Always happy to listen to Matt Kaeberlein:
Brian Kennedy’s rapamycin take is: it’s still the best-studied aging drug candidate. He also takes SGLT2 inhibitors (not sure is which one).
Always happy to listen to Matt Kaeberlein:
Brian Kennedy’s rapamycin take is: it’s still the best-studied aging drug candidate. He also takes SGLT2 inhibitors (not sure is which one).
The Longevity Roundtable features Matt Kaeberlein, Brian Kennedy, and Marcus Ranney critically dissecting the friction between experimental longevity science and pragmatic, proactive healthcare. The session opens with a retrospective on the 2026 Longevity March Madness tournament, where “proactive healthcare” defeated specialized interventions like rapamycin and epigenetic reprogramming via public vote. This highlights a broad consensus: foundational lifestyle pillars take precedence over speculative, media-hyped therapeutics. However, current clinical execution remains heavily compromised by commercial overfitting of unvalidated biological age metrics and consumer fixation on unregulated products.
A primary focal point is the analysis of newly released data from Brad Stanfield’s 2026 clinical trial on rapamycin. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assigned 40 sedentary older adults (aged 65–85) to receive 6 mg of weekly rapamycin or a placebo combined with a 13-week exercise program. Sensitivity analyses revealed a statistically significant negative outcome: rapamycin actively blunted functional improvements in the 30-second chair-stand test and trended toward worse outcomes in the six-minute walk distance. The panel identifies massive translational and design flaws in the trial, most notably the absence of a post-treatment washout period. Because rapamycin accumulates in cell membranes and acutely suppresses muscle protein synthesis via mTORC1 blockade, testing subjects while the drug is active inevitably catches them in an anabolic trough. The benefits of rapamycin—primarily the systemic dampening of chronic inflammaging—likely manifest only after drug cessation, similar to verified protocols in human vaccine response trials.
Furthermore, the panel exposes severe safety and purity risks within the peptide industry, exemplified by Ranney’s self-experimentation with counterfeit BPC-157. Despite procurement via seemingly reputable channels, the compound yielded zero physiological effects, highlighting that even clinicians cannot visually verify unregulated research chemicals. Finally, the discussion evaluates epigenetic reprogramming, acknowledging Lifespan Biosciences’ upcoming localized clinical trial for eye disease as a necessary safety baseline, but dismissing immediate systemic utility due to profound gene delivery constraints and the theoretical risk of altering human personality traits encoded via lifetime epigenetic adaptations. The experts conclude that the field requires institutional, clinical-grade validation structures rather than anecdotal speculation.
For reasons that I have yet to research, my doctor favors dapagliflozin over empag and canag. Anyone is on dapagliflozin?
Yes, it’s cheaper and more available. Also doesn’t make you pee constantly.
I’ve been on it for at least a year and love it. @adssx mentioned it helping with reactive hypoglycemia and that’s been true for me as well. I can’t prove that it’s done anything else for my health but I don’t notice any negatives so I continue to take it.
I switched from Empagliflozin to Dapagliflozin mainly because of cost issues. I haven’t really noticed any difference other than that.
This episode of Longevity Science, hosted by Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, provides a rigorous, biochemically grounded audit of the rapidly expanding peptide market. Kaeberlein moves past the marketing hype and misinformation often propagated by internet influencers and medical professionals, starting with a strict return to basic biochemistry: a peptide is defined solely as a chain of two or more amino acids connected by peptide bonds, conventionally spanning fewer than 50 amino acids in length. Consequently, frequently mislabeled molecules such as NAD+, creatine, hyaluronic acid, and rapamycin are categorically excluded from this class.
The transcript challenges the common marketing narrative that peptides are inherently safer or superior to standard pharmaceuticals because they are “natural.” Kaeberlein directly counters this, stating that peptides are bioactive drugs with distinct dose-response curves, side effects, and potential toxicity profiles. To establish an internally consistent framework, he evaluates popular compounds across three specific dimensions: safety (validated human data vs. regulatory footprint), efficacy (reproducible, clinically meaningful human outcomes vs. biomarker changes), and naturalness (native presence in the human body).
