Don’t Shoot The Pied Piper Of Longevity

Science

 by Bill Sardi

Greg

Critser, a marvelous crafter of words

and noted science writer, in his “Resveratrol: The

Backlash” article at the Scientific Blogging site, writes

not about science per se, but about one of its very public failings, as well as schadenfreude

(German, from Schaden damage + Freude joy), the malicious

enjoyment derived from observing someone else's misfortune.  In this

instance, the seeming fall from grace of one of science's news media

darlings, Harvard genetics and longevity professor David Sinclair.

But don’t

run so fast to throw away your resveratrol pills and dismiss this young and

bright Harvard scientist.  There is more

to the story, as radio reporter Paul Harvey would say.

For

certain, David Sinclair's story reads more like a scientific gossip column

these days.

 ·       

"Did Glaxo Smith Kline get duped by this

boyish professor from Australia

and pay $720 million for a failed technology?" 

 ·       

"Did billionaire

and Harvard grad Paul Glenn, now in his 80s, who has had

a long-standing interest in longevity science since the 1960s, get suckered

when he invested $5 million into the establishment of the The Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biological Mechanisms of Aging

at Harvard?" 

 ·       

Is the Sirtuin1 gene the “holy grail” of anti-aging as Dr. Sinclair has been quoted to say?

 

·       

Is the highly vaunted

SRT501 drug by Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, a company

founded by Sinclair, nothing more than what can be found at a local health food

store?

Scientists

are not beyond envy, and I suppose if the $720 million Glaxo Smith

Kline invested in the purchase of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals

were not involved, maybe there would be no story, no ripple across the

scientific lake. 

In

reading Critser’s blog story, one would think readers were getting an accurate behind-the-scenes

view of what really is going in on the longevity research community, a

true view of a young, unpolished scientist, who after being frequently

courted by Nicholas Wade, noted science writer for the

New York Times (their readership sky rockets every time Sinclair is

interviewed), and answering questions on television posed by the likes of Charlie

Rose, Barbara Walters and Morley Safer on

CBS' 60 Minutes, let all this adulation go to his head and is now facing a

scientific lynch mob.  Will Sinclair be burned at the scientific

stake?  Let’s hope not.

Undeserved credit and blame

If you

would like to read a more favorable

view of Sinclair in one of Harvard’s own publications, you can read it

here. 

By the way, the article that follows the Sinclair report in

that Harvard publication is about awarding the David Mahoney Prize to Nobel

Laureate Dr. James D. Watson,

Chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, who first proposed the double

helical structure for DNA in 1953. 

While we are ripping scientific pride from those who inaccurately

claim it, in passing I might as well dethrone Watson, who is said to have

discovered the “secret of life.”   However, by his own admission (The Double

Helix: A Personal Account Of The Discovery of DNA, Simon&Schuster 1998),

Watson never conducted research on DNA. 

Watson was 23 years of age at the time, and accepted all

the praise for his “discovery.”  Watson said of himself, that he had early

abandoned the “pursuit of glory.”   In

fact, he relied upon a strategy of borrowing science from another and then

taking credit.  Watson constructed

tri-dimensional models of coiled DNA strands from x-ray crystallography produced

by Rosalind Franklin,

which for the first time showed the helical structure of DNA.  Rosy Franklin

died of cancer in 1958 as a forgotten lab assistant.   Watson

unkindly remembers her in his book.  Watson’s

arrogance and dismissal of Franklin

is unappealing.  The story of Rosy

Franklin is the reverse of what David Sinclair has experienced.  Whatever glory and recognition Rosy Franklin

failed to receive, Sinclair has been taken the brunt for another’s laboratory

mistake.  He is incorrectly blamed for a

flawed lab experiment, a goof-up that was initially made by another.  We’ll get to that flub in a moment. 

To get

back to David Sinclair, his scientific colleagues have begun to ask if

there is any substance behind Sinclair's oft-quoted longevity science, his

sense of ownership of a gene target called Sirtuin1, and the claim he

discovered the "holy grail of aging

research." 

It is a

single molecule that got assistant professor Sinclair into this jam, and quite

a tongue-twisting molecule it is -- resveratrol

(pronounced rez-vair-ah-trawl).  A molecule first discovered in 1940 that

sat around without much ado.  Fifty-two

years later Professor Leroy Creasy of

Cornell University was first to find resveratrol in wine and suggested

it may be the link to lower cholesterol among wine drinkers at about the same

time the French Paradox

was first being publicly announced by French Dr. Serge Renaud on CBS’ 60

Minutes television news show.  It took

another decade before resveratrol was connected to the French

Paradox by Sinclair. 

