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.
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
Richard Miller is another awesome longevity researcher. Not glamorous, but well respected. I am so glad we have the ITP!
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.
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.