A recent survey by Dubai-based Detki Family Clinic and Molodost Clinic reveals that nearly 90% of longevity clinics offer treatments based more on marketing hype than solid scientific evidence. The study aimed to evaluate the credibility of longevity-related claims in the industry.
Dr Ksenia Butova, Founder of Detki Family Clinic and Molodost Clinic, stated: “The findings paint a stark picture of an industry where credible interventions struggle to gain prominence amid commercially driven hype.” The study classified clinics to assess the legitimacy of their longevity interventions. Clinics were divided into four categories:
Evidence-based treatments
These include lifestyle interventions such as diet, exercise, and metabolic monitoring, alongside FDA-approved medications targeting age-related diseases. Strong clinical evidence supports their impact on healthspan.
Experimental but promising treatments
Rapamycin, metformin, and senolytics, among others, have shown potential in preclinical and early human trials. The data remain inconclusive but warrant further study.
Dubious or unproven treatments
Stem cell injections, NAD+ infusions, telomerase activation, exosome therapy, and ozone treatments lack robust clinical validation but are frequently marketed as longevity enhancers.
Outright pseudoscience
Claims of age reversal unsupported by biological mechanisms or clinical trials fall into this category. A proportional sample of 288 clinics was examined—225 from the United States, 37 from Russia, 20 from the UK, and 6 from the UAE. Each was assessed based on its advertised treatments, references to peer-reviewed research, transparency regarding clinical evidence, and regulatory compliance.
The findings
Only 10% of clinics focused primarily on evidence-based interventions, integrating scientifically validated approaches such as metabolic health optimization and geroprotective pharmaceuticals. Another 25% provided experimental but plausible treatments, acknowledging their investigational status while maintaining some degree of scientific integrity.
However, 40% primarily offered dubious interventions, with little more than anecdotal support. Stem cell therapies, marketed as a regenerative panacea, appeared frequently despite a lack of controlled trials demonstrating efficacy in longevity. NAD+ infusions, popularized in biohacking circles, were promoted aggressively, yet clinical evidence supporting their long-term benefits remains tenuous. Another 25% operated almost entirely in the realm of pseudoscience, making extravagant promises of age reversal with no grounding in biological reality.
Why demand is rising for unproven longevity treatments
The financial incentives for clinics favor marketing over medicine. Many interventions categorized as dubious or pseudoscientific are high-margin services, requiring minimal regulation and offering repeat business. Unlike FDA-approved drugs, which undergo rigorous clinical testing, many longevity treatments enter the market under wellness or regenerative medicine classifications, circumventing the need for large-scale trials.
“Consumer psychology further accelerates demand. The promise of extended youth appeals to deep-seated fears of aging, and the complexity of longevity science creates an environment where persuasive narratives hold more sway than clinical rigor. The placebo effect, combined with selective anecdotal success stories, reinforces the illusion of efficacy,” Dr Ksenia Butova added.
Where longevity science stands today
Despite the proliferation of questionable clinics, the longevity field is not devoid of progress. Research into the mechanisms of aging continues to uncover promising pathways. Cellular senescence, epigenetic reprogramming, and mitochondrial function represent frontier areas where intervention could yield meaningful life extension.
Yet translating such findings into legitimate treatments requires rigorous testing. Metformin, a diabetes drug with potential anti-aging properties, remains under investigation in the TAME trial. Rapamycin has extended lifespan in mice, but its long-term effects in humans remain unclear. Senolytic drugs, which target senescent cells, hold theoretical promise but require more robust clinical validation.
“In contrast, interventions already supported by strong evidence—caloric restriction, resistance training, and metabolic optimization—receive comparatively little commercial attention. Unlike high-priced infusions or proprietary stem cell procedures, these require behavioral commitment rather than costly interventions,” Dr Ksenia Butova commented.
The future of longevity medicine
The disparity between science and commerce in the longevity sector is unlikely to disappear without systemic change. Regulation of longevity therapies remains inconsistent across jurisdictions, creating an environment where some clinics operate with little oversight. Establishing clearer guidelines for what constitutes an evidence-based longevity intervention would help separate credible providers from opportunistic businesses.
“Investment in large-scale clinical trials for longevity therapies must also increase. While some biotech firms are pioneering this effort, many treatments remain trapped in the gap between theoretical promise and demonstrated efficacy. Without rigorous human trials, the industry risks repeating the mistakes of past medical fads—where enthusiasm outpaced evidence,” Dr Ksenia Butova added.
Ultimately, longevity medicine should prioritize healthspan over hype. An industry built on scientific credibility rather than speculative optimism will deliver real advances, rather than short-term financial windfalls for those selling biological illusions.
“Today, the longevity sector faces a choice: remain a fragmented, commercially driven market or evolve into a legitimate medical discipline. Only one of these paths will stand the test of time,” Dr Ksenia Butova concluded.
