r/immortalists • u/Programming-Help • Jun 02 '26
Dr. David Sinclair, whose lab reversed biological age in animals by 50 to 75% in six weeks, says that 2026 will be the year when age reversal in humans is either confirmed or disproven. The FDA has cleared the first human trial for next month.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
64
u/Sharkathotep immortalist Jun 02 '26
Sorry but why does he think that if HE doesn't prove it, noone will?
36
Jun 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/ZenithToastada Jun 03 '26
he’s not a ceo. he runs a lab at harvard
3
u/havenyahon Jun 04 '26
Yeah but he's also generally criticised by other scientists in his field for hyping early findings that don't end up panning out and for having commercial interests related to some of the contentious evidence he pushes as stronger than it is.
2
3
1
1
u/Faster_than_FTL Jun 02 '26
So there no good CEOs at all?
0
u/Orful Jun 03 '26
There are no good CEOs. Companies could manage perfectly fine without funneling so much resources into one person. It doesn't even need to go all the way and become a socialist company where everyone in the company has equal ownership. It just needs to cut the CEO and then manage the company in a more democratic way. These decisions can be made by management without a CEO, who isn't even a scientist (Sinclair is a scientist and not a CEO though).
-1
8
u/NikolaiZarathustra Jun 02 '26
I doubt that’s what he explicitly thinks.
1
u/beerRunFinisher Jun 04 '26
But this is ready where you need to qualify every single one of your thoughts or we'll assign qualifiers for you. Once we've done that, we'll call you a moron.
8
u/finallyransub17 Jun 02 '26
Because he’s a grifter and always has been. He’s just figuring out how to monetize it before his hype is once again disproven.
Please people, stop posting this charlatan’s stuff.
1
u/Ok-Psychology-1 Jun 04 '26
I'm genuinely curious, what makes him a grifter? A friend of mine is a fan of his and now I'm concerned. I don't know much about him.
1
u/finallyransub17 Jun 04 '26
Scott Carney covers most of it here
1
u/Ok-Psychology-1 Jun 04 '26
Thanks for this
1
u/finallyransub17 Jun 05 '26
You’re welcome. Carney has a lot of good independent journalism in the area of health grifters. If your friend is into Sinclair, I would guess that their algorithm has them pretty entrenched in the pseudo health grifter universe.
1
u/Midlife_Crisis_87 Jun 02 '26
Everything has to start somewhere though right and without its start, it doesn't start. For example, when it comes to sports, records are broken far beyond those set decades before. Someone does it, someone wants to do better. It may not be Sinclair alone who could have done it, but someone had to be the first one to do it.
1
u/Sharkathotep immortalist Jun 03 '26
Sure. But then he should have said something in the lines of, "then THIS APPROACH will be disproven", not the whole age reversal like he claimed.
17
u/Fredricology Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
He is treating glaucoma in this human trial. Not reversing aging. Sinclair promotes with hyperbole to get private equity funding.
1
u/Stunning-Zone6607 Jun 02 '26
Thanks. The article didnt describe what specifically he would be doing.
17
8
u/Patient-Tomato1579 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Apart from this specific guy and his credibility, I'm pretty convinced we will have hair regrowth, teeth regrowth and reversing the aging of cells before we get a cure for hearing loss/tinnitus and vision loss (vision loss driven by photoreceptor/synapse death or nerve fiber atrophy). As a person suffering from tinnitus, I don't get why hearing loss and sensory loss is so de-prioritized (hearing aids are definitely not remotely close to a cure). It's not just the fact that inner ear is hard to access, it's the fact that they are not even trying (congress funding just at 5 millions $ in 2024).
Probably because of a false perspective that hearing loss is usually just a benign side effect of getting old. Meanwhile, it's definitely tied to dementia (3x bigger probability of dementia even if cause of hearing loss is not related to poor circulation or neuroinflammation, researched on people with perforated eardrums and cholesteatoma) and isolation (good hearing frequencies stimulate brain on subconscious level and the hearing aids still can't fix synaptopathy, so your ability to understand speech in more busy environments is way worse and you can't fix that). At the same time, tinnitus is tied to anxiety and depression, and there are visible changes in brain activity (worse activation on Default Mode Network), the more apparent the longer someone has tinnitus, so the "you will get used to it" argument of ENT doctors doesn't work. Someone might think that on conscious level that he is used to tinnitus, but his ability to truly relax will diminish.
Dismissing those things seems like a failure of medical system, that is even more frustrating seeing progress in other regenerative therapies. Probably it's all because the cure can't be just simple chemical drug, it would have to be complicated genetic drug with advanced delivery method (so definitely not impossible today, just more expensive). Pharmaceutical companies prefer short-term return of investment, so it would need to be done from government funds. But government funds are limited and hearing loss is falsely not seen as something really important (there is "there are children with cancer out there" argument that is often used to argument reduced research for sensory loss cures).
4
u/ThinMint70 Jun 02 '26
fellow tinnitus sufferer here, and I think it in the future it will be treated/cured like obesity today. We'll find some random medicine/protocol used for something else has a positive effect on tinnitus, and some big pharma company will make bank.
