On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 19:48:31 -0700, Tom Matthews <tmatth at netcom.ca>
>Tom, I hate to have to say it, but the fact that you took my remark as a
>"suggestion" rather than the negative criticism that was intended,
>really does show that you are a "true believer" on the subject of the
>Telomeric Theory of Aging, in spite of the fact the you argue about it
In my opinion Tom Mahoney (forgive me if I did not spell his name
correctly) is not a "true believer" in the telomeric theory of aging.
He just "believes" it is the most valid theory of aging because he has
studied a lot of documentation, data, and experimentation and
according to his logic and intelligence it is, in his opinion, the
most valid possible cause of aging of at least some tissues in the
You see he "believes" in the telomeric theory of aging (perhaps
"believe" is not such a good word to use) because of the evidence,
documentation, and data he has read and knows about. Not just on
"blind faith" that is what a "true believer" of anything believes on.
Also, he admits that there are many possibly valid criticisms to the
telomeric theory of aging, does not deny they exist, discusses all the
criticisms of the theory rationally and politely, and has an open mind
to the possibility that he "might" be wrong.
He does NOT seem like a "true believer" to me.
>>Even though I might come to agree that the Telomeric Theory of Aging is
>of *primary* importance to current human organismal aging, if the
>evidence shows that to be true, I will never become a "telomerist". I
Perhaps the term he used "telomerist" was the wrong descriptive word
for him to use but I doubt that he meant anything negative or
disrespectful by the term. From what I gather it seems to me that he
was just trying to say, in an interesting way, that eventually he
believes that after sharing enough evidence, data, and documentation
that you will come to the same conclusion that he has when it comes to
the telomeric theory of aging.
>practice mild calorie restriction, but am not a devoted follower of
>Walford or "calorie restrictionist" as the "answer" to aging. I take
>copious amounts of antioxidants, practice oral hormone replacement, and
>have taken whatever other lifestyle changes it is possible to do, for
>the purpose of staving off my death, but I have no great faith that this
>are reducing my *essential* rate of aging and will give me any greatly
>lengthened lifespan beyond the species maximum. And I wish that you
I hope that it is reducing your "essential" rate of aging because we
need for intelligent and wise individuals like yourself to live
indefinantly. Without individuals like yourself this world would be a
very boring place.
>could stop being a "telomerist" too. You have too good a mind to have it
>wasted by "true believerism".
I do not believe that he is a "true believer". A "true believer" would
not stop believing in something even if they recieved solid evidence
that it was not real or true. In my opinion Tom would totally reverse
his opinion about the telomeric theory of aging if some very solid and
firm data showed that telomere shortening was not involved in the
Take care and have a great day Tom Matthews! I hope you have not been
offended by my post and if so then I would like to apologize before
everyone on this newsgroup. It is just that in my opinion Tom Mahoney
is too open minded to new data and intelligent to be classified as a
>>The LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION - http://www.lef.org - 800-544-4440
>A non-profit membership organization dedicated to the extension
>of the healthy human lifespan through ground breaking research,
>innovative ideas and practical methods.
>LIFE EXTENSION MAGAZINE - The ultimate source for new
>health and medical findings from around the world.