Tech titans’ latest project: Defy death
The Human Upgrade
Tech titans’ latest project: Defy death
For centuries, explorers have searched the world for the
fountain of youth. Today’s billionaires believe they can create it, using
technology and data.
Written by Ariana Eunjung Cha
Published on April 4, 2015
Seated at the head of a table for 12 with a view of the
city’s soaring skyline, Peter Thiel was deep in conversation with his guests,
eclectic scientists whose research was considered radical, even heretical.
It was 2004 and Thiel had recently made a tidy fortune
selling PayPal, which he co-founded, to eBay. He had spent what he wanted on
himself — a posh penthouse suite at the Four Seasons Hotel and a silver Ferrari
— and was now soliciting ideas to do good with his money.
The Human Upgrade:
Using their ideas and their billions, the visionaries who
created Silicon Valley’s biggest technology firms are trying to transform the
most complicated system in existence: the human body.
Among the guests was Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular
biologist and biogerontologist who had garnered attention for doubling the life
span of a roundworm by disabling a single gene. Aubrey de Grey, a British
computer scientist turned theoretician who prophesied that medical advances
would stop aging. And Larry Page,
co-founder of an Internet search darling called Google that had big ideas to
improve health through the terabytes of data it was collecting.
The chatter at the dinner party meandered from the value
of chocolate in one’s diet to the toll of disease on the U.S. economy to the
merits of uploading people’s memories to a computer versus cryofreezing their
bodies. Yet the focus kept returning to one subject: Was death an inevitability
— or a solvable problem?
A number of guests were skeptical about achieving
immortality. But could science and technology help us live longer, to, say, 150
years? Now that, they agreed, was a worthy goal.
Within a few months, Thiel had written checks to Kenyon
and de Grey to accelerate their work. Since then he has doled out millions to
other researchers with what he calls “breakout” ideas that defy conventional
wisdom.
“If you think you can only do very little and be very
incremental, then you’ll work only on very incremental things. It’s
self-fulfilling,” Thiel, who is 47 and estimated to be worth $2.2 billion, said
in an interview. “It’s those who have an optimism about what can be done that
will shape the future.”
He and the tech titans who founded Google, Facebook,
eBay, Napster and Netscape are using their billions to rewrite the nation’s
science agenda and transform biomedical research. Their objective is to use the
tools of technology — the chips, software programs, algorithms and big data
they used in creating an information revolution — to understand and upgrade
what they consider to be the most complicated piece of machinery in existence:
the human body.
The entrepreneurs are driven by a certitude that
rebuilding, regenerating and reprogramming patients’ organs, limbs, cells and
DNA will enable people to live longer and better. The work they are funding
includes hunting for the secrets of living organisms with insanely long lives,
engineering microscopic nanobots that can fix your body from the inside out,
figuring out how to reprogram the DNA you were born with, and exploring ways to
digitize your brain based on the theory that your mind could live long after
your body expires.
“I believe that evolution is a true account of nature,”
as Thiel put it. “But I think we should try to escape it or transcend it in our
society.”
Oracle founder Larry Ellison has proclaimed his wish to
live forever and donated more than $430 million to anti-aging research. “Death
has never made any sense to me,” he told his biographer, Mike Wilson. “How can
a person be there and then just vanish, just not be there?”
Can you make it to 100 years or beyond?
The average American can expect to live for about 80
years. But that may change as scientists develop new ways to prolong human
life. In a Washington Post-designed game, you will have access to seven
promising tools. How many years will you add to your life?
During the first stage of their careers, the
technologists spent their time solving problems in an industry that might seem
glamorous but that in the grand scheme of things has been built on automating
mundane tasks: how to pay for a book online, stream a TV episode onto a phone
and keep tabs on friends. In contrast, they describe their biomedical research
ventures in heroic terms reminiscent of science-fiction plots, where the
protagonist saves humanity from destruction through technological wizardry.
Their confidence in that wizardry and their own ideas may
lead them to underestimate the downsides and even dangers of the work they are
funding, say some science philosophers, historians and economists. Their
research in stem cells, neuroscience, genetically modified organisms and
viruses, for example, tinkers with nature in big ways that easily could go awry
— and operates in a largely unregulated space.
