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.
it was 2008 when Judy described for the first time this thing that I mentioned earlier called the SAS the so called senescence associated secretory phenotype that are how these cells exert bad stuff and it's over a hundred factors that have been characterized that these cells make now that drive their negative biology
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.
inflammation would result from SAS right so there's lots of things that go out there that basically tell immune cells hey let's recruit you to this area you mentioned fibrosis
it turns out the SAS but very different in different tissues it turns out to be very different from different cells within those tissues in different disease states