Before we begin, a quick note. The opinions and analysis shared on truth seekers are our own interpretations of published research and should not be used as medical, financial or professional advice. Always consult qualified professionals for decisions affecting your health or well-being.

And with that out of the way, welcome to Truth Seekers. I'm Bill Morrison.

And I'm Alex Barrett. Today is 11/09/2025, and we're talking about the never aging miracle inside the NAD plus IV therapy hype.

Let's get to the truth.

Right. So I was scrolling through social media, and I saw this headline about Hailey Bieber getting NAD plus IV therapy. And her quote just stopped me dead. She literally said, I am going to NAD for the rest of my life, and I'm never going to age. I mean, going to age.

That's quite a claim.

I saw that too. And then Joe Rogan's talking about it. Jennifer Aniston's getting it. Gwyneth Paltrow. Basically, every celebrity who could afford to inject something into their veins is apparently doing this.

But here's what got me, the cost. We're talking $200 to $1,500 per session. And clinics are recommending weekly or monthly treatments.

Wait, so people are spending like thousands a month on this?

Thousands. As in potentially $12,000 to $72,000 per year on an IV infusion that supposedly reverses aging.

When I was in journalism, I saw headlines like this all the time. They hit different than the actual science does. So let's dig into what the research actually says about NAD plus because I'm guessing there's a gap here.

Oh, there's a gap. But first, NAD plus is real. That's the thing that makes this tricky. It's actually a molecule that's genuinely important to your cells. It's involved in energy production, DNA repair, all sorts of stuff.

And it does naturally decline as you age. So the basic premise isn't nonsense.

Okay. So why does that matter for understanding the hype?

Because once you have a real biological mechanism, it becomes way easier to extrapolate. You can say, NAD plus is important, therefore, if we boost NAD plus we'll get XYZ benefits. But marketing is using that logic jump. The actual research is much more cautious. So when I looked at what's been published in peer reviewed journals about NAD plus and humans

And?

The human data is sparse. Most of the impressive stuff comes from mice. Like genuinely impressive results. Mice given NAD plus precursors ran faster, had better endurance, some wound healing improvements. But here's the problem.

Animal studies are notoriously bad at predicting what happens in humans. We can cure cancer in mice every week. We can't cure most cancers in people.

So they're showing you mice studies and saying this proves that IV therapy works on people.

Exactly. And not even that. The mice studies are on oral supplements, not IV infusions. When we actually look at human trials with NAD plus precursors taken by mouth, the biggest study had 120 healthy adults taking it for twelve weeks. They did boost NAD plus levels in the blood by about 40 to 60%, which is something, but

But did they age less? Did their skin get better? Did their brains work better?

No. No measurements of any of those things. The study literally just confirmed they could increase NAD plus in the blood and it seemed safe. That was it. And for the IV specific claims, there's only one human study I can find on IV NAD plus, and it was published on a preprint server in twenty twenty four under 30 participants.

What did it show?

That it was safe and that it increased NAD plus in the blood. Again, just the safety confirmation. Zero data on whether it actually does anything for skin, aging, energy, any of the benefits they're advertising.

Okay. So this is the gap we always see. Animal studies and it's safe get transformed into it reverses aging. But hang on. I want to understand the mechanism here.

If IV therapy is supposed to deliver NAD plus directly into cells, why isn't that working? Shouldn't that be more effective than oral supplements?

This is where it gets really interesting, actually. Because NAD plus is a large molecule with a bunch of charge groups on it, and it can't actually cross cell membranes easily. Like, it's not supposed to be there. Your cells produce NAD plus inside themselves. That's the point.

So you're saying NAD plus can't actually get into the cells.

That's exactly what I'm saying. And the thing that gets me, and this is where it gets wild, is that Leonard Guerente, who's literally the leading researcher on NAD plus and helped found Elysium Health, one of the companies selling this stuff, he said in an interview, NAD plus doesn't get into the cells. You have to have NAD plus precursors.

Wait. The founder of a company selling NAD plus therapy said NAD plus can't get into cells.

