This is insane. You can throw most senescent cell research and supplements such as fisetin into the garbage. Glad I never fell for the hype.
The Anti-Aging Supplement Everyone Took Never Worked
Always knew fisetin was worthless despite how much people hyped up the mEcHaNiSmS. Well, turns out the mechanism wasn’t there either.
The genetic test seems solid for p16INK detection, but the antibody one is suspect to say the least. Hilarious that some of these papers out here that use the antibody test have published positive results.
1 Like
Look deeply into my eyes. Let all your tension float away. Your eyelids are getting heavy.
How difficult is it going to be to go back to all of those studies and redo them to correct this mistake?
I’ve followed your extensive comments on this site and have great respect for your knowledge and attention to detail.
Which is why I was surprised by your broad statement, “never fell for the hype.”
While this situation (bogus senolytics research) is absolutely unfortunate and creates mass confusion in sorting out the years of research already existing, declaring the entire senolytics field as “hype” was a bit of an overstatement and too broad of a brush not supported by the reality of the situation.
For example, James Kirkland did some outstanding research in conjunction with the Mayo Clinic years ago and has quite a bit of follow-up research. The results are strong enough to not be ignored. None of it falls in the “hype” category, nor is it contaminated by this scandal (to the best of my knowledge).
I also listened to Matt Kaeberlein dissect this situation, and his conclusion is nowhere close to your dismissive statement.
In some ways, I’m actually glad to see this news break because it will hopefully clean out a lot of bogus false positives, as well as false negatives, that have plagued recent years of senolytics research. The bad research has only created confusion and obfuscated our ability to parse signal from noise.
Adding to the confusion, people collapse “senolytics” research conclusions into one bucket comparing fisetin-alone results to D+Q (and various other isolated treatment protocols), which are night-and-day different and must be parsed to draw reasonable conclusions.
Yes, this controversy is a bummer in some ways, creating mass confusion in my mind from all the historical research in my head. What remains true? What should be discounted? It’s an unfortunate mess to have to sort out.
However, the optimist in me believes future senolytics research (of which, there is a lot in the pipeline) will benefit. The standards should tighten because of this documented failure. That’s a good thing.
My point is how this situation is far from the damning conclusion you presented in your headline to this thread. The numbers of actual violators and the papers indicated do not align with your conclusion that the entire field of senolytics was “hype.”
I’m not trying to take you to task here because, again, I’ve gotten great value from your extensive posts on this forum and respect your views. I just think you missed the mark with this one, and I think the topic of senolytics is important enough to justify a more balanced analysis of what actually happened here and what remains standing after the dust is settled. There’s no value in leading this thread into a negative group-think spiral, which the follow-on comments align with.
I remain confident that there is a there there with senolytics. The conflicting, low-quality research in the recent past has clouded the picture. Hopefully, this becomes a positive step toward cleaning up the mess and points us in a positive direction.
I welcome any quality research that leads me to a longer, healthier life - including senolytics.
Hope that helps!