The analysis highlights three distinct therapeutic archetypes. First, Elamipretide represents an advanced mitochondrial-targeted synthetic peptide. It possesses a neutral safety and efficacy profile due to mixed results in Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials for exercise tolerance and primary mitochondrial myopathy, alongside a low rating for naturalness as a fully synthetic molecule.
Second, Body Protection Compound 157 (BPC-157) represents a highly popular but clinically unverified compound. While widely praised in biohacking circles for tissue repair and gastrointestinal integrity based on animal models, BPC-157 receives a low rating for both safety and efficacy due to a complete absence of completed randomized controlled human trials. It receives a neutral rating for naturalness because, while synthetic, its sequence is derived from a fragment of a native human gastric protein.
Ultimately, Kaeberlein advises extreme caution when navigating unapproved experimental peptides. He emphasizes that an absence of evidence is not proof of safety or efficacy, and urges consumers to treat these compounds as experimental pharmaceuticals requiring strict physician oversight, routine biomarker monitoring, and a total avoidance of unvetted multi-peptide stacks.
The biochemical boundaries and specific clinical development histories of the compounds evaluated by Dr. Matt Kaeberlein are heavily detailed in regulatory and pharmacology literature.
Methodological Caveat: Although pre-clinical rodent models provide valuable insights into molecular cell-signaling pathways, more than 80% of small-molecule and peptide therapies fail to transition from animal success to human clinical safety and efficacy. Relying on anecdote or research-grade compounds introduces unquantifiable risks to individual longevity protocols.
Related Reading: TPE long-term effects in healthy elderly same as sham
Therapeutic Plasma Exchange (TPE) functions as a systemic macroenvironmental clearance mechanism that removes age-associated pro-inflammatory cytokines, autoantibodies, and gironic (pro-aging) factors from human circulation. The core thesis underlying its clinical expansion from acute hematological and neurological pathologies into longevity medicine is that the attenuation of molecular excess via blood dilution, rather than the addition of youthful “silver bullets,” is the primary driver of systemic physiological rejuvenation. Historically validated as a Category I intervention for high-acuity disorders such as Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP) and Goodpasture syndrome, TPE mechanically resets the circulating proteome.
In the context of age-related neurodegeneration, the Phase 2b/3 randomized controlled AMBAR trial (Boada et al., 2020) demonstrated that aggressive plasma clearance followed by regular albumin replacement arrested cognitive and functional decline in 67% of patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. This clinical effect significantly outperforms contemporary monoclonal antibody therapies while demonstrating a superior safety profile completely devoid of iatrogenic brain edema or microhemorrhage. Mechanistically, this is achieved by altering transport kinetics across the blood-brain barrier to clear central amyloid-beta and tau accumulations, alongside a profound systemic down-regulation of sterile chronic inflammation (inflammaging).
Furthermore, Level B clinical trial data published by the Buck Institute for Research on Aging (Fuentealba et al., 2025) provided multi-omics confirmation that TPE induces a coordinated biological age deceleration across dozens of independent epigenetic clocks. The trial established that a biweekly protocol combining TPE with Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) replacement achieved an average human biological age reduction of 2.61 years. Intriguingly, individuals presenting with the poorest baseline metabolic and hepatic profiles exhibited the most pronounced therapeutic response, indicating that TPE’s utility scales with the initial burden of systemic dysregulation.
Despite these robust molecular signals, significant translational gaps remain. Widespread adoption is throttled by a lack of large-scale pharmaceutical industry backing, high out-of-pocket procedural costs, and a lack of clear consensus regarding optimal long-term maintenance frequencies. Consequently, while TPE represents an extraordinarily powerful clinical tool for immediate proteomic rebalancing, its application within longevity medicine must remain highly individualized and bound to objective physiological markers rather than speculative anti-aging hype.
So I figured but, damn. I’m back to donating whole blood but now I have to supplement iron continuously to keep my ferritin out of the gutter.
He, Kaeberlein, is lead scientist in the Ken Coit 6-year 750 person human clinical trial of rapamycin at University of Arizona.
Here’s the announcement. Can a Drug Slow Down Aging.
A sweet, well deserved gig!
