Harvard Scientist Resigns from Supplement Company After Anti-Aging Claims Spark Controversy

Table of Contents

• Key Points
• Background: The Anti-Aging Supplement Controversy
• The Science of Resveratrol: The Landmark 2006 Mouse Study
• Key Findings: What the Research Really Showed
• The Endorsement Dispute: Who Said What
• Marketing Claims vs. Scientific Reality
• Clinical Implications: What This Means for Patients
• Limitations: What the Research Couldn't Prove
• Recommendations for Consumers
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Source Information

Key Points

• Resveratrol extended lifespan by 12% only in overweight mice, not normal-weight mice.
• Shaklee marketed Vivix with a question about living 25 years longer, but no human proof exists.
• Dr. Sinclair resigned, saying his name implied endorsement, while Shaklee said he approved all uses.
• Multi-level marketing allowed salespeople to make disease claims beyond official company policy.
• Talk to your doctor; proven lifestyle habits beat unproven anti-aging supplements.

Background: The Anti-Aging Supplement Controversy

The story begins in August 2008, when Dr. David Sinclair, a professor at Harvard Medical School with a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular genetics (he is not a medical doctor), joined the Scientific Advisory Board of Shaklee Corp., a dietary-supplement company based in Pleasanton, California. Shaklee markets its products through a vast network of 750,000 "members" who earn commissions and recruit other salespeople.

The product at the center of the controversy is called Vivix Cellular Anti-Aging Tonic, a grape-flavored concentrate that costs $100 for a month's supply (30 teaspoons). Shaklee promoted it as "the world's best anti-aging supplement." The drink contains resveratrol, a chemical compound found in red wine, along with other grape extracts.

Shaklee's website posed an enticing question to potential customers: "How would you like to feel 25 years younger and live 25 years longer?" While the company's chief executive, Roger Barnett, says this phrase is "just a question to engage people in a dialogue" and that the company doesn't claim Vivix actually extends life, the suggestion clearly caught the attention of researchers and journalists alike.

Dr. Sinclair resigned from the advisory board in December 2008 — roughly six months after joining — following questions from The Wall Street Journal about his seeming endorsement of the product.

After his resignation, Dr. Sinclair stated: "I have submitted my resignation to Shaklee and exercised my right to terminate my agreement. This decision was prompted in significant part by my recent realization as to how my association with Shaklee and my research have been used contrary to the intents and purposes of my agreement."

The Science of Resveratrol: The Landmark 2006 Mouse Study

To understand why Shaklee wanted Dr. Sinclair's endorsement, it helps to know about his research. Dr. Sinclair is one of the world's leading experts on resveratrol. In 2006, he led a widely publicized study showing that resveratrol could counteract some of the harmful effects of overfeeding in laboratory mice.

This was a significant scientific finding. The study, which was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, showed that a specific benefit of resveratrol was extending the lives of overweight mice. Specifically:

• Overweight mice given resveratrol lived about 114 weeks on average
• Overweight mice not given the chemical lived about 102 weeks on average
• This represents a 12% increase in average lifespan

However, a crucial detail often gets lost in translation: normal-weight mice did not live longer, even when given a huge dose of resveratrol. The benefits appeared to apply only to animals whose health was compromised by excess weight.

Key Findings: What the Research Really Showed

The conflict arose when Dr. Sinclair appeared on a Florida radio program in November 2008 alongside Shaklee's chief doctor to promote Vivix. During the interview, he told the host: "Based on the mouse studies, we are seeing a lifespan extension of about 20-30%. That's in animals that are eating an American, unhealthy diet."

According to the Wall Street Journal's analysis, that statement appears to overstate the science. Here's why:

• The 2006 study showed overfed mice lived 12% longer on average with resveratrol — not 20% to 30% longer
• Normal mice gained no lifespan benefit at all
• The Journal's calculation uses the standard method of measuring total average lifespan

Dr. Sinclair defended his radio statement by explaining that he was referring to the portion of the mice's lifespan after they reached one year of age, a measurement method used in his scientific papers. This alternative calculation method increases the relative percentage because it excludes the first year of life from the denominator, making the drug's benefit appear larger.

The difference matters: a 12% increase in total lifespan is a very different claim than a 20-30% increase, especially when the promise of "living 25 years longer" is being dangled before consumers.

The Endorsement Dispute: Who Said What

At the heart of the controversy is a dispute over whether Dr. Sinclair knowingly endorsed Vivix or whether his reputation was misused.