Their work to slow or stop aging, if successful, is also
likely to lead to broader societal upheaval, increasing pressure on natural
resources and on the economy, as people live longer, work longer and imperil
already strained entitlements such as Social Security. Life extension also
would radically change the most important building block of society: the
family. No one seems able to predict what life might be like when half a dozen
or more generations are alive simultaneously.
Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University,
worries that some of the billionaires’ obsession with longevity may be driven
as much by hubris as a desire to do public good.
“It’s incredibly exciting and wonderful to be part of a
species that dreams in a big way,” she said. “But I also want to be part of a
species that takes care of the poor and the dying, and I’m worried that our
attention is being drawn away to a glittery future world that is fantasy and
not the world we live in.”
“I have a better guess than almost anyone else for what
ills may be mine — and I have decades to prepare for it.”
Sergey Brin, personal blog
Brave new world
The way that entrepreneur-philanthropists are
transforming American society is reminiscent of the turn of the 20th century,
when Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller led a handful of wealthy
industrialists to shape real change in the world. They set up schools, art
museums and public libraries that institutionalized their ideals of democracy and
equality.
But the philanthropists of today’s Gilded Age are more
numerous and became rich faster and younger than their predecessors of a
century ago.
Today's titans' increasing influence comes at a time
of historic and growing inequality in
the world. By next year, the richest 1 percent of the world’s population is
predicted to control more than 50 percent of the world’s wealth, according to a
new Oxfam report released at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in
January.
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda,
the wealthiest couple in the world with an estimated worth of $79.2 billion,
said they believe charitable giving is a key element working to close the gap.
Indeed, nearly 130 billionaires have signed the Giving Pledge to give away at
least half of their wealth, estimated at $700 billion. Nineteen tech
entrepreneurs or investors, with a net worth of about $245 billion, have signed
the pledge; most of them are putting their money into health-care and medical
research.
“If you look back at history, Carnegie highlighted the
need for libraries to be a place where everyone could go to learn to read if
you didn’t have access to books. Philanthropy can be a place where you . . .
point to areas that could be the right government areas for investment to
reduce those inequalities,” Melinda Gates said in an interview with The
Washington Post earlier this year.
Titans of the new Gilded Age
The tech visionaries who brought the world search, online
shopping and social networks are now shaking up the world of health care and
biomedical research with their philanthropy.
MICROSOFT
Bill and Melinda Gates
Net worth: $79.2 billion Funds: Infectious diseases,
child and maternal health
Read a Q&A with Bill and Melinda Gates
ORACLE
Larry Ellison
Net worth: $54.3 billion Funds: Aging
AMAZON
Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos
Net worth: $34.8 billion Funds: Immunotherapy for cancer
research, neurological disorders
FACEBOOK
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan
Net worth: $33.4 billion Funds: Local health services,
Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences Foundation
GOOGLE
Sergey Brin and Anne Wojcicki
Net worth: $29.2 billion Funds: Parkinson’s, genetics,
Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences Foundation
DELL
Michael Dell
Net worth: $19.2 billion Funds: Childhood health
MICROSOFT
Paul Allen
Net worth: $17.5 billion Funds: Brain research,
artificial intelligence, cell biology
EBAY
Pierre and Pam Omidyar
Net worth: $8 billion Funds: Social technologies to
improve health and well-being
FACEBOOK
Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna
Net worth: $7.9 billion Funds: Global health and
development
EBAY
Jeff Skoll
Net worth: $3.9 billion Funds: Social entrepreneurship
in health care, global threats
SALESFORCE
Marc and Lynne Benioff
Net worth: $3.4 billion Funds: Pediatric medicine
NAPSTER, FACEBOOK
Sean Parker
Net worth: $2.5 billion Funds: Allergies, cancer, malaria
PAYPAL
Peter Thiel
Net worth: $2.2 billion Funds: Aging, regenerative
medicine
AOL
Steve and Jean Case
Net worth: $1.35 billion Funds: Traumatic brain injury,
brain cancer
NETSCAPE
Marc Andreessen and Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen
Net worth: $600 million Funds: Emergency medicine Read a
Q&A with Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen
Many of the younger philanthropists cite Bill Gates’
approach to giving as an inspiration. But while Gates has focused his
foundation on saving those at the very early stages of life through his funding
of child and maternal health initiatives, predominantly in developing
countries, many of those in the new generation are focusing on the opposite end
of the human life cycle in developed nations.
