Comments by "Ken Otwell" (@KenOtwell) on "Lewis Howes" channel.

David - you've been saying the same thing for many months, ever since your book came out. What have you learned lately in the lab? What's new?
8
I'm sure he would be just as fawning over those other researchers.
8
@erik_carter_art I made no claims about anyone conspiring. My claim is simple - drug companies do not want cheap or free cures that will reduce their revenue. Two companies (independently for all I know) chose to diss David's work and nearly destroyed it but David persevered (with a student) and, three years later, proved them wrong and that he was right all along. Look up the history of resveratrol - one of the most important anti-aging drugs we have and it's just a natural chemical that the drug companies can't profit from. It's an over the counter supplement.
6
@lordjim3109 I agree in general, but be aware that Sinclair is not profiting off of any of this. He specifically does not support any supplement provider because, as he puts it, he had to choose between being a serious researcher and being a public salesman. You don't get a 20 person lab at Harvard with the requisite grants and publications in the best journals if you're just hawking your own products. The only possible profit he's making is from his book - but he has a co-author and frankly he's selling it dirt cheap compared to what most academic books cost. He only went public this last few years because, as he put it, he felt guilty just getting the benefit for his family and not letting everyone know about it.
4
@erik_carter_art Why do you think two drug companies nearly destroyed David's career 10 years ago? The do not want free aging cures when they can sell crap to just keep us hanging on.
4
@lordjim3109 Perhaps I read too much into your use of the word "messiah." As something of a "fanboy" myself... perhaps I'm not the best critic. But I do find Sinclair to be a huge improvement over people like Kurzweil who has no training or experience in chemistry or biology but is pushing the idea that if you just live another 10 years you can live forever because of exponential growth in medical technology. At least Sinclair has devoted his career to making it happen and isn't just talking about it. You can't help how people react - but I find no fault in his presentations at all.
3
@larkenvandort1335 Oh - I found the reason why De Grey doesn't give recommendations - they explicitly do NOT focus on slowing down aging, they are focused on interventions to roll it back. That's an all-or-nothing approach which, to my thinking, is complimentary to Sinclair's approach. Although Sinclair DOES have research into reverse aging (or to "reset the clock" as he puts it) but that doesn't stop him from promoting the existing results that slow down aging. Frankly, I can't wait for the perfect cure, I need those extra years now so that I can be around when the cure is discovered, whoever finds it first.
3
@erik_carter_art Anti-aging has a really hard time getting research money because aging isn't classified as a disease. David is trying to change that and possibly Australia will be the first country do do that - which will change everything. Why spend hundreds of millions researching cures for cancer and heart disease when you can prevent them in the first place? Heart disease and cancer are rare when you're young - they are diseases of aging. Fix aging, and these diseases of age can be postponed for decades.
3
I found the paper preprint that was rejected by one of four reviewers (as David indicates about minute 55) and I also can't believe the claim of "not novel enough". There is a commenter on the preview who also says this ... possibly the same person? But his reasoning for the rejection is totally political to my reading because someone doing related research wasn't cited - nothing about the quality of this work. And - f...all that - nothing to challenge the work itself or the conclusions yet it got rejected on first review! (It's being appealed.) Science is not the pure pursuit so many think... it can be cutthroat and often is. In fact, the commenter on the preprint seems to think David's team intentionally downplayed or ignored related research to make their work seem more novel. I would almost bet money that this commenter is the negative reviewer David mentions - and probably is also one of the people working in this field and competing for grant money. Regardless, David is doing breakthrough work and while it may take time to get recognized, I have no doubt that he will go down as one of the people who dramatically increased the lifespan of mankind forever more.
3
Hmm. it's also been shown to increase LDL and decrease HDL, the opposite of what we want. Not really enough studies to determine if it's as good as it "should" be based on the chemistry. I'll stick with Resveratrol for now.
2
@larkenvandort1335 Dr. De Grey's project (SENS) refuses to list ANY lifestyle or supplement changes that can extend life. I don't understand this. Dr. Sinclair says that we can NOW extend life by 10 to 14 years by lifestyle changes and available supplements. If SENS comes out with something actionable, I'll look at it - but right now Sinclair is the only game in town.
2
Here's a more factual interview without the fan-boy aspect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DtWqzalEnc&t=139s
1
@investigativereports1622 Nice! I'll keep my eye on that.
1
Ok - my first google shows that pterostilbene is a superior antioxidant, but that's not the property of resveratrol that is ant-aging. It's the kicker for NAD+ conversion that is the benefit. I'll keep searching to see if ptx is active there as well.
1
Here's the paper preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/710210v1
1