And it

was fifty years after Watson’s discovery of the structure of DNA, David

Sinclair announced that this red wine molecule, resveratrol, activated a

survival gene called Sirtuin1.  Both

Watson’s and Sinclair’s papers were published in Nature magazine.  Another scientist said, if Sinclair’s

discovery holds true, it would certainly be worthy of a special Nobel Prize.  It appears Nature magazine has had a fact

checking and peer review problem for some time.

But

before Sinclair could be crowned as the modern discoverer of the fountain of

youth, it came to light that Konrad

Howitz, whom Critser overlooks, a geneticist working at Biomol, a

Pennsylvania-based biotech company, had actually screened thousands of small molecules

for activation of the Sirtuin1 gene and found resveratrol did it better than

any other.  Howitz’ is the lead

investigator in the paper published in Nature, on September 11, 2003.  Validation of the French Paradox, the

paradoxical fact that the French eat a high calorie diet but have lean bodies

and long life, had been made.  Winos far

and wide were toasting to the news!

The gene probe

That

discovery, linking the Sirtuin1 gene activation to resveratrol, was performed

with a technology that science blogger Critser explains well.  A molecular probe can be placed inside a dish

of chemicals to determine if it elicits a fluorescent glow, indication it

activates an established gene target. 

This flour de lys test later came under fire when other

researchers found it was the fluorescent compound and not resveratrol that

activated the Sirtuin1 gene.  Heavens to

Betsy, are we so drunk with wine we don’t care about the details of the

science?  Were wine lovers now to throw

their glasses in the fireplace?

Wrong genetic address

Then

later, Professor Leonard Guarente,

who mentored Sinclair at MIT, conceded that the Sirtuin1 gene is not

universally upregulated in all tissues and organs by a calorie restricted diet.  Horrors – resveratrol was posed as a

molecular mimic of calorie restriction, the unequivocal intervention that

prolongs life in all living organisms. 

Limit calories by 50% and organisms roughly double their lifespan.

Guarente

had earlier reported that the Sirtuin1 gene was the

primary gene target of calorie restriction. 

Sinclair was Guarente’s cocky understudy at the

time.  From

that point forward, the race

was on to find a molecule that would trigger that same gene. 

But now Guarente says: “Our findings suggest that designing CR mimetics that target SIRT1 to

provide uniform systemic benefits may be more complex than currently imagined.”

 The fountain of youth had seemingly

run dry. 

Guarente, who had founded Elixir

Pharmaceuticals to make just such a discovery, had to bow out of his

company as it had squandered its investment money and it later bought other

technology and proceeded in a different direction.  The prospect of an anti-aging pill would take

down many who pursued it. 

Sinclair, who had been courted away

from MIT by Harvard, would eventually found Sirtris Pharmaceuticals. 

Would Sinclair face the same fate as Guarente?  At least not financially. 

The right arrow, the wrong target

Before the tower of longevity

crumbles, let me set the record straight. 

Sinclair may have been off target when he aimed at the Sirtuin1 gene,

but the molecular arrow he drew out of his quiver was true.

Sinclair had shown that

resveratrol prolongs the life of yeast cells, fruit flies and roundworms,

and unlike Nobel Laureate Watson, had conducted his own research.  Since conclusive proof

that any agent can extend the human lifespan would require an impractical

99-year study, organisms with a shorter lifespan (yeast cells a couple of

weeks, roundworms a few months) are studied and accepted as models of

biological aging.  Sinclair also

participated in research conducted at the National Institutes of Health which

showed that mega-dose

resveratrol extended the life of fat-laden laboratory mice, which is not

far from the norm in Americans. 

Studies conducted

by other researchers showed that resveratrol and

dealcoholized red wine produce similar cardiovascular benefits.  While alcohol itself

is known to reduce circulating cholesterol levels, primarily by its ability to

destroy the liver where cholesterol is made, resveratrol was found to independently deliver health

benefits apart from alcohol.  So in

the many attempts to pin the tail on the correct donkey, don’t mistakenly aim

at resveratrol, which is still a miracle molecule.

