Damn!!
Matt K. typically gives others the benefit of doubt… but it is usually clear when he is not easily sold. He is getting a bit feisty. Guess the years of rapamycin use is kicking in.
Wow! Just wow!!
Yes, that certainly is saying something! He already had God-like status here, but earns even more points on the “attack David Sinclair” front.
The oil from some snakes is helpful.
Enough said go Matt K.
No, I don’t think people here would have any animus towards David Sinclair if he would just stop hyping things that are either not accurate, or only minimally accurate and greatly exaggerated.
Many of us here place a high value on scientific rigor and accuracy. Whether its resveratrol, or the company Sirtris Pharmaceuticals (which he made $7 Million+ off of, but failed to produce a product), or NMN or dog supplements and claims of “reversal of aging”, David seems to have a history of erring on the wrong side of scientific rigor and accuracy.
When scientists misrepresent their findings, it causes people like us who are seriously interested in longevity, to waste our money on unhelpful products (when we could have spent that money on more helpful products) and waste our time. In effect these scientists are harming us in the very areas they claim to be helping us with (longer, healthier lives).
If you don’t have much knowledge about David Sinclair and the resveratrol story, I encourage you to listen to the Richard Miller / Peter Attia interview from a few years ago where they discuss the ITP testing and hype around Resveratrol. You can listen to it here (where its been queued up for this specific discussion: https://youtu.be/g8bXYKeeWnc?si=khyY4Xno63CNQ9K3&t=4542
So, from the article, the good snake oil is Omega 3, so Rhonda Patrick would be the real snake oil salesman (Not that there’s anything wrong with that - in this case)
The more troubling issue is…based on this post…
https://www.rapamycin.news/t/just-a-little-humor/12176/21?u=ng0rge
Is @DeStrider just a shill? 
…but then you go on to say what he’s doing wrong. I don’t have a big problem with David but he’s showing the detrimental effects of becoming famous in today’s fame-obsessed society. It’s called “hubris”.
And anytime you get up on a pedestal, you become a target.
I don’t see it as a problem of being on a pedestal… I see it as a problem of purveying demonstrably false information.
Are you calling him an outright liar? Or is he just exaggerating - like a salesman and some advertising - putting a spin on the information that might border on a lie but isn’t quite?
I don’t know how to classify it - what would you call this statement given the data you’ve seen above (or look at the paper if you want):
Dr. David A. Sinclair, AO, PhD, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Animal Biosciences stated, “I am very proud of the teams at NCSU and Animal Biosciences, who, after years of collaborative research and a clinical trial, have developed the first supplement proven to reverse aging in dogs.”
Source:
Here is the Pre-pub paper:
Haven’t read the dog paper.
I do feel he acted like a credible scientist just last month when he was one of the first to highlight the question marks that this study raised for NAD+ supplements.
While most (including us on this forum) were just seeing it as Niacin for cardiovascular disease issue.
And other like Brenner did not really accept the paper in Nature as something that should lead to questions or help takers of NAD+ supplements, but rather just defended NAD+ supplementation:
Factually to say “reverse aging” is false but as I pointed out above (because of fame) I think Sinclair sometimes sees himself talking to the general public rather than other scientists (not defending this) and I don’t think the general public really thinks it’s going to turn their dogs into puppies, they just see it as a good thing.
And you kind of act like NMN and Resveratrol are “scam” products and I don’t think that’s settled - despite the negative studies (negative studies seem to pop up on everything).
Resveratrol and nmn definitely shouldn’t be recommended as much as they are for how limited the positive evidence is, even if you ignore the negative studies…
There does seems to have been issues between Dr K and Dr S from Dr K’s perspective for a long time
Perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, not sure
To round out the picture it is interesting how Dr K originally did seemed to see some value in the study and some potential for dogs
And then here is an example how he critiqued it for being NMN without it even being NMN it seems…
So not sure Dr K has been completely unbiased here either
Tweet from Dr K:
Then a later Tweet from Dr K:
What impresses me about Dr. Sinclair is his work regrowing optical nerves and restoring sight to the blind. If he can pull this off in people that more than makes up for NMN and Resveratrol. Then if it is applied to other organs, that’d be amazing. This all takes time though. I feel like he’s finally on the right track.
Although I do agree with Dr. Kaeberlein that this reverse dog aging thing is BS.
David Sinclair is human, he makes mistakes too. My overall impression of him is good.
That was two days ago as well.
Brenner is still at it lol. Hollywood has programmed us to see the rivalry between the NR and NMN creator.
The script writer for the simulation is desperate for some drama.
@RapAdmin I would never believe anything Sinclair said. He burned his credibility bridge with me a few years ago. I’m not saying that everything he says is untrue; I’m saying it’s not worth trying to separate the truth from the lies. Fool me twice, shame on me.