humanitas?"—"Where are you going, humanity?"—and was written by a subcommission of the International Theological Commission from 2022 to 2025. All 30 members voted in favor, and the Pope approved it on February 9. The text is timed to coincide with the 60th anniversary of Gaudium et Spes, the constitution that, in 1965, first turned the Catholic Church toward the modern world. The commission defines transhumanism and immediately qualifies it: "Transhumanism is a movement that believes that humans can and should utilize the resources of science and technology to transcend physical and biological limitations, particularly aging and even death, by reshaping the human being. In its utopian pursuit of immanent immortality, transhumanism can be interpreted as a manifestation of naive and arrogant arrogance." Further on, 58 pages of analysis. The document attacks four targets. The body. The commission describes how cosmetic surgery and pharmacology have created a cult of the ideal body. People cease to be their own bodies and begin to own them—as a blank for remaking. "The ideal body is exalted; the real body is not truly loved because it is a source of limitations, fatigue, and aging." This leads to the conclusion: if the body is a material, then aging is a manufacturing defect, and death is a bug. The commission says no. The body is a gift, not a project. "Neo-Gnosticism." This is the document's main theological label. Gnostics were an early Christian sect that believed the material world was a prison for the spirit. The commission asserts that transhumanism repeats the same pattern: uploading consciousness into a computer = escaping the body, because the body is declared a meaningless medium. "Knowledge without a body, without boundaries, without connections, and without moral meaning—this is the foundation of transhumanist dreams." However, the authors themselves stipulate: the analogy is not literal, but rather refers to "modes of thinking in an analogical sense." Inequality. The most specific section. The commission warns: technological enhancement of humans will divide people into "a higher form of humanity, equipped with tools up to immortality" and "a primitive, pre-technological form, doomed to extinction." Who will decide which category a particular person falls into? "On what basis will different statuses be determined—wealth, culture, inheritance, experimental audacity? It's also unclear who will have the right to decide this." Separately: if every person is obliged to "become more perfect," then "we must ask whether the current human condition still has a right to exist." The digital environment. Social media—the "tribalization of likes." AI makes decisions in medicine, courts, and military operations. The living God is replaced by a "virtual god" based on technological performances. The Vatican's alternative: human fulfillment is realized not through engineering, but through relationships—with others, with the weak, with God. Life is not a project, but a calling. The body is not an object to be upgraded, but a gift to be accepted. The Vatican correctly understands what transhumanism wants—to remake the human being. That's exactly what we want. The Commission calls this arrogance. We call this the only rational response to the fact of inevitable death from aging. Their alternative—accepting the body as a gift and aging as a vocation—only works if you believe in the giver. For everyone else, it's an invitation to resignation. And one and a half billion Catholics just received a 58-page argument for why they must die. Full text (French) • La Voce d'Italia https://lavoceditalia.com/2026/03/04/802067/

Microbes may be preventing you from losing weight. “In 2006, a study was published in Nature. Scientists compared the microbiomes of obese and lean mice from the same litter, and also looked at the microbiomes of people with different body weights. It turned out that the "fat" microbiome extracted energy from food better. And differences in obesity were best predicted by the ratio of two large groups of bacteria. And then things got really interesting. Mice were treated with antibiotics and transplanted with microbiota from either obese or lean mice. Those who received the "fat" microbe mix gained weight significantly faster. So, microbes can make us fat! It's not just a matter of being big. An even more accurate study was published in Science. They found identical twins: they had the same genes, but one was thin and the other plump. Their microbiota was transplanted into mice. The results were the same. And then something else came to light. When mice transplanted with a "fat" microbiota were housed with mice with a "lean" microbiota, obesity was suppressed. It turns out that the transfer of bacteria that influence weight gain can occur even without transplantation. Simply through cohabitation. At least in mice. And this isn't just about weight, but also about certain metabolic disorders. In humans, there are also observations that people living under the same roof have more similar microbiomes. Especially partners. The strongest similarities are seen in the skin microbiome, but they are also noticeable in the mouth and gut microbiome. D you want to understand how microbes can interfere with appetite and metabolism, why the gut sometimes turns into a "auto-brewery," and where science ends and myths about "leaky gut" and detox begin?” Panchin

