Health Longevity Secrets
The health advice you're getting isn't working. Want to know what the experts actually do for themselves?
Health Longevity Secrets reveals the real science behind longevity, metabolic health, fasting, and disease reversal—the protocols that researchers and physicians use in their own lives, not just what they tell patients.
Robert Lufkin MD is a UCLA and USC medical school professor, practicing physician, and New York Times bestselling author. After reversing his own chronic disease through lifestyle medicine, he's on a mission to share what actually works.
Each episode features in-depth interviews with world-class scientists, doctors, and biohackers who share their personal health strategies—no sponsored talking points, just real answers.
Your health transformation starts here.
Health Longevity Secrets
What if the Future of Medicine is in Your Home?
What if the most powerful health checkup you ever had happened at your kitchen table, not a clinic? We sit down with Dr. Natasha Milinkovic, a UK physician who moved from the front lines of vascular surgery and emergency medicine to the leading edge of preventive care, to explore how lab‑grade at‑home blood testing and intelligent coaching can change outcomes before a crisis hits.
We start with the problem he saw repeatedly: people arriving late with preventable chronic disease. That urgency drives a practical roadmap for what to measure and why. You’ll hear a clear breakdown of high‑value biomarkers—HbA1c for glucose trends, ApoB and the ApoB to ApoA1 ratio for cardiovascular risk, and thyroid markers for therapy tuning—and why total cholesterol alone often misleads. Tosh explains how accuracy is maintained through CLIA‑accredited labs and transparent methods, addressing trust in a post‑Theranos world. We also dig into biological age: how markers like hs‑CRP, HbA1c, and sex hormones push it up or down, and the specific lifestyle levers that can nudge it younger over the next 90 days.
Then we open the hood on Sai, an AI longevity expert trained on a clinician‑curated knowledge base. Instead of scraping the noisy web, Sai reads your longitudinal labs, medications, and context to deliver personalized, evidence‑based guidance. Think trend detection for creeping glucose, stubborn ApoB, or hidden inflammation—and concrete next steps that you can take today. Looking ahead, Tosh shares what’s next: home hardware that brings instant panels into your routine and a vision of predictive health where alerts trigger action long before symptoms do.
If you want to cut through hype, track the markers that matter, and pair credible data with smart coaching, this conversation will give you the playbook. Subscribe, share with a friend who’s optimizing their health, and leave a review with the one biomarker you plan to track this year.
Note: I am an advisor to Siphox but I only advise those companies whose products I would use for myself and family.
https://siphoxhealth.com/lufkin
FASTING CHALLENGE: https://robert-lufkin.mykajabi.com/fast?ref=RL
Continue this conversation on SubStack: https://robertlufkinmd.substack.com
Lies I Taught In Medical School : Free sample chapter- https://www.robertlufkinmd.com/lies/
Complete Metabolic Heart Scan (LUFKIN20 for 20% off) https://www.innerscopic.com/
Fasting Mimicking Diet (20% off) https://prolonlife.com/Lufkin
Web: https://robertlufkinmd.com/
X: https://x.com/robertlufkinmd
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/robertLufkinmd
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/robertlufkinmd/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertlufkinmd/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertlufkin
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@robertlufkinmd
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertlufkinmd
Blu...
Hey Tosh, welcome to the program.
SPEAKER_00:Hi, delivery to meet you.
