15 July 2021
Over the last 150 years, our life expectancy has grown, from 40 years in 1850 to over 90 years today in some countries. This can be attributed to advances in medical science, improvements in public health, and equitable access to healthcare, especially for maternal and infant care.
What will the future hold for our world? Will we be overwhelmed by a ‘silver tsunami’ of retirees with poor health, or will we use the latest research findings to rejuvenate the elderly and extend their lifespan?
Our Longevity Futures is a show where I, Chris Curwen, speak to scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, doctors, politicians, and community activists who are giving the world the hope that we can all live longer and better, and improve our health.
In today’s episode of Our Longevity Futures, we are delighted to speak to Dr. Emil Kendziorra. As well as being a medical doctor, Emil is an entrepreneur and the founder and CEO of Tomorrow Biostasis.
Tomorrow Biostasis is a company, based in Berlin, that offers full body cryopreservation. In other words, Emil and his team offer the chance to freeze your body shortly after your death, preserving it until a time in the future when society possesses the technology to bring you back to life.
In today’s talk with Emil, we discuss the biology and technology behind cryogenic storage, and what the future might be like for those who wake up.
Here are some of the highlights for my conversation with Emil:
Chris: Can you tell me a bit more about Tomorrow Biostasis and the work that you do there?
Emil: So as you briefly mentioned practically speaking, we’re a cryopreservation company, right? So this fundamental idea that should you be diagnosed with any disease that is currently not curable, old age included, and medical science might not have progressed fast enough.
And then once you’re legally pronounced dead you’re being cryo-preserved with this specialised procedures. Which is sometimes always called freezing, which of course it isn’t, and I’m quite adamant that it isn’t and a lot of the stuff that we do to not freeze anything. But of course, colloquially, or the picture is always you being frozen.
But okay, now you’re cryopreserved. And then basically we wait until the medical technology has advanced enough to first of all cure underlying disease that led to your death in the first place. And then secondarily, of course once, once it’s possible to revive, you would do that.
As you mentioned I’m running an organization which does that from operations standpoint and I’m also running a nonprofit foundation in Switzerland that does research for that topic.
Yeah. These are the two, two main things I think.
Chris: Can you tell me a bit about yourself and how you got into this fascinating area?
Emil: So originally I actually come from the longevity and life extension space.
So I studied medicine because, back in the day when I was, I don’t know, 17 or 18, my original plan was to join Aubrey (de Grey). And build a company in the SENS space or somewhere in that range. And then I studied medicin e, went into cancer research after that. Then got a bit disillusioned by academic research in Germany.
For most countries where academic research is great and all, but, if you want to be a bit more tangible it might not be the best placement. And then I’ve been building tech companies over the last years. Not necessarily because I’m super excited to go tech companies, but this whole field unfortunately is relatively expensive and at least historically underfunded.
So I thought that’s a good idea to have some war chest on my own, but always with the idea of going back into that space. Then in 2018, I decided that now is the time to actually do that. I want to start thinking about it. And then I looked at the longevity and life extension space and what’s going on there and so on.
And I think maybe one of the main disagreements that I have with the longevity and life extension people, not necessarily about that this makes sense in principle, it’s just about the timeframe, right?
I’d much rather in 20 years going around to all the other people and we’ll tell them “Hey guys, I’ve been, so I’m sorry”, I was always the pessimist, right? You guys are right now, we can just take a pill and then live longer”, figuratively speaking. I’d much rather do that than, be old at 85 and there is no longevity and life extension technology then well, that’s it. So based on that, I decided to go into biostasis or cryopreservation.
I’m hoping that I will never use it, never need to use it. But assuming that will not be the case and that I will need to use it. That’s the short story.
Chris: When was the first moment you thought “Okay, this is going to be the idea of the company that I take forward”, cryogenics and cryonics?
Emil: So that was somewhere in 2018. So initially, as I’ve been signed up with the cryopreservation contract as a backup solution for many years, but so this was not the original plan. The original plan was to say “Hey, I’m building a company or a research Institute or whatever, to develop the anti-aging or longevity drugs or treatments or whatever it is”.
So I come from cancer research. Cancer research every 10 years, practically speaking, they say, 10 years you’ve got to have a new cancer treatment. And last time in 2005, right? When the NCI, it’s not random people, it’s the national cancer Institute in the U.S, part of the NIH, said that by 2015, we want to have gotten rid of cancer.
