Cristofalo Study [was Senescence and Crisis: Whats the difference?]

ufotruth at ix.netcom.com ufotruth at ix.netcom.com
Sun Oct 18 13:09:13 EST 1998


 
>
>No problem -- it's clear now.  Moreover, in case there is any doubt let
>me repeat that I too think that the fibroblast telomeres of their old and
>young donors were the same length -- I only disagree that it was all that
>necessary to measure them if one's already measuring replicative capacity.

Wait a second now. I have read about many different
studies/experiments done testing the replicative capacity of cells
from older individuals verses younger individuals and from reading
about them the results were that the cells from younger individual
almost always, if not always, divide more times than them of older
individuals.

If I am remembering correctly there several studies and experiments
which clearly proved that cells from older individuals have fewer
divisions left than cells from younger individuals.

So why is that just because ONE study or experiment has possibly
shown, if the experiment was done correctly and was not a fluke, that
cells from older people divide just as many times as those from
younger people that many people are now all of a sudden taking this
ONE STUDY as GOSPEL when many other studies/experiments clearly
contradict this new one.

I even read the book "How and Why we Age" by Leonard Hayflick and he
stated that he did all kinds of experiments taking cells from younger
people verses older people and letting see which had more divisions
left and CLEARLY EVERYTHING the cells from YOUNGER individuals divided
more times than those of OLDER individuals.




More information about the Ageing mailing list