it depends on how much your career is a scientific one. Kaeberlein’s career was a pure scientific career until recently. In case of Sinclair: not for a long time.
scientists are always convinced by their results. Some scientists are more and others less. In case of sinclair, he’s more convinced then others. But it’s not unusual. And yes, here comes also your argument in. But I think its also a case of personality and maybe popularity.
With “I don’t trust him” I don’t meant that he’s desceptive. I just don’t rely on his papers. Or to be more pricise: If I would concider taking a substance because he published a paper on it, I would read the methods more carefully and I would wait for some follow ups. But thats nothing special.
Peter Attia
Alan Green
Matt Kaeberlein
Charles Brenner
Mikhail Blagosklonny
Nir Barzilai
Valter Longo
Steve Austad
Richard Miller
My list of “listen cautiously”:
David Sinclair - He got me started in this whole quest for health span, but since then I haven’t been impressed. With his hands in so many pies, and with him making so much money, it’s hard for me to completely trust his views. I also find him less likely to reference other research than others I listen to.
Brad Stanfield - The way he supports his views by pulling one or two sentences out of an entire study bothers me. To me, the beauty of an Attia or Kaeberlein is that they dive into the data and pull it apart and give the pros and cons of the research methodology. I will watch him, but tend to read the studies he’s referencing myself.
I honestly try to not to close anyone out completely, but I find working for a living truly encroaches on my research time.
I love your unfiltered, but well thought out response. Some of the pureist on scientific methodolgy are not great action planners, but the ones that ultimately do the real work from theory to proof
Brenner 100% wakes up in the morning just looking for optimistic people to deflate. I’ve never seen him speak anywhere where it wasn’t focused on how dumb everyone else is and how nobody should be hopeful about anything.
Besides a must, Josh Mitteldorf Science Blog, I just came across some YT channels I would like to share with you.
One is Physionic. “Detailed multi-study analyses, clear explanations of mechanisms underlying the results, and a sprinkling of cheeky humor. Learn your body, from the macro to the micro - welcome to Physionic”. Real pro at “studying the studies”, dozens sometimes, and making accesible their content for a lay in the matter like me and guess some of us here. Includes longevity themes, gut health, brain, muscle gain, etc.
Other one is The Sheekey Science Show for diving in anti-aging compounds and longevity strategies.
Last one is High Intensity Health, more general purpose medicine but also picking antiaging studies.
Hmmm - with respect I found Bredensen too complex. Preventing Alz is important but his info was not actionable for me. His list of practitioners is inaccurate and outdated and the one I found couldn’t make sense of my DNA map. She wanted to get me into a rats nest of questionable tests and “special” supplements. YMMV
Yes - that is the complaint I’ve seen from friends who are medical professionals and biologists, on Dale Bredesen… he has many recommendations that are very complex, and some of which are actually sales pitches for custom tests and compounds that are provided by companies that he seems to have a stake in.
I’m getting some good tips from Rick Johnson MD. His book is Nature Wants Us to Be Fat. He’s an endocrinology professor. Much of his work is in low carb and keto land, but he has some info on salt, water and uric acid cycle and vasopressin that I’ve not seen elsewhere.
I’ve watched some of Hyman’s videos. He’s very smart and quick, but selling a lot of supplements, including his own formulations, and linking to other wellness programs like an affiliate. If one is chronically ill - Lyme disease, MS - he has interesting things to say about hyperthermia, hyperbaric oxygen, etc. But his anti-aging info is below the level of what’s being discussed in this forum.
I have to say RapaAdmin is the best synthesizer of current knowledge in longevity with no apparent conflict of interest as might be suspected with some of the good popular docs on the socials. (I know her/his/their impact is limited to this website, of course. I suspect RapaAdmin is probably a team of great volunteers, but I might be wrong.) RapaAdmin fills the gap that otherwise exists for us by engaging in any topic under discussion open-mindedly gathering more supporting/refuting literature into them and also adding time saving synthesis of the information.
Mike Lustgarten and Gil Carvalho only, and I don’t even agree with them always. I appreciate Mike’s full transparency and Gil’s lack of ulterior motive.
