A global survey reveals that 90% of longevity clinics rely on marketing over science, with only 10% offering evidence-based treatments, raising concerns about the industry's credibility.
DUBAI: A striking 90 percent of longevity clinics operate on marketing-driven promises rather than scientifically validated treatments, according to a new survey conducted by Dubai-based Detki Family Clinic and Molodost Clinic.
The study assessed the credibility of longevity interventions worldwide, revealing a fragmented and often misleading industry.
Dr Ksenia Butova, Founder of Detki Family Clinic and Molodost Clinic, highlighted the findings: “The results paint a stark picture of an industry where credible interventions struggle to gain prominence amid commercially driven hype.”
Classifying longevity clinics
The survey categorised longevity clinics into four groups based on the legitimacy of their advertised treatments:
Evidence-based treatments
These include lifestyle modifications such as diet, exercise, metabolic monitoring, and FDA-approved drugs targeting age-related diseases. Strong clinical evidence supports their effectiveness in improving healthspan.
Experimental but promising treatments
Certain interventions, including rapamycin, metformin, and senolytics, have shown potential in preclinical and early human trials. While the data remains inconclusive, ongoing research suggests they may hold future promise.
Dubious or unproven treatments
Stem cell injections, NAD+ infusions, telomerase activation, exosome therapy, and ozone treatments frequently appear in clinics despite lacking robust clinical validation. They are marketed as longevity boosters but remain scientifically unproven.
Outright pseudoscience
Clinics in this category make claims of age reversal that are unsupported by biological mechanisms or clinical trials, often relying on extravagant promises rather than medical evidence.
A total of 288 clinics were examined, distributed as follows: 225 from the United States, 37 from Russia, 20 from the UK, and six from the UAE. Each was assessed based on advertised treatments, references to peer-reviewed research, transparency regarding clinical evidence, and regulatory compliance.
The Findings: Marketing over medicine
The study found that only 10 percent of clinics prioritised evidence-based treatments, integrating scientifically validated approaches such as metabolic health optimisation and geroprotective pharmaceuticals. Another 25 percent offered experimental but plausible therapies, acknowledging their investigational status while maintaining a degree of scientific integrity.
However, 40 percent primarily offered dubious interventions, often supported by little more than anecdotal claims. Stem cell therapies, widely marketed as regenerative solutions, lacked controlled trials proving efficacy in longevity. NAD+ infusions, promoted heavily within biohacking communities, remained popular despite weak clinical support for their long-term benefits. A further 25 percent operated almost entirely in the realm of pseudoscience, making bold claims of age reversal with no credible biological foundation.
Why demand for unproven longevity treatments is rising
Financial incentives heavily influence the longevity market, often favouring marketing strategies over medical science. Many interventions classified as dubious or pseudoscientific generate high profit margins, require minimal regulation, and attract repeat customers. Unlike FDA-approved medications, which undergo rigorous testing, numerous longevity treatments enter the market under wellness or regenerative medicine classifications, bypassing the need for large-scale trials.
Dr Ksenia Butova explained: “Consumer psychology further accelerates demand. The promise of extended youth taps into deep-seated fears of ageing, and the complexity of longevity science creates an environment where persuasive narratives hold more sway than clinical rigour. The placebo effect, combined with selective anecdotal success stories, reinforces the illusion of efficacy.”
The current state of longevity science
Despite the prevalence of questionable clinics, the longevity field continues to make meaningful scientific progress. Research into cellular senescence, epigenetic reprogramming, and mitochondrial function presents potential avenues for extending human lifespan.
However, translating these discoveries into reliable treatments requires extensive testing. Metformin, originally a diabetes drug, is being investigated for its potential anti-ageing effects in the TAME trial. Rapamycin has demonstrated lifespan extension in mice, but its long-term human effects remain uncertain. Senolytic drugs, which target senescent cells, show theoretical promise but require further clinical validation.
“In contrast, interventions already backed by strong evidence—caloric restriction, resistance training, and metabolic optimisation—receive comparatively little commercial attention,” Dr Butova noted. “Unlike high-priced infusions or proprietary stem cell procedures, these require behavioural commitment rather than costly interventions.”
The future of longevity medicine
The growing divide between scientific progress and commercial hype in the longevity industry is unlikely to close without significant regulatory change. At present, regulations governing longevity treatments vary widely between jurisdictions, allowing some clinics to operate with minimal oversight. Establishing clear guidelines for evidence-based longevity interventions could help distinguish credible providers from opportunistic businesses.
“Increased investment in large-scale clinical trials for longevity therapies is crucial,” Dr Butova stated. “While some biotech firms are pioneering these efforts, 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 outpaces evidence.”
Ultimately, the longevity sector faces a critical juncture: remain a fragmented, commercially driven market or evolve into a legitimate medical discipline. One path prioritises healthspan over hype, while the other perpetuates speculative optimism at the expense of scientific credibility.
“Only one of these paths will stand the test of time,” Dr Butova concluded.