This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see navigation template)
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box)
Add [[Category:transhumanism]] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the list of transhumanism articles
Maintenance / Etc
Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
There are assessments of the book by experts in aging research that can be included, so there is no reason to include the view of a non-expert like Stephen Barrett. He was a psychiatrist who did no aging research and has never been recognized as an expert on the subject. Nicmart (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added two quotes about the book by actual aging researchers, but there are still criticisms of the book in the entry by non-experts. John Renner, for instance, was a psychiatrist with no expertise in aging research. Antony Thomas is, I believe, a documentary film maker with no biomedical research credentials, and Frederick Stare has been discredited in recent years for accepting support from the sugar industry while publishing research that cleared sugar of any role in the development of heart disease. If this entry exists, it should focus in part on expert criticism. It is reasonable to include evidence provided by non-experts, but not merely their opinions. Nicmart (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve searched Kurt Butler, who is described as a “nutritionist” in this entry. I can find no evidence that he has a relevant degree. He identifies himself as a nutritionist, but I’m not aware of that being a major in which one can obtain a degree, as with dietitian. I’m removing the reference to him. It is pretty ridiculous to use non-experts to criticize a book for offering unscientific recommendations. Walford, Harman, and Hayflick, and Harris are the real deal. More expert opinions should be included, and the non-experts removed. Nicmart (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that Pearson and Shaw may have shared a portion of the revenue generated by the book with Denham Harman. I believe that a company set up by acquaintances of the pair, recommended as a source in the book, may also have shared a portion of its profits with Harman. If I’m right then Harman had a whopping conflict of interest in recommending the book. I do not have a copy of the book at hand to see if the relationship is mentioned. Nicmart (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
