From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Feb 15 2003 - 16:17:58 MST
On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, gts wrote:
> Rafal, as far as I can tell you are not interested in fairly evaluating
> selegiline (deprenyl). You seem entrenched in your close-minded role as
> nay-sayer. I'm quite sure there is nothing I could post here short of
> absolute proof positive that would persuade you of the immense promise of
> this drug for life-extension and cognitive enhancement purposes.
I'm going to offer to cut down the middle here (not having read any
previous exchanges) -- brain chemistry is *extremely* individual
specific due to the individual variations in receptor combinations.
Rather than hurling statements back and forth that selegiline does
or does not work I would much rather see comments on the exact
mechanism that selegiline is supposed to work from and an evaluation
as to when it might and might not work for individuals with specific
brain chemistry.
The only way medicine and lifespan extension science is going to
make progress is to work its way out of the box that one size fits
all. The best progress we might make is to acknowledge those situations
in which an individuals perspective may indeed be valid. Should a
physician reject a treatment with which one in a million lives
might be saved? Should a non-physician fail to acknowledge
that only one in a million lives might be saved (with no
evidence as to the facts from my personal perspective).
I would urge both GTS and Rafal to take a step back and realize
that both of their perspectives might indeed be valid (mind you
I'm commenting without *any* literature review) and the real
question comes down to when their specific contextual perspectives
might be the better one to apply. I don't know the answer to that
question -- but I think it is one worth a bit of study.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 16:20:07 MST