Good question. I have grown disillusioned with David Sinclair over the yearsā¦ largely because of the issues brought up in this discussion with Richard Miller and Matt Kaeberlein: Aging: Separating the Science from the Snake Oil
Generally I like the information provided by Peter Attia. Iām sure heās wrong on some things, but heās got a full team reviewing literature on aging all the time, and is working with clients so I believe he has a good infrastructure and feedback loop that is based in reality (vs. just researchers who have minimal experience with patients/people). See this post: "Early" Longevity Program by Peter Attia Launches - #62 by RapAdmin
Joan Mannick is obviously a good and competent scientist, and has a lot of experience also in drug development at Novartis, and ResTORbio with mTOR inhibitors. But as with anyone in industry sheās got the conflict of interest with her new mTOR inhibitor startup Tornado Therapeutics - so Iām cautious with believing all the negatives sheās going to have to promote on rapamycin to support her own new drug development process.
Matt Kaeberlein is, in my view, very good because he has a long history in the research side, has no conflicts of interests with regard to mTOR inhibitors, and comes across as well-balanced (from my biased perspective, with regard to safety and experimentation (e.g. rapamycin).
Rhonda Patrick - seems to have a pretty good background working as a bench scientist with some of the top Biology of Aging researchers like Bruce Ames, and at the Salk Institute. See her resume here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickrhonda/
More here:
Rhonda Perciavalle Patrick has a Ph.D. in biomedical science from the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis TN and St. Jude Childrenās Research Hospital, Memphis TN. She also has a Bachelorās of Science degree in biochemistry/chemistry from the University of California, San Diego. She has done extensive research on aging, cancer, and nutrition.
Dr. Patrick trained as a postdoctoral fellow at Childrenās Hospital Oakland Research Institute with Dr. Bruce Ames. She investigated the effects of micronutrient (vitamins and minerals) inadequacies on metabolism, inflammation, DNA damage, and aging and whether supplementation can reverse the damage. In addition, she also investigated the role of vitamin D in brain function, behavior, and other physiological functions. In February of 2014 she published a paper in FASEB on how vitamin D regulates serotonin synthesis and how this relates to autism.
Brian Kennedy - a great background, PHD out of the Lenny Guarente Lab at MIT, worked and led the Buck Institute for years, now at NUS leading Singaporeās biology of aging effort, very interested in translational geroscience (getting it into the clinic as fast as possible). All good I think.
Andrew Huberman - not super familiar with him, watched a few of his podcasts. Heās a neuroscientist by background I believe. The key criticism I hear about him is that he strays pretty far away from his area of expertiseā¦ Iām not sure heās the best person to follow with regard to say, red light therapy or cold plunges. But he gets reasonable people to to discuss things on the science side of things.
Matthew Walker - obviously an expert at Sleep, so I follow his sleep recommendations.
Another person I hear about in the longevity field is Mark Hyman, MD. I donāt follow him much. He seems like a pretty traditional longevity MD in that heās focused on diet and exercise. This is fine, I just want moreā¦ Anyone else have any thoughts on him and follow him more closely?
