Intravenous NAD is effective, but its benefit relative to dose and frequency compared to other methods is questioned.

“what if it's indifferent what if this is true true and unrelated”

“the IV nad needs a lot more clinical research”

“in other words we don't really know how much if you take a hundred units of nad intravenously infused we don't really know how many units ultimately make their way into a cell but it's probably not a hundred”

“it's possible that the general intravenous supplementation is hitting those cells and doing that but i think it's equally possible that it's having some adverse effect that's going to be net negative for people and they we don't know the science well enough and we certainly haven't done the clinical experiment well enough to give good health guidance yet”

“And yeah, I mean what I took away from that discussion was intravenous NAD will work. Yeah. Um, the question is what's it working for? And so would your belief be that the effect you experience here should be mirrored by what somebody experiences with introvenous NAD notwithstanding the limitations of the frequency that they could do it? Yes, I think so. But the dose is so much higher on IV and AD. It could be too”

“Um, and yeah, I mean what I took away from that discussion was intravenous NAD will work. Yeah. Um, the question is what's it working for? And so would your belief be that the effect you experience here should be mirrored by what somebody experiences with introvenous NAD notwithstanding the limitations of the frequency that they could do it? Yes, I think so. But the dose is so much higher on IV and AD. It could be too high. I don't know. But the in theory, yes.”