Or whether one pursues truth or money as the highest value. Matt and Sinclair made different choices. Sinclair has a pattern of behaviour that makes anything he says, next to meaningless.
1 Like
ng0rge
#82
We have to keep in mind that itās a changing world out there. Our sense of community and working for the common good is losing out to individualism and getting what you can to protect yourself and your family. Globally weāre feeling threatened and insecure. David Sinclair is by no means an isolated example of this type of behavior. And the media often plays this up with exaggerated displays of rollicking excess - āThe Wolf of Wall Streetā - sure, it was wrong, but damn, it looked like fun! In the bigger scheme of social ethics, it seems more and more acceptable to just give up and take the money.
1 Like
True, I canāt read minds, and I edited my original statement. Still, Sinclair is smart enough to know that what heās claiming is false based on the data (that the dog supplement āreversed agingā) and that he is heavily biased because his brother runs the company that sells the supplement. Heās a trained professional scientist, for godssake! I guess he could be delusional, but is that any better?
Why so many here continue to make excuses for him is beyond me. Must be his charisma.
4 Likes
AnUser
#84
They say now ".ā¦ that it is possible to reverse age-related decline in dogs. ", and not reverse aging in itself. I donāt think consumers are stupid either way, which seems to be a common attitude.
1 Like
Youāre joking, right?!?!?
3 Likes
ng0rge
#87
For me, I think itās fairly obvious that average consumers are stupid and easily manipulated by advertising/promotion/fake science. But since Iām also a consumer, my reaction is alsoā¦āHey, thatās not funny!ā
Beyond thatā¦For me this whole kerfuffle is a bit of a tempest in a teapot (Iām not a dog owner). I think from Matt Kaeberlein down, anybody with any intelligence can see that this is just about selling a product and not about science (science is just a veneer). And itās about dogs, not humans. If you want to get to something really important letās talk about the influence of money on the human longevity movement/industry. Now weāre talking about billions. I just found and read this article, which everyone interested in this should read. Again David Sinclair is poster boy numero uno and itās an interview with Charles Brenner, one of his main detractors, but the points are just as salient. When the amount of money gets way up in the billions, it has the ability to corrupt anything.
https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/hy4bzl2y3
3 Likes
AJD
#88
Having a PhD is not prophylactic against greed or self-promotion. It seems pretty clear that Sinclairās primary commitment is to his own notoriety and wealthā not to either truth or rigor. Thatās been obvious for years. I stopped following him on every platform a few years back when he continued to promote MSM and other of the tech broās favorite biohacking snake oilāall of which had (and have) no corroboration (or even significant research) behind them.
6 Likes
Bicep
#90
I knew Brenner and Sinclair had a disagreement, but did not realize Brenner was in such a great position to know the truth. Great article.
1 Like
AnUser
#91
Brenner is the kind of guy that has an anime body pillow of Sinclair.
4 Likes
All the tsun, none the dere.
1 Like
ng0rge
#93
I found what it means but Iām having to guess at the referenceā¦
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsundere
1 Like
Beth
#94
Bravo Kaeberlein! I respect someone standing up for what they believe in. I was new to longevity and obsessed with Sinclairā¦until he made a joint insta post with the woman he was obviously sleeping that they proudly signed up with a talent agency. I donāt mind people cashing in, but that was just gross, and he lost all credibility that he was letting his romance guide his science.
4 Likes
Brand new video detailing Sinclairās behavior over the years. Seems to me that so many people have been conned/suckered by him because of his skills as a smooth talker with an exotic accent.
5 Likes
AnUser
#96
I just donāt see the point. Feels like chasing ghosts.
It would take way too much energy and effort to get to the bottom of this. And then you should ask yourself, why would you?
āfocus on the science, not the peopleā
2 Likes
I suspect the goal is to get people to scale back the hype in the longevity supplement industry by shaming the more obvious contributorsā¦
Matt K. covered this issue in the Dublin meeting last year in his talk. He believes that the information the longevity scientists share has to be more accurate or the industry risks disillusioning the public and losing their supportā¦ and this is an issue because in the US a large segment of the funding for longevity research comes via National Institutes of Health, and if the public sees longevity as just another scam the NIH and NIA (National Institutes on Aging, ā¦ of which the ITP is one project) will likely reduce fundingā¦
Matt argues that at some level you could say there hasnāt been much progress in the past 10 to 20 years in the longevity field ā¦ so all the talk by some people about how we are accelerating towards Longevity Escape Velocity, and it ācould happen any year nowāā¦ seems more than a little premature (is what Matt would argue):
4 Likes
AnUser
#98
Right where you start that video:
āā¦ increased in awareness among the general public by an order of magnitude in the last five years which in general is a good thing ā¦ā , what role did Sinclair play?
I agree that scientific accuracy and honesty is important and people should call that out. But just do that.
3 Likes
Bicep
#99
If awareness means you got talked into spending money and time taking worthless or harmful supplements, then this will not be a good thing. NMN started out costing like a buck a day. People will be pissed.
Similar things are happening, for good or bad, with vaccines. I know lots of people that canāt decide whether the increased death ( and itās a lot) was done intentionally to reduce the population, or cause less inflation, or get rid of Trump but my personal circle of people are very wary of taking any vaccine again. There needs to be randomized controlled trials of vaccines to prove efficacy. Thinking that people will just have faith in the Science will not work any more. Really it never should have. Reagan made the big mistake. They said they couldnāt afford to do vaccines if they had liability and he should have said, then that means they donāt work right. My new hat:
Particulary amongst populations with the highest vaccine hesitancy 
5 Likes
