Beyond communicating research, I'm involved in producing it. I believe anyone giving health guidance should be willing to put ideas to a rigorous test — and to report the result honestly, whichever way it goes.
RAPA-EX-01
I'm a co-author on a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining whether once-weekly rapamycin (sirolimus) could enhance the benefits of exercise in older adults.
Stanfield B, Leroux B, Kaeberlein M, Jones J, Lucas R. Exercise and Weekly Sirolimus (Rapamycin) in Older Adults: RAPA-EX-01 Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 2026; 17:e70274. doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.70274
The honest headline: this was a negative trial. Once-weekly 6 mg rapamycin did not enhance the short-term gains older adults made from a structured exercise programme — and, if anything, the data suggest it may have modestly held those gains back. That isn't the result we were hoping for. But a well-run study that returns a clear negative answer is still a genuine contribution: it tells people what doesn't work, and it spares others from chasing the same idea.
The trial was funded through crowdfunding from the community — via Lifespan.io and VitaDAO — rather than by a pharmaceutical company. I think it matters that this evidence exists in the public record, reported plainly.
This is the standard I try to hold the rest of my content to: follow the evidence, test ideas properly, and report what's actually found — not just the findings that are convenient.