The mice in the ITP study also appeared to have metabolic disfunction yet they lived longer, part of the answer is in the following study
And don’t know how many people got rapamycin in the Stanfield study but by now there are many of us here, taking it for many years now and I don’t think anyone of us got any serious side effects definitely attributed to rapamycin
The ITP paper does not explicitly discuss or provide data to demonstrate whether rapamycin increases or improves specific metabolic dysfunctions. Could you please share your data source?
Moreover, even if both humans and mice(ITP) exhibit metabolic dysfunction, does that prove that this can be used to extend human lifespan?
I was mistaken, it wasn’t from the actual ITP studies but from other studies with rats/mice on a similar feeding regime, eg
but I don’t see how that would have been different for the ITP mice
Never mind. I had a feeling I might get a lot of criticism, so I deleted my original comment. I’ve watched all his interview videos, and there are quite a lot of outrageous things.
I think you are talking about “clinical trials” that use certain biological or epigenetic clocks, which we know are not ready for prime time and that do not measure all aspects of aging.
It’s hard to ascertain people’s motivations, but he seemed to genuinely want to help people. Cole, I think you’re jumping to conclusions as we have no evidence for his true motivations. And, you seem not to know that he died a few years ago: Dr. Alan Green, a great pioneer in Rapamycin usage, passed away yesterday in Little Neck, NY
Dr. Green worked with Matt Keaberlein, and many people here on the forum, to study and learn from his patients, which resulted in this paper: Evaluation of Off-label Rapamycin use to Promote Healthspan in 333 Adults (New Paper)
and: No Covid Hospitalizations or Deaths in Dr. Alan Green's 700+ Rapamycin Users
I hear you but need a small correction. I think you might need to use past tense when you refer to him. I doubt he “IS” any longer because he’s been dead for over a year now LOL, other than that I do get your point 
An analysis of Cole’s analysis…
The provided analysis of the 13-week human trial is heavily skewed toward a binary “pass/fail” interpretation of gerotherapeutics. While the raw data accurately reflects the outcomes of that specific trial, the conclusions drawn from it contain significant mechanistic blind spots and biological misconceptions.
Here are the primary flaws in the analysis, cross-referenced with the 2026 Hibbert et al. Science Advances data and broader pharmacological literature.
The analysis concludes that rapamycin “blunts muscular strength adaptations” and provides “zero measurable physiological or functional benefits” because of lower repetitions in the 30-Second Chair-Stand Test. This is a profound misinterpretation of muscle biology.
The analysis points to elevated HbA1c (+1.74 mmol/mol) and LDL cholesterol (+0.32 mmol/L) as “objective proof” of “measurable degradation” and metabolic dysfunction.
The author asserts there is “zero quantitative evidence” of anti-aging benefits because epigenetic clocks (GrimAge, etc.) showed negligible differences over the 13 weeks.
The analysis states that mean C-Reactive Protein (CRP) increased by 4.26 mg/L, framing this as a failure of rapamycin’s anti-inflammatory properties, while simultaneously admitting the data was skewed by two massive outliers (17 mg/L and 50 mg/L).
The overarching conclusion strips away “theoretical optimism” to declare a “definitive negative result” for the drug.
It’s hard to even know what to make of this AI-on-AI analysis. The study only looked at short-term data, and every conclusion is strictly qualified by that 13-week window. If I ran your critique through an AI again, it would just hallucinate even more errors.
You stated this in your analysis. Are you now saying you don’t agree with your post? Why post it if you don’t agree with it?
Your posting / analysis seems to largely be a “straw man” analysis. It was a short-term muscle study, it tell us nothing about the long-known benefits of longevity that rapamycin has demonstrated in dozens and dozens of studies.
The original commentary explicitly limited its conclusions to a 13-week or short-term timeframe, as that is what the raw data reflects.
I simply used Gemini Pro to analyze the data from this specific paper, using prompts strictly designed for objective analysis. Therefore, any conclusions are limited to the scope of this study alone. I am confident that the AI followed my instructions and did not extrapolate findings beyond the actual timeframe of the trial.
