Dr. Brad Stanfield, Dr. Nick (Physionic - PhD) and Gil Carvalho MD PhD.
1 Like
All very conservative guys when it comes to longevity drugsā¦
7 Likes
Terrible presentation, IMHO. I posted this exact video as an example of a really bad exploration of the topic from people who are usually much better (except Nick, who is almost always bad). YMMV.
4 Likes
The interesting thing here is Dr. Brad says (As of May 5) they are still cleaning the Rapamycin study data and they havenāt unblinded the data yet. So we know the Rapamycin and Control groups have divergent results, but this is the latest update I could find.
They seem to be hopeful but careful about Rapamycin.
4 Likes
DrT
#5
If the data is really good it could cause a worldwide ārunā on rapamycin!
Better order up, guys!
4 Likes
He also said back in March that heās seen the results, the two groups are different, but he didnāt know which was which. He also said results would take 1 weekā¦ 7 weeks ago. So Iām not sure what the issue is. Itās a tiny trial, and it doesnāt take that long to analyse data.
6 Likes
I am always very suspicious when they take an overly long time to analyze the data.
It feels more like they are massaging the data.
5 Likes
Quoted from an economist.
If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything you want.
6 Likes
They havenāt unblinded the data yet. Theyāre still cleaning it. Give it time. Do you want fast or accurate? All research takes time to prepare and analyze the data. This is Dr. Bradās first RCT and he is being advised by Dr. Kaeberlein. I believe they will do a good job. We will have answers soon enough. Be patient.
6 Likes
I am actually quite surprised at how many basic scientific errors are in this video.
I donāt find any one of them credible.
Many wrong answers, not the latest data on many subjects. This is of a lower quality when compared to Dr, Attiaās or Kaeberleinās videos.
Interested in your opinion of him. I always thought he had a good reputation and I have learned from his videos, but I do class myself as a relative novice in the field.
1 Like
Personally, I like Nick although he is too conservative for my tastes.
I think Nick is good and generally Brad is good, but there was a lot of basic science wrong which was a bit surprising.
I had agreed to do a public debate with brad about biohacking, but he lost the willingness to debate. Sad, but not surprising.
1 Like
Obviously, this is a one man opinion, so caveat. The biggest problem with Nick, is that he styles himself a scientist, but appears not to understand how science works. Here is an example, based on which I stopped taking him seriously - he pronounced turmeric useless, because - wait for it - there is virtually no absorption of turmeric as measured in the serum, so he thinks itās a useless supplement and a waste of money. Wha?? This is a scientist talking? Does he not understand that turmeric might modify any number of molecules, directly or through the microbiome, and doesnāt need to get into the blood in order to have an effect? Instead of looking at outcome studies he comes up with this sorry mechanistic nonsense. What an idiot. Sorry, but this is disqualifying. I wouldnāt rely on his advice for anything. Look, itās OK to make a mistake, or be wrong about something - but itās depends on the manner and degree of being wrong. If you tell me that a doctor thinks drug X can help cancer and is wrong - OK, thatās fine, any hypothesis can be wrong, or guess wrong. But if the physician tells me that his cure for a headache is to cut off the head, then I think itās one of those āmistakesā that is disqualifying. Not understanding that molecules might work indirectly is such a fundamental error, that there is no coming back from that. Anyhow, thatās just one example, and I caught him multiple times making stupid statements, so I see zero point in listening to his conclusions and analysis. What I still watched him for, was bringing studies to my attention which I might have missed otherwise, which is fine with a lot of yt health channels where Iām not interested in someoneās thoughts as much as in studies they bring to my attention. But there I encounter another problem: and this time itās subjective, so itās my issue, and Iām offering it not as a fault with Nick, just explaining why I personally donāt like his channel - his constant time wasting āhumorā bits, which I find highly irritating - they break the flow of information, waste my freakinā time, contain zero amusement (to me) - if you want to be a comedian, go do that, this is not the place; OK, humor is subjective, so it may be that his brand of āhumorā works great for others but simply irritates me. Small doses, and clever humor, OK, but this relentless moronic level of āI made a funny!!!ā that erupts every few minutes - PASS. And Iām - again, subjectively - not fond of his manner. I find him smug and self-satisfied without the intellectual goods to back it up, a smug little prIck, just loves himself to death. But agian, thatās my issue, he just rubs me the wrong way. His non-stop promotion of time wasting āinsiderā bits āphysionic insiderā - Iād sooner kill myself than sign up for that trash - doesnāt help. All this makes it very hard for me to watch him. But I completely understand if others find value or like him personally, de gustibus non est disputandum.
2 Likes
Well, I think Richard Miller and his team made a similar conclusion after 6 months of testing spermidine in mice and never being able to identify it in the blood, so they cancelled the trial.
2 Likes
Yes, I actually would have liked for the ITP to simply proceed with an outcome study, but I can understand that they are conducting a study, therefore they would like to have a way of measuring the substance being trialled - otherwise itās hard for them to assess dosages etc. But Nick was not conducting a study, he was merely opining whether a supplement had an effect or not. For that, all you need to do is look at and assess the literature, and what you certainly should not do is make a ludicrous assertion based on ignorant reasoning. Richard Miller expressed no opinion about spermidine - he didnāt conduct the study because he was not satisfied with the conditions of the study. Let us remember, that the rapamycin ITP study also almost didnāt happen because they didnāt know how to administer the rapamycin to the mice - but they did not conclude that rapamycin was useless based on an inbility to test (lucky too, as rapa transpired to be anything but useless). Same here - they didnāt find a way to administer spermidine; in the case of rapa they eventually found a way (through a third party invention!), but so far no such luck with spermidine - nobody has stepped forward with a method. Still, all this is far away from the Nick situation.
Definitely not on your Christmas card list then! I donāt dislike him or think heās smug, but I donāt find his ājokesā funny and agree the humour is kind of pointless, obvious and a little irritating. I usually end up unsubscribing to most āinfluencersā eventually.
1 Like
