The claims log
Who promised what, beside what has been shown
31 claims by 21 people and organisations, 2000 to 2026, oldest first, each with the primary source and a verdict as of the last build. On the right, what the tree has actually reached. The two never mix: a claim moves nothing on the tree, and nothing on the tree makes a claim true.
A claim, here, is one named person or organisation saying one thing in public about when: when a treatment will reach people, when a trial will start, when ageing itself will be outrun. It is dated by when it was said, and it needs a primary source: the book and page, the recording and its minute, the company's own release, or an interview printed in question-and-answer form in the speaker's own words. News coverage of a remark is coverage, not a source; where a remark exists only as a reporter's version, the entry is shown anyway and marked as held on coverage, because the repeated versions are what this log exists to check. Each entry says in plain words what the claim commits to and by when, so that it can be judged: delivered, missed, not yet due, or cannot be settled because it names no date and no result that could ever decide it. A claim its maker later withdrew stays missed. A standing claim with no date is judged against this site's fixed date of 2050, and says so.
The talk: 31 claims
11 not yet due · 1 delivered · 8 missed · 11 cannot be settled · 1 held on coverage only-
Steven Austad and S. Jay Olshansky
The biologist of ageing Steven Austad of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the demographer S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois Chicago, who took opposite sides of a long-running public bet about the human lifespan.
Not yet due: due 2150 about the whole question one fact still to check
“I think that person is already alive.”
What it commits to. Austad: a person born in or before 2000 will be alive, and of sound mind, at a hundred and fifty by 2150. Olshansky: no such person. Settled on 2150-01-01, with the fund going to the winner's heirs.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source A bet struck on 2000-09-15, each man putting a hundred and fifty dollars into an investment fund to be paid out in 2150, and reported as doubled in Nature's news report of 2016-10-18 (the day of the doubling itself is not given). Austad's side in his own words is from the Aventine podcast transcript (the episode was released 2025-05-20); the terms and dates are from Nature's news report of 2016-10-18, read as quoted on fightaging.org on 2016-11-07. aventine.org
Notes The oldest verified age at death remains a hundred and twenty-two (Jeanne Calment, 1997). A hundred-and-fifty-year-old in 2150 would have to be born by 2000, so the bet tracks the same people this site's headline is about. Olshansky's published position is olshansky-2024-implausible-this-century.
Not yet verified Olshansky's own statement of his side was read only in part: The Scientist of 2001-02 (Jean McCann, 'Wanna Bet?') gives his view that 130 is possible but 150 is far beyond medicine's reach, but the page cuts off mid-sentence; the Scientific American piece of 2000 was not reached.
This entry is data/claims/austad-olshansky-2000-bet-on-150.toml in the public repository.
-
Leonard Hayflick
The cell biologist Leonard Hayflick, who in 1961 showed that normal human cells divide a limited number of times, and who argued for the rest of his life that ageing is not a disease and that curing diseases does not touch it.
Cannot be settled about the whole question
“if the ability to intervene in ageing ever becomes a reality, it will be rife with unintended and undesirable consequences”
What it commits to. No date: that resolving today's leading causes of death would add at most about fifteen years to life expectancy, that ageing itself is a different kind of process from disease, and that intervening in it, if ever possible, would carry consequences nobody has weighed.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Nature, volume 408, pages 267 to 269, The future of ageing, 2000-11; the abstract, read in full. doi.org
Notes The fixed set's word for a position with no date or result that could settle it. His 2007 essay in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Biological aging is no longer an unsolved problem) restates the position: ageing shares none of the six qualities of a disease, and curing age-associated diseases gives no insight into ageing itself. Neither abstract says ageing cannot be stopped, which is the version that circulates; the record keeps his words.
This entry is data/claims/hayflick-2000-fifteen-year-limit.toml in the public repository.
-
Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman
The futurist Ray Kurzweil and the physician Terry Grossman, co-authors of two books on living long enough to benefit from future medicine.
Missed about the whole question one fact still to check
“we will have the means to stop and even reverse aging within the next two decades”
What it commits to. The means to stop and reverse ageing in hand by about 2024, framed as what many scientists including the authors believe; in the meantime, readers slow their own ageing (bridge one) until biotechnology (bridge two) and then nanotechnology (bridge three) arrive.
Missed, judged 16 October 2026. By 2024 no treatment had been shown to stop or reverse ageing in people, and there was not yet an accepted way to show that one had slowed it, which is what the measuring branch tracks; every leaf on this site was still below clinical use at the first weekly reading.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever (Rodale, 2004), page 4, the opening statement of the three-bridges plan; read in Google Books snippet images of the 2005 edition on 2026-10-16. books.google.com
Notes The same book places nanorobot replacements for blood in the 2020s (page 229) and nutrient nanorobots as reasonably mature by the late 2020s (page 98). The sequel repeats the two-decade figure from its own date (kurzweil-grossman-2009-bridge-two). The hedge, that the authors believe it, is kept in the commitment; it does not change the date.
Not yet verified The page number (4) is from the 2005 Rodale edition's snippets; the wording is confirmed in a 2004 excerpt of the first edition (Fight Aging!, 2004-11-17), which gives no page number.
This entry is data/claims/kurzweil-grossman-2004-two-decades.toml in the public repository.
-
Aubrey de Grey
The biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who coined the phrase longevity escape velocity, co-founded the Methuselah Foundation and the SENS Research Foundation, and since 2022 has run the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation.
Not yet due: due 2944 about the whole question
“I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already.”
What it commits to. A person aged about sixty in 2004 living to a thousand, which could only be checked in about 2944; hedged as what he thinks and might be.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source A viewpoint piece in his own name on the BBC News site, headlined that we will be able to live to 1,000, dated 2004-12-03; read on the page. news.bbc.co.uk
Notes The famous version, that the first thousand-year-old is probably less than twenty years younger than the first hundred-and-fifty-year-old, is not in this piece and was not found in anything he wrote. In his 2005 TED talk (de-grey-2005-fifty-fifty-fifteen-years) his own figure was about ten years younger. The twenty-year wording is a Reuters reporter's sentence from 2011-07-04, widely reprinted, and so is recorded here as coverage and not as his words. The due year is written out because the fixed set has no verdict for a claim no reader can live to check; that is the point of recording it. The same piece's twenty-year timeline for the treatments is its own record, de-grey-2004-humans-within-twenty-years.
This entry is data/claims/de-grey-2004-first-thousand-year-old.toml in the public repository.