SPEAKER_01:I'm so excited about today's conversation. Um, but first of all, maybe a little bit about your background. I mean, you've worked in vascular surgery and trauma care, you know, meaning I guess you see firsthand what goes wrong when you know chronic conditions are ignored uh until it's too late. So maybe tell us about your your history a little bit and what what shaped your sense of urgency about preventive health and and early detection that uh informs where you are today?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, exactly that. So I think you kind of touched on it there. So um I'm UK doctor, worked in the NHS for seven years um in major London trauma centres and through the through the pandemic. So, like you say, seen it all, very much been on the sharp end in vascular surgical jobs and kind of accident and emergency, or I think it's ED as you call it in the States. Um, so yeah, I think working through that, it's been nice to be on the sharp end. You feel like you're really making an impact and you've got the kind of the opportunity to change outcomes there. But time and time again, you're seeing kind of the same things, you're seeing the same kind of disease demographics. Um and you're also seeing how early intervention could have prevented some of these progressions. Um, and then I combine that with my own personal experience and kind of my my family, my my dad unfortunately had a heart attack quite early on and was seemingly quite fit, quite healthy, didn't really see it coming. So you start to think a little bit more outside the box and actually, why are we catching so many of these things last minute? Why are people presenting so late? Why is our population kind of getting less and less healthy? They're eating more, they're exercising less, they've got increased burdens of stress, etc. Um, and what can we actually be doing kind of at the foundational level to prevent that? So I think that's what initially kind of sparked my interest in kind of preventative medicine. Um, so post the pandemic, when we were all a little bit burnt out, a little bit fatigued, um, started exploring those other options. And CyFox was a company that that caught my eye. Um, doing at-home biometric testing, got your blood results at home. Um, and that really interested me because I thought that's kind of empowering people to take a little bit more ownership of their health, to kind of get this information early, to keep on top of it, um, without the kind of the labour involved with going to your GP or kind of waiting for the appointments. Um, so I joined CyFox initially as part of their health coaching team, which meant I still got kind of that patient relationship, still got to kind of speak to our users, hear about their problems, help explain stuff from less of an acute perspective, but more of a well, what does this mean? What can I be doing kind of as an early step to prevent the progression of kind of my my sugar levels or my kind of cholesterol levels? So that's how I initially got involved in in CyFox, and we've gradually scaled and grown kind of the coaching program there, um, and then more laterally transitioned into more of a product role, again, helping kind of design new products that can go out and reach the kind of the wider population, with the idea that being that again, we're empowering people and looking at more of a preventative healthcare strategy rather than waiting to those later stages where we're kind of intervening. And so that's been my journey thus far.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I mean, I'm I'm so excited about talking, diving into the the work you do at SciFox and then more generally just the whole space of at-home blood testing, because it's really, you know, that is the tip of the spear in some ways in preventive medicine, too. So you've gone from you know acute trauma and vascular surgery to another tip of the spear in the preventive space. So uh it's it's uh it's gonna be a fun conversation. I mean, so so biohacking often gets a bad rap, right? For for being, you know, wishful thinking or even worse, snake oil in some of it.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Um, so as someone you know who's a real doctor, a real medical doctor with real clinical training and a research background, how do you draw the line between legitimate preventive health, longevity work, and and all the hype that's out there? What's a person to do?
SPEAKER_00:You know what? It's it's so nuanced and it's so complicated, and there's so much kind of white noise and like misinformation out there that it is quite tricky to navigate. And I think a lot of what people overlook is when they think about kind of medicine or a traditional doctor, you imagine kind of like your family practitioner or someone doing chest compressions or taking your blood. But a big part of medicine is kind of looking at evidence basis, uh, and a lot of medicine is evidence-based practice, so it's not just stuff that we're kind of someone's had an idea and we roll it out, it's been substantiated and re-evaluated over time. And I think a lot of like your subconscious thinking as a doctor is looking at kind of whether they're studies or whether they're kind of peer-reviewed journals or whether they're kind of clinical trials. You're constantly kind of re-evaluating the information out there to make sure that what you're treating or kind of the guidance you're putting forward has a real clinical kind of significance and a real clinical kind of rigor to it. And I think that's what kind of it becomes a little bit more complex with biohacking. Some of it has gone through that same kind of rigorous process. There's the evidence to substantiate it, whereas some of it is more kind of n equals one experiments or kind of I noticed when I was doing X. So I think we need to be really careful around biohacking and where we get our information from. And sometimes watching YouTube videos and taking it at face value is not the best way to go about it. But on the