• You’re Likely To Live Past Age 85 Whether Or Not You Take Anti-Aging Pills

    Posted August 20, 2013: by Bill Sardi

    While many Americans mistakenly believe they will not live as long others in their age group, Americans are more likely to live two to three decades beyond the typical date of retirement (age 65) even without the aid of predicted new advances in medical technology intended to slow the rate of aging.

    About 46 percent of pre-retirees think they will not live as long as the average person their age and gender, according to the recently published Society of Actuaries’ Retirement Risk Survey that compared respondents’ estimates of personal life expectancy to those of the population as a whole.

    But strikingly, according to the above report, approximately half the population will live longer than their average life expectancy.

    Probability of Living From Age 65 to Various Ages



















    According to a companion report entitled “Risky Business: Living Longer Without Income For Life,” produced by the American Academy of Actuaries, a 65-year old man has a 1 in 5 chance of living to age 90 and a 65-year old woman has a 3 in 10 chance of living that long.

    A decade old report published in Science magazine cited that in countries with the highest life expectancies, the maximum life expectancy continues to rise, for example, in Japan.  Even after age 100, death rates are falling, says the report.  More recently, tobacco use is in steep decline, which should spur even further increases in life expectancy in Japan.  Ditto for the U.S.

    A report issued by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on an Aging Society says that male and female life expectancy in the US is likely to rise by 3.1 and 4.5 years respectively, and by as much as 7.9 years if technologies are employed to delay aging.  The authors of that report “contend, as do many other scientists, that people alive today will be the beneficiaries of these (life prolonging) interventions.”

    Such a striking improvement in life expectancy would add another $3.2 trillion to Medicare and $8.3 trillion to Social Security compared to current government forecasts.

    This future prediction is not based on full implementation of anti-aging technologies by all retirees or the increase in life expectancy could soar much higher.

    Even though the Rand Corporation think tank added the cost of an anti-aging pill to future projected Medicare costs in a report issued in 2005, it appears the federal government is making no such plans to pay for life-prolonging technologies in its Medicare budget, nor in its factoring for future pension costs.  Does this serve as evidence the federal government recognizes such anti-aging technologies exist but does not want them to be put into practice?

    Anti-aging pills not on public’s radar yet

    Another report issued by The Society of Actuaries reveals what factors retirees believe will determine their personal life expectancy.  Family history/inherited longevity (47%), own health (37%), healthy habits (34%), positive attitude (15%), were the primary reasons given.  Good health care was mentioned by only 4% of retirees polled.  Anti-aging pills were completely off the radar.

    So, at the present moment, the idea of adding years to life via any anti-aging strategy simply isn’t being considered.  It’s like a survey conducted in the 1960s which asked if there was a market for desktop computers when no one knew what they were yet.

    In 2005 Dana Goldman of the Rand Corporation think-tank said: “If someone comes up with a new pill, say to prevent aging, that could break the bank in ways that we didn’t foresee.”  Rand Corp. predicted anti-aging technology would cost $8790 per added life year.  Surely a debt-laden nation like the U.S. would be wary of such a development.

    But life-prolonging technologies need not be that expensive.  For example, the best-tested anti-aging pill to date, which closely mimics the effect of a calorie restriction diet that is known to double the lifespan and health span of animals, costs less than $350 a year and if taken for 40 years beginning at age 55 would only cost $12,960 all totaled.  This cost would presumably be offset by improvements in health and delay chronic age-related disease.  Medical care costs should predictably decline as retirees live longer using this technology.  Consumers would presumably spend less on out-of-pocket health care costs taking a proven anti-aging pill.  Out-of-pocket costs for Medicare patients today totals about $4600/year.

    Longevity insurance

    What the life insurance industry is offering retirees who may outlive their retirement plans is longevity insurance.

    Even if all retirees are successful in perfectly plan to have their money last to match their life expectancies, about half of them will run out of money.

    Life insurance companies and pension plans are also in a fix.  The Life & Longevity Market Association in Great Britain estimates a massive $2.67 trillion longevity risk – a shortage in what it must pay out in pension checks.  It’s recipients are living beyond anticipated life expectancy and the plans want someone else (an insurance company) to share that risk.

    Recognizing the shortfall due to longer life spans, insurance companies have cooked up a policy called “longevity insurance.”  It is an open admission they are underfunded if the current longevity revolution proceeds.

    In a typical longevity insurance policy, in exchange for a lump sum (which in some instances can be paid out as a monthly premium), an insured individual can obtain a monthly income at some defined date in the future.  As an example, a 65-year old man can pay $100,000 for an immediate fixed-rate annuity and starting at age 85 and would receive a payout of $63,990/year for the remainder of life.

