I cannot post links but his OSK human trials is now live as of December 2026.
This is the only real anti aging technology so far.
There are a few as well such as SB100, etc.
But hang in there for the next few years, I think we will see real anti aging in humans.
Rapamycin seems very dangerous but these are much better alternatives that are coming.
How does that guy get to be in charge of a human trial of OSK, given his track record? I used to be a big fan of him (fellow Aussie and all) but now whenever I see his name, the āshyster alarmā goes off.
I am a fan of david.
He is professor at harvard and great at geroscience with an incredible record of works.
I been taking nmn and its been great for me.
I dont even think you have a phd in biology 
Respect expertise and science pls
OSK via aav is quite rudimentary in terms of delivery and there is a lot of research and improvements to be made.
But this is incredible science for anti aging and curing many diseases.
This is the frontier of biology.
I saw Sharon Rosenzweig-Lipson, the Chief Scientific officer of Life Biosciences) present at the December Longevity Summit on their OSK work that the company is focused on.
I would separate the company (Life Biosciences) from David Sinclair nowā¦ David is likely a small shareholder since the discoveries (and likely minimally involved now) and tech came out of his lab, but its mostly owned by other shareholders and investors and other researchers at the company now who are doing the hard work of refining the technologies, and doing the clinical trials necessary to see if it actually works in humans. Itās a long process.
I have photos of the presentation - so Iāll post some of them so people can have a look at what they are doing and get a better idea of things. Right now they are focused on doing this in the eye, and then working on the liver as a target (NAFLD I think, off the top of my head)ā¦ its going to take many years, and its not something that can really address aging more broadly (at least from what I can see so farā¦ or its all theoretical right now).
My general take is its promising, but like most things in the ālongevity fieldā it will be applied to specific disease conditions where it provides immediate value (at high cost), and then more research will expand beyond that initial indication if things are going well.
A few other companies have discovered promising genes such as SB000? or is it 1000.
Basically OSK has worked in mouse and monkeys and I feel it will work in humans too. They even tested it on organoids.
How does it work? They are still figuring it out.
But ryan lu (who discovered osk) has a preprint that points to some downstream genes like gsta4 (he seems to have patented some stuff there real quick as well).
Sinclair also patented osk stuff.
Well if it works in the eyes and dont cause tumors, then we all know it is likely to work in other organs.
The issue seems to be one of delivery in vivo.
We are probably a decade away from when all these stuff become available easily in the usa and u can reverse the age of many body parts or even full body (though not perfectly) soon.
We could be on the edge of doubling our average lifespans. So hang in there for a bit!
There are so many serious people at Harvard who still want to work with David Sinclair despite āeverythingā. Maybe itās not a great thing to encourage in most people and itās good some people are really pushing back against it, but AFAIK, David Sinclair hasnāt been harmful to anyoneās research career (and has been helpful to many peopleās) even though science would suffer if EVERYONE did what he did in sensationalizing
Like, people like Manolis kellis and Vadim gladyshev and all that take him seriously. You need people to call Sinclair out when he says sloppy things/overly sensationalist things, but he has produced results for some people, even if a few of his companies have been a flop
He has produced phenomenal grad students, though he can already recruit from the best simply bc heās at H. Like yunchang luā¦
Even despite all the questionable things he does like blocking some of his critique
His criticizers are impatient too FWIW. It takes much more to go after those who are already super likeable and resourcesful but afaik he hasnāt done anything super horrible, even if he isnāt consistently the highest in scientific integrity.
IDK if he has done as much damage as many in the Alzheimerās field who were guilty of bigger distortions/violations in scientific integrity. Yes maybe he has distorted some things, especially in the resveratrol area, and wonāt admit heās wrong (while quietly changing his research approach in the meantime without acknowledging his critiques)ā¦
Anyways, itās still important to call out high status people for things they do they arenāt right (or that distort), and some are within their rights to not work with them, but that doesnāt mean they are without value either
I think itās actually the optical nerve which is part of the brain / optical nerve stroke - so if we want to simplify they are actually working on the brain (extremely relevant to overall aging) and not ājust the eyeā (feel tiny, not relevant to overall aging).
