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.
for example when we evaluated the effect of post-menopausal hormone therapy in women we found no beneficial effect in blood however interestingly the buccal epithelial cells so the cells inside of your mouth they actually revealed that women who took hormone therapy were aging more slowly in these cells
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.
so yes obviously if you have a hormone intervention you want to study cells that are susceptible to it you know but yeah right so that that really does um highlight the importance of measuring different tissue types to see because i mean one well sometimes it's easy to kind of think well whatever fundamental mechanism is regulating this aging process would do it in all the tissues but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be the same either right
For symptomatic perimenopausal women under 60, hormone replacement therapy reduces all-cause mortality.
The breast-cancer risk attributed to HRT in the original WHI trial was overstated and the timing window matters most.