Is your longevity doctor scamming you?

#1

Dr. Mark Hyman may take the cake, but Katie Couric Media and the University of Miami’s medical school also demonstrate why “longevity literacy” is now a mandatory skill.

The billion-dollar longevity industry has become the Las Vegas of clinical science: a faux oasis that cares about only one thing: taking your money. To do that, Vegas built casinos; longevity marketers just lie.

Longevity literacy is therefore a skill—the ability to understand how a growing society of wellness chiselers and charlatans present half-truths as settled science and unproven supplements as the best $149 purchase you’ll ever make—but only if you act now .

5 Likes
#2

I remember listening to Hyman many years ago when I was first learning about health. But then, I stopped paying attention to him after he said something to the effect of… I think plant based is best, but it wasn’t popular, so I changed my message to add animal protein (this is not about which is actually healthier, but him admitting his message would never be about what he feels is the truth, just what gets him more eyeballs )

Then many years later, a friend talked to him about something relating to health policy and helping the less fortunate… he told her unless I’m being paid, I’m not giving you any time. (That is his right, but making the public healthy is certainly not his goal… lining his pockets, yes).

I’ve think I’ve noticed Hyman being a guest of Couric’s… if anyone has him as a guest, I immediately dismiss that as a ‘news’ source…

1 Like
#3

Many of these people are hucksters. More and more I find their advice is not worth listening to. During the pandemic Hyman was a guest on a webinar from my financial advisory firm. They even sent us his hardcover book beforehand. After reading the book and watching the interview I was pretty certain Hyman wasn’t someone I was going to listen to, much less follow.

Lately, I also have become disenchanted with Nick Norwitz, Michael Greger, Andrew Huberman, and others.

4 Likes
#4

Bryan Johnson, Peter Attia, David Sinclair…

As Holden Caulfield said, “The world is corrupt and people are phony.”

5 Likes
#5

I’m new to follow Norwitz. Would be interested to hear what is behind your disenchantment.

#6

Interesting, and also agree. Speaking of Vegas, it would be cool if someone in Vegas or some prediction market would allow people to bet on things that various people online (doctors or whoever) claim.

Ex: “My product is the best. Nothing else will beat it.”… for longevity, cardiovascular, hormones etc.
Chances are they won’t bet on their own product and/or claims because they will be afraid it will lose.

A company brings up studies or some other tests that their product did “amazing” in on which they try to sell & market it (lowered LDL, raised nitric oxide etc), then bet them to test it against another product or custom stack(even Rx) to see which one is better on the tests they used to sell their product.

Bet on 1 of the 2 products: 2 people do blood work done before ingesting product(baseline), and after.

It would cost $ to set up the testing and everything, but once there is like some minimum $ put up betting on A or B, then they can go through with it to pay for people, products, and professional lab to do the testing & results.
Hope that makes some sense. Talk is cheap, let’s see what delivers.

1 Like
#7

Misleading Data Presentation: Skeptics argue that the KETO-CTA study, which Norwitz co-authored, initially glossed over its primary outcome: actual plaque progression. While the paper emphasized that LDL levels did not predict plaque changes, experts noted the study only included people with already high cholesterol, making the “no link” claim statistically meaningless.

Concerns over Plaque Progression: Independent analyses of his research data revealed that participants (Lean Mass Hyper-Responders) experienced rapid plaque progression, at rates nearly three times higher than high-risk individuals on statins.

Reliance on Anecdotal Evidence: Some in the scientific community criticize his heavy use of n=1 self-experiments (like his “Oreo vs. Statin” or “24 Eggs a Day” trials) to challenge established lipid guidelines, arguing these do not replace large-scale clinical trials.

Public Health Risk: Medical professionals express concern that his “sensationalist” messaging might convince patients with dangerous cholesterol levels to ignore standard medical advice or avoid necessary treatments like statins.

Simplistic Rhetoric: Fellow researchers have suggested his extreme messaging creates a negative stereotype of the ketogenic community and may hinder legitimate scientific progress in the field.