I guess the key thing we learned here is that 13 weeks is not an appropriate period to test a longevity drug.
Exactly. The analysis was strictly limited to the data in that paper, and I certainly didn’t bias the prompts to favor any specific outcome. Gemini Pro’s use of ‘anti-aging’ was merely a description of the epigenetic clock, and ‘anti-inflammatory’ referred specifically to the C-Reactive Protein levels. If those terms are problematic, I’m happy to remove them and leave only the raw data. Since those descriptions seem to have touched a nerve, I’ll ensure the AI strips away any descriptive labels for the metrics next time.
Gemini Pro:
Approximately 0.81% of the total U.S. population is male and 85 or older. This accounts for roughly 2.8 million male individuals.
Well, I am finally in a group of less than 1%; though rare, you see us everywhere. Apparently a high dose of rapamycin for five years isn’t killing me.
I take follistatin 344 thirty minutes before each workout. Hopefully that overcomes the adverse effect of Rapamycin.
JPK
Yeah, I’m familiar with this paper. Alan Green mentioned in an interview that Matt Kaeberlein personally flew from Washington to New York to get an email list from him of 900 patients taking rapamycin for anti-aging. Professor Kaeberlein sent out surveys to all of them and got over 300 replies from rapamycin users, which formed the basis of this study. I bet a lot of people on this forum actually filled out that questionnaire. To be honest, I haven’t read the paper that closely. For me, the most important takeaway is that 90% of people using rapamycin for anti-aging are on a 6mg dose.
Haha, actually I’m more curious about how many dollars Matt Kaeberlein paid those patients as a thank you for filling out the questionnaire. The response rate was quite high; if they didn’t receive any compensation, then those patients were truly selfless.
None of us were paid for the study participation. We all want to move the science forward.
Given that this paper is so important and represents the hard work of biohackers, posting comments indeed requires very careful and repeated consideration. However, I noticed that no one seems to have uploaded the PDF version of this paper. Although it claims to be free, downloading it without an institutional account incurs a fee. Therefore, I’ll take the opportunity to upload the PDF version without offering any interpretation.
After some thought, perhaps no one uploaded it because of commercial copyright concerns. Making the PDF publicly available might not be appropriate. After further consideration, I decided to delete it. It seems that only sharing it via private messages would be legal.
Health Conditions and Signs in the Past 3 Months (Users n=245, Non-users n=172)
Wow, that’s a lot of 85+ dudes and that is good to know. I hear you about rapa and I did mention you as being a very good N=1 now let’s try and find few more N=1’s hopefully over 95 that are taking Rapa LOL. Not against Rapa whatsoever, just mentioning that I’ve had every now and then the known side effects. Will see as we go along.
To be honest, I haven’t seen any comments from the usual critics who often pick apart papers. I know the unspoken rules of the forum go without saying, but I still feel the need to say a few words.
On subjective benefits:
In a non‑blinded survey, when subjects actively seek out, purchase, and take a widely hyped “anti‑aging miracle drug” in pursuit of longevity, a strong placebo effect and confirmation bias are inevitable. Under the current study design, these purely subjective measures have virtually zero objective medical value.
On the COVID‑19 data:
Infection rates were essentially the same between the two groups. As for disease severity, the “continuous treatment” group, which the authors highlight as having the best outcomes, consisted of only 37 people. If you look closely at their statistical methods, that neat p < 0.005 in the 37‑person group came from lumping together “moderate,” “severe,” and “long COVID” cases and comparing them against the non‑treatment group. Break it down: severe (0 vs 2) or long COVID (0 vs 3) – the sample sizes are so small that no statistical significance can be calculated at all.
If this comparison were meaningful, the fact that the continuous‑use group had a significantly higher proportion of mild infections (86.5% vs non‑users, p < 0.005) would imply that taking rapamycin increases the likelihood of mild COVID‑19. But that’s absurd.
Bottom line:
The study design has fatal flaws; it cannot yield any valid conclusions. And let’s be blunt – people who go out of their way to get a rapamycin prescription from Alan Green at a New York clinic are inevitably more aggressive in their anti‑aging and medical approaches. Confounding factors are nearly impossible to control.