Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One thing right now that is available is rapamycin which basically improves health span and lifespan for every animal it is given Note every animal. Quoting https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-020-00274-1 : ] Although the overwhelming majority of studies on the effect of rapamycin on longevity in mice have shown a significant increase in lifespan, there are five studies that have reported either no eff…
Of course we cannot be 100 % sure it will work for humans, but the results on mice are promising and they are replicated by different labs which is very rare for anti-aging compounds. Rapamycin consistently shows effect. The effect on humans probably won't be anywhere near the 25% increase that is shown on mice, we will maybe get some extra years + better health span but the cumulative effect on society will probably…
> it showed that it increases the influenza vaccine effectiveness
I was asking about lifespan increase, which was your point, not secondary effects.
> The dog aging study is ongoing
Which I already mentioned, and it's linked-to in my earlier comment.
> Some smaller scale study on rapamycin for dogs
Yes - it's literally the same paper I already mentioned in my earlier comment.
> more promising than rapamycin
The question I asked was: If it's only flies and (most) mice, is that really enough to call it "promising" in humans?
Not the comparative "which is the most promising of the many compounds which have been reported to increase mouse lifespan?"
> Rapamycin consistently shows effect
Really? You write that after my comment, where I quoted how "five studies that have reported either no effect or reduced lifespan when treated with rapamycin" and provided the citation that shows your assertion to be incorrect?