-
Aubrey de Grey
The biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who coined the phrase longevity escape velocity, co-founded the Methuselah Foundation and the SENS Research Foundation, and since 2022 has run the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation.
Missed about the whole question
“all parts of the project should be fully working in mice within just 10 years and we might take only another 10 years to get them all working in humans”
What it commits to. His whole programme of repairs working in mice by about 2014 and in people by about 2024, hedged as should and might.
Missed, judged 16 October 2026. By 2024 no package of repairs was working in mice, let alone people: his own foundation's first combined mouse study, reported on 2025-08-28, added about four months of life against a target of twelve, and no leaf on this site had reached clinical use at the first weekly reading.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The same BBC News viewpoint piece of 2004-12-03 as de-grey-2004-first-thousand-year-old, the paragraph on the timeline of his repair programme; read on the page. news.bbc.co.uk
Notes The hedges are kept in the commitment and do not rescue the date: the sentence names two ten-year steps from 2004. He has since restated the odds with the calendar (de-grey-2005-fifty-fifty-fifteen-years, de-grey-2024-fifty-percent-twelve-to-fifteen-years).
This entry is data/claims/de-grey-2004-humans-within-twenty-years.toml in the public repository.
-
Aubrey de Grey
The biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who coined the phrase longevity escape velocity, co-founded the Methuselah Foundation and the SENS Research Foundation, and since 2022 has run the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation.
Cannot be settled about the whole question
“we have a 50/50 chance of reaching this RHR milestone, robust human rejuvenation, within 15 years from the point that we get to robust mouse rejuvenation”
What it commits to. Even odds of robust human rejuvenation, which he defines in the talk as thirty extra healthy years for people already fifty-five and equates with longevity escape velocity, within fifteen years of robust mouse rejuvenation; and, with suitable funding, robust mouse rejuvenation probably within ten years, so about 2015.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source TED talk, A roadmap to end aging, TEDGlobal, 2005-07, at about thirteen minutes twenty seconds; read in TED's official transcript. ted.com
Notes The famous version is fifteen to seventeen years; the transcript says fifteen, twice, and never seventeen. The verdict is unfalsifiable as worded because the fifteen-year clock starts from a mouse milestone that has not arrived and whose own date was conditional on funding he says never came: his foundation's first mouse study, reported at the Longevity Summit Dublin on 2025-08-28, gained about four months of life against a target of twelve. The chain's calendar implication, even odds by about 2030, is the version that circulates; the record keeps his own two-step form. His other dated occasions are de-grey-2004-first-thousand-year-old, de-grey-2004-humans-within-twenty-years and de-grey-2024-fifty-percent-twelve-to-fifteen-years.
This entry is data/claims/de-grey-2005-fifty-fifty-fifteen-years.toml in the public repository.
-
Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman
The futurist Ray Kurzweil and the physician Terry Grossman, co-authors of two books on living long enough to benefit from future medicine.
Not yet due: due 2029
“In about 20 years, we will have the means to perfect our own biology by fully reprogramming its information processes.”
What it commits to. By about 2029, the means to reprogram human biology and change genes so as to live decades longer than a long life now (their bridge two), with circulating nanorobots within the same two decades; bridge three, living indefinitely, undated beyond following in turn.
Rests on- the the cell's settings branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
- the damaged DNA branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever (Rodale, 2009), introduction, page xx; read in Google Books' full-page preview of the 2010 paperback on 2026-10-16. books.google.com
Notes Five years after the first book put the same means two decades out (kurzweil-grossman-2004-two-decades), the second moves the date with the calendar. It bears on the cell's settings and damaged DNA because the promised means are reprogramming and gene change; it is not marked about the headline because the sentence promises a capability, not the crossing itself.
This entry is data/claims/kurzweil-grossman-2009-bridge-two.toml in the public repository.
-
Google (Calico)
Calico, the research company Google announced in 2013 under Arthur Levinson, the former chief executive of Genentech, to work on ageing and the diseases that come with it.
Cannot be settled about the whole question one fact still to check
“a new company that will focus on health and well-being, in particular the challenge of aging and associated diseases”
What it commits to. No date and no named result. Larry Page's own post the same day called it a longer-term bet and promised good progress within reasonable timescales.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Google's announcement, Google announces Calico, a new company focused on health and well-being, on its press blog, 2013-09-18; read on the page. Larry Page's post the same day on his own Google+ page is in the notes, read in an archive capture. googlepress.blogspot.com
Notes What followed, from Calico's and its partner's own releases: a collaboration with the drug company AbbVie announced 2014-09-03, each side putting in up to two hundred and fifty million dollars at first and up to one and a half billion in all, extended on 2018-06-26 and again on 2021-07-27 with a further five hundred million each and work running to 2030; and the first public clinical result, on 2025-01-06, a drug for motor neurone disease that failed on its main measure in a shared trial of several drugs. Twelve years in, no treatment for ageing itself has been named. The record is marked about the headline because the announcement names no branch; it is the oldest of the well-funded bets on the question as a whole. Updated 2026-10-17, from the weekly reading of that date: the line above that the collaboration was extended on 2021-07-27 with work running to 2030 describes the extension as announced and no longer holds if the report is right. STAT News reported on 2025-11-12, and BioSpace repeated on 2025-11-13, that AbbVie decided to end the eleven-year relationship, with about a hundred chemists laid off and the money moved to AbbVie's biologics, cell and RNA programmes. It followed the failure of the shared motor neurone drug in January 2025 recorded above. The report is press only (see the list of things to check). The verdict, unfalsifiable, is unchanged.
Not yet verified AbbVie's ending of the Calico collaboration rests on press reports only: STAT News on 2025-11-12, citing internal AbbVie emails, and BioSpace on 2025-11-13 repeating it. BioSpace says it asked AbbVie for confirmation; neither company's own statement was found. Calico's spokesperson is quoted by Fierce Biotech as saying the two advanced five assets into clinical development in neuroscience and oncology and that Calico has more than twenty early-stage programmes; that page was seen in a search listing and not opened.
This entry is data/claims/calico-2013-launch.toml in the public repository.
-
Methuselah Foundation
The Methuselah Foundation, the non-profit David Gobel and Aubrey de Grey founded in 2001 (the home of the Methuselah Mouse Prize from 2003), which funds tissue engineering and the growing of organs outside the body.
Not yet due: due 2030 about the whole question
“Our mission is to make 90 the new 50 by 2030.”
