The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
if you give a drug to a mouse how long does it take for the Aging rate indicators to switch if it takes a few months that is terrific because that means we can take a hundred drugs and test all 100 of them not for lifespan which is really expensive but test all hundred of them for the ability to switch aging rate indicators
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.
if we test a 100 drugs off the shelf or that some some colleague suggests to us and five of them switch all of the Aging rate indicators those are the five that are most likely we think to be winners for the lifespan experiment
if we can get that up to 50% by pre-screening with aging rate indicators so that half of the drugs we throw into lifespan studies actually give a lifespan benefit that would be that would be [Music] nice
if we have to do 40 to find one or two that work that's why I like aging rate indicators speed things up