[6] According to MSNBC, anti-aging advocates have responded to such criticism by describing it as censorship perpetrated by a conspiracy of the US government, notably the Food and Drug Administration, the AMA, and the mainstream media,[7] motivated by competing commercial interests.
[6] Tom Perls of the Boston University School of Medicine, a prominent critic of the organization, has stated that claims of censorship and suppression are a common theme in what he calls "anti-aging quackery".
Haber states that the current resurgence of these ideas may be due to their appeal to the aging Baby Boom Generation, in a culture that is focused on the ideal of youth.
[10] Haber has also discussed the strong continuities within the philosophy of the anti-aging movement, writing that "For Steinach and Voronoff, as for the members of the A4M, old age was a 'grotesque' disease that could be scientifically eradicated through the correct combination of hormones, diet, and surgery.
"[3] The Los Angeles Times states that "Many physicians, researchers and scientists, delving into the physiological aspects of human aging, view the Academy's activities with disdain, saying that the organization is an inappropriate blend of scientific and commercial interests.
[13] The review notes that these efforts at legitimization are contentious and have been rebuffed by some academic scientists who work on aging, who instead attempt to portray the A4M as "charlatans whose main goal is making money.
"[6] The Times reported in 2004 that Klatz professes outrage at suggestions that he is motivated by money, quoting him as insisting that "The only thing that I sell are books... my website is non-commercial – we're just trying to advance science.
"[14] The Times went on to note a partnership between Klatz and Goldman and a business named Market America, which sells products that promise to "slow the ageing process".
The alternative viewpoint is represented by people who the article states have "fewer credentials" and who promote a range of products that claim to have anti-aging properties.
[22] A similar observation was made by Business Week in 2006, when they stated that although anti-aging medicine is increasingly popular, there is "precious little scientific data to back up their claims that the potions extend life.
"[25] In an editorial accompanying this study, Thomas Perls stated that although many unjustified claims were made about anti-ageing products, no substance had yet been shown to halt or slow the aging process.
is a core belief of the A4M,[9] with Klatz writing a book in 1998 entitled Grow Young with HGH: The Amazing Medically Proven Plan to Reverse Aging where he states "The 'Fountain of Youth' lies within the cells of each of us.
"[16] However, MSNBC reports that Daniel Rudman, the author of the 1990 study that sparked the movement, "issued many caveats and cautions about using HGH and never recommended its use to delay aging.
[36] ABC News interviewed Hau Liu of Stanford University and lead author of the paper, who stated that people are paying thousands of dollars a year for a treatment that has not been proved to be beneficial and has many side effects.
[37] Some small studies have shown that low-dose GH treatment for adults with severe GH deficiency, such as that produced after surgical removal of the pituitary gland, produces positive changes in body composition by increasing muscle mass, decreasing fat mass, increasing bone density and muscle strength; improves cardiovascular parameters (i.e. decrease of LDL cholesterol), and improves quality of life without significant side effects.
[41] This concern was mirrored in a 2008 review published in Clinical Endocrinology, which stated that the risk of increasing the incidence of cancer was a strong argument against the use of this hormone as an "elixir of youth" in healthy adults.
[20] Writing in 2004, the historian Carole Haber put this dispute into context, noting that "like the gland doctors before them, the leaders of the A4M have had their practices and credentials assailed by the medical and legal communities".
[49] Similarly, the FDA has stated in a Warning Letter that no growth hormone products have been approved as anti-aging treatments and supply for this use is therefore illegal and an "offense punishable by not more than 5 years in prison".
[50] In 2007 The New York Times discussed ongoing federal and state investigations into illegal trafficking of human growth hormone and anabolic steroids, noting that "many of the individuals and companies cited in the indictments have been involved with the academy and its conventions over the years".
[44] However, the paper notes that the academy is not accused of any wrongdoing as part of these investigations and quotes Klatz and Goldman as stating that "they barely knew the suspects or the nature of their businesses".
It is an ongoing process, and I think we are attracting better and better doctors.According to lawyers claiming to act for A4M and one or more people involved with it, their clients had initiated "defamation actions in New York and Massachusetts" against Wikipedia editors in 2009.
[52] According to Courthouse News Service, the A4M co-founders Ronald Klatz and Robert Goldman are pursuing legal action against the online encyclopedia Wikipedia in New York County Court, seeking damages for alleged defamation.
[6] This "award" was presented by Olshansky, who stated that in his opinion, a "suite of anti-aging substances created by Ronald Klatz and Robert Goldman ... and sold on the Internet by Market America, Inc." had made "outrageous or exaggerated claims about slowing or reversing human aging".
[3][5] Writing in Biogerontology, anthropologist Courtney Mykytyn of the University of Southern California states that this award appears to have been an attempt by Olshansky to protect what he saw as "'real' science from the taint of swindle."
[20] The Chicago Tribune quoted experts on libel law who stated that the action was an "almost unheard-of attempt to punish academics for comments made in their professional capacity".