CR Conference and the CR Society Future

[Dean Pomerleau]

As I alluded to on the thread discussing the conference, the biggest disappointment was the attendee turnout.

 

Quite honestly, it was embarrassing to have such a high-powered group of technical speakers, and an amazingly poor turnout out of people to hear and engage with them. Even more embarrassing, was the fact that we couldn't muster enough people willing to participate to kick off the study of CR and Immunity that Michael worked so hard to get off the ground with Dr. Janko Nikolich-Zugich, from U. of Arizona. Michael, thanks again for all your effort on that. I'm sorry for you, Dr. N-Z, the CRS, and the state of human knowledge about CR, that your effort was in vain.

 

And it wasn't just the numbers.

 

Even worse was the fact that President (Brian Delaney) didn't attend, nor did he Skype in to give his introductory message. He didn't even tell the organizers he wasn't going to be there, and (as far as I know) we still don't have any explanation. I spoke with him a week before the conference and although he's been having some health issues, he gave no indication he wasn't going to attend, even when I said I was looking forward to seeing him at the conference. I emailed him when I arrived in Tucson the day before the conference started and learned nobody had heard from him. He still hasn't responded. I hope he is alright.

 

And Bob Cavanaugh, who I'm sure very few people know but who is allegedly the Chairmen of the Board of Directors didn't show up either - in fact as far as I know he is not returning anyone's calls, even from other members of the Board. He's a politician now, as I understand it, and apparently has bigger fish to fry, or pockets to fleece - Dean says disrespectfully knowing full-well that Bob is extremely unlikely to ever see (or care about) any of this.

 

As I understand it, this will have been the first conference where the CRS lost a lot of money holding the event. Sadly, I would not be at all surprised if this was the final CR conference. It was a lot of work by the (reluctant) organizers, the turnout was poor, and overall the level of motivation and engagement by both the CRS leadership and members alike appears very low.

 

Candidly, we are an organization in decline, without a plan for turning things around.

 

We had a session where we discussed ideas for how to turn things around, and I'm happy to defer to the organizers of the session (Robert, David, Michael) if they have a different interpretation of the outcome, and if they actually read any of this...

 

But from what I saw, we are an organization without a well-defined mission, without any real leadership, and without anyone who has the time, passion or inclination that would be required to make us a viable organization. Heck, we don't even know how many paying members we have, or even a list of who our members are...

 

There appears to be almost no communication between members of the Board, at least on any sort of regular basis, and certainly no communication from the leadership to members.

 

We are an organization living on life-support, and the goodwill and efforts of a few individuals (e.g. Tim C for his administration of the website, forums, and Al Pater mailing list), and David & Robert who (reluctantly and with the help of April Smith) put the conference together.

 

Sadly, based on the outcome of that meeting, I don't expect things to change. One good idea that did come out of it was to try to build a CRS membership roster, including email addresses of all members, by (somehow) sending an email to everyone who we've ever had as members to see if they respond, still consider themselves members, and if not, ask them why not and what the CRS might do to serve them better.

 

While I think this is a good idea, given the lack of motivation and time of people who would need to be involved, I don't expect it to happen or in the off chance it does, the results to really change anything.

 

In short, we are an organization in decline, without a turnaround plan or even anyone with the motivation to put together and help implement such a plan.

 

Nevertheless, it was a great conference, and it was great to see everyone who attended in person. My heartfelt thanks go out to the organizers, as well as all the speakers.

 

For anyone who missed it, which seems like virtually anyone reading this, since there is sadly almost no overlap between people who engage on these forums and people who attended the conference, I suspect you may have missed your last opportunity, since there may never be another one. Hopefully it will come out on video.

 

I'm sorry if this comes across as sounding bitter or overly pessimistic. I don't mean it to. Perhaps bittersweet was the tone I was shooting for. I'm saddened to see a formerly vibrant community withering away through lack of engagement by the members and the leadership.

 

People just don't seem to care anymore. Perhaps they have just given up on human CR, or don't feel the need for community anymore, and aren't interested in contributing to the scientific understanding of human CR.

 

--Dean

[Sthira]

Thanks for that bracing water, Dean. I don't think you sound bitter or overly pessimistic. More like you sound like a guy wearing a cold vest, shivering and realistic... Have you considered stepping into a leadership role? Who is more passionate, time-gifted, and financially able than you of all others?

 

As for calorie restriction combined with optimal nutrition, it's a lonely pursuit. And I was disappointed by the Wisconsin macaque results. CR with ON is difficult to practice consistently in all those ways we already intimately know; but when offered the fact that CR with ON may be practiced in vain (for LS extension goals) it makes me kinda throw up my scrawny arms and yell. Why am I doing this if evidence seems to suggest it may not "work" (extend lifespan) in free-living humans?

 

I wish I could have attended this conference. I like Dr. Seyfried, and I wonder what he said during his talk that was so controversial? Did you take notes during his speech?

[Dean Pomerleau]

Sthira,

 

Thanks for that bracing water, Dean. I don't think you sound bitter or overly pessimistic. More like you sound like a guy wearing a cold vest, shivering and realistic...

 

Thanks Sthira. That seems a pretty fair characterization.

 

Have you considered stepping into a leadership role? Who is more passionate, time-gifted, and financially able than you of all others?

 

Thanks for the suggestion, and the vote of confidence. I have the time and the energy. But there are at least four potential stumbling blocks making me either reluctant or not the right person for such a role.

 

First, nobody is asking me to, at least nobody with any authority. Which is fine by me, for the additional three reasons described below. 

 

Second, I'm no longer a passionate advocate for CR in the traditional sense of the word. In fact, in discussions with both practicing CR folks who attended, and especially the scientist-speakers, I was (somewhat) embarrassed to describe my "net CR" approach to diet and lifestyle. Fortunately, I was one of the slimmer folks who attended, so it wasn't too embarrassing. I joked with Dr. Speakman that I'm surprised they haven't "kicked me out of the club" for eating too many calories.☺

 

More on the issue of advocacy. Candidly, my observations of CRS members who did attend, and who've been practicing "traditional" CR for many years, reinforce my belief that the cut-calories-to-the-bone version of CR may not be particularly conducive to vibrancy and robustness in one's elder years. Overall, and without naming any names, my impression was that the older (and even some of the younger) long-term, low-calorie CR practitioners weren't all that appealing role models of healthy aging, at least for me. They seemed somewhat frail, low-energy and hunched over - perhaps as a result of bone health issues I couldn't help wonder. In contrast, there were a couple older gentlemen there who had recently started CR, and they seems more energetic and physically robust than many of the long-timers. Fortunately everyone I met was cognitively very sharp, and friendly, so we've got that going for us. 

