SENS isn't new science. It is a synthesis of existing evidence for what causes aging and age-related disease, pulled in from many branches of medical research.

SENS isn't new science. It is a synthesis of existing evidence for what causes aging and age-related disease, pulled in from many branches of medical research. The original contributions are the high level view of damage repair as the guiding basis for treatment, plus specific plans for how to address these causes. I don't think you can say it's wrong in wholesale at this point, given where things stand. The mainstream position in the aging research community is that aging is caused by an accumulation of damage. Senescent cell clearance has been on the SENS agenda since day one, with plenty of evidence to back it as a cause of aging from the past decades of research. Life extension has been demonstrated in mice through senescent cell clearance. There are two funded startups moving senescent cell clearance therapies to the clinic. You'll also find it hard to argue against the proposition that amyloid causes specific age-related conditions. E.g. amyloid beta in Alzheimer's disease, transthyretin amyloid in heart disease. These are very mainstream concerns. Similarly, there are few objections to the idea that declining stem cell function is a cause of aging, and plenty of evidence to show that restoring stem cell activity is beneficial. And so on.