Hacker News Reader

Comment by jchook | Hacker News Reader

Can you give an example?

He pushes some theoretical "cell repair" supplements like NMN and resveratrol, but he is repetitively clear they're experimental, and that his evidence is anecdotal.

I understand he is invested in them, but I don't jump to "fraud" because of that.

His team had other groundbreaking results, such as partially restoring damaged optical nerves in mice by injecting a virus in the eye[1].

1. https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-restore-...

View on HN

I'm not saying this is the case here. This Doctor could be a total grifter... but all the same. I've noticed a trend where a person can get _one_ thing wrong and be written off as a "liar" or a "fraud" for the rest of their life. It's annoying.

There's a lot of evidence that he popularized NMN and helped build market demand for it only to later use some regulatory trickery to ensure that a company he's involved with is the only one who's licensed to sell it in the US. This behavior is hostile towards consumers and would only financially benefit him and related parties. It's been frowned upon in NMN circles.

It puts a bad taste in my mouth given the fact that Sinclair tries to brand himself as someone who puts the interests of humanity over his own.

In the video below Dr. Brad Stanfield discusses the controversy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GugcLJ9xvE

A quick Amazon search shows a lot of companies selling NMN: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=nmn&crid=12YPXDF097WZV&sprefix=nm...

Some NMN are fake or shown to have lack of NMN, as far as MAAC10, ProHealth, DoNotAge and probably others provides more than the amount as advertised is genuine.

Sure, but the claim was that there's only one company licensed to sell NMN. If that were true, there wouldn't be a dozen companies selling NMN or something they claim to be NMN, regardless of purity/content.

Someone can be fraudulent in some aspects while still being legitimate in others. Many many well published professors are full of crap in sub-topics within their own field due to egotistical and financial reasons. This guy has a conflict of interest and just because he’s proud of it doesn’t mean we should ignore it.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser(s). The argument cannot be that he's fraudulent because he could be fraudulent. What has this particular scientist done ?

>The burden of proof lies with the accuser(s)

Used to be that the burden was laid on scientists not to be merchants...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com