Dr. Sinclair's position: He says his name was used in ways that implied endorsement of Vivix, contrary to his agreement with Shaklee. In his emailed statement, he wrote: "To my dismay I have found numerous uses of my name and reputation on the Web and in other media that implies endorsement by me of Shaklee's Vivix product. I have engaged counsel to deal with this matter and have demanded that Shaklee cease using my name."

Shaklee's position: The company disputes Dr. Sinclair's characterization, stating that "every implied product endorsement was in Dr. Sinclair's own words and every Shaklee use of his name — whether in print or video — was pre-approved by him in keeping with our agreement."

Shaklee also declined to disclose how much it paid Dr. Sinclair for his advisory board role, though both sides confirmed he received no royalties from Vivix sales.

The controversy extended to Harvard Medical School itself. A spokesman confirmed that the school was reviewing Shaklee's use of Dr. Sinclair's name and his Harvard affiliation, which had appeared on the company's website and in promotional videos.

Notably, Dr. Sinclair had appeared at an August sales conference in New Orleans, where he enthusiastically introduced Vivix to Shaklee's sales force. In a video of the event posted online, he told salespeople: "Over a year ago, we set out together to do this, to make a product that you could actually activate these genetic pathways that can slow down aging... Together, as part of the Shaklee family...we can take this technology right now, to our friends, to our family, and really have the benefits of this new technology right now, within our lifetimes, and you'll learn more about the Vivix product later."

Marketing Claims vs. Scientific Reality

One of the most concerning aspects of this story is how the product was marketed by Shaklee's independent salespeople. The company uses a multi-level marketing model, meaning its 750,000 members work for commissions and recruit other salespeople — and handle their own marketing.

The Wall Street Journal found that Dr. Sinclair's picture graced the front page of www.live25yearslonger.com, a website run by a Shaklee salesperson, where Vivix was described as a product that could:

• Repair skin injuries
• Erase age spots
• Quell tremors
• Eliminate leg cramps

These are disease- and symptom-related claims. Shaklee says it forbids salespeople from claiming Vivix affects any disease and that noncompliant salespeople are referred for "disciplinary action," which can include terminating their contracts. Chief executive Roger Barnett said, "The vast, vast majority of them are very circumspect."

Despite the controversy, Shaklee reported that more than 100,000 people purchased Vivix since its August introduction, and orders were backlogged at the time of reporting.

For context, Dr. Sinclair also held a paid position as co-chief adviser to Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, a company studying resveratrol as a potential drug, which had been acquired by GlaxoSmithKline PLC. He received more than $8 million from the acquisition and continued to be paid $297,000 per year as a consultant.

Clinical Implications: What This Means for Patients

For patients and consumers, this story carries an important message about supplements and anti-aging products:

1. Animal studies don't always translate to humans. The resveratrol findings that generated so much excitement were demonstrated in mice, not people. As Dr. Matthew Kaeberlein, a University of Washington pathologist and former labmate of Dr. Sinclair's at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the Journal: "I don't think there's any data that resveratrol is going to be beneficial for slowing aging...in people."
2. Supplement claims are frequently overstated. Even a respected researcher's radio comment about a 20-30% lifespan extension was contradicted by the actual published study data, which showed 12% — and only in overweight mice.
3. Financial conflicts of interest may influence endorsements. Dr. Sinclair's paid positions with both Shaklee and Sirtris Pharmaceuticals mean he stood to benefit financially from enthusiasm about resveratrol.
4. Multi-level marketing amplifies risk. With 750,000 independent salespeople creating their own marketing materials, claims can easily go far beyond what the company officially endorses — as the "live25yearslonger" website demonstrated.
5. The placebo effect is not health. A $100-per-month supplement tonic that makes people feel like they're taking control of their aging process may provide psychological comfort, but that's not the same as a proven biological anti-aging effect.

Limitations: What the Research Couldn't Prove

It's important to understand what this 2006 mouse study could not demonstrate:

• It did not show that resveratrol extends human lifespan
• It did not show benefits for normal-weight individuals (only overweight mice experienced lifespan gains)
• It did not prove that resveratrol can repair skin injuries, erase age spots, quell tremors, eliminate leg cramps, or produce the other benefits claimed by the salesperson's website
• It provided no basis for the "25 years longer" suggestion posed in Shaklee's marketing question
• The study's findings were limited to a specific animal model on a specific diet — findings that may not apply to people eating a balanced diet or taking supplements in liquid form

Also worth noting: the 12% vs. 20-30% discrepancy in how the data was presented demonstrates that the interpretation of scientific results can vary dramatically depending on the measurement method used. When a claim sounds too good to be true, it's worth asking how the numbers were calculated.

