FW: NY Times article - a response from Dr. Walford

[Guest guest]

Dr. Walford apparently is alive and kicking. He just asked me to post this

to the group. Warren: would you also post this to the other group? I am

no longer a member there.

----------

From: Roy Walford

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:48:12 -0800

Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...>

Subject: NY Times article

Francesca,

I have emailed to post the below

for me, but she is in India and may

not be getting her email. Perhaps

you can handle it.

Roy

-------------------------------

- " The URL for the CR Society is indeed given in

the NY Times article, despite someone's claim on the CR postings

that it wasn't. And Roy did NOT simply say, during the

SELF magazine interview,

that humans could live to 160 on the CR diet.What he

said was more or less like, 'If the rodent data translates over to humans,

we could live to 160'. The writer simply dropped the first part.

We have found out through experience that if you want journalists

to get it strictly right, you have to limit yourself to only talking

to science writers. But that turns out to be somewhat

counter productive. Our publisher, for example, was delighted

with the NY Times article. On the whole, it will get more people

interested in CR. So it's somewhat of an enigma how to

handle this problem. "

-------------------------------------------------------

#################################################################

#################################################################

#################################################################

#####

#####

#####

#################################################################

#################################################################

#################################################################

[Guest guest]

Roy and/or Walford wrote:

" And Roy did NOT simply say, during the [December 2003] SELF magazine

interview, that humans could live to 160 on the CR diet. What he said was

more or less like, 'If the rodent data carried over to humans, we could live

to 160'. " The writer simply dropped the first part. We have found out

through experience that if you want them to get it strictly right, you have

to limit yourself to only talking to science writers. But that turns out to

be somewhat counter productive. Our publisher, for example, was delighted

with the NY Times article. On the whole, it will get more people interested

in CR. So it's somewhat of an enigma how to handle this problem. "

Hi & Roy, (Dr. Walford)

Media coverage is, of course, wonderful to have in the NY Times, Self,

Science Mags, etc. Agreed. Since you understand that only science writers

will report the issues correctly, then I think other interview strategies

should be applied to non-science writers to prevent them from misleading the

public. Dropping big, eye popping, Max LS numbers, for example 160 (or

143), is a mistake, when it is almost a certainty these numbers will be

misused or misinform most people reading about CR, most likely, for the very

first time. Certainly almost anyone new to CR will not understand the

meaning or relevance of those Max LS statistics in the context applied to

practical Human CR.

Isn't a good idea to try and prevent the non-science reporters from misusing

Max LS numbers, especially, when you know this is what they typically do

time after time? Otherwise, it seems to me, the misuse of these numbers by

non-science reporters will mislead people to believe what is not possible

for them to achieve on practical Human CR. Exaggerating these numbers by

the media takes advantage of one of the most fundamental wired-in fears

humans have, death.

I hope this makes sense to you why I'm so concerned about this issue, and,

perhaps, you can offer some more ideas or suggestions too. One doesn't want

to be unwittingly complaisant or neutral with a not so benign media so

willing to make us into odd balls & fanatics.

Thank you beautifully for all your contributions to CR and for your

continued interest. It's nice to know you sometimes take a peek in here too

or find out what's happening.

Happy Thanksgiving in California to Roy & in India to . I wonder what

you are eating for Thanksgiving?

& Happy Thanksgiving to all...

..