The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Tony now has a study that is I believe in press or coming out soon um where they've gone back using this proteomics clock and they've done this um uh on a UK bioank more than 40,000 different people and this is the study I we started this discussion on identifying which organs are uh so what what Tony did was actually remarkable He looked at each of these proteins that are in the blood and selected some that were predictive to be coming from unique organs.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.