What it commits to. Ninety-year-olds as healthy as fifty-year-olds by 2030, through tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say; and- the replacing lost cells and parts branch furthest stage in clinical use; 1 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The foundation's home page, in Wayback Machine captures from 2013-12-19 onward, which say "we want to create a world where 90-year olds can be as healthy as 50-year olds - by 2030" and "Help us make 90 the new 50" (the captures of 2013-11-21, 2013-11-26 and 2013-11-28 have neither); the sentence quoted is from the current What we do page, read live, whose earliest archive capture is 2022-05-08, and which says the goal was chosen to be falsifiable and testable. mfoundation.org
Notes The one organisational claim on the log that was written to be scored: the foundation says so itself. The date is three years off at the first weekly reading and no leaf on the replacing parts branch is in clinical use. The foundation's co-founder's own dated claims are the de-grey records; the live home page refused connections on 2026-10-16, which is why the link is the What we do page.
This entry is data/claims/methuselah-foundation-2013-ninety-the-new-fifty-by-2030.toml in the public repository.
-
Jan Vijg
The geneticist Jan Vijg of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, writing with Xiao Dong and Brandon Milholland, whose analysis of the ages of the world's oldest people argued that the human lifespan has a ceiling.
Not yet due: due 2050 about the whole question
“Our results strongly suggest that the maximum lifespan of humans is fixed and subject to natural constraints.”
What it commits to. No further rise in the age of the oldest person, which the abstract says has not increased since the 1990s; the main text puts the ceiling near a hundred and fifteen with a hundred and twenty-five as the outside. Judged here at the headline's first fixed date.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Nature, volume 538, pages 257 to 259, Evidence for a limit to human lifespan; the abstract, read in full. doi.org
Notes A standing claim rather than a dated one: every year without a new record is consistent with it, and one verified death past a hundred and twenty-five would refute it. The due year is the headline's first fixed date so that the claim is scored with everything else. The paper drew published rebuttals in 2017 arguing the data could not distinguish a ceiling from a plateau, which the publications log may carry.
This entry is data/claims/vijg-2016-limit-to-human-lifespan.toml in the public repository.
-
Unity Biotechnology
Unity Biotechnology, the first company built to turn the clearing of worn-out cells in mice into drugs for people, founded in 2011 and public from 2018, which tested two such drugs in people and dissolved in 2025.
Cannot be settled
“creating therapeutics that prevent, halt, or reverse numerous diseases of aging”
What it commits to. Drugs that kill worn-out cells preventing, halting or reversing diseases of ageing in people, with first trials in the near future; no year.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on- A drug clears aged cells from a person First human
- the worn-out cells branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The company's release announcing a hundred and sixteen million dollar financing, 2016-10-27, first paragraph, as distributed on PR Newswire; read in full. Its home page of the same month, read in an archive capture of 2016-10-13, called the drugs senolytic medicines. prnewswire.com
Notes The aim carried no date, so the fixed set's verdict is unfalsifiable; the record is nonetheless closed in fact. From the company's own filings: its first drug, injected into arthritic knees, showed no difference from placebo at twelve weeks (release of 2020-08-17) and was dropped; its second, for diabetic swelling of the retina, missed the main measure of its late-stage trial on 2025-03-24 by a whisker and met a later time point on 2025-05-05, the day the company said it would explore a sale or a wind-down and let its whole workforce go; shareholders approved dissolution on 2025-09-18 and the certificate took effect on 2025-09-26. The leaf this bears on is the one shared with The Upgrade Tree; Unity's 2020 trial is part of why that leaf's record says first human and not clinical use.
This entry is data/claims/unity-2016-senolytic-medicines.toml in the public repository.
-
Salk Institute (Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte's laboratory)
The Salk Institute in La Jolla, announcing the first report that briefly switching on four reprogramming genes in living mice reversed signs of ageing, from the laboratory of Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, who later became a founding scientist of Altos Labs.
Delivered one fact still to check
“these therapies may take up to 10 years to reach clinical trials”
What it commits to. A first human trial of a treatment based on partial reprogramming (resetting the chemical marks that tell a cell which genes to read) by 2026 at the latest, hedged as may and up to.
Delivered, judged 16 October 2026. Life Biosciences' own releases: the United States regulator cleared its partial-reprogramming treatment ER-100 for a first human trial on 2026-01-28, and the company announced the first participant dosed on 2026-06-09, nine and a half years after the release; the related promise of the company's own timing is life-biosciences-2024-first-human-study-second-half-2025.
Rests on- A person receives cell-resetting genes in a registered trial First human
- the the cell's settings branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The Salk Institute's press release of 2016-12-15, Turning back time: Salk scientists reverse signs of aging, for the paper by Ocampo and colleagues in Cell (volume 167, pages 1719 to 1733); read in full. The sentence is the release's own caution, attributed to the researchers as a group, not a quotation from Belmonte. salk.edu
Notes The ten-years figure that coverage repeated as Belmonte's own comes from this sentence in the release; his quoted words there are the opposite caution, that mice are not humans and rejuvenating a person will be much more complex. The release reports a thirty percent longer life in prematurely ageing mice.
Not yet verified The exact day of the first dosing; the company announced it on 2026-06-09 and the trial registry gives 2026-03-02 as the study start, so it falls between those dates.
This entry is data/claims/salk-2016-up-to-ten-years-to-trials.toml in the public repository.
-
David Sinclair
The Harvard genetics professor David Sinclair, author of the 2019 book Lifespan and co-founder of Life Biosciences among other companies, whose laboratory's work on resetting the cell's settings is the most publicised age-reversal programme in the field.
Cannot be settled about the whole question
“There is no biological law that says we must age. Those who say there is don't know what they're talking about.”
What it commits to. No date. The book's nearest commitments are hedged: that if a few of the most promising therapies come to fruition it is not an unreasonable expectation for anyone alive and healthy in 2019 to reach a hundred in good health, and that if reprogramming reaches its potential a hundred and fifty might be possible for someone alive now.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say; and- the the cell's settings branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Lifespan: Why We Age and Why We Don't Have To (Atria, 2019-09-10), introduction, page xxiii, with the passages on reaching a hundred (pages 217 to 218) and a hundred and fifty (page 245); read in Google Books search-inside snippets. books.google.co.uk
Notes The famous sentence matches the book word for word. What the glosses drop are the conditions on the hundred-and-fifty and the healthy-hundred passages, both of which are expectations contingent on therapies that did not yet exist, with no date; that is why the verdict is the fixed set's word for a claim nothing could settle. His dated prediction with a checkable year is sinclair-2023-age-reversal-in-people; the published critique of the book is brenner-2022-age-reversal-an-old-grift.
