Well, he also was the OP of this (interesting) link, so without this "shill", you wouldn't have anywhere to put this ad hominem comment.
I don't really agree with all of what he's saying either, but at least address the content...
I don't really agree with all of what he's saying either, but at least address the content...
I'm a comp. bio. PhD student so don't think this isn't a topic of interest to me, but the answer to every age related topic just isn't "here's a link to some sens promotional material". SENS has some fringe ideas and was mostly rejected by scientists as silly and founded by a charlatan, now Peter Thiel has shown an interest it's got a kind of misappropriated authenticity among those with no scientific background.
It's fair to say OP is a SENS enthusiast. But, as a fellow researcher, you know that there are always differences of opinion about what avenues will be more or less fruitful in a field. That's OK, time will tell.
Personally, I'm not certain whether SENS' fundamental position -- that we should focus on engineering solutions to damage rather than identifying causes -- is correct, but it seems at least a coherent argument. Suppose OP is right: that we are wasting too much money on one rather than another. It would be a real problem, with real consequences: lives lost, and so on. Worth debating, at least.