    But there are caveats.  If the man dies before the payouts begin, the insurer keeps his money.  Also, if the rate of inflation rises, the purchasing power of the annuity would be reduced.  A 6% rate of inflation would cut the annual payment almost in half.  Some policies include an inflation adjustment but the insured obviously has to pay more for that.  Governments typically hide the real rate of inflation.  According to economist John Williams, the federal government claims a 2.2% consumer price index, hiding the fact the real rate of inflation is more like 9.3%.

    Of course, this longevity insurance begins to sound more like a bet that may or may not pay off, kind of like fire insurance.  And who knows whether these insurance companies will even be in existence 20 years from now.

    Longevity swaps

    Life insurance companies and pension plans have also begun participation in what are called “longevity swaps” where a pension plan contracts with an insurer who will cover any losses over and above those predicted.  The pension plan, rather than paying a lump sum upfront, pays an annual amount, and the insurer covers the annual pension payments until the last member dies.

    In this instance, rather than the pension plan paying a premium to the insurer and the insurer then paying the claims to the pension plan, only the net difference is exchanged.  “Swap” refers to who takes on the risk, in this case, the insurer.

    Now imagine these swaps continue ad infinitum as one insurer underwrites another.  (This resembles the selling of mortgages by lenders in the 2008 real estate crash where some home owners couldn’t determine who owned their mortgage.)

    Insiders passed on anti-aging technologies decades ago

    Anti-aging technology that involved discoveries in genetics were made in the 1970s and were followed by predictions from gerontologists of an anti-aging pill, of 250-year life spans.  The life insurance industry was privately briefed and said this about such a discovery (Longevity & Genetic Engineering, Record of Society of Actuaries, Volume 5, No. 1, 1979):

    “The continuing need in the annuity area would be for a short annuity to begin near the end of the healthy portion of the span of life.

    As for annuity products, maybe we will want to push term annuities to protect ourselves against unanticipated life extensions. Annuities certain or perpetuities might find favor because they do not contain… Perhaps one small example of that is if the probability of dying gets so small that perhaps, for all practical purposes, people would die from accidents alone, then maybe people would not be interested in buying life insurance at all. My view is who would buy life insurance when they did not perceive a need for it and who would sell it when they did.”  (Take special note of “protect ourselves from unanticipated life extensions.”)

    At that time, a report published in Time Magazine said “We have birth control, but not age control.”  In other words, the elites were making self-serving decisions for the masses.  The life insurance industry was briefed while the public remained in the dark.  Super longevity would not become a reality because it would be politically and financially unacceptable.

    Modern society has now reached a point where the masses are living extra-long lives regardless of any anti-aging technology and humanity can no longer afford the cost of treating every individual age-related disease as they occur.

    The longevity dividend

    What the public and overseers can’t see is the proposed “longevity dividend.”  If healthy life could be extended an additional seven years, the insolvency of Medicare could be averted.  A healthier society benefits society as well as individuals.  The impetus to put life-prolonging technologies into practice via an anti-aging pill would be more readily acceptable if it were couched in terms of a “health span pill.”

    Anticipate modern medicine in its disease-care model to attempt to put the kibosh on longevity science.  Already a large human clinical trial involving a red wine longevity pill employs what appears to be an intentional overdose in a possible concealed attempt to sweep this idea out of the public’s mind.  A recent study emanating from the University of Copenhagen mischaracterized resveratrol as reversing health benefits achieved by sedentary males who initiated an exercise program.  Also noted red wine pill researcher was falsely accused of scientific fraud, despite his work being duplicated by other researchers worldwide.

    The current behind-the-scenes battle appears to be whether such a pill will be a drug or a dietary supplement.  The Harvard researcher who initially announced a red wine pill might serve as an anti-aging pill says it will likely have to be a drug to undergo human clinical trials.  However, synthetic drugs that attempt to mimic a red wine pill are now being called “worthless,” despite the fact a drug company paid $720 million for them.

    In spite of the pharmaceutical company abandoning further research and development of its SRT501 red wine pill, the Harvard researcher who initiated this discovery says: “I’m advising [the drug company] and my advice would be to continue being optimistic about clinical trials. That’s where the next big discovery will come from.”

    To complicate matters, the FDA may declare red wine pills to be drugs, which would likely limit public accessibility and raise their cost to beyond the price of a Viagra pill, which is $10-11 per tablet.

    The late Robert Butler, founder of the International Longevity Center, suggested in 2008 that a new model of health promotion and disease prevention would be ushered in in the 21st century.  So far, that idea is within reach scientifically but still far from implementation.  Only a self-guided few have ventured to take an anti-aging pill, not waiting for overseers to make the decision for them. The masses await assurance such a pill will not interfere with their prescription drugs and Medicare coverage.  ©Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc. and ResveratrolNews.com

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.