 In a recent episode of Lifespan News, we discussed the controversy surrounding Resveratrol, and today we'll update you on the reaction to that video and where we can go from here. Resveratrol is used by many people for what they believe are its health and longevity benefits, and much of this belief stems from work that was conducted by Dr. Davidson Clare and his team at Harvard University in the mid-2000s. Since then, the results of these studies have been called into question, with the argument being that Resveratrol is incapable of activating CERT1 in humans, that there's no reliable data for its benefits, and that it might not only be ineffective, but could actually be harmful. Dr. Sinclair seems to disagree and stands by his research. That's a quick summary of the situation. For more on the background, please watch our previous video on this topic and check out the source material linked in that video description. The purpose of our previous video, and the reason we're addressing this topic at all, is to find alignment on what should be the mutual goals of everyone involved. To attain and share knowledge about how to extend healthy human lifespan, and to make sure that those methods are made available so that they can help people. And once we agree on that mission, what should not be difficult, what to do about Resveratrol becomes obvious. Let's have the leading scientists, on both sides of this issue, discuss this disagreement directly. Come to a consensus on what evidence or data would settle their disagreements, and then gather that data. The Lifespan.io, the non-profit organization behind Lifespan News, offered to facilitate this discussion and to help fund the study that would provide resolution. But it doesn't need to be us. We would support the efforts of others to do this as well. And for those who would say that the science has long been settled on this issue, apparently it's not. The fact that people, even those who are knowledgeable about health and biology, are pulled in different directions, and are hearing contradictory things from people they respect, shows the level of confusion that exists for many. So that's the appeal that we made in our previous video. And the response was quite positive. Dr. Brad Stanfield and Dr. Charles Brenner, who were both featured in our previous video, quickly expressed a willingness to engage in a public conversation on this topic. Dr. Stanfield tweeted, Good video summary about the Resveratrol research. Totally agreed that an open discussion about the research should happen, particularly with researchers such as David Sinclair, Matt Caberline, Brian Kennedy, Charles Brenner, and I'm more than happy to join. And Dr. Brenner tweeting, Yes, I'd be happy to be interviewed by Lifespan.io about certs and Resveratrol. Jeffrey Flyer, the former Dean of Harvard Medical School, where Dr. Sinclair works, quote tweeted Dr. Brenner and said, If aging science was conducted properly, a scientific society or institute would do a symposium where key scientists discussed views on this contested issue together, had comments from independent scientists, responded to questions, recorded sessions, and then published proceedings. Personally, I agree with this. And the conversation continued in the YouTube comments under our video. When Dr. Stanfield was asked if he would be happy for Lifespan.io, or Aleaf, to facilitate a debate between him and Dr. Sinclair, he replied, absolutely. I have not seen any public comment from Dr. Sinclair on this topic. A Twitter user did reply to an unrelated tweet of his, and directly asked if he thought that a public debate on this topic would be helpful, and if not, what his suggestions for clarifying science communication and addressing confusion are. That also did not receive a response. Shortly after a previous video was released and these tweets were sent, Dr. Sinclair blocked both Flyer and Brenner on Twitter. For many observers, this didn't necessarily come as a surprise. There has been obvious animosity, and what some have called trolling, going on for a while. And as Brenner said, Sinclair is certainly within his rights to control his feet. Regardless, the whole situation is certainly not ideal. And I want to be clear here, Dr. Sinclair could have any number of reasons for not wanting to engage. Many may jump to the assumption that a demonstrated unwillingness to engage on this topic is proof that his position is indefensible, but I'm not willing to make that assumption. Possible reasons could be business interests, legal advice, confidentiality, or perhaps even just because he doesn't feel like these claims, or perhaps the people that are making these claims should be taken seriously, or feels that there are other motives at play. That's why I was hoping that, at a minimum, someone might be willing to argue his position in his place. Unfortunately, without a recognized expert willing to publicly defend the position that Resveratrol does activate CERT-1 in humans, or at a minimum does provide health and or longevity benefits in humans, I don't see how this debate or discussion that we've been advocating for can take place. And there's still new science on Resveratrol coming out all the time. Just recently, a team of researchers in China shared results in a paper titled, Modulation of CERT-1 Expression Improves a Rectile Function in Aged Rats that indicates that, quote, the protein expression of CERT-1 was increased in the Resveratrol group, and that Resveratrol treatment significantly elevated a rectile function in aged rats. So what does this mean in the context of the broader Resveratrol controversy? I have no idea, but we need to figure it out. Without any noteworthy developments, this may be as far as we can go in addressing the disagreements surrounding Resveratrol. In any case, we'll certainly continue to bring you the latest science and discussion. So for more of that, please subscribe. I'm Ryan O'Shea and we'll see you next time on Lifespan News.