A visit to the Sinclair lab

To get back to Sinclair, when I

visited his laboratory early in 2004 to write

an article about resveratrol for a trade publication, there was great

intrigue.  Sinclair’s laboratory notebook

had been stolen.  Security guards were

now being posted outside his lab.  Something

big was going on.

It was when that interview with Dr.

Sinclair had been completed, and I had folded up my laptop computer, that

Sinclair opened a drawer in his desk and asked if I knew why all the bottles of

resveratrol pills he had stashed there were biologically inactive in his yeast

cell longevity assays. 

I had no idea at the time.  Who was I to think I knew more than a Harvard

professor?  But I did kindly offer to

locate other samples of resveratrol dietary supplements he could test.  They all failed too.  Something was amiss. 

This ended up getting me deeply

mired in a new business venture that initially had Dr. David Sinclair as my

business partner.  I had rushed to locate

a stable source of resveratrol, from a source in China, and have it encapsulated

using special technology that preserved it in a nitrogen-gas filled

capsule.  I recognized resveratrol may

need to be stabilized and that was not very soluble, so I added some

antioxidant stabilizers and an emulsifier, had some samples made, and rushed

them off to Sinclair’s lab.  Within a

couple of weeks the yeast cells were living longer on this new formulation than

on the research-grade resveratrol Sinclair was using in his lab, and only he

knew this.  He whispered the results of

his test to me over the telephone. 

Sinclair was brash and a bit

impulsive.  He couldn’t wait to tell the

world.  Sinclair and I began talking of a

start-up company.  He announced he was

developing a resveratrol-based anti-aging pill. 

But then Harvard decided otherwise. 

University authorities had intercepted his e-mails and taped his phone

conversations with me.  They confronted

him and bluntly informed him that no assistant professor at Harvard would ever

achieve tenure if he were to cooperate in the development of a dietary

supplement. 

No, this natural molecule was to be

a drug, and Harvard would cut itself into the patent pie and all the

booty.   Sadly, Sinclair and I had to

part company.  In Science magazine’s

report entitled “Aging Research's Family Feud,” he publicly

announced he had a dispute with the company he was involved in forming and had

to resign.  There was no animosity or unethical

business entanglement between Sinclair and myself.  I had to take it on the chin so he wouldn’t

lose his job.

Putting words in the professor’s mouth

I had talked with Sinclair for many

hours of his desire to make this discovery a reality for the world.  He had his heart in the right place at the

time.  But Harvard was to control his

life from then on.  Sinclair’s wife had a

couple of children on the way and there was the promise of money if such a

Harvard-backed venture would succeed.  Turn

his back on Harvard and he would have to return to Australia.  Harvard would be the spawning ground to form

Sirtris Pharmaceticals.

I was busy establishing another

company, Resveratrol Partners LLC, and filing a patent for a new brand of

resveratrol pill called Longevinex®

(long-jev-in-ex), ahead of Sirtris.  I

even wrote a book about Sinclair’s discovery, entitled The Anti-Aging Pill, to the disliking of Harvard.  They were quick to contract a local Boston TV

station to display my book on the air while another Boston professor

dismissed it, claiming the positive health benefits derived from red wine

were attributed to its alcohol content, not resveratrol.  Here was Harvard and its clan dismissing its

own discovery.  They

were going to control the story.

Sinclair and his lab mates took

this pill for a few years.  Harvard

forbid Sinclair from mentioning the name brand of the resveratrol pill he was

personally using, but he managed to leak it to news reporters, with his caution

that other pills he tested were biologically inactive.  (From the Harvard

Gazette, July 22, 2004: “Harvard Medical School

rules prevent Sinclair from recommending the product, or admitting if he takes

it.”)  

Makers of these other impotent

resveratrol pills were quick to allege Sinclair was accepting some sort of

kickback from Resveratrol Partners, and one resveratrol pill maker, which touts

itself as a leader in life extension, got caught posting up a ghost website,

written by a fictitious writer, which called Sinclair and Longevinex® a fraud.  The whole sorry episode is documented

here.   

The maker of that other resveratrol

pill was later cited by Consumer Lab

for making a red wine pill that had far less resveratrol than its label

claimed.  But that company mired

Longevinex in a lawsuit that cost $400,000 before we prevailed.  That other company was $100-million operation

– Longevinex was a struggling startup company. 

A judge ruled against the other company, but Longevinex could no longer

endure the costs of litigation to obtain damages.  It was a huge loss for a small company.

Forget the gossip: who discovered what?

