From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 11:56:26 MST
From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury@aeiveos.com]
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Ramez Naam wrote:
>
> > The LEF is not, to my knowledge, funding or conducting any serious
> > anti-aging research. They seem to focus their efforts on selling
> > products of questionable value rather than attempting to
> develop truly
> > effective interventions against aging.
>
> Sorry Ramez, but Saul Kent the head of the LEF has been
> funding aging research for some time.
Excellent, thanks for the correction. More funding is good.
> As far as "products of questionable value", I'll cite two
> things. [reasons why some products may have value]
>
> So I don't view the "questionable value" statement as a fair
> charge unless you mean it in the sense that some people may
> benefit but others may not.
I mean it in the sense that there's little or no evidence that most of
the products they sell actually slow down the aging process or extend
life. In many cases (DHEA, anti-oxidant vitamins, etc..) there's
evidence showing that they in fact *don't* slow the aging process or
extend life in humans.
The LEF chooses to sell these substances anyway. Their marketing
material has long lists of studies that support (however indirectly)
their claims that these products can lengthen your life. But they
fail to report on the important studies refuting these claims. To me,
that seems unethical. At the very least it's unscientific.
In any case, for most of the substances they sell, there's just not
enough evidence to know one way or another. There's also not enough
safety data to know how they'll affect humans in large doses or over
the long term. That's "questionable value" in my book.
cheers,
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 12:01:43 MST