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 “shyster alarm” 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 now… 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. It’s a long process.
I have photos of the presentation - so I’ll 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)… 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 far… or its all theoretical right now).
My general take is its promising, but like most things in the “longevity field” 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 “everything”. Maine it’s not a great thing to encourage in most people and it’s good some people are really pushing back against it, but AFAIK, David Sinclair hasn’t been harmful to anyone’s research career (and has been helpful to many people’s) 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 he’s at H. Like yunchang lu…
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 hasn’t done anything super horrible, even if he isn’t consistently the highest in scientific integrity.
IDK if he has done as much damage as many in the Alzheimer’s field who were guilty of bigger distortions/violations in scientific integrity. Yes maybe he has distorted some things, especially in the resveratrol area, and won’t admit he’s wrong (while quietly changing his research approach in the meantime without acknowledging his critiques)…