That's a convoluted way to say you don't know of any demonstrated lifespan increase result beyond mouse and flies. > it showed that it increases the influenza

That's a convoluted way to say you don't know of any demonstrated lifespan increase result beyond mouse and flies. > it showed that it increases the influenza vaccine effectiveness I was asking about lifespan increase, which was your point, not secondary effects. > The dog aging study is ongoing Which I already mentioned, and it's linked-to in my earlier comment. > Some smaller scale study on rapamycin for dogs Yes - it's literally the same paper I already mentioned in my earlier comment. > more promising than rapamycin The question I asked was: If it's only flies and (most) mice, is that really enough to call it "promising" in humans? Not the comparative "which is the most promising of the many compounds which have been reported to increase mouse lifespan?" > Rapamycin consistently shows effect Really? You write that after my comment, where I quoted how "five studies that have reported either no effect or reduced lifespan when treated with rapamycin" and provided the citation that shows your assertion to be incorrect?