Gates has been very vocal in his praise of the generosity
of Silicon Valley’s newly minted billionaires, but in January he expressed
misgivings about their priorities. In a question-and-answer session on the
Reddit online platform, he wrote, “It seems pretty egocentric while we still
have malaria and TB for rich people to fund things so they can live longer.”
Hospitals and research centers have long been preferred
beneficiaries of philanthropists. But instead of just writing checks to
existing institutions, many of the technologists are pioneering new approaches
for how the work should be done and how to measure success.
What many of the recent efforts have in common is a
belief that computerized analysis of big data sets can deliver cures, predict
outbreaks and discover patterns that would have been impossible for the human
brain to process. An oft-cited example is Google’s flu heat map, which is built
on the idea that an improved predictor for flu activity might be clusters of
searches for, say, Tamiflu or “flu symptoms,” collected from Internet service
provider addresses.
That approach turns the traditional scientific method on
its head. In the United States, most biomedical research happens at a gradual
and sometimes painfully deliberate pace. Scientists start with a hypothesis,
conduct experiments to test it and then spend years refining and analyzing the
results they collect. Their conclusions typically are not published until they
have been corroborated by other scientists in the rigorous process of peer
review.
The new medical and health-care research mines and maps
the huge sets of digital fingerprints stored when people search, swipe, text,
interact on social networks, shop, visit with doctors and leave geographic
traces of their daily movements. Super computers run through trillions of possible hypotheses
at once and pinpoint patterns and correlations that may suggest solutions for
some of the world’s most vexing medical problems. That approach already has led
to some understanding of the role of thousands of genes in the human body —
although scientists are not quite sure how to use most of that information for
any practical medical purpose.
For many of the tech entrepreneurs, interest in medical
science is personal. Sean Parker, 34, the Napster co-founder, suffers from
life-threatening food allergies and has family members with severe autoimmune disorders.
He has donated millions to finding a cure for allergies and to new cancer
therapies.
Google’s Sergey Brin, 41, has proposed a new kind of
science that starts with masses of DNA and a community of people with certain
genes. Brin has a mutation of the LRRK2 gene that is associated with a higher
risk of Parkinson’s disease, and has said he thinks the new approach, could be
“transformational.” He has donated $150 million to the effort.
“It’s not just money but more about driving awareness”
among those with the same genetic subtype, said Brin’s estranged wife, Anne
Wojcicki, who founded her own personalized genetics start-up, 23andMe. “No one
cares if you just say there is this gene out there. But when you can bring
together a community of people who are aware of their status...then suddenly
you are engaged.”
Several of the Silicon Valley billionaires married women
with backgrounds in science or medicine, and those wives direct the
philanthropy.
Wojcicki, who studied biology and previously worked as a
health-care consultant, is co-head of the couple’s foundation. Priscilla Chan,
a pediatric resident at the University of California at San Francisco, with her
husband, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, 30, donated $75 million to San Francisco
General Hospital, where 70 percent of the patients are underinsured or
uninsured. The two couples also teamed up with others to create the
Breakthrough Prizes for scientists who make discoveries that extend human life.
Its $3 million payouts — given to six scientists each year — dwarf similar
awards, including the Nobel Prizes, currently about $925,000.
Pam Omidyar, a biologist and former research assistant in
an immunology lab, co-founded the Omidyar Network with her husband, eBay’s
Pierre Omidyar, who became a billionaire at 31. They have donated millions to
research about resiliency — the traits that help people bounce back from
illness or other adversity.
And Page, who is now 41 and chief executive of Google,
has made the biggest bet on longevity yet, founding Calico, short for
California Life Company, a secretive anti-aging research center, with an
investment of up to $750 million from Google.
Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, who teaches a class on
strategic giving at Stanford University and is the wife Internet pioneer Marc
Andreessen, daughter of real estate magnate John Arrillaga and a well-known
philanthropist herself, said that when many tech entrepreneurs look at the
health-care system they see the “data of billions of people,” collected through
blood tests, online profiles, food purchases and fitness trackers.