Now, looking at that space it’s unfortunately usually things take a bit longer than you think. And looking at the longevity space back then I didn’t feel like there’s a high probability that this will be around for nine months and based on that I’ll decide I’d rather go for what people sometimes call plan B. Which does need to be plan B, these two solutions can work together, work quite well. But I’d rather spend my time on something that is tangibly available.
Chris: When someone dies, how is their body cryopreserved?
Emil: At a time when the heart stops the degradation processes starts. So heart stops, but the oxygen is not being enriched, not circulated to the body anymore.
So practically speaking right now, brain cells and all the other cells need oxygen to survive. So when the heart stops oxygen is not being provided to the cells. So at that point cells, at some point, it’s not a flip switch, right? So there’s still oxygen in the blood, still in the cells. It’s not nothing. At somepoint after that the cells start active and passive degradation processes. So what do you want to do is first, stop these processes and, in medicine there’s a saying, which says “you’re only dead when you’re warm and dead”, right?
It’s the same when people are clinically dead at low temperatures and you don’t try to resuscitate them malpractice, right? Because what happens if you reduce the temperature? The metabolic activity on the cell level goes down and the metabolic activity goes down, the oxygen consumption and stuff.
So these degradation processes that are partly energy dependent, so it’s not like a passive dying process, it’s more active. It’s complex and more detailed of course.
Now by cooling, you stop these processes. And so the first thing you want to do is cool. Cool as quick as possible.
Chris: And how do you actually go about doing that?
Emil: So it’s multiple steps. So you want to cool. Initially you just cool with ice water. More precisely a combination with external cooling, which is literally ice water, which is being circulated inside. And on the other side you want to do internal cooling.
So you do external cooling and you do internal cooling. Interal cooling is basically just being done with a heart-lung machine, which practically circulates the cold fluid through your circulatory system. Which of course, has much more surface area, cooling it’s much quicker. This is not a procedure that is, novel to this topic. It’s being done in heart surgery. So it’s not something that’s super unique, right. Now, we cool further down with these two methods.
And of course now what you do not want to do, you don’t want to go under zero degrees, because the body of course is largely water. If you freeze water, it forms ice crystals and just very physically ice crystals are sharp, right. They have sharp edges and they would destroy the cellular structure.
Now, what do you want to do you want to avoid creating these ice crystals? You want to cool fast, but without ice. That’s why I’m saying it’s not freezing by any means. Most of what we do is to avoid just that freezing. So what do you do now, since you’ve been already circulating cold fluids. What you start circling now is a cryoprotective agent, which is practically speaking, a medical antifreeze. Which is a solution that draws water out of the tissue. So it has high osmolarity. So basically concentration, draws water out of tissue. So the water is already gone and then be taken out of the body. And it has a multitude of different things in there that stop ice crystal formation, by ice blockers, by just replacing basically the water against others solutions that do not freeze, and so on.
Once you’ve done that you want to cool down further and then ultimately to somewhere between what is called the ‘glass transition temperature’. This is what we’re actually doing, as opposed to freezing. It’s called the vitrification. It’s basically transferring, or putting the tissue into an amorphous state, which is called a vitrified state, which is super cooled, but not frozen.
At that temperature, no further metabolic processes go on, no further degradation processes, go on and so on. So at that temperature and in that state, you can then practically maintain the body, practically speaking, indefinitely. And that’s what, in a nutshell, the procedure is about.
Chris: In different parts of the world, people are declared dead for different reasons; for example, some places declare a person dead when their heart functions cease, whilst others declare their death when their brain functions cease. How does this affect your procedure?
Emil: So very important. So legally, we can only start when the person based on the local laws has been illegally pronounced it, right? So this is not a medical procedure that is there to cure, whatever the underlying disease is. So we figuratively speaking, we can’t touch the patient until they have been pronounced dead.
As we just mentioned, different countries have different regulations of how death can be pronounced. So some countries do it based on circulatory arrest, the heart stopping, some countries do it based on brain death. There’s also of course combinations. And then there are countries where you can do it based on brain death, you can’t do it on circulatory arrest, but you can, for example, do it on something thats called list of things called secure or death signs. Deep colorations on the skin, and so on.
