Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:59, 13 January 2014

Revision as of 19:41, 15 January 2014

Line 7:

== Criticism ==

In the 1992 [[documentary]] ''Never say die: The pursuit of eternal youth'', Antony Thomas interviewed Pearson and Shaw, and criticised the anti-aging movement as misguided.<ref>{{cite news| title=The often gruesome search for perpetual youth |first=Virginia |last=Mann |publisher=The Record newspaper|date=1992-08-17 |accessdate=2007-03-01 |url=http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:BRCB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=0EB2778DA83E3DCC&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=0D0CB57AB53DF815 }}</ref> <!--As of 2007, a number of the specific recommendations of the book have been discredited.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}--> A review in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) by researchers with the Harvard School of Public Health advised that “Some of the "health" advice contained in this book would be humorous if it was not so dangerous” and that “Potential readers of this ridiculous book would be wiser to take only the antacids—as we felt the urge to do after the realization that we had spent $22.50 on an unscientific, impractical, and potentially dangerous health fraud that literally made us ill.”<ref name="Stare & Aronson, 1983">{{cite journal|last=Stare|first=Fredrick J.|coauthors=Aronson, Virginia|title=Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach|journal=JAMA|date=November 23, 1983|volume=250|issue=20|pages=2862–3|url=http://jama.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?ResourceID=526884&PDFSource=13|accessdate=2 June 2012}}</ref> [[Gerontology#Biogerontology|Biogerontologist]] Dr. [[Roy Walford]] wrote, "[[gerontology]] has always been the happy hunting ground for faddists, charlatans, pseudoscientific fringe characters, and just misinformed enthusiasts with 'ready cures' for aging. ... Pearson and Shaw are among this long list of enthusiasts. ... Most of the Pearson/Shaw book relies on this lower-order category of evidence, and upon the testimonial posturing of Pearson and Shaw themselves."<ref name=Walford>{{cite book|last=Walford|first=Roy|title=Beyond the 120 Year Diet: How to Double Your Vital Years|year=2000|publisher=Four Walls Eight Windows|___location=New York, NY|isbn=<!--1568581572, -->9781568581576|pages=21-23|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=I0GeWFLLbQEC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21}}</ref> In a discussion group posting, biogerontologist Dr. Steve Harris, MD criticizes the book, offering an example of one the authors' (apparently, many) "screwups:"

:: I managed to track one of their references to the (supposedly) somniferous effects of inositol back through some of the primary literature they'd cited (loosely) in the back of the chapter. Wups, guess what? They'd been reading a paper on natural ligands of the benzodiazepine receptor, and confused inositol with inosine (helped out by [[Carl Pfeiffer (pharmacologist)| [Carl] Pffeifer]]'s [sic] claims that inositol is sleep inducing). Inosine actually HAS some demonstrated Valium like effects in some animals (birds), but to this day you're going to see inositol in sleep remedies.<ref name="Harris, 1995">{{cite web|last=Harris|first=Steve|title=Re: Whats up with Pearson & Shaw|url=http://groups.google.com/group/sci.life-extension/msg/3ba7eb3669464c37|accessdate=2 June 2012}}</ref>