 

In fact I don't remember who it was, but one of the speakers (Speakman, Seyfried or Miller perhaps?) brought up the idea that the optimal CR practice for people (or rodents) might be to back off, eat more, and gain weight as one gets in the neighborhood of 65-70 in order to avoid frailty in old age. This seems like good advice which I've shared with people also. I could be wrong, but I'm still worried that the negative impact of many years of cut-calories-to-the-bone CR leading up to retirement age (e.g. on bones or muscle mass) might be irreversible. Obviously this is only my personal impression, and at best simply anecdotal evidence. The folks at the conference might not be representative of the larger population of CR practitioners (if there is a larger population left...), and obviously there are a lot of people, particularly older people, who are in a lot worse shape that the CR practitioners at the conference. But at the same time, it's hard to ignore the fact that there is a strong positive selection bias at work here - folks who attended the conference obviously think CR is working well enough for them to stick with it and to be motivated to come to the conference to learn more, as opposed to people for whom it wasn't working, and who have stopped, or those who continue practice CR but who are in poor physical health and can't travel easily, or chose not to come out of fear of embarrassment. 

 

In short, given what I saw, I'm not sure I could in good conscience serve as a strong advocate for human CR as traditionally practiced, particularly in folks who are approaching their elder years, which it seems that many of the remaining CR Society members are. 

 

That was objection (excuse) #2 for my eschewing a leadership role.

 

#3 is reluctance on my part to do what it would take to revive the CR Society as an organization. I retired from the "rat race" to avoid having to manage people, make strategic plans, delegate tasks and make sure they get done etc. And given that the CRS is an all-volunteer organization populated by very busy and independent-minded individuals, I can imagine getting anything done is like herding cats. Not my idea of fun. What I enjoy is researching diet & health topics, sharing what I find, and engaging in intelligent discussions with people about it. Just like what happens on the forums, at least on a good day, when people find time in their own busy schedule to read and post to them...

 

#4 is perhaps most important, namely the the lack of a coherent vision, either in myself, or on the part of the CRS as an organization, as to what we want to be. We discussed this in the brainstorming session about the future of the CRS. Namely it's not clear what we think the purpose of the CRS is. Should we be an advocacy organization, and focus on recruiting new members and convincing the world that CR is their right way for everyone, or at least a large fraction of the population, perhaps in a mild form? Or given our human and financial resources, should we focus on merely serving as a beacon and a source of information for a few insanely self-disciplined individuals (like ourselves) who are obsessed with engineering their own maximum health and longevity, and willing to go to extreme measures to do it, but who may never have heard of CR? Along with either of those two, should we focus our energy on engaging with CR researchers who may be interested in studying us, to investigate the physical impact of long-term CR (like Luigi Fontana has done), and/or the psychological profile of successful long-term CR practitioners. Lord knows our society could stand to learn a few tricks for how to avoid obesity... I personally lean towards a combination of the second and third functions for the CRS - serve as a beacon to crazy folks like ourselves, and as a pool of subjects for scientific investigations. Proselytizing to the masses, seems like a fool's errand and ill-advised from my perspective. But perhaps not surprisingly, there did not seem to be widespread agreement on any strategic vision among those who participated in the session.

 

Without a vision of where we want to go, and without at least a few people with the time, energy and motivation to implement such a vision, I don't see a road to successfully moving the CRS forward. So I'd be reluctant to take on a leadership role while simultaneously lacking optimism about the likelihood of a positive outcome.

 

As for calorie restriction combined with optimal nutrition, it's a lonely pursuit. And I was disappointed by the Wisconsin macaque results. CR with ON is difficult to practice consistently in all those ways we already intimately know; but when offered the fact that CR with ON may be practiced in vain (for LS extension goals) it makes me kinda throw up my scrawny arms and yell. Why am I doing this if evidence seems to suggest it may not "work" (extend lifespan) in free-living humans?

 

Yes - I hear you. Although I think it was the NIA arm of the CR monkey study that was most discouraging - showing that CR (at least in mild form) doesn't provide much benefit beyond following a healthy, obesity avoiding diet, at least in non-human primates. Saul and I discussed it at the conference. Saul says that it was just one study and we should be optimistic. But since I usually discount anything Saul says, I saw that as one more reason to take the results seriously☺. Rationally speaking, it is the best information we've got, and are probably going to get in our lifetimes, about the likely efficacy of CR in humans. So it's hard not to be at least somewhat discouraged by those results. Interestingly, I asked the scientists during the panel discussion at the end what intermediate model system (between rodents and rhesus monkeys) they thought might be best for testing CR or other possible life extension drugs or treatments. Dr. Speakman suggested the treeshrew, which as you can see, look like a rodent:

 

 

but actually isn't. Instead, treeshrews are closer to primates than to rodent, as you can see from the family tree below:

 

Plus, they only live about 10 years, vs. 35-40 for rhesus monkeys.

 

But back to your point. The disappointing outcome of the CR monkey studies are almost certainly one of several reasons for why we've seen interest in human CR (and the CR Society) wane over the last few years. That is also part of my reason for switching to "net CR" from "absolute CR", a decision which was reinforced by what I learned, and saw, at the conference, as alluded to above. Perhaps what we're seeing is the natural outcome for an organization that has sadly outlived it's usefulness, and is slowly losing momentum as a result of rational assessment by members of the likely benefits vs. costs of practicing CR. Personally, I enjoy my unusual "CR-ish" diet & lifestyle, so I'm sticking with it, independent of its potential (or lackthereof) for extending lifespan more than a healthy, obesity-avoiding diet.

 

I wish I could have attended this conference. I like Dr. Seyfried, and I wonder what he said during his talk that was so controversial? Did you take notes during his speech?

 

Yes I took notes, and I'll address Dr. Seyfried's talk, and why it was controversial, in one of my next posts, either to this thread or elsewhere (if elsewhere, I'll post a link). At the moment (that is, until you interrupted ☺), I'm working on a post summarizing Dr. Janko Nikolich-Zugich's very interesting talk on Aging, Immunity and CR.

 

--Dean

[Dr Bennett]

Thanks for sharing Dean.

