On 18 Sep 1998 20:05:44 GMT, excelife at earthlink.net (Excelife) wrote:
>>James and others feel that we should prioritize and concentrate our efforts
>on the latter research areas in the hopes that by increasing life expectancy
>by 20 or more years we might then be around when the the research into the
>genetic control of life span finally achieves results.
>>I think the genetic control of aging and lifespan has already been described
>and that research efforts to develop therapies based on this discovery should
>be our number one priority.
I totally agree with you. In my opinion doing research to discover
ways to increase life expectancy is all well and good but it is not
what we should be spending the large majority of money on. It seems to
me we (as in everyone doing research in aging) should be spending an
equal ammount of money on finding out the basic mechanisms and causes
of aging and on ways to just extend the "life expectancy" of
The problem is that many individuals are now well into the last few
decades of their life and slowing their rate of aging would be better
than doing nothing but in the LONG TERM it would help them very little
because they would eventually grow old and die.
If we could discover the fundamental causes of aging, and how to
reverse them, then we could possibly REJUVINATE old individuals into a
YOUTHFUL state. This would help them a lot more than just slowing down
their aging process.
For example, I don't think that Tom Matthews should just have his
aging process slowed down. I think he deserves to have it totally
reversed so he can be rejuvinated to whatever biological age he
chooses and live a healthy life for as long as he wants.
Well, take care and have a great day.
>>>Thomas Mahoney, Pres.
>Lifeline Laboratories, Inc.