While I don't disagree factually with what you're saying, the way you're saying it sounds like a slight misunderstanding of the results here. CR has been shown

While I don't disagree factually with what you're saying, the way you're saying it sounds like a slight misunderstanding of the results here. CR has been shown to have effects on short-lived species because that's all that's been testable so far. CR has actually been remarkably consistent in its effects across many different species. The rhesus monkey studies are the first ones to attempt to replicate the longevity results found in the previous tests that were performed on short-lived species. The NIA rhesus study results released a short while back seemed to be the first failure of replicating CR longevity results. This seemed to be a blow to the theory that CR would be efficacious with higher primates. However, this study is saying that the first rhesus study was conducted incorrectly and that the results were incorrectly interpreted. They're basically saying that scientifically, CR is still batting a thousand.