>>105592370
you accuse me of not beinf up to date when you don't even know about the only company in history to br close to getting any kind of longevity drug into the clinic. In turn, you don't realize that there's a reason they're the first deapite all this great research you claim ezists.
The little good work related to the field is actually done in the context of regenerative medicine. Even then it's sketchy. Let me.guess: you believe muh yamanaka factors are a valid aging clock, too. Or perhaps you prefer telomere length.
I greatly encourage you to peruse the literature both in and outside this specialty. Use scihub if you have no other access.

On the contrary, it is because I am.very knowledgeable about the state of the art that I can say with total confidence that it's all bullahit. It starts with bad benchmarks and confusing correlation and causation, then proceeds with fabricated data and uncontrolled batch effects.

It's sad but the field generally fails even at basic science, let alone actual longevity-related concepts.

But things can, and will, get better.