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.
If you actually really had something totally linear, right, then first of all, it wouldn't tell you who's aging more quickly and who's aging more slowly. But secondly, it would tell you that your signature is the list of the least important things in aging, the things that are just trundling on in a trajectory that was set during development because evolution hasn't had the faintest motivation to stop them trundling on.
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 so, you're mentioning development, it poses the question, like, do you think that the epigenetic aging could be sort of like a program, like a program that's regulating aging? Like, is that a possibility?