I know Aubrey has already chimed in here, but I think this line
of questioning is beating a dead horse, so I'll add my 2 cents
also and then be done with it.
saf at safarmer.com wrote:
>> > I was glad to present what information that was available in the newsgroup
> > just to update other readers on Lifeline's current status.
>> Great. Now, Tom, can you tell me:
>> 1. What scientific publications have come out of Lifeline's work?
> 2. How much money has your company raised by "working the net"?
>> 3. What benefits have your elderly contributors gotten so far
> from Lifeline?
>> 4. Is a public audit of your group available?
>> These are reasonable questions, I think. I don't know of any
> legitimate research group that operates the way yours does.
#1 is a reasonable question, but the answer is probably none. As
I believe Tom mentioned, Lifeline has only been operating for
about a year. No publications in that time period is probably
not odd.
#2 would be of interest to me if I were considering giving them
money, oops... I mean buying a certificate of access ;) But,
they are not a public company to the best of my knowledge and
aren't under any obligation to answer such questions. Ditto for
#4.
#3 seems like it is just asked to be obnoxious. You have my
sincere apologies if that is not what you intended, but no one is
deriving any benefit from ANY aging research at the moment,
unless you put taking growth hormone or practicing CR in that
category. So obviously the answer is "none". And there's
nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately we are still at a basic
research level.
So, all in all, would it be nice if Lifeline was more
forthcoming? Yes. But, Tom has presented his reasons to the
group, and I don't think there is anything to be gained by
further pestering. If you don't accept his reasons, then don't
invest in the company's product.
And by the way, if you do a Deja News search, you will find that
when Tom joined the group, I posed the same questions you did,
and I was fairly certain that he was full of **** and trying to
make a fast buck (and I told him as much). So don't think I'm a
Lifeline shill or something. And, as you will also see by
checking old threads, Tom and I are often at odds when it comes
to aging research theory.
So why am I taking up for him? That was then, this is now. He
had no track record with the group before, and so wasn' given
much benefit of the doubt. Tom has now been in the group for a
year. He has come a long, long way in his knowledge of the field
of aging. He must spend a lot of time reading papers and
thinking about the topic, and he has been a consistent
contributor to the group. IMHO, these are not the actions of
someone trying to pull one over on us. If Tom was trying to make
a fast buck, he could be spending his time much more fruitfully.
About your comment "I don't know of any legitimate research group
that operates the way yours does", I would have to disagree. I
would say that MOST businesses operate the way Lifeline does.
Try getting Geron to give you a public audit. Yeah, right. In
fact, try getting a university lab to give you details about
their operation. They are subsisting off your tax dollars and
they don't even have to give that information out. So they only
thing that Tom is doing that seems "weird" is selling
certificates of access instead of a tangible product. So? Not
much different than stock really.
Sincerely,
James
