With me and Ms. Yumi a total of 11 resignations in few days.

If only they knew how much damage they caused to the GRG… I just hope that you guys, Tamas and Alessandro, and all the others will stay active on the 110 Club, GSF and/or behind the screens. 

@jimjim00 I can assure you that this decision won't influence my activity within the community.

Firstly I’d like to thank all of you who have resigned today, plus Ale and Yumi, for many years each, of good quality and hard work.

Your reasons are genuinely fair and honest as written above and the facts cannot be argued with.

I sincerely hope that all that wish to continue their wonderful work are able to do so in the entities that have now become the new way forward.

These entities demonstrate quality values, a healthy environment in which research can be conducted and reviewed, respect when it is due to members, plus ethics amd competency.

Good luck to each one of you and I sincerely hope you remain part of the wider “supercentenarian team”.

Posted by: @024tomi

↑

@jimjim00 I can assure you that this decision won't influence my activity within the community.

For much the same reasons, I already resigned from the GRG five months ago (much more quietly, because if I'm honest, I didn't want to create/become involved with any drama, lol).

However, if I had still been a part of the team by this point, I would have joined this mass departure because I fully agree with the points made.

Thank you for your work as well Ollie.

I gathered from some previous correspondence that you may have quietly slipped away, as you’ve now confirmed.

Posted by: @ale76

↑

With me and Ms. Yumi a total of 11 resignations in few days.

Posted by: @024tomi

↑

Greetings,

I would like to announce to the members of the Global Supercentenarian Forum that 9 correspondents of the Gerontology Research Group decided to simultaneously resign from their positions last week.

We have decided to share our resignation letter publicly, whch you can read here:

Dear Dr. Adams, 

Robert,

 

For over a decade, we, GRG correspondents, have contributed to the GRG's work. We have noticed how the rate of validations decreased dramatically after Dr. Coles' death, and how our endless calls for a change and a better organization were left unheard. We also asked for a more democratic leadership of yours, Robert. The fact that you chose to keep refusing to delegate and share responsibilities with the correspondents did not help to improve relationships. As a matter of fact, it has worsened and numerous correspondents have resigned or become inactive.

 

Lately, new dynamics have emerged with the creation of ESO or more recently LQ, two organizations with increased rates of validations. We know Robert was part of the LQ project and got evicted for alleged misconducts. This episode has brought even more tension between Robert and Waclaw on the one hand, and LQ on the other hand. The situation has aggravated with (public) accusations against Robert of "breaking LQ rules", "stealing documents" and against Waclaw of creating a sockpuppet account on his newly-founded forum.

 

Some people also suspects that "false validators" were added on recent validations credits as a way of rewarding loyalty. There are also claims of "removing people who had actually contributed". If true, we don't think that it is compatible with the scientific approach.

 

Therefore, because of your lack of democracy, of the way the GRG supercentenarian department has been handled since Robert has taken over, because of the recent tensions and potential prosecutions by LQ and your and Waclaw's behaviours not helping to pacify; because of your inability to reflect upon your own behaviour and because of the unshakable authority of Waclaw (from your confession on a public forum : "I think it's clear that Waclaw is going to do what Waclaw wants to do. No one controls him. He doesn't listen to Johnny Adams. He doesn't listen to me.") ; we hereby resign from GRG and from our position as GRG correspondents, effective immediately. We also request our names and e-mail addresses to be removed from GRG website.

 

Thank you for your understanding.

 

Laurent Toussaint, GRG correspondent for France

Luc Le Lay, GRG correspondent for France

Anthony Croes-Lacroix, GRG correspondent for Belgium 

Paolo Scarabaggio, GRG correspondent for Italy

Martin Miet, GRG correspondent for France 

Cyril Depoudent, GRG correspondent for France

Antoine Demarais, GRG correspondent for France

Guillaume Legris, GRG correspondent for France

Tamas Benyei, GRG correspondent for Hungary

Greetings,

I and others denounce the above post as FALSE and DEFAMATORY and ask that it be removed.

