[Root_Denied]

>If/when better evidence comes to light, the field would move accordingly.

This is a bit of an idealistic view.

It's entirely possible for large players within a given system to pick and choose winners, specifically in where they direct funding. This isn't the same thing as actively platforming against a particular path, just funding the one that they see as most promising.

I think the argument here revolves not around the "gerontologists hate this one trick that big pharma doesn't want you to know" but rather than there's some small number of people making decisions based on their own biases with regard to research directions and there's a dissenting group that would like to see broader research done before committing the finite available resources to just that one path.