Based on which country one of our members, one of our patients, is in, we always need to wait on that, and then we get started. And of course for us the important factor is that we start cooling down as quick as possible after circulatory rest.
But legally speaking, always only after the legal death.
Chris:You mentioned before that almost 80% of our body is made up of water and you draw the water out using this process of vitrification. How much of the water does actually get drawn out? And How do cells, tissues, and organs survive the freezing process?
Emil: From an understanding of today, they don’t survive. Because what do you mean by survive? There’s no more metabolic activity going on anymore. So practically speaking, I wouldn’t call that necessarily, the cells survive. They’re being kept in a state where the structure of the cells, the connectome of different cells, and the cellular structure is being kept in a state where we would argue, that with future technology, they would be able to revived, and resuscitate it, and then live again. So funnily enough, dehydration of the tissue currently is a quality metric.
So more dehydration is better, it means less ice. So yes, you don’t take out 100% of the water, of course. But you don’t need to because if you increase the concentration of the current protective agent, there might be a water molecule in there. But all in all it’s not an amount that then freezes and form ice crystals.
It’s very important to note this is still active research. This is not something I would say, “yeah, it’s 100% quality. Everything is great and everything is figured out”, far from it. There’s still a lot of research to be done.
As I said, we’re not advising this at all as a medical procedure, right? So this is arguably a last ditch effort. If all other methods of living or living longer had failed, then this comes as a last result.
Chris: How did we arrive at the current protocols, methods, and materials for human cryopreservation, i.e. what experiments, animal models, and human case-studies lead to this?
Emil: So cryopreservation in itself is not necessarily a novel concept, right? If anybody has worked in a lab, in a biomedical research lab, you cryopreserve your cells all the time. Sperm and eggs cells are preserved all the time in cryopreservation. It’s the same fundamental procedure, vitrifying.
You can verify parts of a body for transportation, for example heart valves and different parts of cartilage. So fundamentally this process is not, it’s not even a new process. It’s a very old process, right? So of course some of the knowledge comes from there.
Then there’s a lot more research that has been done over the last decades to cryopreserve organs. So there’s a big organ shortage, where people need organ transplants, but there are no organ transplants close by. Since what you currently do in organ transportation is you basically transport the organ on just ice cubes.
Since the temperature is not really low and there’s still not metabolic activity going on in the heart, you only have so much time the heart can be transplanted. So there’s a lot of research and that makes a lot of sense to store organs for longer periods of time when someone dies, until someone needs it who’s a match. And so there’s research from organ transplantation that goes into that.
There’s fundamental research from from cryopreserving small model animals, or model organisms. So there’s a lot of research from cryobiology, and then on the other hand is more procedural stuff the operations are on. That is very similar to perfusion, like the standard perfusion that is done during heart surgery. Taking these two parts together, this is practically what we’re doing, the operative parts from medical procedures and that the research starts from from cryobiology.
Chris: What is the most complex model or organism that has been ‘thawed/warmed’ back from cryopreservation? If so, were we able to revive them?
Emil: So the most complex organ is kidneys. Kidneys have been cryo-preserved and then re-transplanted, for example, in rabbits and they work after re-transplantations. So on an organ level, cryopreserving tissue or organs or animals or humans, what works and what doesn’t work is mostly a function of size.
Just physical size makes it significantly more complex to cryopreserve larger organisms. You don’t get the protective agent everywhere. Just thinking of physics, cooling down larger volumes is very difficult.
This is why cells work. Basically cells, you can just throw them in liquid nitrogen with cryoprotective agent and they’re fine. The cryoprotective agencies perfuse into the cell that are being cooled down super quickly.
They of course are some complexities, for example in humans the brain is protected by what’s called the blood brain barrier, which is basically the lining of the vessels that protects the brain from easily being affected by whatever bacteria that is in the bloodstream, that is not supposed to go into the brain. In cryopreservation that blood brain barrier keeps the cryoprotective agent out. So there are some specifics of course, but in general it’s a function of physics.
Chris: Have we ever actually ever try to revive a human from a state of cryopreservation. Has that ever been attempted?
Emil: No, and rightfully so, because it’s not ‘it might work, it might not work’, the answer is no, it will not work by 100% probability. So from a revival point this whole topic, from cryopreservation bringing back a whole human or even a whole animal part, it was almost built on a conceptual site.
