Bryan Johnson· Author
because you know there's a lot of issues with these clocks you know they're not really clinically valid but most of them and um we don't really know what it is in a lot of cases
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
because you know there's a lot of issues with these clocks you know they're not really clinically valid but most of them and um we don't really know what it is in a lot of cases
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.
let's just say DNA mation tests are garbage they're not ready for prime time yet
I'm less convinced that these epigenetic clocks are really measuring what from a from a biological aging perspective what some people think they're measuring
Um, but it's a whole small, you know, we don't know really how to use these tools clinically. That's the problem.
if I were to take the exact same test twice on the same day, will I get the same answer? And unfortunately, what we found is actually, if you use the original epigenetic clocks, you do not get the same, you get wildly different answers. They're actually highly unreliable and very noisy. So, we've taken blood samples. You can split them, like, the same sample, run it twice, and you can get upwards of eight-years difference in your epigenetic age, using traditional clocks.