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.
we're not we're not touching their their their methyls we're not touching their mitochondria we're not touching telomeres what we do is we what we realized in yeast cells back these little you know budding yeast to make bread and beer that when they get old they have a lot of DNA breaks
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.
just by cutting the DNA of these mice and not causing mutations not causing cancer but by disrupting those loops and packages we do get aging