converse, there's some really kind of interesting stuff that's coming about because of this kind of whole idea of biohacking, um, really is enabling people to kind of like push that boat in terms of experimentation. I mean, we see people like Brian Johnson who have the kind of the team and the support around him to do stuff that we are never really going to explore or never really gonna get kind of the go-ahead to explore in a kind of a purely clinical setting. So I think as long as you're kind of aware of the information and where it's come from and reading between the lines a little bit, I think it's a really interesting time. I think the key there is not necessarily kind of the information, but how we interpret the information. It's not all kind of all golden and all kind of what it says on the tin. There's sometimes a little bit more nuance to it. Um, but I think if we take that kind of that lens when we're looking at things and approach it with a degree of caution, then it's got the potential to really kind of push science and push our way how we're kind of looking after or viewing our health.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, the whole idea of being able to test my blood at home uh without having to drive into a lab, without having to have, as we'll see in a moment, the need for tubes of blood to be drawn or even a finger stick, it's really remarkable. This whole this whole concept is is really new. It wasn't wasn't widely available at all, even just a few years ago. So it's it's really a new era in in medicine. Do you see this as a tool mainly for kind of amplifying what a medical practitioner can do as far as getting this for their patients? Or do you see it as empowering the patient kind of on their own to go out and do these tests and then if there's an then bring it to their doctor? Or how does how did how does that play out?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, and I think there's there's two use cases there, and I think I think both are possible. I think the kind of the the more obvious one is kind of empowering people from their own home. Um, so facilitating them being able to get more regular blood tests to stay on top of their health, whether it's monitoring kind of recovery after illness or after injury, and it's something they are curious about. But I think ideally, if as we see this kind of market grow and as we see kind of um the availability of it become be increased, I think hopefully the synergy between actually kind of being able to do blood testing at home, the individual being able to keep on top of their kind of health a little bit more, but also kind of helping their practitioners. So you might not be able to get into the lab. Clinical slots may be booked up, but being able to do your testing at home, provide that to your provider who's then got an extra data set, I think ideally that would be where we'd like to get to, where at-home testing can link in with kind of the current standardized testing we have and help kind of as an adjunct. I think that would be kind of the gold standard for where we'd like to get this to.
SPEAKER_01:So, so for listeners who aren't medical professionals, what what baseline tests or lifestyle habits uh would you say are essential and which which habits or or tests are overhyped? Where should people spend their energy if they want to truly upgate upgrade their their biology and longevity responsibly?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, absolutely. So I think the big hitters and the ones we hit we hear a lot about, so things like metabolic disease. So when we're thinking about diabetes and how we control our blood sugar levels, and particularly with kind of the the surge in things like a Zempic, I think that's kind of like a hot topic at the moment. So generally HBA1C is a biomarker that we we offer, and essentially that's a really great biomarker in terms of it looks at your blood sugar levels over a period of two to three months. And what that helps does is it helps give you kind of a nice overview, a holistic overview of what you've been doing, what your eating habits, what your exercise habits have been like for the past two to three months, as opposed to kind of having these artificial spikes, let's say over kind of the festive period where perhaps your dietary habits have changed a little bit, it gives you a much more balanced view. Um, so that's a really great way of tracking things like your body's response to blood uh to sugar, um, and therefore your kind of long-term risk of developing things like diabetes and metabolic health. Um, the other obvious ones are things like your cholesterol, um, and we have our traditional cholesterol markers, so things like LDLC and HDLs. But if you listen to kind of the likes of Peter Otio and a Huberman, you might have heard of things like ApoB, APOA1, uh which tend to be kind of slightly more advanced versions of our more traditional cholesterol markers. So I also think they're kind of a good bang for your book in terms of monitoring your cardiovascular health, how you're eating, and again your lifestyle habits, smoking, drinking, etc. All things you have kind of the agency to be able to change at home are affecting your health long term. Um, similarly, for people who kind of take medication if you've got a known chronic condition, so something kind of like thyroid disease, being able to monitor things like your TSH, so your thyroid levels, your thyroid markers at home, being able to see how kind of the medication tweaks are kind of affecting your levels and monitor that in more real time. I think they're kind of really good use cases for at-home testing. Um, I think they're the areas where patients can really get a lot of a lot of benefit um by following or by monitoring these specific biomarkers.