.jpg)
Recently, a widely circulated Singaporean newspaper ran an article questioning the credibility of the global longevity industry. The article painted a picture of Silicon Valley billionaires chasing immortality, influencers pushing powders and peptides, and patients falling victim to unnecessary tests.
It’s a narrative designed to provoke — but one that oversimplifies a rapidly evolving field of medicine and, in doing so, misses the real opportunities that longevity research and clinical practice offer.
At The Longevity Practice, we think it’s worth taking a closer look at some of these arguments.
1. “Nobody lives forever” – but that’s not the point
The article repeatedly reminds us of the obvious: human beings aren’t immortal. Yet, serious longevity medicine has never claimed otherwise.
Our focus isn’t to make people live forever, but to extend healthy years — delaying the onset of age-related disease, reducing disability, and helping people stay active, resilient, and fulfilled longer.
When you frame longevity as a doomed quest for immortality, you miss the very real science that is already helping millions: cardiovascular risk management, hormone therapies, sleep optimization, regenerative treatments, and evidence-based prevention.
2. Dismissing new diagnostics as “overdiagnosis” ignores nuance
The article warns of “incidentalomas” and overdiagnosis from advanced tests like full-body MRIs. It’s true: no responsible clinic should push unnecessary scans without medical justification.
But longevity medicine today isn’t about blindly testing — it’s about personalized, risk-based assessment. Take VO₂ max testing for cardiovascular health, bone density scans in postmenopausal women, or sleep diagnostics in middle-aged men: these are evidence-based tools with clear guidelines, not gimmicks.
Equating thoughtful, targeted diagnostics with careless overtesting is a false equivalence.
3. Prevention is not the same as stagnation
The article contrasts longevity medicine with traditional prevention — as if vaccines and colonoscopies are the only acceptable methods. But prevention isn’t static. Medicine evolves.
Longevity practice builds on, rather than replaces, mainstream prevention. Nutritional optimization, hormone balance, and regenerative therapies are modern complements to traditional screenings. To suggest otherwise is to freeze “prevention” in the past.
4. Commercial interests exist everywhere in healthcare
The article criticizes the industry for being profit-driven. But this is hardly unique to longevity. Pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and even public health campaigns require funding, marketing, and — yes — commercial models.
The real question isn’t whether money is involved, but whether practices are grounded in evidence, transparency, and patient well-being. That’s the standard we hold ourselves to at The Longevity Practice.
5. Fear of “medicalising ageing” vs. fear of inaction
The authors argue that framing ageing as treatable risks “pathologising normal life.” But ignoring the biological processes of ageing — inflammation, hormonal decline, metabolic slowdown — is equally dangerous.
Why accept frailty, fatigue, and preventable disease as “normal” if medicine can intervene? Supporting healthier ageing is not disease mongering. It’s the humane, responsible application of science.
Longevity medicine, like any new field, attracts hype and scepticism. Some claims deserve scrutiny. But dismissing the entire space as profiteering or pseudoscience is shortsighted.
At The Longevity Practice, we believe in cutting through the noise. That means:
The conversation around longevity deserves more than cautionary myths and Silicon Valley caricatures. It deserves nuance, rigour, and — most importantly — hope. Because while nobody lives forever, millions of us can live healthier, longer, and better.
Would you like me to make this blog slightly more “public-friendly” (lighter, less medical jargon, more lifestyle feel), or should it stay in this professional-yet-engaging tone for credibility?
