Re: Re: CRON and infections (Was: How Low Can You Go?)

[Guest guest]

I agree that the mortality rate from SARS is probably overexaggerated, but

several young, healthy people have died from it. One was a doctor (middle

aged, in his 50's) and a few were children and young adults. There doesn't

seem to be any correlation so far with death and age (which is the scary

part). In fact it's so contagious that it seems to disproportionately

infect health care professionals who are tending to victims. Luckily it

doesn't kill that often - but it sounds like you can get pretty sick if you

get it.

on 4/17/2003 11:47 AM, Gifford at gifford@... wrote:

> I believe SARS has a lower mortality rate than the flu... I have a family

> member who works in infectious disease control, and his opinion is that like

> the flu, SARS is primarily a concern for the elderly, already ill, and so

> forth. It's also not a wasting disease, so I should think that being fit,

> healthy, and with a good immune system (all characteristics of CRONies, in

> general) would all be 'good' things.

[Guest guest]

Hi deVries and All.

You just might be right, and CRON might (on average) be bad for us, due

to unknown data/evidence (like you write below).

In fact, I've been thinking a bit about the general issue which you

raise, which is:

We have data that supports _X_ (e.g. CRON), but this data is lacking,

and we need more data in order to know the constraints under which _X_

is safe.

So one approach could be: act according to existing data, and do _X_

(e.g. extreme CRON)

And another approach could be: due to lacking data, don't do _X_.

I (actually deVries) have just explained why the former might be

dangerous. Now the latter may be dangerous, because _X_ can extend your

life, so you effectively died prematurely due to inaction. The bigger

problem is that you will *NEVER* have enough evidence to be sure (as

I've just posted in another thread: you will just have a higher level of

certainty), thus you will never act. Thus it seems that the sensible

solution is what Francesca is evangelizing: the in-between road:

moderation. The problem is that the moderation continuum is huge: it

span from extreme CROM to non-CRON, and practically everyone has to make

up hir own mind what constitutes safe enough for hir.

Micky.

-----Original Message-----

From: numicucamonga [mailto:dean2u@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:20 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: CRON and infections (Was: How Low Can You

Go?)

[Micky Snir] <snip>

Anyone know of the research?

Just to enter the labs with the CR monkey studies I believe one is

required to wear surgical/bio masks, so I doubt there is much

deliberate disease exposure in CR science studies???

Considering we, the human race, are likely to face a REAL

bioterrorist attack OR a mutated (natural occurrence) resistant

bacteria/virus during our lifetime, which overcomes most natural body

defenses or external medication/vaccine defenses, what additional

threat might this pose for a CRONIE? (Thanks Suz!) More body fat

(reserve energy) might be the best life extension advantage in such

circumstances?

ARE WE JUST FOOLING OURSELVES ROLLING THE STERILIZED DICE WITH

PAMPERED LAB ANIMAL REFERENCE SUBJECTS LIVING IN CONTROLLED UNREAL

NON-BIOTHREAT LAB ENVIRONMENTS? HOW DO WE REFERENCE THIS LAB SCIENCE

TO THE REAL WORLD LIFE OF LIVING IN OUR UNCONTROLLED, UNLAB, " SARS

BIOTHREAT " ENVIRONMENTS???

Best, deVries