Yes. And that's actually correct biology. What works orally are smaller NAD plus precursors like NR and NMN, which do cross membranes and then get converted back to NAD plus inside the cell. But that doesn't mean IV NAD plus itself is doing anything. So there's this fundamental contradiction that nobody's really addressing.

So we're paying $1,500 for an IV infusion of something that, according to basic cell biology and the leading researcher in the field, can't actually do what the marketing claims it does.

That's yeah. That's the situation. And look, there's also a really big sample size problem here. When pharmaceutical companies want to get FDA approval for a drug, they run what's called a phase three trial, with typically 300 to 1,000 participants. The comprehensive review I found on NAD plus research says there are only 10 clinical trials total on NMN and 73 on NR, mostly small studies with like seven to 30 people each.

10 trials total?

On the entire NAD plus precursor compound. We're talking about a market that's probably worth tens of millions of dollars, and the underlying research foundation is fragile. A 2022 review from researchers at the University of Ljubljana actually said specifically, currently, there are no long term human safety trials. They don't even know the safe dose, the therapeutic dose, what the actual optimal treatment is.

So we've got a fundamental biological contradiction, a tiny evidence base, and recommendations for weekly treatments. I'm starting to understand why this bothers me. When I was covering stories, I watched how carefully worded language works. Based on research, sounds like there's robust evidence. But if you dig into what the research actually shows

It's a completely different story. And then there's this other thing that jumped out at me. Several credible experts quoted in major health publications are basically calling it a placebo effect. Effect. A pharmacist from MedStar Georgetown and a doctor from Baylor College of Medicine both said something like, the benefits may largely be a placebo effect.

And when you think about it, they're right. How so? Because you're paying $1,000 or $1,500 for a procedure that takes two to four hours. You're in a clinic with medical equipment. There's an expectancy effect built into the entire thing.

Most of the reported benefits are subjective anyway. People say they feel more energized. Their brain fog lifts. They have more clarity. These aren't things you can objectively measure, like you could measure, say, skin collagen or actual muscle strength.

Your brain is really, really good at producing subjective improvements when you expect them to happen.

And if you're spending that much money, you definitely expect them to happen.

Right. Plus, people getting expensive IV therapy are probably also exercising, eating well, sleeping better, taking other supplements, all the things that would actually improve how you feel. Any one of those could explain the reported benefits.

So the person gets an expensive IV, feels good the next day, and assumes it was the NAD plus not the fact that they just paid attention to their health in a major way.

Exactly. And here's the thing that I think actually matters. This isn't just about wasting money. Although spending $12,000 to $72,000 a year on something with basically no human evidence is a lot. It's about how marketing takes real science, NAD plus is genuinely important and stretches it so far beyond what the evidence supports that it becomes misleading.

It's the based on science claim that goes way beyond actual science.

Mhmm. That's it exactly.

So what should people actually know if they're considering this?

Real quick version. NAD plus does decline with age, and animal studies suggest boosting it might have benefits. Oral NAD plus precursor supplements can increase NAD plus in your blood, probably safely. But there's zero peer reviewed evidence that IV NAD plus therapy does anything specific for skin, aging, energy, or cognition. If it's working for you, it's probably placebo.

And that's not nothing. Placebo effects are real. But you're paying thousands of dollars for it. You could probably achieve similar subjective improvements for a fraction of the cost with exercise, sleep, and actual clinical grade supplements that have more research behind them.

And the bioavailability thing, the fact that even the founder says NAD plus can't cross cell membranes.

That's the red flag. That's the moment I realized this whole thing doesn't make biological sense.

When you see marketing claims that contradict basic cell biology and they're not being addressed, that's usually worth digging deeper.

Always worth digging deeper. That's pretty much our whole thing here.

Right, that's all for today's dive into the data. Just remember everything we've discussed is our interpretation of published research and shouldn't replace professional medical advice.

Absolutely. If you're dealing with health or mental concerns, talk to your doctor, not just us data nerds on a podcast.

I'm Alex Barrett.

And I'm Bill Morrison.

And we'll see you next time on Truth Seekers. Until then, question everything.

But verify with data.