Dr Bennett

[TomBAvoider]

The NIH monkey study was a hammer blow to CR in humans - because if anything, it was better designed (see: diet) than the Wisconsin one - and it's hard to advocate for a diet that purports to be science-driven when the science is equivocal to say the least. It didn't really alter my personal diet or lifestyle appreciably, but made me even more determined to never advocate or defend CR publicly. The science isn't there, period, and to me that's the alpha and the omega of the subject. Previous to this result, we could at least be speculatively optimistic about the effect of CR on LS in humans. No longer.

 

What is the purpose of the CR Society, if the primary driving force - belief in CR benefits vs LS - has effectively collapsed? Maybe that's why participation has collapsed along with it. 

[Sthira]

First, nobody is asking me to, at least nobody with any authority. Which is fine by me, for the additional three reasons described below.

 

I'm asking. N=1. I'd say what you're doing on this site (writing these gorgeous articles about your self-trials and general longecity topics, CE, cool CR tools, your diet, your exercise, your musings...) all of your work here, Dean, probably is plenty for all of us seeking to learn. Your brave transparency and wide, yet humble knowledge of this shit qualifies you for leadership within this fractured non-movement. You're great! You're already there, in my opinion, as a leader good enough just as you are, so why bother with role playing. Keep doing you're thing, man, that's leadership enough.

 

Second, I'm no longer a passionate advocate for CR in the traditional sense of the word. In fact, in discussions with both practicing CR folks who attended, and especially the scientist-speakers, I was (somewhat) embarrassed to describe my "net CR" approach to diet and lifestyle. Fortunately, I was one of the slimmer folks who attended, so it wasn't too embarrassing. I joked with Dr. Speakman that I'm surprised they haven't "kicked me out of the club" for eating too many calories.☺

 

I doubt this matters. Does Longo practice fasting? No. Does George Church practice genetic engineeeeing on himself? No.

 

CR is risky. That's well articulated in nearly everything I've read regarding CR. So is fasting. So is pill popping and needle injecting peptides. So is dancing. And yoga. Risky! So is marrying and having babies. What isn't risky? We weigh up the pros and cons, and generate hopefully rational behavior given the givens.

 

For me, I shy away when anything gets too religious. I think we should stay flexible and open to change, aloof to new fads, but not too rigidly caught up in dogma, either. We as tribe animals prefer some structure and conformity; but the reason to practice CR is for health and longevity promo. How do we live longer, healthier lives in order to benefit from the (evidently) advancing world of longevity science that's just fucking IMMINENT haha -- Any Day Now!

 

The point is not : practice CR or you suck. The point isn't: practice CR if you're really serious about your body.

 

Sometimes I lose the forest for the trees: the whole point of CR with ON is healthy life extention. If CR "doesn't work" big fat shrug, who the f cares, roll back your shoulders, lift a wiser chest now, and move into the darker forest.

 

But since CR seems to work in nearly every other species subjected to its hellishness -- even, probably, the macaques in that flawed mess of a study -- why shouldn't CR work for us, too? We humans think we're so special? We're not. We're animals. Eat less food, live healthier animal lives.

 

You've dropped CR because you no longer believe strict adherence will work to extend healthy lifespan. Or you've switched to net calorie reduction instead. Rather than chronic hunger, I've adapted fasting into my life because evidence I'm seeing quietly emerge (Longo, Mattson, I'm not in the know..) appears pointed here. But if fasting doesn't work either, shrug, I'll move along.

 

If it requires swallowing pills like CR memetics, or whatever, gene editing, senolytics like possible dasatinib and quercetin, stem cell injections, cut back on methionine -- then I'm down all with that, too. Thing is: prove it, all ye carnival shouters: prove your colors. But CR can't prove much in people either, so.

 

More on the issue of advocacy. Candidly, my observations of CRS members who did attend, and who've been practicing "traditional" CR for many years, reinforce my belief that the cut-calories-to-the-bone version of CR may not be particularly conducive to vibrancy and robustness in one's elder years. Overall, and without naming any names, my impression was that the older (and even some of the younger) long-term, low-calorie CR practitioners weren't all that appealing role models of healthy aging, at least for me. They seemed somewhat frail, low-energy and hunched over - perhaps as a result of bone health issues I couldn't help wonder. In contrast, there were a couple older gentlemen there who had recently started CR, and they seems more energetic and physically robust than many of the long-timers. Fortunately everyone I met was cognitively very sharp, and friendly, so we've got that going for us.

 

Side view. If you look at the movement that is modern American yoga, it's being driven mostly by twenty-something women. They're healthy, they're disciplined, they're committed, they practice day in and day out, and they don't give a shit if they're accepted by the mainstream or not. Now, it's mainstream. Everyone trying is beautiful. CR could possibly find more traction by attempting to align with some yogic demographic -- y'all seen "Smokin' Yoga" haha -- because we're seeking the same qualities: good health, strong bodies, clear heads, saner communities, public advocacy for environmentalism and animal rights, sustainability, the world is larger than our own silly fickle egos, and more personal time spent wandering around human on planet earth looking at beautiful birds and giraffes and bonobos.

 

In short, given what I saw, I'm not sure I could in good conscience serve as a strong advocate for human CR as traditionally practiced, particularly in folks who are approaching their elder years, which it seems that many of the remaining CR Society members are.

 

That was objection (excuse) #2 for my eschewing a leadership role.

 

#3 is reluctance on my part to do what it would take to revive the CR Society as an organization. I retired from the "rat race" to avoid having to manage people, make strategic plans, delegate tasks and make sure they get done etc. And given that the CRS is an all-volunteer organization populated by very busy and independent-minded individuals, I can imagine getting anything done is like herding cats. Not my idea of fun. What I enjoy is researching diet & health topics, sharing what I find, and engaging in intelligent discussions with people about it. Just like what happens on the forums, at least on a good day, when people find time in their own busy schedule to read and post to them...

 

#4 is perhaps most important, namely the the lack of a coherent vision, either in myself, or on the part of the CRS as an organization, as to what we want to be. We discussed this in the brainstorming session about the future of the CRS. Namely it's not clear what we think the purpose of the CRS is. Should we be an advocacy organization, and focus on recruiting new members and convincing the world that CR is their right way for everyone, or at least a large fraction of the population, perhaps in a mild form? Or given our human and financial resources, should we focus on merely serving as a beacon and a source of information for a few insanely self-disciplined individuals (like ourselves) who are obsessed with engineering their own maximum health and longevity, and willing to go to extreme measures to do it, but who may never have heard of CR? Along with either of those two, should we focus our energy on engaging with CR researchers who may be interested in studying us, to investigate the physical impact of long-term CR (like Luigi Fontana has done), and/or the psychological profile of successful long-term CR practitioners. Lord knows our society could stand to learn a few tricks for how to avoid obesity... I personally lean towards a combination of the second and third functions for the CRS - serve as a beacon to crazy folks like ourselves, and as a pool of subjects for scientific investigations. Proselytizing to the masses, seems like a fool's errand and ill-advised from my perspective. But perhaps not surprisingly, there did not seem to be widespread agreement on any strategic vision among those who participated in the session.

 

Without a vision of where we want to go, and without at least a few people with the time, energy and motivation to implement such a vision, I don't see a road to successfully moving the CRS forward. So I'd be reluctant to take on a leadership role while simultaneously lacking optimism about the likelihood of a positive outcome.

I totally, 100% understand you. Just keep doing what you're doing: writing amazing posts here. That's leadership enough for now. We're benefitting -- even if people are shy and only reading, your light is indeed very bright, Dean.

 

Pep Talk!

 

But the thing is, if calorie restriction with optimal nutrition "works" to extend healthy lifespan, then, like yoga, it sells itself and requires little prodding. Just my opinion.

[timc]

Hi Dean,

 

I had the sense that Brian would not be there but I can't speak for other board members. I interpret a 'maybe no' as a 'definitely not'. That's not a quote of his words but I think you captured the gist of it. Likely, it ought to have been more clear. I have no opinion on whether or not Skype would be a good idea although my inclination would be to use existing attendees (which we did but likely there could have been more advanced planning for the same).

 

As I understand it, this will have been the first conference where the CRS lost a lot of money holding the event. Sadly, I would not be at all surprised if this was the final CR conference. It was a lot of work by the (reluctant) organizers, the turnout was poor, and overall the level of motivation and engagement by both the CRS leadership and members alike appears very low.

'lot of money' is - of course - relative. It may have been worth the money even without covering costs. The present board members paid to be there (including travel, hotel, registration - same as anybody else), so the organizers had that much motivation at least. Two organizers couldn't attend due to unforeseen circumstances (one health - seemingly, the other professional reasons with a new job).

 

The speaker lineup was great. So were the accommodations/meals. Better in fact, since I like having both chicken and fish on my plate given the choice. Tucson was a great venue, turnout notwithstanding, with weather in the mid-80s each day and not 90s/100s (Fahrenheit).

 

If you see a great movie, are you disappointed if the theater isn't full? From that perspective, Robert and David did a great job.

 

And Bob Cavanaugh, who I'm sure very few people know but who is allegedly the Chairmen of the Board of Directors didn't show up either - in fact as far as I know he is not returning anyone's calls, even from other members of the Board. He's a politician now, as I understand it, and apparently has bigger fish to fry, or pockets to fleece - Dean says disrespectfully knowing full-well that Bob is extremely unlikely to ever see (or care about) any of this.

It's one thing to have a glass-half-full approach ... Regardless, Bob was never anticipated to show and that was clearly communicated (among the board). And he is still the director/chairman (not allegedly). And, as you note, it is a volunteer-run organization, so most people fit the template, "He's[/she's] a ********** now". It's possible outside activities limited some aspects of organization but many of us who were active these last two months focused our work on conference specific activities (which ran fine, general attendance was an issue not the specific attendance of a couple people - IMO!).

 

Heck, we don't even know how many paying members we have, or even a list of who our members are...

To a degree, we have too many lists (Main/Community email lists, the forums and individual contacts). One positive outcome of the organization meeting is identifying the need to consolidate and utilize that information (responsibly). The donor information is also scattered (more so over years but also places) and could be consolidated (while kept private) as part of our 'institutional memory'. In either event, the member list has always been private (AFAIK) and it is very difficult to compare registrations to active participation (or even active reading of forum/list materials).

 

The aggregate - not active - numbers are:

 

CR Society Forum: 6657*

CR Society email list: 967

CR Community email list: 629

 

* I believe daily activity multiplied by ~10 is a better indicator of forum activity. In the last year, we have had ~150 forum registrations. From that number, there will be many bots/spammers and many with only a cursory interest.

 

If I had to guess, I believe we could briefly have the attention (~1 minute) of 500 people - at best - and that includes communicating outside the lists/forum structure. Likely, we want that increased by a factor of ten.

 

Another positive outcome, possibly, of the meeting is the desire to have routine surveys (annual) and follow ups of where people are in their own health, practice, viewpoints, etc, to the degree they are willing to share. Each detail of any such list and what we do with that information and to what degree it is public or private needs to be discussed and known prior to collection (in my opinion). Another suggestion - or my interpretation of that suggestion - is to have better online profiles (public) which might include personal health details and details of health practices. So if one were to click on my profile they might see information on my health or health goals. We can customize and add to those fields (and make it clear what is publicly shared). The one thing I don't like in that list 'birthday' because of identity theft, although that might not be a huge stumbling block for people to learn.

 

There appears to be almost no communication between members of the Board, at least on any sort of regular basis, and certainly no communication from the leadership to members.

There are meetings but they became more irregular and spaced out (which might compound the issue because meeting on an irregular schedule has difficulties). With respect to 'communication', this raises questions as to whether either the minutes and/or schedule ought to be more accessible to membership. We went for a period of time with meetings almost every two weeks like clockwork. Then, if memory serves, the goal became monthly but the last couple months it has been more ad hoc with meetings specific to the conference only.

 

Two issues raised I would like to formally disregard. The first is monkeys. The second is mission statement (which we have one posted but that doesn't imply it is correct or the best one going forward).

 

Lastly,

 

I joked with Dr. Speakman that I'm surprised they haven't "kicked me out of the club" for eating too many calories.☺

Without exception, I don't believe weight or CR practice has been or will ever be a litmus test for participation or leadership. It certainly is not a criteria for researchers presenting or anybody else in the formal study of critter CR or human health. Of course, our involvement and roles don't overlap so your opinion may differ. Scratch off reason number 2 (of 4).

 

 

Here is the Mission Statement as it reads today:

 

CR Society Mission

 

The CR Society International is dedicated to understanding and promoting the Calorie Restriction (CR) diet. We do this by

 

providing basic information about practicing CR

running several active discussion groups

acting as a contact point for anyone interested in CR

pursuing research in CR through long-term human studies

organizing regular CR Conferences

working with the media to inform and educate the public

 

 

http://www.crsociety.org/about/mission

(Posted for the sake of discussion, not to answer the question of what it ought to be.)

[Dean Pomerleau]

Thanks Tim,

 

I acknowledge I may have been overzealous in my negative assessment of the Board members' level of engagement with the organization. With so little visibility into what is (or isn't) happening, it's hard not to be somewhat pessimistic. Let me reiterate a couple things now that I know you're following this thread:

• I, and everyone who uses the forums, am grateful for the effort you've put in as a volunteer to create the website and forums and to keep them running smoothly.
• I too thought the conference was terrific, despite missing several of the CRS leaders.  The venue and speaker lineup were great. The food was good for omnivores, but only so-so for vegans.

Thanks for sharing the membership stats. Are there really nearly 1000 people still signed up for the CR lists? That would surprise me, given that these days they only contain posts by Al Pater. Or when you say "aggregate - not active" in the context of the email lists do you mean the number of all-time subscribers, and not the count for people who are subscribed currently and receiving emails?

 

Do you have any way to gauge the number of daily visitors, or pageviews to the CR forums, or the CR website overall? Similarweb.com reports that CRsociety.org gets about 1000 visits per day - which to me seems pretty good. It would be interesting to know what people do when they visit our website - e.g. how many are briefly visiting the static pages, and how many are reading the forums, etc.

 

Given that we've only had 40 respondents to the main CR survey, despite advertising it repeatedly on the forums and facebook page, it seems like our true, dedicated membership is a lot lower than the raw numbers you shared would suggest.

 

I agree that reaching more people would be desirable, and that gauging our members and their status wrt to CR and overall health would be very helpful too, although it's obviously delicate due to privacy concerns. 

 

--Dean

[timc]

Thanks for sharing the membership stats. Are there really nearly 1000 people still signed up for the CR lists? That would surprise me, given that these days they only contain posts by Al Pater. Or when you say "aggregate - not active" in the context of the email lists do you mean the number of all-time subscribers, and not the count for people who are subscribed currently?

 

The numbers are for current list members but up to 25% of those might be set to 'no mail'.

 

There is no listing of all-time subscribers because as people unsubscribe, they literally fall off the list. Reconstructing the history of memberships would require going through the subscribe/unsubscribe notifications (which would be problematic) or having a more exhaustive list with fields like 'unsubscribed', 'subscribed', 'don't ever bother me again' as well as dates associated with all changes.

 

For 2016, I show 50 email list subscriptions and 20 unsubscribes.  The 20 unsubscribes are likely real people, many of the 50 subscribes could be bots or spam accounts.

 

Neither the mailman software (version 2.1.20) nor the list forum software has a very good institutional memory which might be used to track real interactions (attended a conference, participated in a study, posted substantially, donated money, etc).

 

Do you have any way to gauge the number of daily visitors, or pageviews to the CR forums, or the CR website overall? Similarweb.com reports that CRsociety.org gets about 1000 visits per day - which to me seems pretty good. It would be interesting to know what people do when they visit our website - e.g. how many are briefly visiting the static pages, and how many are reading the forums.

 

We do use Google Analytics (though one must suspect of them using us more so). Visitors per day seems to range in the 100-200 range. There are so many different metrics, it is almost information overload. This topic presently says 76 views, but the more interesting metric might be how many of us have clicked on it.

 

My inclination is to look at a variant of the poster:lurker ratio or something like this "1% rule" (that 1% of the audience makes the content). However, I think that number is too low for us.  Maybe 5% or 10% (where 10% are very infrequent posters, 5% are once-in-a-while posters ... like me!) is more accurate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%29

 

I tried to tease out more information from Google Analytics. It said there were 3 *Active* users on the site.

 

I wanted to see where in the site they were. I remembered to re-allow Google Analytics in my 'Noscript' (script blocking Firefox add-on), refreshed the data and then google told me there was one person viewing this page ... and that is person is me.

 

There is something soul-sucking about logging into Google Analytics. I have little doubt its design is more focused on conversions of a different sort. If there is simple tracking available, it is buried under a mountain of gobblygook. ... I did eventually find a listing of site pages and page views. The forums get the bulk of our traffic with static pages intermixed. The page "/topic/11690-report-from-cr-conference/" has about 35 views per Google but per our forum software, it has 169 views. If Google is tracking unique users, I suspect that number is more interesting.

 

 

 

[Kenton]

Why don't we merge with the polar bear society, re CE.  j/k.  You're the best Dean.  Thanks for all your effort and talent.

[gracezw]

Dean and Tim,

 

The food at the reception was wonderful! I loved the freshness of all the veggies and fruit! I loved the humus too, not tasting salty or greasy. It would be perfect if they had provided with its nutrition fact information, so I know how much salt I would have eaten.

 

The rest of the meals were fine, but I did not like the fact the fish and chicken were plainly cooked without adding any salt, but the chickpeas turned out to be a lot saltier than the hummus from the reception. I am a 95% vegan. I ate 2 small pieces of salmon. And the chickpeas were the only source of vegan protein for me-- the amount provided by the hotel for all members was small(which was OK with me because I wanted to lose weight, and I am glad that I lost 1.25 pounds from the trip!), and I was careful not to eat too much because of being afraid of the high content of salt in it.

 

Also I appreciate a lot the community kitchen and fridge where other members and I could store and eat left-over food items there! Many thanks to all the organizers for that!

[gracezw]

Tim, I like all your ideas here:

 

"Another positive outcome, possibly, of the meeting is the desire to have routine surveys (annual) and follow ups of where people are in their own health, practice, viewpoints, etc, to the degree they are willing to share. Each detail of any such list and what we do with that information and to what degree it is public or private needs to be discussed and known prior to collection (in my opinion). Another suggestion - or my interpretation of that suggestion - is to have better online profiles (public) which might include personal health details and details of health practices. So if one were to click on my profile they might see information on my health or health goals. We can customize and add to those fields (and make it clear what is publicly shared). The one thing I don't like in that list 'birthday' because of identity theft, although that might not be a huge stumbling block for people to learn."

[gracezw]

Tim, you said,

 

"

Two issues raised I would like to formally disregard. The first is monkeys. The second is mission statement (which we have one posted but that doesn't imply it is correct or the best one going forward).

"

 

You did talk about the mission statement by posting a copy of it. I am interested in how you would like to formally disregard the first issue about monkeys. Dean's message on monkeys is nice and clear to me.

[Michael R]

Whoa! Apparently, I'm not subscribed to "Members-Only" ...

A few quickies:

First, Dean, you are definitely "in the club: as long as you want to be, unless you genuinely go back to ad libitum eating: you're a very difficult case to classify in a scientific sense, but it's very clear to me that you're on a shared journey with those of us who are doing something with a more obvious analogy to teh rodent CR studies.

Second, I have just yesterday gotten a message from Brian: he is, at least, alive, albeit facing some health challenges still.
 

I had the sense that Brian would not be there but I can't speak for other board members. I interpret a 'maybe no' as a 'definitely not'.

Yeah: I had largely forgotten a message suggesting he might not be there; I remembered it after Tim drew our attention back to it this morning, and had expected at the time that he would folow up if he really weren't going to attend.
 

 

And Bob Cavanaugh, who I'm sure very few people know but who is allegedly the Chairmen of the Board of Directors didn't show up either - in fact as far as I know he is not returning anyone's calls

Bob was never anticipated to show and that was clearly communicated (among the board). And he is still the director/chairman (not allegedly).

 

At the risk of making it sound like we're even in greater disarray than we are: I don't believe Bob is Chariman any more: at minimum, he's not acting Chair. He stepped down to run for political office, as Dean notes. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that he isn't answering phone calls.
 

 

There appears to be almost no communication between members of the Board, at least on any sort of regular basis, and certainly no communication from the leadership to members.

There are meetings but they became more irregular and spaced out (which might compound the issue because meeting on an irregular schedule has difficulties). With respect to 'communication', this raises questions as to whether either the minutes and/or schedule ought to be more accessible to membership. We went for a period of time with meetings almost every two weeks like clockwork. Then, if memory serves, the goal became monthly but the last couple months it has been more ad hoc with meetings specific to the conference only.

 

I agree with Tim's summary. Dean, you're right that there's little communication flowing from the leadership to members, with the most prominent things being around the Conference and my own attempts to recruit subjects for CR studies: that's largely because there hasn't been any reason for such communication: we've largely been discussing relatively small issues, and little we discuss would be of interest to average members.
 

Two issues raised I would like to formally disregard. The first is monkeys. 

What do you mean here, Tim? I mean, I know you're referring to the confusing outcomes and intensely weedy methodological issues arising from the two nonhuman primate CR studies, but in what sense do you want to 'disregard' them?

[timc]

Hi Michael and Grace,

 

I think both Michael's extensive article on the subject,

 

http://www.sens.org/research/research-blog/cr-nonhuman-primates-muddle-monkeys-men-and-mimetics

 

and this shorter popular press piece,

 

http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2015/05/eat-less-live-longer

 

both do the issue more justice than I can (and Matt's blog linked below).

 

These monkeys have - and likely will (WNPRC) - reach human equivalent ages exceeding 100 at a phenomenal rate.

 

It might diminish the hopes of 120+ year lifespans (with CR) but that's about it although even that is yet to be determined. Here was Matt's take (from his blog):

 

Not only that, of the 20 male monkeys in the old-onset group, 4 monkeys in the calorie restricted group have lived beyond 40 years and only 1 control monkey.

 

40 years is considered the maximum lifespan for a rhesus monkey. Researchers analysed data on lifespan of 3264 rhesus monkeys, and only two 40-year old monkeys has ever been documented.

 

http://www.crvitality.com/2014/04/calorie-restriction-in-rhesus-monkeys/

 

Of ~3300 monkeys, 7 lived to 40 years.  2 of these monkeys come from the group of 3264 (0.06%) and 5 come from the group of 20 male monkeys (25%). From those 5, 80% were in the more restricted group.

 

That said, their affect on the CR Society organization and the future of primate research might be more substantial than any perceived negatives from the studies themselves.

[Dean Pomerleau]

Michael,

 

On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that he [bob] isn't answering phone calls.

 

That was another Board member I was speaking to at the conference (David, I believe, but maybe Robert), who said he'd tried several times to reach Bob and either Bob wasn't returning his calls or the phone number was no longer in service. Obviously if Bob has stepped down as CRS Chairman the point is moot.

 

Dean, you're right that there's little communication flowing from the leadership to members, with the most prominent things being around the Conference and my own attempts to recruit subjects for CR studies: that's largely because there hasn't been any reason for such communication: we've largely been discussing relatively small issues, and little we discuss would be of interest to average members.

 

Thanks for the confirmation. I figured that was the case. I guess I was just hoping the CR Society might do more to raise awareness and maintain some semblance of an organization that benefits its members, rather than merely limping along on life support, trickling away our nest egg and our membership numbers through lack of engagement on almost anyone's part.

 

Upon reflection, I think it was your noble, but ultimately thwarted attempt to get a modest number of CRS members to participate in an important scientific collaboration (on human CR's effects on immune system health - an issue all of us should care about) that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

 

If we can't rouse enough members willing and able to attend such a wonderful Conference with such a great speaker lineup, and while there give a few drops of blood to advance the science of CR, we might as well raise the white flag. It looks like we jumped the shark a few years ago as an organization, and now all that's left to do is throw in the towel and send in the clowns...

 

--Dean

[Saul]

 

Dean said:

 

Yes - I hear you. Although I think it was the NIA arm of the CR monkey study that was most discouraging - showing that CR (at least in mild form) doesn't provide much benefit beyond following a healthy, obesity avoiding diet, at least in non-human primates. Saul and I discussed it at the conference. Saul says that it was just one study and we should be optimistic. But since I usually discount anything Saul says, I saw that as one more reason to take the results seriously☺.

 

AArrgh!

 

 

 

 

  --  Saul

 

I DO think that single studies give little information.  And in answer to my question to the panel (their take on the NIA study), Dr. Janko Nikolich-Zugich said that he had had some part in the study -- and he listed a whole lot of irregularities (adding monkeys in the middle; monkeys of different species; other problems).  Only one of the speakers had something favorable about it -- namely, Dr. Miller (of whom I have the greatest respect) -- Dr. Miller said that he'd studies the raw data, and had found no flaws in the interpretation.  (But he did not discuss the procuring of monkeys, as did Dr. Janko Nikolich-Zugich).

 

I repeat:  Dean, It was one study.  IMO, it's a mistake to let one study guide your lifetime practice.  And, as noted, it was not well executed; monkeys were added at several points; sexes and breeds were unbalanced.   The one advantage (a considerable one) of the NIAA study over the Wisconsin study, was in the quality of the food used.