So my estimation is definitely not that this will work in 10, 20, 30 years. This is way further down the line, not thousands of years down the line, but significantly.
Chris: Can you explain the key areas of cryopreservation where we need to improve our understanding, and how should we go about doing this?
Emil: So we will initially only focus on improving the quality of a cryopreservation and we will not put research money or research resources into revival. Because this is far away, we’d basically throw your money away.
In general, the research that needs to be done for reviving someone, you have a few conceptual problems where you really need to figure out novel ideas of how to do something in principle. And then you have a lot of lists of ‘devil in the detail’ problems, that you need to figure out. So it starts with, so now you have cryopreserved someone and the temperature of cryopreservation is either minus 196, or somewhere in the range of -140.
Both have advantages and disadvantages, but that’s a ballpark. So if you now start to increase the temperature from that point, then you start having ice crystallization, because there are still probably some water molecules here and there. So if you increase the temperature, these ice crystals would go to a temperature where they would start to basically nucleate, which means basically an ice crystal starting on a point and then it’s the ice crystals forming around that point or growing around that point. Now you could avoid that if you would do the warming process really fast. But, no one has an idea how to do it really fast without burning the outer layers. So this one detail.
Then cryoprotective agents at higher temperatures are toxic. So when you go up generate toxicity. Some of them are more fundamental; how to get rid of the cryoprotective agent, how to do warming, and then toxicity, for example, what the devil’s in the detail problem. When I say detail it’s not to be ‘details’, it’s relatively large details.
In predicting science over decades, this is pure speculation. There is no way for me, or anybody for that matter, to say ” I’m pretty confident that this will work in X years time”. So my point is, if something is possible in principle, then I feel like if the value proposition is good, it’s worth working on that.
But revival will take time.
Chris: With the ever accelerating rate at which technology is progressing it almost seems as if this will be inevitable in the future.
Emil: Yeah, as long as we can assume that we have a relatively acceptable understanding where, you know, memories of consciousness and so on comes from. I’m not super religious and pretty sure most of the people here on this call are not super religious either, then that stuff comes from the structure of your brain.
As long as you keep that structure around with high fidelity, then fundamentally it’s just a matter of time until you can fix that structure and then resuscitate it.
Chris: A lot of people are skeptical about the possibility of reanimating people after they have died and been cryogenically stored. What do you say to these people?
Emil: So it depends on the criticisms, right? So of course we definitely don’t want to convert anybody to ‘come and believe’, right? There’s just the argument to be made where people say, “Hey, this is just not for me”. Same as there will be people, if you just need to take the pill and you will live significantly longer than you currently can, there will be people who will be like, “no, this is not for me”, and that’s totally fine. So on these kinds of criticism where someone says, “Hey, just isn’t for me, I’m not interested”, the answer is sure, that’s totally fine.
And if the criticism is how does that work or how does the technology works and so on, and so I think to a few of these points, you have good answers. To a few of these points, you have the answer that you don’t know yet, right?
And this is what the research is for. And then maybe there’s a smaller group, luckily, but again, we live in the land which is a very liberal city and in a very liberal country. There are probably some people who say this is very immoral and then we can have a conversation. I think that my answer would be okay. So what do you mean by more?
So I think in general will be currently see significantly less criticism than we would have expected. We would have expected significantly more people in one of these groups. It seems to me, if you explain this way or this procedure, and the value proposition in a tangible way, and in a relatively scientific way, that a lot of people, at least they’re fundamentally open to the idea, they’re interested in the idea.
They might not sign up tomorrow, or they might even say, “Hey, cool thing, but I don’t care personally”, again that’s totally fine. So I’m still waiting for some priest who wants to have a panel discussion with me on one onstage or something like that. Or someone who wants to argue this is immoral, it doesn’t need to be a priest, but anybody who wants to argue this is immoral, I’m more than happy to do that.
Chris: We have a question from the audience: “What is the difference between cryo-preservation and say an induced coma?”
Emil: There are multiple steps, where, on one hand you have full consciousness, and on the other hand you have cryopreservation. So apart from induced coma, there would also be what sometimes it’s called suspended animation, which is sometimes discussed if you want to talk about space flights to Mars or farther away. So induced coma of course is by all intents and purposes, the body is still alive, just your consciousness or your personal experience, just as anaesthesia is practically stopped.