This entry is data/claims/sinclair-2019-lifespan.toml in the public repository.
-
Altos Labs
Altos Labs, the research company launched in 2022 with three billion dollars committed, built around resetting the cell's settings (cellular rejuvenation programming) and staffed by many of the field's best-known scientists, including Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte and Shinya Yamanaka as an adviser.
Cannot be settled
“Altos' mission is to restore cell health and resilience to reverse disease, injury, and the disabilities that can occur throughout life.”
What it commits to. No date and no named treatment: a mission statement, with three billion dollars fully committed. The only date in the release is its chief executive's start date.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on- the the cell's settings branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The launch press release, Altos Labs launches with the goal to transform medicine through cellular rejuvenation programming, 2022-01-19, as distributed on PR Newswire; read in full. prnewswire.com
Notes The release never says reverse ageing; the nearest is a board member's line about reversing the ravages of disease and ageing. The company is recorded because its funding is the largest single bet on one branch of this tree, and the log should show that the bet came with no date. Its founding scientist's 2016 forecast is salk-2016-up-to-ten-years-to-trials.
This entry is data/claims/altos-labs-2022-launch.toml in the public repository.
-
Retro Biosciences
Retro Biosciences, the San Francisco company led by Joe Betts-LaCroix and funded at its start by Sam Altman, working on the cell's recycling of its own worn parts, on blood plasma, and on resetting the cell's settings.
Missed
“We have a molecule in our autophagy program that will enter the clinic in the next year”
What it commits to. A first human trial of a drug that boosts the cell's recycling of its own worn parts (autophagy) by about 2023-04.
Missed, judged 16 October 2026. The company's own blog post of 2026-05-22 says its autophagy drug RTR242 entered the clinic in 2025, about two years after the promised date; the company gives no date for the first dosing, but the Australian trial registry entry (registered 2025-11-17, number ACTRN12625001274460) records the first participant enrolled on 2025-12-16, and the trade press reported dosing by 2025-12-30.
Rests on- A drug that boosts the cell's recycling of its worn parts improves an age-related function in people Shown in animals
- the broken proteins and waste branch furthest stage in clinical use; 2 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The same announcement page as retro-biosciences-2022-ten-years, the paragraph on its programmes; read in the Wayback Machine capture of 2022-06-30. retro.bio
Notes The link is the 2026-05-22 blog post because the announcement page is gone from the live site; the archive capture is where the words were read. The company's pipeline page lists the drug for Alzheimer's disease with no stage marked.
This entry is data/claims/retro-biosciences-2022-clinic-next-year.toml in the public repository.
-
Retro Biosciences
Retro Biosciences, the San Francisco company led by Joe Betts-LaCroix and funded at its start by Sam Altman, working on the cell's recycling of its own worn parts, on blood plasma, and on resetting the cell's settings.
Cannot be settled about the whole question
“Our mission is to increase healthy human lifespan by ten years.”
What it commits to. Ten more years of healthy life, with no date; the same page said its initial funding of a hundred and eighty million dollars would secure the company through the decade.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The company's announcement page, Announcing Retro Biosciences, undated, launched with a post on the company's Twitter account on 2022-04-05 (post read) and first captured by the Wayback Machine on 2022-04-06; read in the capture of 2022-06-30. The current home page carries the same aim. retro.bio
Notes The same page made three dated promises for its programmes, of which the first is its own record (retro-biosciences-2022-clinic-next-year): a molecule into the clinic within a year, a plasma development candidate within two, and clinical proof of concept for reprogramming within four (by 2026). On 2026-05-22 the company's blog announced a new financing round at a valuation of one point eight billion dollars and said first-in-human milestones were planned for 2026 and 2027. Ten years of healthy life is the kind of claim the headline is built to score, but with no date it cannot be.
This entry is data/claims/retro-biosciences-2022-ten-years.toml in the public repository.
-
Nir Barzilai
The geriatrician Nir Barzilai of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, who has led since 2015 the effort to run the first trial designed to show that a drug, metformin, slows ageing itself, the Targeting Aging with Metformin trial known as TAME.
Missed held on coverage only one fact still to check
That he had been on the record saying he was pretty sure the trial would start that year, for the last seven years, and that it would happen because it had to.
What it commits to. A six-year trial of metformin against ageing in more than three thousand people aged sixty-five to seventy-nine at fourteen centres, starting in 2022, and by his own account promised for each year since about 2015.
Missed, judged 16 October 2026. On 2026-10-16 the trial had no record on ClinicalTrials.gov, and the American Federation for Aging Research's own pages still described it as planned and said recruiting would begin when the money was raised; it had not started in 2022 or any year since.
Rests on- A regulator accepts a marker of ageing as proof that a treatment slowed it Idea only
- the energy and fuel sensing branch furthest stage in clinical use; 1 in the clinic
- the measuring ageing branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source An interview reported by STAT on 2022-08-09; the words are the reporter's transcription and the article is coverage, so no quotation is recorded. His own primary statement of the trial is the 2016 paper in the notes. doi.org
Seen in STAT, 2022-08-09, Megan Molteni's article on the trial's funding; the same sense repeated in coverage by NPR on 2024-04-22 (the trial can start when the money comes in) and in longevity newsletters since 2019.
Notes The primary source for the trial's existence and design is Barzilai, Crandall, Kritchevsky and Espeland, Metformin as a Tool to Target Aging, Cell Metabolism volume 23, pages 1060 to 1065, 2016-06, whose abstract says metformin will be tested in the trial as the first step toward better drugs, with no date. The trial matters to this site twice over: it is the leading attempt on the energy and fuel branch, and it was designed to make regulators accept ageing as something a drug can be tested against, which is the measuring branch's test.
Not yet verified A primary occasion for the yearly promise (a recorded talk or his own writing giving a start year) was not found in the 2015, 2019 and 2021 question-and-answer pages or the Peter Attia interviews; STAT's article of 2022-08-09 prints his words as a direct quotation, which the record paraphrases.
This entry is data/claims/barzilai-2022-tame-starts-this-year.toml in the public repository.
-
Ray Kurzweil
The inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, a director of engineering at Google and the author of The Singularity Is Near (2005) and The Singularity Is Nearer (2024).