This dialogue between Matt Kaeberlein and Brian Kennedy centers on a critical transition in geroscience: shifting from abstract biological metrics to transparent, actionable clinical frameworks. The core thesis is that first-generation aging clocks—primarily DNA methylation profiles—suffer from systemic utility gaps, including high technical variance (poor run-to-run repeatability), a lack of mutual agreement across different algorithms, and a complete absence of clinical actionability. Because these clocks operate as “black boxes,” they fail to provide physicians with a therapeutic target when an accelerated aging score is generated.
To resolve this limitation, the speakers detail LinAge, a second-generation mortality risk clock trained on clinical chemistry parameters from the NHANES dataset. Unlike epigenetic metrics, LinAge utilizes standard, reproducible blood biomarkers (such as HbA1c, LDL-C, and blood pressure) broken down into principal components. This architecture allows clinicians to run in silico simulations, systematically returning isolated abnormal parameters back to optimal ranges to model and prioritize the reduction of an individual’s specific all-cause mortality risk. Rather than deploying non-specific multi-drug regimens, physicians can precisely isolate the physiological systems driving accelerated aging.
The Tricarboxylic Acid (TCA) Cycle. Source: KADAMBARI PATHANIA/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY / Getty Images
The discussion also challenges 15 years of standard longevity dogma regarding Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD+) dynamics. Recent large-scale clinical data reveal that NAD+ levels in human blood do not systematically decline with chronological age. This insight shifts the focus of metabolic aging toward specific tissue-level bottlenecks rather than systemic blood-based deficiencies. Furthermore, the conversation emphasizes that core metabolic pathways, specifically the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, are homeostatically buffered; therefore, raw blood metabolite levels have poor diagnostic value. Evidence is shifting toward alternate geroscience interventions, notably spermidine-mediated autophagy and targeted alpha-ketoglutarate (AKG) modulation, as more robust and scalable mechanisms for healthspan extension than systemic oral NAD+ precursor supplementation.
The assertion that first-generation epigenetic clocks suffer from high run-to-run instability and poor algorithm consensus is well-validated within recent geroscience literature. A systematic review by Higgins-Chen et al., 2022 highlighted that technical noise in DNA methylation assays can account for variations of up to 3–9 years when identical samples are re-tested. This technical volatility severely compromises their utility for monitoring short-term clinical interventions.
Furthermore, research by Jylhävä et al., 2017 confirmed that different aging clocks (e.g., Horvath vs. Hannum vs. PhenoAge) capture distinct biological dimensions, resulting in divergent age estimates for the same individual. This lack of convergence supports Kennedy’s argument for shifting toward clinical chemistry-based platforms like LinAge to achieve predictable clinical utility.
The dogma that NAD+ levels systematically decline with age in all human tissues has faced significant empirical challenges. While tissue-specific declines (e.g., in skeletal muscle or brain tissue) have been recorded in rodents, large-scale human data paint a more nuanced picture.
A comprehensive human cohort study by Whitson et al., 2023 and related preprints have established that whole-blood NAD+ concentrations remain tightly regulated and do not exhibit a linear, systemic decrease across healthy aging populations. This supports Kaeberlein’s position that blood metabolite tracking is an improper proxy for intracellular or tissue-specific metabolic status.
The clinical trial mentioned by Kaeberlein regarding a 6 mg dose of spermidine improving vaccine response aligns with data published by Alsaleh et al., 2021, which demonstrated that spermidine restores autophagy in human old-adult T cells, significantly boosting B and T cell responses following vaccination. This provides a clear mechanistic validation for its clinical deployment within the High Confidence Tier of longevity interventions.
To provide a pragmatic framework for clinicians utilizing clinical chemistry-based aging clocks, the underlying architectural mapping of a mortality-trained second-generation clock is organized below. This system translates raw laboratory metrics into weighted risk scores, enabling the in silico modeling described in the text.