So your cells still all do their thing and your body works and the metabolic processes are still ongoing. So I would say so that’s consciousness like normal life here and then induced coma somewhere here when cryopreservation is here on the otherside.
So induced coma is: the body still lives the cells to do their thing, but your consciousnesses is stopped, similar to anesthesia. And then you have suspended animation which yeah you cool the body. you reduce the metabolic activity, the metabolic rate, but fundamentally the metabolic rate is still ongoing. And why do you need to do this for space flight? In space you have two problems, right? You need to bring water and food, and you need to bring oxygen. So if you reduce the metabolic rate and use less oxygen and you need less food. So this is why they are interested in that technology, not to go to the moon, but if you got want to go to Mars or further, and at some point, this makes sense.
And then cryopreservation is way on the other side of the scale, where all the metabolic processes are stopped. Somewhere you could argue that they are on one scale, but there is a fundamental difference between cryopreservation all the other things, and that point is when metabolic processes are fully stopped.
Chris: In that sense, wouldn’t cryopreservation actually be favourable over suspended affirmation, as you only really need a a source of liquid nitrogen. Does that have to be replenished every now and again?
Emil: Yeah, it does. You could argue that suspended animation already starts at 22 degrees, like how animals hibernate, their core temperature doesn’t go down even close to zero. There are these frogs, the green wood frog, that actually goes pretty deep cause they have a natural cryoprotector. But in general you don’t go lower than freezing. So you have a whole new plethora of problems once you go lower than zero. You need to do this for a very long period of time. But when we talk space flight and we talk currently, at least with technology that we currently have, we don’t talk about, multiple years or decades of going to planets or stars a few light years away, right? You talk about a couple of months. Yeah, you want to save maybe, 50% of your oxygen, but you don’t need these deep temperatures and you will create more problems, and of course currently it wouldn’t be possible to bring them back from this.
Chris: Have you got anything arranged for the time when you are able to reanimate the patients? A Tomorrow Biostasis revival part perhaps?
Emil: Yeah, we didn’t set a date yet, so yes and no.
So on one hand it doesn’t make much sense to do any precise planning, also from a research side, because it’s just so far away. It’s not this field similar to the general longevity and life-extension field. It’s not overflown with capital and resources and so on, so you need to pick your battles. What do you want to do right now and what you can put off to the future?
And of course we decided that for revival and planning for that, this is something that we have time for and we can do in the future. But on the other hand you need to do certain things, certain topics, and you should take out a few things cause you can’t do them in the future.
So for example, one point would be, so let’s say someone dies right now and at the end of their life, they have, let’s say 5 million net worth or whatever. And when they’re being resuscitated they might want to have a part of that essence in the future.
Of course you can argue that maybe the future that’s not relevant, but who knows? For example, one thing that we do have is we’re setting up a structure, which will be most likely a Lichtenstein based foundation, for a long-term asset preservation, where people can put, at the end of their life, 50% goes to their family and their inheritance, and 15% goes into that foundation with the goal of it being returned in the future. So a couple of things you need to think about.
Other things like, what would be the legal structure? How would that work in principle? These things, first of all, they’re very difficult to answer right now. And you can’t really do much about it, yeah.
Chris: It’s one of those things where, if the technology does become available, then the law has to look at itself and change with the times. I guess bringing people back, essentially from the dead, it has huge repercussions in all sorts of law.
Emil: Absolutely. The closest thing is, let’s say plane accidents or boat problems, where they’ve been found after let’s say half a year or so, when they already have been legally pronounced dead. So in general you can imagine this process it’s not absolutely unimaginable how that would work.
So either you just get your old passport back and you get a new passport number or you get a new passport and you pick your name. A d of course we have the question, would my social security still pay for my retirement and the answer of course to that is no, it wouldn’t.
So to a few of these things there are relatively simple questions and you don’t need to necessarily over-complicate that. But of course currently there isn’t really a legal framework for any of those things. So this is definitely very fun.
Chris: What is your prediction for when we will have the technology to revive people from cryopreservation?
Emil: So again, this is pure speculation, right? So there’s no good stake. In science, if process is linear, you can make good predictions. But usually, and especially for these types of topics, progress isn’t linear, it’s a step function. Where new technology comes about, and then we figure something out and then suddenly we can do things that we wouldn’t have before.
