What did @vanessa.clover actually say?
Vanessa documented her first subcutaneous NAD+ injection, saying she takes "two more this week" as part of an anti-aging protocol from @He & She MD. Her core claims: NAD+ is "really good for your skin, helps with DNA repair, improve cognitive function, and an array of health benefits." She's framing this as preventive aging intervention, not treatment for a diagnosed condition. That framing matters when we look at the evidence.
To her credit, she's working with a telehealth provider, not self-sourcing from a grey-market peptide vendor. She's also appropriately cautious, admitting she's "a little scared" and committing to report back after a month. That's more epistemic honesty than most wellness TikTok delivers.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, but the human evidence is thinner than the hype. The mechanistic story is real: NAD+ is a coenzyme involved in cellular energy production and DNA repair pathways, and its tissue levels decline with age. But "levels decline" does not automatically mean "supplementing reverses aging."
The DNA repair claim has legitimate preclinical support. Verdin (2015, Science) showed NAD+ depletion impairs PARP1-mediated DNA repair in mice. Human trials are less definitive. Martens et al. (2018, Cell Metabolism) found oral NMN supplementation raised blood NAD+ in older adults but did not show significant functional anti-aging outcomes. Injectable NAD+ delivers higher bioavailability than oral precursors, which is a real pharmacokinetic advantage, but higher blood levels and meaningful tissue effects are not the same thing. The cognitive function claim lacks strong human RCT support as of 2024.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
The skin claim is the weakest of the three. Vanessa says NAD+ is "really good for your skin," but the direct injectable-to-skin-appearance evidence in humans is essentially nonexistent in peer-reviewed literature. Topical NAD+ precursors like niacinamide have solid dermatology data (Bissett et al., 2004, International Journal of Cosmetic Science), but injecting NAD+ systemically and expecting visible skin improvement is a significant inferential leap.
The DNA repair claim is the strongest of her three points. This is where the mechanistic science is most developed and where the animal data is most compelling.
The cognitive function claim sits in the middle. There is early human data showing NAD+ repletion may support neuronal health, but calling it an established cognitive benefit overstates the evidence. Lautrup et al. (2019, Cell Metabolism) noted promising neuroprotective mechanisms but stopped well short of claiming human cognitive improvement from supplementation.
She also calls this "NAD+ peptide therapy" in the caption, which is a misnomer. NAD+ is a nucleotide coenzyme, not a peptide. These are distinct molecular categories.
What should you actually know?
Injectable NAD+ protocols exist in a regulatory grey zone. The FDA has not approved injectable NAD+ as a drug for anti-aging indications. Compounded injectable NAD+ is legal when prescribed by a licensed provider, but compounded formulations are not FDA-approved and quality can vary between compounding pharmacies. If you're considering this, ask your provider which compounding pharmacy they use and whether it has 503B outsourcing facility status.
Side effects during infusion or injection can include flushing, nausea, chest tightness, and site discomfort, particularly with faster administration. These are generally transient but worth knowing before your first dose.
- NAD+ levels in human tissues do measurably decline with age (Camacho-Pereira et al., 2016, Cell Metabolism).
- Supplementation can raise circulating NAD+ levels in humans, but tissue uptake and functional outcomes remain under active study.
- There is no clinical trial demonstrating injectable NAD+ prevents aging in humans. The preventive framing is speculative at this stage.
- Working with a licensed telehealth provider is meaningfully safer than self-sourcing, which Vanessa appears to be doing correctly.