How to sort longevity clinics that mix proven care with pricey experiments

Key takeaways

• In one review, 94% of people who got a whole-body MRI had at least one finding; across two reviews, confirmed cancers turned up in only 1.1% to 1.6%, and no study shows the scans help people live longer.
• PEARL, a 48-week placebo-controlled trial of rapamycin in 114 older adults, missed its main goal, though women on the higher dose gained some lean muscle.
• All six clinic clients given NAD+ by IV in a 2026 study had cramping, nausea or similar symptoms during infusions, and well-controlled human data on IV NAD+ are scarce.
• In July 2026, FDA scientists advised against letting pharmacies compound the peptide BPC-157 and an advisory panel voted the other way; as of October 2026, it still wasn’t on the federal list of allowed ingredients.
• Testosterone gel didn’t raise major heart events in a 5,198-man trial, but it raised rates of atrial fibrillation and kidney injury, and it is approved to treat low testosterone, not to boost normal levels.

In late July 2026, a federal advisory committee met at the FDA’s campus in Silver Spring, Maryland. Its question: should BPC-157, a peptide that clinics and med spas sell for joints, gut health and healing, join the short federal list of ingredients that compounding pharmacies may use¹²?

The FDA’s own scientists said no. Their review found that the peptide’s targets in the body are unknown, and that its human data come from a handful of small, short studies¹².

Then the committee, reshaped with eight new members, voted to recommend BPC-157 and five other peptides¹. The vote is advisory, and as of an August report in the trade journal AJMC, the FDA hadn’t acted¹. As of October 2026, BPC-157 still wasn’t on that list¹⁴.

If experts in a federal hearing room can’t agree, a person sitting in a longevity clinic is left to sort it out alone. That’s the problem this guide tries to solve.

Longevity clinics promise to help you live longer and better. Their menus can include whole-body scans, hormone therapy, off-label drugs, NAD+ drips, peptides and more.

Some items rest on solid evidence. Many rest on animal studies, tiny trials or company-funded data. Here is how each one stacks up, and what to ask before you pay.

Whole-body MRI finds something in almost everyone

The pitch for a whole-body MRI is simple: find cancer and other problems early, before symptoms appear.

In March 2026, researchers writing for the College of Family Physicians of Canada summarized the evidence. They found no randomized trials, the kind where chance decides who gets scanned. Instead, two systematic reviews covered observational studies of 9,204 and 6,214 adults⁴.

In one review, 94% of people had at least one finding, about 4.5 per person in studies that counted. Thirty percent needed more testing. The other review put that share at 12%⁴.

Confirmed cancers turned up in 1.1% to 1.6% of people⁴. The reviews couldn’t say how many cancers the scans missed, and no study measured whether scanning helps people live longer⁴.

Scanned patients also ran up higher health costs later, mostly from extra imaging and specialist visits⁴.

The American College of Radiology said in 2023 that the evidence doesn’t justify total-body screening for people without symptoms, risk factors or a family history. It warned that vague findings, surprises nobody was looking for, could trigger costly follow-up without improving health³. Canada’s radiologists and the American Academy of Family Physicians also advise against it⁴.

None of this is a verdict on an MRI that your doctor orders for a specific reason. The question is whether a scan answers a question you have.

Rapamycin’s best trial so far missed its main target

Rapamycin is an FDA-approved drug first used in transplant medicine⁷. Animal studies have linked it to longer life and healthspan, the years lived in good health⁸. Prescribing it to slow aging is off-label, meaning for a use the FDA hasn’t approved.

The PEARL trial, published in April 2025 in the journal Aging, randomly assigned 114 adults aged 50 to 85 to a placebo or to 5 or 10 milligrams of compounded rapamycin once a week⁶⁷. It ran for 48 weeks⁶.

Its main goal was to shrink visceral fat, the fat packed around the organs. That didn’t happen⁶.

