Bryan Johnson· Author
Women who were frequently choked had significantly higher levels of S100B (brain injury marker, p = .002).
Loading…
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.
Women who were frequently choked had significantly higher levels of S100B (brain injury marker, p = .002).
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.
Um, so the fact that there was this elevation in this S100B protein, while it doesn't say that there's definitely brain damage, it's often used in clinical trials as a surrogate to subclinical brain damage, meaning brain damage that where we don't see outward signs yet. And it's certainly concerning for like what could potentially be some form of damage to the brain that occurs from these these choking events.
Women who were frequently choked by their partners had significantly higher levels of S100B in their blood.