Posted by: @mendocino

↑

I don't understand how he can think that validating a few 113 year olds that were already validated by other groups ages ago can make the GRG seem like a competent organization again. If anything, randomly deciding to drop the 113.75+ age requirement just to "compete" with LQ does nothing more than demonstrate that the extremely slow rate of validation over the past several years wasn't just the result of wanting to "focus on only the important cases," as has been claimed recently. 

It's like they don't realize that it was their own (lack of) activity that helped lead to the creation of these alternative research groups in the first place. 

I think you've phrased exactly what's on everyone's mind.

GRG has also recently accepted the validation of Ms. Berg (USA, 113). 

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @marco

↑

Posted by: @930310

↑

@marco it's a race apparently.

🙄 (not aimed at you, that smiley, but at the thought of the GRG suddenly feeling threatened...)

 

I don't understand how he can think that validating a few 113 year olds that were already validated by other groups ages ago can make the GRG seem like a competent organization again. If anything, randomly deciding to drop the 113.75+ age requirement just to "compete" with LQ does nothing more than demonstrate that the extremely slow rate of validation over the past several years wasn't just the result of wanting to "focus on only the important cases," as has been claimed recently. 

It's like they don't realize that it was their own (lack of) activity that helped lead to the creation of these alternative research groups in the first place. 

 

Absolutely. If the GRG had been validating at this pace since the end of the Coles era, rather than just over the last few weeks, there would have been no need for all these new supercentenarian validation organisations to spring up. A few weeks good work does not regain the trust, faith and confidence lost through many years of neglect and incompetence, so these new organisations are here to stay.

Just in this regard I'll have a personal look ... but

Is anyone aware if the GRG has recently accepted any validations that haven't already been verified by other groups?

Without going back too much into the events of the past few hours, it's possible that if any of these do exist, they may not be sound.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

Just in this regard I'll have a personal look ... but

Is anyone aware if the GRG has recently accepted any validations that haven't already been verified by other groups?

Without going back too much into the events of the past few hours, it's possible that if any of these do exist, they may not be sound.

GRG lately has only accepted living SCs validated by LQ.

Thank you Ale - its good to know.

Shina Seki has been validated by the GRG.

  https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/world-supercentenarian-ranking-list/

Validator's name is wrong. Shoichiro Morita is a correct name. (He is a rare person, who has a connection with me in the real life...)

GRG has also today accepted the validation of Ms. Okagi Hayashi (JPN, 113). 

GRG has validated Ms. Tane Matsubara (JPN) (b. 15 October 1909, 113). 

GRG has validated Ms. Jozefa Karczewska (POL) (Nov. 23, 1902 – Jan. 18, 2013, 110) (formally validated on Apr. 20, 2015).

Another Polish case. Interesting.

GRG has validated Ms. Tamara Krutikov (UKR/SRB) (Mar. 27, 1912 – July 6, 2022, 110).

GRG has validated Ms. Josefine Ollmann 
(GER) (Nov. 11, 1908 – July 16, 2022, 113).

Validated within a week of application. Miracle of all miracles! Robert's rule used to be "no validation within a month."

Posted by: @chris

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Posted by: @marco

↑

Posted by: @930310

↑

@marco it's a race apparently.

🙄 (not aimed at you, that smiley, but at the thought of the GRG suddenly feeling threatened...)

 

I don't understand how he can think that validating a few 113 year olds that were already validated by other groups ages ago can make the GRG seem like a competent organization again. If anything, randomly deciding to drop the 113.75+ age requirement just to "compete" with LQ does nothing more than demonstrate that the extremely slow rate of validation over the past several years wasn't just the result of wanting to "focus on only the important cases," as has been claimed recently. 

It's like they don't realize that it was their own (lack of) activity that helped lead to the creation of these alternative research groups in the first place. 

 

Absolutely. If the GRG had been validating at this pace since the end of the Coles era, rather than just over the last few weeks, there would have been no need for all these new supercentenarian validation organisations to spring up. A few weeks good work does not regain the trust, faith and confidence lost through many years of neglect and incompetence, so these new organisations are here to stay.

 

It seems like the GRG became really disorganized after Dr. Coles's death, possibly in part due to a lack of funds but also perhaps for some other reason(s) as well.

Is the GRG ever going to do a new pending cases list? Does anyone here know?

Violet Davies-Evans March 30 1908-May 5 2020 - 112 years, 36 days of the UK validated by GRG.

(sorry, I tried to cut and paste the entry but can’t in my iPad)

Posted by: @hoopy

↑

Violet Davies-Evans March 30 1908-May 5 2020 - 112 years, 36 days of the UK validated by GRG.

(sorry, I tried to cut and paste the entry but can’t in my iPad)

Topic moved to GRG - Recent Validations 

GRG has validated Ms. Corine Walter (USA) (Sep. 5, 1902 – June 24, 2013, 110) (formally validated on Apr. 23, 2015).

GRG has validated Ms. Ada Thompson (UK) (b. 28 November 1910, 112).

GRG has validated Ms. Frances Maude Wilson (NZL) (Mar. 23, 1903 – Oct. 24, 2013, 110) (formally validated on Apr. 26, 2015).

Not too many become validated from the small country where I grew up.

Congratulations  to Mrs Wilson and Rest In Peace.

GRG has validated Ms. Jennie Fitzgerald (CAN) (Dec. 5, 1895 – Jan. 22, 2007, 111) (formally validated on May 11, 2015).

Posted by: @ale76

↑

GRG has validated Ms. Jennie Fitzgerald (CAN) (Dec. 5, 1895 – Jan. 22, 2007, 111) (formally validated on May 11, 2015).

Interestingly, the oldest three documents (1901-1911-1921 censuses) all indicate a birth in 1894. It's only from her first marriage onwards (in 1922) that the 1895 year of birth came into play.

GRG has validated Ms. Masa Matsumoto (JPN) (b. 29 November 1909, 113).

@ale76 Amazing. She was born in Shiga, My birthplace and also the prefecture which a highest life expectancy.

And she was born on exactly a decade after Emma Morano born.

GRG has validated Ms. Ursula Burkhardt (GER) (Sep. 24, 1900 – Nov. 13, 2010, 110) (formally validated on Sep. 13, 2018).

GRG has validated Ms. Ada Avila (ECU/USA) (b. 14 January 1910, 113).

Posted by: @ale76

↑

GRG has validated Ms. Ada Avila (ECU/USA) (b. 14 January 1910, 113).

(I would like to give a statement here as well.)

After this validation, LongeviQuest has to publicly announce how we will no longer recognize the new GRG validations without validating them ourselves. Even historic cases might not get recognized so easily, but that's a different matter.

If the recent Japanese validations were not enough, this one is a strong proof how they sacrificed quality for quantity.

Even before LQ was launched, LAS collected documentation for this lady. However, a certain issue was noticed just as LQ was being launched, which prevented her from being validated until more evidence from Ecuador is obtained. The GRG is aware of this issue, yet they ignored it.

I would like to note, there's still a chance that this validation is correct, however, ignoring a huge issue this case has just to validate her before LQ does, very bad decision for a scientific organisation.

(Apologies for creating more drama even on this forum, but it's better if the public knows the truth.)

This is an intriguing statement, @seto2001. Based on it, I will retract Mrs Avila from the two lists I have just updated. Let's hope more evidence from Ecuador will arrive.