Longevity clinics worth the hype? Dubai survey finds 90% prioritise marketing over science

Nearly 90 per cent of provide treatments influenced more by marketing than by scientific evidence.

This finding comes from a recent survey conducted by Dubai-based Detki Family Clinic and Molodost Clinic, which shed light on the ‘hype’ surrounding these clinics.

Dr Ksenia Butova, Founder of Detki Family Clinic and Molodost Clinic said, “The findings paint a stark picture of an industry where credible interventions struggle to gain prominence amid commercially driven hype.”

The study classified clinics to assess the legitimacy of their longevity interventions, with clinics divided into four categories:

Evidence-based treatments: These include , exercise, and metabolic monitoring, alongside FDA-approved medications targeting age-related diseases. Strong clinical evidence supports their impact on health span.

Experimental but promising treatments: Rapamycin, metformin, and senolytics, among others, have shown potential in preclinical and early human trials. The data remain inconclusive but warrant further study.

Dubious or unproven treatments: Stem cell injections, , telomerase activation, exosome therapy, and ozone treatments lack robust clinical validation but are frequently marketed as longevity enhancers.

 Outright pseudoscience: Claims of age reversal unsupported by biological mechanisms or clinical trials fall into this category.

A proportional sample of 288 clinics was examined — 225 from the United States, 37 from Russia, 20 from the UK, and 6 from the UAE. Each was assessed based on its advertised treatments, references to peer-reviewed research, transparency regarding clinical evidence, and regulatory compliance.

Dr Ksenia Butova. Photo: Supplied

The findings

Only 10 per cent of clinics focused primarily on evidence-based interventions, integrating scientifically validated approaches such as metabolic health optimisation and geroprotective pharmaceuticals.

Another 25 per cent provided experimental but plausible treatments, acknowledging their investigational status while maintaining some degree of scientific integrity.

However, as per the report, 40 per cent primarily offered dubious interventions, with little more than anecdotal support. Stem cell therapies, marketed as a regenerative panacea, appeared frequently despite a lack of controlled trials demonstrating efficacy in longevity. NAD+ infusions, popularised in biohacking circles, were promoted aggressively, yet clinical evidence supporting their long-term benefits remain tenuous.

The study also revealed another 25 per cent operated almost entirely in the realm of pseudoscience, making extravagant promises of age reversal with no grounding in biological reality.

Why demand is rising for unproven longevity treatments

The financial incentives for clinics favour marketing over medicine. Many interventions categorised as dubious or pseudoscientific are high-margin services, requiring minimal regulation and offering repeat business. Unlike FDA-approved drugs, which undergo rigorous clinical testing, many longevity treatments enter the market under wellness or regenerative medicine classifications, circumventing the need for large-scale trials. 

“Consumer psychology further accelerates demand. The promise of extended youth appeals to deep-seated fears of ageing, and the complexity of longevity science creates an environment where persuasive narratives hold more sway than clinical rigour. The placebo effect, combined with selective anecdotal success stories, reinforces the illusion of efficacy,” Butova added.

Where longevity science stands today

Despite the proliferation of questionable clinics, the longevity field is not devoid of progress. continues to uncover promising pathways. Cellular senescence, epigenetic reprogramming, and mitochondrial function represent frontier areas where intervention could yield meaningful life extension.

Yet translating such findings into legitimate treatments requires rigorous testing. Metformin, a diabetes drug with potential anti-aging properties, remains under investigation in the TAME (Targeting Ageing with Metformin) trial. Rapamycin has extended lifespan in mice, but its long-term effects in humans remain unclear. Senolytic drugs, which target senescent cells, hold theoretical promise but require more robust clinical validation.

“In contrast, interventions already supported by strong evidence — caloric restriction, resistance training, and metabolic optimisation — receive comparatively little commercial attention. Unlike high-priced infusions or proprietary stem cell procedures, these require behavioural commitment rather than costly interventions,” noted Butova.

She stressed investment in large-scale clinical trials for longevity therapies must also increase.

“While some biotech firms are pioneering this effort, many treatments remain trapped in the gap between theoretical promise and demonstrated efficacy. Without rigorous human trials, the industry risks repeating the mistakes of past medical fads — where enthusiasm outpaced evidence.”

Only 10-20% of interventions add extra years

“Stick to proven methods like exercise, Mediterranean diet, sleep, stress control. Be cautious of clinics selling unproven ‘anti-ageing’ treatments. For cutting-edge interventions, follow clinical trials rather than marketing claims. 80 to 90 per cent is dependent on lifestyle which have the strongest evidence for longevity.  Only 10-20 per cent of medical interventions add extra years but work best alongside lifestyle,” said Dr Hina Salam Siddiqui, Specialist Family Medicine at Zulekha Medical Centre Al Khan.

Dr Hina Salam Siddiqui

Healthcare professionals emphasised people must check for peer-reviewed studies by looking for treatments backed by rigorous clinical trials published in reputable medical journals.

“Seek guidance from physicians or researchers specialising in gerontology and longevity. Be cautious of treatments that promise drastic life extension without substantial evidence. Additionally, treatments approved by agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or The European Medicines Agency (EMA) generally have more scientific validation,” added Dr Javeed Ashfaque, Specialist Internal Medicine Prime Medical Centre Al Barari Branch.

Dr Javeed Ashfaque. Photo: Supplied