Help us: Donate
Follow us on:



Two Industries in One Field

Learning how to recognize credible science versus snake oil is a critical skill we should all learn.

Snake oilerSnake oiler

Now that we are starting to see the arrival of actual therapies aimed at directly targeting the processes of aging in order to prevent age-related diseases, it has become easier to separate two very distinct groups.

Our field is divided into two groups of people

The first group consists of the snake oil salesmen peddling unproven supplements and therapies to whoever is foolish enough to buy and take things on faith without using the scientific method. The hucksters have long been a plague on our field, preying on the gullible and tainting legitimate science with their charlatanry and nonsense. One example is a “biotech company” evading the FDA by setting up shop in countries with few or no regulations. They make bold claims yet never deliver on those claims in practice, using poorly designed experiments and tiny cohorts that are statistically irrelevant.

Another example is the supplement peddler selling expensive supplement blends with flashy names, which, on inspection, turn out to be commonly available herbs and minerals that are mixed and sold at a high markup with questionable or no supporting data. These sorts of people have plagued our community and given the field a reputation of snake oil.

The second group are the credible scientists, researchers, and companies who have been working on therapies for years and sometimes more than a decade or two. Some of these therapies are following the damage repair approach advocated by Dr. Aubrey de Grey of the SENS Research Foundation over a decade ago. The basic idea is to take an engineering approach to the damage that aging does to the body and to periodically repair that damage in order to keep its level below that which causes pathology. Others including Dr. David Sinclair are focusing on partial cellular reprogramming and believe it may be possible to reset the cells in our bodies to a younger state using reprogramming factors.

These therapies are getting closer to arriving, with some already in human trials right now, and this marks a milestone in our field: the credible science has finally started to outstrip the snake oil, and the focus can move from pseudoscience to real, evidence-based science.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, and learn to evaluate scientific claims

While it will be some years yet before all therapies to end age-related diseases are here and available, and the hucksters are still peddling their wares, you can arm yourself with knowledge and protect yourself and our community from these people. Learn to evaluate science rather than taking things at face value, and avoid expensive scams and bad science. Below is a useful checklist to consider when reading an article, looking at claims made by supplement makers, or evaluating any science in general.

Was the claim first announced through mass media or through scientific channels? 

Legitimate claims will undergo peer review first. Shady companies not backing up their claims with published data are a dime a dozen; do not be fooled by them. Also, pay attention to the source of the news; press releases, associated companies, and obscure websites are poor sources. The bottom line is that any company making claims about its product should be able to back those claims up with published research in a respected journal.

Are the claimants transparent about their testing, and is there sufficient published data for reproduction?

Credible research is generally published in credible, peer-reviewed journals with transparent and clear details of experiments so that others may attempt to replicate their results. When evaluating a claim, always see if it is published and if anyone else has successfully replicated the results independently. Also, check to ensure that any independent results are indeed independent and that there is no link between the original group and the study replicating the results.

A properly developed technology will take years of development to reach release; is there a clear paper trail of studies and clinical trials supporting it?

Again, this is similar to the above; a company or research team worth its salt will have a trail of evidence documenting research and development efforts that likely go back for years or even decades. If a company appeared from nowhere and has no historical record of its research, this is a huge red flag.

How good is the quality of data supporting the claim, and is it of statistical significance?

Learn to evaluate how statistically significant results are. Did a test involve a single mouse or a person, or did it involve hundreds or even thousands of test subjects to reach its conclusion? The smaller the study, the higher the statistical “noise” and the greater the effect that outliers can have on the average. Large test groups offer the most stable and accurate data, and small, single-patient studies are, for the most part, not useful. Beware the company that tests on a single candidate and claims that a supplement or therapy works. A credible company may start with a small pilot study but ultimately expands into larger-scale studies in order to prove safety and efficacy.

Are the claimants reputable, and are they published in credible journals?

Investigate and check their academic pedigrees. Having a Ph.D. is not required to conduct great science, but, in general, a researcher of any worth will have peer-reviewed publications with lots of citations and a good reputation in academia.

Where does the study funding come from?

Even when there is published data, make sure you find out where the funding comes from. Studies on a patented supplement that are funded by the patent holder are a serious red flag and should be viewed with extreme caution.

Do the claimants state that their claim is being suppressed by authorities? Big Pharma? The government?

Claims of being suppressed or somehow blocked by the government or other entities is a common tactic used by scammers. A scammer might claim to be a misunderstood researcher who just wants to help, or a supplement maker in trouble with the FDA for making false claims might say that it is simply being misinterpreted. This is base trickery; don’t fall for it.

Does the claim sound far-fetched?

If it sounds too good to be true, then the chances are that it probably is. Credible science is always appropriately cautious and never overly affirmative; if someone is way too positive, this is a red flag.

Is the claim said to be based on ancient knowledge?

The ‘appeal to the ancients’ logical fallacy is commonly used to convince and part people from their money. “The ancients used certain supplements, so they must work” is a common tactic used to sell things. The truth is that while our ancestors were indeed clever and creative in many ways, not all their ideas were wise; indeed, many of the things they believed were dead wrong and even dangerous. This is a commonly used tactic in the supplement and diet industries.

Is the claim said to be “natural” as a selling point?

This is the ‘appeal to nature’ fallacy, another common sales tactic that takes advantage of the biases we as humans have and our inclination to think that everything natural is good. A quick review shows us that what is natural is not always a good thing: tidal waves, earthquakes, venomous snakes, diseases, and aging are all natural, but they are most certainly not desirable.

This is, of course, only a short checklist of things to watch out for; if a claim raises these flags, then it’s a good idea to be highly dubious about its credibility.


The snake oilers will be with us for a few years yet, but by working together as a community and thinking critically about claims, we can help filter these people out and ultimately clean up the field for the benefit of legitimate scientists working on the real solutions to aging that will benefit us all.

About the author

Steve Hill

Steve serves on the LEAF Board of Directors and is the Editor in Chief, coordinating the daily news articles and social media content of the organization. He is an active journalist in the aging research and biotechnology field and has to date written over 600 articles on the topic, interviewed over 100 of the leading researchers in the field, hosted livestream events focused on aging, as well as attending various medical industry conferences. His work has been featured in H+ magazine, Psychology Today, Singularity Weblog, Standpoint Magazine, Swiss Monthly, Keep me Prime, and New Economy Magazine. Steve is one of three recipients of the 2020 H+ Innovator Award and shares this honour with Mirko Ranieri – Google AR and Dinorah Delfin – Immortalists Magazine. The H+ Innovator Award looks into our community and acknowledges ideas and projects that encourage social change, achieve scientific accomplishments, technological advances, philosophical and intellectual visions, author unique narratives, build fascinating artistic ventures, and develop products that bridge gaps and help us to achieve transhumanist goals. Steve has a background in project management and administration which has helped him to build a united team for effective fundraising and content creation, while his additional knowledge of biology and statistical data analysis allows him to carefully assess and coordinate the scientific groups involved in the project.
No Comments
Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.