Images from the Boston Biolife Functional longevity Summit Phoenix Arizona amazing meeting great speakers hopefully everyone will get on board and support what we’re doing www.bostonbiolife.com for more information

Cambrian Bio announced approval of $30.8 million in funding from ARPA-H through the PROSPR program. According to CEO James Peyer, this is the "first serious" (a bold statement) attempt to test in humans whether aging can be slowed pharmacologically. The funds will go toward clinical trials of TOR-101, a selective mTORC1 inhibitor. This is essentially an attempt to create a rapamycin without the side effects. The problem with rapamycin is that it targets both mTOR complexes. mTORC1 is responsible for its primary lifespan-extending effects (it works in yeast, worms, flies, and mice—both sexes and different genetic lines). mTORC2 is responsible for immunosuppression and metabolic problems. According to Cambrian, TOR-101, at nanomolar (!) concentrations, inhibits mTORC1 with a selectivity 2,500 times greater than mTORC2. In old mice, it restored heart function to youthful levels. Toxicity tests on primates revealed no adverse effects. What is PROSPR? A 5-year ARPA-H program building a clinical infrastructure for the translation of anti-aging therapies. Resources are focused on three areas: 1. Measurement – ​​assessing the body's functional state (they call this Intrinsic Capacity). They want to move beyond "bioage" in the more familiar sense (epigenetic clocks or PhenoAge blood biomarker clocks) toward functional composite markers. Why? Because ultimately, people and regulators aren't concerned with their biological age, but with whether they can run around with their grandchildren and think clearly. Overall, the move toward functional biomarkers is a consensus developed by the industry: serious researchers don't trust epigenetic clocks alone and are incorporating functional tests into their research. Of course, the goal of PROSPR here is a regulatory-approved biomarker. If this can be developed, it will be a huge plus and a boost for the entire industry. 2️⃣ Repositioning of approved drugs – rapamycin, semaglutide, dapagliflozin, metformin – in healthy people aged 60-65. (By the way, Columbia University and the Barshop Institute on Aging and Longevity received funding for this.) 3️⃣ New interventions – these are next-generation interventions in aging. This includes Cambrian with TOR-101, Linnaeus with LNS8801 ($22M), and a team from Brown and Rochester universities led by Vera Gorbunova (congratulations!) with censavudine ($22M). Remember TAME, which Nir Barzilai has been trying to fund since around 2015? PROSPR is a continuation of the same idea, but an order of magnitude more ambitious. However, this isn't the only ARPA-H program in life extension—there's also FRONT, which I wrote about earlier.

For humans, the structure after partial rehydration was analyzed using light microscopy. The authors promise complete rehydration in as-yet-unpublished work.

