Review of Anti-Aging Drugs

Lifestyle vs. drugs

• Broad agreement that diet, exercise, sleep, and not smoking remain the strongest, best‑proven “anti-aging” interventions.
• Several comments stress cardiovascular risk reduction (weight, blood pressure, LDL) as the most impactful and actionable area.
• Social connection and regular medical checkups are also framed as core “longevity tech.”

Rapamycin and high‑risk interventions

• Some are alarmed by self‑experimentation with rapamycin given its immunosuppressive effects, especially during a pandemic or in old age.
• Others argue low, intermittent dosing may be safer, but concede that human trial data is still limited and risks are uncertain.
• A clinician describes a severe MRSA sepsis case in a rapamycin user, attributing worse outcomes to immunosuppression and urging caution.
• General skepticism about “stacking” many experimental drugs to “hedge bets,” with jokes that “side‑effect free” often means “effect free.”

GLP‑1 weight‑loss drugs

• One side sees GLP‑1 agonists as near‑miraculous for obesity, improving quality and length of life.
• Others argue long‑term risks are unknown at current population scales, worry about cancers and other latent harms, and compare to past weight‑loss debacles like fen‑phen.
• Counterpoint: even if there are risks, for severely obese people the alternative is often worse.

Supplements, OTC compounds, and evidence

• Widespread doubt that OTC products (melatonin, NAC, berberine, probiotics, royal jelly, etc.) meaningfully extend lifespan; evidence is viewed as weak or context‑specific.
• Vitamin overuse (e.g., B6 neuropathy) cited as a cautionary example; “experimental drugs for life” is seen as optimistic.
• Some mention specific compounds (rapamycin, metformin, taurine, NAD+ boosters, lithium, telomerase activators) but emphasize that robust human data for non‑diseased populations is lacking.

Fasting, autophagy, and weight

• Intermittent and prolonged fasting are debated: some report dramatic weight loss and metabolic improvements; others warn about muscle loss, insulin resistance, and overblown autophagy claims.
• Consensus direction: modest calorie control, resistance training, and avoiding obesity are safer and better‑supported than extreme fasting regimens.

Mouse data, dosing, and methodology

• Multiple comments criticize direct extrapolation from mouse lifespan studies, especially naive linear dose scaling by body weight.
• Allometric (surface‑area‑based) scaling and species differences are emphasized, and misuse here undermines trust in the blog’s recommendations.

Hormones and TRT

• One evidence‑tier framework includes testosterone replacement for truly hypogonadal men, but others warn about aggressive TRT clinics, misdiagnosis, lifelong dependence, and cardiovascular/psychiatric risks.
• Discussion extends to estradiol and sex hormones generally, noting extensive but complex human exposure data and unclear net longevity effects.

Quality of life, philosophy, and society

• Several comments argue that maintaining function and cognition into older age matters more than absolute lifespan, and would accept shorter life for better late‑life health.
• Others emphasize that healthy behaviors mainly reduce suffering (e.g., strokes, diabetes complications), not guarantee longevity.
• Philosophical views range from “death is inevitable; make peace” to seeing aging as an engineering problem that might eventually be reversed.
• Economic and social angles surface: can people afford much longer lives, and how would retirement, work, and healthcare systems adapt?

Critique of the article and anti‑aging framing

• Commenters flag scientific sloppiness: use of “ascorbic,” questionable quercetin claims, crude mouse‑to‑human dose conversions, and links elsewhere to COVID treatment conspiracies.
• Some see the whole anti‑aging‑drug framing as misguided reductionism, ignoring genetic variability and lifestyle determinants, and overpromising on complex biology where no proven human “anti‑aging drug” yet exists.