FW: Re: Dr. Walford's condition

[Guest guest]

----------

From: gifford <gifford@...>

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:34:35 -0600

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Dr. Walford's condition

Hello all,

He has stated rather explicitly that his condition is due to his particular

work in the Biosphere, which involved extended periods in the 'canopy' where

the 'toxic gases' were far more concentrated, such that other biospherians

were not exposed in the same manner. I might add, such neuroligical

problems

are not generally characteristic of chronically undernourished populations,

and I do not believe that it is degenerative in Dr. Walfords case, so I

think

that this is just a side issue that doesn't really bear on CR.

As he has said (and I believe this is why he maintains his distance from CR

practitioners), he does not want his own 'iconic' status to make his

personal

success or failure symbolic of CR as a whole. Even in a long-lived

population, somebody has to die young... We're all 'just' improving our

odds;

that doesn't mean the inevitable can't happen tomorrow or for totally

unexpected reasons (though it's practical to assume it won't).

Cheers,

>===== Original Message From Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> =====

>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

>>

>>> : this has been previously discussed. Dr W blames his condition on

>>> toxic gases in the biosphere (pre CR). But even so, he's just " one mouse "

>>> - therefore not meaningful.

>>

>>

>> IAN: Biosphere was not pre-CR. Everyone in the Biosphere was

>> doing CR and were subjects of one of the few human-CR studies.

>> Leafing through his book I can't find the exact quote, but I

>> recall reading Walford say he was at his lowest weight during

>> Biosphere. But that Biosphere was not pre-CR is without question,

>> and thus the subtle onset of his condition during Biosphere cannot

>> be dismissed as unrelated to CR. In fact, if what I recall is true,

>> that his CR was very strong then, CR seems all the more implicated.

>>

>> But it's true that Walford's condition is like anecdotal evidence.

>> It can only have real meaning as a subset of a statistical analysis

>> of a cohort of subjects. Nevertheless, given that we are to a large

>> degree in the dark about what might be down the road for us, it's

>> not a bad idea to examine the possibility of a CR link to any

>> unusual deterioration experienced by practitioners of CR.

>

>Ahhh but it seems that DR W. was not CONCIOUSLY doing CR, but was doing it

>out of the conditions imposed by being in the biospher . Being much older

>than the other Biospherians, could he have harmed himself by too much too

>fast? You say above that he was at his lowest weight during the biosphere

>esperiment which implies more extreme CR than he is doing now.

>At any rate, we can only surmise and may never know what his current

>neurological condition is from.

>

>

>

>