If you’re that interested, I suggest you research the professor
A range of views is one thing. Intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the facts and the research is. unethical at best and deceitful at worse.
Facts and data are funny things they never seem to want to hit on our side
The fact that rapamycin is not going to be a money maker for anyone or any corporation is the reason they are being intentionally blind to the overwhelming data. Trust. both of them are counting on a new intervention to either further their podcast careers or be their golden piggy.
Yes - he is the leader of the ITP (since its inception I think, over a decade ago). He’s a scientist and takes a very factual approach to things as scientists tend to do. If there haven’t been any clinical studies in humans for longevity, then he won’t say it definitely works in humans because we honestly don’t know for sure. Some things work in mice, or dogs or even monkeys, and don’t work in humans.
And he knows that his words carry a lot of weight. We follow Richard Miller podcasts very closely here and all the studies that come out of his lab. We also talk with Richard and his team by email relatively frequently. If the results are good from one of his studies, people will definitely start taking the drug (and he knows that), so he tries to take the conservative approach to emphasize all the things that we don’t know. He definitely does not get out in front of the evidence. Which is all fine, from my perspective.
While I agree with you that the risk/reward debate on rapamycin is very good from my experience, I also know that we are light on the human clinical data, so I don’t push it on people. I have friends who have tried rapamycin and just felt exhausted all the time while on it, so it doesn’t work for everyone! And for people who have pre-existing conditions, the risk/benefit ratio gets even more murky.
Actually, we are not light on the clinical data concerning rapamycin on any safety protocols. To criticize an intervention and question it’s safety while ignoring the preponderance of evidence that any side effects are non-life altering or threatening is the worst kind of cherry picking. As I said, before these two are looking for an intervention that they can claim credit for or get on the bandwagon.
Views are views facts are facts
To ignore the fact that this drug has been used for over three decades at conservatively five times. The dosage is a fact that is obviously being ignored. Any ethical scientist or researcher that takes a strong stand or critique against any intervention while ignoring a Mountain of evidence that contradicts their insinuations.
BTW, having a conservative stance is not the same as completely ignoring the facts and data