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, and so so before we leave uh heart health, um, like you say, people when they hear heart health, they most people think LDL cholesterol, but you you emphasize a lot APOB and other advanced markers. So why is the traditional cholesterol panel obsolete? And what what should every listener know about their, for example, APO B to Apo A1 ratio right now, or or these other advanced markers that you provide?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, absolutely. So I think total cholesterol seems to be kind of like a mainstay of our traditional models of health. And when we think or when we consider total cholesterol, that's looking at the sum of kind of your good cholesterol and your bad cholesterol. So where it does have relevance, it's not as important as looking at as looking at the split, looking at the breakdown. Um, you can get two people who have the same total cholesterol number, but one may have a high number of good cholesterol and a low number of bad cholesterol, which is obviously advantageous, whereas the other person might have the same total number, but the inverse. So a high number of bad cholesterol and a low number of good cholesterol. So if you're looking at total cholesterol as a marker individually, the two people look like they're level pegging, they're on a par. When you actually look a little bit further at the more nuance of it, there's that there's a clear divide there, there's a clear split. One person is healthier than the other. If we then take that a step further and extrapolate it a little bit more, we used to look at kind of LDL and HDLs, which are reasonable markers, but we now have the ability to tend to test more advanced markers. So instead of focusing specifically on subtypes of cholesterol, so I always use the analogy of cars in a car park. So you say if you're thinking about LDLs and HDLs, you're you're looking at a car park full of cars and you're purely singling out the Toyotas and the Mercedes. So it gives you an idea as to what's kind of going on in the car park, but you're ignoring a lot of the other cars there. Whereas the markers, the more advanced markers like Apo B and Apo A, still look at your good cholesterol and your bad cholesterol, but they're taking in a more kind of high-level overview. They're not just looking at the Toyotas, they're not just looking at the Mercedes, but they're looking at the total number of cars in the car park, which can inform kind of health decisions and give you a little bit more or much more from a data perspective in terms of what's really happening in your body. So I think there's certainly ones to watch, um, and I would say kind of have a lot more weight to them than than just our traditional models of health.
SPEAKER_01:Let's let's pivot to SciFox now, this company that that you're working for, and it's really revolutionary. In other words, it in order to get blood tests done, I used to either have to go to you know Quest or Lab Corps and have tubes of blood drawn, you know, with a tourniquet from my from my vein, my anticubital fossa there. Um, or or you know, perhaps better, although I can't stand this either, getting your fingers stuck and and having to you know drip blood on a card, um, which which is also can be an unpleasant experience. And and you uh you've come up with something which is really remarkable. It's using a this little device that you literally stick on your arm without the shirt on over it, of course. But uh, and it draws the blood out of my out of my arm like a little vampire, but it's trust me, it's completely painless. I've used this, I used it several times. This is what I use now, and it draws the blood out, and then you send it into to SyFox through the mail. And um for for$125, you can get 57 markers. And then it's it's really it's really remarkable. So in so CyFox, it it brings this truly lab grade diagnostics because there's there's no there's no sacrifice in quality. These are these are the same labs that you get from your doctor's office or everything, and the same quality, but it uses this silicone photonic tech, the name SciFox, I guess. So in a world still scarred by the uh Elizabeth Holmes and the Theranos fiasco, how do you make sure that people trust that at-home testing can be accurate and clinically actionable?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, absolutely. And it's a question we get quite a lot. Um, so Mike and DJ Car founders are quite kind of clear uh in terms of our transparency. Um, there are with lab testing across the board, there is an expected amount of kind of variation. So if you were to go to one hospital versus another, they use different machines, they use different agents. So there's a coefficient of variability that you expect between kind of lab tests. Um, but CyFox goes through the same accreditation as if you were to go through your hospital. Um, so all the labs they use are kind of clear accredited. So the accuracy of their test is compared to the accuracy of other tests, and we have to kind of pass a certain mark or fulfill a certain requirement in order to get that kind of stamp and seal of approval. So the CyFox test you're getting at home testing is to the same quality as what you'd expect if you went to your doctor's office, with the kind of the understanding that between tests there's an element of variation, but no kind of more so than if you were to go to one hospital on one day and another hospital on the other day. So it's it's very rigorous. Um and actually it to the kind of the the Theranos scandal, I actually think in a way there's a positive, it's shone a light on where these things can go wrong. Um, and it's shone a light on kind of where people should be looking, how people should be kind of verifying that their provider has gone through all the correct accreditation. So actually, if we kind of to flip the Theranos scandal on on its head, now it is kind of leading the leading the path for people going through that the actual the accreditation, the correct steps. Um and again, as a consumer, you have then that um that certainty at home that the provider you're using is a reputable provider. Um, so that's that's the way SciFox do it.
