LONGECITY

I just read what Sinclair told The New Republic in March 2013.

============

A GSK spokeswoman says the company will continue to work on sirtuin activators, but says that aside from SRT2104, there are none in the pipeline. Also, she adds, “they don’t have anything to do with red wine.”

Says Sinclair, who is still a scientific adviser to GSK: “We know the science is real; the problem now is to push it over the goal line. If they don’t end up as drugs in our lifetime, it's not the fault of scientists, and more of a business decision.”
 

================

So he thinks GSK may not sell SRT 2104 because resveratrol already exists? Another company might have another superior pill? 

Certainly not because resveratrol already exists.   IF GSK chooses not to go forward with 2104, it will be because they don't think they can make enough money doing that.  That takes into account the cost of synthesis scale-up and formulation, and of running the necessary trials, as well as the size of the market for it and the amount of money they could get for it.  I don't see anything from GSK saying that they've made a decision on it one way or the other.

Let me try to translate into plain English:  "We know the sales pitch was successful.  The problem is, there's no science there, let alone a product.  It doesn't really matter whether or not GSK figures this out at some point.  In either case, please prepare for the possibility that there won't be any drugs". 

John, are you talking about something other than 2104?  There is a lot of science there.  Whether or not there is a product depends on a lot of things, but it's a very interesting compound.

Let me try to translate into plain English:  "We know the sales pitch was successful.  The problem is, there's no science there, let alone a product.  It doesn't really matter whether or not GSK figures this out at some point.  In either case, please prepare for the possibility that there won't be any drugs". 

Wow. What a lazy thinker. Have you been awake the past 5 years?

Apologies to Mr. Schloendron. I should have said "lazy thinking", notthat you are a lazy thinker. (I still think it was lazy thinking, though!)