Ken Rudd wrote:
> [Note: Ken has his own colorful "Brit" responding style that we
> often (and likely some readers too) have trouble following, but
> since he is a very active 86 (87?) year old, we give him a lot of
> leaway. --Paul]
>
> Thanks a lot to Mr. Mark Patterson for his time and the interesting Kinetin
> lead.
> And to our ever re-searching supporter Paul for presenting, (one wonders
> sometimes where he finds his 48 hour days.)
>
> The extract reprint of a part of the Kinetin news that follows has the
> obvious (even to me) - leads:-
>
> "I appear to be regaining my sight (nearsightedness) reducing the need for
> glasses, ". - an easily measurable change so it would be helpful if one
> knew if such back up were available....then (before) ....and now

I think what Ken is asking is do you (Mark) have test measurements
(usually in diopters of correction necessary for 20/20 vision) of your
eyesight from a previous test and are you going to get new test
measurements for your current apparently enhanced vision?

> ...indicates a clearing of those billions of tiny blood vessels

At age about 51, Mark does not likely have eyesight problems due to
proliferation or expansion of ocular blood vessels. His problem is
likely original nearsightedness or presbyopia (reduction of the degree
of accommodation - ability to change focal length - of the eyes).

> ..........muscle tone resulting

Inability of the eye muscles to change the focal shape (and therefore
the focal length) of eye tissue that is getting increasingly crosslinked
with age is one of the explanations for presbyopia. It is not at all
clear to me how kinetin could help this situation.

> ......Gingko Biloba.....

I do not think ginkgo biloba has any relevance to this issue (unless
perhaps you mean it to relate to your reference to blood vessels).

> "I can now sprint faster than my 17 year old son, " .............but of
> course, he could now be going slower!?

Or perhaps he is a sedentary overweight 17 year old, as far too many are
these days.

> "my complexion seems to be improving" ............... ............photo
> records are no doubt part of his forward thinking now - I could do with that
> to avoid shutting my eyes when I shave...........

Yes, before and after photos (taken under identical lighting
conditions), presented without telling the viewer which is which, are
the only reasonable method to judge complexion changes.

> One of the biggest stumbling blocks I have in making personal reliable
> assessment of validity of any claimed anti age treatments ingested is the
> isolation of any one product as the target for my claiming specific
> improvement, near impossible? When taken with a usual selection of and huge
> variety that may individually become acting in synergy or opposition, or
> straight on into the overflow system.

Quite true and none of us is willing to act as a experimental object for
each potential therapy separately, controlling for all other variables.
Thereby potential missing out on the benefits of many other supplements
while each one is separately tested. Each individual's life is too short
and hir health too important for that.

> A significant factor is the well known limited capacity of any liver to
> process whatever; an addition of just one more capsule .......and one
> more...... ....leads eventually to the attempts to target the incredible
> long list of oral input described by respected experts to cope even with
> identified specific conditions let alone the whole complex.
> .
> This handicap is again illustrated in the valuable description given of the
> Mark in his existing uses of a variety - but without any references to
> eliminate (or include) those as already taking part of the long term effects
> he is now happily experiencing.
>
> We certainly need superior absorption to trigger products that work night
> and day for us without constant oral intervention that still remains hinged
> entirely on fluctuating digestive ability person to person, hour to hour, to
> reliably assess any end result.
>
> But supposing results of a successful Kinetin mice trial were made
> available................with costs down to the 'Sinclairs' of that
> particular experiment?........(and thanks to him as well!)............where
> can the investor see a reasonable return even if successful - let alone if
> it were to join the 85% + list of failures?
> Oh well, pass the Resveratrol.

Since kinetin is not patentable, to assure that people receive value
for what they contribute to others under the current social system, a
company researching kinetin must either attempt to get a use patent
(not legally very strong/useful) or synthesize some chemical relative
of kinetin that works at least as well and can be patented. Then since
all the major research is done on the newly invented chemical, only it
will be approved by the FDA and marketed to the establishment medical
hucksters (err, I mean doctors). If large numbers of people in society
can ever be convinced that it is in their rational self-interest to
return value for value gained, whether or not this is legally
required, then research on all manner of therapies will be able to
proceed completely openly without regard for any intellectual property
issues involved, because the researchers will be certain that they
will be rewarded in accordance with the value that they produce for
others.

--Paul