Rhonda Patrick· PhD
so I'm thinking about cellular senescence, not the mitochondria cellular senescence but you know, the DNA damage induced cellular senescence, as a protective effect against cancer and that's why it's evolved.
Loading…
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 I'm thinking about cellular senescence, not the mitochondria cellular senescence but you know, the DNA damage induced cellular senescence, as a protective effect against cancer and that's why it's evolved.
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.
Yeah, for sure, anything that causes severe or persistent damage to the genome will drive cells into senescence. It makes sense because that puts you at risk for mutations, mutation puts your risk for cancer, so the cells want to shut that damaged cell down.