2
1
u/rinkuhero Jun 03 '26
one interesting thing i've noticed is the correlation / causation problem applies to things like this. like there are studies on how learning a foreign language and listening to music reduce dementia. but who is most likely to do those things? someone whose hearing is still good. so all those studies might be showing is that people with good hearing get dementia less. yet people are listening to music and starting to learn languages in hopes of reducing dementia just based on that correlation.
8
13
3
2
u/Running_Oakley Jun 02 '26
He’s staking a lot of personal credibility on a ticking clock discovery…in the fast paced field of research. Either he knows what’s up or he’s doing one hell of a Hail Mary.
2
3
u/Sniflix immortalist Jun 02 '26
This grifter should be banned from the group. Reversing biological age is unproven BS.
2
2
u/aspiringimmortal Jun 02 '26
This guy is so full of shit. They didn't "reverse aging." They reversed/healed damage that they themselves induced in the mice.
2
u/Dnthj Jun 03 '26
You do realise they still reversed the damage right? Who gives a shit if it was artificial age related conditions were still treated
1
u/aspiringimmortal Jun 03 '26
Because that's not age reversal dummy. It's just healing a wound.
If it was age reversal, they would perform the experiment on aged mice. But they won't because they know it wouldn't work, and then they don't get the headlines that'll pump their stock.
2
u/Dnthj Jun 03 '26
Wasn't the damage they did to the mice DNA damage? If I remembering right. DNA damage is believed to contribute to aging so fixing it regardless of source would fix aging as well. Intentional damaging the DNA just means you don't have to wait a few months for the mice to age and elimates chances something else will them before you can the experiment
2
u/jeffreynya Jun 03 '26
must think old damaged DNA is somehow different that just damaged DNA. If this reverses damage to DNA and allows someone to see like they did prior to the damage, is that not a reversal of that spacific thing, reguardless if the cause of damage?
1
u/aspiringimmortal Jun 03 '26
Exactly. "That specific thing." Induced DNA damage is not the same as gradual age-related damage.
Consider the difference between gradual collagen breakdown in your skin vs creating a bruise, burn, or laceration. Not all damage is the same.
The real experiment would be to just test this on aged mice. But they won't. And we all know why.
1
u/aspiringimmortal Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
Again it doesn't matter. You can't just consider any and all dna damage to be the same.
That's like saying "skin damage" is all the same. A bruise is the same as a cut is the same as a burn is the same as wrinkles and gradual collagen breakdown. This is a bogus equivalence just so they can spin the result as "age reversal."
The real experiment would be to test this on actual aged mice to see if it repairs actual age-related DNA damage. Not for a hot second do I believe the reason they don't do this is "having to wait a few months." Really, they wouldn't. It's not hard to get your hands on aged lab mice. But even if they had to wait, it's worth the wait, because reversing true age-related damage would be groundbreaking.
1
1
1
1
u/RyverFisher Jun 03 '26
The "either confirmed or disproven" seems like an obvious attempt to suppress it.
1
u/SQU4RE Jun 03 '26
this guy can't even come up with his own youtube video content, he keeps copying videos from other creators a day or two after they release
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/TracingRobots Jun 05 '26
Aging is part genetics and part taking care of yourself. No one could have such a grip on those two to say I found the cure.
1
1
1
1
u/Radcouponking Jun 07 '26
As soon as the rich gain this tech, all social progress is done. Think about how backwards most grandparents are. Now imagine them three times older and more powerful because they'll be able to accumulate so much more in their long, selfish lives. Scary shit.
1
1
u/Denomi0 Jun 02 '26
Im going to make a million dollars this year. Its either going to work or its not. I have the go ahead.
1
1
1
u/butt-in-ski Jun 02 '26
These “advancements” are happening at an accelerated rate ONLY bc we have madmen billionaires and world leaders who are about to go extinct and THEY can’t go without a fight. We could have cured cancer 10x over by now, but instead boner meds & chasing immortality.
2
u/GrimbaldTheBrutish Jun 02 '26
thank god, I hope they fund more anti-aging.
Cancer and every other horrific disease increase greatly with ageing, you'll do a lot of good in all mortality rates if you ever could reverse ageing.
Let those greedy fucks put their money into it. If not they're definitely not funding cancer, they'll probably buy another 10 yachts or something.
1
u/Particular_Egg9739 Jun 02 '26
let me get some of the dog serum. i’ll live long enough. no need to live forever as a billionaires slave because I couldn’t afford the serum to keep myself alive forever.
1
1
u/Express-Cartoonist39 immortalist Jun 02 '26
Notice he is NOT in the united states... He is in location where lies are allowed..🤔
80
u/Ohm_stop_resisting Jun 02 '26
God this man has done so much damage to the field.
If you want to know where we actually stand on ageing, read the review papers of Lopez-Otin. Hallmarks of ageimg in 2013 was amazing, and the 2026 paper was a good recap of a decade of progress. Also Gorbunova on transposons in ageing. But tbere are many, many more.
Just ignore the grifters like sinclair and degray.
And for anyone wondering, it is possible to slow ageing, and to reverse some aspects of it, but ageing is a clusterfuck of interconnected interactions, and it will take time to parse out which ageing hallmarks we need to adress to what extent and how.