Of the above persons, already two have indicated that they did NOT consent to the above post and were not informed that their name was to be used. One has confirmed to continue with the GRG and another wishes to talk about it, and saw the above PRIVATE message as a 'debate tactic' that had not yet been discussed privately. Additional persons listed have not yet indicated their acknowledgement or awareness of their name being used.

It is quite disturbing that ONE person chose to post this on public forums (this isn't the only one) in violation of confidentiality and in violation of ethics.

But as to the facts: of the above persons, only ONE even contributed even one new case application to the GRG within the past year, and many were, in fact, inactive.

It is also the case that the LQ allegations are FALSE and there have already been court filings, sworn in writing, filed in legal papers, that the above allegations from the LQ court case are FALSE.

This is NOT THE PLACE to litigate court filings. This is supposed to be a place to discuss supercentenarians.

If someone, who once agreed to sign up to the GRG, to be a GRG Correspondent, chooses to resign, each resignation must, by law, be individual, not collective. You cannot sign for someone else. Do the right thing. The real reason to 'resign' is "you no longer wish to continue in your role as GRG Correspondent". Return any and all GRG confidential materials and respect confidentiality for the period of agreement, and then have a nice life elsewhere.

Finally, I want to correct a viewpoint error. After the death of Dr. Coles, Johnny Adams became the head of the GRG. But even before Dr. Coles passed away:

1. I ran the GRG case administration since May 2002. That was over 12 years, and people didn't have a problem with the Coles-Young team.

2. Dr Coles resigned from day-to-day GRG operations in December 2012 in order to concentrate on his cancer treatment. For almost two years, I continued to operate the GRG supercentenarian database, and people didn't have a problem with it.

Hence, the real problem was not "Robert". It was the death of Dr. Coles that was problematic. Despite the challenges, the GRG continued operations. The year 2015, in particular, saw new improvements including updates to the GRG website and expansion of the GRG supercentenarian section. That said, the technology remained 1988 technology. If it takes 5 hours to update one case, then no amount of 'democracy' is going to solve that problem. Quit blaming me for the problems that were due to lack of funding and lack of technology upgrades.

Fortunately, recently Waclaw Jan Kroczek decided to make the investments in the GRG upgrades that others took a pass on. What once took 5 hours to make an upgrade can now be done in 5 minutes. Despite the fact that these upgrades were built otn a software platform in Poland, using Polish software, the majority Owner of LQ chose to file a Lawsuit that includes FALSE accusations of technology transfer and data transfer. The TRUTH IS...those accusations are FALSE. Waclaw's website was developed before LQ even went up, and it's clearly not the same software. I am going to also point out that Waclaw's website, while a marked improvement over 1988 technology (the GRG website went up in 1995 but the software platform was launched in 1988) still lacks some advanced technology. There is no data synchronization. There is no autoupdating. To be accused of stealing US technology to built a Polish website using earlier and less advanced technology makes no sense.

I made a committment to those who sent the GRG case applications that it was my desire and honest belief that one day we would come through and process these cases that have been waiting for YEARS. Now that someone has invested in website improvements to make it easier to update cases much faster...we see people complain and suggest that GRG is just updating cases faster to 'remain relevant'. Which way do you want it. If GRG case validations are slow, you complain. If GRG case validations are fast, you complain.

So you have other options now.

Let's not forget that I was a original co-founder of LQ and while it launched in 2023, the genesis for the LQ project began in conservations between myself and the LQ Majority Owner on ways to speed up case processing. We understood that putting new wine in old wineskins doesn't work. So the LQ Majority Owner agreed to fund a new system to process cases faster, so that way if someone is the 307th-oldest person in the world, then people can know that.

The issues that led to my 'removal' at LQ should remain a private matter until settled. I remain fully innocent and I will tell you this: whether I die today or tomorrow won't change the fact that I am innocent. OK?

