3 ms·
This was posted to bioRxiv originally in July 2019. You reasonably ask why the peer-reviewed version hasn’t been published yet and why 3.5 year work with 6 cita
by robwwilliams 4y ago
This was posted to bioRxiv originally in July 2019. You reasonably ask why the peer-reviewed version hasn’t been published yet and why 3.5 year work with 6 citations in a hot area of research is now distracting us from ChatGPT.
A colleague of mine points out that for most subjects over 110 the gero-forensics seems to be well done (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nikolay-Zak-2/publication/338052580_Review_of_Longevity_Validations_at_Extreme_Ages/links/5e03a55aa6fdcc28373eef15/Review-of-Longevity-Validations-at-Extreme-Ages.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nikolay-Zak-2/publicati... ).
Interesting summary on page 31, table 2, and the inevitable shoutout or shout-down of the venerable Jeanne Calment.
- poulpy123 4y agoI have a big problem with that: > Her original validators have demanded that their opponents provide proof of the switch [7]. However, it is a central tenet of longevity validation that the onus of proof is on the validators [2,3]. The validators have proved that Jeanne Calment was Jeanne Calment. They may be have made mistakes or even lied from the beginning but in any case it is not their role to prove that there was no switch but its the role of the accusers to prove that there was one. It's the basis of science