Not yet due: due 2030 about the whole question one fact still to check
“I think we can probably get there within, say, by the end of the decade. And that's my goal.”
What it commits to. Longevity escape velocity, which he defines in the same passage as adding more than a year of life expectancy every year, reached by the end of the 2020s, starting with people who are very diligent about it.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The Lex Fridman Podcast, episode 321, in the segment on mortality, about one hour thirty-three minutes in; read in a machine-made transcript on podscripts.co, not an official transcript, and not checked against the recording. lexfridman.com
Notes Two years before the book (kurzweil-2029-escape-velocity), the same claim with the same hedge: the diligent first, and by the end of the decade rather than a named year. The podcast's episode page is the link because the transcript site is a third party; the episode's own transcript address on lexfridman.com returned an error on 2026-10-16.
Not yet verified The words are from machine transcripts only; a second one (YouTube's automatic captions) reads 'end of this decade' where the record has 'end of the decade'. Listen to the recording at about one hour thirty-three minutes (about 1:27 in the YouTube video) to settle the exact wording and timestamp.
This entry is data/claims/kurzweil-2022-end-of-the-decade.toml in the public repository.
-
Charles Brenner
The biochemist Charles Brenner, who held a chair at City of Hope when he wrote the review and since 2026-07-01 has been Professor of Metabolic Regulation at the University of Helsinki, and who discovered a vitamin B3 pathway that the supplement NR works on and has become the most persistent published critic of age-reversal claims, here reviewing David Sinclair's 2019 book Lifespan.
Cannot be settled
“While age reversal is an old grift, the latest version has reached new heights of feigned legitimacy and hype.”
What it commits to. No date or result: a critique holding that ageing is not a disease, that getting healthier is not age reversal, and that the book's claims of reversal in people are stories, not findings.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on- the the cell's settings branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
- the energy and fuel sensing branch furthest stage in clinical use; 1 in the clinic
- the measuring ageing branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, volume 104 (2023), article 104825, A Science-Based Review of the World's Best-Selling Book on Aging, published online 2022-09-26; full text read. doi.org
Notes The verdict is the fixed set's word for a claim with no date or result that could settle it; it is not a judgment on the critique, which is a reading of the evidence rather than a prediction. A second dated occasion, a thread of 2023-07-12 on the chemical reprogramming paper from the same laboratory, says the groundbreaking results claimed there and in Cell are not in the papers; it was read on a third-party archive of the thread. The claims he is answering are sinclair-2019-lifespan and sinclair-2023-age-reversal-in-people. Updated 2026-10-17, from the weekly reading of that date: his affiliation changed after the review. The University of Helsinki's own announcements say he joined its Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy and its Helsinki Institute of Life Science on 2026-07-01, arriving from City of Hope. The review of 2022-09-26 was written from City of Hope, and the introduction above says so. The verdict is unchanged.
This entry is data/claims/brenner-2022-age-reversal-an-old-grift.toml in the public repository.
-
David Sinclair
The Harvard genetics professor David Sinclair, author of the 2019 book Lifespan and co-founder of Life Biosciences among other companies, whose laboratory's work on resetting the cell's settings is the most publicised age-reversal programme in the field.
Missed 2 facts still to check
“it's my prediction that we'll be in the next 18 months or two years testing our first age-reversed clinical trial in humans to cure blindness”
What it commits to. A first human trial of his partial-reprogramming treatment for blindness (Life Biosciences' ER-100) under way by about 2025-08 at the latest, hedged as his prediction.
Missed, judged 16 October 2026. Life Biosciences' own releases put the regulator's clearance on 2026-01-28 and the first participant dosed by 2026-06-09, about ten months past the two-year outside of the prediction; the hedge is kept, and the miss is of months, not years.
Rests on- the the cell's settings branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source A conversation with Peter Diamandis at the Abundance 360 summit, released as episode 60 of the Moonshots podcast on 2023-08-25, about twenty minutes in; read in a machine-made transcript on podscripts.co and matched against a reprint of the same passage dated 2023-10-31, not an official transcript. podscripts.co
Notes His own posts frame the same programme without a date: on 2023-01-12, announcing the Cell paper on loss of the cell's settings as a cause of ageing, he said the age-reversal technology was being tested in monkeys with results due in a few months; on 2023-07-12 that preparations for human trials of the first age-reversal gene therapy were ongoing at Life Biosciences. Harvard Medical School's own news item of 2023-01-12 said medical applications were a long way off. No statement of his from 2023-01 naming 2024 or 2025 for eye trials was found, so the version that attributes the date to that month is held as unsourced. The company's own date is life-biosciences-2024-first-human-study-second-half-2025; the 2016 forecast the trial fulfils is salk-2016-up-to-ten-years-to-trials.
Not yet verified The day of the recording: the session was at the Abundance360 summit, which ran 2023-03-20 to 2023-03-23; no source gives the day, so the record is dated by the podcast release. The exact wording against the recording: the record follows one machine transcript, and a second machine transcript reads 'age reversal' where this reads 'age-reversed'; the recording itself has not been listened to.
This entry is data/claims/sinclair-2023-age-reversal-in-people.toml in the public repository.
-
Bryan Johnson
The technology entrepreneur Bryan Johnson, who founded and sold the payments company Braintree and since 2021 has run a published programme to slow his own ageing, which he calls Blueprint.
Cannot be settled 2 facts still to check
“My goal: one year of chronological time passes and my biological age stays the same.”
What it commits to. A measured pace of ageing of zero, that is, no biological ageing at all over a calendar year, plus the rejuvenation of seventy-eight organs; no date.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on- the measuring ageing branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source His own protocol page, protocol.bryanjohnson.com, the objective at the top, as captured by the Wayback Machine on 2023-10-31 and again on 2024-06-03; read in the captures. web.archive.org
Notes The version that circulates, that his goal is the organs of an eighteen-year-old, is press framing from interviews; on his own pages eighteen-year-olds appear only as comparisons for single markers and in a line about restoring his joints. The verdict is the fixed set's word for a goal with no date; by his own figures (johnson-2024-pace-of-ageing-record) his pace has run between 0.48 and 0.76 years per year, never zero. His programme is the self-experiment record bryan-johnson-blueprint. Updated 2026-10-17, from the weekly reading of that date: coverage in 2026 shows him restating the goal in different forms and not dropping it. By 2026-07 he was reported saying he belongs to the first generation that will not die, and on 2026-10-08 an Axios interview was headlined with the aim of making 300 the new 70 (the headline is Axios's wording, not his). Coverage also reports that after a diagnosis of autoimmune gastritis, which he announced himself, he said he may have taken his programme too far. None of this carries a date or a result that could settle it, so the verdict is unchanged, and the exact words await the interviews themselves. His programme is the self-experiment record bryan-johnson-blueprint, which this update does not change.
