Not hard to read between the lines when you hear Rich Miller and Matt K talk about Sinclair. Anyone who understands the longevity field knows Sinclair is a fraud.
1 Like
You were just hearing them talking about Resveratrol. And of course they would. That was a flawed study. So you are saying that someone who managed to make his way from Australia to the most famous lab at MIT as a grad assistant was responsible for that study? No one thinks he’s a fraud. No one with any sense and the two people you named have sense. Matt K worked in the same lab.
Ok, how has he moved the longevity field forwards?
You obviously know nothing about his work then. Enjoy!
You literally just contradicted yourself , you said a couple posts ago that you " marvel at people who listen to Brad Stanfield over David Sinclair. Stanfield at best is a baby doc who has never done any real science in his life, and at worst is a charlatan".
At the end of the day, most public figures have an agenda, one way or another. Brad, David, Peter, Huberman, [name of whoever you want] and we could debate that they have a agenda of some sort. Sinclair has brought light to the longevity field via his book, but his research has not done too much towards it in a relevant timespan outside of the Sirtuin study(which again is debated in longevity space). Brad and David do the same thing one way or another, they both are just sources to get information from, and both have different perspectives as one is a MD and one is a PhD. I will say Sinclair has lost a lot of respect in the science community for pushing studies that are not true, but at the end of the day attention is attention, whether its good or bad. I think David should get credit for helping bring more public attention to the longevity field and inspiring potential future scientists, but as a resource I think he does give a lot of misinformation. But information is information and it is up to the consumer of that information to decide if it reliable or not. @RapAdmin I am tired of these posts becoming a hostile public debate where either its one vs the other and not both, or others just bashing each other over opinions. The page used to not be this bad. Can we just remove this Forum post?
5 Likes
Sorry that was sarcasm.
But if you can imagine a world where we have the ability to make cells younger, then longevity will be turned on its head. That is what David Sinclair’s lab is working on. I would say restoring eyesight in mice by injecting a virus and then resetting cells with a vaccine is pretty groundbreaking. These things are actually happening. The strongest argument I can see for rapamycin is so we can all live long enough to benefit from this type of research.
1 Like
True true, also people seem oblivious to the fact that these new wave of aging researchers/ youtubers are trying to nitpick Sinclair as a way to gain attention.
Whenever I see commentators fixate about the failure (or success) of resveratrol I consider them just a waste of time as no person who has any insight on aging would be so fixated on someone elses experiment on one compound of that type.
That being said my main deviation from Sinclair is that I believe his approach doesnt quite address his overall view on the theory of informational aging, which I think deserves more focus.
2 Likes
Being a stock options trader, I follow a lot of pharmaceutical companies. These are companies looking for therapies from COVID to cancer to monkeypox. The one thing they all have in common is that they need/want money. And lots of it. Billions and billions of dollars. How many therapies are developed that have 0 commercial value? 0. So, yes, everyone is in it for money when you are a company or a university.
Ever hear of publish or perish? That’s the phrase all professors like Sinclair live by. If they can’t publish papers and bring in money, the university kicks them out. I had many professors who were excellent teachers but lousy salesmen back in uni. It was always a shame to see them fired and we were then taught by the salesmen who didn’t give 2 figs about teaching us. This is what happens in every university in the developed world.
So, to say that Sinclair shouldn’t have a financial interest in longevity is farcical. Everyone has a financial interest in everything unless you are a true volunteer (Greenpeace, etc…) or a billionaire philanthropist (Saudis, Musk, etc…) No wonder the TAME trial needed Saudi funding! There is just no money in it.
If we are to obtain breakthroughs in longevity, there needs to be profit, or else it’s going to take a long long long time for anything to happen while waiting for donations from billionaires who are afraid of dying. Even Rapamycin, Canagliflozin, Metformin, etc… all started off as profitable pharmaceuticals. I am supportive of anyone who can forward the cause of treating ageing. We need Sinclair and the others to get the word out so that the money can flow.
6 Likes
Zazim
I would say restoring eyesight in mice by injecting a virus and then resetting cells with a vaccine is pretty groundbreaking.