 

But again, however you slice it, it was ONE study.

 

What if one study in the future, e.g. using 40 tree shrews, shows much more benefit for CRON?  That, also, if it happened, would not in itself prove that CRON is wonderful.

 

Single studies are of very limited use -- especially when they're small and not extremely carefully executed.

 

  --  Saul

[Saul]

About Bob Cavanaugh:

 

I called him up a little before the Conference to see if he was going to attend.  Bob lives in a very Republican district in North Carolina -- he's been trying for several years to win the Republican primary in his congressional district -- this time he did, and, he said, he is now swamped with meetings and so forth related to his candidacy; and really couldn't attend the Conference.

 

I should note that Bob will almost certainly be a Congressman in 2017 -- and I personally think that it's great that we'll have a CRONnie in Congress!  (Maybe research on ageing, and/or the CRS might gain some attention as a result?)

[Gordo]

"serving as a beacon and a source of information for a few insanely self-disciplined individuals (like ourselves) who are obsessed with engineering their own maximum health and longevity"

 

 

From my perspective, the above just about sums it up.  I think perhaps in retrospect it was a mistake to give this organization such a "method specific" focus and name.  Most of the active current members can probably be characterized as being zealous about health and longevity using a science based approach and not married to any one idea.  "CR" suffers in being both excessively limited in scope, yet also somewhat ambiguous.  When someone engages me in person about health/diet I never say "I do calorie restriction", I say "I eat a plant based whole food diet".  If they want me to send them info, I send them Kaiser's "The Plant Based Diet".

 

The way I stumbled upon this forum was by first doing some basic google searches (a couple years ago) along the lines of "how to live as long as possible" which led to various references to calorie restriction, which led to me seeing if my local library had any books about CR, which led to me reading a book supposedly about CR - which oddly enough, was largely about non-CR specific ways to optimize your health.  I applied the ideas from the book and radically improved my health and biomarkers of aging. From that point I just wanted to learn as much as possible so I kept searching and reading, and eventually got to this forum.  I know there are other organizations like LongeCity and SENS that are more "generic longevity advocate" organizations, but I view the CR Society as "different" and more like the Dean quote above.  I think the organization should be renamed.  As for advocacy, leave it to other groups already doing this, as for science/research, now we have all sorts of big names including Google and various billionaires involved with this, again not really something this group needs to be directly associated with.

 

To me, the old school idea of slashing calories to the bone in hopes of better health and longevity is misguided and something that should be left in the past.  Anecdotally, I see this leading to bone loss, muscle loss, brain fog, and compromised immune systems.  I do not think excessively low BMIs are doing anyone any good.  I'm interested in all aspects of science and technology as they relate to health and longevity, and their practical applications in my life.

[timc]

To me, the old school idea of slashing calories to the bone in hopes of better health and longevity is misguided and something that should be left in the past.  Anecdotally, I see this leading to bone loss, muscle loss, brain fog, and compromised immune systems.  I do not think excessively low BMIs are doing anyone any good.  I'm interested in all aspects of science and technology as they relate to health and longevity, and their practical applications in my life.

You say 'left in the past' but I'm not sure when you will find it ("idea of slashing calories to the bone") as having been heavily promoted. There have been many caveats and guidelines for moderation including

 

-waiting for adulthood

-not while pregnant

-going slowly (as rats that restrict too quickly do not do so well - possibly, neither do monkeys)

 

Calorie restriction is an idea that continues to endure in a way many nutritional guidelines have not.

[Saul]

Thanks, Tim.

 

Of course, I thoroughly agree with you.

 

And I -- and everyone else in the Forums -- am grateful for your maintaining of the Forums.

 

Concerning the problem of the CR Society Future:

 

Although the Forums allow doing many more things than did an Email List, there are some caveats:

 

IMO, the most notable is that it takes much more time to try to keep up with the posts, and to post.  (A notable exception is Dean, who is semi-retired.)  I believe that the typical CR Society member has a profession, and doesn't have a lot of free time that he/she wants to navigate, and post, to the CR Society.  So switching from Lists to Forums has tended to marginalize us. 

 

What's the solution?

 

Maybe going back to Lists (while continuing the Forums; perhaps having some kind of easily read digest of each days posts sent as an email)?

 

I'm not sure. 

 

David had some good ideas, I think.

 

  --  Saul

[Dean Pomerleau]

Tim C. wrote:

You say 'left in the past' but I'm not sure when you will find it ("idea of slashing calories to the bone") as having been heavily promoted. There have been many caveats and guidelines for moderation including

-waiting for adulthood

-not while pregnant

-going slowly (as rats that restrict too quickly do not do so well - possibly, neither do monkeys)

 

Calorie restriction is an idea that continues to endure in a way many nutritional guidelines have not. 

 

Well, as to that last statement, I'd say the idea of when it may be beneficial to practice CR has gone through many of the same refinements and qualifications as dietary recommendations. All fats aren't bad, in fact some are essential. All carbs aren't bad, in fact many of the healthiest foods are mostly carbs (most whole fruits and vegetables), etc. Similarly, the science seems to be chipping away at the general statement that CR promotes health/lifespan. In addiction to the caveats and contraindications you provide Tim, here are a few others that seem to have rational, scientific support:

• Back off CR by adding calories & protein if/when you are sick to improve your body's ability to fight it off, discussed from scientific perspective here and practical perspective here.
• Back off CR by adding calories & protein when you get into your elder years (~70?), to avoid sarcopenia and immune system dysfunction, discussed here.
• Don't start CR too late in life (>55?), when you metabolism is no longer as flexible, and losing too much weight could be detrimental for muscles, bones and immune function, discussed here.

But the biggest question to me is whether serious CR in humans will beat a healthy diet/lifestyle with enough calories to avoid being overweight/obese, but instead remain slim and active. My general inclination is towards a "no" answer to this question - CR is unlike to add much if any to healthspan/lifespan relative to a healthy, obesity-avoiding diet & lifestyle.

 

Saul, the CR Monkey trial (esp the NIA cohort) supports to this point, but as you point out, it is just one study. But so do the Ralston-Purina dog CR trial, several rodent trials and the Adventists vs. Okinawans comparison. I've discussed all these before, but in piecemeal fashion. I'm in the midst of starting a new thread to pull those analyses together and encourage further discussion about just how likely it is that serious CR will significantly improve upon a healthy, obesity-avoiding diet & lifestyle.

 

--Dean

[Dean Pomerleau]

Saul,

 

IMO, the most notable is that it takes much more time to try to keep up with the posts, and to post.  (A notable exception is Dean, who is semi-retired.)  I believe that the typical CR Society member has a profession, and doesn't have a lot of free time that he/she wants to navigate, and post, to the CR Society.  So switching from Lists to Forums has tended to marginalize us. 

 

I agree with you that from a practical perspective, we likely lost quite a few folks when we switched to forum-only communication (except for Al), at least in terms of them actively engaging in discussions. Here is a link to the main CR list archives in the last full month before it became "Al Pater only".  Al had the most posts, but there was quite a diversity of people engaged in lively discussions. BTW, here is the old email list message where Tim C. announces the transition to a forum-only format for CR discussions, and gives the rationale.

 

They were all good reasons, but the discussion that followed showed not everyone was on-board with the switch. We've seen this reluctance to make the transition play out in the 1.5 years since the switch. With a few notable exceptions..., people (especially old-timers) haven't participated very regularly on the forums, which has been sad and frustrating for many of us. 

 

But unlike you Saul, I'm not anxious to go back to an email list format nor do I think it would revitalize discussions. 

 

First off, going back to email would result in a much less media-rich exchanges (i.e. mostly text without graphics). That would make me sad, and discourage me from doing as detailed analysis as I do.

 

For many old-timers (Al, Michael, Brian, Khurram, TimC, Kenton) I get the impression that it isn't the difficulty of the forums that leads them to post relatively rarely. I won't try to speak for them directly but I get the impression it's other things going on in their lives that take precedence over following or engaging in CR-related (or health-related) discussions. People get busy, priorities shift, and so they drift away from any hobby or endeavor, not just CR. It's a fact of life. But the sad thing is we don't seem to be attracting new members to replace those who (for whatever reason) drift away. And even sadder still, as a result of attrition and lack of new members, it seems we may have already withered to the point where we can't fulfill what to me is one of our most important missions, namely to support scientific research into the viability and benefits of human CR - as illustrated by Michael's thwarted attempt to muster enough subjects for the CR & Immunity study he tried to organize with Dr. Nikolich-Zugich.

 

Back to forums vs email. If you know the right place to go, namely, the New Content Page, it's quite easy to see what has been posted to the forums since you last visited - much easier IMO than trying to wade through endless messages in your email inbox trying to track the discussions you are interested in. As an example, I've posted to the forums almost 1500 times in the last year and a half, including ~150+ on cold exposure. Would you really want all those messages from me (~3/day) showing up in your email inbox?

 

If you really are wedded to the idea of text-based email (without the nice graphics), you can subscribe to receive emails about new posts to the forums/threads you follow, either immediately or as a daily or weekly digest. These notifications (which include all or at least most of the text of a post) seem to provide much of the functionality of the email list. Have you tried setting it up so you get emails containing new posts by changing your notification settings? I have mine set up to immediately inform me of any new posts, so I can be first to respond ☺. Of course, in order to respond you have to follow the link to the forum post in question, which you (and others) might balk at. 

 

During our discussion at the Conference reception, you suggested a better integrated email/forum solution might be possible and preferable. Tim would know better, but as far as I know, there isn't a good dual-mode, bi-directional email/forum solution - i.e. all forum posts show up as email and all email posts show up on the forums. 

 

--Dean

[Saul]

Hi Dean!

 

When the Forums started, I did just as you suggested -- subscribed to everything.  It worked for a while -- but then began missing some new posts, and finally missing them all.  (I know some others have had the same problem -- Brian is one of them.)

 

I understand the advantages of all the graphics -- but I think that would be a small price to pay for a revitalised CR Society.

 

Perhaps, if such a change occurred, you might post less?  (Recall there was one excessive poster, whose flooding the Lists helped kill them.)

 

That said, let there be no question:  Your posting to the Forums helped (and is helping) bringing them to as much life as they are at now -- however much less activity than the discontinued Lists.

 

And I, and I'm sure everyone else who reads the Forums greatly appreciates it.

 

As Michael has suggested, if you are willing to take up a formal leadership role in the Society -- possibly doing what our President isn't -- I believe we would all greatly welcome it.

 

 

  -- Saul

[Dean Pomerleau]

Saul,

 

Hi Dean!

 

When the Forums started, I did just as you suggested -- subscribed to everything.  It worked for a while -- but then began missing some new posts, and finally missing them all.  (I know some others have had the same problem -- Brian is one of them.)

 

I've heard you say that before, and I don't have any insights into your troubles with getting notifications from the Forums when new posts occur. I seem to get notifications for (virtually) all of them.

 

I understand the advantages of all the graphics -- but I think that would be a small price to pay for a revitalised CR Society.

 

I disagree in both respects - that it would be a "small price to pay" to lose the graphics, and that switching back to email-only would be likely to revitalize the CRS. I strongly suspect that many people stopped their subscription to the Al-only email lists, and now we'd have trouble reaching many of the formerly active email-list folks, to say nothing of enticing them to start participating in discussions again. But it would be worth a try, and was one of the more actionable suggestions from the discussions we had at the conference. Whether such an effort to reach out to current and former CRS members will actually occur is another question...

 

Perhaps, if such a change occurred, you might post less?  (Recall there was one excessive poster, whose flooding the Lists helped kill them.)

 

First, if I didn't post much, it really would be a ghost town around here... If there is a single maxim about successful blogging and online community building, is that it takes consistent, frequent and good-quality content to drive traffic. If there isn't much interesting happening on a blog, YouTube channel or discussion forum, people stop visiting and it spirals down from there (or more typically, never reaches a critical mass to be viable & self-sustaining).

 

Second, the beauty of the forums relative to the email list is that you can much more easily pick-and-choose what forums, threads or people you pay attention to, or get notified about.

 

As Michael has suggested, if you are willing to take up a formal leadership role in the Society -- possibly doing what our President isn't -- I believe we would all greatly welcome it.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence Saul. But as far as I know Michael has suggested no such thing. And as I enumerated in this post, there are several reasons why I don't think this is a very good suggestion, not the least of which being I'm not sure what the leadership should or could be doing to revitalize the CRS, or to what end.

 

For my part, I've been trying to keep the spirit of the old email list alive (which was perhaps the central value of the CRS to people in the good ol' days), by making the CRS forums a good place to learn about CR and health-related topics, and engage in discussions about them with thoughtful, rational and considerate people.

 

--Dean