David Sinclair & the longevity-industry scam

[undeather]

David Sinclair, Harvard professor, longevity reseacher & author - best known for his appearances on Joe Rogan and several other podcasts - seems to be one of the new big snakeoil salesmen in the medical industry. I did not expect this kind of bullshitting from someone with his credentials, but there you have it.
Absolutely shocking:
 

 

[Jason Actualization]

Woah, that is shocking.

Sinclair always struck me as a nice enough lad, thanks linking this!

[LSD-Rumi]

This is the case for any newly explored field in medicine that is based on novel studies. We are basiclly like sailors travelling in the darkness of the sea using an oil lamp.

A science that is dependent solely on arbitrary studies is weak science. Our main focus first, should be on developing a basic framework of the mechanisms behind longevity in the human body. The first piece of paper mentioned in the video is an example of such thing. Later on, studies can be more directed and more beneficial  in expanding our understanding of the field.

Unless we develop a big picture understanding of the field, no study should be taken that seriously to the point of making a multimillion comapny based on one study done on mice. 

I always had this feeling, that many researchers and scientists don't understand this. @undeather what do you think?

Edited March 11 by LSD-Rumi

[CosmicExplorer]

As we strengthen tissue repair mechanisms we simultaneously weaken cancer defense mechanisms, and we haven't been able to deal with that. We are not even close to defeating aging. Aging is essentially entropy. We're not even able to give people long-lasting pain relief let alone stop aging.

[Schizophonia]

5 hours ago, CosmicExplorer said:

As we strengthen tissue repair mechanisms we simultaneously weaken cancer defense mechanisms, and we haven't been able to deal with that. We are not even close to defeating aging. Aging is essentially entropy. We're not even able to give people long-lasting pain relief let alone stop aging.

This is false, because the body can actually produce abundant stem cells with original-sized telomeres.
Old age is a programmed process, desired for whatever reason.

Technically nothing prevents us from living for thousands of years.

[CosmicExplorer]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

This is false, because the body can actually produce abundant stem cells with original-sized telomeres

There's so much more to aging than just telomeres. In fact we don't even have a proper marker of aging, you can't measure someone's biological age. These DNA kind of tests which apparently measure your biological age are a lie.

Quote

The longer a person’s telomeres, researchers found, the greater the risk of cancer and other disorders, challenging a popular hypothesis about the chromosomal roots of vitality

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/health/long-telomeres-age-longevity.html

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

Technically nothing prevents us from living for thousands of years.

There are an unfathomable amount of problems preventing us from living for thousands of years. Metabolism causes entropic damage in us which we have no idea how to stop. This is just my personal feeling, but I feel some denial of death vibes from popular social media anti-aging gurus like David Sinclar

[Leo Gura]

A lot of such scientific studies are very poorly designed. This issue is much larger than just this one corrupt Harvard guy.

Perhaps as much as 50% of all scientific studies are poorly designed and lead to misleading conclusions. This is especially the case in the field of medicine. The studies are often extremely narrow and anti-holistic. Just because something works on some rat somewhere doesn't mean it will work for you. And often it doesn't even work for the rat!

Edited March 17 by Leo Gura

[Jason Actualization]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Perhaps as much as 50% of all scientific studies are poorly designed and lead to misleading conclusions. This is especially the case in the field of medicine. The studies are often extremely narrow and anti-holistic. Just because something works on some rat somewhere doesn't mean it will work for you. And often it doesn't even work for the rat!

Bingo. The external validity of most studies is quite poor, i.e., one cannot, in confidence, blindly extrapolate the findings of that study to daily living. Arriving at truth mandates the scrutiny and synthesis of many studies until a self-consistent picture emerges.

Edited March 18 by Jason Actualization

[undeather]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

A lot of such scientific studies are very poorly designed. This issue is much larger than just this one corrupt Harvard guy.

Perhaps as much as 50% of all scientific studies are poorly designed and lead to misleading conclusions. This is especially the case in the field of medicine. The studies are often extremely narrow and anti-holistic. Just because something works on some rat somewhere doesn't mean it will work for you. And often it doesn't even work for the rat!

It really depends on the area of research. The harder the science, the easier it gets to design adequately powered research.

In medicine, I would go way higher than 50%.
I would argue that at least 80-90% of all studies published suffer from significant methodological flaws. 
That said, it's important to mention that there is still great research to lean on for scientific progress. 
One just has to weigh it properly. 

[CosmicExplorer]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

A lot of such scientific studies are very poorly designed. This issue is much larger than just this one corrupt Harvard guy.

Perhaps as much as 50% of all scientific studies are poorly designed and lead to misleading conclusions. This is especially the case in the field of medicine. The studies are often extremely narrow and anti-holistic. Just because something works on some rat somewhere doesn't mean it will work for you. And often it doesn't even work for the rat!

+ Publication bias