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.
One idea about it is that it plays a suppressive role in the immune response. So because we see it being induced kind of ladish in the immune response and the idea it comes on to tamper down. So it's actually the exact opposite. It's it's it's so pro- anti-inflammatory that it can be harmful in that way as opposed to contributing to sterile inflammation which is the more typical problem we see in aging.
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.