Some secondary results looked better. Women on 10 milligrams gained lean muscle and reported less pain. The 5-milligram group reported better emotional well-being and general health⁶. Serious side effects were about as common as on placebo, and mild stomach upset was the most frequent complaint⁶⁷.

There are reasons for caution. The sample was small and health-conscious, and the compounded rapamycin was absorbed less well than commercial versions⁷. The researchers were affiliated with AgelessRx, a company in Ann Arbor, Michigan, so this wasn’t an independent test⁶.

Biological-age tests add a wrinkle. Stanford geneticist Anne Brunet notes that epigenetic clocks read slightly older, not younger, in people taking rapamycin at the doses described⁸.

NAD+ drips: tiny studies and rough side effects

NAD+ is a molecule that helps cells make energy and repair DNA, and levels fall with age, NPR reported in May 2026⁹. Marketers bill it as close to a cure-all. Clinics charge about $200 to more than $1,000 per IV session, and shots run several hundred dollars⁹.

Most human research has tested oral precursors, NR and NMN, which the body converts to NAD+. NAD+ itself breaks down in the gut⁹.

Those trials are mostly small. Some showed promise in women with prediabetes, people newly diagnosed with Parkinson’s and people with peripheral artery disease. Others didn’t match the impressive results seen in animals⁹.

Shalender Bhasin, who directs an aging research center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told NPR the precursor studies so far show a strong safety record. NPR added that long-term risks won’t be clear until trials run for years⁹.

IV drips have even less behind them. NPR found almost no published data from well-controlled human studies of NAD+ infusions or shots⁹.

One 2026 study from Restore Hyper Wellness, an infusion chain, looked back at 14 of its clients. All six who got NAD+ by IV reported moderate to severe cramping, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, a faster heartbeat and chest pressure during the drips¹⁰. Symptoms stopped when infusions ended¹⁰.

The study had no control group, couldn’t measure whether blood NAD+ rose, and was funded by the company¹⁰. Restore’s chief science officer, Rachel Pojednic, told NPR her pilot data suggest plain NAD+ infusions are “very inefficient” at raising cell levels. She says precursor drips work better, and her company offers one⁹.

Peptides: FDA staff said no, its advisers said yes

Peptides are short chains of amino acids. BPC-157 is made of 15 of them². In a May 2026 memo, the FDA said it found pharmacy, med spa and clinic websites selling it as capsules, sprays and injections, some labeled “research purposes only”².

The agency’s scientists found five small human studies. One, a two-week ulcerative colitis study that randomized 53 people, exists only as a meeting abstract. They concluded there wasn’t enough evidence that it works for that use, or enough clinical safety data to describe its risks².

They also flagged a possible risk of immune reactions when it is injected or sprayed in the nose. The quality paperwork submitted for it showed no tests for specific impurities or bacterial toxins, and no studies had checked whether it can cause cancer². Athletes, take note: BPC-157 is on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s banned list².

The rules have shifted fast. On February 27, 2026, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that about 14 of the 19 peptides then in the FDA’s restricted Category 2 would move to Category 1, which would allow compounding with a prescription, AJMC reported. That would not be FDA approval, the journal noted¹.

The FDA’s own records are more tangled. Its May 2026 list of nominated ingredients no longer showed BPC-157 in Category 2, but it didn’t show it in Category 1 either⁵. Instead, the agency asked its advisers whether to add BPC-157 to a separate list of ingredients that standard compounding pharmacies may use².

As of October 2026, that list, written into federal regulations, held six substances, and BPC-157 wasn’t one of them¹⁴. If the FDA accepts the July vote, formal rulemaking could take 12 to 24 months, and states are moving in different directions in the meantime¹.

For research-chemical peptides sold online, see our companion guide on high-risk experimental treatments.

