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.
so i think if you if you go back to that original 2009 paper you know the lifespan effect is compelling and it looks real but but what again you know is i think really indicative of that it might be having an effect on biological aging is that they saw reduced rates of cancer again not surprisingly as we talked about in mice but also heart disease um and metabolic disease
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.