“When that data can be accessed and mined and utilized
for good in an instantaneous manner,” she said, “that would be shattering in a
positive way for the system as we know it.”
“Death makes me very angry. Premature death makes me
angrier still.”
Larry Ellison, “The Difference Between God and Larry
Ellison” by Mike Wilson
‘A big social disaster’?
Such “moon-shot” ideas are tantalizing, but some
prominent ethicists and scientists have been troubled by the tech titans’
unwavering conviction that conquering nature is desirable in the first place.
And there are few checks and balances on such initiatives.
Once, two-thirds of scientific and medical research was funded by the federal
government, beholden to the public good. Now, two-thirds is funded by private
industry, a growing share by billionaires accountable to no one and impatient
with the pace of innovation.
Zoloth, the Northwestern University bioethicist, said
there is a reason why science often moves slowly.
“Making scientific progress faster doesn’t necessarily
mean better — unless if you’re an aging philanthropist and want an answer in
your lifetime,” she said. “Science is about an arc of knowledge, and it can
take a long time to play out. Sometimes we won’t know answers for generations.”
America remains deeply ambivalent about using new medical
treatments to live radically longer lives. In a 2013 survey conducted by the
Pew Research Center, 51 percent said they believed treatments to slow, stop or
reverse aging would have a negative impact on society.
Two-thirds said they worry that radical life extension
would strain natural resources, that only wealthy people would get access to
new treatments and that “medical scientists would offer the treatment before
they fully understood how it affects people’s health.”
Fifty-eight percent said treatments that would allow
people to live decades longer would be “fundamentally unnatural.”
Political theorist Francis Fukuyama, a senior fellow at
Stanford and former member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, argues that
a large increase in human life spans would take away people’s motivation for
the adaptation necessary for survival. In that kind of world, social change
comes to a standstill, he said; aging dictators could stay in power for
centuries.
“I think that research into life extension is going to
end up being a big social disaster,” Fukuyama said in an interview. “Extending
the average human life span is a great example of something that is
individually desirably by almost everyone but collectively not a good thing.
For evolutionary reasons, there is a good reason why we die when we do.”
Leon Kass, a physician and ethicist, poses a
philosophical question: “Could life be serious or meaningful without the limit
of mortality?”
Although many scientists say they are grateful for the
entrepreneurs’ money and attention, some have been dismayed by what they see as
Silicon Valley’s superiority complex and insistence that the current methods
used to fight disease are outdated and ineffective. At a medical conference in
August 2012, for instance, Vinod Khosla, one of Silicon Valley’s most revered
venture capitalists, likened the practice of medicine to witchcraft. He argued
that machines are better than the average doctor and that disruption in health
care was more likely to be driven by those outside the industry than those in
the profession.
The reaction from the medical community was swift.
Columbia University-educated physician Bijan Salehizadeh tweeted that he was
“getting nauseated” from “the anti-doctor rantings of the silicon valley tech
crowd.”
Some scientists also say they are concerned that private
money — which can include seven-figure research grants and salaries that are
two or three times what is offered in academia — distorts research priorities.
Preston Estep, director of gerontology for Harvard
Medical School’s Personal Genome Project, says some of the philanthropists are
doing more harm than good by funding what he calls “pseudoscience” — approaches
based more on emotional appeal than solid research. Of some of the work that is
being funded by the tech crowd, he said, “nobody takes it seriously.”
“They are smart guys,” Estep said. “But they are not
scientists.”
“Acceptance of the point at which intelligence and its
inventions can no longer battle the ultimate natural master, death, is a true
affirmation of what it means to be human.”
Susan Jacoby, “Never Say Die”
To the rescue
For most of the past century, big science was the
province of the federal government. It got man to the moon, created an atomic
bomb, developed the networking protocols that still undergird the Internet. But
that dominance has been threatened by shrinking public funding for medical
research and innovation.
Since 2010, the National Institutes of Health’s budget
has been cut by about $3.6 billion — or 11 percent — after adjusting for
inflation, leaving thousands of research projects unfunded or underfunded.
During the same period, private capital for scientific endeavors has surged.
