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 lifespan the original study by Johan A's lab where they started treating I think at 20 months of age was published in science I believe um showed an effect that was reasonably good sized except the controls were short which is a different issue
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.
there a a number of cases where something was reported to increase lifespan when the controls were shortlived and then when when the study was repeated and longer lived controls you didn't see an effect
if the if the mice are short-lived, if your extension is there, all you can say is it's longevity normalizing. Uh, you don't know that it's slowing aging.
if the mice are short-lived, if your extension is there, all you can say is it's longevity normalizing. Uh, you don't know that it's slowing aging.
It's only when the controls are really longived and you're getting extension that you can really make the argument it's longevity extending.