X-Message-Number: 11874 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: For Thomas Nord and Doug Skrecky Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:21:51 +1000 (EST) To Thomas Nord and Doug Skrecky: First of all, the most important question for Perls is not that of the existence of centenarians but that of how we can use our understanding of why they become centenarians to prolong our own lives. Perls may have explicitly stated that as one of the goals of his study; if so, that's very good. I haven't read as much of his papers as Thomas Nord seems to have done, and perhaps I missed his statement of purpose. Second, Doug Skrecky is correct when he states that ALL current studies of drugs or other behavior which affects aging positively ie. makes those who take the drugs or adopt the behavior live longer, has only been proven in animal experiments. In my own book on the subject, A GUIDE TO ANTIAGING DRUGS, I state that explicitly in the very first chapter of my book. However when we consider a drug which might work against aging, and even when we consider calories restriction, we are not merely adopting the stance of Martians who care only about the scientific nature of aging. We are trying to use the best available information to prolong our own lives because our lives are important to us. Not only that, but research on aging has a feature that virtually no other medical research shares. If we really wish to test a treatment on human beings, then nothing prevents us from doing so ... but if we wait for the RESULTS of such tests before we try such treatments on ourselves, we'll grow old and die before the information has all come in. Even tests of calorie restriction on monkeys share this problem: we live longer than monkeys and someone can always ask whether or not such a treatment will work in human beings. Sure, a successful test in monkeys SUGGESTS that it will work, and one in rats does so too (after less time). But perhaps the physiology of our aging, because we do live longer than either species already, is such that calorie restriction won't work on us. SO we are faced with a problem. It isn't a scientific problem as such: we know how to do the needed experiments. The problem is that of finding some way to benefit from all the experiments on drugs or calorie restriction which increase the lifespan of various experimental animals. I have chosen to take some of the drugs I discuss in my book, and wrote it for those who are interested in doing so too ... with a clear understanding of just what they are doing. If you want assurance that a drug will prolong your own lifespan, sorry, no one can yet give that to you. The best we can do is to assure ourselves that such drugs will not actually damage us. In my book I also discuss other things we might do, but so far no one seems to have gone beyond privately taking such drugs. And there are lots of useful experiments the book suggests, too ... though almost all of them are experiments only of value to those who have decided to take some of the drugs I discuss. In one way the problem we are faced with when we think about taking antiaging drugs is very close to that we are faced with when we think about joining a cryonics society so we can be cryonically suspended. Yes, the ability to revive brains would be very important information, but if we are suspended we won't really know what will happen to us... even after we learn how to revive brains. As yet we can't even revive brains, but the basic problem remains the same. We can try to minimize whatever damage might occur, particularly to any structures holding our memories or personality. But because of the times we live in, we can never KNOW just what the outcome of our suspension will be. Truly, it's a most unhelpful universe we find ourselves in! But it's better to deal with that fact than to try to forget it. Best and long long life to everyone, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11874