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 we really do think about this every time uh in a methodical way so clinical guidelines checklists yeah systematic reviews peer reviewed by a statistical rigorousness on uh clinically valid biological aging markers it's the only way it can be done
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.
all Quantified as biological age markers as well as no one else is doing that really as it's been too hard as you'll see by the insane extensiveness of uh this work over the last 18 months