SPEAKER_01:Another metric that uh SciFox calculates is a bioage. And we've we've talked a lot about you know DNA methylation clocks and other types of biological age markers. People seem to get a lot of value out of a test when they can tag it to you know what their their bioage should be or shouldn't be. Can you talk about that a little bit?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, exactly. So it with with Cyfox, if you if you do your kind of testing with us, um you get a kind of biomarker report and you get a biological age. So essentially how that is calculated is it uses um it essentially assesses data patterns from the the data we have. Um and the LM the LLM looks for kind of regular patterns of biomarker sequences and how they might correlate to age. Um then we get your testing, and we again we analyze a cohort of biomarkers. So the more we have, the more accurate the kind of the final biological age is, but we analyze somewhere between kind of 12, 15, 16 biomarkers, and we look for these specific patterns and they how they correlate with age. And based on that, we come up with a kind of accumulative age score. Um, generally, if that is lower than your actual age, that's a that's a positive. It's saying that your biomarkers align with someone who is younger than yourself, the converse then being true. If your biological age is older than your actual chronological age, that suggests that some of your biomarkers or the biomarker read-ins align with patterns that might be kind of seen in someone older. So typical things that might increase that that number are things like if you have inflammation, um, so a marker HSCRP is a marker of inflammation. If in males your testosterone is low, um, if your HBA1C, so that marker that looks at your sugar is high, these are all going to influence kind of that biological age calculation. And they are things that might might push it up as opposed to decreasing it.
SPEAKER_01:Something else that SciFox does that I haven't seen in a lot of other lab testing uh offerings is the use of AI, which is, you know, AI is revolutioning, revolutionary and changing our lives in so many ways. So CyFox has something called Sci, which is uh SciFox AI longevity expert. So, how does that work? And maybe you maybe could show us here if you want.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so essentially Sci was built. We've got some some very brainy people at SciFox that are far more intelligent than I am. Um essentially spent some time you um building this this AI analyst. Essentially. So it's built on a retrieval augmented generation framework, which essentially means that it has access to a proprietary knowledge base. So as health experts, the clinical team are constantly feeding things like clinical summaries, evidence-based guidelines, which kind of touches back on what I said previously. So the idea being that when SI then, when you when you ask it a question, when it draws on its database, instead of scanning the open internet, so Reddit feeds and substacks and YouTube videos, etc., its knowledge base is coming from this already kind of pre-approved knowledge base. So therefore, the quality of the answers it's giving you is a little bit more specific, a little bit more refined. So essentially, Sci is integrated in with all SciFox reports. So if you subscribe to SciFox, upload your results or buy one of the tests, you automatically get access to Psy uh through your dashboard. And you use it similar to kind of any any of the other AI models. So type in your question, and it has access not only to your actual report, but part of your dashboard, you upload some information. So your age, your gender. We also ask some other questions. So do you have any new medical conditions? Are you taking any medication? So part of the value of size, when you ask it questions, it's not a generic kind of one size fits all or based on a specific demographic. It actually can augment all the information based on you specifically to give you a much more tailored, much more personalized answer. So then when you're looking at implicating or kind of it making improvements, again, the recommendations are much more personalized to you. For example, someone with high sugar, if we know you're diabetic already, the advice might be slightly different to someone who hasn't been diagnosed as diabetes. So Psy has kind of the ability to take into account all these other data sets and give you much more personalized, much more tailored answers. So it's a really good kind of free-to-use tool that will help guide you, help explain your report, essentially