| Principal Component (PC) | Primary Laboratory Biomarkers | Targeted Physiological Subsystem | Clinical Intervention Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| PC Glycemic | HbA1c, Fasting Insulin, Glucose | Pancreatic Endocrine / Metabolic Efficiency | SGLT2 Inhibitors, Metformin, Carbohydrate Restriction |
| PC Cardiovascular | ApoB, Lp(a), LDL-C, Triglycerides | Atherogenic Lipoprotein Burden | PCSK9 Inhibitors, Ezetimibe, Statin Therapy |
| PC Inflammatory | hs-CRP, Interleukin-6, Fibrinogen | Systemic Inflammatory Cascade (Inflammaging) | Senolytics, Dietary Omega-3 Optimization, IL-1β Blockade |
| PC Renal | Creatinine, Cystatin C, eGFR, BUN | Glomerular Filtration & Nephron Integrity | ACE Inhibitors, ARBs, Precise Hydration Protocols |
| PC Hepatic | ALT, AST, GGT, Alkaline Phosphatase | Hepatocyte Integrity & Xenobiotic Clearance | Alcohol Cessation, NAFLD Reversal, Choline Supplementation |
| PC Hemodynamic | Systolic BP, Diastolic BP, Heart Rate | Vascular Compliance & Autonomic Tone | Autonomic Modulation, Beta-Blockade, Magnesium Intake |
Regarding LinAge, I made a thread about it a while ago.
It’s a little complicated to run, but I got the R script running perfectly. If anybody wants me to run their LinAge for them, follow the instructions here: Does anybody want to calculate their LinAge2 (better than Levine), using blood test biomarkers?
Basically, fill in the spreadsheet with the parameters, send me the file and I’ll run it for you.
It reports back not just biological age but also some categories of where you are low risk or high risk. Very interesting for me and my wife, opening up a few blind spots for us.
This transcript features a technical and historical discussion between geroscience specialists Dr. Matt Kaeberlein and Dr. Steven Austad regarding the trajectory of human longevity research, pharmacological interventions, and the evolutionary biology of aging.
The core thesis posits a dichotomy in geroscience progress over the past quarter-century: while preclinical animal models have yielded highly reproducible mechanisms of lifespan extension, translation to human clinical validation has severely underperformed. Austad defends his long-standing “$1 Billion Bet” with Jay Olshansky, asserting that an individual born before the year 2000 will reach 150 years of age while remaining cognitively intact. This claim is grounded in mammalian interventions (e.g., rapamycin) demonstrating robust efficacy even when initiated late in life, challenging the historical dogma that anti-aging protocols must commence early to alter the aging trajectory.
The conversation critiques the design and stagnation of the Targeting Aging with Metformin (TAME) trial. Formulated in 2015, TAME selected metformin primarily for its multi-decade safety profile and low cost to satisfy regulatory and public health metrics. However, both speakers concede that metformin lacks a definitive, clean molecular target and exhibits uninspiring preclinical lifespan data. In contemporary translation, both favor rapamycin (mTOR inhibition), SGLT2 inhibitors, or GLP-1 receptor agonists as superior candidates over metformin.
Furthermore, the discussion identifies a pervasive “translational gap” generated by relying entirely on short-lived, evolutionarily unrefined laboratory models (e.g., standard mice, C. elegans). Austad argues that these organisms are baseline “sick” and biologically fragile by human standards. To overcome this limitation, geroscience must pivot to studying exceptionally long-lived or resilient species—termed “nature’s successes” (e.g., clams living 500 years with unique proteostatic mechanisms, birds maintaining high metabolic rates without accelerated degradation, and bats preventing muscle attrition during hibernation).
Finally, the dialogue deconstructs popular lifestyle and supplemental trends. It aggressively filters out the hype surrounding nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) precursors and general antioxidant supplementation, categorizing them as scientifically unsubstantiated and prone to massive placebo effects. Caloric restriction (CR) in humans is similarly challenged; while highly effective in sterile, unchallenging laboratory settings, severe CR induces severe muscle mass depletion, hypothermia, and immunologic vulnerability, rendering it an impractical and potentially deleterious strategy for humans.
Matt and Brian are both on the PCSK9i ? And Malcolm Kendrick says it’s a joke. I love this. What a world.
If you want to live a long time, you probably want to go with the recommendations of the best scientists and experts in lipids and cardiology, not the small number of fringe doctors who make outrageous claims to sell books, and get social media followers and YouTube subscribers…
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick is a prominent critic of the lipid hypothesis of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In his publications, including The Great Cholesterol Con and The Clot Thickens, he asserts that low-density lipoprotein (LDL) does not cause atherosclerosis, that dietary saturated fat does not modulate serum LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in a pathologically meaningful way, and that statin therapy provides negligible benefit.