So here's the deal: you do your own thing, and the GRG will continue, because I made a vow to continue to process GRG cases...although due to the unexpected Lawsuit, I have ceded GRG case processing duties to Waclaw, who now runs the GRG case processing (remember, I ran this from 2002-2023). If we have 2000 cases to process (7-year supply) we can't expect the GRG to expand to list down to the 300th-oldest person in the world. And part of this comes because the GRG mission focuses on maximum human lifespan and how to extend it. The GRG isn't interested in someone being the 3000th-oldest living person. The GRG is interested in whether persons alive today are living longer than persons 10, 20, 30 years ago; what could be behind longevity increases; what factors allow a few select individuals to outlive everyone else; what treatments can be developed to help extend the human lifespan.

I would like to also point out that, while the GRG Supercentenarians department remains understaffed and with no budget, the GRG continues with over 500 of the world's leading scientists interested in other areas of gerontology, including some of the leading scientists in the world. I would like to also point out that the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research was founded in Germany in 1996 by the late, great Dr. James Vaupel, and he was very interested in supercentenarian research, and so funded and published work on supercentenarian research from the 1990s to 2022, when he died unexpectedly due to a fall. After Dr. Vaupel was no longer at the MPIDR, they no longer wished to focus on supercentenarian research, so the project moved on to others. People need to learn that funding for projects like this can be ephemeral. When Dr. Alexander Graham Bell died in 1922, his centenarian study operations ceased operations. Whether these projects continue come down to whether the persons interested in this topic area are passionate about the project continuing. I believe that Waclaw and I remain passionate and the GRG project is continuing. While some are mis-using the GSF to spread sour grapes about their resignations, I believe that myself was overly tolerant. Many of the persons who are claiming to "resign" in 2023 in fact have not been active and have not supported or supplied cases to the GRG in literally YEARS. Indeed, in some ways it is the other way around: Waclaw is cleaning house, making tough administrative decisions that I was too nice to make. Some of these 'resignations' were in fact the other way around: persons cut from the GRG. But do supercentenarian fans need to know this behind-the-scenes stuff?

Or should you focus on the BIG PICTURE. With several organizations processing cases in 2023, one should claim it's the best year ever for supercentenarian validations...it's certainly heading in that direction. And while some here wish to focus on GRG cuts, they haven't mentioned GRG adds. The pace of new GRG Correspondents joining has picked up pace in 2023, especially with the new software/new website.

So instead of focusing on personal disputes, bruised egos, and other distractions, why not appreciate that, as fans, you are getting what you want: more cases validated than ever, more data, faster results. Think about it. And you can thank me for being the genesis of several of these innovations. Or, you can focus on the distractions. The choice is yours!

Posted by: @ryoung122

↑

I and others denounce the above post as FALSE and DEFAMATORY and ask that it be removed.

We firmly believe in freedom of speech and do not see anything wrong with the message in the opening post, especially since it's been carefully phrased. Note the choice of vocabulary such as "alleged" and "(public) accusations," for instance.

Of the above persons, already two have indicated that they did NOT consent to the above post and were not informed that their name was to be used. One has confirmed to continue with the GRG and another wishes to talk about it, and saw the above PRIVATE message as a 'debate tactic' that had not yet been discussed privately. Additional persons listed have not yet indicated their acknowledgement or awareness of their name being used.

If that is the case, they should contact the writer of the resignation letter, indicating they'd wish to be removed from the list.

But as to the facts: of the above persons, only ONE even contributed even one new case application to the GRG within the past year, and many were, in fact, inactive.

It seems to me that the inactivity of many of your correspondents should be the main focus of your concerns (and I've understood you've been sued as well - I'd also focus on that, if I were you) instead of spending a lengthy post on some irrelevant internet forum.

This is NOT THE PLACE to litigate court filings. This is supposed to be a place to discuss supercentenarians.

It's not up to you to demand what is being discussed on this forum, thank you very much. If you wish to be in control, I suggest you create your own forum.

As for the rest of your post, please refrain from overusing caps lock. It makes you come across as unnecessarily aggressive and not in control of your emotions. Thank you.

As a matter of interest, the resignations have been referred to on the World Supercentenarian site.

The few members (and the host of sock puppets) have been assured that the resignations are a hoax …. In essence being mischief spread by people who seek to damage their name.

As a result they’ve had to ban and suspend access to some of their records.

No thanks to anyone and clearly no morals from those involved.