I found this sordidly fascinating as a purportedly scientific document with a pathetic standard of scholarship: Scientific American's Position Statement on Human Aging A classic example sentence (from the one-paragraph dismissal of supplements) is: "The more dramatic claims made by those who advocate antiaging medicine in the form of specific drugs, vitamin cocktails or esoteric hormone mixtures are, however, not supported by scientific evidence"

Notice that they specifically address only the "more dramatic claims" - leaving open the possibility that all of the non-dramatic claims are true, which would contradict their entire thesis.

In general, their statements are vague, sweeping, and brief, whereas the anti-aging research I read is specific and well-documented. They hold up the most extreme claims as a strawman and quibble with words - ie (paraphrased) "Sure, growth hormones improve the physical signs of aging, but they do not 'slow', 'stop', or 'reduce' aging" (um, use whatever words you want, as long as it makes me skinnier, healthier, and more muscular). They spend almost as much space on the science fiction idea of growing replacement body parts as on the vast science fact field of nutritional supplements. As a proper skeptic, I know who to believe. The only question is: who is funding this statement? Off the top of my head, the prescription drug industry is the only people that come to mind with a vested interest against supplements.

<< Donde es la pura vida? (7/24/02) << || >> Dushenka's Circus Party (5/25/02) >>