I would like to add that in addition to the risks of quercetin vis a vis PPH, the question is whether this is a primary goal – to stop or reverse aging or a secondary goal of making aging a more pleasant experience. By which I mean that senescent cells are associated and have been implicated as factors in many of the diseases of aging, including atherosclerosis, dementia and cancer. We know from the Baker studies that mice with the senescent cells removed (judged senescent by the criterion of producing p16INK4a) helps delay many of these diseases – but what was never shown was an increase in lifespan – purportedly because the progeroid mice used died of causes unrelated to normal mouse aging. It’s been years since that original report – and everyone has been waiting to see the experiment repeated in mice with normal lifespans. While lack for evidence isn’t evidence of lack – still I think we can assume that Baker did not succeed in increasing the lifespan of ‘normal’ mice.
Now- agreed that senescent cells are important in the diseases of aging, and we should be glad for any treatment that rid us of senescent cells. but I don’t think that tackles the fundamental questions of aging. Of course it would certainly be a boon if its positive qualities exceed its negatives ones (as with any medication).