A longevity newsletter
Most of what gets sold as longevity is marketing with a lab coat on. This is the opposite: what the evidence actually supports, what it doesn’t, and an honest answer when nobody knows yet.
Free · One email a week at most · Unsubscribe anytime
New to all of this? Start here — five short steps, no background needed.
Latest
The reference now covers 65 compounds. For 26 of them there is no published human dose the circulating figure can be measured against. Fourteen of those 26 have a circulating figure anyway, and which ones do turns out to split cleanly along class lines.
Heart disease, type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer’s look like separate problems. Follow each one down far enough and you arrive at the same three failures, which reinforce each other.
Evidence
Every claim is sourced, with the study named and the species stated.
Where the research is thin, that is the finding. “No human trials have been published” is a sentence you will read here often.
How claims are gradedOpinion
Where the evidence stops and a judgement starts, it is labelled and kept separate.
No advertisers, no sponsors, and no supplier pays for coverage or placement. Some links on the vendor page earn a commission, disclosed there and at every link.
Who writes thisEverything the Desk has learned about this market as six PDFs: 128 pages, every figure cited, free to download or delivered when you subscribe.
The gap here is route, not indication. There was once an approved American nasal oxytocin and FDA's database still lists it, marked discontinued. Both of the largest autism trials I found missed their primary endpoint, and whether sniffing it reaches the brain is still argued inside the papers that measured it.
Two of the eleven are not androgen drugs at all. Two return no published human record under any spelling. Three have a registered human trial, and the two that reached phase 3 posted responder percentages on both of their endpoints and no statistical test of any kind.
The product put to the compounding committee was for injection under the skin and into a muscle. FDA found no human study by the muscle route at all, and the whole under the skin record it identified is one arm of one 2011 study in healthy women in which no reproductive hormone moved. The committee voted 0 to 11 against.
One chemical database record carries both names and the formula matches the label. What is approved is a 16 mg rod a trained physician pushes under the skin every two months for a rare light sensitivity disease, and the headline effect from its pivotal trial is filed by the European assessors under post hoc analyses.
Sheckter and colleagues published that in 1989, and it goes at the exact reasoning the compounded product is sold on. The dose and the route on the sales pages do match the labels, which is unusual here. The schedule does not: every therapeutic human use I found is a pump firing every 90 minutes.
A longevity newsletter that cites its sources and says so when the evidence is thin. Free, and no more than one email a week.
Double opt-in · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime