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.
do you think there's an opportunity to do this to use these clocks to look at the extent of methylation an epigenetic change within our DNA - as you said even though none of these things are likely to reverse it the way the intervention that you described is if we study rates of change that could be a great first order proxy right
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.
And until that's the case, I worry that the biologic clocks are creating a bit of a distraction, at least this this subset of clocks, and that we we maybe ought to focus better on clocks where the readout state is more about is this intervention good or bad. Yeah. or is this a net positive intervention or a net negative intervention?
So, I think epigenetic clocks are really helpful for like a wake-up call. So, you know, a lot of young people are kind of going about their life, we don't know, like we said, till you see these dysfunctional things start happening, if we're doing well or not.
But I think this shows us that we need to be a little bit careful how we interpret the results from these things and the epigenetic clocks are powerful tools to kind of...I think they are good at giving you an idea of your health status, same as if I go into my doctor's office for, you know, a kind of lab test and do a metabolic panel or whatever.