There is so much fodder for gossip

here, you can see how easy it is to get your eyes off of the longevity pill objective

here.  Was a bona fide anti-aging pills

invented or not?  Well, that’s where all

this gets mired in the public’s mind.  As

explained previously, the only way the FDA would approve a claim for such a

pill would be to conduct a costly and impractical 99-year human study.  That is precisely the dilemma for Sirtris

Pharmaceuticals.  Sirtris has no

financial future in the pursuit of an anti-aging pill.  It must seek to cure a disease, in this case,

diabetes is the one

Sirtris chose. 

Resveatrol: drug or dietary supplement, or both?

The problem is, that as Sirtris

proves its case, does it end up being an unwilling promoter of dietary

supplements?  According to projections in

Sirtris’ 10k filings with the Securities Exchange Commission, SRT501 is nothing

more than a hyped up resveratrol pill, derived from the same botanical source

(Giant Knotweed) as most resveratrol pills sold in health food stores,

surrounded with emulsifiers and slow-release agents to enhance absorption and

stabilize molecule that may degrade with exposure to light and heat. 

Put yourself in David Sinclair’s

shoes now.  You are surrounded with Big

Pharma’s elites.  They have all bought in

to your company.  They have sent you

their golden boy as a co-developer, Christoph Westphal MD,

who can chew gum, play the violin and make biotech companies rich all at the

same time.  Peter Lynch, the legendary

former fund manager of Fidelity's Magellan Fund, has now bought into the

company.  You are rubbing noses with the

rich and famous.  People who have seen

you on television interviews have also invested.  Harvard has its guns pointed at you, to say

what they want you to say. 

A thousand bottles of wine

So Sinclair has to say to the

public that it would take 1000 bottles of wine to duplicate what they have

demonstrated in the laboratory.  His

1000-bottles of wine prescription is uncorked in a New York Times

article entitled “Yes, Red Wine Holds

Answer, Check Dosage” (November 2, 2006) by Nicholas Wade.  It’s the only way to avoid scuttling your own

company and dispatching millions to buy res-pills from stores around the

world. 

Recall now, at the time Sinclair made this statement, the French

were achieving unparalleled longevity by drinking 3-to-5 glasses of aged red

wine a day.  This had been well

documented.  Furthermore, a strikingly large percentage

of super-centenarians from France were free of mental decline. 

What Sinclair said, that the amount

of resveratrol in 1000-bottles of wine would be needed to duplicate the health

benefits achieved in the animal lab, was accurate to some degree.  In the study published in Nature

magazine in 2006, the fat-engorged mice lived longer on resveratrol. Each

animal had 22.4 milligrams of resveratrol per kilogram of body weight added to

its lab chow. The human equivalent, calculated by body weight for a 160-lb (70

kilogram) adult human (70 X 22.4) would be 1568 milligrams per day. 

A glass of red wine will provide ~1

milligram of resveratrol, and a full bottle ~7 milligrams.  Sinclair probably meant to say one-thousand

glasses of red wine, but he was speaking off the cuff and said 750 to 1000

bottles.  It got into print and there

were no mega-dose resveratrol pills made at the time, so that insulated Sirtris

from becoming a promoter of health food supplements rather than its own drug.  Longevity seekers were then advised to wait

for Sirtris’ patentable “new chemical

entities” that were super-Sirtuin1

gene activators.  Sirtris’ SRT1720

and SRT2420 drugs made from synthetically-made molecules have not been demonstrated

to show efficacy in humans to date. 

The problem is, Sinclair’s

statement that “1000-bottles of wine are required”

fostered the establishment of a number of small new outlaw companies touting

1000-milligram resveratrol pills.  These

companies began to use David Sinclair’s statements to promote their high-dose

resveratrol pills.   But these companies had no scientific savvy, they

could only see profits in their eyes. 

Resveratrol only worked to prolong

life in animals given so much fat in their diet (60% fat calories compared to

what Americans normally consume, ~20-25% fat calories) that a person would

quickly become ill on that diet.  Users

of these mega-dose pills began to feel fatigued, experienced Achilles heel

tendonitis (pain), and were subjecting themselves to a giant uncontrolled and

unmonitored experiment. 

TV science

One renegade company even began

suggesting its customers consume 7000 milligrams of resveratrol a day.

