Damn!!
Matt K. typically gives others the benefit of doubtā¦ but it is usually clear when he is not easily sold. He is getting a bit feisty. Guess the years of rapamycin use is kicking in.
Wow! Just wow!!
15 Likes
ng0rge
#3
Yes, that certainly is saying something! He already had God-like status here, but earns even more points on the āattack David Sinclairā front.
9 Likes
The oil from some snakes is helpful.
8 Likes
No, I donāt think people here would have any animus towards David Sinclair if he would just stop hyping things that are either not accurate, or only minimally accurate and greatly exaggerated.
Many of us here place a high value on scientific rigor and accuracy. Whether its resveratrol, or the company Sirtris Pharmaceuticals (which he made $7 Million+ off of, but failed to produce a product), or NMN or dog supplements and claims of āreversal of agingā, David seems to have a history of erring on the wrong side of scientific rigor and accuracy.
When scientists misrepresent their findings, it causes people like us who are seriously interested in longevity, to waste our money on unhelpful products (when we could have spent that money on more helpful products) and waste our time. In effect these scientists are harming us in the very areas they claim to be helping us with (longer, healthier lives).
If you donāt have much knowledge about David Sinclair and the resveratrol story, I encourage you to listen to the Richard Miller / Peter Attia interview from a few years ago where they discuss the ITP testing and hype around Resveratrol. You can listen to it here (where its been queued up for this specific discussion: https://youtu.be/g8bXYKeeWnc?si=khyY4Xno63CNQ9K3&t=4542
29 Likes
ng0rge
#8
So, from the article, the good snake oil is Omega 3, so Rhonda Patrick would be the real snake oil salesman (Not that thereās anything wrong with that - in this case)
The more troubling issue isā¦based on this postā¦
https://spotify.localizer.co/t/just-a-little-humor/12176/21?u=ng0rge
Is @DeStrider just a shill? 
2 Likes
ng0rge
#9
ā¦but then you go on to say what heās doing wrong. I donāt have a big problem with David but heās showing the detrimental effects of becoming famous in todayās fame-obsessed society. Itās called āhubrisā.
And anytime you get up on a pedestal, you become a target.
2 Likes
I donāt see it as a problem of being on a pedestalā¦ I see it as a problem of purveying demonstrably false information.
18 Likes
ng0rge
#11
Are you calling him an outright liar? Or is he just exaggerating - like a salesman and some advertising - putting a spin on the information that might border on a lie but isnāt quite?
I donāt know how to classify it - what would you call this statement given the data youāve seen above (or look at the paper if you want):
Dr. David A. Sinclair, AO, PhD, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Animal Biosciences stated, āI am very proud of the teams at NCSU and Animal Biosciences, who, after years of collaborative research and a clinical trial, have developed the first supplement proven to reverse aging in dogs.ā
Source:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240228209735/en/Animal-Biosciences-Announces-New-Canine-Clinical-Research-Evaluating-Reversal-of-Age-Related-Signs-in-Dogs
Here is the Pre-pub paper:
8 Likes
Neo
#13
Havenāt read the dog paper.
I do feel he acted like a credible scientist just last month when he was one of the first to highlight the question marks that this study raised for NAD+ supplements.
While most (including us on this forum) were just seeing it as Niacin for cardiovascular disease issue.
And other like Brenner did not really accept the paper in Nature as something that should lead to questions or help takers of NAD+ supplements, but rather just defended NAD+ supplementation:
2 Likes
ng0rge
#14
Factually to say āreverse agingā is false but as I pointed out above (because of fame) I think Sinclair sometimes sees himself talking to the general public rather than other scientists (not defending this) and I donāt think the general public really thinks itās going to turn their dogs into puppies, they just see it as a good thing.
And you kind of act like NMN and Resveratrol are āscamā products and I donāt think thatās settled - despite the negative studies (negative studies seem to pop up on everything).
3 Likes
Resveratrol and nmn definitely shouldnāt be recommended as much as they are for how limited the positive evidence is, even if you ignore the negative studiesā¦
5 Likes
Neo
#16
There does seems to have been issues between Dr K and Dr S from Dr Kās perspective for a long time
Perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, not sure
To round out the picture it is interesting how Dr K originally did seemed to see some value in the study and some potential for dogs
And then here is an example how he critiqued it for being NMN without it even being NMN it seemsā¦
So not sure Dr K has been completely unbiased here either
Tweet from Dr K:
Then a later Tweet from Dr K:
4 Likes
What impresses me about Dr. Sinclair is his work regrowing optical nerves and restoring sight to the blind. If he can pull this off in people that more than makes up for NMN and Resveratrol. Then if it is applied to other organs, thatād be amazing. This all takes time though. I feel like heās finally on the right track.
Although I do agree with Dr. Kaeberlein that this reverse dog aging thing is BS.
6 Likes
AnUser
#18
David Sinclair is human, he makes mistakes too. My overall impression of him is good.
2 Likes
AnUser
#19
That was two days ago as well.
Brenner is still at it lol. Hollywood has programmed us to see the rivalry between the NR and NMN creator.
The script writer for the simulation is desperate for some drama.
2 Likes
@RapAdmin I would never believe anything Sinclair said. He burned his credibility bridge with me a few years ago. Iām not saying that everything he says is untrue; Iām saying itās not worth trying to separate the truth from the lies. Fool me twice, shame on me.
12 Likes