Recommendations for Consumers

The controversy offers practical lessons for anyone considering dietary supplements, particularly those promising anti-aging benefits:

1. Check the evidence. Ask whether a supplement's benefits have been proven in human clinical trials, not just in mice or test tubes. If the only studies are animal-based, that's a significant limitation.
2. Read the fine print on statistics. When a product claims a certain percentage improvement, ask whether the measurement method is standard or carefully selected to make the numbers look more impressive.
3. Look for red flags in marketing. Claims like "feel 25 years younger and live 25 years longer" — even when the company insists they're "rhetorical" — are designed to sell products, not to educate you.
4. Be aware of financial incentives. A researcher paid by a supplement company or holding stock in it may have a conflict of interest. Check whether funding sources have been disclosed.
5. Talk to your doctor. Before spending money on supplements with unproven claims, discuss them with your healthcare provider, who can help you evaluate the evidence.
6. Remember that proven health habits matter most. A balanced diet, regular exercise, adequate sleep, and not smoking are all interventions with far more robust evidence for extending healthspan than any supplement currently on the market.

The most reliable approach to healthy aging remains the boring one: lifestyle changes that have withstood the test of rigorous scientific scrutiny. That doesn't mean research into resveratrol is worthless — it means the current evidence doesn't justify the hype.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is resveratrol and what did the 2006 mouse study actually show?

Resveratrol is an antioxidant found in red wine and grape extracts. In a 2006 study led by Dr. David Sinclair, overweight laboratory mice given resveratrol lived about 114 weeks on average, versus 102 weeks for overweight mice not receiving it, a 12% increase. Normal-weight mice did not live longer, even with high doses.

Why did Dr. David Sinclair resign from Shaklee's advisory board?

Dr. Sinclair resigned in December 2008 after the Wall Street Journal questioned his endorsement of Shaklee's Vivix supplement. He said his name and research were used in ways that implied endorsement, contrary to his agreement. Shaklee disputed this, claiming every use of his name was pre-approved and based on his own words.

What was the difference between the 12% and 20-30% lifespan claims?

The published study showed overweight mice lived 12% longer on average with resveratrol. However, Dr. Sinclair on a radio program mentioned 20-30% lifespan extension, a figure based on measuring survival only after mice reached one year of age. This alternative calculation excludes the first year, making the benefit appear larger than the standard total-lifespan method.

Why can supplement marketing claims be unreliable, even with a scientist involved?

Shaklee used a multi-level marketing model with 750,000 independent salespeople creating their own materials. One sales website described Vivix as repairing skin injuries and eliminating leg cramps, which are disease claims Shaklee officially forbids. Financial conflicts of interest may also influence endorsements, as researchers may hold paid advisory roles or stock in supplement or drug companies.

What should patients consider before buying an anti-aging supplement?

Ask whether benefits are proven in human clinical trials, not just animals. Check how statistics were calculated, since different methods can make results look larger. Be wary of marketing phrases like "live 25 years longer," even if described as rhetorical. Consider whether researchers have financial ties to the company, and talk to your doctor before spending money on unproven products.

What are the proven ways to extend healthspan according to this controversy?

The article notes that proven health habits matter most: a balanced diet, regular exercise, adequate sleep, and not smoking. These have far more robust evidence for extending healthspan than any supplement currently on the market. The most reliable approach to healthy aging remains lifestyle changes that have withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Should I get a second opinion before taking an anti-aging supplement like Vivix or resveratrol?

Before buying a costly anti-aging supplement such as Vivix, a second opinion can clarify that resveratrol's benefits are not proven in humans. In the 2006 mouse study, only overweight mice given resveratrol lived about 12% longer; normal-weight mice gained no lifespan benefit. Human trials are lacking, and symptom-related claims—like repairing skin or erasing age spots—go beyond any published evidence. Financial conflicts of interest can also influence endorsements. An independent expert can help weigh the actual science. Diagnostic Detectives Network provides independent expert second opinions.

Source Information

Original article title: Harvard Anti-Aging Researcher Quits Shaklee Advisory Board - WSJ

Author: Keith J. Winstein

Publication: The Wall Street Journal (WSJ.com)

Publication date: December 26, 2008

Original article URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123025446150734561

Key individuals mentioned: Dr. David Sinclair (Harvard Medical School), Roger Barnett (Shaklee CEO), Dr. Matthew Kaeberlein (University of Washington), Keith J. Winstein (WSJ reporter)

Note: This patient-friendly article is based on peer-reviewed research and journalistic reporting. The original WSJ article is a news report, and the underlying scientific study referenced (the 2006 resveratrol mouse study) was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This article is provided for educational purposes and should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice.