Celebrity Deaths

#13

Unless the method was too expensive, complicated or impractical, it is a good method if it lead to a good outcome.
If a method did not lead to a good outcome, it was at best a hobby.

There’s people out there who advocated eating healthy, exercising, taking their meds, controlling their risk factors, maybe they wrote a book about it. Should we dismiss the methods because the author died early?

Luckily we have clinical trials looking at their methods for larger populations.

Not buying a book because the author died at 77 doesn’t mean their method didn’t work, they could’ve just been unlucky and slipped on a banana peel.

True, but if we have no other data than their own early demise it can and should be dismissed.
Kind of reminds me of the CR forum admins who all happened to die early.

4 Likes
#14

I agree. But I think it’s the same thing for “no other data than their late demise”, otherwise someone’s grandma who smoked and drank whiskey every day who lived to 99 comes into the picture.

The CR people might’ve not had human data.

1 Like
#15

I would agree 95 should be the minimum IMO that shows what you were/are doing is being the right approach. For me those that are in longevity field and die under 90 they were either stubborn to listen to their body and do what is right for longevity, and not what’s popular (i.e. running a marathon at 80, you would need to either pay my $10Million, or hold a loaded gun to my head for the whole length of the marathon LOL) or they were simply lazy to follow the longevity basics. Knowing what I know now If I die before 100 it is just because I was a lazy loser and did not follow what I knew works. Something tells me that I’ll live well past 100 but my approach differs a bit from most. I try everything that is out there and only stick with what I specifically see/feel is having a positive effect (beyond the maybe, or who knows it could be placebo etc…) and do everything in moderation. I don’t subscribe to the theory I feel nothing but must be doing something good in long run other than very few meds in low dose (my case Cialis 5mg, 4-5 times a week, and finasteride 1mg 5-6 times a week mainly to stay prostate cancer free). I would also do certain CVD meds (very low dose) if I were in high-risk category and would also do meds for glucose control (lowest dose possible to keep it under 100).

I would never shoot for perfect numbers which some in here do (i.e. LDL 40, or APOB 35 etc…) as it is my belief that pursuing perfection is the enemy of moderation and will negatively affect longevity in long run. I would also not do heavy exercises (rather focus on moderate) especially at my age or 50 and later. Would not consume over 1800 calories either (though I am not very good at this one, sometimes go with 1200 sometimes with 2400, but it is one of my objectives to try and keep it between 1500 and 1800). I also try to eat as much as possible organic, some people don’t believe in it, but for me it is mainly the tase believe it or not, plus it doesn’t hurt that it has less pesticide and other chemicals.

4 Likes
#16

I watch out for outliers like someone at age 100 looking, feeling and being active like a 40-50 year old when all their ancestors weren’t particulary known for being long-lived.

4 Likes
#17

Is this for real? and do you happen to know any names. Find it very interesting because I am a firm believer that CR (not Extreme like 1000 calories per day. but more like around 1500) should end up being really good for longevity (not necessarily good for strength and stamina though). By same talking can’t take Atkins diet (re:KETO) as good for longevity when Dr. Atkins himself dropped dead at 70 from a heart attack. I guess any diet could be ok for a certain period of time and to achieve a specific goal but long term you’d better had listened to your parents that veggies are good, and butter is bad.

1 Like
#18

Here is the thread.
Crsociety.org has been down for a few months - General - Rapamycin Longevity News

2 Likes
#19

Damn. That’s bad news. I bought Pearson & Shaw’s book in the mid-80’s and really got “hooked” on the subject of longevity with that.
I always wondered what happened to them. Sounds like they didn’t even make “average” LS, which is a pity. And they were certainly clever people.

One other person who was a pioneer at about the same time as P & S was Roy Walford and he didn’t live to old age, either. I think he got ALS??

I never could understand the secrecy some people put around the cause of death. One good example of that is Vladimir Khavinson…still no idea how he died.

6 Likes
#20

Sh*t happens. I asked several AIs to look for the cause of Durk Pearson’s death.
The AI’s answers were all over the place. One even claiming he is still alive. :sweat_smile:
If he did die, he still beat the odds “The average life expectancy of a male born in the United States in 1943 was 62.4 years.” “The average life expectancy of a male born in the United States in 2025 is approximately 75.8 years.” He lived to be 81.

“Conclusion: There is no reasonable guess about Durk Pearson’s cause of death because Durk Pearson is not dead. He and Sandy Shaw are alive, residing in Nevada, and continue their work, primarily focused on legal challenges to supplement regulations.”

The most plausible:

“No Evidence of Unusual or Supplement-Related Cause:
There is no credible evidence or widespread speculation suggesting that his death was directly related to his supplement regimen or any specific life extension practice. Instead, the circumstances described—an elderly man succumbing to sepsis after a stubborn infection—are unfortunately common in this age group, even among those with a history of health consciousness.”

Stomach Infection Leading to Sepsis:
The most consistent narrative, echoed by multiple individuals familiar with Pearson’s later years, is that he developed a persistent stomach infection. This infection reportedly “exploded into sepsis,” a life-threatening systemic response to infection. By the time he was medevacked to a hospital in Reno, Nevada, it was too late for effective intervention, and he passed away shortly thereafter.

4 Likes
#21

Many years ago, Durk & Sandy left California to settle in Tonopah, Nevada where they lived quietly and happily until Sandy came down with a malady that even Durk with his heroic efforts proved impossible to overcome. After being Durk’s life partner for 57 years, Sandy passed on March 12, 2022. Durk never fully recovered from the loss.

Durk loved TTP. He remains our Forum champion, having posted 6,783 comments filled with brilliant wisdom and insights. Every Friday morning like clockwork we’d have our pre-HFR call unless I was on an expedition, as I was last week in the Himalayas. Yet his loss of Sandy took a steady toll on his immune system. He came down with a stomach infection that he couldn’t shake. It exploded into sepsis. By the time his friends medevacked him to the hospital in Reno it was too late. Durk passed on Sunday, October 27.

Saw that link on reddit. Am not a member of the Skye group, and have no intention of joining.

3 Likes
#22

Hi DS,

Yes; you’re correct of course that DP did exceed the average LS for an American male born in 1943.
It may well be due to his interventions. I don’t know anything about his family regarding longevity so impossible to say if there was much of a genetic component there or not.
He seems to have been very secretive; even Wikipedia doesn’t have much about him.

1 Like
#23

Famous health influencers who have died. Many died young. :frowning:

3 Likes
Vaccines for longevity
#24

What happened to Khavinson is probably what is currently happening to Russian oligarchs now.

1 Like
#25

Come on man, this list is flawed. Why is Zyzz on the list? :rofl: “be a sickcunt brah”

#26

Great and entertaining video. (Crap, I am lucky to be alive!)

It is truly frightening to consider that many diet gurus died at a relatively young age, despite their focus on a “healthy diet.” And I am also sure many of them took a lot of supplements like Durk Pearson did.

My feeling is that genes are king. Other factors, such as exercise and diet, either contribute to or detract from healthspan. Yes, calorie restriction, which is unpleasant for most humans, appears to extend lifespan.

So, I would attribute my lifespan, so far, and the lifespans of the health gurus in the video to “lucky or unlucky” genes.

I have been on various diets throughout my life. In my younger years, my diet consisted of whatever I was being served, whether at home or in the military. My diet could have been described as omnivorous.

My first exploration into diets occurred when I was trying to find foods that my daughter could eat because she was allergic to a great many foods.

Adele Davis was a popular health and diet guru at the time, so I was brewing up many concoctions from her cookbook, which leaned heavily toward fruits and vegetables.
During most of my life, I have been physically active, playing sports and going to the gym.
But my work locations made it hard or impossible to go to the gym or play sports. So, yes, there were times when I gained too much weight due to inactivity. This caused me to try such diets as the Atkins diet and, in later years, a ketogenic diet and time-restricted eating to lose weight.

At my current age, 84+, I am on time-restricted feeding, 18-7, because this is what feels natural to me at this time. My diet is again omnivorous because this is what I like to eat. I would lose way too much weight on a vegetable-based diet, because I don’t enjoy eating vegetables.

Bottom line: It is much easier to shorten your genetically given lifespan than to lengthen it.

I am thinking I am one generation too late to achieve any significant extension of lifespan through gene editing, medicines, supplements, etc.

9 Likes
#27

I read their book back in the 70’s.

#28

And they had high stress jobs. Winston Churchill lived to 90 and he drank and smoked heavily and had a high stress job. He served in many wars too.

1 Like
#29

Yes. I think if you are wealthy and have access to the best life has to offer, 90 seems a realistic target. If anything truly extends lifespan, like Rapamycin, I would expect to see a lifespan of at least 95.

#30

Durk mentions people aged 92-93 does not impress him.
It would be nice to know what he was using, or tried the last 5 years of his life. Perhaps certain medications could have saved him. Not sure if he was using supplements only or a mix of things.
@3:05 of video.

Interesting thought. However, you are at a good age to see how well various new or old therapies will do for people of your generation.
Some of the tech futurists say the singularity will be here in around 2040-2060 (AI tech, longevity tech etc). So you might be lucky if you can live to 2040 and perhaps get more years (decade+) added on your life.
It would be wild if you become the oldest person on earth at some point :+1:

Seems the singularity is already here, and slowly getting rolled out to the people. An issue might be price for various things.
Some of these new gene therapies are over 1 million a year. Though how cheap can they be made?
Might become similar to big pharma generics, or people ordering (or travel) overseas for much cheaper prices.

Would be cool to see wealthy people fund a YouTube channel where someone does try all these types of new therapies.

4 Likes
#31

Wow, that really is a blast from the past. Really worth watching. Interesting that Clint Eastwood was a client.
They brought up some interesting points.

2 Likes
#32

Enjoyed the interview, both very smart but I don’t know if I can take advice from somebody that goes on TV for a serious interview dressed like that. :rofl: Idiot.

1 Like