Testosterone is safer for the heart than feared, with real caveats

If a clinic offers testosterone, know that its safety picture changed recently. The big test was TRAVERSE, a placebo-controlled trial of 5,198 men aged 45 to 80. All had low testosterone plus heart disease or several heart risk factors¹¹.

Over about 33 months, heart attack, stroke or heart death struck 7.0% of men on testosterone gel and 7.3% on placebo¹¹. That was reassuring.

Other problems were more common on testosterone¹¹:

• atrial fibrillation, an irregular heart rhythm: 3.5% vs. 2.4%
• acute kidney injury: 2.3% vs. 1.5%
• bone fractures: 3.5% vs. 2.5%
• blood clots in the lungs: 0.9% vs. 0.5%

Systolic blood pressure, the top number, also rose slightly on testosterone¹¹.

The FDA approves testosterone for men with hypogonadism, meaning the body makes too little of the hormone¹¹. In June 2026, HHS announced that the FDA was asking makers to drop label language saying safety and effectiveness hadn’t been established for age-related low testosterone. The request would also narrow the prostate cancer restriction to cancer that has spread¹².

Those were requests, not final labels, when announced. The proposed labels would still call for checking prostate cancer risk before treatment and monitoring during it¹². If a clinic offers testosterone, ask how it confirmed your levels were low and how it will track your blood pressure and prostate.

Young plasma and oxygen chambers: FDA has already warned

In 2019, the FDA warned consumers about businesses selling infusions of plasma from young donors. In December 2024, it warned again, because clinics had kept marketing it for more conditions, sometimes for thousands of dollars per infusion¹³.

The FDA says young plasma is not approved to treat or prevent aging, memory loss, dementia, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s or heart disease. It knows of no evidence of benefit. Plasma carries risks of infection, allergic reactions and breathing complications¹³.

Stem cell shots deserve the same scrutiny. Our guides to miracle-cure scams and high-risk experimental treatments explain what the FDA has said about them, and the sales tactics behind them.

Hyperbaric oxygen chambers are FDA-cleared medical devices¹⁵. In August 2025, the FDA reminded providers to follow safety instructions after reports of fires that caused serious injuries and deaths. It urged staff to watch patients for the whole session¹⁵. Ask what a clinic’s chamber is cleared to treat, and who will be watching you.

What a good longevity clinic gets right

Many people who value natural health want what the best longevity clinics claim to offer: prevention, time and a partner who looks at the whole person. Those are reasonable things to want, and to pay for.

The research supports the basics. Large population studies link a healthy diet, aerobic and strength exercise, sleep, stress management and close social ties with healthier aging⁸. A clinic that coaches you on those is selling something with evidence behind it.

The trouble starts with the add-ons. A membership that bundles coaching with weekly drips or unproven injections asks you to pay for both. You deserve to know which part is which.

Choosing extra attention is one decision. Choosing an experiment is a different one, and it should come with honest disclosure of risks.

Ten questions to ask before you sign

1. Which services have human trials behind them, and can you show me?
2. Which treatments are off-label, compounded or not FDA-approved?¹⁷
3. What will a scan do if it finds something small? Ask who pays for follow-up tests⁴.
4. For any IV drip, what side effects have your own clients had?¹⁰
5. Who makes your peptides, and what is their FDA status this month?¹¹⁴
6. How did you confirm my testosterone is low, and what will you monitor?¹¹¹²
7. Is any treatment part of a registered trial, and am I paying to join it? A ClinicalTrials.gov listing doesn’t mean a treatment is approved, the FDA says¹³.
8. Do your clinicians or owners profit from the products they recommend?
9. Will you share results with my regular doctor?
10. What does the membership cost per year, and how do I cancel?

If you’re hurt by a product or treatment, report it to the FDA’s MedWatch program¹³¹⁵. For chest pain, trouble breathing or a severe reaction during an infusion, call 911.

