I think the wikipedia page on Jeanne Calment actually does a good job of debunking "revisionist" doubting of the record.

After consulting several experts, The Washington Post wrote that "statistically improbable is not the same thing as statistically impossible", that Novoselov and Zak's claims have been dismissed by the overwhelming majority of experts, and that those claims are "lacking, if not outright deficient". (the entire section is worth reading) [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment#Controversy_reg...

▲

MarkusQ a day ago | parent | next [-]

That's a very weird way to spin it. The Wikipedia article misrepresents the situation (e.g. reporting that she "had correctly answered questions about things that her daughter could not have known first-hand" (which is irrelevant) and omitting the fact that some of the stories she told were true of the daughter but not of her, such as being walked to school by the maid).

She was almost certainly a fraud, but the Wikipedia mob doesn't want her debunked.

▲

joe_the_user a day ago | parent [-]

Citations? Wikipedia is full of them

	▲	MarkusQ 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, they're what I was using. If you want to believe she was who she said she was and lived to be 122, there's evidence in there to support it--providing you're willing to ignore all the evidence pointing to identity theft and pension fraud. My objection to the Wikipedia article is the way the a priori most likely interpretation (identity theft and pension fraud are currently many orders of magnitude more common than living past 120) is treated as a debunked conspiracy theory and the improbable/sensational interpretation is treated as established fact.

▲

vintermann a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The most interesting thing there I think is the point that a DNA test could easily tell Jeanne Calment from the daughter who supposedly assumed her identity.

▲

xnx a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> does a good job of debunking "revisionist" doubting of the record.

De-debunking? Bunking?

▲

joe_the_user a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think there are problems with modern longevity science. The OP's "A fundamental challenge that longevity gurus face is that what’s true is often boring, and what’s interesting often isn’t true" is plausible.

But it also seems like there's a tendency for debunkers to be too categorical. It should be kept in mind that anyone aged around 110 would have gone through a variety of age and other record systems. Moreover, it's quite possible exercise and special diet as such really really aren't that useful.