X-Message-Number: 26491
From: 
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 13:12:12 EDT
Subject: Stodolsky & interventions

David Stodolsky wrote in part:

Yesterday, I had a chance to glance thru the last year of the Journal  
of Gerontology, which is probably the top journal in the field. There  
were two special issues devoted to "Anti-ageing". While the outlook was  
good, there currently is no evidence that bio-medical interventions can  
extend life.

 
The last sentence, as written, is patently absurd. It is equivalent to  
saying that all  medicine is worthless.
 
Perhaps he meant evidence for increased life span, as opposed to life  
expectancy. In that case, it is not patently absurd, but still opposed to  the 
thrust of countless reports in the literature. 
 
Of course, ironclad evidence for improvement in life span is very hard to  

produce, for obvious reasons--requires too much time and too many subjects and
too much expense. Most of the evidence is based on laboratory animal  
experiments, hence not conclusive for humans, but evidence nonetheless.
 
In any case, for all practical purposes, improvement in life expectancy is  

just as important as improvement in life span, for some time to come, and there
 are plenty of interventions to improve life expectancy.
 
David also implied that those taking alleged life extension supplements are  
at substantial risk. I believe John de Rivaz has said that the risk of dying 
in  a hospital is 300,000 times greater. It also stands to reason, in this  
information age, that real risks tend to be exposed pretty quickly. The  

supplement business is booming, and there seem to be few complaints or  
accusations. I 
take a lot of supplements, and ran them by my internist, who  advised against 
only one (deprenyl, which might be incompatible with my heart  medication).
 
Robert Ettinger


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26491