Whatever semblance of science all this

represented, it had escaped from the laboratory onto the television interview

set.  Companies selling resveratrol pills

were establishing serving sizes based upon what Dr. David Sinclair said on a TV

interview.  Longevity seekers followed along,

listening to their pied piper, and were paying a steep price for it, more than

$7 a day for 7000 milligrams of substitute wine powder.

Two years later longevity seekers found

out if their mega-dose pills would work. 

Unexpectedly, both a 360 mg and a 1565 mg daily dose of resveratrol

provided to lab rats given a normal calorie diet slightly shortened their

lives!  The higher dose was more

life-shortening than the lower dose.

Overlooked in that 2006 Nature magazine report was the

fact that a lower dose was also successfully employed, 5.2 milligrams per

kilogram of body weight, or about 364 milligrams for a 160-lb (70 kilogram)

human.  If Sinclair and his colleagues

had reported on this lower dose, the game would be over for Sirtris.  So here is how the authors of that paper presented

the lower dose results:

  “After 6 months of treatment, there was a

clear trend towards increased survival and insulin sensitivity. Because the

effects were more prominent in the higher dose group, we initially focused our

resources on this group and present the results of those analyses herein.

Analyses of the other groups will be presented at a later date.” 

Of course, the lower-dose data was never presented and it

was similar to that in the high-dose group. 

Was Sinclair being disingenuous? 

How could he be anything else? 

He’s trapped in a corporate world that puts words in his mouth.

Sinclair himself believed his own hype.  He began taking 6 and even 8 capsules of

Longevinex® a day, providing about 240-320 mg of resveratrol, and later took a

higher-dose Longevinex® capsule, taking 600-800 mg per day.  While visiting his native country, Australia, he came down with flu-like symptoms, and

couldn’t return to the U.S.

until he began feeling better.  Flu-like

symptoms are a sign of over-dosage.  

Attempts were made to inform him he was taking too much

resveratrol.  They fell on deaf ears.

Does the gene target matter?  Isn’t it the molecule that counts?

Who cares

whether Sinclair missed the correct gene target, at that point in time, from

2003 to 2008 he was able to demonstrate that yeast cells, fruit flies and

roundworms as well as fat-fed mice, lived longer on the red wine molecule.  It was only later, when this longevity effect

was not demonstrated in a warm-blooded animal on a normal-calorie diet, and the

Sirtuin1 gene target was discredited, that it appeared Sinclair had better get

back to his laboratory bench. 

Had

Sinclair taken the whole world on a giant scientific odyssey that would never

materialize?   Hardly.  But he appears to be digging in to defend his

Sirtuin1 gene target in future papers. 

Both

aging and age-related diseases involve many genes, not just one gene.  Single-gene-targeted drugs like Herceptin,

Gleevec and Erbitux, have been disappointing. 

In 2005 researchers

in Italy

pointed to the fact that resveratrol’s tremendous advantage is that it beneficially alters many

genes. 

In regard to

dosage, other researchers have clearly shown that low-dose resveratrol rather

than high dose molecularly mimics the gene profile of a calorie restricted diet.

Researchers have

shown, in mouse heart tissue, long-term calorie

restriction will increasingly activate more and more genes, up to 813 genes over

time. 

Longevinex®

sponsored a study which compared the gene profile in mouse heart tissue for (a)

calorie-restricted animals, (b) resveratrol-fed animals, and (c) Longevinex-fed

animals over the short term.  Calorie

restriction significantly altered 198 genes, resveratrol 225 genes, tri-molecular

Longevinex® 1711 genes. 

Among the common

genes activated by all three of these interventions, all were switched in the

same direction (on or off) when comparing Longevinex® and calorie

restriction.  Longevinex® genomically

mimicked calorie restriction at a dose 17-320 times lower than prior studies

and significantly altered

9-fold more genes than plain resveratrol, showing that a life-long

daily-dosing regimen is not required for Longevinex® as is required for calorie

restriction to alter the same broad number of genes.

This dazzling

discovery has been ignored by the scientific community.  It is not even cited in any other published

paper on resveratrol or aging.  The

university researchers who made this discovery have suddenly gone mum.  They won’t lecture about it.  There is some type of scientific

black-balling going on. 

Is there an

indisputable anti-aging pill at hand? 

There is no conclusive way to know short of a time machine.  Maybe 50 years from now a group of a few

hundred Longevinex® pill users will meet for their 100th birthday

and celebrate the occasion.  Otherwise

science must rely upon markers of aging, or studies in short-lived animals, to

deliver on the promise of an anti-aging pill. 