.
So to summarise, DS’s main contribution to the longevity space… is to draw attention to the longevity space (with bad science). We all agree he is yet to discover a molecule or intervention that extends life in model organisms?
Good summary, but even though Sinclair has ‘failed’ (I still feel NMN is a worthy contribution to healthspan and sirtuins are a piece of the puzzle that may or may not have health benefits), he has succeeded in bringing more attention and dollars into longevity research. Remember that success is built on the back of multiple failures and that Rapamycin was a ‘failure’ for decades until someone figured out what it was good for! It’s still early days in this field.
Also, a lot of the work is done in his lab by graduate students. He is the frontman and guide. He has put together a lab of smart and credible scientists to work on longevity and has garnered world renown for it. This is quite a feat since curing aging is considered ‘quackery’ by most.
Matt Kaberlein worked under Sinclair I believe. In the interview I listened to, he spoke about him with respect.
And the restoring sight to the blind will be amazing science if he can pull it off in humans. We will find out shortly. That alone would make him a healthcare superstar.
4 Likes
You are citing our fearless leader as authority for your position? 
You are the sort that loves to argue even if your position is indefensible. This sort of back-and-forth is not what this site is about. My last response to you.
4 Likes
If you don’t have critics, you probably don’t have success either - Nicki Minaj
I’ll add - I’m not sure Richard Miller MD/PhD with the NIH/NIA really has many conflicts of interest - pretty much on the down low. He was pressured to test resveratrol and reached out to DS just to be extra sure of dosing/protocol. Didn’t work - multicenter trials.
Same deal with NR, so there’s not much reason to think NMN would be much better. Neither CB or DS (or basically anyone in either camp) is discussing how NMNT works in the pathway afaik, which is enough for me to wait on the research for NMNT inhibitors.
There is just too much non-reproducible literature out there - most scientists would point to it literally being a reproducibility crisis. Especially with mice studies using very specific strains in very specific conditions. I’ve seen enough cancer drugs in mice failing from many, many different researchers to tell you how people do mice studies matters because a lot of studies are still poorly done by full-time professors anywhere. But when was the last time people even read methodology and supplemental materials? Usually very few people.
Discussing whether some controversial “guru” is a fraud or not is usually a waste of time unless there is some damning evidence worthy of retraction/research was done in clearly predatory journals etc. Discussing how the research was conducted isn’t and that’s the only reason I’m in this forum and not on most other anti-aging forums. If any “guru” has something to say - show me the research, instead of hearsay. I even look into “grey literature”.
Until any drug/supplement can be shown to be independently reproducible (or at the very least the mechanism it claims to affect is reproducible), I just take it with a grain of salt, especially if there are possible significant side effects (including possible long-term) and drug-drug interactions.
You can see what Miller has to say here
4 Likes
Richard Miller is another awesome longevity researcher. Not glamorous, but well respected. I am so glad we have the ITP!
5 Likes
True… and I’ve followed David Sinclair and his research since he was at MIT as a graduate student with Lenny Guarente. He is obviously a good scientist - but his tendency towards excessive promotion of compounds and therapies (while it is undoubtedly helpful to his income and fund raising efforts) is … well, in my opinion its not helpful for someone like me trying to develop an optimized and evidence-based approach to healthy longevity.
And while I’ve noticed the thinly veiled criticisms by Matt Keaeberlein and Richard Miller and others who I trust more fully - Matt also says that he agrees with David about 95% of the time.
I think David is helping move the field forward, and gets people very enthusiastic about the longevity science and biotechnology markets, which is helpful from a general perspective of increasing attention and funding in the industry… its the occasional lapses into what I would call “hype” (or not fully supported claims) that cause trouble for me.
I would just say that in my opinion its probably helpful to take David Sinclair’s longevity recommendations with a grain of salt, and balance it with the research, videos, podcast, interviews from other notable geoscientists like Matt Kaeberlein, Richard Miller, etc.
5 Likes
It’s sort of similar to the people at life extension. They do good work and have greatly educated me over the years, but the hawking of the products is a little irritating and adds a level of skepticism.
4 Likes