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.
But what he then cleverly did was he didn't give up or his postdoc didn't give up. What he did was he turned the genes on for a couple of days and then stopped, let the mice recover for a few days, and then turned them back on. So, you know, I feel for the mice because they were headed towards death and they could recover and then they cycle, but actually, they ended up being healthier.
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.
The premature aging mouse model that he had lived, I think it was 40-plus percent longer. But also, he's shown since then that you can use these factors to improve wound healing and kidney healing.