Are consumers wasting their time taking

resveratrol pills? 

  • Understand, resveratrol alone, in the right dose

    (175-350 mg), averts

    a sudden-death heart attack better than aspirin.  Longevinex® is the first branded

    resveratrol pill to demonstrate this protective effect at an even lower

    and safer dose of resveratrol (study in press). 

  • Resveratrol, by itself, completely abolishes heart

    enlargement

     even when a band is tied around the aorta to artificially restrict

    blood flow and induce heart failure in animals.  There is still no

    explanation for how this molecule completely overcomes a physical

    restriction.

  • Resveratrol exhibits remarkable protection to the human

    brain

     that is subject to trauma even after the trauma has taken place.  There is no ethical way

    this can be tested to gain FDA approval. 

    Resveratrol should be employed in the battlefield, and in trauma

    centers today, for every head injury.

What is the

world waiting for, a sign from God to start taking res pills?  Seven years after David Sinclair first

reported this red wine molecule promises unusual health and longevity, it is

not even in the top 50 herbal supplements sold. 

Those who are

the early adaptors to resveratrol pills appear to be mostly technology-driven

middle-aged males, not senior Americans who are closest to death’s door.  An online survey conducted by AARP Magazine a

few years back showed better than 9 of 10 senior Americans wouldn’t take such a

pill.  They feared spending more years in

a state of senility and that they would run out of retirement money.  It’s difficult to fathom that an anti-aging

pill would be passed up by most senior Americans.  For all the criticism that he is taking, Dr.

Sinclair must begin to wonder if the quest to discover the fountain of youth is

really humanity’s dream?

Will any old resveratrol pill do?

Despite all the

wonder surrounding resveratrol, when it comes to red wine pills, the sum of its parts is greater

than the whole.  The biological

effect of many small

molecules as provided in wine, in a low-dose, produces a synergistic, not

just an additive effect.  You are

getting short-changed if you are taking resveratrol alone.  Resveratrol combined with

other small molecules is the true miracle seen in red wine.  To that end, Longevinex® is designed to achieve

the synergy of four small molecules – micronized and microencapsulated

resveratrol with quercetin, ferulic acid and IP6 phytate. 

If animal

studies can be applied to humans, it would take a life-long resveratrol pill

regimen to mimic the life-prolonging effect observed among calorie restricted

animals.  Longevinex® demonstrated a

similar gene profile to calorie restriction at an early point in time.  To achieve health and longevity benefits,

unlike plain resveratrol, a life-long adherence to taking pills was not

required by the Longevinex-fed mice in the laboratory. It may be the closest

thing to an anti-aging pill so far, but that is for you to decide.

If you are a

resveratrol pill user, and you are taking a proven safe and effective dose, at

a bare minimum you have gained unparalleled protection for your brain and your

heart.  

Vote for David Sinclair’s achievements

outside the laboratory

You probably

wouldn’t have heard about resveratrol had it not been for Dr. David

Sinclair.  Dr. Sinclair can fight his own

battles.  He does not need me to defend

him.  He only has to hit one scientific

home run in his lifetime to prevail.  His

work is unfinished. 

Without Sinclair,

anti-aging science has no “rock star”

scientist who can capture the imagination of both the public and the scientific

community.  He is far from the average

boring scientist.  He can handle a Larry

King interview like Ronald Reagan. 

Sinclair has

already raised more money for longevity research than could ever be

imagined.  See through what his corporate

handlers have fed him.  Even if there is

a deserved backlash from all of Sinclair’s scientific shortcomings, it should

not be against resveratrol, as science writer Critser suggests. 

For those who

still allege there is some sort of cozy relationship between this author and

Dr. Sinclair – why would I defend my competitor, or its behemoth owner, Glaxo

Smith Kline?  The company he founded, Sirtris,

makes a resveratrol drug, the company I founded, a resveratrol

nutriceutical.  I may have my beefs with

Sinclair over gene targets and dosage, but in the larger perspective, these are

small issues.  There may be parts of me

that want to pile on Dr. Sinclair, but we must first recognize him for what he

has unquestionably accomplished outside the laboratory, to bring anti-aging

medicine to the forefront of science and into the public’s eyes.  Don’t shoot the pied piper of longevity.   –

Copyright 2010 Bill Sardi, managing partner, Resveratrol Partners, dba LONGEVINEX®

Old NID
67690