What does this mean? Trial starts a year from now?
the eye is linked to the brain, they are both neuronal in nature and dont divide aka post mitotic.
from what i gather, david also seems to be having good results in brains.
and liver.
i think wherever osk can be delivered via aavs, they can work if the delivery is good enough.
its really a delivery issue. also aavs seem to modify the dna and isnāt exactly like drinking coffee.
disclaimer: no biology background but been reading on these for a decade.
typo.
it has started as of dec 2025.
so we should see preliminary results soon, in 2026 hopefully.
they will probably do the liver trials soon as well.
a lot of older rich people or people who have some illnesses will be willing to try this i guess if the trials work.
but i recall it was mentioned it currently costs like 5 million to do this currently so it aint exactly cheapā¦
realistically, it will be 2030. but the world will await the results keenly i guess.
phase 1 = safety only but they should be able to report some results
phase 2 = efficacy?
the next 5-10y are very interesting, i think if we can stick around for 10 more years, we really have a good chance we can be doing osk, sb000, or whatever mrna stuff and reaping the results of current trials
Yeah. Iāve noticedā¦
Thanks for the clarification.
The strategy you outlined seems sensible. I believe it will be a long time before any treatment is approvedā¦the FDA will set high hurdles.
The biggest problem I see is not actually the treatment itself as the delivery vehicle theyāre going with. Viral vectors have been getting some bad press lately.
@rapaalv , I recommend you review this thread that covers some of the reasons that many people are disappointed with David Sinclair. While I am sure he and his team have done some good work, there is a history of excessive hype in his proclamationsā¦ Matt Kaeberlein resigns from Academy for Health and Lifespan Research, calls David Sinclair a snake oil salesman
Hype brings eyeballs and more importantly depending on what for, makes people learn that certain things are possibleā¦ like that there are a category which are ālongevity moleculesā, Sinclair contributed a lot recently with NMN I believe, for example, and it was also an interesting thing.
Before you create mindshare of a concept of longevity molecule, not much else is possible.
If you donāt think he did this with NMN see the tens of millions of views on YouTubeā¦
Basically youāre opening up a box in peopleās mind regardless what it was initially filled with (NMN), for example.
I didnāt know room temperature superconductors were a thing before the LK-99 hype, and Iām glad to hear about that concept, as are those who are working on them. Mindshare is important, if not the most important thing!
Of course itās probably not possible to do this with this goal in mind, itās more of a side effect I suppose.
Matt Kaeberlein rarely misses a chance to take a thinly veiled shot at Sinclair every time I hear him speak. I personally think the biggest problem with the Sinclair debacle is that Sinclair and his other small group of investors walked away with $720 million. Jealousy? Give it up Matt.
I like Matt, I like what his new Optispan company is doing with Rapamycin research with companion dogs (results should be published soon), and his Ora Biomedical that uses an automated robotic system called the WormBot to conduct high-throughput lifespan experiments in C. elegans (roundworms). The platform allows them to test interventions at unprecedented scale, approximately 1,000 molecules per month with proper statistical replication, generating what is likely the largest quality database of longevity interventions ever assembled. The companyās core philosophy challenges the fieldās narrow focus on well-known pathways and molecules, arguing that vast areas of chemical and combinatorial space remain unexplored. You can even suggest a molecule that you think has some promise and theyāll test it. The claim is theyāve found some molecules that are ābetterā than Rapamycin. If you havenāt seen his discussion with the guy who runs that lab next door, hereās it is:
Seems to me that Dr Sinclair has done more for the fields of healthspan and longevity than almost anyone - can someone provide a credible list of 5 people who have done more?
Irina Conboy
Hazel Szeto
Mikhael Blagoskonny
Lenny Guarente
Amy Wagers
Matt Kaeberlein
Vladimir Skulachev
Steve Horvath
Aubrey DeGrey
Michael Diamandis
Thatās 10 just off the top of my head without resorting to papers or the internet. Sinclair? Pffft!
Probably not with debating this. The question was not about who we like or agree with, it was about impact/how much done for the field.
In my reading of things, few on that list come close to Sinclair impact - science wise, awareness for the field, etc.
Anyway, thanks for helping me see how radically different people can see things.
Hopefully this is not yet another snake oil product from Sinclair. Trust and respect are hard to build, and so easy to squander away.
Suren Sehgal put a lot of effort into Rapamycin back at the stage where itās pretty much thankless. He persevered and believed. Never sold snake oil to anybody.