Is the FDA anti-anti-aging?

The FDA has advised this week against using young people’s blood in an attempt to halt aging.

See -

According to the FDA - “There is no proven clinical benefit of infusion of plasma from young donors to cure, mitigate, treat or prevent these conditions, and there are risks associated with the use of any plasma product.”

But I wonder. The risks associated with the use of plasma products are pretty negligible (correct me if I’m wrong!) if the people handling the plasma transfusion are doing it professionally and after conducting rigorous tests on the plasma samples to make sure there are no health risks involved. Could it be that as Yoav Medan has insinuated before, the FDA is basically trying to defend its turf with not much of a reasons?

This sounds like conspiratorial thinking, and I am well aware of the FDA’s important role in authorizing treatments. It’s obviously not a black-and-white issue, so I would love to hear what you all think of the subject.

@ymedan - what do you think? This ties in well to our conversation.

Well, I don’t think that I have insinuated that notion implicitly or explicitly. The FDA is against having a DIY transfusion movement, leading to adverse and damging practices, given the current evidence of (lack of) benefit.
The FDA was not against fecal transplant, which is not really that different conceptually, probably because it cannot be DIY adminstrated, or at least “conveniently”…

Actually, fecal transplants have definitely gone into the realm of DIY.
It seems to me that once there is any intrusion to the body, the FDA stands up on its hind legs and shoos everybody away from its territory.

The FDA has no authority over Physicians. It ony regulates companies. That’s why we have the notion of “off label” use

The FDA has been resistant to labeling “aging” as a disease that against which we should develop treatments. In that sense, they have held back previous funding and credibility from the anti-aging field