12.21.2

Firstly, I am new to the forums, and I'd like to say hi to everyone. I hope this big enough forum will be able to better educate me with intelligent critiques/opinions/debates. Sorry but I made two posts, one in Biology, and the other in Genetics. If someone could help me delete the post in genetics, I'd appreciate it! While I was in the midst of talking with my colleagues, I mentioned about cryonics, which later shifted to a discussion about a researcher named Aubrey de Grey... The moment I mentioned his name, a numerous amount of reactions encompassed me. As numerous as they were, all of them had the same affiliation of animosity. Heretic, fraud, naive, etc. I heard unbelievable amounts of negativity towards this researcher. And all the while I thought to myself... Why? Now before I begin sharing my knowledge, I'd like everyone to know where I stand on this subject. As of now, I stand in search of clarity before certainty. I want to further access the information before I decide. Honestly, I do not want to live indefinitely, but if I could live 100,120,150~ without suffering from Alhzeimer, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, the list goes on... it would be great! This much may be wishful thinking, so I cannot assume an absolute neutrality. So I want to receive critical and educated thoughts about this subject. For those of you who don't know, Aubrey de Grey is a THEORETICIAN (Not a specialist) in gerontology. He is the chief science officer of a foundation called SENS (http://sens.org/). In his theories, he believes that damages accumulated and built up from old age can be genetically reversed. As a side effect, the human would be given a longer life span, and ultimately indefinite lifespan. I am summing this as short as possible, so Aubrey is regarded as only a dreamer by many scientists because he HAS NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE yet to verify his theories. His constant reason for this is because of "insufficient funding", which brings me to the main question "Who is right?" Now I know this sounds quite negative, but I'm just trying to be rational. I am only giving the facts, which is at the moment, he has no proof to make him right. BUT, there is also no further suggestions that he is wrong. There were a group of scientists in specialized fields that wrote an essay about "Why Aubrey is Wrong" to the Technology Review magazine, but the judges claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to ground Aubrey's claims false. However, there wasn't also enough information from Aubrey, to claim that this was science (Or something of the sort). From the information I gathered, I feel that I am on a pause, questioning myself during classes and work if Aubrey can achieve success or not. Deep down, I know the eagerness in me, that wants me to say "He's right". But for a long time, I've been taught to assume things based on facts and statistics. I'd like the members of this forum to help me better access this topic, and help this subject come to a close. "COULD AUBREY BE ON TO SOMETHING? OR IS HE JUST BEING GREEN?" I am looking forward to every kind of comment and critique. Negative, positive, just be respectful enough to ascertain yourself with proof to back up your facts.

Firstly, I am new to the forums, and I'd like to say hi to everyone. I hope this big enough forum will be able to better educate me with intelligent critiques/opinions/debates. While I was in the midst of talking with my colleagues, I mentioned about cryonics, which later shifted to a discussion about a researcher named Aubrey de Grey... The moment I mentioned his name, a numerous amount of reactions encompassed me. As numerous as they were, all of them had the same affiliation of animosity. Heretic, fraud, naive, etc. I heard unbelievable amounts of negativity towards this researcher. And all the while, I thought to myself... Why? Now before I begin sharing my knowledge, I'd like everyone to know where I stand on this subject. As of now, I stand in search of clarity before certainty. I want to further access the information before I decide. Honestly, I do not want to live indefinitely, but if I could live 100,120,150~ without suffering from Alhzeimer, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, the list goes on... it would be great! This much may be wishful thinking, so I cannot assume an absolute neutrality. So I want to receive critical and educated thoughts about this subject. For those of you who don't know, Aubrey de Grey is a THEORETICIAN (Not a specialist) in gerontology. He is the chief science officer of a foundation called SENS (http://sens.org/). In his theories, he believes that damages accumulated and built up from old age can be genetically reversed. As a side effect, the human would be given a longer life span, and ultimately indefinite lifespan. I am summing this as short as possible, so Aubrey is regarded as only a dreamer by many scientists because he HAS NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE yet to verify his theories. His constant reason for this is because of "insufficient funding", which brings me to the main question "Who is right?" Now I know this sounds quite negative, but I'm just trying to be rational. I am only giving the facts, which is at the moment, he has no proof to make him right. BUT, there is also no further suggestions that he is wrong. There were a group of scientists in specialized fields that wrote an essay about "Why Aubrey is Wrong" to the Technology Review magazine, but the judges claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to ground Aubrey's claims false. However, there wasn't also enough information from Aubrey, to claim that this was science (Or something of the sort). From the information I gathered, I feel that I am on a pause, questioning myself during classes and work if Aubrey can achieve success or not. Deep down, I know the eagerness in me, that wants me to say "He's right". But for a long time, I've been taught to assume things based on facts and statistics. I'd like the members of this forum to help me better access this topic, and help this subject come to a close. "COULD AUBREY BE UP TO SOMETHING? OR IS HE JUST BEING GREEN?" I am looking forward to every kind of comment and critique. Negative, positive, just be respectful enough to ascertain yourself with proof to back up your facts.