Half the people here have probably never taken a biology course past high school. They know jack sh*t about DNA methylationYes and Sinclair is the one quoting that clock and telling people that his has gone down every year for a decade, yet here we are debating whether he is full of sh*t or not..
As I said earlier in the thread, the uneducated and ignorant will expect things to be instant because they read a news article about. Then (similar to hairloss) they don't hear anything for awhile, lose interest and are not familiar with the process for these things and they call bullshit.Half the people here have probably never taken a biology course past high school. They know jack sh*t about DNA methylation
I don't really see how anyone can think Sinclair is full of sh*t when he has literally regenerated the optic nerve in mice using reprogramming. That is revolutionary
We have to look at epigenetic markers. That's why we have the Steve Horvath epigenetic clock.
"In a small trial, a cocktail of growth hormone, metformin, and dehydroepiandrosterone was investigated in nine healthy volunteers for one year. In these participants, the biological age was reduced by an average of 2.5 years, as measured by the GrimAge clock, which theoretically predicts human life expectancy [133]. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7990352/
Grim Age is a similar clock, looks at epigenetic markers etc.
I think Sinclair does go overboard often, however I still think that's preferable to the other scientists who are overly skeptical.Back to sling more mud on the Sinclair name.
Doesn't mean his claims about hairloss are false, but does bring his credibility into question and means we need to be heavily skeptical of whatever product he ends up peddling.
Unrelated to hairloss, but more on Sinclair's credibility (this is a few samples tweets from a long thread, I suggest reading the whole thread if you're interested in longevity or Sinclair's credibility):
Also this