Not yet verified The date the sentence first appeared on his own pages: the archive's earliest capture is 2023-10-31, but a Substack post of 2023-06-04 already quotes the sentence, so it is at least that old; the first source is not found. Bryan Johnson's 2026 statements are known only from coverage that was not opened or only partly opened: The Axios Show interview published 2026-10-08, headlined 'Inside Bryan Johnson's quest to make 300 the new 70' (the page was read to its paywall, and the interview itself was not heard or read); a Tages-Anzeiger interview reported by laRegione and Blue News on 2026-07-16, in which he is said to have called himself part of the first generation that will not die; Livemint of 2026-07-30; and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser of 2026-08-23. The exact words and dates are unchecked. The autoimmune gastritis he announced on X is covered by many outlets; his own post was not opened.
This entry is data/claims/johnson-2023-biological-age-stays-the-same.toml in the public repository.
-
Hevolution Foundation
The Hevolution Foundation, a non-profit funder of ageing research headquartered in Riyadh and backed by the Saudi royal court, launched in 2021 and public from 2022, the largest new funder the field has had.
Cannot be settled about the whole question one fact still to check
“Our annual budget of up to $1 billion USD enables us to accelerate science and bring therapies to the market.”
What it commits to. A ceiling, not a pledge: a budget of up to a billion dollars a year, with no date and no stated floor.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The foundation's own introductory page (undated, first archived 2023-03-27) and the standard description at the foot of its release of 2023-11-29 on its first Global Healthspan Summit; both read on the page. hevolution.com
Notes Against the ceiling, the foundation's own figures: commitments of about two hundred and fifty million dollars by 2023-11-29, over four hundred million by 2024-06-10 (its own words, within the past twenty-one months), and four hundred million over three years in its summit release of 2025-01-27. The hedge, up to, is why the fixed set's verdict is unfalsifiable; the gap between ceiling and spend is why the record exists. The foundation is a co-sponsor of the XPRIZE Healthspan (xprize-healthspan-2023-launch).
Not yet verified The earliest dated statement of the billion figure in the foundation's own words is the debut release on Business Wire, dated 2022-08-31 ('with an annual budget of up to $1 Billion'), read in an archive copy; no earlier statement by the foundation was found, but one cannot be ruled out. The 2022-06-07 version is a chief executive's words in coverage.
This entry is data/claims/hevolution-2023-up-to-a-billion-a-year.toml in the public repository.
-
XPRIZE
The XPRIZE Foundation, which runs large public competitions, here with the Hevolution Foundation and the charity Solve FSHD as sponsors of a hundred and one million dollar prize for a treatment that restores function in older people.
Not yet due: due 2030 about the whole question
“restores muscle, cognition, and immune function by a minimum of 10 years, with a goal of 20 years”
What it commits to. By 2030, a team demonstrating a treatment of one year or less that restores muscle, thinking and immune function in people aged sixty-five to eighty by at least ten years (twenty for the top prize); the grand prize of up to eighty-one million dollars is awarded that year.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say; and- the measuring ageing branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The launch release, dated Riyadh 2023-11-29, on xprize.org; read in full. The 2030 date is from the foundation's later releases of 2025-05-12 and 2026-08-11. xprize.org
Notes Progress by the foundation's own releases: a hundred semifinalists from over six hundred teams on 2025-05-12, forty of them paid a quarter of a million dollars; twenty finalists on 2026-08-11 (a month later than the promised 2026-07), ten paid a million. A quiet change of terms along the way: the launch said ages sixty-five to eighty, the 2025 release fifty to eighty, and the 2026 release says trials run in adults aged fifty to ninety. The prize bears on the measuring branch because its judging is itself an attempt to define what counts as restored function in a person; it is marked about the headline because the ten-to-twenty-year target is the scale of the whole question.
This entry is data/claims/xprize-healthspan-2023-launch.toml in the public repository.
-
David Sinclair
The Harvard genetics professor David Sinclair, author of the 2019 book Lifespan and co-founder of Life Biosciences among other companies, here speaking as co-founder of Animal Biosciences, which sells a dog supplement.
Missed
“have developed the first supplement proven to reverse aging in dogs”
What it commits to. A result already in hand: that a supplement combining a booster of the cell-energy molecule NAD with a drug that kills worn-out cells had been proven, in a trial, to reverse ageing in dogs.
Missed, judged 16 October 2026. The company's own correction of 2024-03-05 withdrew the word proven, changing the sentence to shown to reverse the effects of age-related decline, and the release describes the evidence as a study posted online before peer review, in which neither owners nor researchers knew which dogs had the supplement, and whose outcomes were owner-assessed cognition, frailty, activity and happiness, with no counts or sizes given; the claim as made was not supported by its own source.
Rests on- the worn-out cells branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
- the energy and fuel sensing branch furthest stage in clinical use; 1 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source A quotation in Animal Biosciences' press release of 2024-02-29 on Business Wire, seventh paragraph, and his own post the same day; both read in Wayback Machine captures of 2024-03-05 and 2024-03-07. The company issued a correction to the quotation on 2024-03-05. businesswire.com
Notes His own post of the same day said the supplement was clinically proven to slow the effects of ageing in dogs; the post has since been deleted. Two weeks later the Academy for Health and Lifespan Research announced that he had resigned as its president. The verdict was a judgment call, since the fixed set has no word for a result claim its maker withdrew; John ruled on 2026-10-17 that missed stands, and the record layout now says a result claim its maker withdrew is recorded as missed. The alternative, unfalsifiable because the claim carries no date, was not taken.
This entry is data/claims/sinclair-2024-dog-supplement.toml in the public repository.
-
Aubrey de Grey
The biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey, who coined the phrase longevity escape velocity, co-founded the Methuselah Foundation and the SENS Research Foundation, and since 2022 has run the Longevity Escape Velocity Foundation.