5 Likes
#8

In my experience, Norwitz makes misleading/wrong claims and refuses to correct them when confronted. He makes a big deal about “nuance”, and in practice is anything but nuanced. As an example he rails against statins because it gets clicks and engagement from the anti-statin crowd, but makes blanket statements about all statins that are simply wrong - like about glucose control and de novo T2DM which are definitely wrong wrt. pitavastatin. When I (and others) pointed that out, citing multiple studies, he didn’t respond and instead removed our posts. And then continued conflating all statins - the very opposite of the “nuanced” approach he claims. Because it doesn’t fit his narrative. He notoriously cherry picks studies to support his hobby horses, as an example - he’s a big LDL denialist. Fine, but why eagerly cite small or flawed studies (like the notorious debunked Minnesota coronary study, a favorite of his) while conspicuously ignoring whole fields of strong contrary evidence (MR studies which he is completely silent on), all the while bragging how unbiased you are? Well, LDL denialism is very popular and that is what drives him to grow his platform regardless of the science (filling his presentations with cheap razzle dazzle editing tricks). He regularly promotes conspiracy theories about big pharma and money interests which gets tiresome. I eventually grew tired of his shtick and stopped watching him. I don’t mind contrary opinions (in fact I eagerly welcome contrary views), but I can’t stand intellectual dishonesty. I have no interest in providing him with clicks and views as that appears to be his primary interest, science be damned (plus he pushes products he has a financial interest in, although he does at least disclose that) - he’s always bragging about how quickly his platform is growing. He presents himself as merely “curious” and interested in “nuance”, but it’s just a deceptive facade. I have no time for hucksters. But many people are entertained by his antics and apparently are taken in by his dog and pony show, so YMMV. To each their own/shrug/.

8 Likes
#9

This is a deal killer for me right here.

Thank you @CronosTempi and @rickyf for explaining this so well… I didn’t know. Appreciate you both for taking the time.

2 Likes
#10

Fundamentally, I have to figure that anybody putting themselves out there online as a guru is angling for growth, subscribers and profit. Unfortunately, that means getting attention, which usually means taking some sort of position to preach to an audience. All of them have money-grabbing tendencies. Maybe there are some tiny channels out there with people just doing it for the love of science - if so, please share! Problem is, as they grow, they will likely get sucked into the trap of success and start shilling something.

I still think Attia is generally the best as far as the hard science and overall advice. Obviously his personal choices are deeply flawed, for reasons we all know at this point. He’s also had a few poor guests recently (Mike Israetel, Derek from NPND, Jeff Cavilier etc). That’s especially annoying when there are so many legit and amazing exercise scientists, endocrinologists etc who he could have had on instead. Like, why the hell do you interview Derek when you could have Shalender Bhasin (UCLA) who published all of the foundational TRT studies, researches Clomid and SARMs etc? Still, I have learned a huge amount from his podcasts and some of the fantastic guests he’s had over the years.

Brad Stanfield is good for communication with the general public IMO. He’s someone I’d feel good about my parents watching and taking advice from. So far he hasn’t done anything to betray my trust.

I also like what Bryan Johnson is doing in terms of promoting the whole longevity movement, and I like his transparency, but I wouldn’t rely on him for hard science. I wouldn’t tell other people to watch him or follow his advice.

Huberman is just awful. Rhonda gets way too excited about small studies in mice. Sinclair I have never liked, and he’s been caught exaggerating so many times.

End of the day, these people don’t really have any sort of inside knowledge or secrets that are actually actionable. Probably 90% of this stuff is common sense for all of us now: good lifestyle choices, lipids, blood pressure, glucose, medications to address those, do your cancer screenings etc.

1 Like
#11

All are doing this to generate income.

Why do you think they do this?

#12

Matt Karberlein is the only person I trust on the internet. I keep expecting to get disenchanted with him (as has happened so often with others) but he is rock solid for many years now.

4 Likes
#13

If Peter Attia has to go to a pimp like Epstein to get laid, then he is taking the wrong vitamins.

1 Like
#14

I honestly don’t understand why anyone is “following” anybody in this space anymore. Commercial LLMs are so much better than any talking head if you just know how to ask questions.

1 Like