What the evidence says

Service	What the research shows	Evidence level
Whole-body MRI without symptoms	Findings in most people; 1.1% to 1.6% confirmed cancers; no survival data4	Not enough evidence of benefit
Rapamycin for healthy aging	PEARL missed its main goal; some secondary gains in small subgroups6	Promising but early
Oral NAD+ precursors (NR, NMN)	Small trials, mixed results; short-term safety looks good9	Promising but early
IV NAD+ drips	Almost no controlled data; strong side effects in a small study910	Not enough evidence
BPC-157 and similar peptides	Five small human studies; FDA found too little safety data2	Not enough evidence
Young plasma infusions	Not approved; FDA knows of no benefit; risks of infection and allergic reactions13	Not enough evidence of benefit
Testosterone for diagnosed low testosterone	No rise in major heart events in 5,198 men; more atrial fibrillation and kidney injury11	Strong evidence on heart-event safety
Coaching on diet, exercise, sleep, stress and social ties	These habits are linked with healthier aging in large population studies8	Strong evidence of a link to healthier aging

Questions readers ask

The bottom line

A longevity clinic can offer real value: attention, coaching and care for diagnosed problems such as low testosterone. Many of its signature extras, from whole-body scans to NAD+ drips to peptides, haven’t been shown to help healthy people live longer, and some carry real risks.

Before you pay, ask which services have human trials behind them, which are experiments, and who profits. Spend first on the basics, and treat everything else as a choice that deserves full disclosure.

Related reading

• Biological age tests can disagree with themselves by years
• What a wellness panel really costs after you get the results
• When extra medical tests do more harm than good
• How miracle-cure scams borrow the language you trust
• The wellness subscription you meant to cancel

Sources

1. Atta H. “5 Things to Know About the FDA’s Peptide Reversal.” AJMC, 2026. ajmc.com
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “FDA Evaluation of BPC-157-Related Bulk Drug Substances (BPC-157 (free base) and BPC-157 acetate).” Memo to the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, 2026. fda.gov
3. American College of Radiology. “ACR Statement on Screening Total Body MRI.” ACR, 2023. acr.org
4. Maplethorpe E, Low G, Kolber MR. “Whole-Body MRI for Cancer Screening: Many findings, little benefit.” Tools for Practice #410, College of Family Physicians of Canada, 2026. cfpclearn.ca
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Bulk Drug Substances Nominated for Use in Compounding Under Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” Category list, updated May 14, 2026. fda.gov
6. Moel M, Harinath G, Lee V, et al. “Influence of rapamycin on safety and healthspan metrics after one year: PEARL trial results.” Aging, 2025. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
7. Aging (Impact Journals). “Low-Dose Rapamycin Improves Muscle Mass and Well-Being in Aging Adults.” Press release, 2025. aging-us.com
8. Williams S. “What biological age tests can – and can’t – tell you.” Stanford Report, 2026. news.stanford.edu
9. Stone W. “Marketers say NAD+ pills and infusions can boost longevity. What’s the evidence?” NPR, 2026. wnyc.org
10. Reyna K, Heinzen G, Patel N, et al. “Intravenous infusion of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) versus nicotinamide riboside (NR): a retrospective tolerability pilot study in a real-world setting.” Frontiers in Aging, 2026. frontiersin.org
11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “AndroGel (testosterone gel) 1% prescribing information,” including TRAVERSE trial results. Drugs@FDA, 2025. accessdata.fda.gov
12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS announces requested updates to testosterone therapy product labels.” HHS press release, 2026. hhs.gov
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Update to Important Information about Young Donor Plasma Infusions Offered for Profit.” FDA, 2024. fda.gov
14. Code of Federal Regulations. “21 CFR 216.23: Bulk Drug Substances That Can Be Used to Compound Drug Products in Accordance With Section 503A.” eCFR, up to date as of October 13, 2026. ecfr.gov
15. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Follow Instructions for Safe Use of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Devices – Letter to Health Care Providers.” FDA, 2025. fda.gov