act as kind of like almost a clinician in your pocket. Um, and as with everything AI, it's available 24-7, there's no waiting times, it gives you continuous support. So again, if you've got questions in between results or you could look at something and then something changes later on, you can always go back and refer to Psy, and it can kind of talk you through your report and has the ability to look at things with kind of a longitudinal perspective that actually some humans might miss. I think we we we're we are we're in a human, so we can only take an intertain of data whereas Psy has that kind of that AI scope that might make it a little bit kind of a little bit more advantageous from that perspective.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I mean one of the one of the limitations of some you know AI health coaches, health advisors is that they they only have access to like what I tell them, you know, with the query, you know, hey, my A1C is this, what shall I do? Um I like like many people have you know records going back a long time of blood tests and everything. So what I understand about Psy is that as long as it's uploaded to the SciFox platform, it in making the the judgments or the the recommendations, it's not just based on the current one point in time lab tests, but really a whole, you know, almost lifetime, if you will, if you you know, however much data you put in there, is that correct?
SPEAKER_00:Exactly that. And I think again, as as with kind of a lot of a lot of healthcare, um, I think what we're seeing is it's not necessarily just the kind of the specific data point or the acute data point that we have now. Part of it is is also patterns. And again, where AI models uh potentially have an advantage over humans is pattern recognition. So we're also looking at trends. We're looking at if it's generally increasing over time, if it's generally decreasing, if there was kind of areas where we had fluctuations and that fitted with, I don't know, a change in diet. So PSI again has the ability to integrate all this data and come up with slightly more tailored, slightly more specific um insights or actions based on on the patterns and the trends. So that's another use case, looking at multiple data sets over time and giving you insight based on the patterns, not just the specific or individual test results.
SPEAKER_01:I mean, this this sounds, you know, it's it it sounds so so advantageous, having you know low-cost testing at your home and then access to an informed, credible AI coach. You know, why isn't everyone doing this? Like what's it what's the biggest resistance or or maybe even misconception you hear from doctors, scientists, or or the public about about homeblood testing and preventative health and and how does SciFox try and counter that?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, and I think AI is kind of it it it's it's new, we're we're we're kind of getting used to it, but I think there is still a reasonable amount of fear about it. And I always say with kind of AI in in the health arena, there's there's an opportunity cost paradox there. There's a very low barrier to entry, as you're saying, it's very easy to access, but the stakes really are high. This is individual people's health health we're talking about. So I feel that there's still an element of kind of fear and around the unknown there. Um, similarly, not just from a kind of patient or kind of a user perspective, but from a from a physician perspective, there's a little bit of skepticism of how good are these things. And I think when we're thinking about general kind of LLMs or general AI models, like we touched on previously, they're kind of looking at data, they're looking at data from a whole kind of plethora of the internet. Um, and that can be subject to kind of demographic bias. Whereas where we've trained Psy is we've kind of introduced multiple data sets, it's constantly re-evaluated by our clinical experts. So hopefully what we're not seeing is those demographic biases. So, for example, if you were just looking at one subset of the kind of population, that information is going to follow through and be what's kind of what's what's brought out in terms of what your AI is, in terms of your AI answers. Whereas PSI looking kind of more holistically is fed on multiple data sets, hopefully it can mitigate for those demographic biases as well. So I think that's something just to be aware of when thinking about generally using AI for kind of your healthcare queries, but hopefully something the team has tried to mitigate with kind of the the likes of PSI.
