>> In article <35FDCEAC.5AF4 at netcom.ca>, tmatth at netcom.ca says...
> >> >> Yes, much research needs to be done here. However, the evidence, of
> >> >> telomeric involvement in transcriptional silencing
> >> >
> >> >Please explain precisely what you mean here and give examples of such
> >> >evidence.
> >> See my response to James where I provided the abstract on this phenomena
> >> in S. cerevisea, (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997 Sep 2;94(18):9768-9772).
> >Okay, I have reread that and now have it integrated into my limited
> >little brain. Sorry, I was not at the right point in my
> >thinking/learning to "take that in" before. However, my view of the
> >abstract and its explanation is that while this lifespan extension in
> >yeast does appear to relate to telomeres and their length, the
> >relationship and the mechanism is so foreign and different (let alone
> >opposite) from the effect of telomeres in cellular senescence and
> >possibly in human aging, that it too is irrelevant to the Telomeric
> >Theory of Aging which you have been attempting to "sell" to us. (sorry
> >to phrase it that way, no smear or insult is intended).
>> This is very different from the telomeric theory of aging regarding
> replicating cells and their relation to human aging. It is more an example
> of how telomeric length can influence and possibly control age related
> genetic expression.
>> The significance of this line of research is that it suggests the method by
> which maintaining telomeric length in human cells can allow for the
> expression of "phenotypically youthful" cells.
We will have to disagree on this. You are determined to see everything
about telomeres are supportive of your "sacred" theory. I see this
example as so different that is could be taken as quite refutive of the
telomeric theory of human aging (although I did not imply that, I only
said it was unrelated).
> >What you seem to totally ignore though is that there will have been an
> >enormous waste of resources which *should* have been spent on other
> >antiaging research, if you are wrong. *That* is the main reason that I
> >said (given the condition that I made) that "I hope you are right"!
> >*You* seems to have this mental vested interest in the correctness of
> >the Telomeric Theory, whereas *I* simply wish to live forever :) and
> >thus, want resources spent in the most efficient manner possible.
> >"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" which antiaging theory is most
> >important for saving my life.
>> Except for Aubrey's research proposals on mutant mitochondria I haven't seen
And "seen" is the operative word here. How hard have you even looked
with open eyes and mind?
> much suggestion for research that has the same potential for extending the
> human life span as the telomeric theory of aging.
Except that there is extremely little evidence that it has *any*
potential to prevent current causes of mortality (except cancer by
> On a cost vs benefit
> analysis there is no better investment than research into this theory.
Nonsense! You have no valid grounds for that statement.
I think we should quit this discussion (at least *I* am going to). We
have now beaten it to death (I notice Aubrey has already dropped out)
and we are just spinning our wheels at this point. Unless, you (Tom
Mahoney) have more evidence to present, I am finished until I do more
reading and deep delving on my own. If you have all the papers, I would
appreciate copies to read, thanks.
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.