Evaluating these positions requires contrasting his arguments against the totality of genetic, epidemiological, and clinical trial evidence established by international consensus panels, such as the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS).
Atherosclerosis is fundamentally an endothelial injury and blood clotting disorder (the modern “thrombogenic hypothesis”). Kendrick argues that LDL is a passive molecule that does not cross a healthy endothelial layer to initiate plaque formation, and that lipid accumulation is merely a secondary consequence of the body attempting to repair arterial “scabs.”
The scientific consensus, formally synthesized in the EAS Consensus Statements on LDL Causality, definitively establishes that LDL is an independent, causal factor in the initiation and progression of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Pathophysiological Mechanism of LDL Retension and Oxidation in the Arterial Intima. Source: VectorMine / Getty Images
Kendrick’s emphasis on endothelial integrity, the role of the endothelial glycocalyx, and clotting dynamics represents a valid and crucial area of vascular biology. Endothelial dysfunction, systemic inflammation, and a degraded glycocalyx increase the rate of LDL transcytosis and retention. However, while endothelial injury accelerates the disease, apoB-containing lipoproteins remain the mandatory substrate. In the absence of circulating apoB particles, severe atherosclerosis does not occur, even in the presence of severe endothelial damage.
Kendrick asserts that dietary fat, specifically saturated fatty acids (SFAs), cannot raise serum LDL levels because chylomicron metabolism (fat absorption from the gut) is metabolically distinct from the VLDL-to-LDL cascade synthesized by the liver.
While Kendrick is correct that dietary fats are initially packaged into chylomicrons, his assertion that SFAs have no biological mechanism to raise serum LDL-C is biochemically incorrect. The molecular mechanism is well-characterized:
While individuals exhibit variable hyper- or hypo-responses to dietary fats based on genetics (e.g., APOE status), the metabolic pathway linking high SFA intake to reduced LDLR activity and subsequent elevated plasma LDL-C is empirically verified.
Kendrick co-authored a controversial 2016 systematic review published in BMJ Open claiming that in individuals over the age of 60, high LDL-C is either inversely associated or entirely unassociated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, suggesting that high LDL is protective in older cohorts.
The paper drew severe criticism from epidemiologists and cardiologists due to significant methodological limitations:
Kendrick argues that statins provide negligible clinical benefit, particularly in primary prevention (individuals without pre-existing CVD), and that the pharmaceutical industry uses relative risk reduction (RRR) instead of absolute risk reduction (ARR) to artificially inflate drug efficacy.
The distinction between RRR and ARR is a critical nuance in public health communication, and Kendrick’s critique of over-reliance on RRR has scientific merit, though his conclusions are skewed.
| Risk Metric | Clinical Context | Public Health Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) | Consistently ~22% reduction in major cardiovascular events per 1 mmol/L (~38.7 mg/dL) drop in LDL-C. | Remains uniform across varying baseline risks, demonstrating the constant biological potency of lowering LDL. |
| Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) | Highly dependent on the individual’s baseline risk. In low-risk primary prevention, a 5-year ARR may only be 1–2%. | While a 1% ARR means 100 people must be treated for 5 years to prevent one event (NNT = 100), across a global population of millions, this translates to tens of thousands of prevented events. |
Modern clinical guidelines have evolved to align with this mathematical reality. Statins are no longer prescribed based on isolated, arbitrary LDL-C thresholds. Instead, multi-variable risk engines (such as the pooled cohort equations or QRISK) assess absolute global risk (integrating age, smoking status, blood pressure, and metabolic markers). Interventions are directed toward individuals where the baseline absolute risk is high enough that the corresponding absolute risk reduction justifies therapy.