SPEAKER_01:I know you guys are constantly iterating and adding new tests. And so, what what's the single most exciting new biomarker or technology that you're looking at integrating in, let's say, the next 12 months that will fundamentally change how we view health optimization?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, absolutely. So it's a very exciting time um at CyFox. So um we've we've obviously got kind of the at-home testing at the moment. In the next few months, we're looking to roll out more programs, um, and cumulatively that's hopefully going to end in the launch of our own hardware, um, which will make access to healthcare even more even easier. Um, so at the moment, like you say, it's a fingerprint test at home, very easy, relatively painless, no wait times, etc. But the rollout of our hardware, that'll be something you can have in your in your home. Um, and then that will keep that that will facilitate more regular biomarker testing. You can pop your cartridge in, there's no need to post it, no wait times in terms of it getting back to the lab. It's something you have at your fingertips. The upload to your app or your digital interface will be almost instantaneous. Um, and it just facilitates ease of testing. It's it means you've no longer got long wait times if you've got needle phobia or kind of don't like don't like going to the doctor's office, white coat syndrome, etc. It means people can also do these tests in the in the kind of exactly, exactly that we see all the time. So you can now do these tests in kind of the luxury and the like the comfort of your own home. So I think this is gonna be a very exciting time over the next kind of 12 months or so. Um, and hopefully can facilitate users really taking some kind of some control, some ownership, and have a little bit more agency over their tests, whether they're doing kind of some at-home experimentation, I'm gonna cut back on X and see what kind of the effects of that is on my health over time. It's like having the scales, right? If you were dieting and didn't have the scales, you can kind of lack the momentum, you're not having those check-ins, you're not able to see, am I progressing in the right direction or am I not? You're kind of you're kind of going blind. Whereas having this at home enables you to kind of implement things, track things, monitor, reevaluate, go back to the data. And I think in an increasingly data-driven society, um, this is something that's that's got a lot of a lot of benefit. And I think a lot of people are going to find really exciting.
SPEAKER_01:Well, I want to be respectful of your time, Tosh. And I appreciate you you making it work from London here for this uh show today. Maybe one final question, kind of um, where do you where do you see home diagnostics and and personalized preventive health going in say the next five to ten years? What's what's the moonshot for CyFox world? Where where would we in an what's what what's your big ask looking forward? What are you most excited about in the long term?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, absolutely. So I think kind of the the at-home blood testing is kind of the tip of the iceberg. I think as we see things evolve, as we see technology evolve, AI evolve, I'd I would like to see that AI doesn't kind of take over that human element, but acts as kind of like an adjunct to that human element, uh enabling the humans to have more time for kind of the empathy, the motivational side of things, the more human elements, while AI looks at kind of the more data side of things, the speed side of things, um perhaps the more kind of administrative side of things. But to your point in terms of the kind of blood testing, I think the next thing is body scans. Um I think we're already seeing this in terms of at home devices, we're being able to monitor things, kind of like body composition, body fat percentage, what amount of your body might be muscle versus what amount of your body might be water, which again gives you more information. I think the more information we have, the more informed we are, and the better, kind of the better equipped we are to make these health decisions. So I think the next step will be kind of more at-home imaging, at-home testing. Um, and hopefully we can get this to a point where um instead of being reactive medically, we can be much more preventative. We can detect things much earlier. Kind of the the window of detection, I think, will get much narrower instead of waiting until we've got a temperature or we feel ill, there'll be different metrics that AI has the capabilities to catch much earlier that might be kind of that pre-warning. Okay, something's not quite right here, something's going wrong, and we can intervene earlier and hopefully kind of prevent disease progression as as we get as we know it at the moment. That's my hope for the future.
SPEAKER_01:Well, that's that's a great, great spot to end it on. I guess we're gonna see you again in January 11th or 13th. You're gonna join us for our three-day water fast. Uh, anyone else is interested, you can sign up and the show notes. Uh, and we'll we'll uh maybe demo the sci-fox on on camera during that if you want. And we could I will be a guinea pig as well. So uh anyway, thanks so much, Tosh, for spending time with us today. This is this has really been a blast. Thank you.
SPEAKER_00:Not at all pleasure. Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_01:This is the part we're gonna trim. No, actually, we won't trim it, we'll leave it in. But anyway.