X-Message-Number: 29395
References: <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #29380 - #29382
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:03:07 -0400
From:
Alan Mole raises some intriguing points about reservetrol. The first
critical test would be "no harm." In theory that would be easy. Just
give various quanities to advanced animal species and see what happens.
Apparently humans can self administer via LE Inst and perhaps others
but they are rendering their bodies in an uncontrolled "experiment"
which is no experiment at all unless there is a careful data collection
process along with it. To be convincing there also needs to be random
assignment, graded dosages, and placebo controls and I doubt that
Falloon and company will sit still for all that as well as paying for
it. You would need all that just to demonstrate no harm, and. I
suppose, after that I might take some at my age of early seventies
since my time is running out. Then there is efficacy, a much tougher
standard to meet but one you would really think about if the medicine
is at all expensive or doesn't taste good. Human trials would cost
millions and wouldn't be able to show statistical results for half a
generation. Monkey experiments, where you could do random assignment
and placebo control, aside from the age factor, are horrendously
expensive. The Wisconson people actually work with very small samples.
Just adding two dozen monkeys to a sample and setting up new protocols
will run into many tens of thousands of dollars. Maybe a relatively
cheap experiment would start with old dogs and cats and work down to
younger ones. It is theoretically true that the benefits of mice
experiments transferred to humans would be so enormous that the 10-50
million dollar experiments on humans might seem a trivial investment in
retrospect. However, such is the plodding way of normal science that
reseretrol will probably not be shown to be a safe and effective drug
during my lifetime. Without an unexpected groundswell of public demand
or the inspired investment of a dot.com sugardaddy, you younger life
extenders will have to wait it out till long after I am gone (or
hopefully in deep cold storage).
Ron Havelock
-----Original Message-----
From:
To:
Sent: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: CryoNet #29380 - #29382
CryoNet - Mon 2 Apr 2007
#29380: Re: CryoNet #29379 [RAMole]
#29382: Marta Sandberg's Journey to Cryonics [Biologist501]
Rate This Digest:
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29380%2D29382
Administrivia
To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
with the subject line (not message _body_):
subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
(Note: A "Subject:" line starting the message body replaces
the "Subject:" line in the header. This gives a second
opportunity to provide a meaningful subject line.)
Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.
To retrieve past messages, send email to:
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
http://www.cryonet.org/
For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
- Kevin Q. Brown
Message #29380
From:
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:22:04 EDT
Subject: Re: CryoNet #29379
Actually resveretrol is promising and available. It gets written up in
such
mainstream publications as Scientific American. First it was shown to
extend
the lifespan of yeast, and the critics said "Sure, but yeast are not
animals."
Then worms and fruitflies, and they said "But those are not mammals."
Then
mice. As they mentioned on this program, when middle aged mice got
resveretrol, their lifespans increased 10-20%, equivalent to as much
as 16
years in
humans. And mice are indeed not people, but since the stuff is not
known to be
toxic and since it has worked in everything they have tried it on, it
looks
like a good bet to me. Life Extension Institute sells it, and others
probably
do too.
The trouble with testing anything on humans or even monkeys is that
they
live so darn long you can't live to see the end of the experiment.
Which is
probably why they started with middle aged mice. I suppose if they
started with
50-80 year old humans, they might get some die-off-rate results in 5-10
years,
and I'd like to see them try that.
But what do you think, Dr. Havelock?
Alan
I agree that the Rose round table piece was great and should be
watched
by anybody interested in where the research is going. This highlights
what I would call the life extension R&D of "normal" science. For
anyone who wants a really long life for themselves the progress in this
field will seem agonizingly slow and perhaps not very adventurous. It
holds out no promise that the elixer of life will arrive any time soon.
However, the implications are extremely good for one of the
assumptions of cryonics, that extending life indefinitely is where
our science-based culture is headed in the long run and we will surely
get there, though these panelists don't dare say so in so many words
because it still sounds kooky to most people. Several commented that
what they were into now would have sounded kooky a generation ago.
Another point for those on this list to keep in mind is that life
extension and cryonic suspension are two quite different ideas
although
the second depends on a chain of logic that stretches back to the
first. The level of public interest in life extension, even by means
of quackery, is extremely high, even though there is no realistic hope
that it can be achieved within the life time of anyone now living as an
adult. One panelist, probably Olshansky, said it was a 42 billion
dollar industry [or maybe he said 4.2 billion, I'm not sure.] It
remains to me a bedevilling fact that the level of public interest [as
distinct from awareness] in cryonics to so pitiably low despite the
fact that this is the only hope for most of those now living to benefit
from what the normal science of longevity will eventually and surely
provide.
Ronald Havelock, Ph.D, O.D.
CI Science Advisor
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29380
Message #29382
From:
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:46:25 EDT
Subject: Marta Sandberg's Journey to Cryonics
*Very* meaningful.
Thanks, Marta.
DC Johnson
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ]
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29382
End of CryoNet Digest
*********************
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29395