Not yet due: due 2039 about the whole question 2 facts still to check
“I currently think we have a 50% chance of reaching that point within about 12-15 years from now”
What it commits to. Even odds, by 2036 to 2039, of medicines that postpone ageing by around twenty years, which he defines in the same answer as the point at which longevity escape velocity first becomes achievable.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source A written question-and-answer interview in the Ambrosia Path newsletter, answer to the third question, published 2024-03-01; read on the page. ambrosiapath.beehiiv.com
Notes The circulating version, fifty percent within twelve to fifteen years, matches; what it drops is his definition, medicines that postpone ageing by around twenty years. Nineteen years after the 2005 talk put even odds about twenty-five years out (de-grey-2005-fifty-fifty-fifteen-years), the horizon is twelve to fifteen. A talk of 2025-08-28 at the Longevity Summit Dublin, read in a third-party transcript, urges other researchers to give time frames but gives no new odds of his own. Updated 2026-10-17, from the weekly reading of that date: a later recorded occasion exists (the Extrapolate episode of 2026-02-16, with Rob Hof). It is not entered as its own claim because its words have not been heard; the verdict stays not yet due. It sits beside the Peter McCormack interview as a second recording to listen to.
Not yet verified Whether the newsletter edited his written answers is not stated on its page; the words and date (2024-03-01) are confirmed. A recorded statement of the same odds (for example the Peter McCormack interview, segment 'The 12-15 Year Prediction', summarised by Lifeboat News on 2026-08-15) was not watched. An episode of the Extrapolate podcast released 2026-02-16, titled How We End Aging in 15 Years (51 minutes 56 seconds), is described on the podcast's own page as saying he estimates about fifteen years to longevity escape velocity, provided funding catches up. Only the description was read; the recording was not heard and no transcript was found, so his actual words, any odds he gave and the year it counts from are unchecked. If he did say about fifteen years from 2026, the horizon is 2041, up to two years later than the 2036 to 2039 of this entry.
This entry is data/claims/de-grey-2024-fifty-percent-twelve-to-fifteen-years.toml in the public repository.
-
Bryan Johnson
The technology entrepreneur Bryan Johnson, who founded and sold the payments company Braintree and since 2021 has run a published programme to slow his own ageing, which he calls Blueprint.
Cannot be settled
“My new record: 0.64 pace-of-aging. My birthday is now every 19 months.”
What it commits to. A result about himself: a reading of 0.64 years of ageing per calendar year on one clock that reads the chemical marks on DNA (DunedinPACE), presented as meaning that he ages a year every nineteen months.
Cannot be settled: it names no date and no result that could ever decide it, so it is recorded and never scored.
Rests on- the measuring ageing branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source His own post on X, 2024-06-11; read through the platform's public embed feed, which returns the text and timestamp. x.com
Notes The sequence in his own words: 0.82 initial, 0.73 and 0.69 by 2023-04-07 (a Medium post, read in an archive capture), 0.64 here, and 0.48 on 2025-03-05. The verdict is the fixed set's word for a claim nothing could settle: the clock is a research tool whose reading for one person has no established meaning for remaining life, which is what the measuring branch tracks, so the birthday-every-nineteen-months reading cannot be checked against anything but his eventual lifespan. The 2023 comparison to eighteen-year-olds (slower than 88 percent of them) belongs to the 0.69 reading and is often attached to this one. His programme is the self-experiment record bryan-johnson-blueprint.
This entry is data/claims/johnson-2024-pace-of-ageing-record.toml in the public repository.
-
Ray Kurzweil
The inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, a director of engineering at Google and the author of The Singularity Is Near (2005) and The Singularity Is Nearer (2024).
Not yet due: due 2030 about the whole question 3 facts still to check
“by around 2030, the most diligent and informed people will reach "longevity escape velocity"”
What it commits to. Longevity escape velocity, defined on the same page as adding more than a year of remaining life expectancy per calendar year, reached by around 2030 for the most diligent and informed people; and disease and the ageing process largely overcome by the end of the 2030s.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The Singularity Is Nearer (Viking, 2024), page 192, in the chapter on health and longevity; read in Google Books' search-inside snippets on 2026-10-16, which show the sentence but not the whole page. books.google.com
Notes The famous version is 2029. The book's longevity pages (189 to 194 and 255 to 257, by its index) do not use that year; the 2029 figure comes from interviews around the book's launch, among them the Joe Rogan Experience as quoted by The Independent on 2024-03-13 and a BBC Science Focus interview of 2024-08-23 that gives 2029 to 2035, both coverage. The book also places the third of his three bridges, cell-level repair by medical nanorobots, in the 2030s (page 135), and endorses Aubrey de Grey's claim that the first person to live to a thousand has likely been born (page 257). The claim is about the whole question, not any one branch, so it is marked as about the headline. When 2030 passes the verdict turns on the record as a whole: whether, in that year, the best available care added more than a year of remaining life expectancy per year lived, which is what the headline is built to say. His earlier dated occasions are kurzweil-2022-end-of-the-decade, kurzweil-grossman-2004-two-decades and kurzweil-grossman-2009-bridge-two. Updated 2026-10-17, from the weekly reading of that date: in 2026 he has restated the date, later than the book's. In a printed question-and-answer interview with Boston Magazine, published online on 2026-02-11, he says that by 2032 a person will gain back one year for each year lived; that is entered as its own claim, kurzweil-2026-escape-velocity-by-2032, because the log keeps each dated occasion. Business Today (2026-06-20) repeats 2032 as coverage. A La Nacion piece of 2026-05-01 still gave 2029. This entry, the book's sentence of 2024, stands as written and keeps its due year of 2030.
Not yet verified The sentence was read in snippet view, so the words immediately before it on page 192 were not seen; check against a copy of the book. Two reviews (Nautilus, a Substack review) restate the claim without page numbers. The hardcover date (2024-06-25) rests on library catalogue and bookseller listings; the publisher's page confirms 2024-06-25 only for the e-book and audiobook. His 2026 statements of 2032 in Business Today (2026-06-20) and Ynet (undated in the result), and the attributions of 2032 or the early 2030s to a Nikkei interview and a Guardian interview, are coverage; the Nikkei and Guardian interviews were not found or opened.
This entry is data/claims/kurzweil-2029-escape-velocity.toml in the public repository.
-
S. Jay Olshansky
The demographer S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois Chicago, who has argued since the 1990s that life expectancy gains are slowing and that radical life extension is not in prospect, writing here with Bradley Willcox, Lloyd Demetrius and Hiram Beltrán-Sánchez.
