Stanfield has a lot of followers so this may start to break the story to the wider public and when people take a closer look at Sinclair’s past missteps, it isn’t pretty.
1 Like
Just FYI, Stanfield and Kaeberlein (as an advisor) are working together on a Rapamycin study.
3 Likes
David Sinclair didn’t make $720 M from this, he has said yeah to pretty much “1%” - 7 M, he was a co-founder of this company that was publicly traded. GSK chose to pay more than the market price, almost twice the amount, which they said was a “high-risk” investment. There was also 14000 molecules (?) in Sirtris with only a few going into mice etc. This also was integrated into GSK after the closure according to Sinclair.
3 Likes
This is why doctors can’t be journalists. Especially if personally involved.
If this is wrong, many other things can be as well. The entire video has a thread that is bordering on conspiratorial in my opinion. I also spent very little time looking these things up.
I think Sinclair is fine with it however. If I were Stanfield I would recognize my personal feelings are getting way too much in the way of things for this, and bury my axe. Ignore people like Brenner and don’t get influenced by them. Who obviously are in a weird drama war with Sinclair. And follow his own path. Just my advice. Then a few years later look at it again with fresh eyes.
4 Likes
Brenner has published papers looking at the reliability of some of the SIRT research. Having read up on this I thik Brenner is right. However, he is not right about everything (nor is anyone else).
1 Like
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
8 Likes
With regard to the formerly posted Brad Stanfield video on David Sinclair:
I don’t agree with some of David Sinclair’s statements that to me are excessively optimistic and veer into “hype”. And I take his statements now with a strong dose of skepticism but I also think he’s probably doing some good and interesting work… like the work on the optical nerve regeneration. We’ll see where it goes, and I look forward to other labs duplicating the work.
But I don’t consider him a fraud or a con… those are too harsh a judgement in my opinion, at least from the evidence I’ve seen (you may have seen other evidence).
I think Karl Pfleger is a reasonable voice on the matter (with regard to the Brad Stanfield video). I think part of the issue is that in Youtube world it probably helps to be extreme in your videos as it gets attention, thus views and subscribers (and thus money).
I agree with Karl… David Sinclair’s behavior (while not something I would do) is nothing like the Theranos / Elizabeth Holmes type of fraud… which I think was was real and serious fraud (especially the potential implications of healthcare fraud, which ironically Elizabeth H. did not get convicted on).
Admittedly, it can be a fine line sometimes between “hype” and “fraud” - so reasonable people can disagree. I am just stating my opinion.
Source: https://x.com/KarlPfleger/status/1767754761955361228?s=20
6 Likes
A lot of the science is not really settled and needs further evidence based discussion. This includes things like NAD boosting whether you prefer David Sinclair’s molecule or Charles Brenner’s
3 Likes
I agree, the entire NAD boosting area is still in its infancy, and if you really want to do it, there seem to be much less expensive ways to do it like Niacin use.
While I am no fan of longevity hype that is unsupported with solid research, I also get disappointed by YouTubers who leverage conflict and sensationalism to boost their viewership and subscriber base… sadly what Youtube reinforces and rewards is not quality of product but extreme exaggeration and social media attention.
I’ve not watched the latest Brad Stanfield video (in fact I’ve stopped watching his videos because they seem too mass-market, and sensationalized for me), but given the views as of today, it unfortunately seems to have been effective at gaining attention but (from what I’ve read) it doesn’t seem all that balanced or fact filled, but the views are much, much higher than his typical videos, i.e. 125K views in 3 days vs. 58K videos in his other sensationalized video (“Urgent News”!) has had in the past two weeks…
7 Likes
The reason which clickbait is called clickbait is not because it is truthful. (although it does not have to be untrue). Similarly claptrap is a form of words which is designed to encourage clapping. Again it does not have to be true, but also it does not have to be false.
I do think, however, there seems to be growing evidence that boosting NAD (taking some form of vitamin B3 can be unhealthy for some people).
People like to watch a fight.
3 Likes
I find the whole story to be a fascinating and cogent example of the commercialization of science and where you draw the line. In my opinion that line is inexorably moving along with other widespread changes in social ethics. I object to it just like Kaeberlein does. But that won’t stop it. The idealists have seen their day but that day is rapidly fading in the rear view mirror.
2 Likes
It is not a truthful video though, so clickbait doesn’t even explain it away, it says Sinclair earned $720M from what sounds like a heist. When people told Stanfield to stop with clickbait they didn’t mean he should start lying to cover it. Ethics aside, it is probably unproductive and harmful in general and to the industry.
2 Likes
I don’t really want to get into a textual analysis of all of the statements by David Sinclair or by people publicly criticising him.
What I am interested in doing is working out what the scientific truths are. In itself I have learnt a few useful things from David Sinclair for which I thank him (about measuring nail growth for example).
However, this particular issue (which was specifically linked to his statements about the research on dogs) has been resolved by him resigning as the president of the Academy for Health & Lifespan Research, but remaining as a member.
2 Likes
It’s really frustrating that there is so much evidence of data fabrication from the Sinclair lab and so little effect on his career or influence because of it. Tons of it documented here: Never-ageing Anti-aging to cure COVID-19 – For Better Science
Honestly, Kaeberlin is the only reason I didn’t simply run away from this field when I started looking into it. I’m sure there are other scientists with integrity in the field, but he’s the only one of the big public figures I feel good about.
5 Likes
Can Your Dog Live Longer With a Pill?
A study into the effects of an anti-aging supplement doesn’t provide a compelling reason to shell out $100 a month—even for your best furry friend.
Most people would go to great lengths to extend the life of a beloved pet or help them enjoy happier and more active golden years. David Sinclair, a longevity researcher, is a co-founderof the dog supplement manufacturing company Animal Bioscience, which claims to help with those goals. Sold under the brand Leap Years, Sinclair’s dog supplements can cost about $100 for a one-month supply and promise “more vitality,” “more energy,” “more life.”
There’s even research to prove it. “Dog anti-aging supplement study shows cognitive benefits,” Sinclair announced in February, linking to a paper that tested out the supplements.
Except, when you take a closer look at the data in the paper, that’s not what the evidence suggests overall. If anything, the research shows that there are likely to be no benefits from giving your dog an expensive daily pill, at least in terms of the outcomes measured.
2 Likes
I have a feeling this doggie supplement will not be a best seller.
2 Likes
Isn’t just the worthless NMN ?
1 Like
I don’t think people in Israel would have any animus against Hezbollah if they would stop shooting missiles at them 
.
That’s bad enough. What’s worse is that he keeps doubling down on the same BS after it’s been proven wrong, and in some cases lying about it (as when he lied to Peter Attia in saying that the ITP never consulted him about resveratrol dosing, when in fact Sinclair is a coauthor of the negative ITP paper and Richard Miller says they used Sinclair’s recommended dose).
4 Likes
Perhaps he takes a statin and it harms his memory.
3 Likes