Venture funding for the life sciences hit $8.6 billion last year, according to
PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association. And
scientists are increasingly turning to crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter
to get their projects off the ground.
Prevailing theory among the tech entrepreneurs holds that
the federal government is too risk-averse to properly drive medical
research. A failed project in Washington
is akin to a great tragedy — with managers being called to testify at
congressional hearings and Government Accountability Office investigations
being launched into why so much taxpayer money was wasted. But in the
entrepreneurial world, say tech leaders, failure is regarded as a learning
opportunity on the way to the next innovation.
NIH director Francis Collins acknowledges the
government’s financial constraints — he’s been lobbying for years for more
funding — but disputes the notion that the biomedical research system is
broken.
While he recognizes that what the entrepreneurs are doing
is “amazing,” he said in an interview that their work is limited and a
supplement to, rather than a substitute for , what the NIH, National Science
Foundation, Defense Department and other agencies are pushing forward.
“They can’t pull together all the investigators of the
country and the world to work on a problem together,” Collins said. “It’s not
the international collaborative effort that the federal government can manage
to assemble.”
The tech elite also have embraced as gospel two
traditional scientific papers, both critical of the state of medical
research. The first, published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005, is by John Ioannidis, a
Stanford professor who has become the world’s foremost expert on the biases
inherent to biomedical research. He argued that scientists, motivated by the
pressures to publish and entangled in a web of conflicts of interest,
manipulate data so often that it’s impossible to trust the body of scientific
literature that assesses the efficacy of hormone-replacement therapy or vitamin
E or low-dose aspirin. Of 45 well-accepted journal articles about medical
interventions, Ioannidis found, 14, or 31 percent, were later shown to be wrong
or exaggerated.
The second, published last year and co-written by Harold
Varmus, a Nobel Prize winner and former
director of both the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer
Institute, carried an alarming title: “Rescuing U.S. biomedical research from
its systemic flaws.” In the opinion piece in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Varmus and the other authors argue that much of the
problem comes down to money. In essence, there are too many PhDs chasing too
little money.
The entrepreneurs’ efforts are driven by the idea that
they have plenty of money, and they can do better.
“Would it not be the ultimate injustice if only some
people could afford a deathless existence, if the world were divided not only
into rich and poor but into mortal and immortal?”
Leon R. Kass, former chairman of the President’s Council
on Bioethics
The ‘great enemy’
Peter Thiel is the embodiment of Silicon Valley culture
at its individualistic, impatient extreme.
He’s a libertarian who gave Ron Paul’s political action
committee millions in the hopes, he has said, of moving the country toward a
“less intrusive government;” a visionary who is putting his money behind the
world’s first floating city — a utopia where residents can experiment with new
ways of building a society; and a contrarian who laments in his new book “Zero
to One” that the pace of innovation is decelerating and not accelerating.
Unlike many of his Silicon Valley peers who studied
computer science or engineering at Stanford, Thiel chose philosophy. A few
years ago, the entrepreneur and investor famously declared, “We wanted flying cars,
instead we got 140 characters” — a quote that has become a rallying cry for a
new generation of technologists.
Born in Germany and raised in Northern California, many
of Thiel’s views on the future grew out of the science-fiction books and TV shows
he loved while growing up. Thiel cites Arthur C. Clarke’s “The City and the
Stars,” the author’s first novel, published in 1956, as being particularly
influential. Set 1 billion years into the future, it imagines life in a
technologically advanced city full of people who live forever by being stored
in a computer and downloaded over and over again into new bodies.
“I prefer the original ‘Battlestar Galactica,’ the
original ‘Star Trek,’ ” Thiel said. He doesn’t like the dystopian turn that
science fiction has taken in recent decades.”
He is disappointed that the technological civilization
predicted in the 1970s and ’80s has not yet materialized, but he is inherently
optimistic that we can get there. “Where did we go wrong, and can we somehow
get back on track?” he asked.
Thiel’s disdain for the status quo is clear in the
manifesto for Breakout Labs, the grant-making group he set up through his
foundation. It laments that scientists with bold ideas have been left out in
the cold and promises to change that. “We want to jailbreak them from existing
research institutions and set them free,” it says. In an interview, Thiel said
the problem with the grant-making processes at NIH, the National Science
Foundation and other major funders of research is that they are
“consensus-oriented.”