Scientists Confirm Preservation of Brain Structure During "Freezing," Part 1 In recent months, cryobiology has seen an unexpected amount of good news: - A PhD position has opened in the UK to search for cryoprotectants (which protect cells during freezing) using machine learning (UK residents only) - Until Labs, a cryobiology startup, has raised $100 million in funding - A second company has been announced in Germany that preserves the body or brain of people after death. It will be headed by Alexander Hermann, a German physician and scientist who last year demonstrated the preservation of neuronal function in mice (specifically, synaptic transmission) after vitrification—"freezing" to -130°C without the formation of ice crystals—by improving on the protocol from a 2006 paper in the journal Cryobiology, co-authored by Greg Fahy and Yuri Pichugin. Cryonics (human cryopreservation) is often perceived as a quasi-scientific practice, separate from serious research in cryobiology, which primarily studies the preservation of cells, organs, or embryos, but not humans, with the goal of subsequently reviving them. However, in practice, the line is blurred: the aforementioned startup Until Labs, while starting with organ preservation, has a long-term goal of reversible human cryopreservation—and is already testing technologies for this: in 2024, they demonstrated that neurons in rat brain slices cooled to -196°C generate electrical impulses after thawing. Of course, some cryobiologists are skeptical of cryonics, but even they have become much more cautious in their statements: while before 2018, membership in the International Society of Cryobiology was incompatible with both the practice and promotion of cryonics, in 2022, Greg Fahey became the society's chairman. His 1985 paper on the vitrification of mouse embryos, published in Nature, has been cited over 2,500 times and formed the basis for modern embryo cryopreservation, widely used in IVF. Today, Fahy researches the possibility of reversible cryopreservation of organs, including the brain, and his articles are published in the specialized journal Cryobiology. He came to cryobiology precisely because, since childhood, he wanted to do something about death and aging: back in 1973, he became president of the Young Cryonics Association. Of course, the main news of 2026 was a preprint from 21st Century Medicine, a cryobiology company founded by Fahy: it confirmed the preservation of rabbit and human brain structure during freezing, or more precisely, vitrification. And cryonics helped with this...again. In 2014, a 73-year-old patient with terminal pancreatic cancer agreed to have his brain cryopreserved and samples donated to researchers. Vitrification was performed by the cryonics company Alcor using a cryoprotectant developed under Fahy's supervision. The procedure began one minute after the patient's heart stopped and he was formally declared dead: the body was cooled in an ice bath, the cryoprotectant was injected, a sample was taken, and it and the brain were placed in liquid nitrogen. Several years later, the scientists thawed the slice and confirmed the structural integrity of the brain (synapses). This is the first publication demonstrating the structural integrity of the human brain during vitrification. It serves as a benchmark for further research into reversible human cryopreservation, but the study has a flaw, as the authors themselves point out: during vitrification, the tissue significantly loses water and shrinks. They attribute this to the specifics of how the cryoprotectant is delivered to the brain, including the blood-brain barrier that protects it. The tissue shrinks by half, losing a large amount of water and contracting, making it difficult to visually assess the structural deformation. Researchers attempted to circumvent this problem by performing partial rehydration (saturating the tissue with water) and demonstrated structural preservation using electron microscopy, but only for rabbit brains.

Meet CureForge – an autonomous swarm of AI scientists hunting for anti‑aging cures. It runs 50+ clinical trial simulations in parallel, learns from its past discoveries, and even creates new agents when it spots promising research directions. No GPUs. No training. Just pure agent orchestration. We're turning dormant clinical data into a living, self‑improving discovery engine. Excited to share what we're building. If you're into AI, longevity, or both – let's connect. By LongevityInTime #AI #Longevity #DrugDiscovery #CureForge #AgenticAI #CureForgeAI

One of the most controversial and sensitive issues in cryonics and biostasis is whether it is possible to preserve the entire brain without destroying its delicate structure, and to do so without "chemical fixation," which essentially destroys any biological prospects for future recovery. The authors of a recent study demonstrated that mammalian brains, including human tissue, can be cryopreserved using vitrification—that is, without ice formation—while preserving the ultrastructure of neurons, synapses, and neuropil. The key point is that this was achieved without prior fixation with aldehydes. Previously, fixation was considered a necessary evil: it preserved the brain's shape but destroyed the molecular and functional integrity of the tissue. In the experiments, rabbit brains were perfused with M22 solution, then cooled to cryogenic temperatures and thawed. Electron microscopy revealed no traces of ice crystals, the main enemy of cryopreservation. Cell structure was generally preserved, although severe dehydration and tissue compression occurred, distorting the anatomy. This proved non-fatal: partial dilution of the cryoprotectant resulted in restoration of the shape of neurons and cortical layers. Especially important, similar results were obtained in human cortical biopsies taken after whole-brain perfusion. Even after cooling and warming, cells and synapses remained largely intact, with no signs of mechanical damage. This is the first direct morphological evidence that the human brain can be preserved in a state close to structural integrity, without "embalming." The study also demonstrated the limits of what is permissible: excessive or improper rehydration leads to osmotic damage. However, this is an engineering problem, not a fundamental prohibition. The authors explicitly state that the observed damage is preventable and point to a direction for improving protocols. In essence, this article moves brain cryopreservation from the realm of philosophical debate and promise to the realm of experimentally proven physical possibility. There's no talk yet of restoring consciousness or functions, but for the first time, it's been demonstrated that the "informational substrate of personality"—the physical structure of the brain—can survive cryogenic suspension without catastrophic losses. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.28.702375v2.full