 As we've seen, Altos Labs seems to be tackling aging, but they insist that they aren't, and they aren't the only ones. Multiple groups appear to be making strategic decisions to avoid being associated with longevity or anti-aging science. But why is this, and what can we do about it? Let's find out in this episode of Lifespan News. It's clear, life extension and anti-aging have a branding problem, and there are a few reasons why. The life extension community unfortunately does have a reputation for being long on promises and short on delivery. With what is now decades of research, there are still no effective therapies against aging. Of course, science takes time, and a lot of progress is being made in our fundamental understanding of aging, as well as the hard work to translate results from animals to humans. However, public perception is based on results, and so far, nothing has turned back aging to the point that it convinces the broader public that this is legitimate and promising work that will make a difference in their lives. This is also not helped by researchers sometimes fueling the hype by exaggerating the impact of their work or the work of their colleagues and associates. While it is perfectly understandable to be excited about what is happening, sometimes there are claims made that go beyond or misrepresent the data, and this can be hard for some people, including members of the press and public, to recognize. Some researchers and PhDs may be hyping up their work in hopes of attracting funding and grants, but it can hurt the overall image of the field when the hype does not meet the reality. Another factor is that, in addition to the legitimate researchers doing scientific work in the lab, there are a number of people completely willing to misrepresent the science in order to prey on people who lack the knowledge to discern meaningful results from pseudoscience. There are plenty of ineffective, or worse, possibly dangerous products out there that do not do what they claim to, or do not have adequate amounts of the needed ingredients to have the desired effect. So what can we, as a community, do to help address this branding problem? Well, it starts with learning to evaluate science rather than taking things at face value. Here are some useful questions to consider when reading an article, watching a video like this, or encountering scientific claims in general. Number 1. Was the claim first announced through media or through scientific channels? Most responsible and legitimate claims will undergo peer review first. Also, look at the source of the news. Is it coming from a respected journal or a university? Or is it coming from a company that has a financial incentive or a non-profit organization with bias? But let's be clear here, there are a lot of bad incentives baked into the system. Something being from a journal or a respected institution doesn't mean that it's not wrong or that the science wasn't flawed and cherry-picked. And something coming from a for-profit company or think tank doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad or wrong. But keep money, incentives, and biases in mind when looking at the science. Number 2. Are the claimants transparent about their testing, and is there sufficient published data for reproduction? Credible research is generally published in peer-reviewed journals, with transparent and clear details of experiments so that others can try to reproduce it. When analyzing a claim, always see if it has been published, and if anyone else has independently confirmed it. Number 3. How good is the quality of data supporting the claim and is it of significance? Learn to evaluate how significant results are. Did a study involve a small number of subjects, or did it involve hundreds or even thousands of subjects to reach its conclusion? The smaller the study, the higher the noise, and the greater the effect that outliers can have on the average. Large test groups offer the most accurate and stable data, and small, single-patient studies are not broadly useful. Also, be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. Number 4. Are there claims that the research is being suppressed by authorities, big pharma, or the government? Claims of being suppressed or blocked by the government or other entities is a common tactic of scammers. This is certainly not to say that governments and corporations don't engage in some seriously shady behaviors, but suppressing cures for cancer and perpetual motion machines don't seem to be among them. Sometimes no one listens to you or takes you seriously because what you're saying is ridiculous. No conspiracy needed. Number 5. Is the claim said to be based on ancient knowledge or said to be natural? The appeal to the ancient's logical fallacy often appears alongside an appeal to nature fallacy, capitalizing on the idea that our ancestors had lost secret knowledge, typically of some kind of connection to the natural world, and that natural is synonymous with good. The truth is that while our ancestors were quite intelligent and creative, not all of their ideas were very good. Many of them died in terrible and preventable ways, but unfortunately, many of the things we believe today are certainly also wrong and dangerous. Which ones? Good luck. This is, of course, only a short checklist of things to watch out for. If a claim raises red flags, or especially if you want it to be true and it confirms your own biases, it's good to check into it further. Liars and scammers will likely always be around. But by critically analyzing scientific claims, we can help filter these people out and increase the quality of the field. This will help boost the legitimate scientists working on solutions that will benefit all of us, and hopefully make companies like Altos Labs less hesitant to be associated with longevity science. The reputation of the field has improved massively in the last decade, but there's much we can do to improve it further. Let's do that together. I'm Ryan O'Shea and we'll see you next time on Lifespan News.