Not yet due: due 2100 about the whole question
“unless the processes of biological aging can be markedly slowed, radical human life extension is implausible in this century”
What it commits to. No radical extension of human life before 2100 in the longest-lived populations, and no more than about fifteen percent of women and five percent of men born now reaching a hundred, unless ageing itself is markedly slowed.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Nature Aging, volume 4, pages 1635 to 1642, Implausibility of radical life extension in humans in the twenty-first century; the abstract, read in full. doi.org
Notes The sceptic's mirror of the headline: the paper's condition, unless ageing itself is markedly slowed, is exactly what this site's leaves ask whether anyone has done. The headline's two fixed dates, 2050 and 2100, let the claim be scored against the record as it comes in. His standing bet with Steven Austad is austad-olshansky-2000-bet-on-150.
This entry is data/claims/olshansky-2024-implausible-this-century.toml in the public repository.
-
Life Biosciences
Life Biosciences, the Boston company co-founded by David Sinclair that is developing ER-100, a treatment that briefly switches on three reprogramming genes to reset the cell's settings, first for two conditions that damage the optic nerve.
Missed
“remains on track to initiate the first human clinical study evaluating ER-100 for optic neuropathies in the second half of 2025”
What it commits to. A first human trial of ER-100 started between 2025-07 and 2025-12.
Missed, judged 16 October 2026. By the company's own releases the regulator cleared the trial on 2026-01-28, the first participant was dosed by 2026-06-09, and interim results in three people were reported on 2026-10-08; the start slipped out of 2025 by one to two quarters.
Rests on- A person receives cell-resetting genes in a registered trial First human
- the the cell's settings branch furthest stage first human; 0 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The company's press release of 2024-10-21 on its data at the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting; read in full. lifebiosciences.com
Notes The trial, registered as NCT07290244, treats open-angle glaucoma and a sudden optic-nerve stroke. The 2026-10-08 release reports it well tolerated through day fifty-six in all three participants with preliminary signs of improved visual fields in two, which is a safety trial's early reading and not the measured result the branch's test asks for. The slip is small; it is recorded because the log is talk set against delivery, and small slips are the ones that get forgotten. Related: sinclair-2023-age-reversal-in-people (his prediction of the same trial) and salk-2016-up-to-ten-years-to-trials (which this trial fulfilled).
This entry is data/claims/life-biosciences-2024-first-human-study-second-half-2025.toml in the public repository.
-
Loyal
Loyal, the San Francisco company founded by Celine Halioua to win the first regulatory approval for a drug that extends lifespan, in dogs first, with three candidates under the United States veterinary regulator's conditional-approval route.
Missed
“the company anticipates completion of the manufacturing and safety requirements”
What it commits to. The two remaining sections of the conditional-approval application for LOY-002 complete by the end of 2025, and, in the same post, an approved longevity drug for millions of dogs within the next year.
Missed, judged 16 October 2026. The company's own post of 2026-01-13 says the safety section was accepted but the manufacturing section remains, with the application now expected in 2027; its posts of 2026-02-11 and 2026-09-16 report no approval for any of its drugs.
Rests on- A drug is approved to make dogs live longer Idea only
- the energy and fuel sensing branch furthest stage in clinical use; 1 in the clinic
The source in full, and the notes
Primary source The company's own post of 2025-02-26 announcing that the regulator had accepted the effectiveness section for its senior-dog drug LOY-002; read in full. loyal.com
Notes The quoted phrase is the first half of the sentence; the words by the end of 2025 follow a clause not read verbatim, so they are in the commitment and not the quotation. The company's own explainer of 2024-04 puts the full-approval data from its long-term study at an estimated 2029. The earlier large-dog drug LOY-001 had its effectiveness section accepted on 2023-11-28 with no year given, and a third, LOY-003, on 2026-09-16. Dogs matter to this site because a regulator accepting lifespan extension as something a drug can be approved for is the measuring branch's test one species early.
This entry is data/claims/loyal-2025-senior-dog-approval-by-end-of-2025.toml in the public repository.
-
Ray Kurzweil
The inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, a director of engineering at Google and the author of The Singularity Is Near (2005) and The Singularity Is Nearer (2024).
Not yet due: due 2032 about the whole question 2 facts still to check
“by 2032, you’ll gain back one year for each year lived.”
What it commits to. Longevity escape velocity, in his words gaining back one year of longevity for each year lived, by 2032, and more than a year gained per year after that; in the same interview, that within seven years (by 2033) there will be things that overcome disease very quickly. He adds that it does not guarantee immortality.
Rests on the whole question: whether, by the year it names, the best available care adds more than a year of remaining life per year lived, which the year at the top of this site is built to say.The source in full, and the notes
Primary source Boston Magazine, Futurist Ray Kurzweil Says Humanity Is Seven Years Away from Beating Disease, a question-and-answer interview by Brittany Jasnoff, published online 2026-02-11 and in the February 2026 print issue under the headline Forever Young; an edited and condensed version of a recent conversation; read on the page on 2026-10-17. bostonmagazine.com
Notes A restatement of the book's sentence of 2024, kurzweil-2029-escape-velocity, with a later date: the book says by around 2030 for the most diligent and informed people; here he says by 2032, without that qualification, and with disease overcome within seven years. The Boston Magazine interview is a printed question and answer in his own words, which the project counts as a primary source (ruled by John on 2026-10-17). The date is for the whole question, not any one branch, so it is marked as about the headline. The log keeps each dated occasion, as it does for his 2004, 2009 and 2022 statements. When 2032 passes, the verdict turns on whether, in that year, the best available care added more than a year of remaining life expectancy per year lived.
Not yet verified The interview is described by the magazine as edited and condensed, so the words are the magazine's version of what he said; the date of the conversation itself is given only as recent before 2026-02-11. Other 2026 occasions are coverage and were not opened: Business Today (2026-06-20), Ynet, and attributions to Nikkei and Guardian interviews. A YouTube interview titled 2032: The End of Biological Limits was seen in a search listing and not watched.
This entry is data/claims/kurzweil-2026-escape-velocity-by-2032.toml in the public repository.
What the four verdicts mean
- Not yet due. The date or result it commits to has not arrived yet. It is judged when it does.
- Delivered. What it committed to happened by the date it named, on a public record.
- Missed. The date passed and what it committed to had not happened. A claim its maker later withdrew stays missed.
- Cannot be settled. It names no date and no result that could ever settle it, so it can never be judged delivered or missed.
The record itself is one file per claim in data/claims in the public repository; the rules for an entry are in how the numbers are worked out. 18 facts in these entries are still to be checked against a source, and each entry says which.