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.
So which is I you know that's somewhat interesting that was really interesting for me because it means also any conditions where you see a shift in the relative proportion of these cells for example you get an acute COVID infection what happens you have a massive expansion of your uh your your memory tea cells so it looks like you're going to and then you sample and given that these cells look much older than the other ones you're going to look like you're aging and so
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.
We sorted all of these different T- cell subsets. memory, naive, uh, central memory, TM rather, determinally differentiated, and measured their epigenetic age using several of the clocks. 20 to 25 year difference between native the naive or naive sorry and the and the central memory T in the right direction the direction you would the naive are much longer.
Typically blood as I mentioned. Yes. It's a it's a heterogeneous compartment. As you age for example you know that your fraction of naive tea cells decreases y down to close to zero. If you're 80 years old your memory tea cells increase.