A recognized knowledge gap remains regarding the long-term safety and absolute benefit of aggressive lipid lowering in ultra-low-risk, young individuals over a 40-year horizon, as standard clinical trials are logistically restricted to 5-year intervals. However, lifetime risk tracking from genetic models strongly implies that earlier, sustained reductions yield compounding, cumulative benefits that short-term trials underestimate…
Lutein and atherosclerosis: Belfast versus Toulouse revisited
“At the time we speculated like others that role of the carotenoids may well have been to prevent oxidation of lipid in the lipoproteins and so reduce the uptake of oxidised lipid by macrophages and its deposition within the intimal layers of the major arteries as plaque. It is now widely accepted that CHD is an inflammatory disease and that macrophages within plaque together with tissue damage contribute to this inflammation. Stimulated macrophages release cytokines to activate the immune system both locally and systemically. Precursor complement proteins in the blood are activated to assist immune cells in phagocytosis and cell repair. Individuals with a history of arteriosclerosis display significantly higher concentrations of complement factors C3 and C3a than subjects without such a history. Metabolism of C3 via the alternate complement pathway can give rise to the membrane attack complex (MAC) which creates a hole or pore in pathogens or host cells, killing the cell. Recent studies in patients with early age related macular disease (AMD) who also exhibit similar elevated concentrations of complement proteins in their blood, showed supplementation with lutein progressively decreased the amount of the MAC and other complement factors in the blood. Lutein was used in the supplementation experiments because it is an important constituent of macular pigment. Thus the healthier cardiometabolic features displayed by the people in Toulouse may have been due to the effects of concurrent high concentrations of plasma lutein on the immune system and complement in particular.”
Lycopene in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases
“It is believed that the cardioprotective effect of lycopene protection is a result of its potential antioxidant properties responsible, inter alia, for: protection against oxidative stress-induced myocardial hypertrophy by improving ROS production [44], inhibition of stress-induced endoplasmic reticulum damage due to ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) [45], inhibition of LDL oxidative damage [46]; suppression of ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction by inhibiting apoptosis [47], and improving endothelial function [48].”
Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory mechanisms of action of astaxanthin in cardiovascular diseases (Review)
" The LDL oxidation time in the presence of astaxanthin has been analyzed in vitro and ex vivo . In the in vitro assays, astaxanthin prolonged LDL oxidation in a dose-dependent manner, in addition to being more effective compared with lutein and α-tocopherol. In turn, the blood samples of individuals who were supplemented daily with 1.8, 3.6, 14.4, or 21.6 mg astaxanthin for 14 days evidenced a significant delay in LDL oxidation when compared to samples collected before supplementation, the greatest effect being obtained with the dose of 14.4 mg (oxidation time increased by 5.0, 26.2, 42.3 and 30.7% with 1.8, 3.6, 14.4 and 21.6 mg astaxanthin, respectively) (Table I) (10). Thus, it was demonstrated that the intake of astaxanthin delayed LDL oxidation, one of the key factors involved in the process of atherosclerosis."
Lutein, zeaxanthin, and meso-zeaxanthin supplementation attenuates inflammatory cytokines and markers of oxidative cardiovascular processes in humans
“Our data show that L, Z, & MZ supplementation results in decreased serum IL-1β, TNF-α, and OxLDL. This suggests that these carotenoids are acting systemically to attenuate oxidative lipid products and inflammation, thus reducing their contribution to atherosclerotic plaque formation.”
I do take 20mg lycopene, 60 mg astaxanthin, and lutein and zeaxanthin, though not meso-zeaxanthin. Maybe that’s what is keeping me out of trouble. Good to know there’s positive data and thoughts on them.
I take doxycycline 100mg every 2 weeks with my Rapa, but doubt that’s enough to do much. I’ve thought about increasing it. Really wish they would start selling the Doxy-Myr. It could help with cancer and heart disease both.
Good call out. I have not checked this person out much but did search a few videos and posts etc.
A new video on YouTube it seems he already contradicted himself on cardiovascular medications and what he considers the main importance of cardiovascular health.
Starts at 1:00:35https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq-va0SqJb4
“sun exposure synthesizes nitric oxide in your body. Nitric oxide is the single most important molecule for your cardiovascular health.”
Then at 1:03:26
“The other interesting thing about statins, which I almost hate to admit because I’m not a statin fan, is that they increase nitric oxide synthesis in your body.”
No clue what he recommends for nitric oxide or other cardiovascular help. But big pharma will blow anything away he would recommend for it.
Good luck beating pde5i’s (viagra), citrulline powder, vitamin c, beet root powder… arb’s/acei’s, statins.
Other good Rx meds to help nitric oxide also, and beyond for cardiovascular help.
The con here is this guy fear mongering people to avoid Rx medications.