For Thiel, death is the “great enemy” of humankind.
He said that in the past 25 years the pace of innovation
in the biomedical realm has been demoralizing. “Nixon declared war on cancer in
1971, and there has been frustratingly slow progress,” he said. “One third of
people age 85 and older have Alzheimer’s or dementia, and we’re not even
motivated to start a war on Alzheimer’s. At the end of the day, we need to do
more.”
Thiel’s philanthropic investments in aging grew out of a
series of late-night conversations with a friend, author Sonia Arrison. Her
book “100 Plus,” a national bestseller, lays out a future where living longer
is the new norm.
For them, the possibility of a long life — perhaps to
150, nearly doubling the current average U.S. life expectancy — was exciting.
Staying up late at night, the two would muse about ideas such as whether it was
possible to bioengineer immune cells to recognize and kill cancer, or whether
we could one day 3-D print human skin for burn victims — all sorts of different
strategies to “repair people,” as Arrison put it.
In the future they talked about, everyone would be like
Harriette Thompson, the 91-year-old who broke records this year after
completing a marathon in 7 hours and 7 minutes.
They wondered: Would you have a longer childhood? Would
you be able to have longer careers? Have six or more living generations of a
family at once?
“Peter really has a love of life. He’s an explorer, a
philosopher,” Arrison said. “I think people like that want more healthy life so
they can experience more of it.”
It was Arrison who introduced Thiel to the scientists at
the dinner-salon a decade ago. Since then, Thiel has funded such projects as a
high-speed cooling technology for human organs so they could be preserved
indefinitely and a way to grow bones using stem cells to replace broken ones.
“I’ve always had this really strong sense that death was
a terrible, terrible thing,” he said. “I think that’s somewhat unusual. Most
people end up compartmentalizing and they are in some weird mode of denial and
acceptance about death, but they both have the result of making you very
passive. I prefer to fight it.”
“The great unfinished task of the modern world is to turn
death from a fact of life into a problem to be solved — a problem towards whose
solution I hope to contribute in whatever way I can.”
Peter Thiel, “100 Plus” by Sonia Arrison
The road to 150
The big challenge of aging research is that to make it
work the way people want it to scientists would have to figure out a way to
extend all human systems simultaneously and shut them all down at pretty much
the same time. Otherwise you would be replacing one way of dying with another.
Some argue that the world is already in a crisis of life extension. People are
living longer than in the past but for many their final years are painful, as
their bodies and minds are ravaged by cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases of
aging.
De Grey, who used the contributions from Thiel to start
the SENS Research Foundation, a Mountain View, Calif.-based institute that
conducts research on aging in its own labs and funds grants for academics, is
focusing on cellular and molecular damage that accumulates throughout a
person’s life.
“Think of a machine with moving parts,” he explained.
“We’re trying to change what the body can tolerate.”
Kenyon, a longtime University of California at San
Francisco professor who recently joined Calico, the Google-funded health
venture start-up that aims to “cure” death, now is focused on the idea that
“there seem to be life-extending processes that exist in nature, and they can
be coaxed out of animals,” she said.
“They are just naturally present in some species that
live long,” she said. Kenyon explained that organisms have mechanisms that are
“almost like a surveillance system for terrorism.”
“You use a lot of mechanisms to search for anomalies in
the environment,” she said. “If an animal sees a threat, it responds. . . .
What’s really cool about this is that the mechanisms that protect it from
danger can also protect it from the ravages of time itself. What if you could
fool an animal into thinking there is a threat when there really isn't?” she
said.
For all the thought Thiel has given to how to combat
aging, he says he does not have a lot of specific ideas about what he would do
if he could live significantly longer.
Instead of living each day as his last, he says, he lives
it like he’ll live forever.
“If you did this, you might start working on some great
projects you might otherwise not have attempted because you didn’t think you’d
finish,” Thiel said. “You’d treat strangers a lot better because you’d likely
see them again. You’d be a much better steward of the Earth than if you thought
it was your last day and you were having a crazy party or something.”
Magda Jean-Louis and Eddy Palanzo contributed to this
report.
Comments
Post a Comment