Peter Attia· MD
we're talking about relatively short fragments of dna you said 100 call it 150 bases correct yeah 170 maybe closer to 170.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
we're talking about relatively short fragments of dna you said 100 call it 150 bases correct yeah 170 maybe closer to 170.
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.
these are a double-stranded dna molecules they are rather short the cell-free dna molecules uh how many uh there is yeah basis yeah it's about 170 bases okay 160 570
the typical length of a cell-free DNA fragment how many base pairs or what's the range it depends on the exact context but around 160 base pairs
the reason it's 160 bases is that's more or less the geometry of going around um twice and so um DNA can be cleaved by enzymes in the blood but that nucleosome protects um the DNA from being cut to anything smaller than about 160 base pairs