And it’s not only about science. It can also be just about engineering. So in general due to that, it makes it very difficult because absolutely, in that space here progress is not linear by any means. It’s very much a step function and multiple steps are still required. So that part has a disclaimer.
So, on the lower balance, I’m pretty confident that it won’t be 10/20/30 years. Somewhere between 50 and a 100, and I’m saying that because this is a timeframe where I feel like all predictions just break apart. So basically I’m picking a timeframe where it could argue well it might as well be that one, because no one could make the counter argument because again, also predicting for them would be the same problem.
So I’m pretty confident that it’s also not millions of years. It’s probably also not thousands of years. But so my uneducated, or slightly educated, but definitely not well-based prediction would be somewhere between 50-100+ years. So for us it’s very important that if someone wants to sign up with us that they’re well aware of that, right? You want to make it absolutely sure. Because I think this was the only point where, I mentioned before, I was happy to argue ethics and morality of the topic. And I think the immoral point, if you can’t create, and that’s why we’re very focused on not really creating that one. If you would sell this to five people or promote this by saying, 30 years, 40 years, whatever, it’s 50 years, don’t worry about it. You just do cryopreservation, and then in 50 years you’ll live again, wherever you would try to convince everybody that this is basically a safe bet, and it isn’t. It’s a bet, but it’s not a safe bet. It’s a bet that is definitely higher than being cremated or buried. There’s no question there, at least in my mind.
But what exactly the timeframe is? I don’t know. And I think it’s very important to us that everybody who still signs up with us knows about that because I think this is where we would make an immoral, what would be an immoral if you wouldn’t talk about it, or wouldn’t make sure that it’s absolutely sure.
Chris: What are two or three things you intrinsically believe are inevitable regarding the future of longevity and/or cryopreservation? And what obstacles may prevent these things from happening?
Emil: If we can assume that we understand how consciousness works. So if there’s nothing that we will figure out in the future where something super weird quantum or whatever, or metaphysical, let’s put that aside, if basically consciousness and all of that is a function of the structure of our brains, right? The connectome, etc., then all that stuff, living significantly longer by orders of magnitude, at some point that will be a thing, right?
I’m not aware of any fundamental reason, and I’m also not aware of any good arguments that alludes to a very fundamental reason that can never be avoided, that you shouldn’t be able to just fix the body.
Take the car metaphor where you just fix the car up. And then the car that usually works, breaks down after 50 years, can easily go another 15 years, can easily work for under 50. So probably that’s exactly the same with bodies, and same for cryopreservation, right?
As long as we understand it, and as long as we keep the structure in a way where all the connectome is being kept then cryopreservation will also be good. The only reason why I’m working for this and not for the longevity – I think those topics are actually possible – and of course the longevity and just taking your pills or treatment sector, has the better value, and they have the better offer, right? Like ours is more, you go into cryopreservation and then maybe you are going to be revived. It sounds worse than just taking a pill. It’s got to be more complex than a pill, but let’s say you figured it out.
The only disagreement I have is how much time it will take, because the problem I think with longevity is, so we did an analysis a couple of months ago where we looked at all the companies that claim to do anti-aging or longevity, and you look at what they actually do. So this was the first part of the analysis. And the problem in my mind is that a lot of people who sell themselves as longevity, they seem to do it for marketing reasons or fundraising reasons.
And then they work on. I don’t know, atherosclerosis in the leg or knee joint, or whatever, which of course, maybe you can repurpose that technology and so on and use it for something else. But then again, it seems to me, I don’t know where this optimism comes from. And I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.
But in general, if I would be a longevity company, I would also be very optimistic because I need to raise funds. So there’s always this inherant incentive to be optimistic.
The second part is we compared startups that were founded at the same time in cancer research, and for cancer drugs. And the cancer startups were 3x higher funded and have more people than the longevity life extension service.
And I don’t think they are all that much more intelligent the people who go into longevity, the cancer people are awesome. So the only disagreement in my path is about the timeframe. Otherwise I would do the longevity stuff, it’s way better, and have very much counting on the whole longevity sector to make this happen as well, because of course the cryopreserved people are going to need all that longevity and rejuvenation in the future as well.
We really appreciate both Michael and Irina taking the time out of their day to come and talk to us. A massive thank you from Chris and everyone on the Gowing life team. You can keep up-to-date with all that the Conboys and their labs are doing here.
Please join us for future episodes and tell your friends and family about us!