Since you asked so politely, I'll attempt, albeit somewhat hesitantly, to offer some feedback. So looking back on my encounters with Aubrey, I can only say he

Since you asked so politely, I'll attempt, albeit somewhat hesitantly, to offer some feedback. So looking back on my encounters with Aubrey, I can only say he seems perfectly content appearing old and wise. In fact he's well known to be anti-interventionist (for the meantime) and does not endorse supplementation or other strategies other than basic obvious health advice (eat well, exercise). This is in contrast to his friend Ray Kurzweil, who on the other end of the spectrum is ingesting 100+ pills daily.[1] In terms of the HN reaction, I too admit at first, to an immediate emotional desire to downvote. On the one hand, I respect your breadth of knowledge and am grateful to your usually educational summations, but on this occasion, the dismissal seems shallow. The sense one gets, is that you're not really taking him seriously as a biomedical gerontologist, as a researcher studying senescence for the last 20 years. Instead it feels (at least to me) like a dismissal more slightly more appropriate, to a salesman peddling snakeoil. So lastly, and perhaps most importantly, setting aside emotion, the dismissal was logically flawed. If a researcher produces findings and chooses not to follow them (by your implication the reason for his old and haggard appearance), it has little bearing on the validity of said findings. There may be many good (and not so good) reasons for not following the immediate implications of ones own research: Akrasia[2], lazyness, "wait and see". For example, theoretical research (eg murine models -- such as FTA) occurs long before a drug, has passed all the relevant safety tests in humans, and enters the market. hth [1] http://bigthink.com/videos/the-top-3-supplements-for-surviving-the-singularity http://bigthink.com/videos/the-top-3-supplements-for-survivi... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia