Editorial
About NAD Dr
Who publishes this NAD+ digest, what it is, and — just as important — what it is not.
What this site is
NAD Dr is an independent editorial project that publishes step-by-step summaries of the peer-reviewed research literature on NAD+ and its precursors. We are not a clinic. We do not employ clinicians and we do not provide medical advice. We do not manufacture, sell, or distribute any product. Our work is editorial commentary on publicly available science — a sequenced reading of what specific studies measured, with every quantitative claim cited to its source.
Why it reads like an explainer
NAD+ is, at bottom, a step-by-step biochemical sequence: a precursor is absorbed, the salvage pathway rebuilds the coenzyme, the NAD+/NADH cycle moves electrons, and signaling enzymes spend the result. We built the site to follow that sequence because it is the most honest way to teach the topic — one numbered step at a time, with the strong findings and the open gaps both visible. The aim is depth a curious non-scientist can actually follow, not a wall of jargon.
About the name
The "Dr" in NAD Dr is editorial framing — the calm, who-studies-it register of a research explainer — not a claim that this site practices medicine, prescribes, or offers consultations. There is no doctor, clinic, pharmacy, or treatment service behind these pages. NAD+ is a dietary supplement and, in injectable form, a compounded wellness therapy; it is not an FDA-approved drug for any disease, and nothing here should be read as a prescription or a personal recommendation.
How we handle the evidence
We lead with what was measured and attribute it afterward. Human precursor trials, rodent models, and mechanism reviews are kept distinct, and we never describe an oral-NMN or oral-NR study as "taking NAD+" — the precursor-to-coenzyme conversion is part of the story, not a detail to gloss. Where the evidence is strong (blood NAD+ rises reliably on oral precursors), we say so plainly. Where it is thin (hard clinical endpoints, IV NAD+ durability), we flag it just as plainly, in line with the 2025 review that frames human efficacy as still preliminary.